"Doing what you suggest may actually be helpful. Today, you have wealth of 145k and debt of 140k, for net wealth of 5k. Your interest incurred is $671/month and your interest earned is $211, for a total loss of $460/month, just below the 491 $/month you are saving, so your total saving is $31/month currently. However, even though in total, you have more money each month than the month before, you are getting more debt and thus more interest to pay each month. Your interest earned is increasing much slower. That $31/month you are currently able to save? By the time you hit 51, that has become $0/month and is still dropping. By 60? Your debt has overtaken your retirement savings - that $5 net worth you have now is gone. If you were to withdraw money from your retirement to pay off your debt (with the $32k penalties) you would have wealth of 70k and debt of 97k, for a net wealth of -27k (i.e. net debt). Obviously, the above is not good. However, you reduce your monthly interest paid to $465, while also reducing your interest earned to $102. This is a total loss of $365/month, so you are saving $126/month.  Note that in this case, your $491 monthly repayment is higher than the interest you have to pay on the account, this means that each month, your interest payment becomes lower, thus you pay off more and more each month. Your balance would be getting better each month (and at a faster rate each month. Your net wealth would be back in positives and above your wealth on your current trajectory before you hit 62. By 65, you will have $9000 of net wealth if you use your retirement savings now, as opposed to $9000 net debt if you don't. And just adding a few things on to the end 1) This is just the maths of it, and does not take into account your behaviour. If having that debt accruing is helping to motivate you to give up on luxuries, then this analysis does not apply. I am assuming that the $491/month is literally all you can save, and that no matter what changes, you will always deposit that $491. If you do not think you can continue to deposit that $491 if you stop seeing such high interest accruing, then do not do this. 2) I am assuming your interest earned on your IRA is 1.75%. If this is not the case, then please let me know, and I can adjust my numbers accordingly. From http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/01/28/obama-state-of-the-union-myra-savings-plan/4992743/ 3) I'm assuming all numbers you mentioned are accurate, and will stay constant (interest rates may not) 4) This is not professional, financial advice. I am just a person on the internet.  5) This goes without saying (and will probably go down as well as ""let them eat cake"" did), but saving more money each month will be a more powerful, risk free way to get out of this problem. Work a 2nd job, cut costs however you can. 6) Sorry if you were looking for something more motivational or sugar coated.  7) Best of luck, feel free to ask any questions. Graph below in red is your current trajectory, and blue is if you withdraw from your retirement to pay off your debt."


our mortgage has been sold to a secondary market player. There are multiple ways in which the deal is struck. At times the risk of default is with Original FI [with recourse], at times it is with secondary FI [without recourse]. The rate can be discounted. So the Original FI collects the EMI as per 3.75 and pays to the secondary FI at 3.25. Or it can also be one time fixed amount. How could this possibly be financially beneficial for the original loan holder? As indicated, there are multiple ways the Original FI makes money, either one time or over the period, depending on how the deal is struck. Are they truly making enough money from the mortgage fees and first payment's interest to to warrant their need to clear up their credit line for new mortgages?   Are mortgages always sold for less than the remaining principal? No broadly speaking the mortgage fees cover the cost for initiating the loan. There may be a very small amount banks may make. This is incidental. The actual money is made in the interest that is collected every month. If a Bank as say 5 loans for 100K each. It is very reputed brand and 10 people need 100K loans. Then it makes sense for the First FI to give loan to 5 people for 100K each, and sell this at profit to secondary FI. Take the 100K * 5 and give it off to new 5 people. Effectively making more money on the original 500K the bank had.


Say I am an employee of Facebook and I will be able to sell stares at enough of a profit to pay of my mortgage and have enough money left to cover my living costs for many years. I also believe that there is a 95% chance that the stock price will go up in the next few years. Do I take a 5% risk, when I can transform my life without taking any risk?   (The USA tax system as explained by JoeTaxpayer increases the risk.)  So you have a person being very logical and selling stocks that they believe will go up in value by more than any other investment they could have.   It is called risk control. (Lot of people will know the above; therefore some people will delay buying stock until Lock Up expiration day hoping the price will be lower on that day.   So the price may not go down.)


For example: Dinner together: DR Food          50 DR Spouse        50 CR Credit Card       100


"Selling an asset is not earning income. You are basically moving value from one asset (the laptop) to another (your bank account.) So you reduce the equity that is ""value of all my electronics"" and you increase the asset that is your bank account. In your case, you never entered the laptop in some category called ""value of all my electronics"" so you don't have that to make a double-entry against. The temptation is high to call it income as a result. Depending on the reason for all this double-entry book-keeping for personal finances, that may be fine. Or, you can create a category for balancing and use that, and realize the (negative) value of that account doesn't mean much."


In most cases the rent paid by the company would be include as part of your salary for tax purposes, so your income would still be seen as $5000 per month.


"Ya it's not really young ""modern"" people buying these houses. I personally believe it's immigrant students, who use their parents money (as a sort of bypass), or just younger people who have rich parents, or get help from their parents. A lot of older people are still buying houses as well. It's quite a stupid landscape, from an economic perspective it's very inefficient, but that's not an issue that directly effects me, or that can easily be fixed. The cheapest you can find a ""decent"" house that I know, is about 2-3 hours north of the city, for around 500k. It's just a different lifestyle; you wouldn't be commuting downtown anyway, but it depends on the person and the job"


"This answer is about the USA. Each time you sell a security (a stock or a bond) or some other asset, you are expected to pay tax on the net gain. It doesn't matter whether you use a broker or mutual fund to make the sale. You still owe the tax. Net capital gain is defined this way: Gross sale prices less (broker fees for selling + cost of buying the asset) The cost of buying the asset is called the ""basis price.""  You, or your broker, needs to keep track of the basis price for each share. This is easy when you're just getting started investing. It stays easy if you're careful about your record keeping.  You owe the capital gains tax whenever you sell an asset, whether or not you reinvest the proceeds in something else. If your capital gains are modest, you can pay all the taxes at the end of the year. If they are larger -- for example if they exceed your wage earnings -- you should pay quarterly estimated tax. The tax authorities ding you for a penalty if you wait to pay five- or six-figure tax bills without paying quarterly estimates.  You pay NET capital gains tax. If one asset loses money and another makes money, you pay on your gains minus your losses. If you have more losses than gains in a particular year, you can carry forward up to $3,000 (I think). You can't carry forward tens of thousands in capital losses.  Long term and short term gains are treated separately. IRS Schedule B has places to plug in all those numbers, and the tax programs (Turbo etc) do too. Dividend payments are also taxable when they are paid. Those aren't capital gains. They go on Schedule D along with interest payments. The same is true for a mutual fund. If the fund has Ford shares in it, and Ford pays $0.70 per share in March, that's a dividend payment. If the fund managers decide to sell Ford and buy Tesla in June,  the selling of Ford shares will be a cap-gains taxable event for you.  The good news: the mutual fund managers send you a statement sometime in February or March of each year telling what you should put on your tax forms.  This is great. They add it all up for you. They give you a nice consolidated tax statement covering everything: dividends, their buying and selling activity on your behalf, and any selling they did when you withdrew money from the fund for any purpose.   Some investment accounts like 401(k) accounts are tax free. You don't pay any tax on those accounts -- capital gains, dividends, interest -- until you withdraw the money to live on after you retire. Then that money is taxed as if it were wage income. If you want an easy and fairly reliable way to invest, and don't want to do a lot of tax-form scrambling, choose a couple of different mutual funds, put money into them, and leave it there. They'll send you consolidated tax statements once a year. Download them into your tax program and you're done. You mentioned ""riding out bad times in cash.""  No, no, NOT a good idea. That investment strategy almost guarantees you will sell when the market is going down and buy when it's going up. That's ""sell low, buy high."" It's a loser. Not even Warren Buffett can call the top of the market and the bottom.  Ned Johnson (Fidelity's founder) DEFINITELY can't."


In real estate,loan consolidation essentially means taking out a large loan on one property from the proceeds of which you pay off all the other mortgages. Unless you are able (or willing) to reveal how much more you can borrow against your home or the third property (who has the remaining interest in the third property, and would they be willing to mortgage the property?) there is no way of discussing how much you might be able to borrow and against what.


There are two totally different things: There is your limited company, and there is yourself.  Your limited company will absolutely have to pay 20% corporation tax on all its profits. The profits are the income of the limited company (you say it's £5,000 a year) minus all expenses. Usually you would pay yourself a salary, which immediately reduces your profits. And of course the payment to the accountant will reduce the profits.  If the limited company is your only source of income, the usual method is to pay yourself £10,600 salary a year, possible pay money into a pension for yourself which is tax free and reduces the company's profits, pay 20% corporation on the rest, and pay yourself a dividend twice a year. Unless you have another job where you make a lot of money, you should have paid all that money to yourself as income and paid zero corporation tax.  And may I say that if you made £5,000 a year, then there is most likely not enough going on to justify that an accountant charges you £600. You should be able to find someone doing it cheaper; I cannot imagine that he or she had to do a lot of work for this.


> mostly-passive funds consisting of a sufficiently diverse array of holdings with historically* low volatility  > 3.Market it with excessive jargon to impress laymen   A quantitative-based global strategy with a wide coverage of asset classes that exhibit returns robustness and high inverted-alpha*. Uses the cutting edge of artificial intelligence to synthetically replicate index portfolios that maximizes benchmark correlation.   ^^*Defined ^^as ^^1/alpha, ^^as ^^alpha ^^-> ^^0 ^^then ^^inverted ^^alpha ^^-> ^^infinity.


"Has anyone done this before? I'm sure someone has, but it doesn't completely remove any price risk.   Suppose you buy it at 10 and it drops to 5? Then you've lost 5 on the stock and have no realized gain on the option (although you could buy back the option cheaply and exist the position). To completely remove price risk you have to delta hedge.  At ATM option generally has a delta of 50%, meaning that the value of the option changes 0.50 for every $1 change in the stock. The downside to delta hedging is you can spend a lot on transaction fees and employ a lot of ""buy high, sell low"" transactions with a highly volatile stock."


You have to call Interactive Brokers for this. This is what you should do, they might even have a web chat. These are very broker specific idiosyncrasies, because although margin rules are standardized to an extent, when they start charging you for interest and giving you margin until settlement may not be standardized. I mean, I can call them and tell you what they said for the 100 rep.


You can find the details in the IRS instructions for the form 5405. Summary - you have to repay the credit if you move, even if it is because you were laid off. However, if you sell the house, the repayment is limited by your gains. If you sell at a loss - you don't need to repay. Also, if you die, you don't have to repay, don't know if it helps.


no offense, but clicking through to that guys blog and fund page he seems like a charlatan and a snake oil salesman. It's not surprising that he doesn't like asset manager software because he himself is an asset manager. the software is trying to replace him.  He doesn't make money by beating the market... he makes money by convincing others that he can... he is exactly the type of person that the original article is warning against investing with.


what's unrealistic? applying a DCF model to the two possible options?  i didn't claim my description of the situation was comprehensive, didn't ask for input as to whether or not i was considering all possible factors.   why couldn't i use a DCF for a personal choice? any why would i use a RFR if the undertaking requires a risk premium? (or at least doesn't have the same risk level)


I don't know of any financial account that offers that kind of protection. I'm going to echo @Brick and say that if you need that level of restrictions on the money, you should talk to a lawyer. Your only option may be to setup a trust. If you are willing to go with a lower level of restrictions on the account, a 529 plan could do the job. A 529 Plan is an education savings plan operated by a state or educational institution designed to help families set aside funds for future college costs. It will be in your daughters name, and has the benefit of being tax advantaged, unless its used for non educational expenses. Since your daughter is a minor, there would have to be a custodian for the account that manages it on her behalf. The penalty for using it for non educational expenses might suffice to keep the custodian from draining the account, and I believe the custodian has a fiduciary duty to the account holder, which would open them up to lawsuits if the custodian did act in a way that was detrimental to your child.


"The American ""Security Exchange  Commission"" has imposed a rule upon all stock trading accounts. This rule is ""Regulation-T"". This rule specifies that stock trading accounts must be permitted three days after the termination of a trade to settle the account. This is just fancy lingo to justify the guarantee that the funds are either transferred out of your account to another persons  (the person that made money), or the money flows into your account.  A ""Day Trader's"" account avoids the hassle because you're borrowing money from your broker to trade with and circumvent Reg-T.  It's technically not how long you hold the trade that determines if you're a day trader, or not. It's your accounts liquidity and your credit worthiness."


You bet if it was so simple. This is when financial acumen comes into its true form. The bank would never ever want to go insolvent. What it does is, take insurance against the borrower defaulting.  Remember the financial crisis of 2008 which was the outcome of borrowers defaulting. The banks had created derivatives based on the loans distributed. CDO, CDS are some of the simple derivatives banks sell to cover their backs in case of defaults. There are derivatives using these derivatives as underlyings which they then sold it across to other buyers including other banks. Google for Fabrice Tourre and you would realise how much deep the banks go to save themselves from defaulters. If everything fails then go to the government for help. That was what happened when the US government doled out $600 billion to save the financial sector.


"Allen, welcome to Money.SE. You've stumbled into the issue of Debt Snowball, which is the ""low balance"" method of paying off debt. The other being ""high interest."" I absolutely agree that when one has a pile of cards, say a dozen, there is a psychological benefit to paying off the low balances and knocking off card after card. I am not dismissive of that motivation. Personal Finance has that first word, personal, and one size rarely fits all. For those who are numbers-oriented, it's worth doing the math, a simple spreadsheet showing the cost of the DS vs paying by rate.  If that cost is even a couple hundred dollars, I'll still concede that one less payment, envelope, stamp, etc, favors the DS method. On the other hand, there's the debt so large that the best payoff is 2 or 3 years away. During that time, $10000 paid toward the 24% card is saving you $2400/yr vs the $500 if paid toward 5% debt. Hard core DSers don't even want to discuss the numbers, strangely enough.  In your case, you don't have a pile of anything. The mortgage isn't even up for discussion. You have just 2 car loans. Send the $11,000 to the $19K loan carrying the 2.5%. This will save you $500 over the next 2 years vs paying the zero loan down. Once you've done that, the remaining $8000 will become your lowest balance, and you should flip to the Debt Snowball method, which will keep you paying that debt off.  DS is a tool that should be pulled out for the masses, the radio audience that The David (Dave Ramsey, radio show host) appeals to. They may comprise the majority of those with high credit card debt, and have greatest success using this method. But, you exhibit none of their symptoms, and are best served by the math. By bringing up the topic here, you've found yourself in the same situation as the guy who happens to order a white wine at a wedding, and finds his Mormon cousin offering to take him to an AA meeting the next day.  In past articles on this decision, I've referenced a spreadsheet one can download. It offers an easy way to see your choice without writing your own excel doc. For the situation described here, the low balance total interest is $546 vs $192 for the higher interest. Not quite the $500 difference I estimated. The $350 difference is low due to the small rate difference and relatively short payoffs. In my opinion, knowledge is power, and you can decide either way. What's important is that if you pay off the zero interest first, you can say ""I knew it was a $350 difference, but I'd rather have just one outstanding loan for the remain time."" My issue with DS is when it's preached like a religion, and followers are told to not even run the numbers. I wrote an article, Thinking about Dave Ramsey a number of years back, but the topic never gets old."


"The ""price"" is the price of the last transaction that actually took place. According to Motley Fool wiki: A stock price is determined by what was last paid for it. During market hours (usually weekdays from 9:30AM-4:00PM eastern), a heavily traded issue will see its price change several times per second. A stock's price is, for many purposes, considered unchanged outside of market hours. Roughly speaking, a transaction is executed when an offer to buy matches an offer to sell. These offers are listed in the Order Book for a stock (Example: GOOG at Yahoo Finance).  This is actively updated during trading hours. This lists all the currently active buy (""bid"") and sell (""ask"") orders for a stock, and looks like this:  You'll notice that the stock price (again, the last sale price) will (usually*) be between the highest bid and the lowest ask price. * Exception: When all the buy or sell prices have moved down or up, but no trades have executed yet."


Unless you started a bank or other kind of a financial institution (brokerage, merchant processor, etc etc), the page you linked to is irrelevant. That said, there's enough in the US tax code for you to reconsider your decision of not living in the US, or at least of being a shareholder of a foreign company. Your compliance costs are going to go through the roof. If you haven't broken any US tax laws yet (which is very unlikely), you may renounce your citizenship and save yourself a lot of money and trouble. But in the more likely case of you already being a criminal with regards the US tax law, you should probably get a proper tax advice from a US-licensed CPA/EA who's also proficient in the Japanese-American tax treaty and expats' compliance issues resolution.


When your options vest, you will have the option to buy your company's stock at a particular price (the strike price). A big part of the value of the option is the difference between the price that your company's stock is trading at, and the strike price of the option. If the price of the company stock in the market is lower than the strike price of the option, they are almost worthless.  I say 'almost' because there is still the possibility that the stock price could go up before the options expire. If your company is big enough that their stock is not only listed on an exchange, but there is an active options market in your company's stock, you could get a feel for what they are worth by seeing what the market is willing to buy or sell similar exchange listed options. Once the options have vested, you now have the right to purchase your company's stock at the specified strike price until the options expire.  When you use that right, you are exercising the option.  You don't have to do that until you think it is worthwhile buying company stock at that price. If the company pays a dividend, it would probably be worth exercising the options sooner, (options don't receive a dividend).  Ultimately you are buying your company's stock (albeit at a discount).  You need to see if your company's stock is still a good investment. If you think your company has growth prospects, you might want to hold onto the stock.  If you think you'd be better off putting your money elsewhere in the market, sell the stock you acquired at a discount and use the money to invest in something else. If there are any additional benefits to holding on to the stock for a period of time (e.g. selling part to fit within your capital gain allowance for that year) you should factor that into your investment decision, but it shouldn't force you to invest in, or remain invested in something you would otherwise view as too risky to invest in. A reminder of that fact is that some employees of Enron invested their entire retirement plans into Enron stock, so when Enron went bankrupt, these employees not only lost their job but their savings for retirement as well...


When you buy a futures contract you are entering into an agreement to buy gold, in the future (usually a 3 month settlement date).  this is not an OPTION, but a contract, so each party is taking risk, the seller that the price will rise, the buyer that the price will fall.  Unlike an option which you can simply choose not to exercise if the price goes down, with futures you are obligated to follow through. (or sell the contract to someone else, or buy it back)  The price you pay depends on the margin, which is related to how far away the settlement date is, but you can expect around 5% , so the minimum you could get into is 100 troy ounces, at todays price, times 5%.  Since we're talking about 100 troy ounces, that means the margin required to buy the smallest sized future contract would be about the same as buying 5 ounces of gold.  roughly $9K at current prices. If you are working through a broker they will generally require you to sell or buy back the contract before the settlement date as they don't want to deal with actually following through on the purchase and having to take delivery of the gold.  How much do you make or lose? Lets deal with a smaller change in the price, to be a bit more realistic since we are talking typically about a settlement date that is 3 months out. And to make the math easy lets bump the price of gold to $2000/ounce.  That means the price of a futures contract is going to be $10K   Lets say the price goes up 10%,  Well you have basically a 20:1 leverage since you only paid 5%, so you stand to gain $20,000. Sounds great right?  WRONG.. because as good as the upside is, the downside is just as bad.  If the price went down 10% you would be down $20000, which means you would not only have to cough up the 10K you committed but you would be expected to 'top up the margin' and throw in  ANOTHER $10,000 as well.  And if you can't pay that up your broker might close out your position for you. oh and if the price hasn't changed, you are mostly just out the fees and commissions you paid to buy and sell the contract.  With futures contracts you can lose MORE than your original investment.  NOT for the faint of heart or the casual investor.  NOT for folks without large reserves who can afford to take big losses if things go against them.  I'll close this answer with a quote from the site I'm linking below The large majority of people who trade futures lose their money.   That's a fact. They lose even when they are right in the medium term,   because futures are fatal to your wealth on an unpredicted and   temporary price blip. Now consider that, especially the bit about 'price blip' and then look at the current volatility of most markets right now, and I think you can see how futures trading can be as they say 'Fatal to your Wealth' (man, I love that phrase, what a great way of putting it)  This Site has a pretty decent primer on the whole thing. their view is perhaps a bit biased due to the nature of their business, but on the whole their description of how things work is pretty decent.  Investopedia has a more detailed (and perhaps more objective) tutorial on the futures thing.  Well worth your time if you think you want to do anything related to the futures market.


If you will be there 5-6 years it could be viable. Here are some of the cost considerations: There may be some more fees, but that should be the bulk of it - You'll have to do the math on all of the above and see which makes sense :)


> I'm certain there is a very strong relationship between the amounts written on the checks and the worth of that product or service to the person with the pen.  Counterexample:   Let's say you are a professional horse gambler with winning strategy (let's say you can predict horses better than anyone!) playing against other players on the betting exchange. The person on the other end will always end up paying you and gets nothing.


While tax deferral is a nice feature, the 401k is not the Holy Grail.  I've seen plenty of 401k's where the investment options are horrible: sub-par performance, high fees, limited options.   That's great that you've maxed out your Roth IRA.  I commend you for that.   As long as the investment options in your 401k are good, then I would stick with it.


The other answers are good, but not UK-specific. You need to look for an Independent Financial Advisor (IFA). These are regulated by the FCA and you pay them a time-based fee for their services, they do not take commission on the products they recommend to you.  The Government Money Advice Service page (hat tip to @AndyT in the comments on the question for the link) tells you how to go about finding one of these and what sort of questions to ask. Contrary to the note in the answer by @Harper, in the UK many IFAs do have perfectly nice offices, this is not a sign that should put you off.  Personal recommendations for IFAs are usually the best way to go but failing that there are directories of them and many will have an initial conversation with you for free to ensure you are aligned with each other.


Not clear what you're asking.  Are you trying to figure out their SIC/NAISC classification?  That tells you the business category they fall into, but there's no simple, instant way to find that out.  Much also depends on how the credit card issuer has classified them and how they arrived at that information. They may have a different means of classifying merchants, so you might try to call your bank and ask them, if they're able/willing to tell you.  That'll give you a starting point to figure it out, anyway.


Damn. I just looked to confirm. Without reinvestment (but just holding dividends), looks like the return through 2013 is 0 and then there have been decent returns since 2013, but holy shit, it does not look good at all. All of that not adjusted for inflation.  I wonder how much of that shitty performance can be reasonably classified as 'necessary' due to the spin-off of GE Capital, which generated a lot of the profit for GE but really was a huge problem for them when liquidity became scarce in 2008.


"Yes, the annual contribution ""limits"" are effectively higher for Roth accounts than for the corresponding Traditional account, if that is what you are referring to, since the ""nominal"" limit is the same, but for Roth it's after-tax money, while for Traditional it's pre-tax money, which is equivalent to a lesser amount of after-tax money."


It is important to consider your overall financial goals (especially in the 3-5 year range). If you have another financial goal which cannot be met without that additional money then meeting that financial goal might take priority over what I am about to say. Your mortgage rate is another important factor to consider when answering this question. Extra mortgage payments are equivalent to investing that money in a VERY low risk investment with an equivalent yield of the mortgage rate because you will be paying that much less per year in interest. (Actually, when you consider that mortgage interest is often tax-deductible the equivalent yield should be reduced by your income tax rate.) Typically it is not possible to find such a low risk investment with a yield as high as your mortgage rate. For example current mortgage rates are over twice as high as the yield of a one year CD.  Also keep in mind that additional mortgage payments help you build equity. This equity will most likely be applied to your next home purchase. If so their effect will be in place throughout the life of your next mortgage too.


I have abused 0% interest programs time and time again, but only because my wife and I are assiduous about paying our bills on time. We've mostly taken advantage of it with bigger purchases that we've done through Lowe's or Home Depot (eg - washing machines, carpeting, stove, fridge), but its been well worth it.  There are two rules that we set for ourselves whenever we do a 0% interest program -- 1) We have the money already in savings so that we can easily pay it off at any time 2) We agree to pay our monthly bill on time There's nothing quite like using another person's money to buy your things, while keeping your money to gain interest in a savings account.


This is a present value calculation, which excel or any financial calculator can handle.  N = 300 (months) %i = 5/12 or .05/12 depending on the program/calculator PMT = $5000 (the monthly payment) FV = 0 (you want to end at zero balance) This calculates a PV (present value of $855,300)  Chad had it right, but used a calculator that didn't offer the PV function, so he guessed and changed numbers til the answer was clear. user379 makes a good point, but why start inflation calculations at 65, and not now? You look like you're in your 30's, so there's 30 years of inflation, and $60K/yr in today's value will need to be closer to $150K/yr, given about 30 years of 3% inflation.


"A few ideas. I suggest it would wise to consider what lesson is learned as a result of any resolution of a financial issue. Is it a lesson of responsibility and of the importance of keeping one's word, or of getting away with whatever happens (poorly planned business) with no adverse consequences. ""No"" consequences (e.g. forgiven loan) is also a consequence, and it sends a message. Sounds like paying the loan from your savings automatically means it's deducted from inheritance, since the savings are part of that inheritance. This may seem like a square deal if we ignore inflation. Assuming Today the $54K is worth much more than, unless it is adjusted for inflation, the same $54K will be worth (i.e. will allow to buy) a few decades from now, when the inheritance materializes.  So this option means your son is foregoing a significantly smaller financial loss in the future in exchange for foregoing his debt completely today. This is like borrowing $54K from a bank now, and only having to forego the same amount decades in the future when it is in fact worth much less. What borrower would not be happy with such arrangement, and what lender would do it? Only one's own loving parents :) You are in charge of what life lessons your son will walk away with from this situation. Good luck!"


I've been a landlord and also a tenant. I have been able to deposit money in an account, where I have the account number, and/or a deposit slip. In a foreign bank you can deposit by a machine if in the bank or someone is there for you and knows the account number. With regards to cashing a check in another country, it is up to the bank and the time is at least 14 to 21 business days, with a fee is added. As of a winning check, since its in your name, if you are in another country sign the check, for deposit only with a deposit slip and send it to your out of country bank by FedEx - you will have a tracking number, where as regular mail it might get there in 3 months. I hope by now you came to your solution.


Bollinger Bands are placed standard deviations away from the moving average. Therefore if the price is volatile, the bands diverge from the mean. During consolidation the bands would converge. They do not provide a clear indication of whether the price is trending or not.


"Neither. Why would you have to classify startups as value or growth?  A startup is its own category.  You can find startups at ""classic"" valuations (price/book...  Etc) that would make investors' eyes water...   But that happens because many startups are early stage and so revenue or book value or other classic valuations don't quite suit."


Just read that citi is planning to return 132% of their expected earnings to shareholders over the next year in the WSJ. How does a bank return more to its shareholders than what it makes? Also banks requesting payouts in these stress tests of 100% of expected future earnings.   Am I missing something? Doesnt make much sense to me.   Hope someone sees this thanks.


But how long to hold is the question...how long did this assumed manipulation go on for last time?  Edit: a quick half assed check on investopedia showed that it went up for around a month from its lowest point and it's high hit on feburary 6-8th 2017. So will it stay at this point again and gradually repeat February's numbers...or sell and walk away with what it netted me.


Look through the related questions.  Make sure you fund the max your tax advantaged retirement funds will take this year.  Use the 30k to backstop any shortfalls.  Invest the rest in a brokerage account. In and out of your tax advantaged accounts, try to invest in index funds.  Your feeling that paying someone to manage your investments might not be the best use is shared by many.  jlcollinsnh is a financial independence blogger.  He, and many others, recommend the Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Admiral Shares.  I have not heard of a lower expense ratio (0.05%). Search for financial independence and FIRE (Financial Independence Retire Early).  Use your windfall to set yourself on that road, and you will be less likely to sit where I am 25 years from now wishing you had done things differently. Edit:  Your attitude should be that the earliest money in your portfolio is in there the longest, and earns the most.  Starting with a big windfall puts you years ahead of where you'd normally be.  If you set your goal to retire at 40, that money will be worth significantly more in 20 years. (4x what you start with, assuming 7% average yearly return).


You realise a capital gain as soon as you sell the stock. At that point, you will have to pay taxes on the profits when you fill in your tax return. The fact that you used the money to subsequently purchase other stocks is not relevant, unless you sell those stocks within the same tax year. For example, purchase $5000 of stock A in 2010. Sell for $6000 in 2010. Purchase $6000 of stock B in 2010. Sell stock B for $6500 in 2010. Purchase $6500 of stock C in 2010. Sell stock C for $7000 in 2011. You owe capital gains on ($6000 - $5000) + ($6500 - $6000) = $1500 for tax year 2010. You owe capital gains on ($7000 - $6500) = $500 for 2011.


Wish I could upvote this more than once. I built my company on my integrity and customer service. I have had numerous referrals through a few key elements such as * Showing up to every job ON TIME. you have no idea how much people appreciate it when you say you will be there at 1PM and show up at 12:56PM. * Breaking down what I am doing for the customer so they get a feel for what they are paying for (if they show interest, that is) * Eye contact, body language, and any other way you can exude honesty makes a world of a difference. I happen to be somewhat charming which assists me here, but anyone can do it.  I think these points have allow my business to grow faster than expected, and I am in a similar industry (electrical).


"Remember that in most news outlets journalists do not get to pick the titles of their articles.  That's up to the editor.  So even though the article was primarily about ETFs, the reporter made the mistake of including some tangential references to mutual funds.  The editor then saw that the article talked about ETFs and mutual funds and -- knowing even less about the subject matter than the reporter, but recognizing that more readers' eyeballs would be attracted to a headline about mutual funds than to a headline about ETFs -- went with the ""shocking"" headline about the former. In any case, as you already pointed out, ETFs need to know their value throughout the day, as do the investors in that ETF.  Even momentary outages of price sources can be disastrous. Although mutual funds do not generally make transactions throughout the day, and fund investors are not typically interested in the fund's NAV more than once per day, the fund managers don't just sit around all day doing nothing and then press a couple buttons before the market closes.  They do watch their NAV very closely during the day and think very carefully about which buttons to press at the end of the day.  If their source of stock price data goes offline, then they're impacted almost as severely as -- if less visibly than -- an ETF. Asking Yahoo for prices seems straightforward, but (1) you get what you pay for, and (2) these fund companies are built on massive automated infrastructures that expect to receive their data from a certain source in a certain way at a certain time.  (And they pay a lot of money in order to be able to expect that.)  It would be quite difficult to just feed in manual data, although in the end I suspect some of these companies did just that.  Either they fell back to a secondary data supplier, or they manually constructed datasets for their programs to consume."


As an expansion on the correct answer: Consider a really boring economy.  Nothing changes;  wages and prices stay constant for years at a time.  Every month the Consumer Price Index stays at 0%.   Then, something catastrophic happens, say on July 31, 2000. A cheap local source for a vital resource runs out, and it must be obtained from a higher cost source.  Floods cut internal road networks, resulting in higher transportation costs.  Whatever.  The new situation is permanent. As a result, the next month, August, 2000, prices go up 5%.  That is, 5% higher than the previous month, July, 2000, and 5% higher than a year previously, August 1999. There is a lot of consternation, and politicians each promise that they and only they can wrestle inflation to the ground. But, when the figures for September, 2000 come out, inflation stays the same.  Prices are the same as in August, 2000, and 5% higher than in September, 1999. This goes on for months.  Nothing changes, prices stay the same, and the inflation rate, year over year, stays at 5%. Finally, the figures for August, 2001 come out.  Wonder of wonders;  prices are the same as in August, 2000, and inflation drops to zero.   And the politicians all take the credit. Short version: inflation year over year changes either because of what in now included in the month just past, or what is now excluded from a year ago.


"The US withholding tax applies to stocks/ETFs purchased on the NYSE and other US-based exchanges. If you buy Cenovus on the TSE then you will not be charged this tax.  Your last sentence seems like you might be misunderstanding this tax though. If the tax applied, it would not cost you 15% on all your profits, it only applies to dividend yields. So if it pays you a 5% dividend, the tax costs you 0.75%. However, if you buy at $21.19 and sell at $26, then your capital gain is not subject to withholding taxes. It is however, subject to Canadian income tax (at 50% of the gain amount) when it's not sheltered in a TFSA or other registered account. The tax on the gains could easily amount to 16% of your profits, which is a much more significant cost. Therefore, having to pay a 0.75% withholding cost certainly does not ""defeat the purpose of the TFSA"" which is to shelter from Canadian income tax!"


I think the key to intrinsic value is that if you have something with *intrinsic* value, you can derive some direct benefit from it without trading.  For example a house has intrinsic value because without trading it, you can use it to stay warm and dry, and use it to store your stuff. Money - whether it's federal currency or bitcoin - has a very low intrinsic value. What can you do with cash without trading it? Maybe make some paper art or patch a leaking boat, but a $20 bill has very little practical (intrinsic) value until you trade it for goods or services. The same with bitcoin - you can't play it like a video game or drink it if you're thirsty, all you can do is trade it for things that you can use directly.


assuming that a couple big players are making the majority of money in the stock market (which is true), it is logical to assume that most smaller players are losing.   For example, if one big hedge fund makes 20% a year,  it means either 20 funds lost 1%, or 5 funds lost 4%, and etc.   Assuming that the economy is not drastically getting much better, stocks are a zero sum game. Therefore, the couple of funds with the most resources will be taking from the people that aren't as advanced or taking a chance.


"Played ""the balance transfer game"" once recently, just as a reference - Got a balance transfer offer for a sock drawer no-AF card. 2% up-front fee, 0% APR. Grace period was, by the time I acted on it, about 16 months. Used it to pay down an auto loan with an APR slightly higher than 2%, and brought my equity back to positive. Towards the end when I rolled over the auto loan, thanks to the positive equity I was offered a rate discount on the new loan. Essentially this was a piggyback loan on the original auto loan funded by credit card (via balance transfer). Saved some interest charges without having to refinance."


"The fed does charge interest. Like you said, they do give profits to the treasury each year, but not all of their profits are sent back. They also pay dividends to the banks that hold stock in the Fed (I think it is like 7%).  But  yeah, since the fed does pay the rest back to the Treasury any interest it pays is basically moot.  >If you don't already know, this is the modern version of ""printing money"".  This is the larger concern. If they are just buying bonds to implement monetary policy that is one thing. However, if they are financing the government debt because foreign investors are strapped for cash or don't want it, that is a bigger problem. I haven't been following closely enough to know if that is an issue here, but it seems treasury bills are in high demand at the moment so I don't think the fed is actually ""financing"" our budget, just keeping rates low (which does create problems but that's a different conversation)."


I'm specifically talking about QE and printing excessive money to pay off government liabilities. But yeah true. It amazes me how stupid people are in general to not realize this is happening. This is literally the (biggest) reason wages in america are depressed. They're not 'depressed', their real value is tiny.


The benefit of a dividend reinvestment program is you, generally, don't pay transaction costs or commissions and you don't have to remember to do it.  Whether or not you may be able to eek out a little more by managing this yourself is a crapshoot and the equivalent of timing the market.   If you're so good at timing the market you shouldn't even be holding the stock, you should be buying and selling as the price fluctuates.


If you are calculating: keep in mind that company A probably also sells washers, dryers, stoves, dish washers.... Each of which has their own market size. Also remember that people pay X times the value of earnings per share, so the value depends not on sales but on earnings, and expected growth.


"While @JB's ""yes"" is correct, a few more points to consider: There is no tax penalty for withdrawing any time from a taxable investment, that is, one not using specific tax protections like 401k/IRA or ESA or HSA. But you do pay tax on any income or gain distributions you receive from a taxable investment in a fund (except interest on tax-exempt aka ""municipal"" bonds),  and any net capital gains you realize when selling (or technically redeeming for non-ETF funds). Just like you do for dividends and interest and gains on non-fund taxable investments. Many funds have a sales charge or ""load"" which means you will very likely lose money if you sell quickly typically within at least several months and usually a year or more, and even some no-load funds, to discourage rapid trading that makes their management more difficult (and costly), have a ""contingent sales charge"" if you sell after less than a stated period like 3 months or 6 months.  For funds that largely or entirely invest in equities or longer term bonds, the share value/price is practically certain to fluctuate up and down, and if you sell during a ""down"" period you will lose money; if ""liquid"" means you want to take out money anytime without waiting for the market to move, you might want funds focussing on short-term bonds, especially government bonds, and ""money market"" funds which hold only very short bonds (usually duration under 90 days), which have much more stable prices (but lower returns over the longer term)."


I like C. Ross and MrChrister's advice to not be heavily weighted in one stock over the long run, especially the stock of your employer.  I'll add this: One thing you really ought to find out – and this is where your tax advisor is likely able to help – is whether your company's stock options plan use qualified incentive stock options (ISO) or non-qualified stock options (NQO or NSO).  See Wikipedia - Incentive stock option for details. From my understanding, only if your plan is a qualified (or statutory) ISO and you hold the shares for at least 1 year of the date of exercise and 2 years from the date of the option grant could your gain be considered a long-term capital gain. As opposed to: if your options are non-qualified, then your gain may be considered ordinary income no matter how long you wait – in which case there's no tax benefit to waiting to cash out. In terms of hedging the risk if you do choose to hold long, here are some ideas: Sell just enough stock at exercise (i.e. taking some tax hit up front) to at least recover your principal, so your original money is no longer at risk, or If your company has publicly listed options – which is unlikely, if they are very small – then you could purchase put options to insure against losses in your stock.  Try a symbol lookup at the CBOE. Note: Hedging with put options is an advanced strategy and I suggest you learn more and seek advice from a pro if you want to consider this route.  You'll also need to find out if there are restrictions on trading your employer's public stock or options – many companies have restrictions or black-out periods on employee trading, especially for people who have inside knowledge.


"Should is a very ""strong"" word. You do what makes most sense to you. Should I be making a single account for Person and crediting / debiting that account? You can do that. Should I be creating a loan for Person? And if so, would I make a new   loan each month or would I keep all of the loans in one account? You can create a loan account (your asset), you don't need to create a new account every time - just change the balance of the existing one. That's essentially the implementation of the first way (""making a single account for a Person""). How do I show the money moving from my checking account to Company and   then to Person's loan? You make the payment to Company from your Checking, and you adjust the loan amount to Person from Equity for the same amount. When the Person pays - you clear the loan balance and adjust the Checking balance accordingly. This keeps your balance intact for the whole time (i.e.: your total balance sheet doesn't change, money moves from line to line internally but the totals remain the same). This is the proper trail you're looking for. How do I (or should I even) show the money being reimbursed from the   expense? You shouldn't. Company is your expense. Payment by the Person is your income. They net out to zero (unless you charge interest). Do I debit the expense at any point? Of course. Company is your expense account. Should I not concern myself with the source of a loan / repayment and   instead just increase the size of the loan? Yes. See above."


"There are some good answers about the benefits of diversification, but I'm going to go into what is going on mathematically with what you are attempting. I was always under the assumption that as long as two securities are less than perfectly correlated (i.e. 1), that the standard deviation/risk would be less than if I had put 100% into either of the securities. While there does exist a minimum variance portfolio that is a combination of the two with lower vol than 100% of either individually, this portfolio is not necessarily the portfolio with highest utility under your metric.  Your metric includes returns not just volatility/variance so the different returns bias the result away from the min-vol portfolio. Using the utility function: E[x] - .5*A*sig^2 results in the highest utility of 100% VTSAX. So here the Sharpe ratio (risk adjusted return) of the U.S. portfolio is so much higher than the international portfolio over the period tracked that the loss of returns from adding more international stocks outweigh the lower risk that you would get from both just adding the lower vol international stocks and the diversification effects from having a correlation less than one. The key point in the above is ""over the period tracked"".  When you do this type of analysis you implicitly assume that the returns/risk observed in the past will be similar to the returns/risk in the future.   Certainly, if you had invested 100% in the U.S. recently you would have done better than investing in a mix of US/Intl.  However, while the risk and correlations of assets can be (somewhat) stable over time relative returns can vary wildly! This uncertainty of future returns is why most people use a diversified portfolio of assets.  What is the exact right amount is a very hard question though."


First off, you have done very well to be in your financial position at your age. Congratulations.  I first started investing seriously about 10 years ago, and when I started, I had a similar attitude to you. Learning how to invest is a journey, and it will take you a while to learn both the intellectual and emotional sides of investing. First off, there is nothing wrong with having a chunk of cash that you aren't investing effectively. It is far better to be losing earning power WRT inflation that it is to make a bad investment, where you can lose all your money quite quickly. I have perhaps 15% of my capital just sitting around right now because I don't have any place where I'm excited to put it. For your IRA, I would look at the options you have, and choose one that is reasonably well diversified and has low costs. In most cases, an index fund is a reasonable choice. My 401K goes into an S&P 500 index fund, and I don't have to worry about it. Beyond that, I suggest spending some time learning about investing, and then making some small and conservative investments. I've learned a lot from the Motley Fool web site.


I'm not familiar with Canadian taxes, but had your question been written about the United States, I'd advise you to at least consult for a couple of hours with an accountant. Taxes are complex, and the cost of making a mistake generally exceeds the cost of getting professional advice.


The crucial insight is that the alternative to early exercise of an American call is not necessarily to hold it to expiry, but to sell it. And selling it, at its value, is always better than exercising it.  Note that this holds only for options on assets that don't pay dividends. Here's the proof, using Put-Call-Parity. We know that at expiry T, we have (using a Call and a Put both struck at K): C(T) - P(T) = S(T) - K (if this is not clear to you, consider the case where S is less than, equal to, or greater than K at maturity, and go through each of them.) If the stock S doesn't pay any dividends (and there is no cost of carry etc.), we can replicate both sides now at time 0; we just buy one call, sell one put (that gives us the left hand side), buy the stock, and borrow money so that at time T we have to repay K (that gives us the right hand side). That means that now, we only need to borrow df * K, where df is the discount factor, and is less than one (assuming the good old pre-2009 world where interest rates are positive). Thus: C(0) - P(0) = S(0) - df * K.  Rearranging gives: C(0) = S(0) - df * K + P(0).  That's the value of the call, if we sell it (or hold it). However, if we exercise, we only get: C_ex = S(0) - K Now, we see that C(0) > C_ex, because we subtract less (df*K < K), and add P(0).


"in theory, yes. in practice, no. largely because merchants pay a fee to process credit card transactions which normally exceeds the cash back you can get. i tried this with square, since their vendor fee was 2.75%, and i got 5% back on restaurants.  however, even though i registered with square as a restaurant, transactions were categorized as ""other services"" or something, so i only got 1% back and lost 1.75% net. moreover, if you did find a card/processor combination that left you with a net gain, they would eventually catch on and charge you with some sort of fraud.  i wasn't worried about it with the square experiment because it was only 1$, but if you tried to do this with large sums, a human would catch you. and if it was enough money to matter, there would be a lawsuit. if you were really unlucky, you might get charged with some terrorism crap like ""structuring"" deposits."


"Equity does not represent production divisions in a company (i.e. chocolate, strawberry, and vanilla does not make sense).  In Sole proprietorship, equity represents 1 owner.  In Partnership, equity has at least two sub-accounts, namely Partner 1 and Partner 2.  In Corporations, equity may have Common Stockholders and Preferred Stockholders, or even different class of shares for insiders and angel investors.  As you can see, equity represents who owns the company. It is not what the company does or manufactures.  First and foremost, define the boundary of the firm. Are your books titled ""The books of the family of Doe"", ""The books of Mr & Mrs Doe"", or ""The books of Mr & Mrs Doe & Sons"".  Ask yourself, who ""owns"" this family. If you believe that a marriage is perpetual until further notice then it does not make any sense to constantly calculate which parent owns the family more. In partnership, firm profits are attributed to partner's accounts using previously agreed ratio. For example, (60%/40% because Partner 1 is more hard working and valuable to the firm.  Does your child own this family? Does he/she have any rights to use the assets, to earn income from the assets, to transfer the assets to others, or to enforce private property rights? If they don't have a part of these rights, they are certainly NOT part of Equity.  So what happens to the expenses of children if you follow the ""partnership"" model? There are two ways. The first way is to attribute the Loss to the parents/family since you do not expect the children to repay. It is an unrecoverable loss written off. The second way is to create a Debtor(Asset) account to aggregate all child expense, then create a separate book called ""The books Children 1"", and classify the expense in that separate book.  I advise using ""The family of Doe"" as the firm's boundary, and having 1 Equity account to simplify everything. It is ultimately up to you to decide the boundaries."


"It all comes down to how the loan itself is structured and reported - the exact details of how they run the loan paperwork, and how/if they report the activity on the loan to one of the credit bureaus (and which one they report to).  It can go generally one of three ways: A) The loan company reports the status to a credit reporting agency on behalf of both the initiating borrower and the cosigner. In this scenario, both individuals get a new account on their credit report. Initially this will generally drop related credit scores somewhat (it's a ""hard pull"", new account with zero history, and increased debt), but over time this can have a positive effect on both people's credit rating. This is the typical scenario one might logically expect to be the norm, and it effects both parties credit just as if they were a sole signor for the loan. And as always, if the loan is not paid properly it will negatively effect both people's credit, and the owner of the loan can choose to come after either or both parties in whatever order they want. B) The loan company just runs the loan with one person, and only reports to a credit agency on one of you (probably the co-signor), leaving the other as just a backup. If you aren't paying close attention they may even arrange it where the initial party wanting to take the loan isn't even on most of the paperwork. This let the person trying to run the loan get something accepted that might not have been otherwise, or save some time, or was just an error. In this case it will have no effect on Person A's credit. We've had a number of question like this, and this isn't really a rare occurrence. Never assume people selling you things are necessarily accurate or honest - always verify. C) The loan company just doesn't report the loan at all to a credit agency, or does so incorrectly. They are under no obligation to report to credit agencies, it's strictly up to them. If you don't pay then they can report it as something ""in collections"". This isn't the typical way of doing business for most places, but some businesses still operate this way, including some places that advertise how doing business with them (paying them grossly inflated interest rates) will ""help build your credit"". Most advertising fraud goes unpunished. Note: Under all of the above scenarios, the loan can only effect the credit rating attached to the bureau it is reported to. If the loan is reported to Equifax, it will not help you with a TransUnion or Experian rating at all. Some loans report to multiple credit bureaus, but many don't bother, and credit bureaus don't automatically copy each other. It's important to remember that there isn't so much a thing as a singular ""consumer credit rating"", as there are ""consumer credit ratings"" - 3 of them, for most purposes, and they can vary widely depending on your reported histories. Also, if it is only a short-term loan of 3-6 months then it is unlikely to have a powerful impact on anyone's credit rating. Credit scores are formulas calibrated to care about long-term behavior, where 3 years of perfect credit history is still considered a short period of time and you will be deemed to have a significant risk of default without more data. So don't expect to qualify for a prime-rate mortgage because of a car loan that was paid off in a few months; it might be enough to give you a score if you don't have one, but don't expect much more. As always, please remember that taking out a loan just to improve credit is almost always a terrible idea. Unless you have a very specific reason with a carefully researched and well-vetted plan that means that it's very important you build credit in this specific way, you should generally focus on establishing credit in ways that don't actually cost you any money at all. Look for no fee credit cards that you pay in full each month, even if you have to start with credit-building secured card plans, and switch to cash-value no-fee rewards cards for a 1-3% if you operate your financial life in a way that this doesn't end up manipulating your purchasing decisions to cost you money. Words to the wise: ""Don't let the credit score tail wag the personal financial dog!"""


"Overall the question is one of a political nature.   However, this component can have objective answers: ""What behavior is trying to be prevented?"" There are mechanisms by which capital gains can be deferred (1031 like-kind exchange, or simply holding a long position for years) or eliminated by the estate step up in basis.  With these available, mechanisms that enable basis-reduction are ripe for abuse.   On the other hand, if this truly bothers you then if you meet the IRS qualifications of a day trader, you may elect to use ""mark to market"" accounting, eliminating this entirely as a concern. Special rules for traders of securities"


to know the reasons, please click the link above and read this post. for sure you will learn a lot from this piece most especially on how you can always pay your financial obligations, like your credit card bills and monthly loan payments, on-time and in-full, each month.


"Cart's answer describes well one aspects of puts: protective puts; which means using puts as insurance against a decline in the price of shares that you own.  That's a popular use of puts.  But I think the wording of your question is angling for another strategy: Writing puts. Consider: Cart's strategy refers to the buyer of a put.  But, on the transaction's other side is a seller of the put – and ultimately somebody created or wrote that put contract in the first place!  That first seller of the put – that is, the seller that isn't just selling one they themselves bought – is the put writer. When you write a put, you are taking on the obligation to buy the other side's stock at the put exercise price if the stock price falls below that exercise price by the expiry date.  For taking on the obligation, you receive a premium, like how an insurance company charges a premium to insure against a loss. Example:  Imagine ABC Co. stock is trading at $25.00.  You write a put contract agreeing to buy 100 shares of ABC at $20.00 per share (the exercise price) by a given expiration date.  Say you receive $2.00/share premium from the put buyer.  You now have the obligation to purchase the shares from the put buyer in the event they are below $20.00 per share when the option expires – or, technically any time before then, if the buyer chooses to exercise the option early. Assuming no early assignment, one of two things will happen at the option expiration date: ABC trades at or above $20.00 per share. In this case, the put option will expire worthless in the hands of the put buyer.  You will have pocketed the $200 and be absolved from your obligation.  This case, where ABC trades above the exercise price, is the maximum profit potential. ABC trades below $20.00 per share.  In this case, the put option will be assigned and you'll need to fork over $2000 to the put buyer in exchange for his 100 ABC shares.  If those shares are worth less than $18.00 in the market, then you've suffered a loss to the extent they are below that price (times 100), because remember – you pocketed $200 premium in the first place.  If the shares are between $18.00 to $20.00, you're still profitable, but not to the full extent of the premium received. You can see that by having written a put it's possible to acquire ABC stock at a price lower than the market price – because you received some premium in the process of writing your put.  If you don't ""succeed"" in acquiring shares on your first write (because the shares didn't get below the exercise price), you can continue to write puts and collect premium until you do get assigned. I have read the book ""Money for Nothing (And Your Stocks for FREE!)"" by Canadian author Derek Foster.  Despite the flashy title, the book essentially describes Derek's strategy for writing puts against dividend-paying value stocks he would love to own.  Derek picks quality companies that pay a dividend, and uses put writing to get in at lower-than-market prices.  Four Pillars reviewed the book and interviewed Derek Foster: Money for Nothing: Book Review and Interview with Derek Foster. Writing puts entails risk.  If the stock price drops to zero then you'll end up paying the put exercise price to acquire worthless shares!  So your down-side can easily be multiples of the premium collected.  Don't do this until and unless you understand exactly how this works.  It's advanced. Note also that your broker isn't likely to permit you to write puts without having sufficient cash or margin in your account to cover the case where you are forced to buy the stock.  You're better off having cash to secure your put buys, otherwise you may be forced into leverage (borrowing) when assigned.  Additional Resources: The Montreal Exchange options guide (PDF) that Cart already linked to is an excellent free resource for learning about options.  Refer to page 39, ""Writing secured put options"", for the strategy above. Other major options exchanges and organizations also provide high-quality free learning material:"


Generally value funds (particularly large value funds) will be the ones to pay dividends. You don't specifically need a High Dividend Yield fund in order to get a fund that pays dividends. Site likes vanguards can show you the dividends paid for mutual funds in the past to get an idea of what a fund would pay. Growth funds on the other hand don't generally pay dividends (or at least that's not their purpose). Instead, the company grows and become worth more. You earn money here because the company (or fund) you invested in is now worth more.  If you're saying you want a fund that pays dividends but is also a growth fund I'm sure there are some funds like that out there, you just have to look around


What I should have done in the first place was just ask them.  From their customer support team: Thanks for writing in and for your interest in Square. It is perfectly acceptable to use Square for personal business, such as a yard sale. You do not need to have a registered business to take advantage of Square and the ability to accept credit cards. Just please note that it is against our Terms of Service to process prepaid cards, gift cards or your own credit card using your own Square account. Additionally, you may not use Square as a money transfer system. For every payment processed through Square, you must provide a legitimate good or service. Please let me know if you have any additional concerns.


I'm looking for ways to geared to save for retirement, not general investment. Many mutual fund companies offer a range of target retirement funds for different retirement dates (usually in increments of 5 years). These are funds of funds, that is, a Target 2040 Fund, say, will be invested in five or six different stock and bond mutual funds offered by the same company. Over the years and as the target date approaches closer, the investment mix will change from extra weight given to stock mutual funds towards extra weight being given to bond mutual funds. The disadvantage to these funds is that the Target Fund charges its own expense ratio over and above the expense ratios charged by the mutual funds it invests in: you could do the same investments yourself (or pick your own mix and weighting of various funds) and save the extra expense ratio. However, over the years, as the Target Fund changes its mix, withdrawing money from the stock mutual funds and investing the proceeds into bond mutual funds, you do not have to pay taxes on the profits generated by these transactions except insofar as some part of the profits become distributions from the Target Fund itself. If you were doing the same transactions outside the Target Fund, you would be liable for taxes on the profits when you withdrew money from a stock fund and  invested the proceeds into the bond fund.


"Is he affiliated with the company charging this fee? If so, 1% is great. For him. You are correct, this is way too high. Whatever tax benefit this account provides is negated over a sufficiently long period of time. you need a different plan, and perhaps, a different friend. I see the ISA is similar to the US Roth account. Post tax money deposited, but growth and withdrawals tax free. (Someone correct, if I mis-read this). Consider - You deposit £10,000. 7.2% growth over 10 years and you'd have £20,000. Not quite, since 1% is taken each year, you have £18,250.  Here's what's crazy. When you realize you lost £1750 to fees, it's really 17.5% of the £10,000 your account would have grown absent those fees. In the US, our long term capital gain rate is 15%, so the fees after 10 years more than wipe out the benefit.  We are not supposed to recommend investments here, but it's safe to say there are ETFs (baskets of stocks reflecting an index, but trading like an individual stock) that have fees less than .1%.  The UK tag is appreciated, but your concern regarding fees is universal. Sorry for the long lecture, but ""1%, bad."""


"First of all, setting some basics: What is a sound way to measure the risk of each investment in order to compare them with each other ? There is no single way that can be used across all asset classes / risks. Generally speaking, you want to perform both a quantitative and qualitative assessment of risks that you identify.  Quantitative risk assessment may involve historical data and/or parametric or non-parametric models. Using historical data is often simple but may be hard in cases where the amount of data you have on a given event is low (e.g. risk of bust by investing in a cryptocurrency). Parametric and non-parametric risk quantification models exist (e.g. Value at Risk (VaR), Expected Shortfall (ES), etc) and abound but a lot of them are more complicated than necessary for an individual's requirements. Qualitative risk assessment is ""simply"" assessing the likelihood and severity of risks by using intuition, expert judgment (where that applies), etc. One may consult with outside parties (e.g. lawyers, accountants, bankers, etc) where their advisory may help highlighting some risks or understanding them better. To ease comparing investment opportunities, you may want to perform a risk assessment on categories of risks (e.g. investing in the stock market vs bond market). To compare between those categories, one should look at the whole picture (quantitative and qualitative) with their risk appetite in mind. Of course, after taking those macro decisions, you would need to further assess risks on more micro decisions (e.g. Microsoft or Google ?). You would then most likely end up with better comparatives as you would be comparing items similar in nature. Should I always consider the worst case scenario ? Because when I do that, I always can lose everything. Generally speaking, you want to consider everything so that you can perform a risk assessment and decide on your risk mitigating strategy (see Q4). By assessing the likelihood and severity of risks you may find that even in cases where you are comparatively as worse-off (e.g. in case of complete bust), the likelihood may differ. For example, keeping gold in a personal stash at home vs your employer going bankrupt if you are working for a large firm. Do note that you want to compare risks (both likelihood and severity) after any risk mitigation strategy you may want to put in place (e.g. maybe putting your gold in a safety box in a secure bank would make the likelihood of losing your gold essentially null). Is there a way to estimate the probability of such events, better than intuition ? Estimating probability or likelihood is largely dependent on data on hand and your capacity to model events. For most practical purposes of an individual, modelling would be way off in terms of reward-benefits. You may therefore want to simply research on past events and assign them a 1-5 (1 being very low, 5 being very high) risk rating based on your assessment of the likelihood. For example, you may assign a 1 on your employer going bankrupt and a 2 or 3 on being burglarized. This is only slightly better than intuition but has the merit of being based on data (e.g. frequency of burglary in your neighborhood). Should I only consider more probable outcomes and have a plan for them if they occur? This depends largely on your risk appetite. The more risk averse you are, the more thorough you will want to be in identifying, tracking and mitigating risks. For the risks that you have identified as relevant, or of concern, you may opt to establish a risk mitigating strategy, which is conventionally one of accepting, sharing (by taking insurance, for example), avoiding and reducing. It may not be possible to share or reduce some risks, especially for individuals, and so often the response will be either to accept or avoid the given risks by opting in or out on an opportunity."


Yes, indeed.  For example, Ford Motor Company's website has a bit about them. Is there any advantage to having an actual physical note instead of a website? You can safeguard them yourself.  Which may or may not be a good thing.  It certainly brings up a bit of hassle and extra costs if you want to sell them.  Though you can have lost certificates replaced, so there is more to it than just having physical possession of the certificates.


If you are splitting rent, it is not income because you are reducing the amount of space you have available to you and reducing your rent, it's the same as if you moved to a smaller apartment. You can't claim a deduction for rent paid, so there really are no tax implications in this arrangement. If you own a house and someone helps pay the mortgage, that does become a rental situation if the other party has no ownership stake in the house. Could you find other ways to disguise it, like having your brother pay utilities or buy groceries? Sure, but I think it's technically taxable income by the letter of the law. I also don't think the IRS is going to come after you for trading a place to sleep for groceries/cable.


The reason diversification in general is a benefit is easily seen in your first graph.  While the purple line (Betterment 100% Stock) is always below the blue line (S&P), and the blue line is the superior return over the entire period, it's a bit different if you retired in 2009, isn't it?  In that case the orange line is superior: because its risk is much lower, so it didn't drop much during the major crash.  Lowering risk (and lowering return) is a benefit the closer you get to retirement as you won't see as big a cumulative return from the large percentage, but you could see a big temporary drop, and need your income to be relatively stable (if you're living off it or soon going to).   Now, you can certainly invest on your own in a diverse way, and if you're reasonably smart about it and have enough funds to avoid any fees, you can almost certainly do better than a managed solution - even a relatively lightly managed solution like Betterment.  They take .15% off the top, so if you just did exactly the same as them, you would end up .15% (per year) better off. However, not everyone is reasonably smart, and not everyone has much in the way of funds. Betterment's target audience are people who aren't terribly smart about investing and/or have very small amounts of funds to invest.  Plenty of people aren't able to work out how to do diversification on their own; while they probably mostly aren't asking questions on this site, they're a large percentage of the population.  It's also work to diversify your portfolio: you have to make minor changes every year at a minimum to ensure you have a nicely balanced portfolio.  This is why target retirement date portfolios are very popular; a bit higher cost (similar to Betterment, roughly) but no work required to diversify correctly and maintain that diversification.


It is a good enough approximation. With a single event you can do it your way and get a better result, but imagine that the $300 are spread over a certain period with $10 contribution each time? Then recalculating and compounding will be a lot of work to do. The original ROI formula is averaging the ROI by definition, so why bother with precise calculations of averages that are imprecise by definition, when you can just adjust the average without losing the level of precision? 11.4 and 11.3 aren't significantly different, its immaterial.


A stock is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it. If it trades different values on different days, that means someone was willing to pay a higher price OR someone was willing to sell at a lower price.  There is no rule to prevent a stock from trading at $10 and then $100 the very next trade... or $1 the very next trade. (Though exchanges or regulators may halt trading, cancel trades, or impose limits on large price movements as they deem necessary, but this is beside the point I'm trying to illustrate). Asking what happens from the close of one day to the open of the next is like asking what happens from one trade to the next trade... someone simply decided to sell or pay a different price.  Nothing needs to have happened in between.


The £500 are an expense associated with the loan, just like interest. You should have an expense account where you can put such financing expenses (or should create a new one). Again, treat it the same way you'll treat interest charges in future statements.


No no no.... ok fine, yes... **but** you can't have that and run a national deficit of 150% of GDP. I don't care what Keynes said, you could have as large a demand as you want, if the majority of all cash flows are going into debt repayments your economies not going to be able to grow, ie: enter a recession.


You are incorrect in saying that you have a capital gains of $0. You either have no capital gains activity, because you haven't realized it or you have an unrealized capital gains of -$10k. If you were to sell immediately after receiving the dividend you would end up as a wash investment wise - the 10k of dividend offsetting the 10k capital wash. Though due to different tax treatments of money you may be slightly negative with respect to taxes.  You are taxed when you receive the money. And you realized that 10k in dividends - even if you didn't want too.  In the future if this bothers you. You need to pay attention to the dividend pay out dates for funds. But then just after they payout a dividend and have drain their cash account. The issue is that you unknowingly bought 90k of stock and 10k of cash. This information is laid out in the fund documentation, which you should be reviewing before investing in any new fund.


Yes, this happens a lot. And in many cases companies don't even know this is happening. Collateralized Debt Obligations frequently contain pieces of the same financial products, where it is not obvious what the underlying asset is. It gets complicated to explain, but I can make an analogy to a portfolio of stocks you might create. Your portfolio contains companies and those companies also own some of the other companies in your same portfolio. The value of all the companies in your portfolio are very interrelated even though you thought you made diversified investments, under the idea that they can't all do poorly at the exact same time. Except they can, if the value of the company's shares are solely based on the value of other company's shares, but nobody noticed that none of them have an actual robust operations. This was a key factor of the financial disaster around 2008, but this problem was solved with the addition of additional disclaimers that all investors agree to, so they know what they are buying


The main advantage and disadvantage I can see in a scenario like this are - how savvy and good an investor are you? It's a good way to create below-market average returns if you're not that good at investing and returns way above market average if you are...


"This may vary some by the state, but the general facts are consistent broadly. The elements of check fraud typically are: This means that not only do you have to have presented a check that is returned for insufficient funds, but you must have known at the time that it wouldn't be honored.   It must typically also be given for present consideration, which is why the comments to the other answer correctly note that the post-dated check ""scam"" cooked up by the payday loan folks shouldn't generally be relevant under these laws; on the same site, they note the cases that are clearly not present consideration: So if I give you a check for $50 and it's returned for NSF because I screwed up my bank accounts and had all my money in savings, that's probably not fraud.  But if I decide I really want a Tesla X and give Tesla Motors a check for $95,000, knowing I don't have $95,000, that's fraud. How the prosecutor proves knowledge is probably beyond the scope of Personal Finance and Money Stack Exchange, though I imagine it tends to commonly be done so by showing the person doesn't normally have that much money in their account."


"As you are earning an income by working in India, you are required to pay tax in India. If you contract is of freelance, then the income earned by you has to be self declared and taxes paid accordingly. There are some expenses one can claim, a CA should be able to guide you.   Not sure why the Swiss comapny is paying taxes?. Are they depositing this with Income Tax, India, do they have a TAN Number. If yes, then you don't need to pay tax. But you need to get a statement from your company showing the tax paid on behalf of you. You can also verify the tax paid on your behalf via ""http://incometaxindia.gov.in/26ASTaxCreditStatement.asp"" you cna register. Alternatively if you have a Bank Account in India with a PAN card on their records, most Banks provide a link to directly see"


I would like to know how they calculated such monthly payment The formula is:  Your values would come out to be: r = (1+3.06/(100*365))^31-1=0.002602 (converting your annual percentage to a monthly rate equivalent of daily compounded interest) PV = 12865.57 n = 48 Inserting your values into the formula: P = [r*(PV)]/[1-(1+r)^(-n)] P = [0.002602*(12865.57)]/[1-(1.002602)^(-48)] P = 285.47


"Option 1 is out. There are no ""safe returns"" that make much money. Besides, if a correction does come along how will you know when to invest? There is no signal that says when the bottom is reached, and you emotions could keep you from acting. Option 2 (dollar cost averaging) is prudent and comforting. There are always some bargains about. You could start with an energy ETF or a few ""big oil"" company stocks right now."


Institutional investors are not just rich guys they are rich guys managing money wherever it is left. Banks, retirement funds, hedge funds, pension funds, the social security fund (though they only invest in the US government)  Edit: the pension fun is idle capital looking to bring in returns.


Your total salary deferral cannot exceed $18K (as of 2016). You can split it between your different jobs as you want, to maximize the matching.  You can contribute non-elective contribution on top of that, which means that your self-proprietorship will commit to paying you that portion regardless of your deferral. That would be on top of the $18K. You cannot contribute more than 20% of your earnings, though. So if you earn $2K, you can add $400 on top of the $18K limit (ignoring the SE tax for a second here). Keep in mind that if you ever have employees, the non-elective contribution will apply to them as well. Also, the total contribution limit from all sources (deferral, matching, non-elective) cannot exceed $53K (for 2016).


This happens on dark pools quite often. If I am a large institutional investor with tens of millions of shares, I may want to unload slowly and limit the adverse affects on the price of the stock. Dark pools offer anonymity and have buyers / sellers that can handle large volume.  In the case of a day trader, they often trade stocks with light volume (since they have large fluctuations that can be quite profitable throughout the session). At the end of the session, many traders are unwilling to hold positions on margin and want to unload fast.


I know of no way to answer your question without 'spamming' a particular investment.  First off, if you are a USA citizen, max out your 401-K. Whatever your employer matches will be an immediate boost to your investment.  Secondly, you want your our gains to be tax deferred. A 401-K is tax deferred as well as a traditional IRA.  Thirdly, you probably want the safety of diversification. You achieve this by buying an ETF (or mutual fund) that then buys individual stocks.  Now for the recommendation that may be called spamming by others : As REITs pass the tax liability on to you, and as an IRA is tax deferred, you can get stellar returns by buying a mREIT ETF.  To get you started here are five: mREITs  Lastly, avoid commissions by having your dividends automatically reinvested by using that feature at Scottrade. You will have to pay commissions on new purchases but your purchases from your dividend Reinvestment will be commission free.  Edit: Taking my own advice I just entered orders to liquidate some positions so I would have the $ on hand to buy into MORL and get some of that sweet 29% dividend return.


I would definitely pay down the debt first.  If it is going to take 15 years to do so, you probably need to allocate more money to paying down debt. Cut expenses by going out to eat less, and keeping spending to the bare necessities.  You might even consider getting a second job, just for paying down the debt.  If that isn't enough, consider selling off some assets.  You should be able to come up with a plan to be debt free (excluding maybe a regular mortgage) within 3-5 years. Once the only debt you have is a home mortgage, then its time to look at putting money towards retirement again. Note, you should not take money out of a 401k or IRA to pay off debt.  The costs for doing so are nearly always too great.


There's often a legal basis to answer this question. For instance, Austria (guessing from your profile) currently uses a 4% Statutory interest rate. You'll need to dig up not just the actual but also the historical rates. Note that you'll want the non-commercial interest rate - some countries differentiate between loans to businesses and loans to individuals.


It would be worth looking at their details as they will outline clearly what the 2% is on. Having said that the 2% will probably be on the value of the portfolio at the time the charge is calculated. (It might be that they don't levy this on the cash section of portfolio, it might be that they do.) They will usually make you sign a direct debit form so that they can take the fees straight from you. There are much better deals around than this, 2% is a huge fee if you had an portfolio that is worth £100,000 after some years the fees they would be charging you would be £2,000 a year. it's worth shopping around for a better deal, as it can prove costly to change ISA provider at later date.


I think the best answer that doesn't make the buyer look like a moron is this. Buyer had previously sold a covered call.  They wanted to act on a different opportunity so they did a closing buy/write with a spread of a couple cents below asking for the stock, but it dipped a couple cents and the purchase of those options to close resolved at 4 cents due to lack of sellers.


Generally, ETFs and mutual funds don't pay taxes (although there are some cases where they do, and some countries where it is a common case). What happens is, the fund reports the portion of the gain attributed to each investor, and the investor pays the tax. In the US, this is reported to you on 1099-DIV as capital gains distribution, and can be either short term (as in the scenario you described), long term, or a mix of both. It doesn't mean you actually get a distribution, though, but if you don't - it reduces your basis.


"Rich people use ""depositor"" banks the same way the rest of us use banks; to keep a relatively small store of wealth for monthly expenses and a savings account for a rainy day. The bulk of a wealthy person's money is in investments. Money sitting in a bank account is not making you more money, and in fact as Kaushik correctly points out, would be losing value to inflation. Now, all investments have risk; that's why interest exists. If, in some alternate universe, charging interest were illegal across the board, nobody would loan money, because there's nothing to be gained and a lot to lose. You have to make it worth my while for me to want to loan you my money, because sure as shootin' you're going to use my loan to make yourself wealthier. A wealthy person will choose a set of investments that represent an overall level of risk that he is comfortable with, much like you or I would do the same with our retirement funds. Early in life, we're willing to take a lot of risk, because there's a lot of money to be made and time to recover from any losses. Closer to retirement, we're much more risk-averse, because if the market takes a sudden downturn, we lose a significant portion of our nest egg with little hope of regaining it before we have to start cashing out. The very wealthy have similar variances in risk, with the significant difference that they are typically already drawing a living from their investments. As such, they already have some risk aversion, but at the same time they need good returns, and so they must pay more attention to this balancing act between risk and return. Managing their investments in effect becomes their new job, once they don't have to work for anyone else anymore. The money does the ""real work"", and they make the executive decisions about where best to put it. The tools they use to make these decisions are the same ones we have; they watch market trends to identify stages of the economic cycle that predicate large movements of money to or from ""safe havens"" like gold and T-debt, they diversify their investments to shield the bulk of their wealth from a sudden localized loss, they hire investment managers to have a second pair of eyes and additional expertise in navigating the market (you or I can do much the same thing by buying shares in managed investment funds, or simply consulting a broker; the difference is that the wealthy get a more personal touch). So what's the difference between the very wealthy and the rest of us? Well first is simple scale. When a person with a net worth in the hundreds of millions makes a phone call or personal visit to the financial institutions handling their money, there's a lot of money on the line in making sure that person is well looked-after. If we get screwed over at the teller window and decide to close our acocunts, the teller can often give us our entire account balance in cash without batting an eyelid. Our multimillionaire is at the lower end of being singlehandedly able to alter his banks' profit/loss statements by his decisions, and so his bank will fight to keep his business. Second is the level of control. The very wealthy, the upper 1%, have more or less direct ownership and control over many of the major means of production in this country; the factories, mines, timber farms, software houses, power plants, recording studios, etc that generate things of value, and therefore new wealth. While the average Joe can buy shares in these things through the open market, their investment is typically a drop in the bucket, and their voice in company decisions equally small. Our decision, therefore, is largely to invest or not to invest. The upper 1%, on the other hand, have controlling interests in their investments, often majority holdings that allow them far more control over the businesses they invest in, who's running them and what they do."


"Yesterday I have received a call from my local bank. They told the the payment had arrived, but the money sender failed to specify my account number. They have only specified SWIFT code and my address. And in order to receive my money, money sender has to send an additional SWIFT message, where my account number must be specified. And the money transfer will remain ""frozen"" (or ""blocked"") until such a message would be received. In this case normally your local bank has to send a SWIFT MT199 to the sending Bank that the account number quoted is missing. The Sending Bank would contact the company and send back a SWIFT message with required info."


From a Canadian point of view, I think we are generally very similar to how you describe Austria.  The only thing I use cash for, is to pay for my coffee at a local micro-roaster who only accepts cash.  Cheques, I only use to pay friends.  Everything else is debit or credit card.  Very few businesses around here will even accept cheques anymore.


(in response to last comment to me) Ok. I understand now. Forgive me if I appeared to be splitting hairs. When it comes to understanding, exact wording is important. I keep money at home, enough to not be a frequent ATM user, not enough to imply any distrust of the banking system or preparation for Armageddon. You last comments implies the brochure said 13% keep all their money at home, i.e. have no banking relationship. A recent poll concluded 25% of people had less than $2500 available if they had an issue, such as the need to repair a car, or furnace. From that factoid, it wouldn't surprise me that half of those people have no bank acount at all. Not for lack of trust, but lack of money to deposit.


Banks will usually look at 2 years worth of tax returns for issuing business credit.  If those aren't available (for instance, for recently formed businesses), they will look at the personal returns of the owners. Unfortunately, it sounds like your friend is in the latter category. Bringing in another partner isn't necessarily going to help, either; with only two partners / owners, the bank would probably look at both owners' personal tax returns and credit histories.  It may be necessary to offer collateral. I'm sorry I can't offer any better solutions, but alternative funding such as personal loans from family & friends could be necessary.  Perhaps making them partners in exchange for capital.


Lets make some assumptions. You are not close to retirement.  You have no other debts.  You have a job.  You have no big need for the money.   You should invest that.  Do not invest with a bank, they are not as competitive on fees as a brokerage account. You can get specific answers that are different from every person, (so you should dig in and research a lot more if you care (and you should).  Personally, I would suggest you open an account with one of the low cost providers. Then, with that new investment account, put your money into a target retirement account.  File your statements away and tend to it once a year.  (Make sure it is there, that you can access it, that nothing alarming is going on).  You certainly have enough to start an investment account.  If you want to get more into it, ask a phone adviser what you should open. Finally, before you start investing, make sure you follow the advice of radix07 and have no debt, saving the most you can for retirement. A rule of thumb is your money will double every 72 months. Congratulations, you are a saver.  Investing isn't for you as the risk of investing is in conflict with your desire to preserver you money. Open a savings account or high interest checking account with a credit union, online only or local community bank.  Shop around no the web for the highest interest.  Don't get your hopes up though, the highest rate you see (that doesn't have strings attached) won't be much here late summer of 2012.


"Hit you local library and pick up a copy of ""Critical Business Skills for Success"" by The Great Courses.   It's a 30 hour audio book, but is an amazing business crash course. I wish I would have found it before trying (and failing) my own business."


I think you can. I went to Mexico for business and the company paid for it, so if you are self employed you should be able to expense it.