Question: What part of buying a house would make my net worth go down?

Buying a house can definitely make your net worth go down because there are expenses involved (interest expense, closing costs, taxes, maintenance, etc.). So unless the house appreciates in value enough to offset these things, you will see a drop in your net worth from buying a house. More specifically it can have a negative impact on your net worth, since changes in your net worth are the cumulative result of all your inflows and outflows of money.

"Well that book in particular isn't a how to book. He goes on to tell people to find their ""why"" about doing it, and it all falls into place. If you really want a how to, then check out Carlton Sheets.  His sage advice may be a little bit of bunk, but that's how the game is played. If you want to be a part of the game, that's great, everyone is entitled to follow their dreams. Some will build their dreams on what they believe is right, and others will build their dreams on what they think is right. (Now which one of those persons used their cat as a business partner?)"

Tax regulations vary from country to country - some permitting more deductions, some less - but here are a few guidelines. As regards the home-office: As regards the deductions: Think of it like this: in order to have space for a home-office you needed a bigger home.  That leads to increased rates, heating, insurance and so on.  Many tax regulators recognise that these are genuine expenses.  The alternative is to rent a separate office and incur greater expenses, leading to increased deductions and less overall tax paid (which won't finance the deficit). The usual test for deductions is: was the expense legitimately incurred in the pursuit of revenue?  The flexibility permitted will vary by tax authority but you can frequently deduct more than you expected.

You don't necessarily change your calculated profit margins and posted prices, but you advertise and offer price matching.  Two out of three consumers may still pay the posted Best Buy price, while the knowledgeable third consumer that did their research will receive the matched price.  Their profit on that third customer will be lower than it was for the other two, but currently they don't get anything from that third customer at all since they just order online.  Meanwhile, now that they're in the store, they may buy a few movies or a power strip.

So... Does that mean we're leading up to a huge economic boom where the majority of people have paid off a significant amount of their debt, so that they now have more available money and credit to spend, which would turn into a domino effect of more people buying pushing the economy up enough to encourage even more people to buy?

As of 2015, there were 1,650 IHOP restaurants in 50 states and the District of Columbia, as well as in Bahrain, Canada, Dubai (UAE), Guatemala, Kuwait, Mexico, Puerto Rico, Saudi Arabia, The Philippines and the U.S. Virgin Islands.  So 25 is 1.5% of 1650. So they closed less than 2% of their stores.  Applebees apparently has over 2000 restaurants. So 100-120 is 5-6% of their stores.

"Yes, and the math that tells you when is called the Kelly Criterion. The Kelly Criterion is on its face about how much you should bet on a positive-sum game. Imagine you have a game where you flip a coin, and if heads you are given 3 times your bet, and if tails you lose your bet.  Naively you'd think ""great, I should play, and bet every dollar I have!"" -- after all, it has a 50% average return on investment.  You get back on average 1.5$ for every dollar you bet, so every dollar you don't bet is a 0.5$ loss. But if you do this and you play every day for 10 years, you'll almost always end up bankrupt.  Funny that. On the other hand, if you bet nothing, you are losing out on a great investment.  So under certain assumptions, you neither want to bet everything, nor do you want to bet nothing (assuming you can repeat the bet almost indefinitely). The question then becomes, what percentage of your bankroll should you bet? Kelly Criterion answers this question.  The typical Kelly Criterion case is where we are making a bet with positive returns, not an insurance against loss; but with a bit of mathematical trickery, we can use it to determine how much you should spend on insuring against loss. An ""easy"" way to undertand the Kelly Criterion is that you want to maximize the logarithm of your worth in a given period.  Such a maximization results in the largest long-term value in some sense. Let us give it a try in an insurance case. Suppose you have a 1 million dollar asset.  It has a 1% chance per year of being destroyed by some random event (flood, fire, taxes, pitchforks). You can buy insurance against this for 2% of its value per year.  It even covers pitchforks. On its face this looks like a bad deal.  Your expected loss is only 1%, but the cost to hide the loss is 2%? If this is your only asset, then the loss makes your net worth 0.  The log of zero is negative infinity.  Under Kelly, any insurance (no matter how inefficient) is worth it.  This is a bit of an extreme case, and we'll cover why it doesn't apply even when it seems like it does elsewhere. Now suppose you have 1 million dollars in other assets.  In the insured case, we always end the year with 1.98 million dollars, regardless of if the disaster happens.  In the non-insured case, 99% of the time we have 2 million dollars, and 1% of the time we have 1 million dollars. We want to maximize the expected log value of our worth.  We have log(2 million - 20,000) (the insured case) vs 1% * log(1 million) + 99% * log(2 million). Or 13.7953 vs 14.49.  The Kelly Criterion says insurance is worth it; note that you could ""afford"" to replace your home, but because it makes up so much of your net worth, Kelly says the ""hit it too painful"" and you should just pay for insurance. Now suppose you are worth 1 billion.  We have log(1 billion - 20k) on the insured side, and 1%*log(999 million) + 99% * log(1 billion) on the uninsured side. The logs of each side are 21.42 vs 20.72.  (Note that the base of the logarithm doesn't matter; so long as you use the same base on each side). According to Kelly, we have found a case where insurance isn't worth it. The Kelly Criterion roughly tells you ""if I took this bet every (period of time), would I be on average richer after (many repeats of this bet) than if I didn't take this bet?""  When the answer is ""no"", it implies self-insurance is more efficient than using external insurance.  The answer is going to be sensitive to the profit margin of the insurance product you are buying, and the size of the asset relative to your total wealth. Now, the Kelly Criterion can easily be misapplied.  Being worth financially zero in current assets can easily ignore non-financial assets (like your ability to work, or friends, or whatever).  And it presumes repeat to infinity, and people tend not to live that long. But it is a good starting spot. Note that the option of bankruptcy can easily make insurance not ""worth it"" for people far poorer; this is one of the reasons why banks insist you have insurance on your proprety. You can use Kelly to calculate how much insurance you should purchase at a given profit margin for the insurance company given your net worth and the risk involved.  This can be used in Finance to work out how much you should hedge your bets in an investment as well; in effect, it quantifies how having money makes it easier to make money."

"Yes, but it's also this. ""Investors in stocks these days are expecting far too much, and I'm going to explain why. That will inevitably set me to talking about the general stock market, a subject I'm usually unwilling to discuss. But I want to make one thing clear going in: Though I will be talking about the level of the market, I will not be predicting its next moves"". He can, and does, make two unrelated points"


Question: Form 1042-S for foreign resident and owner of trade account

As you have indicated, the 1042-S reflects no income or withholding.  As such, you are not required to file a US tax return unless you have other income from the US.  Gains on stocks are not reported until realized upon sale. FYI, your activity does not fit the requirements of being engaged in a trade or business activity.  While the definition is documented in several places of the Code, I have attached Publication 519 which most accurately represents the application to your situation as you have described it. https://www.irs.gov/publications/p519/ch04.html#en_US_2016_publink1000222308

Robinhood does offer premium products that they charge for-I suspect we will see more of that in the future. They do not change the bid/ask spread as some have said because they have to give you the NBBO.

Yes not yet. I mean it's obviously not going to keep at this pace forever but it is funny to see the overreacting of people. It's not just about being able to buy things with bitcoin it's about the tech.  It's already up 126 dollars from the time you posted the gif.

There are rules and regulations as to how the credit card information must be stored, and I assume Square adhere to these rules. The point is that the barber doesn't need to see your credit card at all, and doesn't have to keep its number for keeping tabs, you only share the information with Square and they remit payments to everyone else. This is very similar to Paypal, Amazon and Google checkout systems, except that Square combine it with physical card processing.

In the case of HP, in the early to mid 1990's they had done really well, but by the late 90's the board and shareholders wanted to see even more profits thanks to the internet boom. They ousted their CEO Platt, who rose through the HP ranks, brought in Fiorina who was from AT&T (old Long Distance AT&T not the SBC/Cingular one we have now), who over-promised and never delivered and basically forced HP in buying Compaq which nearly destroyed HP.  The only reason why HP is still around today is thanks to its business line of workstations and printers. The company made many bad decisions during Fiorini tenure which was amazing that anyone trusted her, but I'm guessing she was great at hissy fits. Somehow she has made a name for herself and is now trying politics and her type of leadership fits perfectly with the current republican party.

Because that is not at all what you said. Very simple.  PS. You can always use more data. You never have perfect or enough data. So you point is akin to water is wet... it is not like you discussed why the data we have is not appropriate

"Remember that the rental market and the property market are markets.  For any given location and level of quality, if it were a clearly superior choice to buy over rent, then more people would buy, and less would rent, driving prices down for rentals.  The value of ""owning"" as opposed to paying rent and never owning is priced into that, at least at locations and levels of quality where owning is a possibility (and that is nearly always a possibility, even at very low levels of quality). This is true even disregarding your personal circumstances, unless you're looking in an area that has a lot of people like you (San Francisco, perhaps).  Given your personal circumstances, you have strong incentives to be on the renting side, unless there are major pressures on the housing market that cause property to be far cheaper than it should.  This was true in 2009-2011, but is mostly not true anymore (though some areas have yet to fully come out of the crash)."

I'm surprised nobody else has suggested this yet: before you start investing in stocks or bonds, buy a house. Not just any house, but the house you want to live in 20 years from now, in a place where you want to live 20 years from now - but you also have to be savvy about which part of the country or world you buy in. I'm also assuming that you are in the USA, although my suggestion tends to apply equally anywhere in the world. Why? Simple: as long as you own a house, you won't ever have to pay rent (you do have to pay taxes and maintenance, of course). You have a guaranteed return on investment, and the best part is: because it's not money you earn but money you don't have to spend, it's tax free. Even if the house loses value over time, you still come out ahead. And if you live abroad temporarily, you can rent out the house and add the rent to your savings (although that does make various things more complicated). You only asked for options, so that is mine. I'll add some caveats. OK, now here are the caveats:


Question: How to find SEC filings that are important to stock market

10-Q is the quarterly report, and accordingly is filed quarterly. Similarly, 10-K is the annual report. 8-K is a general form for notification of material events. It is filed every time a material event is required to be reported to the shareholders. It may accompany the periodical reports, but doesn't have to. It can be filed on its own. If you're only interested in the financial statements, then you should be looking for the 10K/10Q forms. SEC will tell you when the forms were filed (dates), but it won't tell you what's more material and what's less. So you can plot a stock price graph on these dates, and see what was deemed more material by the investors based on the price fluctuations, but be prepared to find fluctuations that have no correlation to filings - because the market as a whole can drag the stock up or down. Also, some events may not be required to be reported to SEC, but may be deemed material by the investors. For example, a Cupertino town hall meeting discussing the zoning for the new AAPL HQ building may be deemed material by the investors, based on the sentiments, even if no decision was made to be reported to SEC.

Good Afternoon all,  My first time posting in this community as I am in need of some advice or insight into Bank Of America Merrill Lynch.  For my interview I have to prepare a 10 minute presentation with a further 10 minutes of questions afterwards. The presentation should consist of 3 points; 1) What do you see as BOAML’s strengths and weaknesses over its competitors 2) Why do you want to work at BOAML and why have you chosen to apply for this particular division? (The role I am applying for is a Systems Operations Analyst role)  3) What are going to be the key challenges of joining BOAML? (I have never worked in the industry before-previous experience in catering and retail).  Mostly looking for advice on point one as I am finding research somewhat difficult to come buy in terms of products and services (mainly just different statistics at the moment)  Any advice would be greatly appreciated!

>I want a president who is going to look out for the little guys.  Obama certainly wouldn't be your man then. Consider his insurance, and wall street ties; he's not for the little guy; he may say he is, but his actions and policy are obviously not for them.    Also, consider that you can be a CEO of a one man shop, and in fact, alot of start-ups begin this way.   What about them? Are they not 'little guys' - the ones willing to take the risk, spend their own money, and create jobs in local economies, or must we be dependent on the government for everything from regulating how much soda we drink to what healthcare plans we can or cannot use?

NO.  The legislation requires the landlord to deposit it in a bank.  Check out pages 7-10 of the linked document.  There is no mention of interest. The second clause, I believe, is probably for large landlords who hold hundreds of thousands of dollars of security.   http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/publications/tenantlandlord.pdf Q4 Once collected, what must the landlord do with the security deposit?   The landlord must either: a) Deposit the money with a regulated financial institution (e.g.,   bank), OR b) Deposit a cash bond or surety bond, to secure the entire deposit,   with the Secretary of State. ( Note: If the landlord does this, he or   she may use the money at any time, for any purpose.) The bond ensures   that there is money available to repay the tenant’s security deposit

"You're confused. This has nothing to do with taxes. It has to do with screwing people out of profit-sharing.  The shell company pays bogus/hyper-inflated fees to the parent company, who pays taxes on them.  That way, the contract with the shell company that says ""you get 5% of the profits"" now means nothing."

. Mr. Bernstein says he has never seen such an extreme bet on economic catastrophe. ”This portfolio is a half-step away from a cellar-full of canned goods and nine-millimeter rounds,” he says.  -- The question is, will he keep to this strategy if he becomes president?

"This answer is somewhat incomplete as I don't have definitive conclusions about some parts of your question.  Your question includes some very specific subquestions that may best be answered by contacting the investment companies you're considering. I don't see any explicit statement of fees for TIAA-CREF either.  I suggest you contact them and ask. There is mention on the site of no-transaction-fee funds (NTF), but I wasn't able to find a list of such funds.  Again, you might have to ask. Vanguard also offers some non-Vanguard funds without transaction fees.  If you go the Vanguard page on other mutual funds you can use the dropdown on the right to select other fund companies.  Those with ""NTF"" by the name have no transaction fees. Scottrade also offers NTF funds.  You can use their screener and select ""no load"" and ""no transaction fee"" as some of your filters. You are correct that you want to choose an option that will offer a good lineup of funds that you can buy without transaction fees.  However, as the links above show, Vanguard and TIAA-CREF are not the only such options.  My impression is that almost any firm that has their own funds will sell them (or at least some of them) to you without a transaction fee.  Also, as shown above, many places will sell you other companies' funds for free too.  You have plenty of options as far as free trades, so it really depends on what funds you like. If you google for IRA providers you will find more than you can shake a stick at.  If you're interested in low-cost index funds, Vanguard is pretty clearly the leader in that area as their entire business is built around that concept.  TIAA-CREF is another option, as is Fideltiy (which you didn't mention), and innumerable others.  Realistically, though, you probably don't need a gigantic lineup of funds.  If you're juggling money between more than a handful of funds, your investment scheme is probably needlessly complex.  The standard advice is to decide on a broad allocation of money into different asset classes (e.g., US stocks, US bonds, international stocks, international bonds), find a place that offers funds in those areas with low fees and forget about all the other funds."

I'm no expert, but this is my understanding.  Not necessarily. For example, the Canadian dollar has jumped up recently because people are expecting a rate hike at the central bank this week some time. That is, the Canadian dollar is being traded for more because people expect that the currency will be harder to get later. This deflation (or decelerated inflation) is being priced in before it even happens.  For inflation to propagate through an entire domestic supply chain of a good or service takes time. Raises aren't tied to inflation, nor the price of a Big Mac or price of a movie ticket or toaster that has been sitting on the shelf for a month.  The price of the good in foreign currency will however hit the export as soon as it crosses the border.


Question: Trustable, official sources on holdings, purchases and sales by finance academics/professionals?

You won't be able to know the trading activity in a timely, actionable method in most cases. The exception is if the investor (individual, fund, holding company, non-profit foundation, etc) is a large shareholder of a specific company and therefore required to file their intentions to buy or sell with the SEC. The threshold for this is usually if they own 5% or greater of the outstanding shares. You can, however, get a sense of the holdings for some of the entities you mention with some sleuthing. Publicly-Traded Holding Companies Since you mention Warren Buffett, Berkshire Hathaway is an example of this. Publicly traded companies (that are traded on a US-based exchange) have to file numerous reports with the SEC. Of these, you should review their Annual Report and monitor all filings on the SEC's website. Here's the link to the Berkshire Hathaway profile. Private Foundations Harvard and Yale have private, non-profit foundations. The first place to look would be at the Form 990 filings each is required to file with the IRS. Two sources for these filings are GuideStar.org and the FoundationCenter.org. Keep in mind that if the private foundation is a large enough shareholder in a specific company, they, too, will be required to file their intentions to buy or sell shares in that company. Private Individuals Unless the individual publicly releases their current holdings, the only insight you may get is what they say publicly or have to disclose — again, if they are a major shareholder.

If you have kids, there are also 529 funds to consider. They aren't pre-tax, but do have tax advantages. If your employer doesn't have a 401k, chances are they don't offer Health Savings Accounts, but that is another thing to look at.

Rapid injection molding is not the solution of all problems. It is not possible to shorten all processes by this technique. There are certain things which are out of the trajectory of this technique. It does not matter that if you have endless recourses and put a lot of effort, some process will take time.

Two of their children were adopted from an orphanage in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. My brother and his wife would rather have 4 kids raised with a high level of care in relative poverty than fewer kids raised in wealthier circumstances. I'm sure if she worked full-time and the kids attended school it would be better for them financially, but they consider homeschooling to be hugely beneficial.  Staying out of poverty is a higher priority for my wife and I, which is why we work in offices and haven't had any children yet.

You're completely right. They absolutely have an interest in these things. That's why we should reign in Washington, strip it of its power to play favorites.  If government is allowed to stack the deck, its the people who end up losing. How often do politicians really fulfill their campaign promises? Rarely, if ever.

well, i was a kid when they shot the president through the head and his brains flew out into his wife's lap.    I'm saying this for my own sanity and perspective, not to dramatize myself.  at the same time, please don't misunderstand me as minimizing the creepiness of whats happening currently

ING Direct does this. Also, have you heard of Mvelopes?  It's a subscription-based service, but it's pretty simple to use, and it lets you have as many envelopes as you want.  You're not limited to five.

"My question boiled down: Do stock mutual funds behave more like   treasury bonds or commodities? When I think about it, it seems that   they should respond the devaluation like a commodity. I own a quantity   of company shares (not tied to a currency), and let's assume that the   company only holds immune assets. Does the real value of my stock   ownership go down? Why? On December 20, 1994, newly inaugurated President Ernesto Zedillo   announced the Mexican central bank's devaluation of the peso between   13% and 15%.  Devaluing the peso after previous promises not to do so   led investors to be skeptical of policymakers and fearful of   additional devaluations. Investors flocked to foreign investments and   placed even higher risk premia on domestic assets. This increase in   risk premia placed additional upward market pressure on Mexican   interest rates as well as downward market pressure on the Mexican   peso.  Foreign investors anticipating further currency devaluations   began rapidly withdrawing capital from Mexican investments and selling   off shares of stock as the Mexican Stock Exchange plummeted. To   discourage such capital flight, particularly from debt instruments,   the Mexican central bank raised interest rates, but higher borrowing   costs ultimately hindered economic growth prospects. The question is how would they pull this off if it's a floatable currency.  For instance, the US government devalued the US Dollar against gold in the 30s, moving one ounce of gold from $20 to $35.   The Gold Reserve Act outlawed most private possession of gold, forcing   individuals to sell it to the Treasury, after which it was stored in   United States Bullion Depository at Fort Knox and other locations. The   act also changed the nominal price of gold from $20.67 per troy ounce   to $35. But now, the US Dollar is not backed by anything, so how do they devalue it now (outside of intentionally inflating it)?  The Hong Kong Dollar, since it is fixed to the US Dollar, could be devalued relative to the Dollar, going from 7.75 to 9.75 or something similar, so it depends on the currency. As for the final part, ""does the real value of my stock ownership go down"" the answer is yes if the stock ownership is in the currency devalued, though it may rise over the longer term if investors think that the value of the company will rise relative to devaluation and if they trust the market (remember a devaluation can scare investors, even if a company has value). Sorry that there's too much ""it depends"" in the answer; there are many variables at stake for this.  The best answer is to say, ""Look at history and what happened"" and you might see a pattern emerge; what I see is a lot of uncertainty in past devaluations that cause panics."


Question: Does Warren Buffett really have a lower tax rate than his secretary?

"The scenario you mention regarding capital gains is pretty much the core of the issue. Here's a run-down from PolitiFact.com that explains it a bit. It's important to focus on it being the tax rate, not the tax amount (which I think you get, but I want to reinforce that for other readers).  Basically, most of Buffett's income comes from capital gains and   dividends, income from investments he makes with the money he already   has. Income earned by buying and selling stocks or from stock   dividends is generally taxed at 15 percent, the rate for long-term   capital gains and qualified dividends. Buffett also mentioned that some of the ""mega-rich"" are hedge fund   managers ""who earn billions from our daily labors but are allowed to   classify our income as 'carried interest,' thereby getting a bargain   15 percent tax rate."" We don't know the taxes paid by Buffett's secretary, who was mentioned   by Obama but not by Buffett. Buffet's secretary would have to make a   high salary, or else typical deductions (such as the child tax credit)   would offset taxes owed. Let's say the secretary is a particularly   well-compensated executive assistant, making adjusted income more than   $83,600 in income. (Yes, that sounds like a lot to us, too, but   remember: We're talking about the secretary to one of the richest   people in the world.) In that case, marginal tax rates of 28 percent   would apply. Then, there would be payroll taxes of 6.25 percent on the   first $106,800, money that goes to Social Security, and another 1.45   percent on all income, which goes to Medicare. The secretary’s overall   tax rate would be lower than 28 percent, since not all the income   would be taxed at that rate, only the income above $83,600. Buffett, meanwhile, would pay very little, if anything, in payroll   taxes. In the New York Times op-ed, Buffett said he paid 17.4 percent   in taxes. Thinking of the secretary, it gets a little complicated,   given how the tax brackets work, but basically, people who make   between $100,000 and $200,000 are paying around 20 percent in federal   taxes, including payroll and income taxes, according to an analysis   from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. So in this case, the secretary's rate is higher because so much of   Buffett's income comes from investments and is taxed at the lower   capital gains rate. Here's Buffet's original Op-Ed in the NYT for those of you that aren't familiar."

The Trinity study looked at 'safe' withdrawal rates from retirement portfolios. They found it was safe to withdraw 4% of a portfolio consisting of stocks and bonds. I cannot immediately find exactly what specific investment allocations they used, but note that they found a portfolio consisting largely of stocks would allow for the withdrawal of 3% - 4% and still keep up with inflation. In this case, if you are able to fund $30,000, the study claims it would be safe to withdraw $900 - $1200 a year (that is, pay out as scholarships) while allowing the scholarship to grow sufficiently to cover inflation, and that this should work in perpetuity. My guess is that they invest such scholarship funds in a fairly aggressive portfolio. Most likely, they choose something along these lines: 70 - 80% stocks and 20 - 30% bonds. This is probably more risky than you'd want to take, but should give higher returns than a more conservative portfolio of perhaps 50 - 60% stocks, 40 - 50% bonds, over the long term. Just a regular, interest-bearing savings account isn't going to be enough. They almost never even keep up with inflation. Yes, if the stock market or the bond market takes a hit, the investment will suffer. But over the long term, it should more than recover the lost capital. Such scholarships care far more about the very long term and can weather a few years of bad returns. This is roughly similar to retirement planning. If you expect to be retired for, say, 10 years, you won't worry too much about pulling out your retirement funds. But it's quite possible to retire early (say, at 40) and plan for an infinite retirement. You just need a lot more money to do so. $3 million, invested appropriately, should allow you to pull out approximately $90,000 a year (adjusted upward for inflation) forever. I leave the specifics of how to come up with $3 million as an exercise for the reader. :) As an aside, there's a Memorial and Traffic Safety Fund which (kindly and gently) solicited a $10,000 donation after my wife was killed in a motor vehicle accident. That would have provided annual donations in her name, in perpetuity. This shows you don't need $30,000 to set up a scholarship or a fund. I chose to go another way, but it was an option I seriously considered. Edit: The Trinity study actually only looked at a 30 year withdrawal period. So long as the investment wasn't exhausted within 30 years, it was considered a success. The Trinity study has also been criticised when it comes to retirement. Nevertheless, there's some withdrawal rate at which point your investment is expected to last forever. It just may be slightly smaller than 3-4% per year.

(1) Not literally every person...this screams that you don't know what you are talking about. There is literally no one on my team that puts it behind their name nor any of my friends from my MBA program.  (2) They aren't as I just proved to you in 3 minutes  (3) Your advice is complete and utter shit.   (4) As I have already articulated:   (A) undergrads know shit, those that have zero experience and an MBA know less than shit.  (B) Learning advanced concepts without knowing anything about the real world won't help him, he won't be able to apply anything he has learned.   (C) He loses any opportunity to reset his career or recruit into a high level position based on some asshole's advice on the internet.   (D) He will command a higher wage exiting MBA with work experience instead of likely taking more debt that he needs to.   (E) he gets to deal with hiring managers like me that will grill him on why he thought it was a good idea to do his MBA directly after undergrad with no work experience.   I might sound like a dick - but I'm not the one handing out shitty advice that highlights how inexperienced you are.

"BobbyScon's answer really covers this, but perhaps isn't sufficiently explicit.  Reason 1 of the quotation is the largest, by far: Get an Immediate Tax Deduction, but Give Later: You get the tax deduction when the foundation is funded, then make your charitable gifts over time. Having a ""personal"" foundation means that you make donations whenever it is appropriate from a personal finance point of view, but then actually perform the charitable giving in a time that is convenient. So you fund the foundation on Dec. 31, say; that gets the money out of your hands, and out of your taxable income, for the prior tax year.  Then you're not required to do anything else with that money until a time and place where it's convenient to you. In many cases, they set it up not as a foundation but as a Donor Advised Fund.  These are of late becoming extremely popular among the wealthy, largely the ease of setting them up and the above. The other major advantage of a Donor Advised Fund is simplicity in tax season: you have exactly one charitable donation recipient, with one receipt (or one set of them if you donate over time)."

>The correct solution is to...  I dont think there is a correct solution.  However, Id like to see major reform with financial aid recipient selection.  Right now the programs pretty effectively select the **worst** students.  it should be treated as an investment instead.  If the goal is to produce productive members of society, they should aim to produce productive members of society.  Require an essay on long term goals, career path, etc.  Look at past performance strongly (some, but not too much emphasis on HS grades, more on outside interests/activities, etc) and, most importantly, how that past performance will serve them in the field they are trying to get into.  Obviously put extra subsidies on things like education. Somebody who may be incapable of graduating with an accounting degree could still get an education degree with close to a 4.0.  If we turn too many dummies away from education, we wont have enough teachers.  Have a 30 minute interview with all of the finalists to determine their chances of having a positive return on society (through taxes paid over their lives, value added to the community, etc) and decide from there.  Make sure to focus on people with a passion for their industry.  Parental income should have almost no impact except for the ultra rich whose parents bring home an income of half a mil or something like that.  Edit:  I forgot to make this post relevant to the OP.  The schools that people are applying to should be a major factor.  Dont waste money sending people to schools that are a bad match (for profit schools, schools without a strong program in their intended degree).  Also, put a lot of negative emphasis on things like art majors.  There is no reason for the gov't to send some idiot to art school if they arent an absolute star.  I go to a lib art school and I dont know a single art or theater major that has found more success through attending a 4 year program than they could have just using those 4 years to improve themselves and to hunt down their (pipe)dream job.

> If you aren't ivy league you have no hope of getting on wall st in front office.  BB associate here coming in to confirm this.  Front office wall st is comprised of 2 types of people.    1* Tier 1 (Ivy, 4.0 UChicago, London School of Econ, 4.0 NYU, etc)  undergrads who didn't make it into HF's and are looking for exp so they can move into HF realm.  These are usually interns from junior/sr summer that are now on 2 year analyst rotation programs (usually 4 rotations of 6 months).  2* MBA/MS and CFA Charterholders with past experience in capital markets.  This means they have already been working at a BB whether it was in relationship management or middle office.

Hey desquinbnt & pontsone, I had an explanation written up about Share and Bond evaluation and in which, one share evaluation technique utilizes the P/E ratio - hence I explained it. Have a read, if you'd want me to go more in depth, let me know! :)  http://letslearnfinance.net/2012/06/09/introduction-to-bonds-and-share-valuation/

If the stock has dropped from $10 to $2 and now is range trading between $2 and $3, and you were not able to sell your shares earlier, then I would no be holding on to them now. As soon as the price hit $3 sell them. After you have sold them and you noticed the stock still range trading one strategy you could apply is to go long after the price bounces off the $2 support placing a stop just below $2, then as the price moves up you trail your stop up with the price. As it starts getting close to $3 tighten your stop. If it keeps range trading and bounces off the resistance at $3 and you get stopped out, you can either go short and reverse the process or wait for it to bounce off the support at $2 again. One word of warning though, the longer a stock range trades, the bigger the outbreak out of the rage (either up or down) will be, that is the reason why you should first wait for confirmation that the price has bounced off support/resistance before opening a position, and secondly why you should use a stop loss to get you out instead of just selling when it hits $3, because if it breaks through $3 you can continue profiting as it moves up.


Question: Where to park money low-risk on interactivebrokers account?

"The standard low-risk/gain very-short-term parking spot these days tends to be a money market account.  However, you have only mentioned stock. For good balance, your portfolio should consider the bond market too. Consider adding a bond index fund to diversify the basic mix, taking up much of that 40%. This will also help stabilize your risk since bonds tend to move opposite stocks (prperhaps just because everyone else is also using them as the main alternative, though there are theoretical arguments why this should be so.) Eventually you may want to add a small amount of REIT fund to be mix, but that's back on the higher risk side. (By the way: Trying to guess when the next correction will occur is usually not a winning strategy; guesses tend to go wrong as often as they go right, even for pros. Rather than attempting to ""time the market"", pick a strategic mix of investments and rebalance periodically to maintain those ratios. There has been debate here about ""dollar-cost averaging"" -- see other answers -- but that idea may argue for investing and rebalancing in more small chunks rather than a few large ones. I generally actively rebalance once a year or so, and between those times let maintainng the balance suggest which fund(s) new money should go into -- minimal effort and it has worked quite well enough.,)"

Killer product descriptions that prompt deals aren't really difficult to compose. Notwithstanding what may be normal, once you know the condition and key fixings that make one up, you can take after a clear game plan of steps each time you create another for an item. But hiring a Professional is a better idea. You can get Amazon Product Description Writing Services from Mmf Infotech.

This has been happening for a long time.  I know a lot of people are happy that they have a job where they only work 9-6.  Many white collar jobs have turned 9-5 into 9-6 and with no unions and high unemployment everyone just deals with it.

Well I mean there's no perfect solution. Women being disadvantaged is just a result of biology, and there's only so much you can do. It's even possible that mandatory paternity is a net negative for society as a whole due to less productivity at the expense of greater equality.

One reason for this is that many people don't simply allow their houses to rot and decay. If you're talking about a house built in 1980 and left vacant and unmaintained for 35 years, it probably will be in pretty poor shape.  But a homeowner generally wants to preserve their house and maintain it in good condition, so they invest in things like new roofs, siding, gutters, windows, paint, exterminators, new furnaces, hot water heaters, air conditioners, etc... All this stuff costs money (and for tax purposes, can often be factored into the cost basis of the house when it is sold), but it maintains the value of the property. A small hole in the roof may be fairly cheap to fix, but if left unrepaired, it could eventually cause much of the building to rot, making the structure near worthless. If a car slams into your living room, you don't generally leave it there; most people repair the damage.  It's not uncommon in some areas to have 100 year old houses (or 300+ year old houses in some countries) that were built well in the first place and have been well maintained in the interim.  People also renovate their homes, ripping out outdated construction and appliances and sometimes building new additions, decks, porches, etc... This also serves to make the property more attractive and increases its value.

"Actually, this is a pretty good analogy to certain types of stocks, specifically tech and other ""fad"" stocks. Around the turn of the century, there were a lot of ""Bobs"" buying tech stocks (like they would baseball cards), for tech stocks' sakes. That's what drove the internet and tech stock bubbles of high valuations. At other times, the tech stocks are bought and sold mainly by ""Steve's"" for business reasons such as likely (not merely possible) future appreciation, and command a much lower valuation."

It is very important to take care of housing roof in certain time interval so as to avoid cracking and leaking in the roof, otherwise it may lead to the harm in future. The material should be taken to the reputed company which is loyal to its client and provide with super fine material which is guaranteed for years. Southmoreroofing will provide you all quality services that are needed for the maintenance of roof Perth.

It depends on the bank and network. Banks are to provide outgoing data at the certain time for the processing by the central clearing house (the Federal Reserve system, for ACH), which then distributes incoming data back to the banks. All this has to be done between the closing of the business day and the opening of the next one. If the transaction hasn't completed the full path during that time - it will wait at the position it was stuck at until the next cycle - next night. That's why sometimes ACH transactions take more than 1 day to complete (if, for example, multiple Fed banks have to be involved).


Question: Which type of stock order would I use to sell a stock that hits a price or drops below it?

A trailing stop will sell X shares at some percentage below the current market price.  Putting in this order with a 10% trailing stop when the stock price is $50 will sell the stock when it hits $45.  It's a market order at that point (see below). A stop order will sell the stock when it reaches a certain price.  The stop order becomes a market order when the magic price is hit.  This means that you may not sell it at or below your price when the order is executed.  But the stock will sell faster because the trader must execute. A stop limit order is the same as a stop order, except the stock won't be sold if it can't be gotten for the price.  As a result, the sell may not be executed. More information here.

"As a minor you certainly can pay tax, the government wants its cut from you just like everyone else :-) However you do get the personal allowance like everyone else, so you won't have to pay income tax until your net income reaches £10,800 (that's the figure for the tax year from April 2015 to April 2016, it'll probably change in future years). Once you're 16, you will also have to pay national insurance, which is basically another tax, at a lower threshold. The current rates are £2.80/week if you are making £5,965 a year or more, and also 9% on any income above £8,060 (up to £42,385). Your ""net income"" or ""profits"" are the income you receive minus the expenses you have to support that income. Note that the expenses must be entirely for the ""business"", they can't be for personal things. The most important thing to do immediately is to start keeping accurate records. Keep a list of the income you receive and also the expenses you pay for hardware etc. Make sure you keep receipts (perhaps just electronic ones) for the expenses so you can prove they existed later. Keep track of that net income as the year goes on and if it starts collecting at the rate you'd have to pay tax and national insurance, then make sure you also put aside enough money to pay for those when the bill comes. There's some good general advice on the Government's website here: https://www.gov.uk/working-for-yourself/what-you-need-to-do In short, as well as keeping records, you should register with the tax office, HMRC, as a ""sole trader"". This should be something that anyone can do whatever their age, but it's worth calling them up as soon as you can to check and find out if there are any other issues. They'll probably want you to send in tax returns containing the details of your income and expenses. If you're making enough money it may be worth paying an accountant to do this for you."

"If I had to guess (since you provided little information about your loan repayment), I'd guess that you're on the ""Extended"" repayment plan for your $72k loan, and the ""Standard"" plan for your $30k loan. In general, there are 4 main kinds of student loan repayment plans This holds true for federal loans (Direct/Stafford/PLUS). Private loans may not have all of these options, or they may have more. Running your numbers, I get 300 payments of $500/mo at 6.8% interest for a $72,000 loan, and 120 payments of $345/mo at 6.8% interest for a $30,000 loan. Now, to address your issue of interest vs principal, you should notice that each month you pay, the interest payment is slightly lower, and the principal slightly higher. And if you make bi-weekly payments, you'll see that change a LITTLE bit more quickly (slightly smaller balance accruing interest for 14 days of the month) and you'll also pay slightly less over time."

I'm in the same position as you. I've found YouTube to be a great resource, as well as reading things from outlets like the WSJ. Having a close friend in a target school studying finance also helps a ton, as I have someone to talk to casually about things, as well as ask questions.  Check out [this](https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLUl4u3cNGP63B2lDhyKOsImI7FjCf6eDW) playlist on YouTube. I've seen the professor (Lo) mentioned more than once in articles in the WSJ. He's written some books too that I'd like to read. I haven't watched that whole playlist, but the first few videos are helpful.  Martin Shkreli's YouTube channel is a great resource. It's mentioned constantly on this sub. His finance lessons as well as his weekly podcast are great. I also like to listen to (via YouTube Red) talks given by execs like Ackman, Gray, Simons, Dalio, etc. [this](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCVJalJNQWimC2zWrIHR_bSQ) channel uploads tons of interviews and talks that I find interesting. They can get repetitive, but I find it fun to listen to these guys.   You can also get a student membership to the American Finance Association for free. Academic papers are still way above my level, but if you really get into it, those could be fun.  You can subscribe to email newsletters for some free content. Almost Daily Grant's is a good one, the normal journal costs like 2k a year.   Feel free to message me.

Plain and simple, go into business.  I was in the exact same boat as you 5 years ago. Was going to school to become a Pharmacist while working in a Dominick's pharmacy as a tech. Absolutely hated it and did not see myself standing behind that counter for the rest of my life. Not to mention that a pharmacists job will be one of the firsts in the medical field to be automated.   Left pharmacy school to start my business degree. Got a couple of sales jobs for the experience while completing my bachelors. Now I'm working in Chicago as a commercial real estate broker. The plan is to work in this for the foreseeable future, and then parlay this career into my own business ventures and real estate investing and build from there!

No, it's not.  This could be a great question, but with no background, not so much. Do you live there now? For how long, and how much longer? You say investment, are you looking to live in it or rent it out?  I have nothing against China, but I'd not buy anywhere unless the price, location, and timing all were right.

I get teh flight to quality arguement aka best of the dirty shirts philosophy, but I am talking realistically. And of course a 3% 10yr is worth more on the seconday market now that rates are at 1.65%.  That doesn't mean you buy the 1.65%

At first guess, people have less and less disposable cash/income for a down payment which subsequently results in longer loan duration. I thought I recall reading an article not too long ago where average auto loan term was 70 something months and average new car is $30k+. That’s a lot of $$$ for a country where median household income is $50k.


Question: Why would a company issue a scrip dividend and how will this issue affect me?

Am I correct in understanding that a Scrip Dividend involves the issue of new shares instead of the purchase of existing shares? Yes. Instead of paying a cash dividend to shareholders, the company grants existing shareholders new shares at a previously determined price. This allows shareholders who join the program to obtain new shares without incurring transaction costs that would normally occur if they purchased these shares in the market. Does this mean that if I don't join this program, my existing shares will be diluted every time a Scrip Dividend is paid? Yes, because the number of shares has increased, so the relative percentage of shares in the company you hold will decrease if you opt-out of the program. The price of the existing shares will adjust so that the value of the company is essentially unchanged (similar to a stock split), but the number of outstanding shares has increased, so the relative weight of your shares declines if you opt out of the program.  What is the benefit to the company of issuing Scrip Dividends? Companies may do this to conserve their cash reserves. Also, by issuing a scrip dividend, corporations could avoid the Advanced Corporation Tax (ACT) that they would normally pre-pay on their distributions. Since the abolition of the ACT in 1999, preserving cash reserves is the primary reason for a company to issue scrip dividends, as far as I know. Whether or not scrip dividends are actually a beneficial strategy for a company is debatable (this looks like a neat study, even though I've only skimmed it).  The issue may be beneficial to you, however, because you might receive a tax benefit. You can sell the scrip dividend in the market; the capital gain from this sale may fall below the annual tax-free allowance for capital gains, in which case you don't pay any capital gains tax on that amount. For a cash dividend, however, there isn't a minimum taxable amount, so you would owe dividend tax on the entire dividend (and may therefore pay more taxes on a cash dividend).

There are some important thing you need to understand about bonds, and how they work:  * A bond doesn't need an active market - like a stock, for example - to have value.    * Nonetheless, there exist active markets for all of these bonds.    * The purpose of buying these bonds was not to step in due to the absence of a market.  Rather, the purpose was to deliberately bid up the price of these bonds (ahead of the market), causing their price to rise and yields (interest rates) to drop.  * The Fed can hold any and all of these bonds to maturity, while receiving contractual payments all the while, and never sell a single bond back to the market.

"As an investor, I try to interpret the suits as an attempt to in some way influence the actions of the company - and not, usually, as a serious legal threat (or as likely to lead to serious legal consequences). My (shallow) understanding (as a non-lawyer) is that the requirements for a lawsuit to be filed as class-action suit are (relatively speaking) easier to meet when the company is publicly traded - the shareholders are more easily described as a ""class"". So it's more common for lawsuits that involve stock holders for large, publicly traded companies to be registered as class action suits. Class action suits include a requirement for some advertising and notifications (so all members of the class become aware of the suit, and can decide whether to participate). So, these types of suits can be started with various goals in mind, goals which might be achieved without the suit ever going anywhere - including to gain some publicity for a particular point of view, or to put pressure on the company to perform particular actions. In most cases, though, they are the result of misunderstandings between the various parties with an interest in how the company is run - shareholders, directors and/or executive officers. For most cases, the result of the suit is a more in depth sharing of information between the parties involved, and possibly a change in the plans/actions of the company; the legal technicalities differ from case to case, and, often, the legal consequences are minor."

Fuck managerial accounting to death. Anywho, I'm not sure what they mean by the variance being higher or lower in the budget. Variance in principle is the discrepancy from a budget and actual.   I'll try to answer this from what I can see.    The budget variance in this problem is unfavorable for Busy Community Support, mostly caused by a significant underestimating of your salaries expense in the budget.

So you don't have any trouble with FedGov dictating *national* labor and union-relation laws, and throwing out the differences between various states? Because *that's* the reason this administration is acting in this manner, it has very little to do with franchises; the end result is national dictatorship of wages, hours, and unions by the executive branch.  As the article says; if this policy is really what's necessary, why doesn't *Congress* implement it?

"The ""pure play"" would be using interest rate options.  http://www.cboe.com/Products/InterestRateOptionsSpecs.aspx"

Off the top of my head, a broker: While there are stock exchanges that offer direct market access (DMA), they (nearly) always want a broker as well to back the first two points I made.  In that case the broker merely routes your orders directly to the exchange and acts as a custodian, but of course the details heavily depend on the exchange you're talking about. This might give you some insight: Direct Market Access - London Stock Exchange

As BrenBarn points out in his comment, the real values are inflation adjusted values using the consumer price index (CPI) included in the spreadsheet.  The nominal value adjusted by the CPI gives the real value in terms of today's dollars. For example, the CPI for the first month (Jan 1871) is given as 12.46 while the most recent month (Aug 2016) has a reported CPI of 240.45. Thus, the real price (in today's dollars) for the 4.44 S&P index level at Jan 1871 is calculated as 4.44 x 240.45 / 12.46 = 85.68 (actually reported as 85.65 due to rounding of the reported CPIs).  And similarly for the other real values reported.


Question: Can I deduct personal loans or use them as tax “write offs?”

You will have to write it off as an offset of capital gains or as bad debt against personal income, limited to $3k/ yr. Write off 3k this year, 2k next. Here's the tax code, you'll need to file a form 8949, link below. https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc450/tc453 So, this requires that it is a loan, acknowledged by both you and the borrower, with terms of repayment and stated interest, as well as wording for late payments and time for delinquency.  The loan document doesn't have to be fancy, but it must show a reasonable intention of repayment to distinguish it from a gift.  Then send out a 1099c for cancellation of debt. This is a starting point, it's a good idea to run everything by your tax processional to make sure you're meeting the requirements for bad debt with your contact and payment communication.

"It's a spin on the phrase ""making your money work for you"". before sending your money off to do the heavy lifting, you'll want to   have an emergency savings account of about six months of living   expenses stored in cash. Basically, he is saying before you start to invest make sure you have sufficient emergency savings."

I think legitimate companies and patent trolls have been suing and licensing and participating in patent land grabs for years and years now. I don't think there's any CEO out there that reads the latest Apple news and realizes they could have been doing this all along.

[Image](https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/impostor.png)  [Mobile](https://m.xkcd.com/451/)  **Title:** Impostor  **Title-text:** If you think this is too hard on literary criticism, read the Wikipedia article on deconstruction\.  [Comic Explanation](https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/451#Explanation)  **Stats:** This comic has been referenced 237 times, representing 0.1445% of referenced xkcds.  --- ^[xkcd.com](https://www.xkcd.com) ^| ^[xkcd sub](https://www.reddit.com/r/xkcd/) ^| ^[Problems/Bugs?](https://www.reddit.com/r/xkcd_transcriber/) ^| ^[Statistics](http://xkcdref.info/statistics/) ^| ^[Stop Replying](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=xkcd_transcriber&subject=ignore%20me&message=ignore%20me) ^| ^[Delete](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=xkcd_transcriber&subject=delete&message=delete%20t1_dkmt1yy)

Definitely, Elon is someone to admire and he definitely deserves a lot of credit for what he accomplished.   Tesla is worth about $50B, but remember another contributing factor to its success: the USA government is paying $7,500 for every car they make and sell.

Assuming constant velocity, inflation is caused by the difference between the growth in the money supply and growth in real output. In other words, this means that the money supply growing faster than output is expanding causes inflation to arise.

The payments might be on time, but the aren't made the same numbers of days apart: The percentage of the daily payment for interest is decreasing, but the numbers of days wasn't constant.

From an Indian tax point of view, this transaction is not taxable to you or your father.


Question: Why would you sell your bonds?

You sell any investment because you need to do something else with the money -- rebalance your investments, buy something, pay off a debt....

Basically, yes. That doesn't mean that it's easy to do. The government provides a dividend tax credit since an individual takes on more risk to invest in dividend-paying corporations rather than trading their human capital for an income. Thus, for the most part, $1 earned from dividends is taxed much less than $1 earned from income or interest. Finally, note that foreign dividends are not eligible for the dividend tax credit, and are not preferentially taxed.

I have read numerous accounts of this, and yes, it is criminal, but no, they can't figure out who did, though presumably the people handling the accounts were guilty of this. Mutant human [Angelo Mozilo](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angelo_Mozilo)'s organization stands out as the worst offender in this regard with no trickery too extreme.  Ironically sourcing these particular accounts is difficult because of the sheer amount of material pertaining to subprime mortgages and fraud in general.

Apple's specialty is UX.  It's an incredibly talented UX company, both software and hardware wise.  It's also talented at convincing it's fanbase that anything they release is required to live.  Apple fanboys would buy a car just to get the Apple logo somewhere on it.

"I would say to only bother keeping the ones you know you'll use for itemized deductions. This includes any unreimbursed business expenses and vehicle licensing fees. There are a lot of other itemized tax deductions possible, but those are two common ones. Also, keep track of your business mileage (mileage before and after the trip, and commuting doesn't count as ""business mileage""). You may also want to keep receipts of all out-of-state purchases if your state is one of those that tries to collect state tax on out-of-state purchases. Ensure your supported charities are 501(c)(3), and they'll give you a receipt at the end of the year. Don't bother keeping fast food or gas receipts (unless they're business expenses)."

It's perfectly legal for your brother to make a loan to you.  However those two transactions are separate.  If he defaults on the LC loan because you didn't pay him, it's his responsibility.  If you default on your loan with him, you've got big problems.  Money + family/friends = scary.

"Chance presented me with the opportunities. Hard work enabled me to be prepared to take those opportunities when presented. Had the opportunities that I did take not presented themselves I was very prepared to move on to the next ones. I always say, ""I have backup plans for my backup plan's backup plan."""

If you are inside of a ROTH IRA you are not getting taxed on any gain.  Dividends, distributions, interest payment, or capital gains are never taxed.  This, of course, assumes you wait until age 59.5 to do ROTH withdrawals on your gains.


Question: What exactly is a wealth management platform?

It's a tech buzzword. OK I'm being a bit glib.  A Wealth Management Platform is a software system designed to help people track their investment portfolios and research new investments.  Sometimes, trusts and small investment firms will use these platforms as well but they will often have more specialized separate systems for portfolio tracking and research. There is a large variety of platforms out there all trying to be the best platform for you... or someone else.  Some will have websites and be open to all with money and some will be applications and only target some types of investors.  Some will have robo-advising (Wealthfront), a human adviser (Merrill) or have none at all.  Some will have nice graphical tools to track your portfolio or great research tools or both (I try not to recommend products on this site).  Some can be designed to nudge you into their ideology (Vanguard). All, though, have a technology team behind them to make investing easier for you (or their investment advisers) or to sell you their products.  You get the picture.

While I agree that luck has something to do with it, most of the successful business owners also put in crazy long hours and submitted themselves to huge financial risk in order to get their businesses started.  I do not say this to mean there is no luck; there is always an element of luck. But you cannot get lucky if you aren't at the right place at the right time, and sometimes arriving at that place and trying to get lucky takes much more than people realize.  Edit: some people are interpreting this to say that only successful business owners work hard. This is not what I am saying.

"This question has been asked and answered before. Financially, owning a car will be more economical than leasing one in most cases. The reason for this is that leasing arrangements are designed to make a profit for the leasing company over and above the value of the car. A leasing company that does not profit off their customers will not be in business for long. This is a zero-sum game and the leasing customer is the loser. The lion's share of the customer losses are in maintenance and in the event of an accident or other damage. In both cases, leasing arrangements are designed to make a large profit for the owner. The average customer assumes they will never get into an accident and they underestimate the losses they will take on the maintenance. For example, if both oxygen sensors need to be replaced and it would have cost you $800 to replace them yourself, but the leasing company charges you $1200, then BOOM! you just lost $400. If the car is totaled, the customer will lose many thousands of dollars. Leasing contracts are designed to make money for the owner, not the customer. Another way leasing agents make money is on ""required maintenance"". Most leasing contracts require the leasor to perform ""required"" maintenance, oil changes, tire rotations, etc. Also, with newer cars manufacturers recalls are common. Those are required as well. Nearly nobody does this maintenance correctly. This gives the agent the excuse to charge the customer thousands of dollars when the vehicle is returned. Bills of $4000 to $6000 on a 3 year lease for failure to perform required maintenance are common. Its items like this that allow the leasing agent to get a profit on what looks like a ""good deal"" when the customer walked in the door 3 years previously. The advantage of leasing is that it costs less up front and it is more convenient to switch to a different car because you don't have to sell the car."

Have you owned the stock for longer than 2015?  The stock appears to have grown in value since December 2014 from 72.85 to 73.5 which is about 0.89% growth in the year to date (2015).

Distributions from an inherited IRA will be taxed as ordinary income and there are required minimum distributions for the inherited account. Assuming you were 55 at the time of your mother's death, your life expectancy according to the IRS is 29.6 years. Your required yearly distributions on $200,000 would be roughly $6800. For each year that you didn't withdraw that, you would owe a 50% penalty of the distribution amount (~$3400). That's probably better than the tax hit you would take if you pulled it all in as income in a 5 year window (ie. all right now since you're at the end of the window).

You might consider calling the broker you invest with. At mine, you can see the room left to contribute each year in the TFSA. The CRA might just have old/bad data.

Do we have a list of all of their predictions? Because 1. I predicted the last crash, whoop di doo 2. By default, on a planet of 7.3 billion, there will always be SOMEONE who predicts something right.  I've been reading about 'the person that nailed the last one predicting collapse tomorrow' since sometime in 2011...all those fuckers were wrong.

FX is often purchased with leverage by both retail and wholesale speculators on the assumption daily movements are typically more restrained than a number of other asset classes. When volatility picks up unexpectedly these leveraged accounts can absolutely be wiped out. While these events are relatively rare, one happened as recently as 2016 when the Swiss National Bank unleashed the Swiss Franc from its Euro mooring. You can read about it here: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-swiss-snb-brokers-idUSKBN0KP1EH20150116


Question: Bid price… sudden Drop

An option gives you the option rather than the obligation to buy (or sell) the underlying so you don't have to exercise you can just let the option expire (so long it doesn't have an automatic expiry). After expiration the option is worthless if it is out of the money but other than that has no hangover. Option prices normally drop as the time value of the option decays. An option has two values associated with it; time value and exercise value. Far out of the money (when the price of the underlying is far from the strike price on the losing side) options only have time value whereas deep in the money options (as yours seems to be) has some time value as well as the intrinsic value of the right to buy (sell) at a low (high) price and then sell (buy) the underlying.  The time value of the option comes from the possibility that the price of the underlying will move (further) in your favour and make you more money at expiry. As expiry closes it is less likely that there will be a favourable mood so this value declines which can cause prices to move sharply after a period of little to no revaluing. Up to now what I have said applies to both OTC and traded options but exchange traded options have another level of complexity in their trading; because there are fewer traders in the options market the size of trade at which you can move the market is much lower. On the equities markets you may need to trade millions of shares to have be substantial enough to significantly move a price, on the options markets it could be thousands or even hundreds. If these are European style options (which sounds likely) and a single trading entity was holding a large number of the exchange traded options and now thinks that the price will move significantly against them before expiry their sell trade will move the market lower in spite of the options being in the money. Their trade is based on their supposition that by the time they can exercise the option the price will be below the strike and they will lose money. They have cashed out at a price that suited them and limited what they will lose if they are right about the underlying. If I am not correct in my excise style assumption (European) I may need more details on the trade as it seems like you should just exercise now and take the profit if it is that far into the money.

"You're missing the point. A ""skilled"" adult (however you want to define that) shouldn't have to compete with a teeneger. But I get it. Econ 101 supply and demand. The problem is ""economists"" are now saying that the supply side is the only one that maters and that if you just pump up supply demand will follow and thus we now have flippant idoitic policy! Resolve THAT. Please."

> From the IT managers perspective he has a budget of X dollars to allocate. When X dollars are spent that's it, he isn't allowed to spend any more.  The IT manager should not view his budget this way. A budget is a projection of future expenses. If some expenses turn out to be different from the projection, then either (a) you need your budget to account for this by having some slack in it or (b) you have to revisit your budget and change the plan.  Viewing a budget as a checking account is wrong. That's not how it actually works in the accounting department and by not understanding what accounting is doing, the IT manager is causing himself extra pain.

I like using Mint.com to track my expenses.  It makes it very easy to watch my budget and monitor my spending.

"Like almost everything in economics, it's a tradeoff. Terms like ""good"" imply an absolute value. It *can* be good or bad depending on the circumstances, the exact amount it is being set to, and the importance of the things being traded off to different individuals, independent of their per-conceived personal opinion of minimum wage itself."

It's not fucking rocket science. You cut taxes at the high income brackets, and it helps people in higher income bracket. Is this what counts for journalism these days?  I wish I could get my time back for reading this article.

The price of the loan may be justified if you're considered a high-risk applicant for some reason (e.g. you're putting very little money in initial payment), and if it includes all the associated expenses. What is more relevant to your situation is that you're probably better off renting. Think about it: your $300'000 house will require some repairs in those 30 years (let's estimate those at $100'000). That means in 30 years you'll build $200'000 of equity spending $720'000 on it. Of course this assumes that the value of the house will remain constant. You're effectively be throwing away $520'000, or more than $1'400 a month. If you can rent a place for $1'400 a month or less, you'll build more equity by renting that place for 30 years and saving the excess money in a bank account. If you consider the interest that money in your bank account will earn you (e.g. 3% annually), you'll build more than $200'000 equity in 30 years even if you spend as much as $1'650 on your rent and save only $350 a month.

"Its more ""there could be a big market correction without vix going up"", though I suppose it might spike briefly if there's a sudden reversal. VIX is one of those things that doesn't feel like it is ever due for a change."


Question: Why buy insurance?

"Because people are Risk Averse. Suppose that you own an asset worth $10,000 to you.  Suppose that each year, the asset has 1% chance of being stolen (or completely broken).  The expected value is 99% x 10,000 + 1% x $0 = $9,900. This is the average outcome if you do not buy insurance.  Now consider two mutually exclusive outcomes: 99% chance of keeping $10,000 and 1% chance of losing everything (expected value: $9,900)  100% chance of keeping $9,900 (expected value: $9,900)  Everyone would choose option 2, even though the expected values are the same.  Option 2 is an insurance that cost $100 (Actuarially fair, aka the odds are fair).  Now suppose the insurance costs $150 instead of $100 (despite that the bad probability is still 1%). You are faced with  99% chance of keeping $10,000 and 1% chance of losing everything (expected value: $9,900)  100% chance of keeping $9,850 (expected value: $9,850)  Some people would still choose option 2, even though the expected value is actually lower.  The $50 is called Risk Premium, which people are willing to pay in order to avoid uncertainty. The odds are unfair, but the Risk Premium has its value.  That being said, competition between insurance companies would drive down the premium until the insurance is close to actuarially fair, but they have cost to cover (sales, administration, etc), making the odds ""unfair""."

Hyperinflation doesn't mean armaggedon. There have been hundreds of fiat currencies that have ended in hyperinflation i.e. wiemar republic (which the germans fully recovered from in less than 10 years before trying to take over europe).   Most all pawn shops buy gold/silver, especially during hyperinflation will people be buying gold/silver. You can't have hyperinflation without demand of commodities going through the roof, that is the driver of inflation. When this happens you can be gauranteed people will buy your gold/silver.  In the Wiemar republic, some people bought gold/silver for 1/10,000,000 what they sold it for. But they still lost 99% of their value because the mark still devalued another 1,000,000 times. Because of this, many people aren't even looking to sell it, until they absolutely need it's value. I.e. it's a piggy bank.   The best way to deal with a gold/silver stash is to hide it, you can't steal what you can't find. There's a reason pirates are famous for burying their stuff, when they don't have the law on their side.

It seems he has now been infected by the baby talk virus, which was cute about 16 years ago, but today, its just considered more shit talk from US politicians who have lost their grip on reality and imagine lying through their teeth and throwing in some well used terms like human rights and freedom and democracy will actually garner some support from some one naive enough in the world.  Hey Fucking Moron 2nd in command . . .make a speech about Israel and human rights and freedom of speech and media  Hey . .make a speech about shooting children in the face with shotguns in Indian occupied Kashmir.

I had a similar situation a while ago, and here's what I learned: What are our options here to ensure that this company can't retry to take our money again via ACH? Close existing account and create a new one that has different account number? Yes. As a temporary solution keep ~$0 balance in the account so that their request for $840 can't be fulfilled? However, would our bank incur any fees because of insufficient funds each time the other company tries to charge us again? Bad idea. You may incur penalties for returned payment, or the bank may honor the payment and charge you overdraft fees. Provide to our bank the service termination notice that proves that we   are not in business with the other company anymore and effectively   block them. However, termination notice has only our signature Bank doesn't care. ACH withdrawal is akin to a check. The assumption is that the other side has entitlement. You can put stop payment once its processed and try to reverse it claiming fraud, but the end result will be #1: you'll end up getting a new account set up, while they try to recover the money. This is one of the reasons I'm reluctant allowing standing ACH authorizations any more. Generally, the American banking system is very much geared against the consumers, and in many ways is very retarded. In a more advanced countries (which is almost any other country than the US), the standing withdrawal authorization goes through your bank and can be revoked.

"From what I've heard in the past, debt can be differentiated between secured debt and unsecured debt.   Secured debt is a debt for which something stands good such as a mortgage on your house.  You have a debt, but that debt is covered by the value of an asset and if you needed to free yourself of the debt, then you could by selling that asset.   This is what is known as ""good"" debt.   Unsecured debt is debt that is incurred where the only thing that is available to pay it back is your income.  An example of this is credit card debt where you purchase something that couldn't be sold again to pay off the debt.   This is know as ""bad"" debt. You have to be careful about thinking that house debt is always ""good"" debt because the house stands good for it though.  The problem with that is that the house could go down in value and then suddenly your ""good"" debt is ""bad"" debt (or no longer secured).  Cars are very risky this way because they go down in value.  It is really easy to get a car loan where before long you are upside down.    This is the problem with the term ""good"" debt. The label makes it sound like it is a good idea to have that debt, and the risk associated with having the debt is trivialized and allows yourself to feel good about your financial plan.  Perhaps this is why so many houses are in foreclosure right now, people believed the ""good"" debt myth and thought that it was ok to borrow MORE than the home was worth to get into a house.  Thus they turned a secured debt into an unsecured debt and put their residence at risk by levels of debt they couldn't afford. Other advice I've heard and tend to agree with, is that you should only borrow for a house, an education and maybe a car (danger on that last one), being careful to buy a modest house, car etc that is well within your means to repay.   So if you do have to borrow for a car, go for basic transportation instead of the $40,000 BMW.  Keep you house payment less than 1/4th of your take home pay. Pay off the school loans as quickly as possible. Regardless of the label, ""good"" ""bad"" ""unsecured"" ""secured"", I think that less debt is better than more debt.   There is definitely such a thing as too much ""good"" debt!"

Voluntarily assuming a loan is a bad idea, especially for a non-investment purpose. It would be one thing to take on a loan to operate a business or buy a piece of capital equipment, like a machine that would make you money. Borrowing money to have a more luxurious house is foolish. The smart move is to buy a good quality home that will meet your needs for as little as possible. Having $800,000 leaves a quit a bit of leeway in that department. You don't say where you live, but if this occurred in my area (eastern Massachusetts) I would buy a house for $500,000 and then invest the remaining $300,000. If I lived in the California bay area, it might be necessary to spend the whole $800,000. Either way there should be no need to borrow money. Also, if you buy a house for cash, often you can get a substantially better deal than if you have to involve a bank. Not owing anyone money is a huge psychological advantage in business and in life in general. View being debt-free as a springboard to success and happiness.

No. They do not. The American populace, myself included, does not understand the vast complexities of the mechanisms and institutions responsible for delivering dollars to the market.   If there's debt, then it must be ok because our paychecks get bigger and we can get money from the bank.   If it was a problem, it'd be taken care of.

Did you buy near the bottom? Suppose you did then the price is still 16% below. 50% fall and then 40% increase leaves a 16% gap. So there could still be upside. However, it appears that you are talking about a small-cap that is volatile. I wouldn't hold it. I would take the money and invest elsewhere. If you have a lot of shares and brokerage is less then sell 60% now and the remaining 40% on either 10-15% jump in price or if it falls by 5% from now. Too risky to hold longer-term.


Question: Taxes and withholding on unpaid salary

As others have said, make sure you can and do file your taxes on a cash basis (not accrual). It sounds like it's very unlikely the company is going to issue you a 1099 for invoices they never paid you. So you just file last year's taxes based on your income, which is the money you actually received. If they do pay you later, in the new year, you'll include that income on next year's tax return, and you would expect a 1099 at that time. Side note: not getting paid is unfortunately common for consultants and contractors. Take the first unpaid invoice and sue them in small claims court. After you win (and collect!), tell them you'll sue them for each unpaid invoice in turn until they pay you in full. (You might need to break up the lawsuits like that to remain under the small claims limit.)

Public debt and risk of currency devaluation are two very, very different things.  Until the BRICS are able to buy commodities on a significant scale using a market basket of their own currencies, the USD will remain one of the (if not the) safest currencies in the world.

What makes it hard is that you're making this decision now, when you've already made decisions over the years going in a different route. I've noticed this recently w/some of my friends, that decisions, even small ones, over the years now come back to bite them b/c they didn't have a long term view. Now in early 30's they are constrained by choices throughout their 20's. Unfortunately, most people aren't equipped to make good decisions earlier, which hurts them later. So making such a change in lifestyle becomes harder.  So while it can be done, it's going to take some hard decisions. Just remember, children are a great reward, and a great sacrifice.

"Agreed, but going back to Amazon Prime itself, haven't you seen how the shipping charges are routinely just put into the price? Every non Prime item is $x plus $y for shipping. Then you see the Prime item listed for $(x+y) ""and free shipping!"". Just curious as to how you aren't more upset about that."

If you think there is no complication in your application and you can easily satisfy all criteria you can do the process yourself without using any agent and save few thousand dollars. I have done myself. Another cost Chris forgot to mention is the medical examination cost which is mandatory. If your certificates and docs are non-English translation fees are quite high as well.  The immigration process is very bureaucratic and requires lot of supporting documents. As for living in Australia, Rent, Car and living expenses are high compared to US. But in Sydney and Melbourne you can rent near public transport, which isn't too bad (well not like Europe ). So having a car is not essential. Rent for a decent flat in these cities will be $300 - $350 p/w and you may have to pay 4-6 weeks as advance. You can get a lot of information from the dept. of immingration website.

"> (NK and Iran with nuclear weapons, both say publicly ""death to America"").  Iran's nuclear facilities are under 24/7 inspections by the US and IAEA. The claim that Iran has a nuclear weapons program is US/Israeli propaganda -- pure and simple. Even all of our dozen-plus ""intelligence"" agencies state Iran has no nuclear weapons program.  North Korea likely has a half-dozen or so nukes.  But on the other hand, what would *you* do if the world's most aggressive, war-loving nation refuses to end the still-officially-ongoing Korean War?  North Korea has offered to end their nuclear weapons program, to re-join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and allow full UN inspections -- in exchange for the US ending the Korean War and giving non-aggression guarantees. We (the Bush administration) rejected that offer."

"The downside of the store card is that the ""deal"" for using the card is typically 6-12 months of ""no payments"" or ""no interest"". In reality, the ""deal"" is deferred payments/interest. The problem is, if you miss any payment, or fail to pay the computer off in full, you'll have to pay for the accrued interest -- at a rate typically 25% or higher. That means if you buy your computer for $1,000, and pay $999 at the end of 12 months, you may have to pay $250 in accrued interest. These cards can be great deals, just be really careful!"

How can I get quarterly information about private companies? Ask the owner(s).  Unelss you have a relationship and they're interested in helping you, they will likely tell you no as there's no compelling reason for them to do so.  It's a huge benefit of not taking a company public.


Question: Stock portfolio value & profit in foreign currency

"(Yes, I know this is a seven year old question.) Does this only apply to debts that were taken on during marriage  Yes or to all debts of both partners? No. The important thing to remember is that it's both debts and assets acquired during the marriage which are shared. This comes from the reality that men in the olden times were the ones in business, accumulating wealth, etc while the woman ""made the home"".  The working assumption was that the woman who made the home was an equal partner with the man, since he benefited from a good home, and she benefited from his income. The fact that pre-marriage debts and assets were not community property also protected the woman, because she was able to then take back her dowry and use that to support herself. (N.B. - I live in a CP state.)"

You never know when your upholstery or carpets can be in the need of Bunbury cleaning services, and this is exactly why you should always have our number handy. We, Chem-Dry Clean and Green, are like a doctor for your upholstery and carpet and you can give us a call anytime they are dirty.

In the US, a surviving family member that inherits the entire property may also assume the mortgage.  If the new mortgagee fails to uphold the terms of the mortgage (i.e. make timely payments), the mortgagor can begin foreclosure proceedings.  There is generally no requirement to pay off the mortgage quickly. This is obviously the simple case where one person inherits the entire property. If the estate is split and no one person inherits the house, or if the house is left to a non-relative, things get more complicated.  Effectively in that case the house is either sold to pay off the mortgage or the inheritor needs to take out a new mortgage to pay off the old one.

"This is another version of an old scam -- ""let me have a check deposited in your account because I can't open one for some reason, and I'll share some of the money with you.""  Here the scammer is promising to ""start a business"" with you as a way to gain your confidence and trust. The first danger sign is that you only know this person from online.  They are not someone you are friends with in the ""real"" world.  They could be anybody.   They used the name of a big company as a way to make what they're doing sound legitimate, but it's all a fraud.  They could be depositing a faked Exxon check into your account, which could land YOU in huge trouble. Here's the thing -- The only way Exxon (or any other company) can deposit money in a bank under someone's name is if that person provides the account and routing numbers to an account that already exists.  No company can just create an account in another person's name.  That's Hollywood movie stuff, but it's not how banking works.  To open an account, the bank would need identification on the account holder, so your ""friend"" already has an account if Exxon has allegedly deposited money.  Further, Exxon isn't going to take back money that has already been deposited.  In fact, they can't take it back.  If the account is in his name, they can't do anything to the account or with the account.   This is a situation you should run away from and never look back.  Nothing about this story sounds right or legitimate, but this is one of the oldest scams out there since the beginning of the Internet. You would be well advised to stay VERY far away from your supposed friend, because they're anything but your friend.  You are being SCAMMED.  Don't be a victim.  Stop communicating with this person immediately, and DON'T give them any personal information of any kind.  They're crooks! I hope this helps. Good luck!"

Looks like you don't want to participate in the consumerist rush but feel that you just have to do that too. First of all, you don't have to do what you don't want. Then there're researches showing that joy from a compulsive purchase only lasts for a short period of time and then you are left with a relatively useless item in your house. So it's one thing if you really wanted that cool full-electronic sewing machine (or whatever DIY item you might want) to be able to repair all the stuff and craft all the nice things you wanted, but it's another thing if you look at the item and can't decide whether you really need it. The latter scenario is you struggling with the consumerism rush. If you feel really happy and can save half of what you earn just save the difference - it won't hurt. Having a good sum of money saved is really helpful in many scenarios.

"I don't think you've mentioned which State you're in. Here in Ontario, a person who is financially incapable can have their financial responsibility and authority removed, and assigned to a trustee. The trustee might be a responsible next of kin (as her ex, you would appear unsuitable: that being a potential conflict of interest); otherwise, it can be the Public Guardian and Trustee. It that happens, then the trustee handles the money; and handles/makes any contracts on behalf of (in the name of) the incapable person. The incapable person might have income (e.g. spousal support payments) and money (e.g. bank accounts), which the trustee can document in order to demonstrate credit-worthiness (or at least solvency). For the time being, the kids see it as an adventure, but I suspect, it will get old very fast. I hope you have a counsellor to talk with about your personal relationships (I've had or tried several and at least one has been extraordinarily helpful). You're not actually expressing a worry about the children being abused or neglected. :/ Is your motive (for asking) that you want her to have a place, so that the children will like it (being there) better? As long as your kids see it as an adventure, perhaps you can be happy for them. Perhaps (I don't know: depending on the people) too it's a good (or at least a better) thing that they are visiting with friends and relatives; and, a better conversational topic with those people might be how they show your children a good time (instead of your ex's money). One possible way I thought of co-signing is if a portion of child/spousal support goes directly to the landlord. I asked the Child Support Services (who deduct money from my paycheck monthly to pay support to my ex) and they told me that they are not authorized to do this. Perhaps (I don't know) there is some way to do that, if you have your ex's cooperation and a lawyer (and perhaps a judge). You haven't said what portions of your payments are for Child support, versus Spousal support (nor, who has custody, etc). If a large part of the support is for the children, then perhaps the children can rent the place. (/wild idea) Note that, in Ontario, there are two trusteeship decisions to make: 1) financial; and 2) personal care, which includes housing and medical. Someone can retain their own 'self-care' authority even if they're judged financially incapable (or vice versa if there's a personal-care or medical decision which they cannot understand). The technical language is, ""Mentally Incapable of Managing Property"" This term applies to a person who is unable to understand information that is relevant to    making a decision or is unable to appreciate the reasonably foreseeable consequences of a    decision or lack of decision about his or her property. Processes for certifying an    individual as being mentally incapable of managing property are prescribed in the SDA (Substitute Decisions Act), and in the Mental Health Act."" The Mental Heath Act is for medical emergencies (only); but Ontario has a Substitute Decisions Act as well. An intent of the law is to protect vulnerable people. People may also acquire and/or name their own trustee and/or guardian voluntarily: via a power of attorney, a living will, etc. I don't know: how about offering the landlord a year's rent in advance, or in trust? I guess that 1) a court order can determine/override/guarantee the way in which the child support payments are directed 2) it's easier to get that order/agreement if you and your ex cooperate 3) there are housing specialists in your neighborhood: They can buy housing instead of renting it. Or be given (gifted) housing to live in."

> You can't hire on the basis of religion, period.  That is false.  It is a general rule, but there are lots of exceptions.  For example, when hiring a pastor or any job where your religion is required to perform the job.