"The account you are looking for is called a ""Positive Pay"" account.  It generally is only for business accounts, you provide a list of check numbers and amounts, and they are cross-referenced for clearing. It normally has a hefty monthly fee due to the extra labor involved."


I would second the advice to not do this. Real estate ownership is complex to begin with, involving a constant stream of maintenance, financing, and other decisions.  It is difficult enough to do for a single individual or a family as a unit (a couple), but at least spouses are forced to compromise. Friends are not, and you can end up with long-running conflicts and impasses. Financial transactions of any kind impose tensions on relationships, and friendships are no exception. If you want your friendship to survivie, do not sacrifice it to the financial arrangement which seems like a good idea at the moment. My advice would be to steer clear, no matter how attractive on the surface the deal might look. Focus on your own individual finances and use discipline and patience to save the amount needed for acquiring a separate investment property. But it will be 100% yours, and will save tons of headache. Since you are still considering this deal, it's a great time to politely change your mind and walk away - believe me, a few minutes of inconvenience will save you years of frustration. Good luck!


"That $200 extra that your employer withheld may already have been sent on to the IRS. Depending on the size of the employer, withholdings from payroll taxes (plus employer's share of Social Security and Medicare taxes) might be deposited in the US Treasury within days of being withheld. So, asking the employer to reimburse you, ""out of petty cash"" so to speak, might not work at all.  As JoeTaxpayer says, you could ask that $200 less be withheld as income tax from your pay for the next pay period (is your Federal income tax withholding at least $200 per pay period?), and one way of ""forcing"" the employer to withhold less is to file a  new W-4 form with Human Resources/Payroll, increasing the number of  exemptions to more than you are entitled to, and then filing a new W-4 changing your exemptions back to what they are right now once when you have had $200 less withheld. But be careful. Claims for more exemptions than you are entitled to can be problematic, and the IRS might come looking if you suddenly ""discover"" several extra children for whom you are entitled to claim exemptions."


"Since you're an idiot, here is a quote [""The Bank of England (formally the Governor and Company of the Bank of England) is the central bank of the United Kingdom and the model on which most modern central banks have been based. Established in 1694, it is the second oldest central bank in the world ""](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_England).  Note that this bank, **founded in 1694**, is the model on which most modern central banks have been based.  Now a quote from you:  >The UK did NOT sell debt and simultaneously purchase its own debt in the past (until modern times).   Owned, fool.  And another quote to rub it in ""The lenders would give the government cash (bullion) and also issue notes against the government bonds, which can be lent again.""  You still have not listed an empire that did not purchase it's own debt."


"There's an expression, ""stock prices have no memory."" Apple trades at about $115. Why would I carry my shares at anything but $115 even though I paid say $75 a share, while you just bought it at $115?  The only difference, perhaps, is that if I hold them in a non retirement account, I might track the net I'd have, post tax."


That really depends on the lender, and in the current climate this is extremely unlikely. In the past it was possible to get a loan which is higher than the value of the house (deposit considered), usually on the basis that the buyer is going to improve the property (extend, renovate, etc.) and this increase the value of the property. Responsible lenders required some evidence of the plans to do this, but less responsible ones simply seem to have given the money. Here in the UK this was often based on the assumption that property value tends to rise relatively quickly anyway so a seemingly-reasonable addition to the loan on top of the current value of the property will quickly be covered. That meant that indeed some people have been able to get a loan which is higher than the cost of the purchase, even without concrete plans to actively increase the value of the property. Today the situation is quite different, lenders are a lot more careful and I can't see this happening. All that aside - had it been possible, is it a good idea? I find it difficult to come up with a blanket rule, it really depends on many factors -  On the one hand  mortgage interest rates tend to be significantly lower than shorter term interest rates and from that point of view, it makes sense, right?! However - they are usually very long term, often with limited ability to overpay, which means the interest will be paid over a longer period of time.


There are some people that still get an old-fashioned paycheck but for the most part if you are an employee at a company you get a paystub while the money is direct deposited into your accounts.  Paying for stuff at a store with a check is not very common.  Most people use credit cards for that purpose.  A significant percentage of the population still use checks for paying there regular bills through the mail.  Although the more internet savvy people will most likely use online bill pay from their bank so they don't have to mail checks.  Personally I have only written about 15 checks in 5 years.  Mostly to people and not to businesses setup for receiving bill payments electronically.


First, as Dheer mentioned above, there is no right answer as investment avenues for a person is dicteted by many subjective considerations. Given that below a few of my thoughts (strictly thoughts): 1) Have a plan for how much money you would need in next 5-7 years, one hint is, do you plan you buy a house, car, get married ... Try to project this requirement 2) Related to the above, if you have some idea on point 1, then it would be possible for you to determine how much you need to save now to achieve the above (possibly with a loan thrown in). It will also give you some indication as to where and how much of your current cash holding that you should invest now 3) From an investment perspective there are many instruments, some more risky some less. The exact mix of instruments that you should consider is based on many things, one among them is your risk apetite and fund requirement projections 4) Usually (not as a rule of thumb) the % of savings corresponding to your age should go into low risk investments and 100-the % into higher risk investment 5) You could talk to some professional invetment planners, all banks offer the service Hope this helps, I reiterate as Dheer did, there is truely no right answer for your question all the answers would be rather contextual.


Yes, there's a difference. If you've borrowed $100, then under inflation your salary will (presumably) increase, and tomorrow your debt will only be worth $99. But under demurrage, you'll still owe $100.


Interest payments You can make loans to people and collect interest.


The restaurant business in particular is very difficult; a whole bunch of them fail in the first year. And it tends to be expensive to get into; I saw $250K as an average to get a space up and open.


"If you want to be really ""financially smart,"" buy a used good condition Corolla with cash (if you want to talk about a car that holds re-sale value), quit renting and buy a detached house close to the city a for about $4,000/month (to build equity. It's NYC the house will appreciate in value). Last but not the least, DO NOT get married. Retire at 50, sell the house (now paid after 25-years). Or LEASE a nice brand new car every year and have a good time! You're 25 and single!"


Some credit unions also offer them and support Business banking as well. First Tech Credit Union is a great example. They also have the most security-oriented banking website I've seen to date. https://www.firsttechfed.com/ As a side note I've found that Credit Unions are a MUCH better deal for personal and business banking.


Unless the amounts involved are very small, it is MUCH better to incorporate. First, incorporation gives you limited liability for your acts as an employee. As an individual, you have unlimited liability. Second, incorporating allows you to deduct (for tax purposes) the costs of doing business, including all of your health insurance, most transportation, and some meals. The exception to the rule is if the amounts you are earning are so small that they don't cover the cost of incorporating, accounting fees, etc. (a few hundred, or at most a few thousand dollars).


There is a basis for that if you consider the power of compounding. So, the sooner you re-invest the dividends the sooner the time will give you results (through compounding). There is also the case of the commissions, if they are paid with a percentage of the amount invested they automatically gain more from you. Just my 2cents, though the other answers are probably more complete.


"First, to mention one thing - better analysis calls for analyzing a range of outcomes, not just one; assigning a probability on each, and comparing the expected values. Then moderating the choice based on risk tolerance. But now, just look at the outcome or scenario of 3% and time frame of 2 days. Let's assume your investable capital is exactly $1000 (multiply everything by 5 for $5,000, etc.). A. Buy stock: the value goes to 103; your investment goes to $1030; net return is $30, minus let's say $20 commission (you should compare these between brokers; I use one that charges 9.99 plus a trivial government fee). B. Buy an call option at 100 for $0.40 per share, with an expiration 30 days away (December 23). This is a more complicated. To evaluate this, you need to estimate the movement of the value of a 100 call, $0 in and out of the money, 30 days remaining, to the value of a 100 call, $3 in the money, 28 days remaining. That movement will vary based on the volatility of the underlying stock, an advanced topic; but there are techniques to estimate that, which become simple to use after you get the hang of it. At any rate, let's say that the expected movement of the option price in this scenario is from $0.40 to $3.20. Since you bought 2500 share options for $1000, the gain would be 2500 times 2.8 = 7000. C. Buy an call option at 102 for $0.125 per share, with an expiration 30 days away (December 23). To evaluate this, you need to estimate the movement of the value of a 102 call, $2 out of the money, 30 days remaining, to the value of a 102 call, $1 in the money, 28 days remaining. That movement will vary based on the volatility of the underlying stock, an advanced topic; but there are techniques to estimate that, which become simple to use after you get the hang of it. At any rate, let's say that the expected movement of the option price in this scenario is from $0.125 to $ 1.50. Since you bought 8000 share options for $1000, the gain would be 8000 times 1.375 = 11000. D. Same thing but starting with a 98 call. E. Same thing but starting with a 101 call expiring 60 days out. F., ... Etc. - other option choices. Again, getting the numbers right for the above is an advanced topic, one reason why brokerages warn you that options are risky (if you do your math wrong, you can lose. Even doing that math right, with a bad outcome, loses). Anyway you need to ""score"" as many options as needed to find the optimal point. But back to the first paragraph, you should then run the whole analysis on a 2% gain. Or 5%. Or 5% in 4 days instead of 2 days. Do as many as are fruitful. Assess likelihoods. Then pull the trigger and buy it. Try these techniques in simulation before diving in! Please! One last point, you don't HAVE to understand how to evaluate projected option price movements if you have software that  does that for you. I'll punt on that process, except to mention it. Get the general idea? Edit P.S. I forgot to mention that brokers need love for handling Options too. Check those commission rates in your analysis as well."


Regarding transferring a residential investment property into your SMSF, no you cannot do it. You cannot transfer residential property into your SMSF from a related party. You can only transfer Business Real Property (that is commercial or industrial property) into a SMSF from a related party. You can buy new residential property inside your SMSF, and you can also borrow within the fund (using a non-recourse loan) to help you buy it, or you could buy it as tenants-in-common with your SMSF (that is you own say 50% in your own name and 50% under the SMSF). Regarding self-managing the investment properties held in your SMSF, yes you can, but you should make sure all your paperwork is in order (all your t's crossed and your i's dotted). You can even charge your SMSF for managing the properties, but this should be at market rates (not more).


"There are way too many details missing to be able to give you an accurate answer, and it would be too localized in terms of time & location anyway -- the rules change every year, and your local taxes make the answer useless to other people. Instead, here's how to figure out the answer for yourself. Use a tax estimate calculator to get a ballpark figure. (And keep in mind that these only provide estimates, because there are still a lot of variables that are only considered when you're actually filling out your real tax return.) There are a number of calculators if you search for something like ""tax estimator calculator"", some are more sophisticated than others. (Fair warning: I used several of these and they told me a range of $2k - $25k worth of taxes owed for a situation like yours.) Here's an estimator from TurboTax -- it's handy because it lets you enter business income. When I plug in $140K ($70 * 40 hours * 50 weeks) for business income in 2010, married filing jointly, no spouse income, and 4 dependents, I get $30K owed in federal taxes. (That doesn't include local taxes, any itemized deductions you might be eligible for, IRA deductions, etc. You may also be able to claim some expenses as business deductions that will reduce your taxable business income.) So you'd net $110K after taxes, or about $55/hour ($110k / 50 / 40). Of course, you could get an answer from the calculator, and Congress could change the rules midway through the year -- you might come out better or worse, depending on the nature of the rule changes... that's why I stress that it's an estimate. If you take the job, don't forget to make estimated tax payments! Edit: (some additional info) If you plan on doing this on an ongoing basis (i.e. you are going into business as a contractor for this line of work), there are some tax shelters that you can take advantage of. Most of these won't be worth doing if you are only going to be doing contract work for a short period of time (1-2 years). These may or may not all be applicable to you. And do your research into these areas before diving in, I'm just scratching the surface in the notes below."


You can illustrate why expense ratio fees are in the numerator with an extreme example:  Let's say you have $100 in a mutual fund, their expense ratio is 50%, your nominal return is 900% and inflation is 900%.  Thus, without the expense, your investment would give you $100 in present value (because your return and inflation are identical), and $1000 in future value.  So with the expense ratio of 50% and no change in present value, you can reason that you would expect the expense ratio will eat half the present value.  If you apply your equation and include expenses in the numerator, you end up with:  ((100 - 100(.50))*(1+9))/(1+9) = $50 present value as you would expect  If you apply the manager's assumption that fees are applied external to inflation, then you end up with:  (100 * (1 + 9))/(1+9) - (100 * (1+9) * .50) = $-400 present value.  With this example you can see applying the fees externally acts as though they are charging you the fees on future returns today.  *Edit:  It's probably not worth fighting with someone senior to you over, as inflation rates are noisy estimates to begin with and the difference between these is typically not material to the decision being made; but pissing off someone senior by showing them their math is off will probably have a material impact on you.


"Another essential component of one's life is financial security, which is why you're well advised to stay clear away from Richard Cayne, Meyer Asset Management / Meyer International / Asia Wealth / Expat Wealth.   All of the above, along with the now defunct Royal Siam Trust and Managed Savings (run by his former partner in crime, Greg Pitt) are complete scams. Hundreds of .. ""clients"" have lost tens of thousands of dollars because of him."


2% is a very low interest rate; you can do much better by investing your new found money on a 2 year CD, or short term bonds. You could pay the 0% card according to the terms as well. Therefore, considering the low rates of your cards, you should check into some safe investments with guaranteed return rates.


"A C-Corp is not a pass-through entity, any applicable taxes would be paid by the Corporation, which is a separate legal entity from yourself. If you use the points to purchase something for yourself, that would constitute ""income"" to you, and would be taxable on your personal income tax."


In the United States, when key people in a company buy or sell shares there are reporting requirements.  The definition of key people includes people like the CEO, and large shareholders. There are also rules that can lock out their ability to buy and sell shares during periods where their insider knowledge would give them an advantage. These reporting rules are to level the playing field regarding news that will impact the stock price.  These rules are different than the reporting rules that the IRS has to be able to tax capital gains. These are also separate than the registration rules for the shares so that you get all the benefits of owning the stock (dividends, voting at the annual meeting, voting on a merger or acquisition).


A CD will give you a higher rate of return.  The tradeoff is you cannot access your money until the CD matures. If you need the ability to get your money, you should choose a savings account.  If you won't use your money for awhile, choose a CD. Right now interest rates are so abysmal, you aren't going to get much return with either (so I would recommend against locking up your money in a CD).


The calculation can be made on the basis that the loan is equal to the sum of the repayments discounted to present value.  (For more information see Calculating the Present Value of an Ordinary Annuity.) With Deriving the loan formula from the simple discount summation.  As you can see, this is the same as the loan formula given here. In the UK and Europe APR is usually quoted as the effective interest rate while in the US it is quoted as a nominal rate.  (Also, in the US the effective APR is usually called the annual percentage yield, APY, not APR.) Using the effective interest rate finds the expected answer. The total repayment is £30.78 * n = £1108.08 Using a nominal interest rate does not give the expected answer.


One should fund a 401(k) or matched retirement account up to the match, even if you have other debt. Long term, you will come out ahead, but you must be disciplined in making the payments. If one wants to point out the risk in a 401(k), I'd suggest the money need not be invested in stocks, there's always a short term safe option.


"Typical Human Advisor: Advantages: They can recommend funds and allocations that fit to your portfolio. Disadvantages: Those who are just fund salespeople in disguise will usually recommend poor-performing funds for higher commission pay. Their advice will not be much different from random person internet advice. When your portfolio drops, they still get paid, and they don't care because they are not a fiduciary. Robo-Advisor: Advantages: Rules are automated, and typically based on crunched numbers. Somebody else executes the trades, and remembers to rebalance your portfolio when you'd usually forget to. Disadvantages: Not always accurate, usually relies on momentum from popularity. No one at the helm to adjust for risk. If you follow, you'll usually just lag behind. Yet, those with simple, low-cost diversified ETF portfolios can be attractive. Market ETFs: Advantages: Low cost funds that typically match the market. High performance. Easy to sell when you need to, zero decision making required, and you will be sure to nearly match the general market. Disadvantages: Boring. You need to enter your own orders, but you won't be doing that too often. No thrill except counting all the commas in your account. No wacky stories to wow your friends and family about your gambling addiction. Seriously, some people just can't help but take the high risk route. Newsletter / Portfolio / Online ""Expert"": Advantages: They usually have some idea of what indicators to look for and can make predictions about price movements. Disadvantages: Predictions are as frequently wrong as they are right. Good ones won't have much to say, and incompetent ones will write multi-paragraph essays about Fibonacci sequences, resistance levels, trends RSI, ROIT, everything that might show an indicator in some direction maybe... and it's usually forgotten by the next newsletter."


Let’s turn this round. Now what if the only people willing to own part of company are doing it due to the expectation that they will make money in the short term form the company….


I think you're looking at the picture in an odd way. When each of you made your initial investments and determined what portions you owned, that gave the company capital that they could use to finance its operations. In return, you are entitled to the future profits of the company (in proportion to your ownership). Any future investment by either of you is at your own discretion. Your company now faces a situation where it would like to pursue a potentially lucrative opportunity, but needs more capital than it has to do so. So, you need to raise more capital. That capital can come from one or both of you (or from an outsider). Since that investment would be discretionary, what the investor gets is a negotiation: the company negotiates with the investor how much equity (in the form of new shares) to award in exchange for the new investment (or whatever other compensation you decide on, if not equity).


No chance. First off, unless the company provides audited financials (and they don't from what I can tell), there is no way I'm tinkering with a bunch of small business owners. Transparency is a substantial part of investing and this actually exempts or excludes these companies, from what I can tell.


"Investment strategies abound. Bonds can be part of useful passive investment strategy but more active investors may develop a good number of reasons why buying and selling bonds on the short term. A few examples: Also, note that there is no guarantee in bonds as you imply by likening it to a ""guaranteed stock dividend"". Bond issuers can default, causing bond investors to lose part of all of their original investment. As such, if one believes the bond issuer may suffer financial distress, it would be ideal to sell-off the investment."


This doesn't make any sense. For the people who ask you this, suggest that they borrow the money to invest with you. They can use their bitcoins as collateral for the loan. That way, they get the same benefit and your company doesn't go out of business if the price of bitcoin drops, even temporarily, because the loan becomes unsecured. If they want to try to use a volatile asset as collateral and have to figure out how to cover when the price drops temporarily, great. But why should they put that risk on your other investors who may not be so crazy? Also, this obviously won't meet the investor's concerns anyway. Say the price of bitcoin goes up but you lose 10% of the money you borrowed. Clearly, your investors can't have an interest that worth as much as they would have if they held bitcoin since you lost 10%.


Is my math correct? The Math is correct, however Dividends don't work this way. The Yield is Post Facto. i.e. Given the dividend that is declared every quarter, once calculates the yield. The dividends are not fixed or guaranteed. These change from Quarter to Quarter or at times they are not given at all. The yield is 3.29% and the value is $114 per share. Assuming that the price remains exactly the same for an entire year, and that I purchase only one share, then this should be the math for calculating the yield: 114 x 0.0329 = 3.7506 What the Link is showing is that last dividend of MCD was 0.94 for Q3; that means total for a year will be 0.94*4 [3.76], this means yield will be 3.29%. Note this year there were only 3 Dividend was 0.89 on 26-Feb, 0.89 on 2-Jun and 0.94 on 29-Nov. It is unlikely that there will be one more dividend this year. So for this year the correct post facto calculation would be 0.89+0.89+.94 = 2.72 and hence an yield of 2.38%  Also, are there any fees/deductions, or would I receive the amount in full, which should be $3.75? There are no fee deducted. Not sure about US tax treatment on Dividends.


From the Massachusetts Department of Revenue:   1st - Massachusetts Source Income That is Excluded   Massachusetts gross income excludes certain items of income derived from sources within Massachusetts: non-business related interest, dividends and gains from the sale or exchange of intangibles, and qualified pension income. 2nd - Massachusetts Source Income That is Included:   Massachusetts gross income includes items of income derived from sources within Massachusetts. This includes income: 3rd - Trade or business, Including Employment Carried on in Massachusetts:   A nonresident has a trade or business, including any employment carried on in Massachusetts if: A nonresident generally is not engaged in a trade or business, including any employment carried on in Massachusetts if the nonresident's presence for business in Massachusetts is casual, isolated and inconsequential. A nonresident's presence for business in Massachusetts will ordinarily be considered casual, isolated and inconsequential if it meets the requirements of the Ancillary Activity Test (AAT) and Examples. When nonresidents earn or derive income from sources both within Massachusetts and elsewhere, and no exact determination can be made of the amount of Massachusetts source income, an apportionment of income must be made to determine that amount considered Massachusetts gross income. 4th - Apportionment of Income:   Apportionment Methods:   The three most common apportionment methods used to determine Massachusetts source income are as follows:   Gross income is multiplied by a:   So if you go to Massachusetts to work, you have to pay the tax.  If you collect a share of the profit or revenue from Massachusetts, you have to pay tax on that.  If you work from Oregon and are paid for that work, then you don't pay Massachusetts tax on that.  If anything, your company might have to pay Oregon taxes on revenue you generate (you are their agent or employee in Oregon).   Does the answer change depending on whether the income is reported at 1099 or W-2? This shouldn't matter legally.  It's possible that it would be easier to see that the work was done in Oregon in one or the other.  I.e. it doesn't make any legal difference but may make a practical difference.   All this assumes that you are purely an employee or contractor and not an owner.  If you are an owner, you have to pay taxes on any income from your Massachusetts business.  Note that this applies to things like copyrights and real estate as well as the business.   This also assumes that you are doing your work in Oregon.  If you live in Oregon and travel to Massachusetts to work, you pay taxes on your Massachusetts income in Massachusetts.


It means a 3% return on the value of the stock. If a stock has a $10 share price, the dividend would be $0.30. Normally though, the dividends are announced as a fixed amount per share, because the share price fluctuates. If a percentage were announced, then the final cost would not be known as the share priced could change radically before the dividend date.


If your investment returns are the main variable you use to determine if your advisor is doing a good job you are using his or her services incorrectly  Also, if you are using a good advisor, he or she needs to know how your investments are doing, not you.  However, my thoughts are based on the idea that you can't go it alone.  If you are not among the people concerned about the market, waiting for the market to go down 'so you can find a better buying opportunity', or making one of many other novice mistakes, I'm not speaking directly to you with my comments.


You can only lose your 7%. The idea that a certain security is more volatile than others in your portfolio does not mean that you can lose more than the value of the investment. The one exception is that a short position has unlimited downside, but i dont think there are any straight short mutual funds.


The opposite of a hedge is leverage (aka gearing). A hedge is where you spend money to reduce your exposure. Leverage is where you spend money to increase your exposure. Spread bets are a form of leverage - that's what makes them such an effective way to lose all your money, quickly.


"The financing is built into the price.  I do not have hard facts, but I strongly suspect that very few people buy brand-new smartphones at full price upfront.  Most pay a monthly installment to the carrier or retailer equal to 1/24 of the full price, which in effect is ""0% financing for 2 years"".  Samsung might be able to advertise a lower retail price and then offer financing at some rate of interest, but from a marketing standpoint, offering ""0%"" financing makes it feel like you're getting ""free money"", when in fact it's built into the overall price. Which sounds better, buying an $840 phone with 0% financing for two years or buying an $800 phone at 4.85% APR for two years (both have a $35 monthly payment)?"


ETrade allows this without fees (when investing into one of the No-Load/No-Fees funds from their list). The Sharebuilder plan is better when investing into ETF's or stocks, not for mutual funds, their choice (of no-fees funds) is rather limited on Sharebuilder.


My reaction to this is that your observation @D.W. is spot on correct: It sounds like long-term market timing: trying to do a better job than   the rest of the market at predicting, based upon a simple formula,   whether the market is over-priced or under-priced. I read the post by the founder of Valuation Informed Indexing, Rob Bennet. Glance at  the comments section. Rob clearly states that he doesn't even use his own strategy, and has not owned, nor traded, any stocks since 1996! As another commenter summarizes it, addressing Rob: This is 2011. You’ve been 100% out of stocks — including indexes —   since 1996? That’s 15 years of taking whatever the bond market, CDs or   TIPS will yield (often and currently less than 2%)... I’m curious how   you defend not following your own program even as you recommend it for   others? Rob basically says that stocks haven't shown the right signals for buying since 1996, so he's stuck with bonds, CD's and fixed-income instead. This is a VERY long-term horizon point of view (a bit of sarcasm edges in from me). Answering your more general question, what do I think of this particular Price/ Earnings based ratio as a way to signal asset allocation change i.e. Valuation Informed Investing? I don't like it much.


"There is no universal answer here.  Some card issuers will.  Some that will close the account will warn you first.  For my ""sock drawer"" cards I'll try to take each out semi-annually to make a single transaction, then put it back in the drawer. I've heard you should charge something quarterly, I've never had one closed with semi-annual charges."


If upper and Bollinger bands either converge ... or diverge ..., does that mean the market is TRENDING? No - Bollinger bands measure volatility, which is an measure of how much variation there is in the price of the instrument. It does not indicate a trend which means that the instrument tends to move in a consistent direction.  When Bollinger bands are close together, that means volatility is relatively low, and vice-versa. They can  be interpreted as signals that a stock might move in one direction or the other, but they are not a measure of directional movement.


Just so I'm clear- the end result is a long call, and you think the stock is going up. There is nothing wrong with that fundamentally.  Be aware though: That's a negative theta trade. This means if your stock doesn't increase in price during the remaining time to expiration of your call option, the option will lose some of its value every day. It may still lose some of its value every day, depending on how much the stock price increases. The value of the call option just goes down and down as it approaches maturity, even if the stock price stays about the same. Being long a call (or a put) is a tough way to make money in the options market.  I would suggest using an out-of-the-money butterfly spread. The potential returns are a bit less. However, this is a cheap positive theta trade so you avoid time decay on the value of the option.


"The wash sale rule only applies when the sale in question is at a loss.  So the rule does not apply at all to your cases 3, 4, 7, 8, 11, 12, 15, and 16, which all start with a gain.  You get a capital gain at the first sale and then a separately computed gain / loss at the second sale, depending on the case, BUT any gain or loss in the IRA is not a taxable event due to the usual tax-advantaged rules for the IRA. The wash sale does not apply to ""first"" sales in your IRA because there is no taxable gain or loss in that case.  That means that you wouldn't be seeking a deduction anyway, and there is nothing to get rolled into the repurchase. This means that the rule does not apply to 1-8.  For 5-8, where the second sale is in your brokerage account, you have a ""usual"" capital gain / loss as if the sale in the IRA didn't happen. (For 1-4, again, the second sale is in the IRA, so that sale is not taxable.) What's left are 9-10 (Brokerage -> IRA) and 13-14 (Brokerage -> Brokerage).   The easier two are 13-14.  In this case, you cannot take a capital loss deduction for the first sale at a loss.  The loss gets added to the basis of the repurchase instead.  When you ultimately close the position with the second sale, then you compute your gain or loss based on the modified basis.  Note that this means you need to be careful about what you mean by ""gain"" or ""loss"" at the second sale, because you need to be careful about when you account for the basis adjustment due to the wash sale. Example 1: All buys and sells are in your brokerage account.  You buy initially at $10 and sell at $8, creating a $2 loss.  But you buy again within the wash sale window at $9 and sell that at $12.  You get no deduction after the first sale because it's wash.  You have a $1 capital gain at the second sale because your basis is $11 = $9 + $2 due to the $2 basis adjustment from wash sale. Example 2: Same as Example 1, except that final sale is at $8 instead of at $12.  In this case you appear to have taken a $2 loss on the first buy-sell and another $1 loss on the second buy-sell.  For taxes however, you cannot claim the loss at the first sale due to the wash.  At the second sale, your basis is still $11 (as in Example 1), so your overall capital loss is the $3 dollars that you might expect, computed as the $8 final sale price minus the $11 (wash-adjusted) basis. Now for 9-10 (Brokerage->IRA), things are a little more complicated.  In the IRA, you don't worry about the basis of individual stocks that you hold because of the way that tax advantages of those accounts work.  You do need to worry about the basis of the IRA account as a whole, however, in some cases.  The most common case would be if you have non-deductable contributions to your traditional IRA.  When you eventually withdraw, you don't pay tax on any distributions that are attributable to those nondeductible contributions (because you already paid tax on that part).  There are other cases where basis of your account matters, but that's a whole question in itself - It's enough for now to understand 1. Basis in your IRA as a whole is a well-defined concept with tax implications, and 2. Basis in individual holdings within your account don't matter. So with the brokerage-IRA wash sale, there are two questions:  1. Can you take the capital loss on the brokerage side?  2. If no because of the wash sale, does this increase the basis of your IRA account (as a whole)?  The answer to both is ""no,"" although the reason is not obvious. The IRS actually put out a Special Bulletin to answer the question specifically because it was unclear in the law. Bottom line for 9-10 is that you apparently are losing your tax deduction completely in that case. In addition, if you were counting on an increase in the basis of your IRA to avoid early distribution penalties, you don't get that either, which will result in yet more tax if you actually take the early distribution. In addition to the Special Bulletin noted above, Publication 550, which talks about wash sale rules for individuals, may also help some."


None of your options or strategies are ideal. Have you considered looking at the stock chart and making a decision? Is the price currently up-trending, or is it down-trending, or is it going sideways? As Knuckle Dragger mentions, you could just set a limit price order and if it does not hit by Friday you can just sell at whatever price on Friday. However, this could be very damaging if the price is currently down-trending. It may fall considerably by Friday. I think a better strategy would be to place a trailing stop loss order, say 5% from the current price. If the stock starts heading south you will be stopped out approximately 5% below the current price. However, if the price goes up, your trailing stop order will move up as well, always trailing 5% below the highest price reached. If the trailing stop has not been hit by Friday afternoon, you can sell at the current price. This way you will be protected on the downside (only approx. 5% below current price) and can potentially benefit from any short term upside.


Note that your link shows the shares as of March 31, 2016 while http://uniselect.com/content/files/Press-release/Press-Release-Q1-2016-Final.pdf notes a 2-for-1 stock split so thus you have to double the shares to get the proper number is what you are missing. The stock split occurred in May and thus is after the deadline that you quoted.


Your main choices are ISAs and property. You can put over £15,000 per year into an ISA, which means over £450,000 by the time you retire, not allowing for growth in your ISA investments. But if you're paying rent, and worried about being able to pay rent when you retire, the obvious choice is to buy a flat now on a thirty-year mortgage so that you can stop paying rent and the mortgage will be paid off by the time you retire.


Sale price minus the loan balance, minus any closing costs is your net.  The numbers don't care whether you have a profit or loss, nor does the bank. People buy too high, pay a mortgage for 10 years, and walk away from the closing with little to no money, every day.


A debenture is a security document. This means that the bond is secured over assets. Under English law, you can issue bonds which, if defaulted upon, you can enforce your security against the issuer (i.e. the company), which means you can attempt to get your money back by getting hold of the company's assets.   As for a floating charge, I'll first explain what a fixed charge is. Say you're a bank (a lender) and you lend £1000 to X. You take security by way of a fixed charge over X's photocopy machines. X is unable to dispose of the machines without the lender's consent. This means that if X cannot pay up the loan, you can enforce security by taking possession of the photocopy machines, sell them, and hopefully get enough money back to cover the default.  A floating charge works the same way but over assets which fluctuate, e.g. X's stock of potatoes. X sells potatoes to supermarkets all the time so you can't just take a fixed charge over it for practical reasons, you can't just ask the lender each time you want to sell a potato. When an event of default occurs, i.e. you don't pay back the loan or breach a condition of the loan agreement, the floating charge crystallises, and becomes a fixed charge, thus enabling the lender to sell the potatoes to get their money back.  Random examples, but makes sense?  Source; future English solicitor.


You can just buy the items personally and then submit an expense report to the company to get reimbursed. Keep all the receipts. Paying with a company check is also fine, but you might run into problems with stores not accepting checks.


If you are concerned about FDIC coverage, then yes, you can spread your money across multiple banks. The limit is $250k, so after you invest in property, 4 banks should do it.  That having been said, in my opinion, it would be a waste to keep all this money in a bank's savings account. You will slowly lose value over time due to inflation. I suggest you spend a little money on an independent fee-based investment advisor. Choose someone who will teach you about investing in mutual funds, so you can feel comfortable with it. He or she should take into account your tolerance for risk, look at your goals, and help you come up with a low cost plan for investing your money.  It's certainly okay to keep the money in a bank short-term, but don't wait too long; take steps toward putting that money to work for you.


You're a god damn idiot. Anyone who actually read a little about the debt knows it doesn't even matter. Our debt shows a strong economy and dollar. It shows value and investment worthy. Anyone can buy treasury bonds. You.. me... apple... you think our debt is at 20t because it's all we can get invested? Fuck no people are waiting in line to buy new treasury bonds. They're solid investments for people who don't want to worry about stock trading and know for a fact in 30 years they get their money and interest. But somehow you think the Jews were able to pool enough money to lend out 20t but not have the ability to increase the debt and lend out 5t a year and not 600b. Hah...


Compound interest means that the interest in each time period is calculated taking into account previously earned interest and not only the initial sum. Thus, if you had $1000 and invested it so that you'd earn 5% each year, than if you would withdraw the earnings each year you in 30 years you would earn 0.05*30*1000 = $1500, so summarily you'd have $2500, or 150% profit. However, if you left all the money to earn interest - including the interest money - then at the end of 30 years you'd have $4321 - or 330% profit.  This is why compound interest is so important - the interest on the earned interest makes money grow significantly faster. On the other hand, the same happens if you owe money - the interest on the money owed is added to the initial sum and so the whole sum owed grows quicker.  Compound interest is also important when calculating interest by time periods. For example, if you are told the loan accumulates 1% interest monthly, you may think it's 12% yearly. However, it is not so, since monthly interest is compounded - i.e., in February the addition not only February's 1% but also 1% on 1% from January, etc. - the real interest is 12.68% yearly. Thus, it is always useful to know how interest is compounded - both for loans and investments - daily, monthly, yearly, etc.


wow thanks for the info. So if i wanted a masters in finance, should i take  math electives to get them out of the way earlier? I'm a senior in high school and I'm very interested in finance, but I'll admit not the best at math..


You've never saved money?  Have you ever bought anything?  There probably was a small window of time that you had to pool some cash to buy something.    In my experience, if you make it more interesting by 'allocating money for specific purposes' you'll have better results than just arbitrarily saving for a rainy day.    Allocate your money for different things (ie- new car, emergency, travel, or starting a new business) by isolating your money into different places.  Ex- your new car allocation could be in a savings account at your bank.   Your emergency allocation can be in cash under your bed.   Your new business allocation could be in an investment vehicle like a stocks where it could potentially see significant gains by the time you are ready to use it.    The traditional concept of savings is gone.  There is very little money to be earned in a savings account and any gains will be most certainly wiped out by inflation anyway.  Allocate your money, allocate more with new income, and then use it to buy real things and fund new adventures when the time is right.


If you see something that looks like a sales pitch, be skeptical, even if they sound informed, say things which resonate with your concerns and promise to alleviate your problems. Watch out in particular for people who pontificate about matters which are tangentially related to the investment (e.g. populist anti-Wall-Street sentiment). Beware limited-time opportunities, offers, and discounts. I'm specifically talking about your email pitches, Motley Fool. They're shameful. Remember you're allowed to change your mind and go back on something that you've said a few minutes ago. If anyone tries to trick you into agreeing to go along with them by taking what something you've said and manipulating it, or uses logic to demonstrate that you must buy something based on things you've said, tell them you're not comfortable, head for the door and don't look back. Don't be afraid of embarrassment or anything like that. (You can investigate whether your position is in fact logically consistent later.) Run away from anyone who resents or deprecates the notion of a second opinion. Don't ever go along with anything that seems shady: it may be shadier than you know. Some people thought Bernie Maddoff was doing some front-running on the side; turns out it was a Ponzi scheme. (Likewise the Ponzi scheme that devastated Albania's economy was widely suspected of being dirty, but people suspected more of a black-market angle.) Beware of anyone who is promising stability and protection. Insurance companies can sell you products (especially annuities) which can deliver it, but they're very expensive for what you get. Don't buy it unless you seriously need it.


There are many ways to value a business. Here is a simple method to get a ball park number on most businesses. This business is made of two parts. For the real estate: For the business:  I would consider this type of small business riskier than the stock market and so you should expect a higher return. Maybe 15 or 20%? If the rental business makes $50k profit (not revenue) and that is 20% return of your investment, the business is worth $250k. If the business makes no money or if they only make money because they don't take a salary then this is a hobby and not a business. There's no business to buy here and you are just bidding on the real estate to do with what you please. The assets worth $600k and the business worth $250k would be added together for a fair sale price of $850k. Adjust for your actual numbers and you should be able to get a ball park of what you think the business is worth. If you do the math and it works out that you'll make 1-3% on your business, compare that to investing in other places. If it works out that you'll make 40% on your money that's pretty awesome too.


Hi, I'm going to be a social studies teacher and will have to introduce students to economics. I am saving your post for the future because it is an amazingly well crafted and engaging lesson.. the village analogy can even be used for group enactment. Thanks so much for this!


"GLD, IAU, and SGOL are three different ETF's that you can invest in if you want to invest in gold without physically owning gold. Purchasing an ETF is just like purchasing a stock, so you're fine on that front.  Another alternative is to buy shares of companies that mine gold. An example of a single company is Randgold Resources (GOLD), and an ETF of mining companies is GDX. There are also some more complex alternatives like Exchange traded notes and futures contracts, but I wouldn't classify those for the ""regular person.""  Hope it helps!"


What's your basis? If you have just made a 50% gain, maybe you should cash out a portion and hold the rest. Don't be greedy, but don't pass up an opportunity either.


Actually it is possible that it came from nowhere - the government could simply have printed it, just like the Zimbabwian government did when they were in need of cash.   Of course, you really don't want you're government to do that because it's one way to drive your economy straight into the ground with inflation...


"There needs to be a buyer of the shares you are offering.  There are a lot of feature rich options for buying and selling.  I don't understand them all in depth, but for example on TD Ameritrade here are some of the order types ""Limit"", ""Market"", ""Stop Market"", ""Stop Limit"", ""Trailing Stop %"", ""Trailing Stop $"".  This web page will explain the different order types https://invest.ameritrade.com/cgi-bin/apps/u/PLoad?pagename=tutorial/orderTypes/overview.html Stock with a higher volume will allow your trade to execute faster, since there are more frequent trades than stocks with lower volume. (UPDATE: More specifically, not more frequent trades, but more shares changing hands.) I'm a bit of a noob myself, but that's what I understand."


I dont get people, i have my mortgage and that's it, 4% locked in for 10 years and dropping fast, my cousin, a couple months ago (since the rates are so low !!) refinanced her house to buy a brand new car. But she still is paying her old car, witch she traded in for the new one.  I dont get people.


There is some benefit to creating a corporation or LLC -- you theoretically have a liability shield. As Michael Pryor points out in his answer, though, there will probably be little difference if you get sued. Operating the corporation or LLC incurs some extra costs: you have to pay annual fees to the state, and there's a bit of extra administrative overhead (very little overhead for an LLC though).


> you're also signaling the value of tangible things like storage, weather, and transportation costs as well as intangibles such as future macroeconomic events, global policy decisions, etc.  To whom? I, as a buyer of the future, only get to know this from normal news, as can other people. Or is the assumption that I have a special source that not all people have access to, and hence when I buy the contract, other people think that I have some special information that they don't, and use this fact to then derive the prices of whatever?  Apologies if what I say makes no sense. I am a noob to finance. Please also provide some links for Price Discovery if you feel my understanding is wrong.


Yes, they're often a beneficial choice because it means you are earning the interest on the money instead of the government. You won't necessarily pay taxes on it, you have many options once you reach the point of wanting to do something with the money. Many people accumulate the wealth and then pass it down to subsequent generations without paying tax, which is perfectly legal if done right. Others make donations to charity.  Those are just a couple examples, but the point is that you accumulated the wealth over a long period of time and bought yourself time to decide what to do with it. Edit: No, if the investor decides to cash the money out all at once at the end, it would not be equivalent. Assuming you had $1,000 to put in an account and could get a 5% return on your money and you were in the 25% tax rate, the tax-free account ends up with more in the end (mostly by virtue of the compounding being tax-free):


"Agree with wrschneider99. Also, since it's a ""credit report"" it helps to have a history of credit. My wife has been in the U.S. for 14 years and now has a higher credit score than me, a U.S. citizen. When we leased a car we put it in her name. When we took out a mortgage it's under both our names."


If you make 100K in the U.S., you are most definitely NOT paying 25.7% tax federally. Only money that you made over 37.5K is even charged at 25% AND you didn't even factor in that you get deductions which decrease your effective tax rate. Where are you pulling your numbers?


"The appropriate structure for an organization depends largely on the size of the firm. Smaller firms can employ some non-traditional hierarchies more easily (i.e., flat design), whereas the same structures are more difficult to use in mid-size and large companies. The most important pieces of any corporate structure are (1) clarity of roles, (2) accountability, and (3) ease of communication.  Firstly, everyone in the organization must have clarity of their own role and how it fits into the bigger picture. That means a structure that is easy to understand, and a comprehension of how all the roles tie in to each other.   Secondly, a good structure will enable and empower leadership to hold the team accountable, and be held accountable in turn. What is often misunderstood about accountability is that people often assume that it simply means punishing poor behavior when something breaks down. In reality, that's holding people responsible, not accountable. Accountability is something that is self-driven and is a product of sound relationships and transparency. As an example, one of the most common breakdowns in accountability is found in passive non-responsiveness. This is when you may reach out to a business partner for help or an update, but they simply do not reply (as in email, text, or voicemail).   Thirdly, the structure should be such that it is easy for individuals to communicate across and up/down the chain. This doesn't mean that if you send an email, communication is easy. Rather, who do I reach out to for this problem? What are the best practices or agreed-upon methodologies for a certain practice, and how does the team know this? Some of this should be codified in the form of standard operating procedures (SOPs) which can be referenced at any time. Many companies use a ""playbook"" which is a high-level reference guide on how to operate the business (an example is found here: https://www.atlassian.com/team-playbook). A playbook can be anything from a PDF to an interactive website like the aforementioned link. It should always have the most up-to-date information.  Most companies will change their structure over time as their environment (both internal and external) change and they need to adapt. For example, a small firm may not need an HR department, but as it employs more and more people, a need to have someone (or an entire team) focused on human capital management rises quickly -- an owner-operator can handle only so much before it is time to scale up.  The most important thing to consider is who you hire. People are the largest expense to an organization, and having the right people in the right roles is the best way to avoid unnecessary incremental costs resulting from inefficiency, fraud, or risky behavior. Always look for the personality traits that make a good employee relative to the role (i.e., customer service: friendliness; finance: integrity; operations: teamwork).  One of the most obvious parts of a business as it scales up is specialization. You want to find a balance, though. For example, HR handles all human relations issues, while Legal handles all internal claims, suits, and patents. There is an overlap that occurs here, as internal claims often start as human relations issues, which means you must have healthy communication and clear accountability for an appropriate hand-off so Legal takes a claim at the right point in time. While this example may be a little obvious, many times the edges are blurred, and clarity of role can be difficult.  I hope that helps! Reach out with any follow-up questions."


Is this possible and will it have the intended effect? From the US tax perspective, it most definitely is and will. Is my plan not very similar to Wash Sale? Yes, except that wash sale rules apply for losses, not gains. In any case, since you're not a US tax resident, the US wash sale rules won't apply to you.


"What you're describing is a non-deductible traditional IRA.  That is what happens when your employer 401K or your high income disqualifies gou from using a traditional IRA the normal way.   Yes, non-deductible traditional IRAs are stupid.**   Now let's be clear on the mechanism behind the difference.  There's an axiom of tax law that the same money can't be taxed twice.  This is baked so deep into tax law that it often isn't even specified particularly.  The IRS is not allowed to impose tax on money already taxed, i.e. The original contribution on an ND Trad IRA.  So this is not a new kind of IRA, it is simply a Trad IRA with an asterisk.  **But then, some say so are deductible traditional IRAs when compared to the Roth.   The real power of an ND Trad IRA is that it can be converted to Roth at all income levels.  This is called the ""Roth Backdoor"".  It combines three factors. Contribute to an ND Trad IRA, stick it in a money market/sweep fund, and a week later convert to Roth, pay taxes on the 17 cents of growth in the sweep fund since the rest was already taxed.  The net effect is to work the same as a Roth contribution - not tax deductible, becomes a Roth, and is not taxed on distribution.   If you already have traditional IRA money that you contributed that wasn't taxed, this really screws things up.  Because you can't segment or LIFO your IRA money, the IRS considers it one huge bucket, and requires you draw in proportion. EEK! Suppose you contribute $5000 to an IRA in a non-deductible mode.  But you also have a different IRA funded with pretax money that now has $45,000.   As far as IRS is concerned, you have one $50,000 IRA and only $5000 (10%) is post-tax.   You convert $5000 to Roth and IRS says 90% of that money is taxable, since it's the same pool of money.  You owe taxes on all of it less the $500 fraction that was pre-taxed, and $4500 of already-taxed IRA remains in the account.  The math gets totally out-of-hand after just a couple of conversions.   Your best bet is to convert the whole shebang at one time -- and to avoid a monstrous tax hit, do this in a gap year."


For now we can pay off our debt in United States dollars. If we lose our reserve currency status, we would have to pay it off with a different currency. If we continued printing money we would be debasing our currency against the new reserve currency, which would mean that after we took on too much debt we wouldn't really be able to pay our creditors back after exchanging our devalued currency for the new one on the international markets. We are lucky enough not to have to worry about this now. But I think OP was referring to all countries in these situations. Other countries don't have the luxury of just printing out massive amounts of money to pay off their debts. That is why I am saying that America has a very disillusioned view of reality when it comes to deficit spending. We wouldn't have that any more if the UN followed through with its suggestion to create a global reserve currency or reverted back to the gold standard (I don't think the second option is nearly as realistic but we never know).


"gatorsrule, First I want to say that I agree with you that the gators rule.  Now, on to economics.  I will try to address each of your points as best I can.   -The lack of ""demand"" is aggregate demand.  This includes individual spending, corporate spending, government spending, and exports.  Individual spending is down as geerussel pointed out.  Whether or not that is a good thing let's reserve for later.  Next, corporate spending is at all time lows.  The S&P 500 companies have the highest cash on hand ever in history.  Nobody is hiring.  Bond issues are down.  Mergers are down.  Capital is being hoarded.  Third up, government spending.  We all know this is up, but don't rush to add in the fed and bailouts to this number, lets just consider it what the government actually spends into the economy.  Lastly, exports are down because the rest of the world is hurting.  So, 3 out of the 4 components of aggregate demand are down, and there are those that want the government to stop spending as well, which would make it a straight 4 for 4.   -Interest rates.  Well, if you know that aggregate demand is down, that tells you everything you need to know about interest rates.  If companies were borrowing, hiring, expanding, opening plants, etc. etc. etc., then interest rates would naturally rise due to loans being made to these companies.  The fact is that companies are not expanding, and loans are not being made, due to no demand for them.  Bank reserves are at an all time high.  Nobody is willing to take out a loan to grow their business right now because aggregate demand is down so hard.  At the same time the stock market spooked everyone, and on top of it, people are paying down their home mortgages at a record pace.  So you have record low demand for loans, and record high supply of capital (money), so, yeah interest rates are at 1%, effectively 0 if you are in a savings account.   -Devaluing the currency to boost the exports component of the aggregate demand curve seems like it could work, but since the rest of the world is also hurting who are you going to export to?  The corporate sector isn't going to start spending until the consumer is on their feet.  The consumer isn't going to start spending until they get jobs.  Do you see the chinese finger trap here???  The only way out of the riddle is to increase government spending, and history has shown that it works."


"Yes, so what I'm saying is that the balance of $9 left over from your trade surplus, no matter how you invest it in the U.S., even in treasuries or simply as a bank deposit technically counts as an ""investment"" right?"


"TL;DR: Because stocks represent added value from corporate profits, and not the price the goods themselves are sold at. This is actually a very complicated subject.  But here's the simplest answer I can come up with.  Stocks are a commodity, just like milk, eggs, and bread.  The government only tracks certain commodities (consumables) as part of the Consumer Price Index (CPI).  These are generally commodities that the typical person will consume on a daily or weekly basis, or need to survive (food, rent, etc.).  These are present values. Stock prices, on the other hand, represent an educated guess (or bet) on a company's future performance.  If Apple has historically performed well, and analysts expect it to continue to perform, then investors will pay more for a stock that they feel will continue pay good dividends in the future.  Compound this with the fact that there is usually limited a supply of stock for a particular company (unless they issue more stock). If we go back to Apple as an example, they can raise their price they charge on an iPhone from $400 to $450 over the course of say a couple years.  Some of this may be due to higher wage costs, but efficiencies in the marketplace actually tend to drive down costs to produce goods, so they will probably actually turn a higher profit by raising their price, even if they have to pay higher wages (or possibly even if they don't raise their price!).  This, in economics, is termed value added. Finally, @Hart is absolutely correct in his comment about the stocks in the S&P 500 not being static.  Additionally, the S&P 500 is a hand picked set of ""winners"", if you will.  These are not run-of-the-mill penny stocks for companies that will be out of business in a week.  These are companies that Standard & Poor's Financial Services LLC thinks will perform well."


I would like to add one minor point for clarity: Cosigning means that you, alongside your friend, enter into a contract with the bank. It does not necessarily mean that you now have a contract with your friend, although that could implicitly be concluded. If the bank makes use of their contracted right to make you pay your friend's debts with them, this has no effect on your legal relationship with your friend. Of course, you can hold him or her liable for your damages he or she has caused. It is another question whether this would help you in practice, but that has been discussed before.


If you took advantage of options like a home buyers plan (HBP) you definitely need to file since you must designate how much of the plan to repay.  Your employer does not know about what you do with your money so cannot take this into account for the withheld taxes.  If you do not report repayment of the HBP it will be treated as a withdrawal from your RRSP i.e. additional income for that tax year.


> If you can't cough up $200 for this, you need to rethink if you are in business or playing at being in business.  You don't know anything about my financial situation and I resent the implication that poor people shouldn't start businesses.  Also, the whole project is less than $200 so it wouldn't make much sense hiring a lawyer.


"My question to you would be ""When is the market down?"" I know that a lot of people attempt to do this and never get close.   With 40 years left to retirement, I would have you consider to just invest in the manner that you are most comfortable and let dollar cost averaging do the rest."


If you are paid by foreigners then it is quite possible they don't file anything with the IRS. All of this income you are required to report as business income on schedule C.  There are opportunities on schedule C to deduct expenses like your health insurance, travel, telephone calls, capital expenses like a new computer, etc... You will be charged both the employees and employers share of social security/medicare, around ~17% or so, and that will be added onto your 1040.   You may still need a local business license to do the work locally, and may require a home business permit in some cities.  In some places, cities subscribe to data services based on your IRS tax return.... and will find out a year or two later that someone is running an unlicensed business.  This could result in a fine, or perhaps just a nice letter from the city attorneys office that it would be a good time to get the right licenses. Generally, tax treaties exist to avoid or limit double taxation. For instance, if you travel to Norway to give a report and are paid during this time, the treaty would explain whether that is taxable in Norway.  You can usually get a credit for taxes paid to foreign countries against your US taxes, which helps avoid paying double taxes in the USA.   If you were to go live in Norway for more than a year, the first $80,000/year or so is completely wiped off your US income.  This does NOT apply if you live in the USA and are paid from Norway. If you have a bank account overseas with more than $10,000 of value in it at any time during the year, you owe the US Government a FinCEN Form 114 (FBAR).  This is pretty important, there are some large fines for not doing it.  It could occur if you needed an account to get paid in Norway and then send the money here... If the Norwegian company wires the money to you from their account or sends a check in US$, and you don't have a foreign bank account, then this would not apply.


Leveraged ETFs are prone to volatility decay, also known as leverage decay: http://blog.quantumfading.com/2009/07/12/measuring-leveraged-etf-decay/ You can increase your chances by using a non-leveraged short ETF like TBF or simply shorting the long ETF. Beware: shorting bonds ETFs will result in you having the pay the dividends, which can be substantial. Edit: SBND has recently appeared on the market. It is leveraged 3x monthly. In theory, monthly leverage should be less destructive than daily leverage.


American options (like those on ADBE) can be exercised by the holder anytime before expiration. They will be exercised automatically at expiration if they are in the money. However, if there is still time before expiration (as in this case), and they are not extremely in the money, there is probably extrinsic value to the option, and you should sell it, not exercise it. European options are only automatically exercised at expiration, and only if they are in the money. These are usually cash settled on products like SPX or VIX. They can not be exercised before expiration, but can be sold anytime.


Will buying a flat which generates $250 rent per month be a good decision? Whether investing in real estate is a good decision or not depends on many things, including the current and future supply/demand for rental units in your particular area. There are many questions on this site about this topic, and another answer to this question which already addresses many risks associated with owning property (though there are also benefits to consider). I just want to focus on this point you raised: I personally think yes, because rent adjusts with inflation and the rise in the price of the property is another benefit. Could this help me become financially independent in the long run since inflation is getting adjusted in it? In my opinion, the fact that rental income general adjusts with 'inflation' is a hedge against some types of economic risk, not an absolute increase in value. First, consider buying a house to live in, instead of to rent:  If you pay off your mortgage before your retire, then you have reduced your cost of accommodations to only utilities, property taxes, and repairs. This gives you a (relatively) known, fixed requirement of cash outflows. If the value of property goes up by the time you retire - it doesn't cost you anything extra, because you already own your house. If the value of property goes down by the time you retire, then you don't save anything, because you already own your house. If you instead rent your whole life, and save money each month (instead of paying off a mortgage), then when you retire, you will have a larger amount of savings which you can use to pay your monthly rental costs each month. By the time you retire, your cost of accommodations will be the market price for rent at that time. If the value of property goes up by the time you retire - you will have to pay more on rent. If the value of property goes down by the time you retire, you will save money on rent. You will have larger savings, but your cash outflow will be a little bit less certain, because you don't know what the market price for rent will be. You can see that, because you need to put a roof over your own head, just by existing you bear risk of the cost of property rising. So, buying your own home can be a hedge against that risk. This is called a 'natural hedge', where two competing risks can mitigate each-other just by existing. This doesn't mean buying a house is always the right thing to do, it is just one piece of the puzzle to comparing the two alternatives [see many other threads on buying vs renting on this site, or on google]. Now, consider buying a house to rent out to other people:  In the extreme scenario, assume that you do everything you can to buy as much property as possible. Maybe by the time you retire, you own a small apartment building with 11 units, where you live in one of them (as an example), and you have no other savings. Before, owning your own home was, among other pros and cons, a natural hedge against the risk of your own personal cost of accommodations going up. But now, the risk of your many rental units is far greater than the risk of your own personal accommodations. That is, if rent goes up by $100 after you retire, your rental income goes up by $1,000, and your personal cost of accommodations only goes up by $100. If rent goes down by $50 after you retire, your rental income goes down by $500, and your personal cost of accommodations only goes down by $50. You can see that only investing in rental properties puts you at great risk of fluctuations in the rental market. This risk is larger than if you simply bought your own home, because at least in that case, you are guaranteeing your cost of accommodations, which you know you will need to pay one way or another. This is why most investment advice suggests that you diversify your investment portfolio. That means buying some stocks, some bonds, etc.. If you invest to heavily in a single thing, then you bear huge risks for that particular market. In the case of property, each investment is so large that you are often 'undiversified' if you invest heavily in it (you can't just buy a house $100 at a time, like you could a stock or bond). Of course, my above examples are very simplified. I am only trying to suggest the underlying principle, not the full complexities of the real estate market. Note also that there are many types of investments which typically adjust with inflation / cost of living; real estate is only one of them.


First of all $1k is not enough money to start a web business.  You're probably going to lose all your money, your business and your friendship.  Second of all you need to retain a lawyer.  I really can't emphasize this enough.  If a lawyer is too expensive for you, then THIS BUSINESS IS TOO EXPENSIVE FOR YOU.  If you don't have the money, then you don't have the time.  When you say it's his idea - did he come to you with a fully written business plan?  Even if he did, that's not really worth 20% of the equity.  I would insist on 50/50 if the capital is 50/50, and salary to whoever is working on it.  You're not going to have profits in the first year.  Let me repeat that.  YOU'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE PROFITS IN THE FIRST YEAR.  Things never, ever, EVER work that way.  Or ok they do but it's like 1%.  It's not going to happen to you.


There are strategies based on yields. Dogs of the Dow being a specific example while Miller Howard has a few studies around dividends that may be of use if you additional material. Selling off a portion of the holding can run into problems as how could one hold 10 shares, selling a non-zero whole number every year for over 20 years if the stock doesn't ever pay a dividend in additional shares or cash?


[This article says 550k people](http://fortune.com/2017/07/28/wells-fargo-loan-default-scandal/). You're also making the assumption they all paid it for a full year at least, when the refunds are estimated at $25 million for one group, an additional $39 million (including fines) for another, and $16 million for the worst, but smallest, group.   ~$80 million is not $400 million. The current CEO is not the same CEO who would have been at the helm when this issue started. The old CEO likely didn't have insight into this tiny subset of the company.


You could classify the mortgage as a different assets class and then create automated additions and deductions to the account as deems fit. other than that quickbooks online is a bit fishy so it seems.


Depends, sure you could save a buck or two here and there but maybe that time could be used for better things - i.e. earning a side income It's all situational and relative to you and where you are in life - try things, don't be afraid of mistakes


"#####&#009;  ######&#009;  ####&#009;  [**Share repurchase**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Share%20repurchase): [](#sfw)   ---  >  >__Share repurchase__ (or __stock buyback__) is the re-acquisition by a [company](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company) of its own stock.  In some countries, including the [US](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) and the [UK](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom), a [corporation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation) can repurchase its own [stock](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stock) by distributing [cash](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cash) to existing [shareholders](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shareholder) in exchange for a fraction of the company's outstanding [equity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shareholders%27_equity); that is, cash is exchanged for a reduction in the number of [shares outstanding](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shares_outstanding).   The company either retires the repurchased shares or keeps them as [treasury stock](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treasury_stock), available for re-[issuance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Issued_capital).  >Under US [corporate law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporations_law) there are five primary methods of stock repurchase: open market, private negotiations, repurchase '[put](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Put_option)' rights and two variants of self-tender repurchase: a fixed price [tender offer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tender_offer) and a [Dutch auction](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_auction). In the late 20th and early 21st centuries, there was a sharp rise in the volume of share repurchases in the US: [US$](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_dollar)5 [billion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1000000000_(number\)) in 1980 rose to US$349 billion in 2005.   >It is relatively easy for insiders to capture insider-trading like gains through the use of ""open market repurchases"". Such transactions are legal and generally encouraged by regulators through safe-harbours against [insider trading](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insider_trading) liability.    >  ---  ^Interesting: [^Accelerated ^share ^repurchase](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerated_share_repurchase) ^| [^Dividend](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dividend) ^| [^Equity ^\(finance)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equity_\(finance\)) ^| [^Treasury ^stock](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treasury_stock)   ^Parent ^commenter ^can [^toggle ^NSFW](http://www.np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=autowikibot&subject=AutoWikibot NSFW toggle&message=%2Btoggle-nsfw+cjwf4oy) ^or[](#or) [^delete](http://www.np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=autowikibot&subject=AutoWikibot Deletion&message=%2Bdelete+cjwf4oy)^. ^Will ^also ^delete ^on ^comment ^score ^of ^-1 ^or ^less. ^| [^(FAQs)](http://www.np.reddit.com/r/autowikibot/wiki/index) ^| [^Mods](http://www.np.reddit.com/r/autowikibot/comments/1x013o/for_moderators_switches_commands_and_css/) ^| [^Magic ^Words](http://www.np.reddit.com/r/autowikibot/comments/1ux484/ask_wikibot/)"


I've had the same thoughts recently and after reading Investing at Level 3 by James Cloonan I believe his thesis that for the passive investor you're giving up too much if you're not 100% in equities. He is clear to point out that you need to be well aware of your withdrawal horizons and has specific tactics for shifting the portfolio when you know you must have the money in the next five years and wouldn't want to pull money out when you're at a market low. The kicker for me was shifting your thought to a plotting a straight line of reasonable expectations on your return. Then you don't worry about how far down you are from your high (or up from your low) but you measure yourself against the expected return and you'll find some real grounding. You're investing for the long term so you're going to see 2-3 bear markets. That isn't the the time to get cold feet and react. Stay put and it will come back. The market gets back to the reasonable expectations very quickly as he confirms in all the bear markets and recessions of any note. He gives guidelines for a passive investing strategy to leverage this mentality and talks about venturing into an active strategy but doesn't go into great depth. So if you're looking to invest more passively this book may be enough to get you rolling with thinking differently than the traditional 70/30 split.


I'm answering this from a slightly different angle, but there are people (individuals) who will do this for you. I know private Forex traders who are 'employed' to manage Forex trading accounts for wealthy individuals. The trader takes a percentage of the wins but is also responsible for a percentage of the loss (if there is a loss in a particular month). However the fact that the trader is able to prove that they have a consistent enough trading history to be trusted with the large accounts generally means that losses are rare (one would hope!). Obviously they have contracts in place (and the terms of the contract are crucial to the responsibility of losses) etc. but I don't know what the legalities are of offering or using this kind of service. I just wanted to mention it, while perhaps not being the best option for you personally, it does exist and matches your requirements.  You would just have to be extremely careful to choose someone respectable and responsible, as it would be much easier to get ripped off while looking for a respected individual to trade your account than it would be while looking for a respected firm (I would imagine).


Some platforms/brokers have HTB indication for a stock symbol, meaning Hard To Borrow. That usually means you can't sell it short at the moment.


You only pay tax on the capital gain of the bond, not the principal, unless the source of the money for the principal was gain from another investment, if that makes sense.   In other words, if you bought the bond with income earned from your job, that money was already taxed as income, so it isn't subject to taxation again when you redeem the bond.  On the other hand, if you cashed out of one investment and used those proceeds to buy a bond, then the entire amount might be taxable.


"common sentiment that no investor can consistently beat the market on returns.  I guess its more like very few investor can beat the market, a vast Majority cannot / do not. What evidence exists for or against this? Obviously we can have a comparison of all investors. If we start taking a look at some of the Actively Managed Funds. Given that Fund Managers are experts compared to common individual investors, if we compare this, we can potentially extend it more generically to others. Most funds beat the markets for few years, as you keep increasing the timeline, i.e. try seeing 10 year 15 year 20 year return; this is easy the data is available, you would realize that no fund consistently beat the index. Few years quite good, few years quite bad. On Average most funds were below market returns especially if one compares on longer terms or 10 - 20 years. Hence the perception Of course we all know Warren Buffet has beat the market by leaps and bounds. After the initial success, people like Warren Buffet develop the power of ""Self Fulfilling Prophecy"". There would be many other individuals."


The sentence you quoted does not apply in the case where you sell the stock at a loss. In that case, you recognize zero ordinary income, and a capital loss (opposite of a gain) for the loss. Reference: http://efs.fidelity.com/support/sps/article/article2.html


"Personally, I think you are approaching this from the wrong angle.  You're somewhat correct in assuming that what you're reading is usually some kind of marketing material.  Systematic Investment Plan (SIP) is not a universal piece of jargon in the financial world.  Dollar cost averaging is a pretty universal piece of jargon in the financial world and is a common topic taught in finance classes in the US. On average, verified by many studies, individuals will generate better investment returns when they proactively avoid timing the market or attempting to pick specific winners.  Say you decide to invest in a mutual fund, dollar cost averaging means you invest the same dollar amount in consistent intervals rather than buying a number of shares or buying sporadically when you feel the market is low. As an example I'll compare investing $50 per week on Wednesdays, versus 1 share per week on Wednesdays, or the full $850 on the first Wednesday.   I'll use the Vanguard Large cap fund as an example (VLCAX).  I realize this is not really an apples to apples comparison as the invested amounts are different, I just wanted to show how your rate of return can change depending on how your money goes in to the market even if the difference is subtle.  By investing a common dollar amount rather than a common share amount you ultimately maintain a lower average share price while the share price climbs.  It also keeps your investment easy to budget. Vanguard published an excellent paper discussing dollar cost averaging versus lump sum investing which concluded that you should invest as soon as you have funds, rather than parsing out a lump sum in to smaller periodic investments, which is illustrated in the third column above; and obviously worked out well as the market has been increasing. Ultimately, all of these companies are vying to customers so they all have marketing teams trying to figure out how to make their services sound interesting and unique.  If they all called dollar cost averaging, ""dollar cost averaging"" none of them would appear to be unique.  So they devise neat acronyms but it's all pretty much the same idea.  Trickle your money in to your investments as the money becomes available to you."


"He is wrong.  Using Total Return (Reinvesting Dividend), from the peak in December 1999, it only took 6 years to recover.   You can check the data for free here. Make sure you choose ""Gross Index Level"".  ACWI Index is Developed Markets + Emerging Markets.  World Index is Developed Markets only."


I said I knew about FEIE. So what happens when you want to open a private tax-deferred pension that is common in most industrialized countries? Now you have capital gains that are not taxed. Uh oh. Oh, you want to work for yourself, have fun paying US social security even though you may never actually receive any benefit and aren't providing anything to the US, oh and that income not being counted in the FEIE. Oh you made a mistake on reporting your retirement account, the US government is now authorized to penalize you 40% of the balance of your retirement savings. That's great that you found an organization that says IRS won't use it for now, but who knows how long that will last.  But things like retirement savings and working for yourself must only be for crazy rich people, right?


"Very interesting question. While searching i also found that some precious metal ETFs (including IAU) gains are taxed at 28% because IRS considers it ""collectible"", rather than the usual long term 15% for stocks and stock holding ETFs. As for capital gain tax you have to pay now my guess it's because of the following statement in the IAU prospectus (page 34): When the trust sells gold, for example   to pay expenses, a Shareholder will   recognize gain or loss ...."


"Obviously a stock that's hit a high is profit waiting to be taken, be safe, take the money, Sell Sell Sell!! Ah.. but wait, they say ""run your winners, cut your losers"", so here this stock is a winner... keep on to it, Hold Hold Hold!!!!! Of course, if you're holding, then you think it's going to return even higher.... Buy Buy Buy!!!! So,  hope that's clears things up for you - Sell, Hold, or maybe Buy :-) A more serious answer is not ever to worry about past performance, if its gone past a reasonable valuation then consider selling, but never care about selling out just because its reached some arbitrary share price. If you are worried about losses, you might like to set a trailing stop and sell if it drops, but if you're a LTBH type person, just keep it until you feel it is overvalued compared to its fundamentals."


In the short-term, a savings account with an online bank can net you ~1% interest, while many banks/credit unions with local branches are 0.05%. Most of the online savings accounts allow 6 withdrawals per month (they'll let you do more, but charge a fee), if you pair it with a checking account, you can transfer your expected monthly need in one or two planned transfers to your checking account. Any other options that may result in a higher yield will either tie up your money for a set length of time, or expose you to risk of losing money. I wouldn't recommend gambling on short-term stock gains if you need the money during the off-season.


Do a share split.  Your initial 1 share each becomes 10 (or 100) shares each,  then you can sell/gift/etc shares as needed.


"Here's a formula;  I had to go over to SEMath, use their MathJax to compose the answer and then paste this screen shot. As a result, I can't fix a typo:  ""ST"" is the same as ""St"""


Very interesting. I would like to expand beyond just precious metals and stocks, but I am not ready just to jump in just yet (I am a relatively young investor, but have been playing around with stocks for 4 years on and off). The problem I often find is that the stock market is often too overvalued to play Ben Graham type strategy/ PE/B, so I would like to expand my knowledge of investing so I can invest in any market and still find value. After reading Jim Rogers, I was really interested in commodities as an alternative to stocks, but I like to play really conservative (generally). Thank you for your insight. If you don't mind, I would like to add you as a friend, since you seem quite above average in the strategy department.


Some people cannot get bank accounts because they have been seized by a creditor or they're illegal.   Some companies don't (or can't) deal with paper checks.  Giving them a prepaid debit card and auto depositing it to the card is sometimes simpler or cheaper.   Hell, when I was on unemployment the government tried to make me receive the funds on a debit card.  It was a major pain just to get the money sent to my bank account.


I agree with the advice given, but I'll add another angle from which to look at it. It sounds like you are already viewing the money used to either pay off the loan early or invest in the market as an investment, which is great. You are wise to think about opportunity cost, but like others pointed out, you are overlooking the risk factor. The way I would look at this is: I could take a guaranteed 6.4% return by paying off the loan or a possible 7% return by investing the money.  If the risk pays off modestly, all you've done is earned 0.6%, with a huge debt still hanging over you. Personally, I would take the guaranteed 6.4% return by paying off the debt, then invest in the stock market. Now this is looking at the investment as a single, atomic pool of money.  But you can split it up a bit.  Let's say the amount of extra disposable income you want to invest with is $1,000/mo.  Then you could pay an extra $500/mo to your student loan and invest the other $500 in  the stock market, or do a 400/600 split, or whatever suits your risk tolerance. You mentioned multiple loans and 6.4% is the highest loan.  What I would do, based on what I value personally, is put every extra penny into paying off the 6.4% loan because that is high.  Once that is done, if the next loan is 4% of less, then split my income between paying extra to it and investing in the market. Remember, with each loan you pay off, the monthly income that previously went to it is now available, and can be used for the next loan or the other goals.


"Brendan, The short answer is no, there is no need to get into any other funds. For all intents and purposes the S&P 500 is ""The Stock Market"". The news media may quote the Dow when the market reaches new highs or crashes but all of the Dow 30 stocks are included in the S&P 500.  The S&P is also marketcap weighted, which means that it owns in higher proportion the big ""Blue Chip"" stocks more than the smaller less known companies. To explain, the top 10 holdings in the S&P represent 18% of the total index, while the bottom 10 only represent 0.17% (less than 1 percent). They do have an equal weighted S&P in which all 500 companies represent only 1/500th of the index and that is technically even more diversified but in actuality it makes it more volatile because it has a higher concentration of those smaller less known companies. So it will tend to perform better during up markets and worse during down markets. As far as diversification into different asset classes or other countries, that's non-sense. The S&P 500 has companies in it that give you that exposure. For example, it includes companies that directly benefit from rising oil prices, rising gold prices, etc known as the Energy and Materials sector. It also includes companies that own malls, apartment complexes, etc. known as the Real Estate sector. And as far as other countries, most of the companies in the S&P are multi-national companies, meaning that they do business over seas in many parts of the world. Apple and FaceBook for example sell their products in many different countries. So you don't need to invest any of your money into an Emerging Market fund or an Asia Fund because most of our companies are already doing business in those parts of the world. Likewise, you don't need to specifically invest into a real estate or gold fund.  As far as bonds go, if you're in your twenties you have no need for them either. Why, because the S&P 500 also pays you dividends and these dividends grow over time. So for example, if Microsoft increases its dividend payment by 100% over a ten year period , all of the shares you buy today at a 2.5% yield will, in 10 years, have a higher 5% yield. A bond on the other hand will never increase its yield over time. If it pays out 4%, that's all it will ever pay. You want to invest because you want to grow your money and if you want to invest passively the fastest way to do that is through index ETFs like the $SPY, $IVV, and $RSP. Also look into the $XIV, it's an inverse VIX ETF, it moves 5x faster than the S&P in the same direction. If you want to actively trade your money, you can grow it even faster by getting into things like options, highly volatile penny stocks, shorting stocks, and futures. Don't get involved in FX or currency trading, unless it through futures."


I have managed two IRA accounts; one I inherited from my wife's 401K and my own's 457B.  I managed actively my wife's 401 at Tradestation which doesn't restrict on Options except level 5 as naked puts and calls. I moved half of my 457B funds to TDAmeritrade, the only broker authorized by my employer, to open a Self Directed account.  However, my 457 plan disallows me from using a Cash-secured Puts, only Covered Calls.  For those who does not know investing, I resent the contention that participants to these IRAs should not be messing around with their IRA funds.  For years, I left my 401k/457B funds with my current fund custodian, Great West Financial.  I checked it's current values once or twice a year. These last years, the market dived in the last 2 quarters of 2015 and another dive early January and February of 2016.  I lost a total of $40K leaving my portfolio with my current custodian choosing all 30 products they offer, 90% of them are ETFs and the rest are bonds. If you don't know investing, better leave it with the pros - right?  But no one can predict the future of the market.  Even the pros are at the mercy of the market. So, I you know how to invest and choose your stocks, I don't think your plan administrator has to limit you on how you manage your funds. For example, if you are not allowed to place a Cash-Secured Puts and you just Buy the stocks or EFT at market or even limit order, you buy the securities at their market value. If you sell a Cash-secured puts against the stocks/ETF you are interested in buying, you will receive a credit in fraction of a dollar in a specific time frame.  In average, your cost to owning a stock/ETF is lesser if you buy it at market or even a limit order.  Most of the participants of the IRA funds rely too much on their portfolio manager because they don't know how to manage. If you try to educate yourself at a minimum, you will have a good understanding of how your IRA funds are tied up to the market.  If you know how to trade in bear market compared to bull market, then you are good at managing your investments.  When I started contributing to my employer's deferred comp account (457B) as a public employee, I have no idea of how my portfolio works.  Year after year as I looked at my investment, I was happy because it continued to grow.  Without scrutinizing how much it grew yearly, and my regular payroll contribution, I am happy even it only grew 2% per year.  And at this age that I am ready to retire at 60, I started taking investment classes and attended pre-retirement seminars.  Then I knew that it was not totally a good decision to leave your retirement funds in the hands of the portfolio manager since they don't really care if it tanked out on some years as long at overall it grew to a meager 1%-4% because they managers are pretty conservative on picking the equities they invest.  You can generalize that maybe 90% of IRA investors don't know about investing and have poor decision making actions which securities/ETF to buy and hold. For those who would like to remain as one, that is fine.  But for those who spent time and money to study and know how to invest, I don't think the plan manager can limit the participants ability to manage their own portfolio especially if the funds have no matching from the employer like mine. All I can say to all who have IRA or any retirement accounts, educate yourself early because if you leave it all to your portfolio managers, you lost a lot.  Don't believe much in what those commercial fund managers also show in their presentation just to move your funds for them to manage.  Be proactive.  If you start learning how to invest now when you are young, JUST DO IT!