anchor
stringlengths 112
256
| positive
stringlengths 0
13.1k
|
|---|---|
Instruct:
Given a financial question, retrieve user replies that best answer the question
Query:
Paying restaurants in cash instead of credit card - how signficant is this?
|
The biggest advantage to small business owners paid in cash is not that it might save the 2 or 3 percent that would go to the credit card company. The biggest advantage is that they have the opportunity to keep the transaction entirely off the books and pocket the cash without paying income tax or sales tax, especially when no receipt is given, or when it's a service instead of a product being sold, or when it's an approximately-tracked inventory unit going out the door. Although it's illegal, it's widely done, and it's also often a temptation for employees to try and get away with doing it too.
|
Instruct:
Given a financial question, retrieve user replies that best answer the question
Query:
Paying restaurants in cash instead of credit card - how signficant is this?
|
You know those perks/benefits that you don't want to give up? Those are funded by the fees you are trying to eliminate by paying cash. The credit card company makes money by interest, merchant fees, and other fees such a annual fees. They give you perks to generate more transactions, thus bringing in more merchant fees. For a small business they need to balance the fee of the credit card transaction with the knowledge that it is convenient for many customers. Some small businesses will set a minimum card transaction level. They do this because the small transaction on a credit card will be more expensive because the credit card company will charge 2% or 50 cents whichever is larger. Yes a business does figure the cost of the cards into their prices, but they can get ahead a little bit if some customers voluntarily forgo using the credit card.
|
Instruct:
Given a financial question, retrieve user replies that best answer the question
Query:
How to acquire assets without buying them?
|
Assets can be acquired in different ways and for different purposes. I will only address common legal ways of acquiring assets. You can trade one asset for another asset. This usually takes place in the form of trading cash or a cash equivalent for an asset. The asset received should be of equal or greater value than the asset given in the eyes of the purchaser in order for the trade to be rational. Take this example: I am selling a bike that has been sitting on my porch for a few months. It's worth about $25 to me. My friend, Andy, comes by and offers $90 for it. I happily accept. Andy valued the bike at $110. This transaction produced value for both parties. I had a value benefit of $65 (90 - 25) and Andy had a value benefit of $20 (110 - 90). You can receive an asset as a gift or an inheritance. Less common, but still frequent. Someone gives you a gift or a family member dies and you receive an asset you did not own previously. You can receive an asset in exchange for a liability. When you take out a loan, you receive an asset (cash) which is financed by a liability (loan payable). In your case: Why would I buy a mall if having assets worth the same amount as the mall? I must value the mall more than the assets I currently have. This may stem from the possibility of greater future returns than I am currently making on my asset, or, if I financed the purchase with a liability, greater future returns than the cost associated with payment on the principal and interest of the liability.
|
Instruct:
Given a financial question, retrieve user replies that best answer the question
Query:
How to acquire assets without buying them?
|
Your question seems to be premised on your personal understanding of economics, and asking that people present to you an explanation of business transactions that is consistent with your own personal worldview. But your premises are flawed, so an accurate answer should not accept them. The basics of trade is that something is worth more to one person than another; a wheat farmer has more wheat that they could possibly eat, and so it has no value other than what they can get by selling it, while an accountant will starve if they do not have any food and thus is willing to pay what the market demands. The two parties can both be better off by having a transaction. The other motivation for transactions is that parties may disagree as to what something is worth; even if one party will lose from the transaction, they may both believe they will profit.
|
Instruct:
Given a financial question, retrieve user replies that best answer the question
Query:
How to acquire assets without buying them?
|
You don't start out buying a shopping mall, you have to work up to it. You can start with any amount and work up to a larger amount. For me, I saved 30% of my salary(net), investing in stocks for 8 years. It was tough to live on less, but I had a goal to buy passive income. I put down this money to buy 3 houses, putting 35% down and maintaining enough cash to make 5 years of payments. I rented out the houses making a cap of 15%. The cap is the net payment per year / cost of the property, where the net accounts for taxes and repairs. I did not spend any of the profits, but I did start saving less salary. After 5 years of appreciation, mortgage payments and rental profit, I sold one house to get a loan for a convenience store. Buildings go on the market all the time, it takes 14 years to directly recoup an investment at a 7% cap, which is the average for a commercial property sale. Many people cash out for this reason, it's slow, but steady growth, though the earnings on property appreciation is a nice bonus. Owning real estate is a long term game, after a long time of earning, you can reinvest, but it comes with the risk of bad or no tenants. You can start both slower and smaller, just make sure you're picking up assets, not liabilities. Like investing in cars is generally bad unless you are sure it will appreciate.
|
Instruct:
Given a financial question, retrieve user replies that best answer the question
Query:
How to acquire assets without buying them?
|
There are a number of ways someone acquires assets without buying it. People could have inherited assets. They could have been gifted assets. They might have won assets in a lawsuit (unlikely to be a mall, but not impossible). They could have married into the assets. So there's other ways of acquiring assets without purchasing them.
|
Instruct:
Given a financial question, retrieve user replies that best answer the question
Query:
Is it taxable if someone return me money?
|
The $10,000 is not taxable to either of you, but the $500 is taxable income to you - and a deductible business expense for your friend.
|
Instruct:
Given a financial question, retrieve user replies that best answer the question
Query:
Capitalize on a falling INR
|
By no means is this a comprehensive list, but a few items to consider:
|
Instruct:
Given a financial question, retrieve user replies that best answer the question
Query:
Capitalize on a falling INR
|
One simplest way is to to do Forex trading. You can do this by buying Foreign Currency Futures when you feel Rupee is going down or by selling those Futures when you feel Rupee will go up.
|
Instruct:
Given a financial question, retrieve user replies that best answer the question
Query:
How to have a small capital investment in US if I am out of the country?
|
For $100 you better just hold it in Mexico. The cost of opening an account could eat 10% or more of your capital easily, and that won't be able to buy enough shares of an ETF or similar investment to make it worthwhile.
|
Instruct:
Given a financial question, retrieve user replies that best answer the question
Query:
Professional tax for employees - startup in India
|
The tax is depended upon state where you are registered and the salary paid. More here If you employ contract you need not pay tax.
|
Instruct:
Given a financial question, retrieve user replies that best answer the question
Query:
Do I owe taxes if my deductions are higher than my income?
|
"There's one factor the previous posters apparently missed here: You say ""self-employment tax""--in other words, at least some of that $16k is from self employment. In a normal employment situation the FICA tax is taken out of your paycheck, it's normally spot on and generally doesn't show up on your tax return. However, for the self-employed it's another matter. You pay the whole 15.3% from the first dollar and this does show up on your tax return. If it's all self employment money you would have about $2.5k in tax from this."
|
Instruct:
Given a financial question, retrieve user replies that best answer the question
Query:
Do I owe taxes if my deductions are higher than my income?
|
No, it's not possible. Even if you had no deduction or credits, your federal tax on $16,604 would be: $9075 @ 10% = $907.50 + $7529 @ 15% = $1129.35 = $2036.85 That assumes you are filing as single. There must be more to the story. Typo in your income numbers? Also, what do you mean by a self-employment tax deduction? Maybe update your question to include a breakdown of everything you entered? Edit: As noted in Loren's answer, it seems that it is indeed possible in at least one case (self-employment taxes).
|
Instruct:
Given a financial question, retrieve user replies that best answer the question
Query:
Do I owe taxes if my deductions are higher than my income?
|
I'm going to echo Phil and say that you should add more information. That being said, I think it is possible for you to owe the government that much. If you received a federal health insurance subsidy and live in a state that didn't expand medicaid, you could have received a subsidy through out the year that you did not end up qualifying for. It appears you are outside the medicaid limit of 133% of the poverty level($11,670) or $15,521. If you received a subsidy of $275 a month from the marketplace, you would have received $3300 worth of aid from the government that you don't qualify for. Now they are expecting you to pay it back.
|
Instruct:
Given a financial question, retrieve user replies that best answer the question
Query:
Do I owe taxes if my deductions are higher than my income?
|
As a CPA I can say, without a doubt, you do not owe any federal income tax. However, assuming all of you income was from your business and therefore subject to self-employment tax and you had no healthcare coverage, you would owe: $2,523 in Self-Employment Tax 645 in Healthcare Penalty $3,168 Total Amount You Should Owe. Assuming you have given us the right numbers, $3,300 sounds too high.
|
Instruct:
Given a financial question, retrieve user replies that best answer the question
Query:
Do I owe taxes if my deductions are higher than my income?
|
"In your case, I believe the answer is that you don't owe any taxes, if your deductions exceed your income. There is something called the Alternate Minimum Tax to catch ""rich"" people, who claim ""too many"" deductions. Basically, it taxes their ""gross"" income at a lower rate, but allows them no deductions if they make $175,000 or more. You are not in that tax ""bracket."""
|
Instruct:
Given a financial question, retrieve user replies that best answer the question
Query:
Why are U.S. credit unions not open to everyone?
|
Credit unions are mutually-owned (i.e. customer owned) financial institutions that provide banking services. They take deposits from their members (customers) and loan them to other members. Members vote on a board of directors who manage operations. They are considered not-for-profit, but they pay interest on deposits. They get some preferential tax treatment and regulation and their deposits are insured by a separate organization if federally accredited. State-chartered credit unions don't have to maintain deposit insurance at all. Their charters specify who can join. They can be regionally based, employer based, or based on some other group with common interests. Regulators restrict them so that they don't interfere too much with banks. Otherwise their preferential tax and regulatory treatment would leave banks uncompetitive. Other organizations with similar limits have gone on to be competitive when the limits were released. For example, there used to be an insurance company just for government employees, the Government Employees Insurance Company. You may know it better as GEICO (yes, the one with the gecko advertisements). Now they offer life and auto insurance all over. Credit unions would like looser limitations (or no limitations at all), but not enough to give up their preferential tax treatment. Banks oppose looser limitations and have as much political clout as credit unions.
|
Instruct:
Given a financial question, retrieve user replies that best answer the question
Query:
Why are U.S. credit unions not open to everyone?
|
"It's required by law. 12 USC 1759 (b) requires that membership in a credit union be limited to one or more groups with a ""common bond"", or to people within a particular geographic area. For lots more gory details on how this is interpreted and enforced, you can read the manual given to credit unions by the National Credit Union Administration, which is their regulatory agency."
|
Instruct:
Given a financial question, retrieve user replies that best answer the question
Query:
Car expense deductions with multiple work locations
|
"Suppose that I work from home, but do not qualify for a business use of home deduction. As I understand it, this means I cannot deduct trips from home to another work location (e.g., going to a client's home or office to do work there). I do not think this is true. You cannot deduct trips to your main business location, i.e.: you cannot deduct trips to your office or client's location if this is your main client and you routinely work on-site. However, if you only visit your clients on occasion for specific events while doing your routine work at home - you can definitely deduct those trips. The deduction of the home usage itself has nothing to do with it. However, there's a different reason they refer to pub 587. Your home must qualify as principal place of business (even if it doesn't qualify for deduction). The qualifications of ""principal place of business"" are described in pub 587. ""if for some personal reason you do not go directly from one location to the other, you cannot deduct more than the amount it would have cost you to go directly from the first location to the second."" What is not clear to me is what exactly is deductible if there are significant time gaps (within a single day) between trips to different clients. You got it right. What this quote means is that if you have client A and client B, and you drive from A to B - you can only deduct the travel between A and B, nothing else. I.e.: if you have 2 hours to kill and you take a trip to the mall - you cannot deduct the mileage attributable to that trip. You only deduct the actual distance between A and B as it would be had you driven from A to B directly. The example you cite re first client being considered as the place of business is for the case where your home doesn't qualify as principal place of business. In this case you start counting miles from your first client, and only for direct trips from client to client. If you only have 1 client in that day, tough luck, nothing to deduct. Also, it's not clear whether stopoffs between clients would really be ""personal reasons"", since the appointment times are often set by the client, so it's not as if the delay between A and B was just because I felt like it; there was never the option of going directly from A to B. That's what is called ""facts and circumstances"". You can argue that you had enough time between meetings to go back to your home office to continue working. The IRS agent auditing you (and you're likely to get audited) will consider that. Maybe will accept it. Maybe not. If I had a gap like that described above, I could save on my taxes by going to the park or a hamburger stand instead of going home between A and B But then you wouldn't be at home, so why would it be ""principal place of business"" if you're not there? Boom, lost deduction for the trip to the first client. I suggest you talk to a licensed tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State). You're dealing with deductions that are considered ""red flags"" for the IRS. I.e.: many people believe that these deductions (business use of your home/car) trigger audits. To substantiate business use of your car you need to keep very good track of your travels (literally travel log, they sell them at Staples), and make sure to distinguish between personal travel and business travel, keep proofs that the meetings took place (although keeping a log is a requirement, it can be backdated/faked, so if audited - the IRS will want to see more than your own documentation). A good tax adviser will educate you on all these rules, and also clarify the complexities you were asking about here. I'm not a tax adviser, so don't rely on this answer when you're preparing your tax return or responding to the IRS audit. In your edit you ask this: Specifically, what I'm wondering is whether it is possible for a home to qualify as a ""principal place of business"" for purposes of deducting car expenses but not for the home office deduction. The answer is yes. Deductibility is determined by exclusivity of use, among other things. But the fact that you manage your business from your kitchen doesn't make your kitchen any less of a principal place of business. It is non-deductible because you also cook your dinners there, but it is still, nonetheless, your principal place of business. The Pub 587 which I linked to has these qualifications: Your home office will qualify as your principal place of business if you meet the following requirements. You use it exclusively and regularly for administrative or management activities of your trade or business. You have no other fixed location where you conduct substantial administrative or management activities of your trade or business. As you see, exclusivity of the usage of your home area is not a requirement here. The ""exclusively and regularly"" in the quote refers to your business not using any other location, and managing it from home regularly. I.e.: if you manage your business a day in a year - that's not enough for it to be considered principal. If you manage your business from your office and your home - you cannot consider home as principal."
|
Instruct:
Given a financial question, retrieve user replies that best answer the question
Query:
Formation of S-Corp for Gambling Trade
|
In a sole proprietorship AND an LLC, the expenses can still be deducted against the profits or losses from the operations. The IRS does not even require that a profit seeking activity be incorporated under its own entity, hence why this is also applicable in a sole proprietorship. From what you've said, there is no reason to use a more complicated and costly corporate structure at all. In comparison, a sole proprietorship and single-member LLC will be completely pass through entities to the IRS and all of their earnings go to you. With the LLC you have the option of letting the LLC's earnings remain with the entity itself, or you can just treat it as your own and pay individual income taxes on it. This has nothing to do specifically with a gambling business and is largely a red herring to your profit seeking motives. Gambling in casino games and lotteries already enjoy favorable tax treatment in some regards. Gambling in capital markets also enjoy a myriad of favorable tax laws. A business entity related to this purpose should be able to deduct costs related to this trade (and pass an audit more convincingly than not having formed an LLC and business bank account)
|
Instruct:
Given a financial question, retrieve user replies that best answer the question
Query:
Formation of S-Corp for Gambling Trade
|
"You probably don't need S-Corp. There's no difference between what you can deduct on your Schedule C and what you can deduct on 1120S, it will just cost you more money. Since you're gambling yourself, you don't need to worry about liability - but if you do, you should probably go LLC route, much cheaper and simpler. The ""reasonable salary"" trick to avoid FICA won't work. Don't even try. Schedule C for professional gamblers is a very accepted thing, nothing extraordinary about it."
|
Instruct:
Given a financial question, retrieve user replies that best answer the question
Query:
Should I file taxes or Incorperate a personal project?
|
Normally, incorporation is for liability reasons. Just file your taxes as a business. This just means adding a T2125 to your personal return. There's no registering, that's for GST if over a certain threshold. There's even a section in the instructions for internet businesses. http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/E/pub/tg/t4002/t4002-e.html#internet_business_activities This is the form you have to fill out. Take note that there is a place to include costs from using your own home as well. Those specific expenses can't be used to create or increase a loss from your business, but a regular business loss can be deducted from your employment income. http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/E/pbg/tf/t2125/t2125-15e.pdf
|
Instruct:
Given a financial question, retrieve user replies that best answer the question
Query:
Should I file taxes or Incorperate a personal project?
|
"I don't know what you mean by ""claim for taxes,"" I think you mean pay taxes. I'm not sure how corps function in Canada but in the US single owner limited liability entities typically pass the net income through to the owner to be included in their personal tax return. So it seems all of this is more or less moot, because really you should probably already be including your income sourced from this project on your personal taxes and that's not really likely to change if you formed something more formal. The formal business arrangements really exist to limit the liability of the business spilling over in to the owner's assets. Or trouble in the owner's life spilling over to interrupt the business operation. I don't know what kind of business this is, but it may make sense to set up one of the limited liability arrangements to ensure that business liability doesn't automatically mean personal liability. A sole proprietorship or in the US we have DBA (doing business as) paperwork will get you a separate tax id number, which may be beneficial if you ever have to provide a tax ID and don't want to use your individual ID; but this won't limit your liability the way incorporating does."
|
Instruct:
Given a financial question, retrieve user replies that best answer the question
Query:
Should I file taxes or Incorperate a personal project?
|
There are two reasons for incorporating a business in Canada - limiting liability and providing some freedom in structuring your taxes. Since you are asking about taxes, I will restrict myself to that topic. First of all, remember that if you don't make much money, there isn't much tax to save by clever structuring of your affairs. And if you do incorporate, you will pay taxes as a corporation, and pay taxes again on your salary paid from that corporation. It can still be advantageous, because the small business tax rate is less that the higher tax brackets of personal taxes, and you don't have to pay out all of the profit as salary. If you don't incorporate, you still must pay taxes on your net income from the business. (See brian's answer.) Definitely keep track of your income and expenses, even if you don't plan on making money, in case you get audited. If the CRA wants to call your hobby a business, you will need to show that you haven't made any profit. I am just giving you a few bits of advice because this subject is complicated. Too complicated for an answer on this site. If you are still interested, go to your local library and get some books on the subject.
|
Instruct:
Given a financial question, retrieve user replies that best answer the question
Query:
Do Square credit card readers allow for personal use?
|
What I should have done in the first place was just ask them. From their customer support team: Thanks for writing in and for your interest in Square. It is perfectly acceptable to use Square for personal business, such as a yard sale. You do not need to have a registered business to take advantage of Square and the ability to accept credit cards. Just please note that it is against our Terms of Service to process prepaid cards, gift cards or your own credit card using your own Square account. Additionally, you may not use Square as a money transfer system. For every payment processed through Square, you must provide a legitimate good or service. Please let me know if you have any additional concerns.
|
Instruct:
Given a financial question, retrieve user replies that best answer the question
Query:
Do Square credit card readers allow for personal use?
|
"Yes. From their TOS: ""By creating a Square Account, you confirm that you are either a legal resident of the United States, a United States citizen, or a business entity...""."
|
Instruct:
Given a financial question, retrieve user replies that best answer the question
Query:
Do Square credit card readers allow for personal use?
|
My husband used this device at work in an organization/club that collects dues for fundraisers. The fundraisers are only for the club. So I think that is not business at all. They have no business tax id#, etc? and they use it for personal reasons when collecting money via Cc#'s if this helps you.
|
Instruct:
Given a financial question, retrieve user replies that best answer the question
Query:
Do Square credit card readers allow for personal use?
|
I used square in the past for personal yard sale and they did not transfer balance to my bank acct because they told me it was against their policy and I had to have a business license that they could either refund the credit cards i process or keep the money. So they kept it I never got it back. I don't recommend anybody to use square.
|
Instruct:
Given a financial question, retrieve user replies that best answer the question
Query:
Differences in taxes paid for W2 employee vs. 1099 contractor working on sites like ODesk.com?
|
Yes, you've summarized it well. You may be able to depreciate your computer, expense some software licenses and may be home office if you qualify, but at this scale of earning - it will probably not cover for the loss of the money you need to pay for the additional SE tax (the employer part of the FICA taxes for W2 employees) and benefits (subsidized health insurance, bonuses you get from your employer, insurances, etc). Don't forget the additional expense of business licenses, liability insurances etc. While relatively small amounts and deductible - still money out of your pocket. That said... Good luck earning $96K on ODesk.
|
Instruct:
Given a financial question, retrieve user replies that best answer the question
Query:
If I invest in a company that goes bankrupt, is that a gain or a loss?
|
I'll give the credit to @Quid in the comments section of the question. You put out $10k, you got back $20k, that's a cash gain of $10k, how the asset was valued between your purchase and sale isn't relevant. From an accounting perspective, the company is the only party that is realizing the loss (as they have sold the asset for 40K less than par). You the buyer, only get to see the initial buy and sale of such capital asset. Example: A company purchases a car for $20,000 and after depreciation it is worth (book valued at) $2,000. It is then sold to a customer for $3,000. Does the customer realize a loss of $1,000? No. Does the company realize a gain of $1,000? Yes. Your bank analogy is flawed in two ways:
|
Instruct:
Given a financial question, retrieve user replies that best answer the question
Query:
Getting financial advice: Accountant vs. Investment Adviser vs. Internet/self-taught?
|
"Do I need an Investment Adviser? No, but you may want to explore the idea of having one. Is he going to tell me anything that my accountant can't? Probably. How much expertise are you expecting from your accountant here? Do you think your accountant knows everything within the realms of money from taxes, insurance products, investments and all your choices and what would work or wouldn't? Seems like it could be a tall order to my mind. My accountant did say to come to him for advice on investment/business issues. So, he is willing, but is he able? Not asking about his competence, but rather ""is there something that only an Investment Adviser can provide, by law, that an accountant can't""? Not that I know though don't forget how much expertise are you expecting here from one person. Is this person intended to answer all your money questions? But isn't that something that my accountant could/should do? Perhaps though how well are you expecting one person to be aware of so much stuff? I want you to know all the tax law so I can minimize taxes, maximize my investment returns, cover me with adequate insurance, and protect my savings seems like a bit much to put on one entity. Do I need either of them? Won't the Internet and sites like this one suffice? Need no. However, how much time are you prepared to spend learning the basics of strategies that work for you? How much money are you prepared to put into things to learn what works and doesn't? While it is your decision, consider how to what extent do you diagnose your medical issues through the internet versus going to see a doctor? Be careful of how much of a do it yourself approach you want to go here and recognize that there are multiple approaches that may work. The question is which trade-offs are OK for you."
|
Instruct:
Given a financial question, retrieve user replies that best answer the question
Query:
Getting financial advice: Accountant vs. Investment Adviser vs. Internet/self-taught?
|
An accountant should be able to advise on the tax consequences of different classes of investments/assets/debts (e.g. RRSP, TFSA, mortgage). But I would not ask an accountant which specific securities to hold in these vehicles, or what asset allocation (in terms of geography, capitalization, or class (equity vs fixed income vs derivatives vs structured notes etc). An investment advisor would be better suited to matching your investments to your risk tolerance.
|
Instruct:
Given a financial question, retrieve user replies that best answer the question
Query:
Getting financial advice: Accountant vs. Investment Adviser vs. Internet/self-taught?
|
I think the OP is getting lost in designations. Sounds to me that what he wants is a 'financial advisor' not an 'investment advisor'. Does he even have investments? Does he want to be told which securities to buy? Or is he wanting advice on overall savings, insurance, tax-shelters, retirement planning, mortgages, etc. Which is a different set of skills - the financial advisor skill set. Accountants don't have that skill set. They know operating business reporting, taxes and generally how to keep it healthy and growing. They can do personal tax returns (as a favour to only the owners of the business they keep track of usually). IMO they can deal with the reporting but not the planning or optimization. But IMO the OP should just read up and learn this stuff for himself. Accreditation mean nothing. Eg. the major 'planner' brand teaches factually wrong stuff about RRSPs - which are the backbone of Canadian's finances.
|
Instruct:
Given a financial question, retrieve user replies that best answer the question
Query:
How does Robinhood stock broker make money?
|
Robinhood seems interesting. Some say it's a gimmicky site with a nice UI not an investing or trading platform. From investopedia: 1. For now, the app stays afloat for mainly two reasons. First, the business itself is extremely lean: no physical locations, a small staff, no massive public relations campaigns and only one operating system platform to maintain. Robinhood also generates interest off of unused cash deposits from user accounts according to the Federal Funds rate. 2. Second, venture capitalists such as Index Ventures, Ribbit Capital, Google Ventures, Andreessen Horowitz, Social Leverage,and “many others” have invested more than $16 million in the app. 3. According to Barron’s, Robinhood plans to implement margin trading in 2015, eventually charging 3.5% interest for the service. E*Trade charges 8.44% for accounts under $25,000. Phone assisted trading will also be available at $10 per trade in the future. 4. Originally, Robinhood planned to make money off of order flows – a common tactic used by discount brokerages in the 1990s to generate revenue. According to the company's FAQ, Robinhood backpedaled on the idea because it executes orders through a clearing partner and, as a result, receives little to no payment for order flow. The company is willing to return to its original plan in the future if it receives order flows directly or begins to generate a lot of revenue from them.
|
Instruct:
Given a financial question, retrieve user replies that best answer the question
Query:
How does Robinhood stock broker make money?
|
"Yes, there is a lot they are leaving out, and I would be extremely skeptical of them because of the ""reasons"" they give for being able to charge $0 commissions. Their reasons are that they don't have physical locations and high overhead costs, the reality is that they are burning venture capital on exchange fees until they actually start charging everyone they suckered into opening accounts. They also get paid by exchanges when users provide liquidity. These are called trade rebates in the maker-taker model. They will start offering margin accounts and charging interest. They are [likely] selling trade data to high frequency trading firms that then fill your stock trades at worse prices (Robinhood users are notorious for complaining about the fills). They may well be able to keep commissions low, as that has been a race to the bottom for a long time. But if they were doing their users any actual favors, then they would be also paying users the rebates that exchanges pay them for liquidity. Robinhood isn't doing anything unique as all brokers do what I mentioned along with charging commissions, and it is actually amazing their sales pitch ""$0 commissions because we are just a mobile app lol"" was enough for their customers. They are just being disingenuous."
|
Instruct:
Given a financial question, retrieve user replies that best answer the question
Query:
How does Robinhood stock broker make money?
|
"Disclosure: I don't have an iPhone, so I don't use RobinHood. That being said, I have a less ""they're-out-to-get-ya"" view of what they're doing. As a small business owner (2 businesses), employees cost the most. If you can create a solid business with few (or no) employees and let robots run it, you will drastically reduce your costs. Joe Polish said it similarly with sales letters, something along the lines of they never complain about a headache, need to take a year off to discover themself, or just need a personal day. Robots are the same; they do not have human limits. Most simple trading can be done and maintained by well written code and AI, there's very little need for humans to do anything other than build it. Think about the efficiency of bitcoin versus all the central banks combined; how many people are employed by central banks? Robinhood states that they are using technology in these ways to minimize costs and they're using a system that doesn't need physical branches (this doesn't mean they will never have them, just that they don't need them). Robinhood does not indicate that they allow everything to happen for free; only stock trading. I worked for a large trading firm once and observed that stock trading wasn't the bulk of where they made their money anyway; trading options, futures, index funds, etc are where the big money was and Robinhood says nothing about those being free. Like the CQM mentioned too, they'll be charging for margin as well. In a way, the individual stock trader is dead; many people - including this forum - prefer index funds, so more than likely, Robinhood will strike up a deal with an index fund company or create their own (this is just easy, passive income with an expense ratio). In this category, the markets are their playground, but they do need to attract enough people to their platform, thus free stock trading is a good way to do it. As for selling your information for advertising, that is always a possibility, but they have quite a few other options that would be good for most investors (index funds, affiliating with financial fund companies, etc) where they can start before ever needing to dip their toe in selling information. This isn't to say they won't do it, but that there are few other options they have. The major concern I have for Robinhood is ongoing security. Just building it and letting it run kind of assumes that there won't be major compromises in the future and as AI evolves, superior AI might be able to crush older AI."
|
Instruct:
Given a financial question, retrieve user replies that best answer the question
Query:
How does Robinhood stock broker make money?
|
Charging very high prices for additional standard services: See Commission & Fees: https://brokerage-static.s3.amazonaws.com/assets/robinhood/legal/RHF%20Retail%20Commisions%20and%20Fees%20Schedule.pdf Link is down in the footer, to the left...
|
Instruct:
Given a financial question, retrieve user replies that best answer the question
Query:
Credit Card Approval
|
Banks use quite a few parameters to arrive at the decision for card approval. The credit score is just one input. There are multiple other inputs it would source, for example total years in job, the number of years in current job, income streams, etc ... the exact formula is a trade secret and varies from Bank to Bank
|
Instruct:
Given a financial question, retrieve user replies that best answer the question
Query:
Credit Card Approval
|
Three big ones that are common in almost all banks (though, individually, they may have other criteria): Other criteria I've seen (while working in the banking industry - varying by bank): the average balance you keep on deposit accounts (checking/savings/CDs/etc), number of overdraft fees in the past 12 months (one bank I worked for wouldn't approve a credit card if a customer had more than 5 overdrafts in the past year), the length of time a customer had been with the bank. Note that a credit card only company, like AmEx, may have different criteria in that they don't offer all the other type of accounts that other other banks do.
|
Instruct:
Given a financial question, retrieve user replies that best answer the question
Query:
Credit Card Approval
|
Bigger than the three mentioned above is on-time payment and/or collections activity. If your report shows you have not paid accounts on time, or have accounts in collections, that is almost guaranteed decline except for the least desirable cards. Another factor is number of hard inquiries. If you have been on a recent application spree, you will get declined for too many recent inquiries. Wait 12-18 months for the inquiries to roll off your report. Applications for business cards are a little tricky depending on whether you are applying as an individual or as an employee of a corporation. I usually stay away from these as you can be liable for company debts you did not charge under the right circumstances.
|
Instruct:
Given a financial question, retrieve user replies that best answer the question
Query:
When should I start an LLC for my side work?
|
The major reason to start an LLC for side work is if you want the additional personal liability protection afforded by one. If you're operating as a sole proprietor, you may be exposing yourself to liability: debts and judgments against your business can put your personal assets at risk! So, if you're intending to continue and grow your side work in the future, you ought to consider the LLC sooner than later. It's also an important legal decision and you should consider seeking a professional opinion. The Wall Street Journal has a brief guide titled How to Form an LLC. Here are some notable excerpts: A limited liability company, or LLC, is similar to a partnership but has the legal protections of personal assets that a corporation offers without the burdensome formalities, paperwork and fees. [...] Some states charge annual fees and taxes that can diminish the economic advantage of choosing to become an LLC. Among LLC advantages: pass-through taxation – meaning the profits and losses “pass through” the business to the individuals owning the business who report this information on their own personal tax returns. The result can be paying less in taxes, since profits are not taxed at both the business level and the personal level. Another plus: Owners aren’t usually responsible for the company’s debts and liabilities. [...] Also check out onstartups.com's Startup 101: Should You Form An Inc. or An LLC? Here are some additional articles that discuss the advantages / disadvantages of forming an LLC:
|
Instruct:
Given a financial question, retrieve user replies that best answer the question
Query:
When should I start an LLC for my side work?
|
"An LLC is overkill for 99% of 1 man small businesses. Side-businesses should remain as sole proprieterships until they get much larger and need the benefits of the LLC laws. You can still bill through a company name if you want to start building a brand: And set aside 25% of your gross income for Uncle Sam. He wants you to file a Schedule C with your regular 1040 at tax time. He doesn't care about your company. He just wants your social security number with a big fat check stuck to it. Be sure to maximize your tax savings by tracking your expenses like a hawk. Every mile is worth 50 cents. I recommend using a tracking system like the TaxMinimiser.com (buy the $4 version to see if you like it). Bottom line: EARN MONEY. Don't set up a ""corporation""."
|
Instruct:
Given a financial question, retrieve user replies that best answer the question
Query:
When should I start an LLC for my side work?
|
"Not all of the reason to start an LLC is liability (although that is implicit). There are two main reasons as far as I have experienced it: I always recommend that people set things up properly from the beginning. If you do start to grow, or if you need to cut your losses, it can be very difficult to separate yourself from the company if it isn't set up entirely apart from you. I was once told, ""Run your small company as you would wish it to be."" Don't get into bad habits at the beginning. They become bad habits in big companies later on."
|
Instruct:
Given a financial question, retrieve user replies that best answer the question
Query:
When should I start an LLC for my side work?
|
It really depends on the type of business you are running. If there is any chance of liability, you should protect yourself with an LLC. Then it is much more difficult for them to sue and take personal assets. For example, if you are a wedding photographer, you would want to be an LLC in case you lose someones pictures.
|
Instruct:
Given a financial question, retrieve user replies that best answer the question
Query:
Can I open a personal bank account with an EIN instead of SSN?
|
"According to IRS Publication 1635, Understanding your EIN (PDF), under ""What is an EIN?"" on page 2: Caution: An EIN is for use in connection with your business activities only. Do not use your EIN in place of your social security number (SSN). As you say your EIN is for your business as a sole proprietor, I would also refer to Publication 334, Tax Guide for Small Business, under ""Identification Numbers"": Social security number (SSN). Generally, use your SSN as your taxpayer identification number. You must put this number on each of your individual income tax forms, such as Form 1040 and its schedules. Employer identification number (EIN). You must also have an EIN to use as a taxpayer identification number if you do either of the following. Pay wages to one or more employees. File pension or excise tax returns. If you must have an EIN, include it along with your SSN on your Schedule C or C-EZ as instructed. While I can't point to anything specifically about bank accounts, in general the guidance I see is that your SSN is used for your personal stuff, and you have an EIN for use in your business where needed. You may be able to open a bank account listing the EIN as the taxpayer identification number on the account. I don't believe there's a legal distinction between what makes something a ""business"" account or not, though a bank may have different account offerings for different purposes, and only offer some of them to entities rather than individuals. If you want to have a separate account for your business transactions, you may want them to open it in the name of your business and they may allow you to use your EIN on it. Whether you can do this for one of their ""personal"" account offerings would be up to the bank. I don't see any particular advantages to using your EIN on a bank account for an individual, though, and I could see it causing a bit of confusion with the bank if you're trying to do so in a way that isn't one of their ""normal"" account types for a business. As a sole proprietor, there really isn't any distinction between you and your business. Any interest income is taxable to you in the same way. But I don't think there's anything stopping you legally other than perhaps your particular bank's policy on such things. I would suggest contacting your bank (or trying several banks) to get more information on what account offerings they have available and what would best fit you and your business's needs."
|
Instruct:
Given a financial question, retrieve user replies that best answer the question
Query:
Why are bank transactions not instant?
|
"If you want your bank to pay $1 to a beneficiary Bob, then the service (no matter how implemented) needs to result in Bob's bank saying to Bob ""Hey, I owe you $1"". The usual way how this is done consists of two parts - your bank needs to somehow tell Bob's bank ""hey guys, do us a favor and please give Bob $1 with a message from the sender"", and your bank needs to convince the other bank that they'll pay for (cover) that. This is the main source for the delays in international payments - there are thousands of banks, and most of possible pairs have no legal contact between themselves whatsoever, no bilateral agreements, no trust and no reasonable enforcement mechanism for small claims. If I'm Bob's bank, then a random bank from anywhere from Switzerland to Nigeria can send me an instruction ""give Bob $1, we'll make it up for you"", the SWIFT network is a common way of doing this. However, most likely I'm going to give Bob the money only after I receive the funds somehow, which means that they have given the money to some institution I work with. For payments within a single country, it often is a centralized exchange or a central bank, and the payment speed is then determined by the details of that particular single payment network - e.g. UK Faster Payments or the various systems used in USA. For international payments, it may require a chain of multiple intermediaries (correspondent banks) - for example, a payment of $1mm from Kazakhstan to China will likely involve the Kazakhstan bank asking their main correspondent in USA (some major bank such as Chase JPMorgan) to give the money to the relevant chinese bank's correspondent in USA (say, Citi) to then give the money to that chinese bank to then give the money to the actual recipient. Each of those steps can happen because those entities have bilateral agreements, trust and accounts with each other; and each of those steps generally takes time and verification. If you want all payments to happen instantly, then you need all institutions to join a single binding payment system. It's not as easy as it sounds, as it is a nightmare of jurisdiction - for example, if you'd want me (as Bob's bank) to credit Bob instantly, then the system needs to provide solid guarantees that I would get paid even if (a) the payer institution changes its mind, made a mistake or intentional fraud; (b) the payer institution goes insolvent; (c) the system provider gets insolvent. Providing such guarantees is expensive, they need to be backed by multi-billion capital, and they're unrealistic to enforce across jurisdictions (e.g. would an Iranian bank get recourse if some funds got blocked because of USA sanctions). The biggest such project as far as I know is SEPA, across most of Europe. Visa and MasterCard networks perform the same function - a merchant gets paid by the CC network even if the payer can't pay his CC bill or the paying bank goes insolvent."
|
Instruct:
Given a financial question, retrieve user replies that best answer the question
Query:
Why are bank transactions not instant?
|
It is a rather complex system, but here is a rough summary. Interbank tranfers ultimately require a transfer of reserves at the central bank. As a concrete example, the bank of england system is the rtgs. Only the clearing banks and similar (e.g. bacs) have access to rtgs. You can send a chaps payment fairly quickly, but that costs. Chaps immediately triggers an rtgs transfer once the sending bank agrees and so you can be certain that the money is being paid. Hence its use for large amounts. Bacs also sits on the rtgs but to keep costs down it batches tranfers up. Because we are talking about bank reserve movements, checks have to be in place and that can take time. Furthermore the potential for fraud is higher than chaps since these are aggregrated transactions a layer removed, so a delay reduces the chance of payment failing after apparently being sent. Faster payments is a new product by bacs that speeds up the bacs process by doing a number of transfers per day. Hence the two hour clearing. For safety it can only be used for up to 10k. Second tier banks will hold accounts with clearing banks so they are another step down. Foreign currency transfers require the foreign Central Bank reserve somewhere, and so must be mediated by at least one clearing bank in that country. Different countries are at different stages in their technology. Uk clearing is 2h standard now but US is a little behind I believe. Much of Europe is speeding up. Rather like bitcoin clearing, you have a choice between speed and safety. If you wait you are more certain the transaction is sound and have more time to bust the transfer.
|
Instruct:
Given a financial question, retrieve user replies that best answer the question
Query:
What is network marketing?
|
"Network Marketing (also called multi-level marketing) isn't necessarily a skill that you learn in a course. It's a type of business model that's used by companies like Avon, Southern Living, Mary Kay, etc. It's also used in many scams (called pyramid schemes, but the aforementioned companies are using the pyramid structure, too). A lot. See here for a high-level explanation (pay attention to the pyramid scheme bit): http://www.entrepreneur.com/encyclopedia/network-marketing If you want to get into a Network Marketing venture, join a reputable company and start doing it. They will provide you with all of the training you need. Your ""manager"" will make money based on how well you do. If you can in turn recruit other individuals to start selling, then you make money off their sales, and you ""manager"" makes money off their sales. Hence the pyramid label. Reputable companies charge very little to join, you set your own schedule, and don't have any hard quotas to live up to. Do your research! If they make you a promise that sounds too good to be true, it is."
|
Instruct:
Given a financial question, retrieve user replies that best answer the question
Query:
Can I claim mileage for traveling to a contract position?
|
"The short answer is yes you can, but you have to make sure you do it correctly. If you are employed by a tech company that does contract work at a separate location and you don't get reimbursed by your employer for travel expenses, you can claim the mileage between your home and location B as a business expense, but there's a catch - you have to subtract the mileage between your home and location A (your employer). So if it's 20 miles from your house to your employer (location A), and 30 miles from your house to the business you're contracting at (location B), you can only claim 10 miles each way (so 20 miles total). Obviously if the distance to location B is closer than your employer (location A), you're out of luck. You will have to itemize to take this deduction, by filling out a Schedule A for itemized deductions and Form 2106 to calculate how much of a deduction for travel expenses you can take. Google ""should i itemize"", if you're unsure whether to take the Standard Deduction or Itemize. Sources:"
|
Instruct:
Given a financial question, retrieve user replies that best answer the question
Query:
When an investor makes money on a short, who loses the money?
|
"The correct answer to this question is: the person who the short sells the stock to. Here's why this is the case. Say we have A, who owns the stock and lends it to B, who then sells it short to C. After this the price drops and B buys the stock back from D and returns it to A. The outcome for A is neutral. Typically stock that is sold short must be held in a margin account; the broker can borrow the shares from A, collect interest from B, and A has no idea this is going on, because the shares are held in a street name (the brokerage's name) and not A. If A decides during this period to sell, the transaction will occur immediately, and the brokerage must shuffle things around so the shares can be delivered. If this is going to be difficult then the cost for borrowing shares becomes very high. The outcome for B is obviously a profit: they sold high first and bought (back) low afterwards. This leaves either C or D as having lost this money. Why isn't it D? One way of looking at this is that the profit to B comes from the difference in the price from selling to C and buying from D. D is sitting on the low end, and thus is not paying out the profit. D bought low, compared to C and this did not lose any money, so C is the only remaining choice. Another way of looking at it is that C actually ""lost"" all the money when purchasing the stock. After all, all the money went directly from C to B. In return, C got some stock with the hope that in the future C could sell it for more than was paid for it. But C literally gave the money to B, so how could anybody else ""pay"" the loss? Another way of looking at it is that C buys a stock which then decreases in value. C is thus now sitting on a loss. The fact that it is currently only a paper loss makes this less obvious; if the stock were to recover to the price C bought at, one might conclude that C did not lose the money to B. However, in this same scenario, D also makes money that C could have made had C bought at D's price, proving that C really did lose the money to B. The final way of seeing that the answer is C is to consider what happens when somebody sells a stock which they already hold but the price goes up; who did they lose out on the gain to? The person again is; who bought their stock. The person would buys the stock is always the person who the gain goes to when the price appreciates, or the loss comes out of if the price falls."
|
Instruct:
Given a financial question, retrieve user replies that best answer the question
Query:
When an investor makes money on a short, who loses the money?
|
Michael gave a good answer describing the transaction but I wanted to follow up on your questions about the lender. First, the lender does charge interest on the borrowed securities. The amount of interest can vary based on a number of factors, such as who is borrowing, how much are they borrowing, and what stock are they trying to borrow. Occasionally when you are trying to short a stock you will get an error that it is hard to borrow. This could be for a few reasons, such as there are already a large amount of people who have shorted your broker's shares, or your broker never acquired the shares to begin with (which usually only happens on very small stocks). In both cases the broker/lender doesnt have enough shares and may be unwilling to get more. In that way they are discriminating on what they lend. If a company is about to go bankrupt and a lender doesnt have any more shares to lend out, it is unlikely they will purchase more as they stand to lose a lot and gain very little. It might seem like lending is a risky business but think of it as occurring over decades and not months. General Motors had been around for 100 years before it went bankrupt, so any lender who had owned and been lending out GM shares for a fraction of that time likely still profited. Also this is all very simplified. JoeTaxpayer alluded to this in the comments but in actuality who is lending stock or even who owns stock is much more complicated and probably doesnt need to be explained here. I just wanted to show in this over-simplified explanation that lending is not as risky as it may first seem.
|
Instruct:
Given a financial question, retrieve user replies that best answer the question
Query:
When an investor makes money on a short, who loses the money?
|
Not really. The lender is not buying the stock back at a lower price. Remember, he already owns it, so he need not buy it again. The person losing is the one from whom the short seller buys back the stock, provided that person bought the stock at higher price. So if B borrowed from A(lender) and sold it to C, and later B purchased it back from C at a lower price, then B made profit, C made loss and A made nothing .
|
Instruct:
Given a financial question, retrieve user replies that best answer the question
Query:
Excessive Credit Check from Comcast
|
"In general, it is unusual for a credit check to occur when you are terminating a contract, since you are no longer requesting credit. If the credit check was a ""hard pull"" it will stay on your credit report for 2 years, but will only have an impact on your credit score for up to 12 months. If the check is a ""soft pull"" it has no impact on your credit score. Since you're past the 12 months boundary anyway, I wouldn't worry about it. That being said, please feel free to continue your investigation and report back if you can get Comcast to admit they performed the 2nd credit check. I'm sure we'd all be interested to hear their explanation for it."
|
Instruct:
Given a financial question, retrieve user replies that best answer the question
Query:
Deposit a cheque in an alternative name into a personal bank account (Australia)
|
You don't have much choice other than to open an account in your business name, then do a money transfer, as @DJClayworth says. You will not without providing your name and street address and possibly other information that you may consider to be of a private nature. This is due to laws about fraud, money laundering and consumer protection. I'm not saying that's what you have in mind! But without accountability of the sort provided by names and street addresses, banks would be facilitating crimes of many sorts, which is why regulatory agencies enforce disclosure requirements.
|
Instruct:
Given a financial question, retrieve user replies that best answer the question
Query:
Deposit a cheque in an alternative name into a personal bank account (Australia)
|
You actually don't have to open a business account with your bank, you can have a personal account with the bank and have your business funds go into it, whether it be from cheques or from Eftpos\Credit Card Facilities. You just have to get your customers to make the cheque out under your name (the same name used for your bank account). If you are trading as a sole trader and you trade under a name other than your own name, then officially you are supposed to register that name with Fair Trading in your state. However, if you are trading using another name and it is not registered, Fair Trading will only become aware of it if someone (usually one of your customers) makes a compliant about you, and they will then ask you to either stop using that name as your trading name or have it registered (if not already registered by someone else).
|
Instruct:
Given a financial question, retrieve user replies that best answer the question
Query:
Deposit a cheque in an alternative name into a personal bank account (Australia)
|
Banks has to complete KYC. In case you want to open a bank account, most will ask for proof of address. I also feel it is difficult for bank to encash a cheque payable to a business in your account. Opening a bank account in the name of your business or alternatively obtaining a cheque payable to your personal name seems the only alternatives to me.
|
Instruct:
Given a financial question, retrieve user replies that best answer the question
Query:
Deposit a cheque in an alternative name into a personal bank account (Australia)
|
"Unfortunately, Australian bureocrats made it impossible to register a small business without making the person's home address, full name, date of birth and other personal information available to the whole world. They tell us the same old story about preventing crime, money laundering and terrorism, but in fact it is just suffocating small business in favour of capitalistic behemoths. With so many weirdos and identity thieves out there, many people running a small business from home feel unsafe publishing all their personal details. I use a short form of my first name and real surname for my business, and reguraly have problems cashing in cheques written to this variation of my name. Even though I've had my account with this bank for decades and the name is obviously mine, just a pet or diminitive form of my first name (e.g. Becky instead of Rebecca). This creates a lot of inconvenience to ask every customer to write the cheque to my full name, or make the cheque ""bearer"" (or not to cross ""or bearer"" if it is printed on the cheque already). It is very sad that there is protection for individual privacy in Australia, unless you can afford to have a business address. But even in this case, your name, date of birth and other personal information will be pusblished in the business register and the access to this information will be sold to all sorts of dubious enterprises like credit report companies, debt collectors, market researchers, etc. It seems like Australian system is not interested in people being independent, safe, self-sufficient and working for themselves. Everyone has to be under constant surveliance."
|
Instruct:
Given a financial question, retrieve user replies that best answer the question
Query:
why if change manufacturing of a product not change the price for the buyer?
|
In highly developed and competitive industries companies tread a continuous and very fine line between maximising shareholder profits by keeping prices up while making products as cheaply as possible, vs competitors lowering prices when they work out a way to make equivalents cheaper. In the short run you will quite often see companies hold onto large portions of efficiency savings (particularly if they make a major breakthrough in a specific manufacturing process etc) by holding old prices up, but in the long run competition pretty quickly lowers prices as the companies trying to keep high margins and prices get ruthlessly undercut by smaller competitors happy to make a bit less.
|
Instruct:
Given a financial question, retrieve user replies that best answer the question
Query:
I'm self-employed with my own LLC. How should I pay myself, given my situation?
|
"You're conflating LLC with Corporation. They're different animals. LLC does not have ""S"" or ""C"" designations, those are just for corporations. I think what you're thinking about is electing pass through status with the IRS. This is the easiest way to go. The company can pay you at irregular intervals in irregular amounts. The IRS doesn't care about these payments. The company will show profit or loss at the end of the year (those payments to you aren't expenses and don't reduce your profit). You report this on your schedule C and pay tax on that amount. (Your state tax authority will have its own rules about how this works.) Alternatively you can elect to have the LLC taxed as a corporation. I don't know of a good reason why someone in your situation would do this, but I'm not an accountant so there may be reasons out there. My recommendation is to get an accountant to prepare your taxes. At least once -- if your situation is the same next year you can use the previous year's forms to figure out what you need to fill in. The investment of a couple hundred dollars is worthwhile. On the question of buying a home in the next couple of years... yes, it does affect things. (Pass through status? Probably doesn't affect much.) If all of your income is coming from self-employment, be prepared for hassles when you are shopping for a mortgage. You can ask around, maybe you have a friendly loan officer at your credit union who knows your history. But in general they will want to see at least two years of self-employment tax returns. You can plan for this in advance: talk to a couple of loan officers now to see what the requirements will be. That way you can plan to be ready when the time comes."
|
Instruct:
Given a financial question, retrieve user replies that best answer the question
Query:
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
|
Instruct:
Given a financial question, retrieve user replies that best answer the question
Query:
Under specific conditions can I write off Spotify or other streaming audio services?
|
Nice try. No. If you were in the music industry, you might have a case. Depending on the exact job, certain things related to music would be a business expense. I don't see how this would pass an audit as it really is unrelated to the work you do.
|
Instruct:
Given a financial question, retrieve user replies that best answer the question
Query:
File bankruptcy, consolidate, or other options?
|
If your parents' business isn't viable (regardless of what combination of the economy or their management of it caused it not to be viable) it would seem that you'd be throwing good money after bad to save it. If the whole thing gets paid off, then they get rid of the debt, but the economy will still be in the tank and they'll be going in the hole again. If they think they're five years away from retirement, then they're kidding themselves. They won't be able to retire. They should get bankruptcy advice and should start looking for other sources of income. Maybe sell their house and get something smaller. Have their expenses match their income. Sorry if this sounds harsh but it will be difficult for them to recover from this mess if they're in their late fifties.
|
Instruct:
Given a financial question, retrieve user replies that best answer the question
Query:
File bankruptcy, consolidate, or other options?
|
If your parents can afford to shell out $1,250 a month for 5 years, they would pretty much have the debt paid off, provided the credit card companies don't start playing games with rates. If that payment is too high, maybe you could kick in $5k every few months to knock the principal down. If they think the business can keep puttering along without losing more money, that may be the way to go. Five years is long enough that the business or property may have recovered some value. Another option, depending on the value of the home, could be a reverse mortgage. I don't know how the economy has affected those programs, but that might be a good option to get the debt cleared away. My grandfather was in a similar position back in the 70's. He owned taverns in NYC that catered to an industrial clientele... the place was booming in the 60s and my grandfather and his brother owned 4 locations at one point. But the death of his brother, post-Vietnam malaise, suburban exodus and shutting of industry really hurt the business, and he ended up selling out his last tavern in 1979 -- which was a dark hour in NYC history and real estate values. A few years later, that building sold for a tremendous amount of money... I believe 10x more. I don't know whether there was a way for his business to survive for another 5-7 years, as I was too young to remember. But I do remember my grandfather (and my father to this day) being melancholy about the whole affair. It's hard to have to work part-time in your 60's and be constantly reminded that your family business -- and to some degree a part of your life -- ended in failure. The stress of keeping things afloat when you're broke is tough. But there's also a mental reward from getting through a tough situation on your own. Good luck!
|
Instruct:
Given a financial question, retrieve user replies that best answer the question
Query:
File bankruptcy, consolidate, or other options?
|
A couple of thoughts from someone who's kind of been there... Is the business viable at all? A lot of people do miss the jumping-off point where the should stop throwing good money after bad and just pull the plug on the business. If the business is not that viable, then selling it might not be an option. If the business is still viable (and I'd get advice from a good accountant on this) then I'd be tempted to try and pull through to until I'd get a good offer for the business. Don't just try to sell it for any price because times are bad if it's self-sustaining and hopefully makes a little profit. I does sound like their business is on the up again and if that's a trend and not a fluke, IMHO pouring more energy into (not money) would be the way to go. Don't make the mistake of buying high and selling low, so to speak. I'm also a little confused re their house - do they own it or do they still owe money on it? If they owe money on it, how are they making their payments? If they close the business, do they have enough income to make the payments still? Before they find another job, even if it's just a part-time job? As to paying off their debts or at least helping with paying them off, I'd only do that if I was in a financial position to gift them the money; anything else is going to wreak havoc with the family dynamics (including co-signing debt for them) and everybody will wish they didn't go there. Ask me how I know. Re debt consolidation, I don't think it's going to do much for them, apart from costing them more money for something they could do themselves. Bankruptcy - well, are they bankrupt or are they looking for the get-out-of-debt-free card? Sorry to be so blunt, but if they're so deep in the hole that they truly have no chance whatsoever to pay off their debt ever, then they're bankrupt. From what you're saying they're able to make the minimum payments they're not really what I'd consider bankrupt... Are your parents on a budget? As duffbeer703 said, depending on how much money the business is making they should be able to pay off the debt within a reasonable amount of time (which again doesn't make them bankrupt).
|
Instruct:
Given a financial question, retrieve user replies that best answer the question
Query:
File bankruptcy, consolidate, or other options?
|
"I think you're asking yourself the wrong question. The real question you should be asking yourself is this: ""Do I want to a) give my parents a $45,000 gift, b) make them $45,000 loan, or c) neither?"" The way you are talking in your question is as if you have the responsibility and authority to manage their lives. Whether they choose bankruptcy, and the associated stigma and/or negative self-image of financial or moral failure, or choose to muddle through and delay retirement to pay off their debt, is their question and their decision. Look, you said that loaning it to them was out, because you'd rather see them retire than continue to work. But what if they want to continue to work? For all the stress they're dealing with now, entrepreneurial people like that are not happy You're mucking about in their lives like you can run it. Stop it. You don't have the right; they're adults. There may come a time when they are too senile to be responsible for themselves, and then you can, and should, step up and take responsibility for them in their old age, just as they did for you when you were a child. But that time is not now. And by the way, from the information you've given, the answer should be C) neither. If giving or loaning them this kind of money taps you out, then you can't afford it."
|
Instruct:
Given a financial question, retrieve user replies that best answer the question
Query:
File bankruptcy, consolidate, or other options?
|
"Tough spot. I'm guessing the credit cards are a personal line of credit in their name and not the company's (the fact that the business can be liquidated separately from your parents means they did at least set up an LLC or similar business entity). Using personal debt to save a company that could have just been dissolved at little cost to their personal credit and finances was, indeed, a very bad move. The best possible end to this scenario for you and your parents would be if your parents could get the debt transferred to the LLC before dissolving it. At this point, with the company in such a long-standing negative situation, I would doubt that any creditor would give the business a loan (which was probably why your parents threw their own good money after bad with personal CCs). They might, in the right circumstances, be able to convince a judge to effectively transfer the debt to the corporate entity before liquidating it. That puts the debt where it should have been in the first place, and the CC companies will have to get in line. That means, in turn, that the card issuers will fight any such motion or decision tooth and nail, as long as there's any other option that gives them more hope of recovering their money. Your parents' only prayer for this to happen is if the CCs were used for the sole purpose of business expenses. If they were living off the CCs as well as using them to pay business debts, a judge, best-case, would only relieve the debts directly related to keeping the business afloat, and they'd be on the hook for what they had been living on. Bankruptcy is definitely an option. They will ""re-affirm"" their commitment to paying the mortgage and any other debts they can, and under a Chapter 13 the judge will then remand negotiations over what total portion of each card's balance is paid, over what time, and at what rate, to a mediator. Chapter 13 bankruptcy is the less damaging form to your parent's credit; they are at least attempting to make good on the debt. A Chapter 7 would wipe it away completely, but your parents would have to prove that they cannot pay the debt, by any means, and have no hope of ever paying the debt by any means. If they have any retirement savings, anything in their name for grandchildren's college funds, etc, the judge and CC issuers will point to it like a bird dog. Apart from that, their house is safe due to Florida's ""homestead"" laws, but furniture, appliances, clothing, jewelry, cars and other vehicles, pretty much anything of value that your parents cannot defend as being necessary for life, health, or the performance of whatever jobs they end up taking to dig themselves out of this, are all subject to seizure and auction. They may end up just selling the house anyway because it's too big for what they have left (or will ever have again). I do not, under any circumstance, recommend you putting your own finances at risk in this. You may gift money to help, or provide them a place to live while they get back on their feet, but do not ""give till it hurts"" for this. It sounds heartless, but if you remove your safety net to save your parents, then what happens if you need it? Your parents aren't going to be able to bail you out, and as a contractor, if you're effectively ""doing business as"" Reverend Gonzo Contracting, you don't have the debt shield your parents had. It looks like housing's faltering again due to the news that the Fed's going to start backing off; you could need that money to weather a ""double-dip"" in the housing sector over the next few months, and you may need it soon."
|
Instruct:
Given a financial question, retrieve user replies that best answer the question
Query:
Are companies in California obliged to provide invoices?
|
We run into this all the time with our EU clients. As far as I can tell, the only requirements when it comes to invoicing have to do with sales tax, which is determined at the state level, and only in the case that items are taxable. It seems that the service provided to you is not taxable and so there is no obligation under Californian law to provide you with the invoice you need. That said, it would be nice to provide this information to you as a courtesy. We don't provide the information typically required by EU tax authorities on our receipts either, but whenever one of our EU clients requests a more formal invoice we gladly send them one.
|
Instruct:
Given a financial question, retrieve user replies that best answer the question
Query:
Obtaining Private Prospectuses
|
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.
|
Instruct:
Given a financial question, retrieve user replies that best answer the question
Query:
What amount of money can a corporation spend on entertainment
|
"There is no simple rule like ""you can/can't spend more/less than $X per person."" Instead there is a reasonableness test. There is such a thing as an audit of just your travel and entertainment expenses - I know because I've had one for my Ontario corporation. I've deducted company Christmas parties, and going-away dinners for departing employees, without incident. (You know, I presume, about only deducting half of certain expenses?) If the reason for the entertainment is to acquire or keep either employees or clients, there shouldn't be a problem. Things are slightly trickier with very small companies. Microsoft can send an entire team to Hawaii, with their families, as a reward at the end of a tough project, and deduct it. You probably can't send yourself as a similar reward. If your party is strictly for your neighbours, personal friends, and close family, with no clients, potential clients, employees, potential employees, suppliers, or potential suppliers in attendance, then no, don't deduct it. If you imagine yourself telling an auditor why you threw the party and why the business funded it, you'll know whether it's ok to do it or not."
|
Instruct:
Given a financial question, retrieve user replies that best answer the question
Query:
Estimated Taxes Fall Short of tax liability — how do I pay extra online (Federal and NYS)
|
If you qualify for the safe harbor, you are not required to pay additional quarterly taxes. Of course, you're still welcome to do so if you're sure you'll owe them; however, you will not be penalized. If your income is over $150k (joint) or $75k (single), your safe harbor is: Estimated tax safe harbor for higher income taxpayers. If your 2014 adjusted gross income was more than $150,000 ($75,000 if you are married filing a separate return), you must pay the smaller of 90% of your expected tax for 2015 or 110% of the tax shown on your 2014 return to avoid an estimated tax penalty. Generally, if you're under that level, the following reasons suggest you will not owe the tax (from the IRS publication 505): The total of your withholding and timely estimated tax payments was at least as much as your 2013 tax. (See Special rules for certain individuals for higher income taxpayers and farmers and fishermen.) The tax balance due on your 2014 return is no more than 10% of your total 2014 tax, and you paid all required estimated tax payments on time. Your total tax for 2014 (defined later) minus your withholding is less than $1,000. You did not have a tax liability for 2013. You did not have any withholding taxes and your current year tax (less any household employment taxes) is less than $1,000. If you paid one-fourth of your last year's taxes (or of 110% of your last-year's taxes) in estimated taxes for each quarter prior to this one, you should be fine as far as penalties go, and can simply add the excess you know you will owe to the next check.
|
Instruct:
Given a financial question, retrieve user replies that best answer the question
Query:
Does being involved in the management of a corporation make me ineligible for a workshare program?
|
"Assuming you are paying into and eligible to collect regular Employment Insurance benefits for the job in question, I don't see how owning a side business would, by itself, affect your ability to participate in the workshare program. Many people own dormant businesses ($0 revenue / $0 income), or businesses with insignificant net income (e.g. a small table at the flea market, or a fledgling web-site with up-front costs and no ad revenue, yet ;-) I think what matters is if your side business generated income substantial enough to put you over a certain threshold. Then you may be required to repay a portion of the EI benefits received through the workshare program. On this issue, I found the following article informative: How to make work-sharing work for you, from the Globe & Mail's Report on Business site. Here's a relevant quote: ""[...] If you work elsewhere during the agreement, and earn more than an amount equal to 40% of your weekly benefit rate, that amount shall be deducted from your work sharing benefits payable that week. [...]"" The definitive source for information on the workshare program is the Service Canada web site. In particular, see the Work-Sharing Applicant Guide, which discusses eligibility criteria. Section IV confirms the Globe article's statement above: ""[...] Earnings received in any week by a Work-Sharing participant, from sources other than Work-Sharing employment, that are in excess of an amount equal to 40% or $75 (whichever is greater) of the participant's weekly benefit rate, shall be deducted from the Work-Sharing benefits payable in that week. [...]"" Finally, here's one more interesting article that discusses the workshare program: Canada: Employment Law @ Gowlings - March 30, 2009."
|
Instruct:
Given a financial question, retrieve user replies that best answer the question
Query:
Do I only have to pay income tax on capital gains?
|
On the revenue only. This amount of 10$ will be considered as interest and fully taxable. It will not be a capital gain. But why would you decide to declare it as an income? 100$ is insignificant. If you lend small amount to friends it cannot be considered a lending business.
|
Instruct:
Given a financial question, retrieve user replies that best answer the question
Query:
how to show income from paypal as export income
|
PayPal pays with service tax, where ever you have exported you would have given the invoice, and the statement should be shown. I am also an exporter, I know the rules some times a CA might not be aware of PayPal. Just show your statement from PayPal and the deduction.
|
Instruct:
Given a financial question, retrieve user replies that best answer the question
Query:
Renting out rooms in my home, what's the proper way to deal with utilities for tax purposes?
|
It's the same result either way. Say the bills are $600, and you are reimbursed $400. You'd be able to write off $400 as part of the utilities that are common expenses, but then claim the $400 as income. I'd stick with that, and have contemporaneous records supporting all cash flow. You also can take 2/3 of any other maintenance costs that most homeowners can't. Like snow removal, lawn care, etc.
|
Instruct:
Given a financial question, retrieve user replies that best answer the question
Query:
How do I treat the income from an ESPP I sold now that I am a non-resident alien?
|
"That's a tricky question and you should consult a tax professional that specializes on taxation of non-resident aliens and foreign expats. You should also consider the provisions of the tax treaty, if your country has one with the US. I would suggest you not to seek a ""free advice"" on internet forums, as the costs of making a mistake may be hefty. Generally, sales of stocks is not considered trade or business effectively connected to the US if that's your only activity. However, being this ESPP stock may make it connected to providing personal services, which makes it effectively connected. I'm assuming that since you're filing 1040NR, taxes were withheld by the broker, which means the broker considered this effectively connected income."
|
Instruct:
Given a financial question, retrieve user replies that best answer the question
Query:
Should I keep copies of my business's invoices for tax records?
|
It's always beneficial to have detailed business records. There are any number of reasons where you'd need to prove both the types of services you've rendered and the payment history - you've already noted audits (for IRS taxes). Other possibilities: Whether these records need to be original or electronic might be the topic for another question.
|
Instruct:
Given a financial question, retrieve user replies that best answer the question
Query:
Ways to invest my saved money in Germany in a halal way?
|
"The UK has Islamic banks. I don't know whether Germany has the same or not (with a quick search I can find articles stating intentions to establish one, but not the results). Even if there's none in Germany, I assume that with some difficulty you could use banks elsewhere in the EU and even non-Euro-denominated. I can't recommend a specific provider or product (never used them and probably wouldn't offer recommendations on this site anyway), but they advertise savings accounts. I've found one using a web search that offers an ""expected profit rate"" of 1.9% for a 12 month fix, which is roughly comparable with ""typical"" cash savings products in pounds sterling. Typical to me I mean, not to you ;-) Naturally you'd want to look into the risk as well. Their definition of Halal might not precisely match yours, but I'm sure you can satisfy yourself by looking into the details. I've noticed for example a statement that the bank doesn't invest your money in tobacco or alcohol, which you don't give as a requirement but I'm going to guess wouldn't object to!"
|
Instruct:
Given a financial question, retrieve user replies that best answer the question
Query:
Ways to invest my saved money in Germany in a halal way?
|
You can invest in a couple of Sharia-conform ETFs which are available in Germany and issued by Deutsche Bank (and other financial institutions). For instance, have a look at these ETFs: DB Sharia ETFs In addition, Kuveyt Turk Bank aims to become Germany's first Islamic bank offering Sharia conform investments (Reuters).
|
Instruct:
Given a financial question, retrieve user replies that best answer the question
Query:
Ways to invest my saved money in Germany in a halal way?
|
"What is actually a halal investment? Your definition of halal investment is loose and subject to interpretation. On one hand, nothing is fixed in the financial world. You might get a 10 Year Germany Bund with a fixed coupon rate of 1%, but the real rate of return of this investment is far from fixed. It depends on the market environment, the inflation, etc. (Also, you can trade this investment on the secondary market at any time.) Moreover, the country can default. For example, nothing is ""fixed"" if you hold the Argentina bonds. You might think a saving account in the bank is a fixed investment. But again, what about the inflation? And if you talk with the account holders in Cyprus, you will understand there is no such thing that you are ""guaranteed to profit a fixed amount each month or year"". So, from this point of view, everything is ""halal"", because nothing is fixed and the risk of losing the principle is alway there. On the other hand, if you assume that investing a government bond and having a saving account is not halal by definition, you will end up with a situation that every investment is not halal. Suppose you invest in a company. What does the company do with your money? Sure, they will use some of your money to buy equipments, hire new people, and so on. But they will always save some money as cash reserves to meet the short-term and emergency funding needs. Those cash reserves are usually in the form of highly liquid investment, such as short-term bonds, money market funds, savings in a bank account, etc. Because those investments are not halal per definition, is your investment in the company still halal? So in the end, you might just do whatever you want depending on your interpretation."
|
Instruct:
Given a financial question, retrieve user replies that best answer the question
Query:
Ways to invest my saved money in Germany in a halal way?
|
What is not permitted in Islam is the practice of making unethical or immoral monetary loans that unfairly enrich the lender. Originally, usury meant interest of any kind. A loan may be considered usurious because of excessive or abusive interest rates or other factors. But In case of financial markets, people borrow money to make money and both parties benefits, and no one is taking advantage of the other. I may be wrong in interpreting this way, God knows the best.
|
Instruct:
Given a financial question, retrieve user replies that best answer the question
Query:
My company owed taxes for many years, An accountant asked me to ignore it and register a new one. Is it a right thing to do?
|
I think the first step is to get an accountant whose advice you believe. Your accountant is far better placed to advise you on what sounds like a fairly complicated, fairly high stakes corporate arrangement than the internet. I would go back to the accountant and get him to explain in writing what his specific advice is. If you still don't like it absolutely get a second opinion. You may also want to speak to a lawyer.
|
Instruct:
Given a financial question, retrieve user replies that best answer the question
Query:
Tax planning for Indian TDS on international payments
|
Tax Deducted at source is applicable to Employee / Employer [contract employee] relations ... it was also made applicable for cases where an Indian company pays for software products [like MS Word etc] as the product is not sold, but is licensed and is treated as Royalty [unlike sale of a consumer product, that you have, say car] ... Hence it depends on how your contract is worded with your India clients, best is have it as a service agreement. Although services are also taxed, however your contract should clearly specify that any tax in India would be borne by your Indian Client ... Cross Country taxation is an advanced area, you will not find good advice free :)
|
Instruct:
Given a financial question, retrieve user replies that best answer the question
Query:
Tax planning for Indian TDS on international payments
|
I am an Israeli based citizen who represents and Indian company who sells its products in Israel. As an agent I am entitled to commission on sales on behalf the Indian company who advised that. Any commission paid to you will be applicable to TDS at 20.9% of the commission amount, the tax will be paid and a Tax paid certificate will be given to you. According to a Bilateral Double tax avoidance treaty if the tax has been deducted in India you will get credit for this tax in Israel.
|
Instruct:
Given a financial question, retrieve user replies that best answer the question
Query:
Can I deduct my individual Health Insurance Premium in Tax
|
"Yes, you can. See the instructions for line 29 of form 1040. Self employed health insurance premiums are an ""above the line"" deduction."
|
Instruct:
Given a financial question, retrieve user replies that best answer the question
Query:
Tax deductions on car and/or home?
|
If you itemize your deductions then the interest that you pay on your primary residence is tax deductible. Also realestate tax is also deductible. Both go on Schedule A. The car payment is not tax deductible. You will want to be careful about claiming business deduction for home or car. The IRS has very strict rules and if you have any personal use you can disqualify the deduction. For the car you often need to use the mileage reimbursement rates. If you use the car exclusively for work, then a lease may make more sense as you can expense the lease payment whereas with the car you need to follow the depreciation schedule. If you are looking to claim business expense of car or home, it would be a very good idea to get professional tax advice to ensure that you do not run afoul of the IRS.
|
Instruct:
Given a financial question, retrieve user replies that best answer the question
Query:
Are banks really making less profit when interest rates are low?
|
profit has nothing to do with the level of interest rates. Is this correct? In theory, yes. The difference that you're getting at is called net interest margin. As long as this stays constant, so does the bank's profit. According to this article: As long as the interest rate charged on loans doesn't decline faster than the interest rate received on deposit accounts, banks can continue to operate normally or even reduce their bad loan exposure by offering lower lending rates to already-proven borrowers. So banks may be able to acquire the same net interest margin with lower risk. However the article also mentions new research from a federal agency: Their findings show that net interest margins (NIMs) get worse during low-rate environments, defined as any time when a country's three-month sovereign bond yield is less than 1.25%. So in theory banks should remain profitable when interest rates are low, but this may not actually be the case.
|
Instruct:
Given a financial question, retrieve user replies that best answer the question
Query:
Are banks really making less profit when interest rates are low?
|
I've read this claim many times in the news: banks are making less profit from the lending business when interest rates are historically low. The issue with most loans is they can be satisfied at any time. When you have falling interest rates it means most of the banks loans are refinanced from nice high rates to current market low interest rates which can significantly reduce the expected return on past loans. The bank gets the money back when it wants it the least because it can only re-lend the money at the current market (lower) interest rates. When interest rates are increasing refinance and early repayment activity reduces significantly. It's important to look at the loan from the point of view of the bank, a bank must first issue out the entire principal amount. On a 60 month loan the lender has not received payments sufficient to satisfy the principal until around 50th or 55th month depending on the interest rate. If the bank receives payment of the outstanding amount on month 30 the expected return on that loan is reduced significantly. Consider a $10,000, 60 month loan at 5% apr. The bank is expected to receive $11,322 in total for interest income of $1,322. If the loan is repaid on month 30, the total interest is about $972. That's a 26% reduction of expected interest income, and the money received can only be re-lent for yet a lower interest rate. Add to this the tricky accounting of holding a loan, which is really a discounted bond, which is an asset, on the books and profitability of lending while interest rates are falling gets really funky. And this doesn't even examine default risk/cost.
|
Instruct:
Given a financial question, retrieve user replies that best answer the question
Query:
Are banks really making less profit when interest rates are low?
|
"Banks make less profit when ""long"" rates are low compared to ""short"" rates. Banks lend for long term purposes like five year business loans or 30 year mortgages. They get their funds from (mostly) ""short term"" deposits, which can be emptied in days. Banks make money on the difference between 5 and 30 year rates, and short term rates. It is the difference, and not the absolute level of rates, that determines their profitability. A bank that pays 1% on CDs, and lends at 3% will make money. During the 1970s, short rates kept rising,and banks were stuck with 30 year loans at 7% from the early part of the decade, when short rates rose to double digits around 1980, and they lost money."
|
Instruct:
Given a financial question, retrieve user replies that best answer the question
Query:
Why would a company care about the price of its own shares in the stock market?
|
Stock price is an indicator about the health of the company. Increased profits (for example) will drive the stock price up; excessive debt (for example) will drive it down. The stock price has a profound effect on the company overall: for example, a declining share price will make it hard to secure credit, attract further investors, build partnerships, etc. Also, employees are often holding options or in a stock purchase plan, so a declining share price can severely dampen morale. In an extreme case, if share prices plummet too far, the company can be pressured to reverse-split the shares, and (eventually) take the company private. This recently happened to Playboy.
|
Instruct:
Given a financial question, retrieve user replies that best answer the question
Query:
Why would a company care about the price of its own shares in the stock market?
|
The other answer has some good points, to which I'll add this: I believe you're only considering a company's Initial Public Offering (IPO), when shares are first offered to the public. An IPO is the way most companies get a public listing on the stock market. However, companies often go to market again and again to issue/sell more shares, after their IPO. These secondary offerings don't make as many headlines as an IPO, but they are typical-enough occurrences in markets. When a company goes back to the market to raise additional funds (perhaps to fund expansion), the value of the company's existing shares that are being traded is a good indicator of what they may expect to get for a secondary offering of shares. A company about to raise money desires a higher share price, because that will permit them to issue less shares for the amount of money they need. If the share price drops, they would need to issue more shares for the same amount of money – and dilute existing owners' share of the overall equity further. Also, consider corporate acquisitions: When one company wants to buy another, instead of the transaction being entirely in cash (maybe they don't have that much in the bank!), there's often an equity component, which involves swapping shares of the company being acquired for new shares in the acquiring company or merged company. In that case, the values of the shares in the public marketplace also matter, to provide relative valuations for the companies, etc.
|
Instruct:
Given a financial question, retrieve user replies that best answer the question
Query:
Why would a company care about the price of its own shares in the stock market?
|
Shareholders get to vote for the board, the board appoints the CEO. This makes the CEO care, which in turn makes everybody else working in the company care. Also, if the company wants to borrow money a good share price, as sign of a healthy company, gives them more favorable conditions from lenders. And some more points others already made.
|
Instruct:
Given a financial question, retrieve user replies that best answer the question
Query:
Why would a company care about the price of its own shares in the stock market?
|
Fiduciary They are obligated by the rules of the exchanges they are listed with. Furthermore, there is a strong chance that people running the company also have stock, so it personally benefits them to create higher prices. Finally, maybe they don't care about the prices directly, but by being a good company with a good product or service, they are desirable and that is expressed as a higher stock price. Not every action is because it will raise the stock price, but because it is good for business which happens to make the stock more valuable.
|
Instruct:
Given a financial question, retrieve user replies that best answer the question
Query:
Why would a company care about the price of its own shares in the stock market?
|
Why do companies exist? Well, the corporate charter describes why the company exists. Usually the purpose is to enrich the shareholders. The owners of a company want to make money, in other words. There are a number of ways that a shareholder can make money off a stock: As such, maintaining the stock price and dividend payouts are generally the number one concern for any company in the long term. Most of the company's business is going to be directed towards making the company more valuable for a future buyout, or more valuable in terms of what it can pay its shareholders directly. Note that the company doesn't always need to be worried about the specifics of the day-to-day moves of the stock. If it keeps the finances in line - solid profits, margins, earnings growth and the like - and can credibly tell people that it's generally a valuable business, it can usually shrug off any medium-term blips as market craziness. Some companies are more explicitly long-term about things than others (e.g. Berkshire Hathaway basically tells people that it doesn't care all that much about what happens in the short term). Of course, companies are abstractions, and they're run by people. To make the people running the company worry about the stock price, you give them stock. Or stock options, or something like that. A major executive at a big company is likely to have a significant amount of stock. If the company does well, he does well; if it does poorly, he does poorly. Despite a few limitations, this is really a powerful incentive. If a company is losing a lot of money, or if its profits are falling so it's just losing a lot of its value as a business, the owners (stockholders) tend to get upset, and may vote in new management, or launch some sort of shareholder lawsuit. And, as previously noted, to raise funds, a company can also issue new shares to the market as a secondary offering as well (and they can issue fewer shares if the price is high - meaning that whatever the company is worth afterward, the existing owners own proportionally more of it).
|
Instruct:
Given a financial question, retrieve user replies that best answer the question
Query:
Why would a company care about the price of its own shares in the stock market?
|
The fact you are asking this question, the number of up votes, uncovers the real cause of the banking crisis. Answers which mention that shareholders will fire a public company board are on the bottom. It is obvious that a company owners are interested in company value. And should have direct and easy impact on a directors board if management doesn't increase shareholders wealth. With large number of passive shareholders and current stock market system that impact is very limited. Hence your question. So bank directors, upper management aren't that interested in company value. They are mostly interested in theirs bonuses, their wealth increase, not shareholders. And that's the real problem of capitalism. Public companies slowly drift to function like companies in former socialistic countries. These is no owner, everything is owned by a nation.
|
Instruct:
Given a financial question, retrieve user replies that best answer the question
Query:
Why would a company care about the price of its own shares in the stock market?
|
The most significant reason is that if the board of directors of a company neglects the stock value, the stockholders will vote them out of their jobs.
|
Instruct:
Given a financial question, retrieve user replies that best answer the question
Query:
Why would a company care about the price of its own shares in the stock market?
|
The main reason is that a public company is owned by its share holders, and share holders would care about the price of the stock they are owning, therefore the company would also care, because if the price go down too much, share holders become angry and may vote to oust the company's management.
|
Instruct:
Given a financial question, retrieve user replies that best answer the question
Query:
Why would a company care about the price of its own shares in the stock market?
|
Overpriced shares: Cheaper to raise new capital through secondary share offerings or debt using shares as a security. Fends off hostile take overs, since the company is too dear. When a company is taken over it needs only one set of management. Top management of the company that is taken over loses their jobs - no one wants to lose their job. Shareholders love to see share price grow - sale brings them profit, secures jobs for company management. Shares are used as a currency during acquisitions, if company shares are overpriced that means they can buy another company on the cheap - paying with the overpriced shares. Undervalued shares: More expensive to raise additional capital through secondary share offerings - for the same amount of capital the management has to offer a bigger chunk of the company; have to offer bigger chunk of a company as a security as well. Makes company vulnerable to hostile take overs, company is undervalues - makes it an attractive bargain. Once the company is taken over top management will almost certainly lose jobs. Falling price makes shareholders unhappy - they will vote management out. Makes difficult to acquire other companies.
|
Instruct:
Given a financial question, retrieve user replies that best answer the question
Query:
Why would a company care about the price of its own shares in the stock market?
|
Aside of the other (mostly valid) answers, share price is the most common method of valuating the company. Here is a bogus example that will help you understand the general point: Now, suppose that Company A wants to borrow $20 Million from a bank... Not a chance. Company B? Not a problem. Same situation when trying to raise new funds for the market or when trying to sell the company or to acquire another
|
Instruct:
Given a financial question, retrieve user replies that best answer the question
Query:
Why would a company care about the price of its own shares in the stock market?
|
Originally, stocks were ownership in a company just like any other business- you expected to make a profit from your investment, which is what we call dividends to stock holders. Since these dividends had real value, the stock price was based on what this return rate was, factoring in what it might be expected to be in the future, etc. Nowdays many companies never issue any dividends, so you have to consider the full value of the company and what benefit could be gained by another company if it were to acquire it. the market will likely adjust the share price to factor in what the value of the company might be to an acquirer. But otherwise, some companies today trading at an astronimical price, and which nevers pays a dividend- chalk it up to market stupidity. In this investor'd mind, there is no logical reason for these prices, except based on the idea that someone else might pay you more for it later... for what reason? I can't figure it out. Take it back to it's roots and imagine pitching a new business idea to you uncle to invest in- it will make almost nothing compared to it's share price, and even what it does make it won't pay anything to him for his investment. Why wouldn't he just laugh at you?
|
Instruct:
Given a financial question, retrieve user replies that best answer the question
Query:
Why would a company care about the price of its own shares in the stock market?
|
Because it's a good indicator of how much their asset worth. In oversimplified example, wouldn't you care how much your house, car, laptop worth? Over the course of your life you might need to buy a bigger house, sell your car etc. to cope with your financial goal / situation. It's similar in company's case but with much more complexity.
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.