input
stringlengths 14
166
| output
stringlengths 3
17k
| instruction
stringclasses 5
values |
|---|---|---|
I spend too much money. How can I get on the path to a frugal lifestyle? | Agree wholeheartedly with the first point - keep track! It's like losing weight, the first step is to be aware of what you are doing. It also helps to have a goal (e.g. pay for a trip to Australia, have X in my savings account), and then with each purchase ask 'what will I do with this when I go to Australia' or 'how does this help towards goal x?' Thrift stores and the like require some time searching but can be good value. If you think you need something, watch for sales too. | Utilize your financial knowledge, give your answer or opinion to the input question or subject . Answer format is not limited. |
I spend too much money. How can I get on the path to a frugal lifestyle? | Keep track of everything you buy. Write it down and be accountable. Try not to buy anything on credit cards, if the money is not in your account now then you can't afford it. Ask yourself whether what you're buying is a "need" or a "want". If you find that you are buying things because you are bored and you like shopping then try taking up a (cheap) hobby that fills that void and is something you enjoy doing. | Offer your insights or judgment on the input financial query or topic using your financial expertise. Reply as normal question answering |
I spend too much money. How can I get on the path to a frugal lifestyle? | Get on a written budget at the BEGINNING of the month. If you dont write down where your money goes BEFORE you spend it, you have no way of keeping track of it. I couldn't do a thing until I got on a written budget but now that I am, I've paid off $10,000 in 7 months. | Based on your financial expertise, provide your response or viewpoint on the given financial question or topic. The response format is open. |
I spend too much money. How can I get on the path to a frugal lifestyle? | There's plenty of advice out there about how to set up a budget or track your expenses or "pay yourself first". This is all great advice but sometimes the hardest part is just getting in the right frugal mindset. Here's a couple tricks on how I did it. Put yourself through a "budget fire drill" If you've never set a budget for yourself, you don't necessarily need to do that here... just live as though you had lost your job and savings through some imaginary catastrophe and live on the bare minimum for at least a month. Treat every dollar as though you only had a few left. Clip coupons, stop dining out, eat rice and beans, bike or car pool to work... whatever means possible to cut costs. If you're really into it, you can cancel your cable/Netflix/wine of the month bills and see how much you really miss them. This exercise will get you used to resisting impulse buys and train you to live through an actual financial disaster. There's also a bit of a game element here in that you can shoot for a "high score"... the difference between the monthly expenditures for your fire drill and the previous month. Understand the power of compound interest. Sit down with Excel and run some numbers for how your net worth will change long term if you saved more and paid down debt sooner. It will give you some realistic sense of the power of compound interest in terms that relate to your specific situation. Start simple... pick your top 10 recent non-essential purchases and calculate how much that would be worth if you had invested that money in the stock market earning 8% over the next thirty years. Then visualize your present self sneaking up to your future self and stealing that much money right out of your own wallet. When I did that, it really resonated with me and made me think about how every dollar I spent on something non-essential was a kick to the crotch of poor old future me. | Share your insights or perspective on the financial matter presented in the input. |
I spend too much money. How can I get on the path to a frugal lifestyle? | As others have said getting on a written budget before each month starts is the most important part. Also, I'm a big fan of cash budgets as well. They aren't for everyone and they take a little getting used to, but once you get used to them you'll never want to go back. In a cash budget you take whatever you have budgeted for the month for each category and withdraw the amount needed from the bank. These go into an envelope for each category, i.e. food, clothes, entertainment, etc. If a 3 weeks into the month you run out of money in that envelope you are done spending money in that category. For example, if it's the food envelope and you run out it's time for you to start eating leftovers and whatever you've got in the pantry. You lose out on advantages like points gained on credit cards and whatnot but statistically people that spend cash spend much less overall and you get some enforced self control that you otherwise might not have. | Offer your thoughts or opinion on the input financial query or topic using your financial background. |
I spend too much money. How can I get on the path to a frugal lifestyle? | I agree with the first poster- the first step is to measure your spending and put it down into raw numbers. Once you have the raw numbers, you will feel a natural inclination to improve on those numbers. Set yourself a daily target for cash / incidental expenses. It doesnt have to be a crazy target - just something you can achieve easily. Mark a 'tick' mark next to every day on the calendar that you meet that target (or spend less than the target). Gradually the momentum from the past few 'ticks' will automatically compel you to want to tick off the next day. At the end of each week, lower the target a little. You'll find that when you start measuring your expenditure, you become more aware of how you might be wasting money. All too often we just go out and buy stuff we don't need without really thinking about it. | Utilize your financial knowledge, give your answer or opinion to the input question or subject . Answer format is not limited. |
I spend too much money. How can I get on the path to a frugal lifestyle? | I would highly recommend the Dave Ramsey book "The Total Money Makeover". I read it about 5 years ago and my financial situation has slowly but steadily been improving ever since. | Offer your insights or judgment on the input financial query or topic using your financial expertise. Reply as normal question answering |
I spend too much money. How can I get on the path to a frugal lifestyle? | For many folks these days, not having a credit card is just not practical. Personally, I do quite a bit of shopping online for things not available locally. Cash is not an option in these cases and I don't want to give out my debit card number. So, a strategy is this: use a credit card for a purchase. Then immediately, or within a couple days, pay the credit card with that amount. Sounds simple but it takes a little effort to do it. This strategy gives you the convenience of a credit card and decreases the interest enormously. | Based on your financial expertise, provide your response or viewpoint on the given financial question or topic. The response format is open. |
I spend too much money. How can I get on the path to a frugal lifestyle? | Track your expenses. Find out where your money is going, and target areas where you can reduce expenses. Some examples: I was spending a lot on food, buying too much packaged food, and eating out too much. So I started cooking from scratch more and eating out less. Now, even though I buy expensive organic produce, imported cheese, and grass-fed beef, I'm spending half of what I used to spend on food. It could be better. I could cut back on meat and eat out even less. I'm working on it. I was buying a ton of books and random impulsive crap off of Amazon. So I no longer let myself buy things right away. I put stuff on my wish list if I want it, and every couple of months I go on there and buy myself a couple of things off my wishlist. I usually end up realizing that some of the stuff on there isn't something I want that badly after all, so I just delete it from my wishlist. I replaced my 11-year-old Jeep SUV with an 11-year-old Saturn sedan that gets twice the gas mileage. That saves me almost $200/month in gasoline costs alone. I had cable internet through Comcast, even though I don't have a TV. So I went from a $70/month cable bill to a $35/month DSL bill, which cut my internet costs in half. I have an iPhone and my bill for that is $85/month. That's insane, with how little I talk on the phone and send text messages. Once it goes out of contract, I plan to replace it with a cheap phone, possibly a pre-paid. That should cut my phone expenses in half, or even less. I'll keep my iPhone, and just use it when wifi is available (which is almost everywhere these days). | Share your insights or perspective on the financial matter presented in the input. |
I spend too much money. How can I get on the path to a frugal lifestyle? | For the most part, saving money usually depends upon having a budget and being able to stick to it. The toughest part of budgeting is usually setting it up (how much do I need for X) and sticking to it each month. In regards to sticking to it, there is software that you can use that helps figure out how much you are spending and how much you have left in a given category and they all pretty much do the same thing: track your spending and how much you have left in the category. If you are good with spreadsheets you might prefer that route (cost: free) but software that you can buy usually has value in that it can also generate reports that help you spot trends that you might not see in the spreadsheet. Sticking to a budget can be tough and a lot of what people have said already is good advice, but one thing that helps for me is having "play money" that can be used for whatever I want. In general this should be a fairly nominal amount ($20 or $40 a week) but it is enough that if you see a new book you want or what to go out for lunch one day you can do it without impacting the overall budget in some way. Likewise, having bigger savings goals can also be useful in that if times get tough it is easier to stop putting $100 a month to the side for a vacation than it is to cut back your grocery budget. | Offer your thoughts or opinion on the input financial query or topic using your financial background. |
I spend too much money. How can I get on the path to a frugal lifestyle? | Use software that calculates your net worth and track it over time. I track my personal finances in Mint, and I love checking my net worth every week. It's turned into a kind of competition with myself... It's like keeping track of how fast you run a 5k, or how many pounds of weight you've lost. It helps you determine if you are making progress, and if you, it's positive reinforcement that you are doing the right things. | Utilize your financial knowledge, give your answer or opinion to the input question or subject . Answer format is not limited. |
I spend too much money. How can I get on the path to a frugal lifestyle? | Lots of good answers here about budgeting and other ideas. Here's a couple more: Think about offense and defense. Offense is how much money you make. Are you making enough to survive on? Is there a way you could bring in more income? Defense is what you do with your money. Do you have expensive habits? Do you have problems with impulse spending? Do you live in an expensive area with a high cost-of-living? Think about some of these areas and pick one to attack first. If it is the defense side that is causing you problems (you did mention trying to live on less), consider reading Your Money or Your Life by Joe Dominguez and Vicki Robin. There's a really good summary of it on the authors' site. The basic idea of the mechanical part of the book is that you figure out how much you're truly making per hour, and then evaluate your expenses based on how many hours of your "life energy" you are using for that expense. Then you evaluate whether you think that's a fair trade or not. There's a lot more to it than that, but it's an interesting way to get a different perspective on your spending habits, and may be enough to entice you to change those habits. | Offer your insights or judgment on the input financial query or topic using your financial expertise. Reply as normal question answering |
Is there any reason to choose my bank's index fund over Vanguard? | That expense ratio on the bank fund is criminally high. Use the Vanguard one, they have really low expenses. | Based on your financial expertise, provide your response or viewpoint on the given financial question or topic. The response format is open. |
Is there any reason to choose my bank's index fund over Vanguard? | Your bank's fund is not an index fund. From your link: To provide a balanced portfolio of primarily Canadian securities that produce income and capital appreciation by investing primarily in Canadian money market instruments, debt securities and common and preferred shares. This is a very broad actively managed fund. Compare this to the investment objective listed for Vanguard's VOO: Invests in stocks in the S&P 500 Index, representing 500 of the largest U.S. companies. There are loads of market indices with varying formulas that are supposed to track the performance of a market or market segment that they intend to track. The Russel 2000, The Wilshire 1000, The S&P 500, the Dow Industrial Average, there is even the SSGA Gender Diversity Index. Some body comes up with a market index. An "Index Fund" is simply a Mutual Fund or Exchange Traded Fund (ETF) that uses a market index formula to make it's investment decisions enabling an investor to track the performance of the index without having to buy and sell the constituent securities on their own. These "index funds" are able to charge lower fees because they spend $0 on research, and only make investment decisions in order to track the holdings of the index. I think 1.2% is too high, but I'm coming from the US investing world it might not be that high compared to Canadian offerings. Additionally, comparing this fund's expense ratio to the Vanguard 500 or Total Market index fund is nonsensical. Similarly, comparing the investment returns is nonsensical because one tracks the S&P 500 and one does not, nor does it seek to (as an example the #5 largest holding of the CIBC fund is a Government of Canada 2045 3.5% bond). Everyone should diversify their holdings and adjust their investment allocations as they age. As you age you should be reallocating away from highly volatile common stock and in to assets classes that are historically more stable/less volatile like national government debt and high grade corporate/local government debt. This fund is already diversified in to some debt instruments, depending on your age and other asset allocations this might not be the best place to put your money regardless of the fees. Personally, I handle my own asset allocations and I'm split between Large, Mid and Small cap low-fee index funds, and the lowest cost high grade debt funds available to me. | Share your insights or perspective on the financial matter presented in the input. |
Is there any reason to choose my bank's index fund over Vanguard? | Extortionate expense ratio aside, comparing the fund to the vanguard balanced fund (with an expense ratio of 0.19%) shows that your bank's fund has underperformed in literally every shown time period. Mind you, the vanguard fund is all US stocks and bonds which have done very well whereas the CIBC fund is mostly Canadian. Looking at the CIBC top 10 holdings does seem to suggest that it's (poorly) actively managed instead of being an index tracker for what that's worth. Maybe your bank offers cheaper transaction costs when buying their own funds but even then the discount would have to be pretty big to make up for the underperformance. Basically, go Vanguard here. | Offer your thoughts or opinion on the input financial query or topic using your financial background. |
Is there any reason to choose my bank's index fund over Vanguard? | Basically, no. Selecting an actively managed fund over a low-fee index fund means paying for the opportunity to possibly outperform the index fund. A Random Walk Down Wall Street by Burton Malkiel argues that the best general strategy for the average investor is to select the index fund because the fee savings are certain. Assuming a random walk means that any mutual fund may outperform the index in some years, but this is not an indication that it will overall. Unless you have special information about the effectiveness of the bank fund management (it's run by the next Warren Buffett), you are better off in the index fund. And even Warren Buffett suggests you are probably better off in the index fund: This year, regarding Wall Street, Buffett wrote: “When trillions of dollars are managed by Wall Streeters charging high fees, it will usually be the managers who reap outsized profits, not the clients. Both large and small investors should stick with low-cost index funds.” | Utilize your financial knowledge, give your answer or opinion to the input question or subject . Answer format is not limited. |
Forex independent investments | Unless you are buying a significant value of your goods in USD then the relative strength of USD versus your local currency will have little to no effect on what the value of your investments is worth to you. In fact only (de|in)flation will effect your purchasing power. If your investments are in your local currency and your future expenses (usage of the returns on the investments) will be in your local currency FX has no effect. To answer your question, however, since all investments involve flows of money there can be no investment (other than perhaps gold which is really a form of currency) that isn't bound to at least one currency. In general investments are expected to be valued against the investor's home currency (I tend to call it "fund currency" as I work with hedge funds) as the return on the investment will be paid out in the fund currency and returns will be compared on the same basis. If investments are to be made internationally then it is necessary to reduce, or "hedge" the exchange rate risk. This is normally done using FX swaps or futures that allow an exchange rate in the future to be locked in today. Far from being unbound from FX moves these derivatives are closely bound to any moves but crucially are bound in the opposite direction to the hoped for FX move. an example of this would be if I'm investing 100GBP (my local currency) in a US company XYZ corp which I expect to do well. Suppose I get 200USD for my 100GBP and so buy 1 * 200USD shares in XYZ. No matter what happens to XYZ stock any move in GBP/USD will affect my P&L so I buy a future that allows me to exchange 200USD for 100GBP in 6 month's time. If GBP rises I can sell the future and make money on both the higher exchange rate and the increase in XYZ corp. If GBP falls I can keep the future until maturity and exchange the 200USD from XYZ corp for 100GBP so I only take the foreign exchange hit on any profits. If I expect my profits to be 10USD I can even buy futures such that I can lock in the exchange rate for 110USD in 6 months so that I will lose even less of my profit from the exchange rate move. | Offer your insights or judgment on the input financial query or topic using your financial expertise. Reply as normal question answering |
What are these fees attached to mutual fund FSEMX? | Annual-report expense ratios reflect the actual fees charged during a particular fiscal year. Prospectus Expense Ratio (net) shows expenses the fund company anticipates will actually be borne by the fund's shareholders in the upcoming fiscal year less any expense waivers, offsets or reimbursements. Prospectus Gross Expense Ratio is the percentage of fund assets used to pay for operating expenses and management fees, including 12b-1 fees, administrative fees, and all other asset-based costs incurred by the fund, except brokerage costs. Fund expenses are reflected in the fund's NAV. Sales charges are not included in the expense ratio. All of these ratios are gathered from a fund's prospectus. | Based on your financial expertise, provide your response or viewpoint on the given financial question or topic. The response format is open. |
What are these fees attached to mutual fund FSEMX? | FSEMX has an annual expense ratio of 0.1% which is very low. What that means is that each month, the FSEMX will pay itself one-twelfth of 0.1% of the total value of all the shares owned by the shareholders in the mutual fund. If the fund has cash on hand from its trading activities or dividends collected from companies whose stock is owned by FSEMX or interest on bonds owned by FSEMX, the money comes out of that, but if there is no such pot (or the pot is not large enough), then the fund manager has the authority to sell some shares of the stocks held by FSEMX so that the employees can be paid, etc. If the total of cash generated by the trading and the dividend collection in a given year is (say) 3% of the share value of all the outstanding mutual fund, then only 2.9% will be paid out as dividend and capital gain distribution income to the share holders, the remaining 0.1% already having been paid to FSEMX management for operating expenses. It is important to keep in mind that expenses are always paid even if there are no profits, or even if there are losses that year so that no dividends or capital gains distributions are made. You don't see the expenses explicitly on any statement that you receive. If FSEMX sells shares of stocks that it holds to pay the expenses, this reduces the share value (NAV) of the mutual fund shares that you hold. So, if your mutual fund account "lost" 20% in value that year because the market was falling, and you got no dividend or capital gains distributions either, remember that only 19.9% of that loss can be blamed on the President or Congress or Wall Street or public-sector unions or your neighbor's refusal to ditch his old PC in favor of a new Mac, and the rest (0.1%) has gone to FSEMX to pay for fees you agreed to when you bought FSEMX shares. If you invest directly in FSEMX through Fidelity's web site, there is no sales charge, and you pay no expenses other than the 0.1% annual expense ratio. There is a fee for selling FSEMX shares after owning them only for a short time since the fund wants to discourage short-term investors. Whatever other fees finance.yahoo.com lists might be descriptive of the uses that FSEMX puts its expense ratio income to in its internal management, but are not of any importance to the prudent investor in FSEMX who will never encounter them or have to pay them. | Share your insights or perspective on the financial matter presented in the input. |
Is there a way to buy raw oil today and sell it in 1 year time? | There are many ways of investing either directly or indirectly in oil: all of these options are ways to invest in an expected change in the price of oil at various degrees of directness and risk profiles. Investing in derivative or derivative-like products such as futures and CFDs is very risky and requires a good degree of sophisticated knowledge to manage. | Offer your thoughts or opinion on the input financial query or topic using your financial background. |
Is there a way to buy raw oil today and sell it in 1 year time? | Unless you have the storage and transportation facilities for it, or can come up with the money needed to rent or build those, no -- or not in any significant quantity. Buying oil futures is essentially an on-paper version of the same bet. Futures prices are already taking into account both expectations about price changes and the fact that there's cash tied up until they come due, but storage costs also adjust to follow those expectations. | Utilize your financial knowledge, give your answer or opinion to the input question or subject . Answer format is not limited. |
Is there a way to buy raw oil today and sell it in 1 year time? | You can buy the exchange traded fund ETFS WTI Crude Oil (CRUD), amongst other ETFS products. http://funds.ft.com/uk/Tearsheet/Summary?s=CRUD:LSE:USD Note these funds do not 'jump' when the crude oil futures contracts are in contango (e.g. June contract is priced higher than May) and the futures roll-over, as they do monthly. When this happens the EFTS continues with no movement. Currently May is $52.85 and June is $54.15 (so in contango). LSE:CRUD is $13.40 and if the crude oil futures rolled-over it would carry straight on at that value. For this reason one should be cautious buying and holding LSE:CRUD longterm. | Offer your insights or judgment on the input financial query or topic using your financial expertise. Reply as normal question answering |
How to know if two ETFs are 'substantially identical' according to wash sale rules? | It sounds like this is an entirely unsettled question, unfortunately. In the examples you provide, I think it is safe to say that none of those are 'substantially identical'; a small overlap or no overlap certainly should not be considered such by a reasonable interpretation of the rule. This article on Kitces goes into some detail on the topic. A few specifics. First, Former publication 564 explains: Ordinarily, shares issued by one mutual fund are not considered to be substantially identical to shares issued by another mutual fund. Of course, what "ordinarily" means is unspecified (and this is no longer a current publication, so, who knows). The Kitces article goes on to explain that the IRS hasn't really gone after wash sales for mutual funds: Over the years, the IRS has not pursued wash sale abuses against mutual funds, perhaps because it just wasn’t very feasible to crack down on them, or perhaps because it just wasn’t perceived as that big of an abuse. After all, while the rules might allow you to loss-harvest a particular stock you couldn’t have otherwise, it also limits you from harvesting ANY losses if the overall fund is up in the aggregate, since losses on individual stocks can’t pass through to the mutual fund shareholders. But then goes to explain about ETFs being very different: sell SPY, buy IVV or VTI, and you're basically buying/selling the identical thing (99% or so correlation in stocks owned). The recommendation by the article is to look at the correlation in owned stocks, and stay away from things over 95%; that seems reasonable in my book as well. Ultimately, there will no doubt be a large number of “grey” and murky situations, but I suspect that until the IRS provides better guidance (or Congress rewrites/updates the wash sale rules altogether!), in the near term the easiest “red flag” warning is simply to look at the correlation between the original investment being loss-harvested, and the replacement security; at correlations above 0.95, and especially at 0.99+, it’s difficult to argue that the securities are not ”substantially identical” to each other in performance. Basically - use common sense, and don't do anything you think would be hard to defend in an audit, but otherwise you should be okay. | Based on your financial expertise, provide your response or viewpoint on the given financial question or topic. The response format is open. |
How to know if two ETFs are 'substantially identical' according to wash sale rules? | Nobody knows for sure what "substantially identical" means because the IRS hasn't officially defined it. Until they do so, it would come down to the decision of an auditor or a tax court. The rule of thumb that I have always heard is if the funds track the same index, they are probably substantially identical. I think most people wouldn't consider any pair of AGG, CMF, and NYF to be substantially identical, so you should be safe with your tax-loss harvesting strategy. | Share your insights or perspective on the financial matter presented in the input. |
Market Making vs Market Taking (Quotes vs Orders) | Quote driven markets are the predecessors to the modern securities market. Before electronic trading and HFTs specifically, trading was thin and onerous. Today, the average investor can open up a web page, type in a security, and buy at the narrowest spread permitted by regulators with anyone else who wants to take the other side. Before the lines between market maker and speculator became blurred to indistinction, a market maker was one who was contractually obligated to an exchange to provide a bid and ask for a given security on said exchange even though at heart a market maker is still simply a trader despite the obligation. A market maker would simultaneously buy a large amount of securities privately and short the same amount to have no directional bias, exposure to the direction of the security, and commence to making the market. The market maker would estimate its cost basis for the security based upon those initial trades and provide a bid and ask appropriate for the given level of volume. If volumes were high, the spread would be low and vice versa. Market makers who survived crashes and spikes would forgo the potential profit in always providing a steady price and spread, ie increased volume otherwise known as revenue, to maintain no directional bias. In other words, if there were suddenly many buyers and no sellers, hitting the market maker's ask, the MM would raise the ask rapidly in proportion to the increased exposure while leaving the bid somewhere below the cost basis. Eventually, a seller would arise and hit the MM's bid, bringing the market maker's inventory back into balance, and narrowing the spread that particular MM could provide since a responsible MM's ask could rise very high very quickly if a lack of its volume relative to its inventory made inventory too costly. This was temporarily extremely costly to the trader if there were few market makers on the security the trader was trading or already exposed to. Market makers prefer to profit from the spread, bidding below some predetermined price, based upon the cost basis of the market maker's inventory, while asking above that same predetermined cost basis. Traders profit from taking exposure to a security's direction or lack thereof in the case of some options traders. Because of electronic trading, liquidity rebates offered by exchanges not only to contractually obligated official market makers but also to any trader who posts a limit order that another trader hits, and algorithms that become better by the day, market making HFTs have supplanted the traditional market maker, and there are many HFTs where there previously were few official market makers. This speed and diversification of risk across many many algorithmically market making HFTs have kept spreads to the minimum on large equities and have reduced the same for the smallest equities on major exchanges. Orders and quotes are essentially identical. Both are double sided auction markets with impermenant bids and asks. The difference lies in that non-market makers, specialists, etc. orders are not shown to the rest of the market, providing an informational advantage to MMs and an informational disadvantage to the trader. Before electronic trading, this construct was of no consequence since trader orders were infrequent. With the prevalence of HFTs, the informational disadvantage has become more costly, so order driven markets now prevail with much lower spreads and accelerated volumes even though market share for the major exchanges has dropped rapidly and hyperaccelerated number of trades even though the size of individual trades have fallen. The worst aspect of the quote driven market was that traders could not directly trade with each other, so all trades had to go between a market maker, specialist, etc. While this may seem to have increased cost to a trader who could only trade with another trader by being arbitraged by a MM et al, paying more than what another trader was willing to sell, these costs were dwarfed by the potential absence of those market makers. Without a bid or ask at any given time, there could be no trade, so the costs were momentarily infinite. In essence, a quote driven market protects market makers from the competition of traders. While necessary in the days where paper receipts were carted from brokerage to brokerage, and the trader did not dedicate itself to round the clock trading, it has no place in a computerized market. It is more costly to the trader to use such a market, explaining quote driven markets' rapid exit. | Offer your thoughts or opinion on the input financial query or topic using your financial background. |
Market Making vs Market Taking (Quotes vs Orders) | This is too lengthy for a comment. The following quoted passages are excerpted from this Money SE post. Before electronic trading and HFTs specifically, trading was thin and onerous. No. The NYSE and AMEX were deep, liquid and transparent for nearly 75 years prior to high frequency trading (HFT), in 2000 or so. The same is true for NASDAQ, but not for as many years, as NASDAQ is newer, being an electronic market. The point is that it existed, and thrived, prior to HFT. The NASDAQ can be active and functional, WITH or WITHOUT high frequency trading. This is not historically true, nor is it true now: Without a bid or ask at any given time, there could be no trade... Market makers, also known as specialists, were responsible for hitting the bid and taking the offer on whatever security they covered. They had a responsibility assigned to them by the exchange. Yes, it was lucrative! There was risk, and they were rewarded for bearing it. There is a trade-off though. Specialists provided greater stability on a systemic level, although other market participants paid for that cost. Prior to HFT, traders who were not market makers were often bounded by, boxed in, by the toll paid to market makers. Market makers had different, much higher capital and solvency requirements than other traders. Most specialists/market makers had seats, or shared a seat on the NYSE or AMEX. Remember that market makers/specialists are specific to stock markets, whereas HFT is not. If this is true, then we are in trouble: HFTs have supplanted the traditional market maker Why? Because trading volume is LOWER now than it was in the 1990's! EDIT In the comments, I noticed that OP was asking about the difference between I suggest reading this very accurate, well-written answer to a related question, The spread goes to the market maker, is the market maker the exchange? That explains the difference between | Utilize your financial knowledge, give your answer or opinion to the input question or subject . Answer format is not limited. |
What are the best options for an RESP for my 2 year old kid? | Since your child is 2, he has a long time horizon for investment. Assuming the savings will be used at age 19, that's 17 years. So, I think your best bet is to invest primarily in equities (i.e. stock-based funds) and inside an RESP. Why equities? Historically, equities have outperformed debt and cash over longer time periods. But, equities can be volatile in the short term. So, do purchase some fixed-income investments (e.g. 30% government bonds and money market funds), and do also spread your equity money around as well -- e.g. buy some international funds in addition to Canadian funds. Rebalance every year, and as your child gets closer to university age, start shifting some assets out of equities and into fixed-income, to reduce risk. You don't want the portfolio torpedoed by an economic crisis the year before the money is required! Next, why inside an RESP? Finally... what if your kid doesn't attend post-secondary education? First, you should probably get a Family RESP, not a Group RESP. Group RESPs have strict rules and may forfeit contributions if your kid doesn't attend. Have a look at Choosing the Right RESP and Canadian Capitalist's post The Pros and Cons of Group RESP Plans. In a Family plan, if none of your kids end up attending post-secondary education, then you forfeit the government match money -- the feds get it back through a 20% surtax on withdrawals. But, you'll have the option of rolling over remaining funds into your RRSP, if you have room. | Offer your insights or judgment on the input financial query or topic using your financial expertise. Reply as normal question answering |
Transferring money from 403B to 401K? | You can move money from a 403b to a 401k plan, but the question you should ask yourself is whether it is a wise decision. Unless there are specific reasons for wanting to invest in your new employer's 401k (e.g. you can buy your employer's stock at discounted rates within the 401k, and this is a good investment according to your friends, neighbors, and brothers-in-law), you would be much better off moving the 403b money into an IRA, where you have many more choices for investment and usually can manage to find investments with lower investment costs (e.g. mutual fund fees) than in a typical employer's 401k plan. On the other hand, 401k assets are better protected than IRA assets in case you are sued and a court finds you to be liable for damages; the plaintiff cannot come after the 401k assets if you cannot pay. To answer the question of "how?", you need to talk to the HR people at your current employer to make sure that they are willing to accept a roll-over from another tax-deferred plan (not all plans are agreeable to do this) and get any paperwork from them, especially making sure that you find out where the check is to be sent, and to whom it should be payable. Then, talk to your previous employer's HR people and tell them that you want to roll over your 403b money into the 401k plan of your new employer, fill out the paperwork, make sure they know to whom to cut the check to, and where it is to be sent etc. In my personal experience, I was sent the check payable to the custodian of my new (IRA) account, and I had to send it on to the custodian; my 403b people refused to send the check directly to the new custodian. The following January, you will receive a 1099-R form from your 403b plan showing the amount transferred to the new custodian, with hopefully the correct code letter indicating that the money was rolled over into another tax-deferred account. | Based on your financial expertise, provide your response or viewpoint on the given financial question or topic. The response format is open. |
Question about MBS and how it pays | A security is a class of financial instrument you can trade on the market. A share of stock is a kind of security, for example, as is a bond. In the case of your mortgage, what happens: You take out a loan for $180k. The loan has two components. a. The payment stream (meaning the principal and the interest) from the loan b. The servicing of the loan, meaning the company who is responsible for accepting payments, giving the resulting income to whomever owns it. Many originating banks, such as my initial lender, do neither of these things - they sell the payment stream to a large bank or consortium (often Fannie Mae) and they also sell the servicing of the loan to another company. The payment stream is the primary value here (the servicing is worth essentially a tip off the top). The originating bank lends $180k of their own money. Then they have something that is worth some amount - say $450k total value, $15k per year for 30 years - and they sell it for however much they can get for it. The actual value of $15k/year for 30 years is somewhere in between - less than $450k more than $180k - since there is risk involved, and the present value is far less. The originating bank has the benefit of selling that they can then originate more mortgages (and make money off the fees) plus they can reduce their risk exposure. Then a security is created by the bigger bank, where they take a bunch of mortgages of different risk levels and group them together to make something with a very predictable risk quotient. Very similar to insurance, really, except the other way around. One mortage will either default or not at some % chance, but it's a one off thing - any good statistician will tell you that you don't do statistics on n=1. One hundred mortgages, each with some risk level, will very consistently return a particular amount, within a certain error, and thus you have something that people are willing to pay money on the market for. | Share your insights or perspective on the financial matter presented in the input. |
Question about MBS and how it pays | A Mortgage Backed Security or MBS is the security. It's not an entity, it's essentially a contract. As an investment they function more or less the same way a bond does. There is nothing wrong with the concept behind a Mortgage Backed Security. Functionally securities like these allows banks and other institutions to lend to high-risk borrowers. You package small slices of a wide range of risk from a large number of mortgages and the investor sill receive something similar to the average of the rates being charged. Essentially from a big pool of mortgages of varying risk you will create a different big pool of bonds that can be sold to investors based on some sort of expected return. For a frame of reference on a much smaller scale look at peer to peer lending sites like LendingClub and Prosper. The idea is lots of people of varying risk profiles make requests for loans of varying amounts. You bring your $2,500 and invest $25 in to 100 different loans. This way even if a few default you will still eek out a profit. It also allows you to include riskier borrowers without materially impacting your expected return. | Offer your thoughts or opinion on the input financial query or topic using your financial background. |
Is it smarter to buy a small amount of an ETF every 2 or 3 months, instead of monthly? | I personally invest in 4 different ETFs. I have $1000 to invest every month. To save on transaction costs, I invest that sum in only one ETF each month, the one that is most underweight at the time. For example, I invest in XIC (30%), VTI (30%), VEA (30%), and VWO (10%). One month, I'll buy XIC, next month VTA, next month, VEA, then XIC again. Eventually I'll buy VWO when it's $1000 underweight. If one ETF tanks, I may buy it twice in a row to reach my target allocation, or if it shoots up, I may skip buying it for a while. My actual asset allocation never ends up looking exactly like the target, but it trends towards it. And I only pay one commission a month. If this is in a tax-sheltered account (main TFSA or RRSP), another option is to invest in no-load index mutual funds that match the ETFs each month (assuming there's no commission to buy them). Once they reach a certain amount, sell and buy the equivalent ETFs. This is not a good approach in a non-registered account because you will have to pay tax on any capital gains when selling the mutual funds. | Utilize your financial knowledge, give your answer or opinion to the input question or subject . Answer format is not limited. |
Is it smarter to buy a small amount of an ETF every 2 or 3 months, instead of monthly? | By not timing the market and being a passive investor, the best time to invest is the moment you have extra money (usually when wages are received). The market trends up. $10 fee on $2000 represents 0.5% transaction cost, which is borderline prohibitive. I would suggest running simulations, but I suspect that 1 month is the best because average historical monthly total return is more than 0.5%. | Offer your insights or judgment on the input financial query or topic using your financial expertise. Reply as normal question answering |
Is it smarter to buy a small amount of an ETF every 2 or 3 months, instead of monthly? | Note, the main trade off here is the costs of holding cash rather than being invested for a few months vs trading costs from trading every month. Let's start by understanding investing every month vs every three months. First compare holding cash for two months (at ~0% for most Canadians right now) and then investing on the third month vs being invested in a single stock etf (~5% annually?). At those rates she is forgoing equity returns of around These costs and the $10 for one big trade give total costs of $16+$8+$10=$34 dollars. If you were to trade every month instead there would be no cost for not being invested and the trading costs over three months would just be 3*$10=$30. So in this case it would be better to trade monthly instead of every three months. However, I'm guessing you don't trade all $2000 into a single etf. The more etfs you trade the more trading more infrequently would be an advantage. You can redo the above calculations spliting the amount across more etfs and including the added trading costs to get a feel for what is best. You can also rotate as @Jason suggests but that can leave you unbalanced temporarily if not done carefully. A second option would be to find a discount broker that allows you to trade the etfs you are interested in for free. This is not always possible but often will be for those investing in index funds. For instance I trade every month and have no brokerage costs. Dollar cost averaging and value averaging are for people investing a single large amount instead of regular monthly amounts. Unless the initial amount is much much larger than the monthly amounts this is probably not worth considering. Edit: Hopefully the above edits will clarify that I was comparing the costs (including the forgone returns) of trading every 3 months vs trading every month. | Based on your financial expertise, provide your response or viewpoint on the given financial question or topic. The response format is open. |
What cost basis accounting methods are applicable to virtual currencies? | The only "authoritative document" issued by the IRS to date relating to Cryptocurrencies is Notice 2014-21. It has this to say as the first Q&A: Q-1: How is virtual currency treated for federal tax purposes? A-1: For federal tax purposes, virtual currency is treated as property. General tax principles applicable to property transactions apply to transactions using virtual currency. That is to say, it should be treated as property like any other asset. Basis reporting the same as any other property would apply, as described in IRS documentation like Publication 550, Investment Income and Expenses and Publication 551, Basis of Assets. You should be able to use the same basis tracking method as you would use for any other capital asset like stocks or bonds. Per Publication 550 "How To Figure Gain or Loss", You figure gain or loss on a sale or trade of property by comparing the amount you realize with the adjusted basis of the property. Gain. If the amount you realize from a sale or trade is more than the adjusted basis of the property you transfer, the difference is a gain. Loss. If the adjusted basis of the property you transfer is more than the amount you realize, the difference is a loss. That is, the assumption with property is that you would be using specific identification. There are specific rules for mutual funds to allow for using average cost or defaulting to FIFO, but for general "property", including individual stocks and bonds, there is just Specific Identification or FIFO (and FIFO is just making an assumption about what you're choosing to sell first in the absence of any further information). You don't need to track exactly "which Bitcoin" was sold in terms of exactly how the transactions are on the Bitcoin ledger, it's just that you bought x bitcoins on date d, and when you sell a lot of up to x bitcoins you specify in your own records that the sale was of those specific bitcoins that you bought on date d and report it on your tax forms accordingly and keep track of how much of that lot is remaining. It works just like with stocks, where once you buy a share of XYZ Corp on one date and two shares on another date, you don't need to track the movement of stock certificates and ensure that you sell that exact certificate, you just identify which purchase lot is being sold at the time of sale. | Share your insights or perspective on the financial matter presented in the input. |
Did I get screwed in taxes on a mutual fund dividend payment? | How is that possible?? The mutual fund doesn't pay taxes and passes along the tax bill to shareholders via distributions would be the short answer. Your basis likely changed as now you have bought more shares. But I gained absolutely nothing from my dividend, so how is it taxable? The fund has either realized capital gains, dividends, interest or some other form of income that it has to pass along to shareholders as the fund doesn't pay taxes itself. Did I get screwed the first year because I bought into the fund too late in the year? Perhaps if you don't notice that your cost basis has changed here so that you'll have lower taxes when you sell your shares. Is anyone familiar with what causes this kind of situation of receiving a "taxable dividend" that doesn't actually increase the account balance? Yes, I am rather familiar with this. The point to understand is that the fund doesn't pay taxes itself but passes this along. The shareholders that hold funds in tax-advantaged accounts like 401ks and IRAs still get the distribution but are shielded from paying taxes on those gains at that point at time. Is it because I bought too late in the year? No, it is because you didn't know the fund would have a distribution of that size that year. Some funds can have negative returns yet still have a capital gains distribution if the fund experiences enough redemptions that the fund had to sell appreciated shares in a security. This is part of the risk in having stock funds in taxable accounts. Or is it because the fund had a negative return that year? No, it is because you don't understand how mutual funds and taxes work along with what distribution schedule the fund had. Do I wait until after the distribution date this year to buy? I'd likely consider it for taxable accounts yes. However, if you are buying in a tax-advantaged account then there isn't that same issue. | Offer your thoughts or opinion on the input financial query or topic using your financial background. |
Did I get screwed in taxes on a mutual fund dividend payment? | No, not screwed. This is just an artifact of the tax code and year end dividends. You paid a tax, and in return, got a higher basis. When you sell, you will have less profit, therefore less tax to pay than the guy who bought right after the dividend. You can call the fund company if you want to buy later this year. Once you understand the process, it might not bother you at all. | Utilize your financial knowledge, give your answer or opinion to the input question or subject . Answer format is not limited. |
How does it work when the same ETF is listed on several stock exchanges? | If I buy VUSA from one exchange, can I sell it in a different exchange, assuming my brokerage account lets me trade in both exchanges? Or is it somehow tied to the exchange I bought it from? This doesn't happen for all securities and between all stock exchanges. So that is dependent on broker and country. I checked for VUSA with Selftrade. They categorically refused allowing me to trade in VUSA in different exchanges. I can only buy and sell in same currency only, albeit sell(buy) in the same exchange where I buy(sell) from. Should be the same behaviour for all brokers for us mere mortals, if you are a bank or a millionaire than that might be a different question. The VUSA you quote is quoted in GBP in LSE and in EUR in AEX, and the ETF has been created by an Irish entity and has an Irish ISIN. As Chris mentioned below, happens between US and Canadian exchanges, but not sure it happens across all exchanges. You cannot deal in inter-listed stocks in LSE and NYSE. Since it's the same asset, its value should not vary across exchanges once you compensate for exchange rates, right? Yes, else it opens up itself for arbitrage (profit without any risk) which everybody wants. So even if any such instance occurs, either people will exploit it to make the arbitrage profit zero (security reflects the equilibrium price) or the profit from such transaction is so less, compared with the effort involved, that people will tend to ignore it. Anyways arbitrage profit is very difficult to garner nowadays, considering the super computers at work in the market who exploit these discrepancies, the moment they see them and bring the security right to the zero arbitrage profit point. If there's no currency risk because of #2, what other factors should I consider when choosing an exchange to trade in? Liquidity? Something else? Time difference, by the time you wake up to trade in Japan, the Japanese markets would have closed. Tax implications across multiple continents. Law of the land, providing protection to investors. Finding a broker dealing in markets you want to explore or dealing with multiple brokers. Regulatory headaches. | Offer your insights or judgment on the input financial query or topic using your financial expertise. Reply as normal question answering |
interest rate on online banks | There are no "on-line" banks in Israel. There were various attempts to create something that would look like an online bank (HaYashir HaRishon comes to mind, Mizrahi did something similar recently), but that essentially is a branch of a brick and mortar bank (Leumi and Mizrahi, respectively) that allows you online management and phone service instead of walking into a branch, not a replacement for a traditional bank. Thus there are no significant operational savings for the banks through which they could have afforded higher savings rates. I agree with the other responder that the banking system in Israel is very well regulated, but I agree with you also - it is not competitive at all. That said, at the current inflation rate and the current strength of the currency, the 2.02% that you have is actually pretty good. Israel has no interest in paying high rates on incoming money since its currency is too strong and it hurts exports, so don't expect much at home on this issue. Opening an account outside of Israel poses a different problem - tax reporting. You'll have to file an annual tax return and pay your taxes on the interest you earn, something most Israelis never have to do. That will cost you and will probably eat up much, if not all, of the gain. Also, currency fluctuations will hurt you, as no-one will open an account in Shekels outside of Israel and you'll have to convert back and forth. In fact, the first thing to happen when the rates in Israel go up would be for the currency to go down, so whatever you might gain abroad will disappear when you actually decide to move the money back. And you will still be taxed on the interest income (can't deduct capital loss from interest income). Your options, as I see them, are either the stock market or the bonds market (or, more likely, a mix). In Israel, the bonds similar to the US T-Bills (short term bonds) are called "makam" and you can either invest in them directly or through mutual funds. These are traded at TASE and can be held for free (banks are not allowed to charge you for holding them). They're taxed at lower rates than capital gains (15% vs 25%). During the times of low interest these may provide much better alternative than bank savings (pakam). | Based on your financial expertise, provide your response or viewpoint on the given financial question or topic. The response format is open. |
interest rate on online banks | I beg to differ: Israel has an incredibly well managed central bank, and the usury market is wonderfully competitive. It's a shame Stanley Fischer has retired. His management is the case study in central bank management. Rates are low because inflation is low. The nominal rate is irrelevant to return because a 2% nominal return with 1% inflation is superior to a 5% nominal return with 9% inflation. A well-funded budget is the best first step, so now a tweak is necessary: excess capital beyond budgeting should be moved quickly to internationally diversified equities after funding, discounted and adjusted, longer term budgets. Credit will not pay the rate necessary for long term investment. Higher variance is the price to pay for higher returns. | Share your insights or perspective on the financial matter presented in the input. |
Exchange rate $ ETF,s | Your assumption that funds sold in GBP trade in GBP is incorrect. In general funds purchase their constituent stocks in the fund currency which may be different to the subscription currency. Where the subscription currency is different from the fund currency subscriptions are converted into the fund currency before the extra money is used to increase holdings. An ETF, on the other hand, does not take subscriptions directly but by creation (and redemption) of shares. The principle is the same however; monies received from creation of ETF shares are converted into the fund currency and then used to buy stock. This ensures that only one currency transaction is done. In your specific example the fund currency will be USD so your purchase of the shares (assuming there are no sellers and creation occurs) will be converted from GBP to USD and held in that currency in the fund. The fund then trades entirely in USD to avoid currency risk. When you want to sell your exposure (supposing redemption occurs) enough holdings required to redeem your money are sold to get cash in USD and then converted to GBP before paying you. This means that trading activity where there is no need to convert to GBP (or any other currency) does not incur currency conversion costs. In practice funds will always have some cash (or cash equivalents) on hand to pay out redemptions and will have an idea of the number and size of redemptions each calendar period so will use futures and swaps to mitigate FX risk. Where the same firm has two funds traded in different currencies with the same objectives it is likely that one is a wrapper for the other such that one simply converts the currency and buys the other currency denominated ETF. As these are exchange traded funds with a price in GBP the amount you pay for the ETF or gain on selling it is the price given and you will not have to consider currency exchange as that should be done internally as explained above. However, there can be a (temporary) arbitrage opportunity if the price in GBP does not reflect the price in USD and the exchange rate put together. | Offer your thoughts or opinion on the input financial query or topic using your financial background. |
Does Warren Buffett really have a lower tax rate than his secretary? | The scenario you mention regarding capital gains is pretty much the core of the issue. Here's a run-down from PolitiFact.com that explains it a bit. It's important to focus on it being the tax rate, not the tax amount (which I think you get, but I want to reinforce that for other readers). Basically, most of Buffett's income comes from capital gains and dividends, income from investments he makes with the money he already has. Income earned by buying and selling stocks or from stock dividends is generally taxed at 15 percent, the rate for long-term capital gains and qualified dividends. Buffett also mentioned that some of the "mega-rich" are hedge fund managers "who earn billions from our daily labors but are allowed to classify our income as 'carried interest,' thereby getting a bargain 15 percent tax rate." We don't know the taxes paid by Buffett's secretary, who was mentioned by Obama but not by Buffett. Buffet's secretary would have to make a high salary, or else typical deductions (such as the child tax credit) would offset taxes owed. Let's say the secretary is a particularly well-compensated executive assistant, making adjusted income more than $83,600 in income. (Yes, that sounds like a lot to us, too, but remember: We're talking about the secretary to one of the richest people in the world.) In that case, marginal tax rates of 28 percent would apply. Then, there would be payroll taxes of 6.25 percent on the first $106,800, money that goes to Social Security, and another 1.45 percent on all income, which goes to Medicare. The secretary’s overall tax rate would be lower than 28 percent, since not all the income would be taxed at that rate, only the income above $83,600. Buffett, meanwhile, would pay very little, if anything, in payroll taxes. In the New York Times op-ed, Buffett said he paid 17.4 percent in taxes. Thinking of the secretary, it gets a little complicated, given how the tax brackets work, but basically, people who make between $100,000 and $200,000 are paying around 20 percent in federal taxes, including payroll and income taxes, according to an analysis from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. So in this case, the secretary's rate is higher because so much of Buffett's income comes from investments and is taxed at the lower capital gains rate. Here's Buffet's original Op-Ed in the NYT for those of you that aren't familiar. | Utilize your financial knowledge, give your answer or opinion to the input question or subject . Answer format is not limited. |
What's the best way to manage all the 401K accounts I've accumulated from my past jobs? | I rolled mine over from the company I was at into my own brokerage house. You can't roll them into a Roth IRA, so I needed to setup a traditional IRA. There is paperwork your old jobs can provide you. I had to put in some mailing addresses, some account numbers and turn them in. My broker received it, I chose what I wanted to invest it in and that was that. No tax penalty or early withdrawal penalty. The key to avoiding penalties is to have your past employers send the money directly to another retirement fund, not send a check to you. | Offer your insights or judgment on the input financial query or topic using your financial expertise. Reply as normal question answering |
What's the best way to manage all the 401K accounts I've accumulated from my past jobs? | Open an investment account on your own and have them roll the old 401K accounts into either a ROTH or traditional IRA. Do not leave them in old 401k accounts and definitely don't roll them into your new employer's 401K. Why? Well, as great as 401K accounts are, there is one thing that employers rarely mention and the 401K companies actively try to hide: Most 401K plans are loaded with HUGE fees. You won't see them on your statements, they are often hidden very cleverly with accounting tricks. For example, in several plans I have participated in, the mutual fund symbols may LOOK like the ones you see on the stock tickers, but if you read the fine print they only "approximate" the underlying mutual fund they are named for. That is, if you multiply the number of shares by the market price you will arrive at a number higher than the one printed on your statement. The "spread" between those numbers is the fee charged by the 401K management company, and since employees don't pick that company and can't easily fire them, they aren't very competitive unless your company is really large and has a tough negotiator in HR. If you work for a small company, you are probably getting slammed by these fees. Also, they often charge fees for the "automatic rebalancing" service they offer to do annually to your account to keep your allocation in line with your current contribution allocations. I have no idea why it is legal for them not to disclose these fees on the statements, but they don't. I had to do some serious digging to find this out on my own and when I did it was downright scary. In one case they were siphoning off over 3% annually from the account using this standard practice. HOWEVER, that is not to say that you shouldn't participate in these plans, especially if there is an employer match. There are fees with any investment account and the "free money" your employer is kicking in almost always offsets these fees. My point here is just that you shouldn't keep the money in the 401K after you leave the company when you have an option to move it to an account with much cheaper fees. | Based on your financial expertise, provide your response or viewpoint on the given financial question or topic. The response format is open. |
What's the best way to manage all the 401K accounts I've accumulated from my past jobs? | I'd roll them all into one account, just for your own convenience. It's a pain to keep track of lots of different accounts, esp. since you need logins/passwords, etc for all of them, and we all have plenty of those. :) Pick a place like Vanguard or Fidelity (for example), where you can find investment options with lower fees, and do the standard rollover. Once all the accounts are rolled into one, you can think about how to invest the stuff. (Some good investments require larger minimums, so if you have several old 401ks, putting them together will give you more options.) Rolling them over is not hard, if you have paperwork from each of the 401ks. You might be able to DIY online, but I found it helpful to call and talk to a person when I did this. You just need account numbers, etc. If you are moving brokerage accounts, you may need to provide paper documents/applications, which might require getting them notarized (I found a notary at my bank, even though the accounts I was moving from and to weren't at my bank), which means you'll need to provide IDs, etc. and get a special crimped seal after the notary witnesses your signature. | Share your insights or perspective on the financial matter presented in the input. |
How does cash ISA & share ISA mix together | There are two different types of ISA; the "Cash ISA" for cash savings, and the "Stocks and Shares ISA" for stock market investing. You can transfer funds between these two different types of ISA. If your current cash ISA provider does not provide stocks and shares ISAs, then there may be a fee involved when transferring funds between two different providers. If I am reading your notation correctly, you have contributed the full allowance of GBP15,240 in both the current tax year and the previous tax year. Each year you can contribute GBP15,240 (currently) to your ISAs and this can be done in any combination of cash ISA and stocks and shares ISA. For example, you could put GBP5,240 into your cash ISA and GBP10,000 into your stocks and shares ISA. Regarding your questions : It is also important to understand that once you withdraw money from an ISA, it does not affect your previous contributions or allowances. For example, if you have used your full contribution allowance for the current year and chose to withdraw some funds, then you have still used your full contribution allowance and so you cannot redeposit these funds. | Offer your thoughts or opinion on the input financial query or topic using your financial background. |
Are there any other considerations for bonus sacrifice into Pension (UK) | The pension is indeed the clear winner and you haven't missed anything. It's easiest to just compare everything in current numbers as you've done and ignore investment opportunities. Given you expect to pay off your student loan in full, you should consider the repayment as a benefit for you too, so the balance is between £580 after tax and £1138 in your pension. As you say under the current tax regime you'd probably end up with £968 in your pocket from the pension. Some harder to value considerations: You might consider there's political risk associated with the pension, as laws may change over the years - but the government has so far not shown any inclination to penalise people who have already saved under one set of assumptions, so hopefully it's reasonably safe (I'm certainly taking that view with my own money!) Paying more towards your student loan or your mortgage is equivalent to investing at that interest rate (guaranteed). If you do the typical thing of investing your pension in the stock market, the investment returns are likely higher but more risky. In today's interest rate environment, you'd struggle to get a "safe" return that's anywhere near the mortgage rate. So if you're very risk averse, that would tilt the balance against the pension, but I doubt it would be enough to change the decision. Your pension might eventually hit the lifetime allowance of £1mn, after contributions and investment growth. If that's a possibility, you should think carefully about the plan for your contributions. If you do go over, the penalties are calibrated to cancel out the difference between higher-rate and basic-rate tax - i.e. cancelling out the tax benefits you outlined, but not the national insurance benefits. But if you do go over, the amount of money you'd have mean that you might also find yourself paying higher-rate tax on some of your pension income, at which point you could lose out. The lifetime allowance is really complicated, there's a Q+A about it here if you want to understand more. | Utilize your financial knowledge, give your answer or opinion to the input question or subject . Answer format is not limited. |
If a mutual fund did really well last year, then statistically speaking, is it likely going to do bad this year? | This can be answered by looking at the fine print for any prospectus for any stock, bond or mutual fund. It says: "Past performance is not an indicator of future performance.". A mutual fund is a portfolio of common stocks, managed by somebody for a fee. There are many factors that can drive performance of a fund up or down. Here are a few: I'm sure there are many more market influences that I cannot think of that push fund prices up or down. What the fund did last year is not one of them. If it were, making money in the mutual fund market would be as easy as investing in last year's winners and everyone would be doing it. | Offer your insights or judgment on the input financial query or topic using your financial expertise. Reply as normal question answering |
If a mutual fund did really well last year, then statistically speaking, is it likely going to do bad this year? | Nearly all long-lived active funds underperform the market over the long run. The best they can hope for in almost all cases is to approximate the market return. Considering that the market return is ~9%, this fund should be expected to do less well. In terms of predicting future performance, if its average return is greater than the average market return, its future average return can be expected to fall. | Based on your financial expertise, provide your response or viewpoint on the given financial question or topic. The response format is open. |
If a mutual fund did really well last year, then statistically speaking, is it likely going to do bad this year? | From a mathematical point of view the stats do not change depending on past performance. Just because a fund is lucky one year doesn't mean that it will be unlucky the next. Consider tossing a coin, the chance of heads is 50%. If you have just thrown 3 heads, the chance of heads is still 50%. It doesn't go down. If you throw 10 heads in a row the chance of a heads is still 50%, in fact you many suspect there is something odd about the coin, if it was an unfair coin then the chance of a heads would be higher than 50%. It could be the fund is better run, but there could be other reasons, including random chance. Some funds will randomly do better and some will randomly do worse What you do know is that if they did better than average other funds have done worse, at least for last year. | Share your insights or perspective on the financial matter presented in the input. |
How to contribute to Roth IRA when income is at the maximum limit & you have employer-sponsored 401k plans? | From the way you frame the question it sounds like you more or less know the answer already. Yes - you can make a non-deductable contribution to a traditional IRA and convert it to a Roth IRA. Here is Wikipedia's explanation: Regardless of income but subject to contribution limits, contributions can be made to a Traditional IRA and then converted to a Roth IRA.[10] This allows for "backdoor" contributions where individuals are able to avoid the income limitations of the Roth IRA. There is no limit to the frequency with which conversions can occur, so this process can be repeated indefinitely. One major caveat to the entire "backdoor" Roth IRA contribution process, however, is that it only works for people who do not have any pre-tax contributed money in IRA accounts at the time of the "backdoor" conversion to Roth; conversions made when other IRA money exists are subject to pro-rata calculations and may lead to tax liabilities on the part of the converter. [9] Do note the caveat in the second paragraph. This article explains it more thoroughly: The IRS does not allow converters to specify which dollars are being converted as they can with shares of stock being sold; for the purposes of determining taxes on conversions the IRS considers a person’s non-Roth IRA money to be a single, co-mingled sum. Hence, if a person has any funds in any non-Roth IRA accounts, it is impossible to contribute to a Traditional IRA and then “convert that account” to a Roth IRA as suggested by various pundits and the Wikipedia piece referenced above – conversions must be performed on a pro-rata basis of all IRA money, not on specific dollars or accounts. Say you have $20k of pre-tax assets in a traditional IRA, and make a non-deductable contribution of $5k. The account is now 80% pre-tax assets and 20% post-tax assets, so if you move $5k into a Roth IRA, $4k of it would be taxed in the conversion. The traditional IRA would be left with $16k of pre-tax assets and $4k of post-tax assets. | Offer your thoughts or opinion on the input financial query or topic using your financial background. |
Why would a passive investor buy anything other than the market portfolio + risk free assets? | Investing is always a matter of balancing risk vs reward, with the two being fairly strongly linked. Risk-free assets generally keep up with inflation, if that; these days advice is that even in retirement you're going to want something with better eturns for at least part of your portfolio. A "whole market" strategy is a reasonable idea, but not well defined. You need to decide wheher/how to weight stocks vs bonds, for example, and short/long term. And you may want international or REIT in the mix; again the question is how much. Again, the tradeoff is trying to decide how much volatility and risk you are comfortable with and picking a mix which comes in somewhere around that point -- and noting which assets tend to move out of synch with each other (stock/bond is the classic example) to help tune that. The recommendation for higher risk/return when you have a longer horizon before you need the money comes from being able to tolerate more volatility early on when you have less at risk and more time to let the market recover. That lets you take a more aggressive position and, on average, ger higher returns. Over time, you generally want to dial that back (in the direction of lower-risk if not risk free) so a late blip doesn't cause you to lose too much of what you've already gained... but see above re "risk free". That's the theoretical answer. The practical answer is that running various strategies against both historical data and statistical simulations of what the market might do in the future suggests some specific distributions among the categories I've mentioned do seem to work better than others. (The mix I use -- which is basically a whole-market with weighting factors for the categories mentioned above -- was the result of starting with a general mix appropriate to my risk tolerance based on historical data, then checking it by running about 100 monte-carlo simulations of the market for the next 50 years.) | Utilize your financial knowledge, give your answer or opinion to the input question or subject . Answer format is not limited. |
Any tips for asset allocation across multiple retirement accounts? | I have a similar plan and a similar number of accounts. I think seeking a target asset allocation mix across all investment accounts is an excellent idea. I use excel to track where I am and then use it to adjust to get closer (but not exactly) to my target percentages. Until you have some larger balances, it may be prudent to use less categories or realize that you can't come exactly to your percentages, but can get close. I also simplify by primarily investing in various index funds. That means that in my portfolio, each category has 1 or 2 funds, not 10 or 20. | Offer your insights or judgment on the input financial query or topic using your financial expertise. Reply as normal question answering |
Any tips for asset allocation across multiple retirement accounts? | I have a similar situation -- five different accounts between me and my wife. Just as you and @Alex B describe, I maintain my asset allocation across the combination of all accounts. I also maintain a spreadsheet to track the targets, deviations from the targets, amounts required to get back in balance, and overall performance. I (mostly) don't use mutual funds. I have selected, for each category, 1 or 2 ETFs. Choosing index ETFs with low expense ratios and a brokerage with cheap or free trades keeps expenses low. (My broker offers free ETF trades if you buy off their list as long as you aren't short-term trading; this is great for rebalancing for free 2 or 3 times a year.) Using ETFs also solves the minimum balance problem -- but watch out for commissions. If you pay $10 to buy $500 worth of an ETF, that's an immediate 2% loss; trade a couple of times a year and that ETF has to gain 5% just to break even. One issue that comes up is managing cash and avoiding transaction fees. Say your IRA has all the growth stock funds and your Roth has the bonds. Stocks do well and bonds do poorly, so you sell off some stocks, which creates a bunch of cash in your IRA. Now you want to buy some bonds but you don't have enough cash in your Roth, so you buy the bonds in your IRA. Not a problem at first but if you don't manage it you can end up with small amounts of various funds spread across all of your accounts. If you're not careful you can end up paying two commissions (in two different accounts) to sell off / purchase enough of a category to get back to your targets. Another problem I had is that only one account (401k) is receiving deposits on a regular basis, and that's all going into an S&P 500 index fund. This makes it so that my allocation is off by a fair amount every quarter or so -- too much in large cap equities, not enough of everything else. My solution to this going forward is to "over-rebalance" a couple of times a year: sell enough SPY from my other accounts so that I'm under-allocated in large caps by the amount I expect to add to my 401k over the next 3 months. (So that in six months at my next rebalancing I'm only 3 months over-allocated to large caps -- plus or minus whatever gains/losses there are.) | Based on your financial expertise, provide your response or viewpoint on the given financial question or topic. The response format is open. |
Closing a futures position | Assuming these are standardized and regulated contracts, the short answer is yes. In your example, Trader A is short while Trader B is long. If Trader B wants to exit his long position, he merely enters a "sell to close" order with his broker. Trader B never goes short as you state. He was long while he held the contract, then he "sold to close". As to who finds the buyer of Trader B's contract, I believe that would be the exchange or a market maker. Therefore, Trader C ends up the counterparty to Trader A's short position after buying from Trader B. Assuming the contract is held until expiration, Trader A is responsible for delivering contracted product to Trader C for contracted price. In reality this is generally settled up in cash, and Trader A and Trader C never even know each other's identity. | Share your insights or perspective on the financial matter presented in the input. |
Closing a futures position | Ignoring the complexities of a standardised and regulated market, a futures contract is simply a contract that requires party A to buy a given amount of a commodity from party B at a specified price. The future can be over something tangible like pork bellies or oil, in which case there is a physical transfer of "stuff" or it can be over something intangible like shares. The purpose of the contract is to allow the seller to "lock-in" a price so that they are not subject to price fluctuations between the date the contract is entered and the date it is complete; this risk is transferred to the seller who will therefore generally pay a discounted rate from the spot price on the original day. In many cases, the buyer actually wants the "stuff"; futures contracts between farmers and manufacturers being one example. The farmer who is growing, say, wool will enter a contract to supply 3000kg at $10 per kg (of a given quality etc. there are generally price adjustments detailed for varying quality) with a textile manufacturer to be delivered in 6 months. The spot price today may be $11 - the farmer gives up $1 now to shift the risk of price fluctuations to the manufacturer. When the strike date rolls around the farmer delivers the 3000kg and takes the money - if he has failed to grow at least 3000kg then he must buy it from someone or trigger whatever the penalty clauses in the contract are. For futures over shares and other securities the principle is exactly the same. Say the contract is for 1000 shares of XYZ stock. Party A agrees to sell these for $10 each on a given day to party B. When that day rolls around party A transfers the shares and gets the money. Party A may have owned the shares all along, may have bought them before the settlement day or, if push comes to shove, must buy them on the day of settlement. Notwithstanding when they bought them, if they paid less than $10 they make a profit if they pay more they make a loss. Generally speaking, you can't settle a futures contract with another futures contract - you have to deliver up what you promised - be it wool or shares. | Offer your thoughts or opinion on the input financial query or topic using your financial background. |
Closing a futures position | For exchange contracts, yes. A trader can close a position by taking an offsetting position. CME's introduction to Futures explains it quite well (on page 22). Exiting the Market Jack entered the market on the buy side, speculating that the S&P 500 futures price would move higher. He has three choices for exiting the market: | Utilize your financial knowledge, give your answer or opinion to the input question or subject . Answer format is not limited. |
Closing a futures position | Futures exchanges are essentially auction houses facilitating a two-way auction. While they provide a venue for buyers and sellers to come together and transact (be that a physical venue such as a pit at the CME or an electronic network such as Globex), they don't actively seek out or find buyers and sellers to pair them together. The exchanges enable this process through an order book. As a futures trader you may submit one of two types of order to an exchange: Market Order - this is sent to the exchange and is filled immediately by being paired with a limit order. Limit Order - this is placed on the books of the exchange at the price you specify. If other participants enter opposing market orders at this price, then their market order will be paired with your limit order. In your example, trader B wishes to close his long position. To do this he may enter a market sell order, which will immediately close his position at the lowest possible buy limit price, or he may enter a limit sell order, specifying the price at or above which he is willing to sell. In the case of the limit order, he will only sell and successfully close his position if his order becomes the lowest sell order on the book. All this may be a lot easier to understand by looking at a visual image of an order book such as the one given in the explanation that I have published here: Stop Orders for Futures Finally, not that as far as the exchange is concerned, there is no difference between an order to open and an order to close a position. They're all just 'buy' or 'sell' orders. Whether they cause you to reduce/exit a position or increase/establish a position is relative to the position you currently hold; if you're flat a buy order establishes a new position, if you're short it closes your position and leaves you flat. | Offer your insights or judgment on the input financial query or topic using your financial expertise. Reply as normal question answering |
What is the psychology behind the Dead Cat Bounce Pattern and how can it be traded? | You are correct, a possible Dead Cat Bounce is forming on the stock markets. If it does form it will mean that prices have not reached their bottom, as this pattern is a bearish continuation pattern. For a Dead Cat Bounce to form prices will need to break through support formed by the lows last week. If prices bounce off the support and go back up it could become a double bottom pattern, which is a reversal pattern. The double bottom would be confirmed if prices break above the recent high a couple of days ago. Regarding the psychology of the dead cat bounce pattern, is that after a distinct and quick reversal of prices from recent highs you have 2 groups of market participants who create demand in the market. Firstly you have those who were short covering their short positions to take profits, and secondly you have those who are looking for a bargain buying at what they think is the low. So for a few days you have the bulls taking over the bears. Then as more less positive news comes in, the bears hit the market again. These are more participants opening short positions, but more so those who missed out in selling previously because prices fell too quickly, seeing another opportunity to sell at a better price. So the bears take over again. Unless there is very good news around the corner it is likely that the bears will stay in control and prices will fall further. How to trade a dead cat bounce (assuming you have been stopped out of your long possistions already)? If you are aggressive you can go short as prices start reversing from the top of the bounce (with your stop loss just above the top of the bounce). If you are more conservative you would place your entry for a short position just below the support at the start of the bounce (with your stop above the top of the bounce). You could also place an order for a long position above the top of the bounce if a double bottom eventuated. A One Cancels the Other (OCO) would be an appropriate order for such a situation. | Based on your financial expertise, provide your response or viewpoint on the given financial question or topic. The response format is open. |
What's the benefit of opening a Certificate of Deposit (CD) Account? | If you've already got emergency savings sufficient for your needs, I agree that you'd be better served by sending that $500 to your student loan(s). I, personally, house the bulk of my emergency savings in CDs because I'm not planning to touch it and it yields a little better than a vanilla savings account. To address the comment about liquidity. In addition to my emergency savings I keep plain vanilla savings accounts for miscellaenous sudden expenses. To me "emergency" means lost job, not new water pump for my car; I have other budgeted savings for that but would spend it on a credit card and reimburse myself anyway so liquidity there isn't even that important. The 18 month CDs I use are barely less liquid than vanilla savings and the penalty is just a couple months of the accrued interest. When you compare a possible early distribution penalty against the years of increased yield you're likely to come out ahead after years of never touching your emergency savings, unless you're budgeted such that a car insurance deductible is an emergency expense. Emergency funds should be guaranteed and non-volatile. If I lose my job, 90 days of accrued interest isn't a hindrance to breaking open some of my CDs, and the process isn't so daunting that I'd meaningfully harm my finances. Liquidity in 2017 and liquidity in whatever year a text book was initially written are two totally different animals. My "very illiquid" brokerage account funds are only one transaction and 3 settlement days less liquid than my "very liquid" savings account. There's no call the bank, sell the security, wait for it to clear, my brokerage cuts a check, mail the check, cash the check, etc. I can go from Apple stock on Monday to cash in my hand on like Thursday. On the web portal for the bank that holds my CDs I can instantly transfer the funds from a CD to my checking account there net of a negligible penalty for early distribution. To call CDs illiquid in 2017 is silly. | Share your insights or perspective on the financial matter presented in the input. |
What's the benefit of opening a Certificate of Deposit (CD) Account? | One reason why you can get a better rate with a CD compared to a regular savings account is that they lock you into that account for the period of the CD. You can get out of the CD early, but you will forfeit some of the interest. You also generally can't move a portion of the money out of the CD, you have to pull it all out, and then start a new CD with the portion you don't spend. You have to check the terms and conditions for that particular CD. Some people use them to hold their emergency fund. This is the 3-6 months of expenses you set aside in case of a major problem such as a medical emergency or a job loss. The rate is better than the regular savings account, so it can come closer to inflation. The goal is preservation of capital, not investing for the future. So if you understand the risks, and the CD is backed with the same guarantees as the savings account, then it is a viable way to store some or all of the emergency fund. | Offer your thoughts or opinion on the input financial query or topic using your financial background. |
What's the benefit of opening a Certificate of Deposit (CD) Account? | The benefit, as other answers have mentioned, is higher interest rates than are available compared to other comparable options. My bank keeps spamming me with offers for a sub 1% APR savings account that only requires a $10,000 balance, for example. While CDs and similar safe investments don't seem like they offer much value now (or in the recent past), that's because they strongly correlate to the federal funds rate, which is near historic lows. See the graph of CD rates and the federal funds rate, here. You may have felt differently in July of 1984, when you could get a 5 year CD with an APR above 12%. As you can see in this graph of historical CD yields, it hasn't always been the case that CDs offered such small returns. That being said, CDs are safe investments, being FDIC insured (up to the FDIC insurance limits), so you're not going to get great rates from one, because there's basically no risk in this particular type of investment. If you want better rates, you get those by investing in riskier instruments that have the possibility of losing value. | Utilize your financial knowledge, give your answer or opinion to the input question or subject . Answer format is not limited. |
What's the benefit of opening a Certificate of Deposit (CD) Account? | Others have pointed out why one typically chooses a CD: to lock in an interest rate that's higher than most other savings accounts (at the expense of having quick access to your money). While most savings accounts have practically 0% return, there are high yield savings accounts out there with little to no strings that offer ~1% APY. I've personally not found CDs to be compelling when viewed against those, especially for something like an emergency fund where I'd rather just know it's available without having to think about penalties and such. Some people ladder CDs so that they're always no more than a month or so away from having access to some of the money, but for the return I've decided I prefer to just avoid the hassle. For 2.25%, which I haven't really seen, I might consider it, but in any case, you're better served by paying more to your loans. | Offer your insights or judgment on the input financial query or topic using your financial expertise. Reply as normal question answering |
What's the benefit of opening a Certificate of Deposit (CD) Account? | Yes. Savings accounts and CDs today pay almost nothing. They are not a way to grow your money for the future. They are a place to keep some spare cash for emergencies. I don't have such accounts any more. Personally, I generally keep about $2000 in my checking account for any sudden surprise expenses. Any other spare money I have I put into very safe mutual funds. They don't grow much either, but it's better than what I'd get on a savings account or CD. | Based on your financial expertise, provide your response or viewpoint on the given financial question or topic. The response format is open. |
What is the difference between shares and ETF? | A mutual fund has several classes of shares that are charged different fees. Some shares are sold through brokers and carry a sales charge (called load) that compensates the broker in lieu of a fee that the broker would charge the client for the service. Vanguard does not have sales charge on its funds and you don't need to go through a broker to buy its shares; you can buy directly from them. Admiral shares of Vanguard funds are charged lower annual expenses than regular shares (yes, all mutual funds charge expenses for fund adninistration that reduce the return that you get, and Vanguard has some of the lowest expense ratios) but Admiral shares are available only for large investments, typically $50K or so. If you have invested in a Vanguard mutual fund, your shares can be set to automatically convert to Admiral shares when the investment reaches the right level. A mutual fund manager can buy and sell stocks to achieve the objectives of the fund, so what stockes you are invested in as a share holder in a mutual fund will typically be unknown to you on a day-to-day basis. On the other hand, Exchange-traded funds (ETFs) are fixed baskets of stocks, and you can buy shares in the ETF. These shares are bought and sold through a broker (so you pay a transaction fee each time) but expenses are lower since there is no manager to buy and sell stocks: the basket is fixed. Many ETFs follow specific market indexes (e.g. S&P 500). Another difference between ETFs and mutual funds is that you can buy and sell ETFs at any time of the day just as if you could if you held stocks. With mutual funds, any buy and sell requests made during the day are processed at the end of the day and the value of the shares that you buy or sell is determined by the closing price of the stocks held by the mutual fund. With ETFs, you are getting the intra-day price at the time the buy or sell order is executed by your broker. | Share your insights or perspective on the financial matter presented in the input. |
What happens if a bank loses your safe deposit box? | Unfortunately assets placed in a safety deposit box are not covered under the Federal Deposit Insurance Program (FDIC). Unless the bank is found to be negligent in the way it handled or protected your safety deposit box, neither them nor their private insurance company will reimburse you for the loss. Find out if in the duration you had your box with them, they moved, transitioned or merged with another entity. In this specific situation, you may be able to demonstrate negligence on the part of the banks as they have seemingly misplaced your box during their transition phase, and depending upon the value of the items placed in your safety deposit box, you may be entitled to some form of recovery. Some homeowner's insurance policies may also cover the loss, but if you didn't document what you kept in the box, you have difficulty verifying proof of the value. Valuables are often lost but documents can often be reconstructed. You can get stock and bonds by paying a fee for new certificates. For wills and trusts, you can reach out to the lawyer that prepared them for a copy. You should always keep 3 copies of such documents. When you put stuff in the box, always videotape it (photographs can be challenged) but if the video shows it was put in there, although it can still be taken out by you after you turn off the camera, yields more weight in establishing content and potential value. Also know the value of the items and check with your homeowner policy to make sure the default amount covers it, if not then you may need to include a rider to add the difference in value and the video, receipts, appraisals and such will serve you well in the future in such unfortunate circumstances. If the contents of a safety deposit box are lost because you didn't pay the fee, then depending on the state you are in the time frame might vary (3 years on average), but none the less they are sent to the State's unclaimed property/funds department. You can search for these online often times or by contacting the state. It would help for you to find out which scenario you are in, their fault or yours, and proceed accordingly. Good luck. | Offer your thoughts or opinion on the input financial query or topic using your financial background. |
Net loss not distributed by mutual funds to their shareholders? | When you invest (say $1000) in (say 100 shares) of a mutual fund at $10 per share, and the price of the shares changes, you do not have a capital gain or loss, and you do not have to declare anything to the IRS or make any entry on any line on Form 1040 or tell anyone else about it either. You can brag about it at parties if the share price has gone up, or weep bitter tears into your cocktail if the price has gone down, but the IRS not only does not care, but it will not let you deduct the paper loss or pay taxes on the paper gain. What you put down on Form 1040 Schedules B and D is precisely what the mutual fund will tell you on Form 1099-DIV (and Form 1099-B), no more, no less. If you did not report any of these amounts on your previous tax returns, you need to file amended tax returns, both Federal as well as State, A stock mutual fund invests in stocks and the fund manager may buy and sell some stocks during the course of the year. If he makes a profit, that money will be distributed to the share holders of the mutual fund. That money can be re-invested in more shares of the same mutual fund or taken as cash (and possibly invested in some other fund). This capital gain distribution is reported to you on Form 1099-DIV and you have to report sit on your tax return even if you re-invested in more share of the same mutual fund, and the amount of the distribution is taxable income to you. Similarly, if the stocks owned by the mutual fund pay dividends, those will be passed on to you as a dividend distribution and all the above still applies. You can choose to reinvest, etc, the amount will be reported to you on Form 1099-DIV, and you need to report it to the IRS and include it in your taxable income. If the mutual fund manager loses money in the buying and selling he will not tell you that he lost money but it will be visible as a reduction in the price of the shares. The loss will not be reported to you on Form 1099-DIV and you cannot do anything about it. Especially important, you cannot declare to the IRS that you have a loss and you cannot deduct the loss on your income tax returns that year. When you finally sell your shares in the mutual fund, you will have a gain or loss that you can pay taxes on or deduct. Say the mutual fund paid a dividend of $33 one year and you re-invested the money into the mutual fund, buying 3 shares at the then cost of $11 per share. You declare the $33 on your tax return that year and pay taxes on it. Two years later, you sell all 103 shares that you own for $10.50 per share. Your total investment was $1000 + $33 = $1033. You get $1081.50 from the fund, and you will owe taxes on $1081.50 - $1033 = $48.50. You have a profit of $50 on the 100 shares originally bought and a loss of $1.50 on the 3 shares bought for $11: the net result is a gain of $48.50. You do not pay taxes on $81.50 as the profit from your original $1000 investment; you pay taxes only on $48.50 (remember that you already paid taxes on the $33). The mutual fund will report on Form 1099-B that you sold 103 shares for $1081.50 and that you bought the 103 shares for an average price of $1033/103 = $10.029 per share. The difference is taxable income to you. If you sell the 103 shares for $9 per share (say), then you get $927 out of an investment of $1033 for a capital loss of $106. This will be reported to you on Form 1099-B and you will enter the amounts on Schedule D of Form 1040 as a capital loss. What you actually pay taxes on is the net capital gain, if any, after combining all your capital gains and losses for the year. If the net is a loss, you can deduct up to $3000 in a year, and carry the rest forward to later years to offset capital gains in later years. But, your unrealized capital gains or losses (those that occur because the mutual fund share price goes up and down like a yoyo while you grin or grit your teeth and hang on to your shares) are not reported or deducted or taxed anywhere. It is more complicated when you don't sell all the shares you own in the mutual fund or if you sell shares within one year of buying them, but let's stick to simple cases. | Utilize your financial knowledge, give your answer or opinion to the input question or subject . Answer format is not limited. |
Net loss not distributed by mutual funds to their shareholders? | I'll try to answer using your original example. First, let me restate your assumptions, slightly modified: The mutual fund has: Note that I say the "mutual fund has" those gains and losses. That's because they occur inside the mutual fund and not directly to you as a shareholder. I use "realized" gains and losses because the only gains and losses handled this way are those causes by actual asset (stock) sales within the fund (as directed by fund management). Changes in the value of fund holdings that are not sold are not included in this. As a holder of the fund, you learn the values of X, Y, and Z after the end of the year when the fund management reports the values. For gains, you will also typically see the values reported on your 1099-DIV under "capital gains distributions". For example, your 1099-DIV for year 3 will have the value Z for capital gains (besides reporting any ordinary dividends in another box). Your year 1 1099 will have $0 "capital gains distributions" shown because of the rule you highlighted in bold: net realized losses are not distributed. This capital loss however can later be used to the mutual fund holder's tax advantage. The fund's internal accounting carries forward the loss, and uses it to offset later realized gains. Thus your year 2 1099 will have a capital gain distribution of (Y-X), not Y, thus recognizing the loss which occurred. Thus the loss is taken into account. Note that for capital gains you, the holder, pay no tax in year 1, pay tax in year 2 on Y-X, and pay tax in year 3 on Z. All the above is the way it works whether or not you sell the shares immediately after the end of year 3 or you hold the shares for many more years. Whenever you do sell the shares, you will have a gain or loss, but that is different from the fund's realized losses we have been talking about (X, Y, and Z). | Offer your insights or judgment on the input financial query or topic using your financial expertise. Reply as normal question answering |
How is “The People's Trust” not just another Investment Trust? | According to what little information is available currently, this fund is most akin to an actively managed exchange traded fund rather than an investment trust. An investment trust is an actively managed, closed-end fund that is tradeable on the stock market. "Closed-end" means that there are a fixed number of shares available for trading, so if you wish to buy or sell shares in a closed-end fund you need to find someone willing to sell or buy shares. "Actively managed" means that the assets are selected by the fund managers in the belief that they will perform well. This is in contrast to a "passively managed" fund which simply tracks an underlying index. The closed-end nature of investment trusts means that the share price is not well correlated to the value of the underlying assets. Indeed, almost all UK investment trusts trade at a significant discount to their net asset value. This reflects their historic poor performance and relatively weak liquidity. Of course there are some exceptions to this. Examples of open-end funds are unit trust (US = mutual funds) and ETFs (exchange traded funds). They are "open-end" funds in the sense that the number of shares/units available will change according to demand. Most importantly, the price of a share/unit will be strongly correlated to the net asset value of the underlying portfolio. In general, for an open-end fund, if the net asset value of the fund is X and there are Y shares/units outstanding, then the price of a share/unit will be X/Y. Historic data shows that passively managed funds (index trackers) "always" outperform actively managed funds in the long term. One of the big issues with actively managed funds is they have relatively high management fees. The Peoples Trust will be charging about 1% with a promise that this should come down over time. Compare this to a fee of 0.05% on a large, major market index tracking ETF. Further, the 1% headline fee being touted by Peoples Trust is a somewhat misleading, since they are paying their employees bonuses with shares in the fund. This will cause dilution of the net asset value per share and can be read as addition management fees by proxy. Since competent fund managers will demand high incomes, bonus shares could easily double the management fees, depending on the size of the fund. In summary, history has shown that the promises of active fund managers rarely (if ever) come to fruition. Personally, I would not consider this to be an attractive investment and would look more towards a passively managed major market index ETF with low management fees. | Based on your financial expertise, provide your response or viewpoint on the given financial question or topic. The response format is open. |
How is “The People's Trust” not just another Investment Trust? | Well the People's Trust's IPO prospectus is now (2017-09-08) available for all to read (or there's a smaller "information leaflet"). (May need some disclaimers to be clicked to get access). Both have a "highlights" bullet-point list: Coverage here has a comment thread with some responses by the founder attempting to answer the obvious objection that there's other multi-manager trusts on a discount (e.g Alliance Trust on ~ -5.5%), so why would you buy this one on a (very small) premium? (Update: There's also another recent analysis here.) Personally, I'm thinking the answer to the original question "How is The People's Trust not just another Investment Trust?" is pretty much: "it's just another Investment Trust" (albeit one with its own particular quirks and goals). But good luck to them. | Share your insights or perspective on the financial matter presented in the input. |
Pay index fund expense ratios with cash instead of fund balance | In many cases the expenses are not pulled out on a specific day, so this wouldn't work. On the other hand some funds do charge an annual or quarterly fee if your investment in the fund is larger than the minimum but lower than a "small balance" value. Many funds will reduce or eliminate this fee if you signup for electronic forms or other electronic services. Some will also eliminate the fee if the total investment in all your funds is above a certain level. For retirement funds what you suggest could be made more complex because of annual limits. Though if you were below the limits you could decide to add the extra funds to cover those expenses as the end of the year approached. | Offer your thoughts or opinion on the input financial query or topic using your financial background. |
Pay index fund expense ratios with cash instead of fund balance | It seems at most a cosmetic difference - nothing keeps you from adding the 9$ cash to the fund the same day the fees are deducted from the shares. | Utilize your financial knowledge, give your answer or opinion to the input question or subject . Answer format is not limited. |
Pay index fund expense ratios with cash instead of fund balance | Simply put, that's not allowed. Outside a retirement fund, they simply do not provide a mechanism to pay that expense ratio separately. Ergo, any effort to pay that expense ratio would be classified as a new/additional purchase of the fund. You now must deal with Inside a retirement fund, paying the expense ratio of the fund with cash would be treated as an additional contribution, which may then violate contribution rules (such as going over your contribution limit, or contributing past age 70-1/2). | Offer your insights or judgment on the input financial query or topic using your financial expertise. Reply as normal question answering |
Pay index fund expense ratios with cash instead of fund balance | The mutual fund is legally its own company that you're investing in, with its own expenses. Mutual fund expense ratios are a calculated value, not a promise that you'll pay a certain percentage on a particular day. That is to say, at the end of their fiscal year, a fund will total up how much it spent on administration and divide it by the total assets under management to calculate what the expense ratio is for that year, and publish it in the annual report. But you can't just "pay the fee" for any given year. In a "regular" account, you certainly could look at what expenses were paid for each fund by multiplying the expense ratio by your investment, and use it in some way to figure out how much additional you want to contribute to "make it whole" again. But it makes about as much sense as trying to pay the commission for buying a single stock out of one checking account while paying for the share price out of another. It may help you in some sort of mental accounting of expenses, but since it's all your money, and the expenses are all part of what you're paying to be able to invest, it's not really doing much good since money is fungible. In a retirement account with contribution limits, it still doesn't really make sense, since any contribution from outside funds to try to pay for expense ratios would be counted as contributions like any other. Again, I guess it could somehow help you account for how much money you wanted to contribute in a year, but I'm not really sure it would help you much. Some funds or brokerages do have non-expense-ratio-based fees, and in some cases you can pay for those from outside the account. And there are a couple cases where for a retirement account this lets you keep your contributions invested while paying for fees from outside funds. This may be the kind of thing that your coworker was referring to, though it's hard to tell exactly from your description. Usually it's best just to have investments with as low fees as possible regardless, since they're one of the biggest drags on returns, and I'd be very wary of any brokerage-based fees when there are very cheap and free mutual fund brokerages out there. | Based on your financial expertise, provide your response or viewpoint on the given financial question or topic. The response format is open. |
What's an Exchange-Traded Fund (ETF)? | Wikipedia has a fairly detailed explanation of ETFs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exchange-traded_fund | Share your insights or perspective on the financial matter presented in the input. |
What's an Exchange-Traded Fund (ETF)? | ETFs offer the flexibility of stocks while retaining many of the benefits of mutual funds. Since an ETF is an actual fund, it has the diversification of its potentially many underlying securities. You can find ETFs with stocks at various market caps and style categories. You can have bond or mixed ETFs. You can even get ETFs with equal or fundamental weighting. In short, all the variety benefits of mutual funds. ETFs are typically much less expensive than mutual funds both in terms of management fees (expense ratio) and taxable gains. Most of them are not actively managed; instead they follow an index and therefore have a low turnover. A mutual fund may actively trade and, if not balanced with a loss, will generate capital gains that you pay taxes on. An ETF will produce gains only when shifting to keep inline with the index or you yourself sell. As a reminder: while expense ratio always matters, capital gains and dividends don't matter if the ETF or mutual fund is in a tax-advantaged account. ETFs have no load fees. Instead, because you trade it like a stock, you will pay a commission. Commissions are straight, up-front and perfectly clear. Much easier to understand than the various ways funds might charge you. There are no account minimums to entry with ETFs, but you will need to buy complete shares. Only a few places allow partial shares. It is generally harder to dollar-cost average into an ETF with regular automated investments. Also, like trading stocks, you can do those fancy things like selling short, buying on margin, options, etc. And you can pay attention to the price fluctuations throughout the day if you really want to. Things to make you pause: if you buy (no-load) mutual funds through the parent company, you'll get them at no commission. Many brokerages have No Transaction Fee (NTF) agreements with companies so that you can buy many funds for free. Still look out for that expense ratio though (which is probably paying for that NTF advantage). As sort of a middle ground: index funds can have very low expense ratios, track the same index as an ETF, can be tax-efficient or tax-managed, free to purchase, easy to dollar-cost average and easier to automate/understand. Further reading: | Offer your thoughts or opinion on the input financial query or topic using your financial background. |
Pros/cons for buying gold vs. saving money in an interest-based account? | As Michael McGowan says, just because gold has gone up lots recently does not mean it will continue to go up by the same amount. This plot: shows that if your father had bought $20,000 in gold 30 years ago, then 10 years ago he would have slightly less than $20,000 to show for it. Compare that with the bubble in real estate in the US: Update: I was curious about JoeTaxpayer's question: how do US house prices track against US taxpayer's ability to borrow? To try to answer this, I used the house price data from here, the 30 year fixed mortgages here and the US salary information from here. To calculate the "ability to borrow" I took the US hourly salary information, multiplied by 2000/12 to get a monthly salary. I (completely arbitrarily) assumed that 25 per cent of the monthly salary would be used on mortgage payments. I then used Excel's "PV" (Present Value) function to calculate the present value of the thirty year fixed rate mortgage. The resulting graph is below. The correlation coefficient between the two plots is 0.93. There are so many caveats on what I've done in ~15 minutes, I don't want to list them... but it certainly "gives one furiously to think" !! Update 2: OK, so even just salary information correlates very well with the house price increases. And looking at the differences, we can see that perhaps there was a spike or bubble in house prices over and above what might be expected from salary-only or ability-to-borrow. | Utilize your financial knowledge, give your answer or opinion to the input question or subject . Answer format is not limited. |
Pros/cons for buying gold vs. saving money in an interest-based account? | There's too much here for one question. So no answer can possibly be comprehensive. I think little of gold for the long term. I go to MoneyChimp and see what inflation did from 1974 till now. $1 to $4.74. So $200 inflates to $950 or so. Gold bested that, but hardly stayed ahead in a real way. The stock market blew that number away. And buying gold anytime around the 1980 runup would still leave you behind inflation. As far as housing goes, I have a theory. Take median income, 25% of a month's pay each month. Input it as the payment at the going 30yr fixed rate mortgage. Income rises a bit faster than inflation over time, so that line is nicely curved slightly upward (give or take) but as interest rates vary, that same payment buys you far more or less mortgage. When you graph this, you find the bubble in User210's graph almost non-existent. At 12% (the rate in '85 or so) $1000/mo buys you $97K in mortgage, but at 5%, $186K. So over the 20 years from '85 to 2005, there's a gain created simply by the fact that money was cheaper. No mania, no bubble (not at the median, anyway) just the interest rate effect. Over the same period, inflation totaled 87%. So the same guy just keeping up with inflation in his pay could then afford a house that was 3.5X the price 20 years prior. I'm no rocket scientist, but I see few articles ever discussing housing from this angle. To close my post here, consider that homes have grown in size, 1.5%/yr on average. So the median new home quoted is actually 1/3 greater in size in 2005 than in '85. These factors all need to be normalized out of that crazy Schiller-type* graph. In the end, I believe the median home will always tightly correlate to the "one week income as payment." *I refer here to the work of professor Robert Schiller partner of the Case-Schiller index of home prices which bears his name. | Offer your insights or judgment on the input financial query or topic using your financial expertise. Reply as normal question answering |
Pros/cons for buying gold vs. saving money in an interest-based account? | Just because gold performed that well in the past does not mean it will perform that well in the future. I'm not saying you should or should not buy gold, but the mere fact that it went up a lot recently is not sufficient reason to buy it. Also note that on the house, an investment that accrues continuous interest for 30 years at an annual rate of about 7.7% will multiply by a factor of 10 in 30 years. That rate is pretty high by today's standards, but it might have been more feasible in the past (I don't know historical interest rates very well). Yet again note that the fact that houses went up a lot over the last 30 years does not mean they will continue to do so. | Based on your financial expertise, provide your response or viewpoint on the given financial question or topic. The response format is open. |
Pros/cons for buying gold vs. saving money in an interest-based account? | What you are seeing is the effects of inflation. As money becomes less valuable it takes more of it to buy physical things, be they commodities, shares in a company's stock, and peoples time (salaries). Just about the only thing that doesn't track inflation to some degree is cash itself or money in an account since that is itself what is being devalued. So the point of all this is, buying anything (a house, gold, stocks) that doesn't depreciate (a car) is something of a hedge against inflation. However, don't be tricked (as many are) into thinking that house just made you a tidy sum just because it went up in value so much over x years. Remember 1) All the other houses and things you'd spend the money on are a lot more expensive now too; and 2) You put a lot more money into a house than the mortgage payment (taxes, insurance, maintenance, etc.) I'm with the others though. Don't get caught up in the gold bubble. Doing so now is just speculation and has a lot of risk associated with it. | Share your insights or perspective on the financial matter presented in the input. |
Does keeping 'long-term' safety net in bonds make sense? | The answer to your question depends very much on your definition of "long-term". Because let's make something clear: an investment horizon of three to six months is not long term. And you need to consider the length of time from when an "emergency" develops until you will need to tap into the money. Emergencies almost by definition are unplanned. When talking about investment risk, the real word that should be used is volatility. Stocks aren't inherently riskier than bonds issued by the same company. They are likely to be a more volatile instrument, however. This means that while stocks can easily gain 15-20 percent or more in a year if you are lucky (as a holder), they can also easily lose just as much (which is good if you are looking to buy, unless the loss is precipitated by significantly weaker fundamentals such as earning lookout). Most of the time stocks rebound and regain lost valuation, but this can take some time. If you have to sell during that period, then you lose money. The purpose of an emergency fund is generally to be liquid, easily accessible without penalties, stable in value, and provide a cushion against potentially large, unplanned expenses. If you live on your own, have good insurance, rent your home, don't have any major household (or other) items that might break and require immediate replacement or repair, then just looking at your emergency fund in terms of months of normal outlay makes sense. If you own your home, have dependents, lack insurance and have major possessions which you need, then you need to factor those risks into deciding how large an emergency fund you might need, and perhaps consider not just normal outlays but also some exceptional situations. What if the refrigerator and water heater breaks down at the same time that something breaks a few windows, for example? What if you also need to make an emergency trip near the same time because a relative becomes seriously ill? Notice that the purpose of the emergency fund is specifically not to generate significant interest or dividend income. Since it needs to be stable in value (not depreciate) and liquid, an emergency fund will tend towards lower-risk and thus lower-yield investments, the extreme being cash or the for many more practical option of a savings account. Account forms geared toward retirement savings tend to not be particularly liquid. Sure, you can usually swap out one investment vehicle for another, but you can't easily withdraw your money without significant penalties if at all. Bonds are generally more stable in value than stocks, which is a good thing for a longer-term portion of an emergency fund. Just make sure that you are able to withdraw the money with short notice without significant penalties, and pick bonds issued by stable companies (or a fund of investment-grade bonds). However, in the present investment climate, this means that you are looking at returns not significantly better than those of a high-yield savings account while taking on a certain amount of additional risk. Bonds today can easily have a place if you have to pick some form of investment vehicle, but if you have the option of keeping the cash in a high-yield savings account, that might actually be a better option. Any stock market investments should be seen as investments rather than a safety net. Hopefully they will grow over time, but it is perfectly possible that they will lose value. If what triggers your financial emergency is anything more than local, it is certainly possible to have that same trigger cause a decline in the stock market. Money that you need for regular expenses, even unplanned ones, should not be in investments. Thus, you first decide how large an emergency fund you need based on your particular situation. Then, you build up that amount of money in a savings vehicle rather than an investment vehicle. Once you have the emergency fund in savings, then by all means continue to put the same amount of money into investments instead. Just make sure to, if you tap into the emergency fund, replenish it as quickly as possible. | Offer your thoughts or opinion on the input financial query or topic using your financial background. |
Does keeping 'long-term' safety net in bonds make sense? | I am understanding the OP to mean that this is for an emergency fund savings account meant to cover 3 to 6 months of living expenses, not a 3-6 month investment horizon. Assuming this is the case, I would recommend keeping these funds in a Money Market account and not in an investment-grade bond fund for three reasons: | Utilize your financial knowledge, give your answer or opinion to the input question or subject . Answer format is not limited. |
Fund equalisation / dividend | What you are describing is a very specific case of the more general principle of how dividend payments work. Broadly speaking, if you own common shares in a corporation, you are a part owner of that corporation; you have the right to a % of all of that corporation's assets. The value in having that right is ultimately because the corporation will pay you dividends while it operates, and perhaps a final dividend when it liquidates at the end of its life. This is why your shares have value - because they give you ownership of the business itself. Now, assume you own 1k shares in a company with 100M shares, worth a total of $5B. You own 0.001% of the company, and each of your shares is worth $50; the total value of all your shares is $50k. Assume further that the value of the company includes $1B in cash. If the company pays out a dividend of $1B, it will now be only worth $4B. Your shares have just gone down in value by 20%! But, you have a right to 0.001% of the dividend, which equals a $10k cash payment to you. Your personal holdings are now $40k worth of shares, plus $10k in cash. Except for taxes, financial theory states that whether a corporation pays a dividend or not should not impact the value to the individual shareholder. The difference between a regular corporation and a mutual fund, is that the mutual fund is actually a pool of various investments, and it reports a breakdown of that pool to you in a different way. If you own shares directly in a corporation, the dividends you receive are called 'dividends', even if you bought them 1 minute before the ex-dividend date. But a payment from a mutual fund can be divided between, for example, a flow through of dividends, interest, or a return of capital. If you 'looked inside' your mutual fund you when you bought it, you would see that 40% of its value comes from stock A, 20% comes from stock B, etc etc., including maybe 1% of the value coming from a pile of cash the fund owns at the time you bought your units. In theory the mutual fund could set aside the cash it holds for current owners only, but then it would need to track everyone's cash-ownership on an individual basis, and there would be thousands of different 'unit classes' based on timing. For simplicity, the mutual fund just says "yes, when you bought $50k in units, we were 1/3 of the year towards paying out a $10k dividend. So of that $10k dividend, $3,333k of it is assumed to have been cash at the time you bought your shares. Instead of being an actual 'dividend', it is simply a return of capital." By doing this, the mutual fund is able to pay you your owed dividend [otherwise you would still have the same number of units but no cash, meaning you would lose overall value], without forcing you to be taxed on that payment. If the mutual fund didn't do this separate reporting, you would have paid $50k to buy $46,667k of shares and $3,333k of cash, and then you would have paid tax on that cash when it was returned to you. Note that this does not "falsely exaggerate the investment return", because a return of capital is not earnings; that's why it is reported separately. Note that a 'close-ended fund' is not a mutual fund, it is actually a single corporation. You own units in a mutual fund, giving you the rights to a proportion of all the fund's various investments. You own shares in a close-ended fund, just as you would own shares in any other corporation. The mutual fund passes along the interest, dividends, etc. from its investments on to you; the close-ended fund may pay dividends directly to its shareholders, based on its own internal dividend policy. | Offer your insights or judgment on the input financial query or topic using your financial expertise. Reply as normal question answering |
Fund equalisation / dividend | Do all/most unit trusts have equalisation policy? It is really that some value of the fund is given to the investor, so the fund value goes down by that much per unit. It depends on the type of mutual funds. For example, there are growth type mutual funds that do not give any dividend and the total value of the fund is reflected in its price. Do the companies whose stocks we owned directly apply equalisation policy on their dividends as well? Why not? As far a stock price is concerned, it usually decrease by the same amount of the dividend payout at ex-date, so in effect, the market in a way does the equalization, the company directly does not do it. | Based on your financial expertise, provide your response or viewpoint on the given financial question or topic. The response format is open. |
Should I pay more into company pension, or is there a better way to save? | In the UK you have an allowance of £40,000 per annum for tax relief into a pension. This amount includes both your and your employer's contributions. If you earn more than £150,000 per annum this allowance starts to reduce and if you earn less than the allowance, your allowance is limited to what you earn. You can also carry over unused allowance from up to 3 years previously. If you stick within this allowance you won't pay tax on your pension contributions, if you go over the excess will be subject to tax. Salary exchange normally lets you avoid the National Insurance value of your contribution being taxed. If you paid your own money into your pension (without going through salary exchange), your contributions would have the 20% basic rate of tax credited to them and if you're a higher rate taxpayer you could reclaim the difference between the basic rate of tax and the higher rate of tax you pay but the National Insurance you've paid on your own money would not be reclaimable. You can't get the money back you've paid into your pension till you are are 58 (given that you are 27 now), the minimum age has risen from its historic 55 for your age group. That's the pension trade off, you forgo tax now in the expectation that, once retired, you will be paying tax at a lower rate (because your income will be lower and you are much less likely to be subject to higher rate taxation) in return for locking in your money till you're older. Your pension income will be subject to tax when you eventually take it. There are other options such as ISAs which have lower annual limits (£20,000 currently) and on which your contributions do not attract tax relief, but which are not taxed as income when you eventually spend them. ISAs and pensions are not mutually exclusive so if you have the money, you can do both. It's up to you to determine what mix of savings will be appropriate to generate income for your eventual retirement. If you are living in some other country when you retire your pension will be paid net of UK tax. You might then be able to claim (or pay) any difference between that and your local tax rate depending on what agreement exists between the UK government and the other country's government. | Share your insights or perspective on the financial matter presented in the input. |
Should I pay more into company pension, or is there a better way to save? | Re: Specifically, am I right in that everything I put on these is deducted from tax, or are there other rules? and Am I correctly understanding this as "anything above £3,600 per year will not be deducted from your tax"? Neither interpretation seems quite right… Unless what you mean is this: The contributions (to a pension, or to the share-save scheme) are deducted from your pay before it is taxed. That's how it works for employer-run pension schemes. In other words, you are paying the gross amount you earn into the pension, not the amount after tax. It's a tax-efficient way to save, because: compared to other forms of saving: (The bit about the £3,600: you can ignore this assuming you're earning more than £3,600 a year.) What happens to the pension if you decide to move back to France or another country? In some cases you can transfer tax free. Worst case, you'd pay some tax on the transfer but not more than 25%. [See here for the current rules: https://www.gov.uk/transferring-your-pension/transferring-to-an-overseas-pension-scheme. Re: the share scheme, if by 'salary exchange' you mean salary sacrifice (where your gross pay is officially reduced by that amount e.g. £150 a month), that's even more tax-efficient, because it saves you paying the National Insurance contribution too (approx 9% of the pay packet). Conclusion: Saving into pension and company share save schemes is supremely tax-efficient and, provided you're OK with your money being locked away until you're 57 (pension) or tied up in company shares, it's understandably many people's priority to make use of these schemes before considering other forms of saving where you pay into them from your salary after tax. Now, about this: I am trying to understand how much I should put into it Should I put money into these, or should look for another way to save (how will this work out if I go back to France or another country)? Nobody here can advise you what to do since individuals' goals and circumstances are different and we don't know enough of the picture. That said: FWIW, I'll tell you what I might do based solely on what you've told us in the question… First, I'd definitely contribute 6% to the company pension. This gets you the full employer match. That's free money (plus, remember the tax relief = more free money). If you're 27, a total of 12% salary into a pension a year is a decent rate to start saving for retirement. Actually, 14% would be generally advisable, and maybe more still – it's generally a case of 'the more the better' especially while young, as you have time for growth and you don't know what later priorities might change / financial needs might arise. Nevertheless, you said you might move overseas. So in your position I would then: | Offer your thoughts or opinion on the input financial query or topic using your financial background. |
Should I Pay Off my Student Loan Debts First or Invest in an Index Fund? | You are on the right track with your math, but be wary of your assumptions. If you can borrow money at x% (and can afford to make payments on the debt), and you can get a return of > x% from investing, then you would make more money by keeping the debt and investing your savings. Another way to think of it: by paying off the debt you are getting a guaranteed 5% return because that's the rate you'd have paid if you kept the debt. Be wary of your assumption of getting a 10% return in the S&P 500. Nothing is guaranteed, even over the long term. Actual results may well be less, and you could lose money. It doesn't have to be all-or-nothing: why not pay off the higher rate debt at 5% and keep the 3% debt? That's a guaranteed 5% return by paying off the NSLSC loan. And 3% is a pretty low interest rate. If you can afford to make the payments, I see nothing wrong with investing your savings instead of paying off the loan. Make sure you have an emergency fund, too. | Utilize your financial knowledge, give your answer or opinion to the input question or subject . Answer format is not limited. |
Should I Pay Off my Student Loan Debts First or Invest in an Index Fund? | A major thing to consider when deciding whether to invest or pay off debt is cash flow. Specifically, how each choice affects your cash flow, and how your cash flow is affected by various events. Simply enough, your cash flow is the amount of money that passes through your finances during a given period (often a month or a year). Some of this is necessary payments, like staying current on loans, rent, etc., while other parts are not necessary, such as eating out. For example, you currently have $5,500 debt at 3% and another $2,500 at 5%. This means that every month, your cashflow effect of these loans is ($5,500 * 3% / 12) + ($2,500 * 5% / 12) = $24 interest (before any applicable tax effects), plus any required payments toward the principal which you don't state. To have the $8,000 paid off in 30 years, you'd be paying another $33 toward the principal, for a total of about $60 per month before tax effects in your case. If you take the full $7,000 you have available and use it to pay off the debt starting with the higher-interest loan, then your situation changes such that you now: Assuming that the repayment timeline remains the same, the cashflow effect of the above becomes $1,000 * 3% / 12 = $2.50/month interest plus $2.78/month toward the principal, again before tax effects. In one fell swoop, you just reduced your monthly payment from $60 to $5.25. Per year, this means $720 to $63, so on the $7,000 "invested" in repayment you get $657 in return every year for a 9.4% annual return on investment. It will take you about 11 years to use only this money to save another $7,000, as opposed to the 30 years original repayment schedule. If the extra payment goes toward knocking time off the existing repayment schedule but keeping the amount paid toward the principal per month the same, you are now paying $33 toward the principal plus $2.50 interest against the $1,000 loan, which means by paying $35.50/month you will be debt free in 30 months: two and a half years, instead of 30 years, an effective 92% reduction in repayment time. You immediately have another about $25/month in your budget, and in two and a half years you will have $60 per month that you wouldn't have if you stuck with the original repayment schedule. If instead the total amount paid remains the same, you are then paying about $57.50/month toward the principal and will be debt free in less than a year and a half. Not too shabby, if you ask me. Also, don't forget that this is a known, guaranteed return in that you know what you would be paying in interest if you didn't do this, and you know what you will be paying in interest if you do this. Even if the interest rate is variable, you can calculate this to a reasonable degree of certainty. The difference between those two is your return on investment. Compare this to the fact that while an investment in the S&P might have similar returns over long periods of time, the stock market is much more volatile in the shorter term (as the past two decades have so eloquently demonstrated). It doesn't do you much good if an investment returns 10% per year over 30 years, if when you need the money it's down 30% because you bought at a local peak and have held the investment for only a year. Also consider if you go back to school, are you going to feel better about a $5.25/month payment or a $60/month payment? (Even if the payments on old debt are deferred while you are studying, you will still have to pay the money, and it will likely be accruing interest in the meantime.) Now, I really don't advocate emptying your savings account entirely the way I did in the example above. Stuff happens all the time, and some stuff that happens costs money. Instead, you should be keeping some of that money easily available in a liquid, non-volatile form (which basically means a savings account without withdrawal penalties or a money market fund, not the stock market). How much depends on your necessary expenses; a buffer of three months' worth of expenses is an often recommended starting point for an emergency fund. The above should however help you evaluate how much to keep, how much to invest and how much to use to pay off loans early, respectively. | Offer your insights or judgment on the input financial query or topic using your financial expertise. Reply as normal question answering |
Should I Pay Off my Student Loan Debts First or Invest in an Index Fund? | Pay off the debt first. Life circumstances change without notice, and starting any stage of life with a debt puts you at a disadvantage. Luckily, your debt is small. Please also consider accumulating a 6 month emergency fund before making investments. This will further protect you when life hands you a curveball. | Based on your financial expertise, provide your response or viewpoint on the given financial question or topic. The response format is open. |
$700 guaranteed to not be touched for 15 years+, should I put it anywhere other than a savings account? | (Since you used the dollar sign without any qualification, I assume you're in the United States and talking about US dollars.) You have a few options here. I won't make a specific recommendation, but will present some options and hopefully useful information. Here's the short story: To buy individual stocks, you need to go through a broker. These brokers charge a fee for every transaction, usually in the neighborhood of $7. Since you probably won't want to just buy and hold a single stock for 15 years, the fees are probably unreasonable for you. If you want the educational experience of picking stocks and managing a portfolio, I suggest not using real money. Most mutual funds have minimum investments on the order of a few thousand dollars. If you shop around, there are mutual funds that may work for you. In general, look for a fund that: An example of a fund that meets these requirements is SWPPX from Charles Schwabb, which tracks the S&P 500. Buy the product directly from the mutual fund company: if you go through a broker or financial manager they'll try to rip you off. The main advantage of such a mutual fund is that it will probably make your daughter significantly more money over the next 15 years than the safer options. The tradeoff is that you have to be prepared to accept the volatility of the stock market and the possibility that your daughter might lose money. Your daughter can buy savings bonds through the US Treasury's TreasuryDirect website. There are two relevant varieties: You and your daughter seem to be the intended customers of these products: they are available in low denominations and they guarantee a rate for up to 30 years. The Series I bonds are the only product I know of that's guaranteed to keep pace with inflation until redeemed at an unknown time many years in the future. It is probably not a big concern for your daughter in these amounts, but the interest on these bonds is exempt from state taxes in all cases, and is exempt from Federal taxes if you use them for education expenses. The main weakness of these bonds is probably that they're too safe. You can get better returns by taking some risk, and some risk is probably acceptable in your situation. Savings accounts, including so-called "money market accounts" from banks are a possibility. They are very convenient, but you might have to shop around for one that: I don't have any particular insight into whether these are likely to outperform or be outperformed by treasury bonds. Remember, however, that the interest rates are not guaranteed over the long run, and that money lost to inflation is significant over 15 years. Certificates of deposit are what a bank wants you to do in your situation: you hand your money to the bank, and they guarantee a rate for some number of months or years. You pay a penalty if you want the money sooner. The longest terms I've typically seen are 5 years, but there may be longer terms available if you shop around. You can probably get better rates on CDs than you can through a savings account. The rates are not guaranteed in the long run, since the terms won't last 15 years and you'll have to get new CDs as your old ones mature. Again, I don't have any particular insight on whether these are likely to keep up with inflation or how performance will compare to treasury bonds. Watch out for the same things that affect savings accounts, in particular fees and reduced rates for balances of your size. | Share your insights or perspective on the financial matter presented in the input. |
$700 guaranteed to not be touched for 15 years+, should I put it anywhere other than a savings account? | If you plan on holding the money for 15 years, until your daughter turns 21, then advanced algebra tells me she is 6 years old. I think the real question is, what do you intend for your daughter to get out of this? If you want her to get a real return on her money, Mike Haskel has laid out the information to get you started deciding on that. But at 6, is part of the goal also teaching her about financial stewardship, principles of saving, etc.? If so, consider the following: When the money was physically held in the piggy bank, your daughter had theoretical control over it. She was exercising restraint, for delayed gratification (even if she did not really understand that yet, and even if she really didn't understand money / didn't know what she would do with it). By taking this money and putting it away for her, you are taking her out of the decision making - unless you plan on giving her access to the account, letting her decide when to take it out. Still, you could talk her through what you're doing, and ask her how she feels about it. But perhaps she is too young to understand what committing the money away until 21 really means. And if, for example, she wants to buy a bike when she is 10, do you want her to see the fruits of her saved money? Finally, consider that if you (or you & your daughter, depending on whether you want her to help in the decision) decide to put the money in a financial institution in some manner, the risk you are taking on may need to be part of the lesson for her. If you want to teach the general principles of saving, then putting it in bonds/CD's/Savings etc., may be sufficient, even if inflation lowers the value of the money. If you want to teach principles of investing, then perhaps consider waiting until she can understand why you are doing that. To a kid, I think the principles of saving & delayed gratification can be taught, but the principles of assuming risk for greater reward, is a bit more complex. | Offer your thoughts or opinion on the input financial query or topic using your financial background. |
$700 guaranteed to not be touched for 15 years+, should I put it anywhere other than a savings account? | Well, I understand this forum is about money but I think you would be far better off if you invest the money in your daughters education or something similar that can bring much more significant future gains. I am a big fan of compound interest and investing in stocks but $700 sitting until she's 21 wont grow into a significant amount. When she's 21, what would you "hope" she'd spend the money on? something valuable like education right? so why don't you take the first step now so she will get a much bigger return than the monitory value. If I were you I'd invest in a home library or something similar. | Utilize your financial knowledge, give your answer or opinion to the input question or subject . Answer format is not limited. |
If Bernie Madoff had invested in Berkshire Hathaway, would the ponzi actually have succeeded? | I could be wrong, but I doubt that Bernie started out with any intention of defrauding anyone, really. I suspect it began the first time he hit a quarter when his returns were lower than everyone else's, or at least not as high as he'd promised his investors they'd be, so he fudged the numbers and lied to get past the moment, thinking he'd just make up for it the next quarter. Only that never happened, and so the lie carried forward and maybe grew as things didn't improve as he expected. It only turned into a ponzi because he wasn't as successful at investing as he was telling his investors he was, and telling the truth would have meant the probability that he would have lost most of his clients as they went elsewhere. Bernie couldn't admit the truth, so he had to keep up the fiction by actually paying out returns that didn't exist, which required constantly finding new money to cover what he was paying out. The source of that money turned out to be new investors who were lured in by people already investing with Bernie who told them how great he was as a financial wizard, and they had the checks to prove it. I think this got so far out of hand, and it gradually dragged more and more people in because such things turn into black holes, swallowing up everything that gets close. Had the 2008 financial crisis not hit then Bernie might still be at it. The rapid downturns in the markets hit many of Bernie's investors with margin calls in other investments they held, so they requested redemptions from him to cover their calls, expecting that all of the money he'd convinced to leave with him really existed. When he realized he couldn't meet the flood of redemptions, that was when he 'fessed up and the bubble burst. Could he have succeeded by simple investing in Berkshire? Probably. But then how many people say that in hindsight about them or Amazon or Google, or any number of other stocks that turned out similarly? (grin) Taking people's money and parking it all in one stock doesn't make you a genius, and that's how Bernie wanted to be viewed. To accomplish that, he needed to find the opportunities nobody else saw and be the one to get there first. Unfortunately his personal crystal ball was wrong, and rather than taking his lumps by admitting it to his investors, his pride and ego led him down a path of deception that I'm sure he had every intention of making right if he could. The problem was, that moment never came. Keep in mind one thing: The $64 billion figure everyone cites isn't money that really existed in the first place. That number is what Bernie claimed his fund was worth, and it is not the amount he actually defrauded people out of. His actual cash intake was probably somewhere in the $20 billion range over that time. Everything else beyond that was nothing more than the fictionalized returns he was claiming to get for his clients. It's what they thought they had in the bank with him, rather than what was really there. | Offer your insights or judgment on the input financial query or topic using your financial expertise. Reply as normal question answering |
Forex vs day trading for beginner investor | Forex vs Day Trading: These can be one and the same, as most people who trade forex do it as day trading. Forex is the instrument you are trading and day trading is the time frame you are doing it in. If your meaning from your question was comparing trading forex vs stocks, then it depends on a number of things. Forex is more liquid so most professional traders prefer it as it can be easier to get in and out without being gapped. However, if you are not trading large amounts of money and you stay away from more volatile stocks, this should not matter too much. It may also depend on what you understand more and prefer to trade. You need to be comfortable with what you are trading. If on the other hand you are referring to day trading vs longer term trading and/or investing, then this can depend largely on the instrument you are trading and the time frame you are more comfortable with. Forex is used more for shorter term trading, from day trading to having a position open for a couple of days. Stocks on the other hand can be day traded to traded over days, weeks, months or years. It is much more common to have positions open for longer periods with stocks. Other instruments like commodities, can also be traded over different time frames. The shorter the time frame you trade the higher risk involved as you have to make quick decisions and be happy with making a lot of smaller gains with the potential to make a large loss if things go wrong. It is best once again to chose a time frame you are comfortable with. I tend to trade Australian stocks as I know them well and am comfortable with them. I usually trade in the medium to long term, however I let the market decide how long I am in a position and when I get out of it. I try to follow the trend and stay in a position as long as the trend continues. I put automatic stop losses on all my positions, so if the market turns against me I am automatically taken out. I can be in a position for as little as a day (can happen if I buy one day and the next day the stock falls by 15% or more) to over a year (as long as the trend continues). By doing this I avoid the daily market noise and let my profits run and keep my losses small. No matter what instrument you end up trading and the time frame you choose to trade in, you should always have a tested trading plan and a risk management strategy in place. These are the areas you should first gain knowledge in to further your pursuits in trading. | Based on your financial expertise, provide your response or viewpoint on the given financial question or topic. The response format is open. |
Forex vs day trading for beginner investor | This image is an advertisement from this week's Barron's. The broker would want to put himself in the best light, correct? This shows you that of their current accounts, 53.5% are not profitable. And these guys have the best track record of the list. Also keep in mind that their client base isn't random. The winners tend to stay, so even if it were 50/50, the 50% of losers might represent many times that number of people who came to the table, lost their money and left. | Share your insights or perspective on the financial matter presented in the input. |
Forex vs day trading for beginner investor | Are you in the US? Because if so, there are tax discrepancies. Gains from sale of stocks held for less than one year are subject to ordinary income tax, so probably around 30%. If you hold those stocks for a year or more, gains will be taxed as capital gains tax, 15%. For Forex, taxes on your earnings will be split 60/40. 60% will be traded at the lower 15% rate, while the remaining 40& will be taxed at a higher rate, approximately 30%. So purely short-term, there is a tax advantage to dabbling in Forex. HOWEVER - these are both incredibly risky things to do with your money! I never would recommend anyone invest short-term looking to make quick cash! In fact, the tax code DISCOURAGES people from short-term investments. | Offer your thoughts or opinion on the input financial query or topic using your financial background. |
Is investing in an ETF generally your best option after establishing a Roth IRA? | ETFs are a type of investment, not a specific choice. In other words, there are good ETFs and bad. What you see is the general statement that ETFs are preferable to most mutual funds, if only for the fact that they are low cost. An index ETF such as SPY (which reflects the S&P 500 index) has a .09% annual expense, vs a mutual fund which average a full percent or more. sheegaon isn't wrong, I just have a different spin to offer you. Given a long term return of say even 8% (note - this question is not a debate of the long term return, and I purposely chose a low number compared to the long term average, closer to 10%) and the current CD rate of <1%, a 1% hit for the commission on the buy side doesn't bother me. The sell won't occur for a long time, and $8 on a $10K sale is no big deal. I'd not expect you to save $1K/yr in cash/CDs for the years it would take to make that $8 fee look tiny. Not when over time the growth will overshaddow this. One day you will be in a position where the swings in the market will produce the random increase or decrease to your net worth in the $10s of thousands. Do you know why you won't lose a night's sleep over this? Because when you invested your first $1K, and started to pay attention to the market, you saw how some days had swings of 3 or 4%, and you built up an immunity to the day to day noise. You stayed invested and as you gained wealth, you stuck to the right rebalancing each year, so a market crash which took others down by 30%, only impacted you by 15-20, and you were ready for the next move to the upside. And you also saw that since mutual funds with their 1% fees never beat the index over time, you were happy to say you lagged the S&P by .09%, or 1% over 11 year's time vs those whose funds had some great years, but lost it all in the bad years. And by the way, right until you are in the 25% bracket, Roth is the way to go. When you are at 25%, that's the time to use pre-tax accounts to get just below the cuttoff. Last, welcome to SE. Edit - see sheegaon's answer below. I agree, I missed the cost of the bid/ask spread. Going with the lowest cost (index) funds may make better sense for you. To clarify, Sheehan points out that ETFs trade like a stock, a commission, and a bid/ask, both add to transaction cost. So, agreeing this is the case, an indexed-based mutual fund can provide the best of possible options. Reflecting the S&P (for example) less a small anual expense, .1% or less. | Utilize your financial knowledge, give your answer or opinion to the input question or subject . Answer format is not limited. |
Is investing in an ETF generally your best option after establishing a Roth IRA? | It's hard to know what to tell you without knowing income, age, marital status, etc., so I'll give some general comments. ETFs come in all varieties. Some have more volatility than others. It all depends on what types of assets are in the fund. Right now it's tough to outpace inflation in an investment that's "safe" (CDs for example). Online savings accounts pay 1% or less now. Invest only in what you understand, and only after everything else is taken care of (debt, living expenses, college costs, etc.) A bank account is just fine. You're investing in US Dollars. Accumulating cash isn't a bad thing to do. | Offer your insights or judgment on the input financial query or topic using your financial expertise. Reply as normal question answering |
Is investing in an ETF generally your best option after establishing a Roth IRA? | When investing small amounts, you should consider the substantial toll that commissions will take on your investment. In your case, $800 placed in just one ETF will incur commissions of about $8 each way, or a total of 2% of your investment. I suggest you wait until you have at least $5000 to invest in stocks or ETFs. Since this is in a IRA, your options are limited, but perhaps you may qualify for a Vanguard mutual fund, which will not charge commissions and will have annual expenses only a trivial amount higher than the corresponding ETF. it should probably go in a mixed allocation fund, and since you are young, it should be a relatively aggressive one. Mutual funds will also allow you to contribute small amounts over time without incurring any extra fees. | Based on your financial expertise, provide your response or viewpoint on the given financial question or topic. The response format is open. |
What is the process through which a cash stock transaction clears? | This is the sad state of US stock markets and Regulation T. Yes, while options have cleared & settled for t+1 (trade +1 day) for years and now actually clear "instantly" on some exchanges, stocks still clear & settle in t+3. There really is no excuse for it. If you are in a margin account, regulations permit the trading of unsettled funds without affecting margin requirements, so your funds in effect are available immediately after trading but aren't considered margin loans. Some strict brokers will even restrict the amount of uncleared margin funds you can trade with (Scottrade used to be hyper safe and was the only online discount broker that did this years ago); others will allow you to withdraw a large percentage of your funds immediately (I think E*Trade lets you withdraw up to 90% of unsettled funds immediately). If you are in a cash account, you are authorized to buy with unsettled funds, but you can't sell purchases made on unsettled funds until such funds clear, or you'll be barred for 90 days from trading as your letter threatened; besides, most brokers don't allow this. You certainly aren't allowed to withdraw unsettled funds (by your broker) in such an account as it would technically constitute a loan for which you aren't even liable since you've agreed to no loan contract, a margin agreement. I can't be sure if that actually violates Reg T, but when I am, I'll edit. While it is true that all marketable options are cleared through one central entity, the Options Clearing Corporation, with stocks, clearing & settling still occurs between brokers, netting their transactions between each other electronically. All financial products could clear & settle immediately imo, and I'd rather not start a firestorm by giving my opinion why not. Don't even get me started on the bond market... As to the actual process, it's called "clearing & settling". The general process (which can generally be applied to all financial instruments from cash deposits to derivatives trading) is: The reason why all of the old financial companies were grouped on Wall St. is because they'd have runners physically carting all of the certificates from building to building. Then, they discovered netting so slowed down the process to balance the accounts and only cart the net amounts of certificates they owed each other. This is how we get the term "bankers hours" where financial firms would close to the public early to account for the days trading. While this is all really done instantly behind your back at your broker, they've conveniently kept the short hours. | Share your insights or perspective on the financial matter presented in the input. |
Are lottery tickets ever a wise investment provided the jackpot is large enough? | You're asking if lottery ticket can ever produce a positive expected value (EV). The short answer is, "no". There's an interesting article that goes into the details and is heavy on the math and graphs. The key point: Even if you think you have a positive expected value due to the size of the jackpot being larger than the number of possible numbers, as more tickets are purchased (and the jackpot grows larger) the odds of someone else picking the winner goes up and your EV goes down. The article concludes: [It] ... paints a grim picture for anyone still holding out hope that a lottery ticket can ever be an economically rational investment. As the jackpot grows in value, the number of people who try to win it grows super-linearly. This human behavior has a mathematical consequence: even though the jackpot itself can theoretically grow without bound, there is a point at which the consequent ticket-buying grows to such a fever pitch that the expected value of the jackpot actually starts going down again. | Offer your thoughts or opinion on the input financial query or topic using your financial background. |