Datasets:

FinGPT

/

fingpt-fiqa_qa

like 12

Is real (physical) money traded during online trading?

I think you need to define what you mean by "buy currency online using some online forex trading platform" ... In large Fx trades, real money [you mean actual electronic money, as there is not paper that travels these days]... The Fx market is quite wide with all kinds of trades. There are quite a few Fx transactions that are meant for delivery. You have to pay in the currency for full amount and you get the funds electronicall credited to you in other currency [ofcouse you have an account in the other currency or you have an obligation to pay]. This type of transaction is valid in Ismalic Banking. The practise of derivaties based on this or forward contracts on this is not allowed.

Utilize your financial knowledge, give your answer or opinion to the input question or subject . Answer format is not limited.

Is real (physical) money traded during online trading?

This is my two cents (pun intended). It was too long for a comment, so I tried to make it more of an answer. I am no expert with investments or Islam: Anything on a server exists 'physically'. It exists on a hard drive, tape drive, and/or a combination thereof. It is stored as data, which on a hard drive are small particles that are electrically charged, where each bit is represented by that electric charge. That data exists physically. It also depends on your definition of physically. This data is stored on a hard drive, which I deem physical, though is transferred via electric pulses often via fiber cable. Don't fall for marketing words like cloud. Data must be stored somewhere, and is often redundant and backed up. To me, money is just paper with an amount attached to it. It tells me nothing about its value in a market. A $1 bill was worth a lot more 3 decades ago (you could buy more goods because it had a higher value) than it is today. Money is simply an indication of the value of a good you traded at the time you traded. At a simplistic level, you could accomplish the same thing with a friend, saying "If you buy lunch today, I'll buy lunch next time". There was no exchange in money between me and you, but there was an exchange in the value of the lunch, if that makes sense. The same thing could have been accomplished by me and you exchanging half the lunch costs in physical money (or credit/debit card or check). Any type of investment can be considered gambling. Though you do get some sort of proof that the investment exists somewhere Investments may go up or down in value at any given time. Perhaps with enough research you can make educated investments, but that just makes it a smaller gamble. Nothing is guaranteed. Currency investment is akin to stock market investment, in that it may go up or down in value, in comparison to other currencies; though it doesn't make you an owner of the money's issuer, generally, it's similar. I find if you keep all your money in U.S. dollars without considering other nations, that's a sort of ignorant way of gambling, you're betting your money will lose value less slowly than if you had it elsewhere or in multiple places. Back on track to your question: [A]m I really buying that currency? You are trading a currency. You are giving one currency and exchanging it for another. I guess you could consider that buying, since you can consider trading currency for a piece of software as buying something. Or is the situation more like playing with the live rates? It depends on your perception of playing with the live rates. Investments to me are long-term commitments with reputable research attached to it that I intend to keep, through highs and lows, unless something triggers me to change my investment elsewhere. If by playing you mean risk, as described above, you will have a level of risk. If by playing you mean not taking it seriously, then do thorough research before investing and don't be trading every few seconds for minor returns, trying to make major returns out of minor returns (my opinion), or doing anything based on a whim. Was that money created out of thin air? I suggest you do more research before starting to trade currency into how markets and trading works. Simplistically, think of a market as a closed system with other markets, such as UK market, French market, etc. Each can interact with each other. The U.S. [or any market] has a set number of dollars in the pool. $100 for example's sake. Each $1 has a certain value associated with it. If for some reason, the country decides to create more paper that is green, says $1, and stamps presidents on them (money), and adds 15 $1 to the pool (making it $115), each one of these dollars' value goes down. This can also happen with goods. This, along with the trading of goods between markets, peoples' attachment of value to goods of the market, and peoples' perception of the market, is what fluctates currency trading, in simple terms. So essentially, no, money is not made out of thin air. Money is a medium for value though values are always changing and money is a static amount. You are attempting to trade values and own the medium that has the most value, if that makes sense. Values of goods are constantly changing. This is a learning process for me as well so I hope this helps answers your questions you seem to have. As stated above, I'm no expert; I'm actually quite new to this, so I probably missed a few things here and there.

Offer your insights or judgment on the input financial query or topic using your financial expertise. Reply as normal question answering

Pensions, annuities, and “retirement”

There are broadly two kinds of pension: final salary / defined benefit, and money purchase. The text you quote above, where it talks about "pension" it is referring to a final salary / defined benefit scheme. In this type of scheme you earn a salary of £X during your working life, and you are then entitled to a proportion of £X (the proportion depends on how long you worked there) as a pension. These types of scheme are relatively rare now (outside the public sector) because the employer is liable for making enough investments into a pot to have enough money to pay everyone's pension entitlements, and when the investments do poorly the liability for the shortfall ends up on the employer's plate. You might have heard about the "black hole in public sector pensions" which is what this refers to - the investments that the government have made to pay public sector workers' pensions has not in fact been sufficient. The other type of scheme is a money purchase scheme. In this scheme, you and/or your employer make payments into an investment pot which is locked away until you retire. Once you retire, that pot is yours but there are restrictions on what you can do with it - you can use it to purchase an annuity (I will give you my £X,000 pension pot in return for you giving me an annual income of £Y, say) and you can take some of it as a lump sum. The onus is on you to make sure that you (and/or your employer) have contributed enough to make a large enough pot to give you the income you want to live on, and to make a sensible decision about what to do with the pot when you retire and what to use it as income. With either type of scheme, you can claim this pension after you reach retirement age, whether or not you are still working. In some schemes you are also permitted to claim the pension earlier than retirement age if you have stopped working - it will depend on the rules of the scheme. What counts as "retirement age" depends on how old you are now (and whether you are male or female) as the government has been pushing this age out as people have been living longer. In addition to both schemes, there is also a "state pension" which is a fixed, non-means-tested, weekly amount paid from government funds. Again you are entitled to receive this after you pass retirement age, whether or not you are still working.

Based on your financial expertise, provide your response or viewpoint on the given financial question or topic. The response format is open.

Pensions, annuities, and “retirement”

Pension in this instance seems to mean pension income (as opposed to pension pot). This money would be determined by whatever assets are being invested in. It may be fixed, it may be variable. Completely dependant on the underlying investments. An annuity is a product. In simple terms, you hnd over a lump sum of cash and receive an agreed annual income until you die. The underlying investment required to reach that income level is not your concern, it's the provider's worry. So there is a hige mount of security to the retiree in having an annuity. The downside of annuities is that the level of income may be too low for your liking. For instance, £400/£10,000 would mean £400 for every £10,000 given to the provider. That's 4% and would take 25 years to break even (ignoring inflation, opportunity cost of investing yourself). Therefore, the gamble is whether you 'outlive' the deal. You could hand over £50,000 to a provider and drop dead a year later. Your £50k got you, say, £2k and then you popped your clogs. Provider wins. Or you could like 40 years after retiring and then you end up costing the provider £80k. You win. Best way to think of an annuity is a route to guaranteed, agreed income. To secure that guarantee, there's a price to pay - and that is, a lower income rate than you might like. Hope that was the kind of reply you were hoping for. If not, edit your OP and ask again. Chris. PS. The explanation on the link you provided is pretty dire. Very confusing use of the term 'pension' and even if that were better, the explanation is still bad due to vagueness. THis is much better: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26186361

Share your insights or perspective on the financial matter presented in the input.

Pensions, annuities, and “retirement”

With an annuity, you invest directly into an annuity with money you have earned as wages/salary/etc. You pay for it, and trade your payments into the annuity for guaranteed payments from the annuity issuer in the future. The more you pay in before the annuity payments begin, the more you will receive for your annuity payment. With a pension, most often you invest implicitly, rather than directly, into the pension. Rather than making a cash contribution on a regular basis, it is likely that your employer has periodically invested into the pension fund for you, using monies that would otherwise have been paid to you if there were no pension system. This is why your pension benefits are often determined based on years of service, your rate of pay, and similar factors.

Offer your thoughts or opinion on the input financial query or topic using your financial background.

Pensions, annuities, and “retirement”

An annuity is a product. In simple terms, you hand over a lump sum of cash and receive an agreed annual income until you die. The underlying investment required to reach that income level is not your concern, it's the provider's worry. So there is a huge mount of security to the retiree in having an annuity. It is worth pointing out that with simple annuities where one gives a lump sum of money to (typically) an insurance company, the annuity payments cease upon the death of the annuitant. If any part of the lump sum is still left, that money belongs to the company, not to the heirs of the deceased. Fancier versions of annuities cover the spouse of the annuitant as well (joint and survivor annuity) or guarantee a certain number of payments (e.g. 10-year certain) regardless of when the annuitant dies (payments for the remaining certain term go to the residual beneficiary) etc. How much of an annuity payment the company offers for a fixed lump sum of £X depends on what type of annuity is chosen; usually simple annuities give the maximum bang for the buck. Also, different companies may offer slightly different rates. So, why should one choose to buy an annuity instead of keeping the lump sum in a bank or in fixed deposits (CDs in US parlance), or invested in the stock market or the bond market, etc., and making periodic withdrawals from these assets at a "safe rate of withdrawal"? Safe rates of withdrawal are often touted as 4% per annum in the US, though there are newer studies saying that a smaller rate should be used. Well, safe rates of withdrawal are designed to ensure that the retiree does not use up all the money and is left destitute just when medical bills and other costs are likely to be peaking. Indeed, if all the money were kept in a sock at home (no growth at all), a 4% per annum withdrawal rate will last the retiree for 25 years. With some growth of the lump sum in an investment, somewhat larger withdrawals might be taken in good years, but that 4% is needed even when the investments have declined in value because of economic conditions beyond one's control. So, there are good things and bad things that can happen if one chooses to not buy an annuity. On the other hand, with an annuity, the payments will continue till death and so the retiree feels safer, as Chris mentioned. There is also the serenity in not having to worry how the investments are doing; that's the company's business. A down side, of course, is that the payments are fixed and if inflation is raging, the retiree still gets the same amount. If extra cash is needed one year for unavoidable expenses, the annuity will not provide it, whereas the lump sum (whether kept in a sock or invested) can be drawn on for the extra expense. Another down side is that any money remaining is gone, with nothing left for the heirs. On the plus side, the annuity payments are usually larger than those that the retiree will get via the safe rate of withdrawal method from the lump sum. This is because the insurance company is applying the laws of large numbers: many annuitants will not survive past their life expectancy, and their leftover monies are pure profit to the insurance company, often more than enough (when invested properly by the company) to pay those old codgers who continue to live past their life expectancy. Personally, I wouldn't want to buy an annuity with all my money, but getting an annuity with part of the money is worthwhile. Important: The annuity discussed in this answer is what is sometimes called a single-premium or an immediate annuity. It is purchased at the time of retirement with a single (large) lump sum payment. This is not the kind of annuity that is described in JAGAnalyst's answer which requires payment of (much smaller) premiums over many years. Search this forum for variable annuity to learn about these types of annuities.

Utilize your financial knowledge, give your answer or opinion to the input question or subject . Answer format is not limited.

What does it mean to a life insurance policy holder to convert from a stock to mutual insurance company?

A stock insurance company is structured like a “normal” company. It has shareholders (that are the company's investors), who elect a board of directors, who select the senior executive(s), who manage the people who run the actual company. The directors (and thus the executives and employees) have a legal responsibility to manage the company in a way which is beneficial for the shareholders, since the shareholders are the ultimate owner of the company. A mutual insurance company is similar, except that the people holding policies are also the shareholders. That is, the policyholders are the ultimate owners of the company, and there generally aren't separate shareholders who are just “investing” in the company. These policyholder-shareholders elect the board of directors, who select the senior executive(s), who manage the people who run the actual company. In practice, it probably doesn't really make a whole lot of difference, since even if you're just a "customer" and not an "owner" of the company, the company is still going to want to attract customers and act in a reasonable way toward them. Also, insurance companies are generally pretty heavily regulated in terms of what they can do, because governments really like them to remain solvent. It may be comforting to know that in a mutual insurance company the higher-ups are explicitly supposed to be working in your best interest, though, rather than in the interest of some random investors. Some might object that being a shareholder may not give you a whole lot more rights than you had before. See, for example, this article from the Boston Globe, “At mutual insurance firms, big money for insiders but no say for ‘owners’ — policyholders”: It has grown into something else entirely: an opaque, poorly understood, and often immensely profitable world in which some executives and insiders operate with minimal scrutiny and, no coincidence, often reap maximum personal rewards. Policyholders, despite their status as owners, have no meaningful oversight of how mutual companies spend their money — whether to lower rates, pay dividends, or fund executive salaries and perks — and few avenues to challenge such decisions. Another reason that one might not like the conversion is the specific details of how the current investor-shareholders are being paid back for their investment in the process of the conversion to mutual ownership, and what that might do to the funds on hand that are supposed to be there to keep the firm solvent for the policyholders. From another Boston Globe article on the conversion of SBLI to a mutual company, “Insurer SBLI wants to get banks out of its business,” professor Robert Wright is cautiously optimistic but wants to ensure the prior shareholders aren't overpaid: Robert Wright, a professor in South Dakota who has studied insurance companies and owns an SBLI policy, said he would prefer the insurer to be a mutual company that doesn’t have to worry about the short-term needs of shareholders. But he wants to ensure that SBLI doesn’t overpay the banks for their shares. “It’s fine, as long as it’s a fair price,” he said. That article also gives SBLI's president's statement as to why they think it's a good thing for policyholders: If the banks remained shareholders, they would be likely to demand a greater share of the profits and eat into the dividends the insurance company currently pays to the 536,000 policyholders, about half of whom live in Massachusetts, said Jim Morgan, president of Woburn-based SBLI. “We’re trying to protect the policyholders from having the dividends diluted,” Morgan said. I'm not sure there's an obvious pros/cons list for either way, but I'd think that I'd prefer the mutual approach, just on the principle that the policyholders “ought” to be the owners, because the directors (and thus the executives and employees) are then legally required to manage the company in the best interest of the policyholders. I did cast a Yes vote in my proxy on whether SBLI ought to become a mutual company (I'm a SBLI term-life policyholder.) But policy terms aren't changing, and it'd be hard to tell for sure how it'd impact any dividends (I assume the whole-life policies must be the ones to pay dividends) or company solvency either way, since it's not like we'll get to run a scientific experiment trying it out both ways. I doubt you'd have a lot of regrets either way, whether it becomes a mutual company and you wish it hadn't or it doesn't become one and you wish it had.

Offer your insights or judgment on the input financial query or topic using your financial expertise. Reply as normal question answering

Can capital loss in traditional IRA and Roth IRA be used to offset taxable income?

Edited in response to JoeTaxpayer's comment and OP Tim's additional question. To add to and clarify a little what littleadv has said, and to answer OP Tim's next question: As far as the IRS is concerned, you have at most one Individual Retirement Account of each type (Traditional, Roth) though the money in each IRA can be invested with as many different custodians (brokerages, banks, etc.) and different investments as you like. Thus, the maximum $5000 ($6000 for older folks) that you can contribute each year can be split up and invested any which way you like, and when in later years you take a Required Minimum Distribution (RMD) from a Traditional IRA, you can get the money by selling just one of the investments, or from several investments; all that the IRS cares is that the total amount that is distributed to you is at least as large as the RMD. An important corollary is that the balance in your IRA is the sum total of the value of all the investments that various custodians are holding for you in IRA accounts. There is no loss in an IRA until every penny has been withdrawn from every investment in your IRA and distributed to you, thus making your IRA balance zero. As long as you have a positive balance, there is no loss: everything has to come out. After the last distribution from your Roth IRA (the one that empties your entire Roth IRA, no matter where it is invested and reduces your Roth IRA balance (see definition above) to zero), total up all the amounts that you have received as distributions from your Roth IRA. If this is less than the total amount of money you contributed to your Roth IRA (this includes rollovers from a Traditional IRA or Roth 401k etc., but not the earnings within the Roth IRA that you re-invested inside the Roth IRA), you have a loss that can be deducted on Schedule A as a Miscellaneous Deduction subject to the 2% AGI limit. This 2% is not a cap (in the sense that no more than 2% of your AGI can be deducted in this category) but rather a threshold: you can only deduct whatever part of your total Miscellaneous Deductions exceeds 2% of your AGI. Not many people have Miscellaneous Deductions whose total exceeds 2% of their AGI, and so they end up not being able to deduct anything in this category. If you ever made nondeductible contributions to your Traditional IRA because you were ineligible to make a deductible contribution (income too high, pension plan coverage at work etc), then the sum of all these contributions is your basis in your Traditional IRA. Note that your deductible contributions, if any, are not part of the basis. The above rules apply to your basis in your Traditional IRA as well. After the last distribution from your Traditional IRA (the one that empties all your Traditional IRA accounts and reduces your Traditional IRA balance to zero), total up all the distributions that you received (don't forget to include the nontaxable part of each distribution that represents a return of the basis). If the sum total is less than your basis, you have a loss that can be deducted on Schedule A as a Miscellaneous Deduction subject to the 2% AGI threshold. You can only deposit cash into an IRA and take a distribution in cash from an IRA. Now, as JoeTaxpayer points out, if your IRA owns stock, you can take a distribution by having the shares transferred from your IRA account in your brokerage to your personal account in the brokerage. However, the amount of the distribution, as reported by the brokerage to the IRS, is the value of the shares transferred as of the time of the transfer, (more generally the fair market value of the property that is transferred out of the IRA) and this is the amount you report on your income tax return. Any capital gain or loss on those shares remains inside the IRA because your basis (in your personal account) in the shares that came out of the IRA is the amount of the distribution. If you sell these shares at a later date, you will have a (taxable) gain or loss depending on whether you sold the shares for more or less than your basis. In effect, the share transfer transaction is as if you sold the shares in the IRA, took the proceeds as a cash distribution and immediately bought the same shares in your personal account, but you saved the transaction fees for the sale and the purchase and avoided paying the difference between the buying and selling price of the shares as well as any changes in these in the microseconds that would have elapsed between the execution of the sell-shares-in-Tim's-IRA-account, distribute-cash-to-Tim, and buy-shares-in-Tim's-personal account transactions. Of course, your broker will likely charge a fee for transferring ownership of the shares from your IRA to you. But the important point is that any capital gain or loss within the IRA cannot be used to offset a gain or loss in your taxable accounts. What happens inside the IRA stays inside the IRA.

Based on your financial expertise, provide your response or viewpoint on the given financial question or topic. The response format is open.

Can capital loss in traditional IRA and Roth IRA be used to offset taxable income?

No, you cannot. If you withdraw everything from all your Roth IRA's and end up with less than the total basis - you can deduct the difference on your schedule A (at the time of the last withdrawal) as an itemized deduction (as misc. deductions with 2% AGI cap). Regular IRA's are pre-tax, you cannot deduct anything from them.

Share your insights or perspective on the financial matter presented in the input.

Selling a stock for gain to offset other stock loss

Long term gains are taxed at 15% maximum. Losses, up to the $3K/yr you cited, can offset ordinary income, so 25% or higher, depending on your income. Better to take the loss that way. With my usual disclaimer: Do not let the tax tail wag the investing dog.

Offer your thoughts or opinion on the input financial query or topic using your financial background.