Datasets:

ZixuanKe

/

fingpt-fiqa-qa

like 0

[ { "content": "Utilize your financial knowledge, give your answer or opinion to the input question or subject . Answer format is not limited.\nText: Are lottery tickets ever a wise investment provided the jackpot is large enough?", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The other answers here do an excellent job of laying out the mathematics of the expected value. Here is a different take on the question of whether lottery tickets are a sensible investment. I used to have the snobbish attitude that many mathematically literate people have towards lotteries: that they are \"a tax on the mathematically illiterate\", and so on. As I've gotten older I've realized that though, yes, it is certainly true that humans are staggeringly bad at estimating risks, that people actually are surprisingly rational when they spend their money. What then is the rational basis for buying lottery tickets, beyond the standard explanation of \"it's cheap entertainment\"? Suppose you are a deeply poor person in America. Your substandard education prepared you for a job in manufacturing which no longer exists, you're working several minimum wage jobs just to keep food on the table, and you're one fall off a ladder from medical-expense-induced total financial disaster. Now suppose you have things that you would like to spend truly enormous amounts of money on, like, say, sending your children to schools with ever-increasing tuitions, or a home in a safe neighbourhood. Buying lottery tickets is a bad investment, sure. Name another legal investment strategy that has a million-dollar payout that is accessible to the poor in America. Even if you could invest 10% of your minimum-wage salary without missing the electricity bill, that's still not going to add up to a million bucks in your lifetime. Probably not even $100K. When given a choice between no chance whatsoever at achieving your goals and a cheap chance that is literally a one-in-a-million chance at achieving your goals the rational choice is to take the bad investment option over no investment at all.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Offer your insights or judgment on the input financial query or topic using your financial expertise. Reply as normal question answering\nText: Are lottery tickets ever a wise investment provided the jackpot is large enough?", "role": "user" }, { "content": "If you just buy a few lotto tickets normally, then no, it's not going to be a good investment, as @Jasper has shown. However, there are certain scenarios where you can get a positive expected value from a lottery. In 2012, it was revealed that some MIT students found a scheme to game the Massachusetts state lottery. The game, called Cash WinFall, had a quirk in the rules: the jackpot prize was capped at $2 million. Any money in the jackpot beyond $2 million would increase the payout of the consolation prizes. Thus, the game would sometimes have a positive expected value. The return on investment was 15% to 20% — enough for the participants to quit their jobs. This specific loophole is no longer available: a cap was placed on the number of tickets sold per store, then the game was discontinued altogether. Another possible strategy is to buy enough tickets to nearly assure a win, as one investment group did in 1992. Given a large enough jackpot, this strategy can yield a positive expected value, but not a guaranteed profit. Caveats include: Or, you might be a genius and exploit a flaw in the lottery's pseudorandom number generator, as one statistician did in an Ontario scratch-off lottery in 2011.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on your financial expertise, provide your response or viewpoint on the given financial question or topic. The response format is open.\nText: Are lottery tickets ever a wise investment provided the jackpot is large enough?", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The billion dollar jackpot is a sunk cost, a loss for prior bettors. If you had $250M and could buy every ticket combination, you'd be betting that not more than 4 other tickets will win on the next drawing. Even if 5 won, you'd have all the second place, third place, etc tickets, and would probably break even at worst. Forget this extreme case. If I gave you a game where you had a chance to bet $100,000 for a 1 in 9 chance to win a million dollars, would you do it? Clearly, the odds are in your favor, right? But, for this kind of money, you'd probably pass. There's a point where the market itself seems to reflect a set of probable outcomes and can be reduced to gambling. I've written about using options to do this very thing, yet, even in my writing, I call it gambling. I'm careful not to confuse the two (investing and gambling, that is.)", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Share your insights or perspective on the financial matter presented in the input.\nText: Are lottery tickets ever a wise investment provided the jackpot is large enough?", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Others have already explained why lotteries have negative expected value, so in that sense it is never wise to buy a lottery ticket. I will provide an alternative view, that it is not always unwise to buy a lottery ticket even though the expected value of the lottery ticket is lower than its cost (i.e. a loss). The question is what you mean with \"wise\" A (not completely unlikely) scenario is one where your life (financially) suck, and even if you saved the cost of the ticket (instead of buying it) your life would still suck. Even if you saved the cost for a ticket every week for 10 years, your live would not be essentially better. You could maybe afford a TV, or a new car in 40 years, but if you were to quantify the happiness of your life it would still be essentially crappy. But winning the lottery would significantly improve your life and make you happy. So in this scenario there are two choices, either save the money for 0% chance of a happy life, or spend it on a ticket for a (extremely) small chance of a good life. Yes, the expected value of saving the money is higher than when buying the ticket, but \"expected happiness\" is higher when buying the ticket (non-zero). This is clearly an extreme example, but variants of this might apply (the essence is that your valuation of the money is non-linear, 1 million will make you more than 1000 times as happy as 1000.)", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Offer your thoughts or opinion on the input financial query or topic using your financial background.\nText: Are lottery tickets ever a wise investment provided the jackpot is large enough?", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Question: Does a billion dollars make you 1,000 times more happy than a million dollars? Answer: It doesn't. What counts is not the amount of money, but the subjective improvement that it makes to your life. And that improvement isn't linear, which is way the expected value of the inrease in your happiness / welfare / wellbeing is negative. The picture changes if you consider that by buying a ticket you can tell yourself for one week \"next week I might be a billionaire\". What you actually pay for is not the expected value of the win, but one week of hope of becoming rich.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Utilize your financial knowledge, give your answer or opinion to the input question or subject . Answer format is not limited.\nText: Are lottery tickets ever a wise investment provided the jackpot is large enough?", "role": "user" }, { "content": "I estimated that the mean expected cash value of a $ 1.00 MegaMillions ticket in the July 5, 2016 drawing was about $ 1.23 = $ 0.18 consolation prizes + 258,890,850:1 chance of winning part of a cash jackpot that increased from about $ 289.6 million to about $ 313.3 million. I estimated that the mean expected cash value of a $ 2.00 Powerball ticket in the January 13, 2016 drawing was about $ 1.65. I estimated this as follows: 17.= (9). Chance of another roll-over: 15.4 % . (about two-thirteenths). This estimate does not take taxes into account. (There are ways to minimize the tax bill.) And of course, almost 96% of tickets win nothing. Notes: . . Updated for July 5, 2016 MegaMillions draw.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Offer your insights or judgment on the input financial query or topic using your financial expertise. Reply as normal question answering\nText: Are lottery tickets ever a wise investment provided the jackpot is large enough?", "role": "user" }, { "content": "I realize that most posters are US based, but the UK on Saturday had its biggest ever payout (a miserable £60m). Because of the rules there, the estimated \"value\" of a £2 ticket was between £3 and £5. http://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/jan/09/national-lottery-lotto-drawing-odds-of-winning-maths", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on your financial expertise, provide your response or viewpoint on the given financial question or topic. The response format is open.\nText: Are lottery tickets ever a wise investment provided the jackpot is large enough?", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Firstly, playing the lottery is not investing it is gambling. The odds in gambling are always against you and with the house. Secondly, no one would ever give you a payout of 3 to 1 when the odds are 50:50, unless they were looking to give away money. Even when you place your chips on either red or black on a roulette table your payout if you are correct is 100% (double your money), however the odds of winning are less than 50%, there are 18 reds, 18 blacks and 2 greens (0 and 00). Even if you place your chips on one single number, your payout will be 35:1 but your odds of winning are 1:38. The odds are always with the house. If you want to play the lotto, use some money you don't need and expect to lose, have some fun and enjoy yourself if you get any small winnings. Gambling should be looked at as a source of entertainment not a source of investing. If you take gambling more serious than this then you might have a problem.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Share your insights or perspective on the financial matter presented in the input.\nText: Are lottery tickets ever a wise investment provided the jackpot is large enough?", "role": "user" }, { "content": "I think playing certain kinds of lottery is as economically sound as buying certain kinds of insurance. A lottery is an inverted insurance. Let me elaborate. We buy insurance for at least two reasons. The first one is clear: We pay a fee to protect ourselves from a risk which we don't want to (or cannot) bear. Although on average buying insurance is a loss, because we pay all the insurance's office buildings and employee's salaries, it still is a reasonable thing to do. (But it should also be clear that it is unreasonable to buy insurance for risks one could easily bear oneself.) The second reason to buy insurance is that it puts us at ease. We don't have to be afraid of theft or of a mistake we make which would make us liable or of water damage to our house. In that sense we buy freedom of sorrow for a fee, even if the damage wouldn't in fact ruin us. That's totally legitimate. Now I want to make the argument that buying a lottery ticket follows the same logic and is therefore not economically unreasonable at all. While buying a lottery ticket is on average a loss, it provides us with a chance to obtain an amount of money we would normally never get. (Eric Lippert made this argument already.) The lottery fee buys us a small chance of something very valuable, much as the insurance frees us from a small risk of something very bad. If we don't buy the ticket, we may have 0% chance of becoming (extremely) rich. If we buy one, we clearly have a chance > 0%, which can be considered an improvement. (Imagine you'd have a 0.0000001% chance to save the life of a loved one with a ticket who'd be 100% doomed otherwise. You'd bite.) Even the second argument, that an insurance puts us at ease, can be mirrored for lotteries. The chance to win something may provide entertainment in our otherwise dull everyday life. Considering that playing the lottery only makes sense for the chance to obtain more money than otherwise possible, one should avoid lotteries which have lots of smaller prizes because we are not really interested in those. (It would be more economical to save the money for smaller amounts.) We ideally only want lotteries which lean on the big money prizes.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Offer your thoughts or opinion on the input financial query or topic using your financial background.\nText: Are lottery tickets ever a wise investment provided the jackpot is large enough?", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Gambling is never a wise investment. Even assuming that the stated odds are correct, there can be multiple winners, and the jackpot is shared between the winners, so the individual payout can be significantly less than the total jackpot. If I were to take a dollar from you and a dollar from your buddy on the promise that I'd give the two of you a total of $3 back if you both guessed the result of a single, fair coin toss, would you take the offer? Note, also, that the \"jackpot\" value is quite misleading: it's the sum of the annual payments, and if you reduce that to present value it's significantly less.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Utilize your financial knowledge, give your answer or opinion to the input question or subject . Answer format is not limited.\nText: Are lottery tickets ever a wise investment provided the jackpot is large enough?", "role": "user" }, { "content": "You can have a positive expected return on a lottery ticket purchase, but only if the lottery requires all players to pick their own numbers and doesn't have an option to buy a ticket with a randomly generated set of numbers. This is because people are very bad at picking random numbers, and will tend to pick numbers that are fairly evenly spaced or based on dates rather than genuinely random numbers. For example in January 1995 the UK national lottery happened to have fairly well-spaced numbers (7, 17, 23, 32, 38 & 42), and there were 133 winners with all six numbers. So they way to win is to wait for a draw where a rollover jackpot is high enough that your expected winnings are positive if you are the only winner, and pick a set of numbers that looks stupidly non-random, but is not so very non-random that people will have picked it anyway, like 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. For a \"pick 6 in the range from 1-49\" lottery you might pick something like 3, 42, 43, 44, 48, 49. But it doesn't work if there's a random option, since a significant number of players will use it and get genuinely random numbers, and so your chances of being the only winner get much smaller.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Offer your insights or judgment on the input financial query or topic using your financial expertise. Reply as normal question answering\nText: Are lottery tickets ever a wise investment provided the jackpot is large enough?", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Possibly, if you can get them at a discount. But not if you have to pay full price. Say there's a $1 million Jackpot for $1 tickets. The seller might sell 1.25 million of these tickets, to raise $1.25 million pay a winner $1 million, and keep $250,000. In this example, the so-called \"expected value\" of your $1 ticket is $1 million/1.25 million tickets= 80 cents, which is less than $1. If someone were willing to \"dump\" his ticket for say, 50 cents, what you paid would be less than the expected value, and over enough \"trials,\" you would make a profit. Warren Buffett used to say that he would never buy a lottery ticket, but would not refuse one given to him free. That's the ultimate \"discount.\" Larger Jackpots would work on the same principle; you would lose money \"on average\" for buying a ticket. So it's not the size of the Jackpot but the size of the discount that determines whether or not it is worthwhile to buy a lottery ticket.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on your financial expertise, provide your response or viewpoint on the given financial question or topic. The response format is open.\nText: Are lottery tickets ever a wise investment provided the jackpot is large enough?", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Lottery tickets where I live are often for charity. The charity does good things with your money. So you can buy a ticket and feel good whether you win or not, so that makes it an investment in your own well-being. For some of us, who maybe buy a lottery ticket once a year, it's the fun you are paying for. You know you are not really going to win, but you spend a few hours being excited waiting for the draw. Cheaper than the cinema. And you never know, you might win after all... The odds may be ridiculous, but somebody's going to get it...", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Share your insights or perspective on the financial matter presented in the input.\nText: Are lottery tickets ever a wise investment provided the jackpot is large enough?", "role": "user" }, { "content": "A lot of these answers are really weak. The expected value is pretty much the answer. You have to also though, especially as many many millions of tickets are purchased--make part of the valuation the odds of the jackpot being split x ways. So about 1 in 290--> the jackpot needs to be a take-home pot of $580 million for the $2 ticket. Assume the average # of winners is about 1.5 so half the time you're going to split the pot, bringing the valuation needed for the same jackpot to be $870 million. It's actually somewhat not common to have split jackpots because the odds are very bad + many people pick 'favourite numbers'.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Offer your thoughts or opinion on the input financial query or topic using your financial background.\nText: Are lottery tickets ever a wise investment provided the jackpot is large enough?", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Is playing the lottery a wise investment? --Probably not. Is playing the lottery an investment at all? --Probably not though I'll make a remark on that further below. Does it make any sense to play the lottery in order to improve your total asset allocation? --If you follow the theory of the Black Swan, it actually might. Let me elaborate. The Black Swan theory says that events that we consider extremely improbable can have an extreme impact. So extreme, in fact, that its value would massively outweigh the combined value of all impacts of all probable events together. In statistical terms, we are speaking about events on the outer limits of the common probablity distribution, so called outliers that have a high impact. Example: If you invest $2000 on the stock market today, stay invested for 20 years, and reinvest all earnings, it is probable within a 66% confidence interval that you will have an 8 % expected return (ER) per year on average, giving you a total of roughly $9300. That's very much simplified, of course, the actual number can be very different depending on the deviations from the ER and when they happen. Now let's take the same $2000 and buy weekly lottery tickets for 20 years. For the sake of simplicity I will forgo an NPV calculation and assume one ticket costs roughly $2. If you should win, which would be an entirely improbable event, your winnings would by far outweigh your ER from investing the same amount. When making models that should be mathematically solvable, these outliers are usually not taken into consideration. Standard portfolio management (PM) theory is only working within so called confidence intervals up to 99% - everything else just wouldn't be practical. In other words, if there is not at least a 1% probability a certain outcome will happen, we'll ignore it. In practice, most analysts take even smaller confidence intervals, so they ignore even more. That's the reason, though, why no object that would fall within the realms of this outer limit is an investment in terms of the PM theory. Or at least not a recommendable one. Having said all that, it still might improve your position if you add a lottery ticket to the mix. The Black Swan theory specifically does not only apply to the risk side of things, but also on the chance side. So, while standard PM theory would not consider the lottery ticket an investment, thus not accept it into the asset allocation, the Black Swan theory would appreciate the fact that there is minimal chance of huge success. Still, in terms of valuation, it follows the PM theory. The lottery ticket, while it could be part of some \"investment balance sheet\", would have to be written off to 0 immediately and no expected value would be attached to it. Consequently, such an investment or gamble only makes sense if your other, safe investments give you so much income that you can easily afford it really without having to give up anything else in your life. In other words, you have to consider it money thrown out of the window. So, while from a psychological perspective it makes sense that especially poorer people will buy a lottery ticket, as Eric very well explained, it is actually the wealthier who should consider doing so. If anyone. :)", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Utilize your financial knowledge, give your answer or opinion to the input question or subject . Answer format is not limited.\nText: Are lottery tickets ever a wise investment provided the jackpot is large enough?", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Here's an interesting link to a discussion about an Australian investor group back in the 1990s that bought almost every combination in the West Virginia lottery. It's pretty fascinating stuff. How An Australian Group Cornered A Lottery I don't need to add to what's already been said here, but it's a fun story!", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Offer your insights or judgment on the input financial query or topic using your financial expertise. Reply as normal question answering\nText: Are lottery tickets ever a wise investment provided the jackpot is large enough?", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Mathematically speaking there would be a point where the expected value EV of purchasing every possible ticket would be favorable but only if you take in account both the jackpot payout and the lesser payouts of all the wining tickets however practically speaking since the powerball has a liability payout limit which means they dont have to pay out more money than they took in you cant beat the house ( or the government)", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on your financial expertise, provide your response or viewpoint on the given financial question or topic. The response format is open.\nText: Are lottery tickets ever a wise investment provided the jackpot is large enough?", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Lotteries are like the inverse of insurance policies. Instead of paying money to mitigate the impact of an unlikely event which is extremely negative, you are paying money to obtain a chance of experiencing an unlikely event which is extremely positive. One thing to keep in mind regarding lotteries is the diminishing marginal utility of money. If you know you'll never use more than say $100 million in your entire life, no matter how much money you might acquire, then buying tickets for lotteries where the grand prize is over $100 million stops being increasingly \"worth the price of entry\". Personally, I'd rather play a lottery where the grand prize is sub-100 million, and where there are no prizes which are sub-1 million, because I do not believe that any other amounts of winnings are going to be life-changing for me in a way that I am likely to fully appreciate.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Share your insights or perspective on the financial matter presented in the input.\nText: Are lottery tickets ever a wise investment provided the jackpot is large enough?", "role": "user" }, { "content": "According to a financial adviser I spoke to, lottery is the riskiest of investments, whereas cash is the safest. Everything else falls between these 2 extremes.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Offer your thoughts or opinion on the input financial query or topic using your financial background.\nText: Can a self-employed person have a Health Savings Account?", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Whether you can establish an HSA has nothing to do with your employment status or your retirement plan. It has to do with the type of medical insurance you have. The insurance company should be able to tell you if your plan is \"HSA compatible\". To be HSA compatible, a plan must have a \"high deductible\" -- in 2014, $1250 for an individual plan or $2500 for a family plan. It must not cover any expenses before the deductible, that is, you cannot have any \"first dollar\" coverage for doctor's visits, prescription drug coverage, etc. (There are some exceptions for services considered \"preventive care\".) There are also limits on the out-of-pocket max. I think that's it, but the insurance company should know if their plans qualify or not. If you have a plan that is HSA compatible, but also have another plan that is not HSA compatible, then you don't qualify. And all that said ... If you are covered under your husband's medical insurance, and your husband already has an HSA, why do you want to open a second one? There's no gain. There is a family limit on contributions to an HSA -- $6,550 in 2014. You don't get double the limit by each opening your own HSA. If you have two HSA's, the combined total of your contributions to both accounts must be within the limit. If you have some administrative reason for wanting to keep separate accounts, yes, you can open your own, and in that case, you and your husband are each allowed to contribute half the limit, or you can agree to some other division. I suppose you might want to have an account in your own name so that you control it, especially if you and your husband have different ideas about managing finances. (Though how to resolve such problems would be an entirely different question. Personally, I don't think the solution is to get into power struggles over who controls what, but whatever.) Maybe there's some advantage to having assets in your own name if you and your husband were to divorce. (Probably not, though. I think a divorce court pretty much ignores whose name assets are in when dividing up property.) See IRS publication 969, http://www.irs.gov/publications/p969/index.html for lots and lots of details.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Utilize your financial knowledge, give your answer or opinion to the input question or subject . Answer format is not limited.\nText: Can a self-employed person have a Health Savings Account?", "role": "user" }, { "content": "IRS Publication 969 gives all the details about HSA accounts and High Deductible plans: According to your question you are covered by a plan that can have an HSA. There a few points of interest for you: Contributions to an HSA Any eligible individual can contribute to an HSA. For an employee's HSA, the employee, the employee's employer, or both may contribute to the employee's HSA in the same year. For an HSA established by a self-employed (or unemployed) individual, the individual can contribute. Family members or any other person may also make contributions on behalf of an eligible individual. Contributions to an HSA must be made in cash. Contributions of stock or property are not allowed. That means that yes you could make a contribution to the HSA. Or if in the future you were the provider of the insurance you could have a HSA. Limit on Contributions For 2015, if you have self-only HDHP coverage, you can contribute up to $3,350. If you have family HDHP coverage you can contribute up to $6,650. It sounds like you have a family plan. Additional contribution. If you are an eligible individual who is age 55 or older at the end of your tax year, your contribution limit is increased by $1,000. Rules for married people. If either spouse has family HDHP coverage, both spouses are treated as having family HDHP coverage. If each spouse has family coverage under a separate plan, the contribution limit for 2014 is $6,550. You must reduce the limit on contributions, before taking into account any additional contributions, by the amount contributed to both spouses' Archer MSAs. After that reduction, the contribution limit is split equally between the spouses unless you agree on a different division. The rules for married people apply only if both spouses are eligible individuals. If both spouses are 55 or older and not enrolled in Medicare, each spouse's contribution limit is increased by the additional contribution. If both spouses meet the age requirement, the total contributions under family coverage cannot be more than $8,550. Each spouse must make the additional contribution to his or her own HSA. Note: most of the document was written with 2014 numbers, but sometimes they mention 2015 numbers. If both are covered under a single plan it should be funded by the person that has the plan. They may get money from their employer. They may be able to have the employer cover the monthly fee that most HSA administrators charge. The non employee can make contributions to the account but care must be taken to make ure the annual limits aren't exceeded. HSA contributions from the employees paycheck may reduce the social security tax paid by the employee. If the non-employee is self employed you will have to see how the contribution impacts the social security situation for the couple. If the non-employee is 55 or older it can make sense to throw in that extra $1000. The employer may not allow it to come from the paycheck contributions because they wouldn't necessarily know the age of the spouse, they may put a maximum limit based on the age of the employee.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Offer your insights or judgment on the input financial query or topic using your financial expertise. Reply as normal question answering\nText: Not paying cash for a house", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The common opinion is an oversimplification at best. The problem with buying a house using cash is that it may leave you cash-poor, forcing you to take out a home equity loan at some point... which may be at a higher rate than the mortgage would have been. On the other hand, knowing that you have no obligation to a lender is quite nice, and many folks prefer eliminating that source of stress. IF you can get a mortgage at a sufficiently low rate, using it to leverage an investment is not a bad strategy. Average historical return on the stock market is around 8%, so any mortgage rate lower than that is a relatively good bet and a rate MUCH lower (as now) is that much better a bet. There is, of course, some risk involved and the obligation to make mortgage payments, and your actual return is reduced by what you're paying on the mortage... but it's still a pretty good deal. As far as investment vehicles: The same answers apply as always. You want a rate of return higher than what you're paying on the mortgage, preferably market rate of return or better. CDs won't do it, as you've found. You're going to have to increase the risk to increase the return. That does mean picking and maintaining a diversified balance of investments and investment types. Working with index funds makes diversifying within a type easy, but you're probably going to want both stocks and bonds, rebalancing between them when they drift too far from your desired mix. My own investments are a specific mix with one each of bond fund, large cap fund, small cap fund, REIT, and international fund. Bonds are the biggest part of that, since they're lowest risk, but the others play a greater part in producing returns on the investments. The exact mix that would be optimal for you depends on your risk tolerance (I'm classified as a moderately aggressive investor), the time horizon you're looking at before you may be forced to pull money back out of the investments, and some matters of personal taste. I've been averaging about 10%, but I had the luxury of being able to ride out the depression and indeed invest during it. Against that, my mortgage is under 4% interest rate, and is for less than 80% of the purchase price so I didn't need to pay the surcharge for mortgage insurance. In fact, I borrowed only half the cost of the house and paid the rest in cash, specifically because leveraging does involve some risk and this was the level of risk I was comfortable with. I also set the duration of the loan so it will be paid off at about the same time I expect to retire. Again, that's very much a personal judgement. If you need specific advice, it's worth finding a financial counselor and having them help you run the numbers. Do NOT go with someone associated with an investment house; they're going to be biased toward whatever produces the most income for them. Select someone who is strictly an advisor; they may cost you a bit more but they're more likely to give you useful advice. Don't take my word for any of this. I know enough to know how little I know. But hopefully I've given you some insight into what the issues are and what questions you need to ask, and answer, before making your decisions.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on your financial expertise, provide your response or viewpoint on the given financial question or topic. The response format is open.\nText: Not paying cash for a house", "role": "user" }, { "content": "You could use the money to buy a couple of other (smaller) properties. Part of the rent of these properties would be used to cover the mortgage and the rest is income.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Share your insights or perspective on the financial matter presented in the input.\nText: Not paying cash for a house", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Pay cash for the house but negotiate at least a 4% discount. You already made your money without having to deal with long term unknowns. I don't get why people would want invest with risk when the alternative are immediate realized gains.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Offer your thoughts or opinion on the input financial query or topic using your financial background.\nText: Should we buy a house, or wait?", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Some highly pessimistic things worth noting to go alongside all the stability and tax break upside that homes generally provide: Negative equity is no joke and basically the only thing that bankrupts the middle classes consistently en masse. The UK is at the end of a huge housing bull run where rents are extremely cheap relative to buying (often in the 1% range within the M25), Brexit is looming and interest rates could well sky rocket with inflation. Borrowing ~500k to buy a highly illiquid asset you might have to fire sale in case of emergency/job loss etc for 300k in a few years when lots of (relatively) cheap rental housing is available to rent risk free, could be argued to be a highly lopsided and dangerous bet vs the alternatives. Locking in 'preferential' mortgage rates can be a huge trap: low interest rates generally increase asset values. If/when they rise, assets fall in value as the demand shrinks, making you highly exposed to huge losses if you need to sell before it is paid off. In the case of housing this can be exceptionally vicious as the liquidity dramatically dries up during falls, meaning fire sales become much more severe than they are for more liquid assets like stock. Weirdly and unlike most products, people tend to buy the very best house they can get leverage for, rather than work out what they need/want and finding the best value equivalent. If a bank will lend you £20 a day to buy lunch, and you can just afford to pay it, do you hunt out the very best £20 lunch you can every day, or do you make some solid compromises so you can save money for other things etc? You seem to be hunting very close to the absolute peak amount you can spend on these numbers. Related to above, at that level of mortgage/salary you have very little margin for error if either of you lose jobs etc. Houses are much more expensive to maintain/trade than most people think. You spend ~2-5% every time you buy and sell, and you can easily spend 2-20k+ a year depending what happens just keeping the thing watertight, paid for, liveable and staying up. You need to factor this in and be pessimistic when you do. Most people don't factor in these costs to the apparent 'index' rise in house values and what they expect to sell for in x years. In reality no buy and hold investor can ever realise even close to the quoted house price returns as they are basically stocks you have to pay 5% each time you buy or sell and then 1-20% percent a year to own - they have to rise dramatically over time for you to even break even after all the costs. In general you should buy homes to make memories, not money, and to buy them at prices that don't cause you sleepless nights in case of disasters.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Utilize your financial knowledge, give your answer or opinion to the input question or subject . Answer format is not limited.\nText: Should we buy a house, or wait?", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Advantages of buying: With every mortgage payment you build equity, while with rent, once you sign the check the money is gone. Eventually you will own the house and can live there for free. You can redecorate or remodel to your own liking, rather than being stuck with what the landlord decides is attractive, cost-effective, etc. Here in the U.S. there are tax breaks for homeowners. I'm not sure if that's true in U.K. Advantages of renting: If you decide to move, you may be stuck paying out a lease, but the financial penalty is small. With a house, you may find it difficult to sell. You may be stuck accepting a big loss or having to pay a mortgage on the empty house while you are also paying for your new place. When there are maintenance issues, you call the landlord and it's up to him to fix it. You don't have to come up with the money to pay for repairs. You usually have less maintenance work to do: with a house you have to mow the lawn, clear snow from the driveway, etc. With a rental, usually the landlord does that for you. (Not always, depends on type of rental, but.) You can often buy a house for less than it would cost to rent an equivalent property, but this can be misleading. When you buy, you have to pay property taxes and pay for maintenance; when you rent, these things are included in the rent. How expensive a house you can afford to buy is not a question that can be answered objectively. Banks have formulas that limit how much they will loan you, but in my experience that's always been a rather high upper bound, much more than I would actually be comfortable borrowing. The biggest issue really is, How important is it to you to have a nice house? If your life-long dream is to have a big, luxurious, expensive house, then maybe it's worth it to you to pour every spare penny you have into the mortgage. Other people might prefer to spend less on their house so that they have spare cash for a nice car, concert tickets, video games, cocaine, whatever. Bear in mind that if you get a mortgage that you can just barely afford, what do you do if something goes wrong and you can't afford it any more? What if you lose your job and have to take a lower-paying job? What if some disaster strikes and you have some other huge expense? Etc. On the flip side, the burden of a mortgage usually goes down over time. Most people find that their incomes go up over time, between inflation and growing experience. But the amount of a mortgage is fixed, or if it varies it varies with interest rates, probably bouncing up and down rather than going steadily up like inflation. So it's likely -- not at all certain, but likely -- that if you can just barely afford the payment now, that in 5 or 10 years it won't be as big a burden.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Offer your insights or judgment on the input financial query or topic using your financial expertise. Reply as normal question answering\nText: Should we buy a house, or wait?", "role": "user" }, { "content": "You are very young, you make a huge amount of money, and you have (from what information you provide) very little debt. If you simply want to buy a house for whatever reason, sure, but be honest with yourself about why you want to buy it. I see a lot of people who think they're doing it for smart financial reasons, but then when I ask them about their pension savings and credit card debts and so on, there is no evidence that they are actually the kind of person who makes decisions for smart financial reasons. If you want a house because that seems like the thing that people do, maybe you could think more about what you actually want. If your concern is putting your money to work for you (you seem to dislike that you pay rent each month and after that month you don't have anything to show for your money, except of course that you didn't spent the last month living on the streets), you can do a lot better than getting a mortgage. For example, living frugally you should be able to dump 50k a year into investments; if you did that for a few years, you could reasonably expect the return to cover your rent and bills in a surprisingly small number of years (a lot less than a 25 year mortgage). Your question seems to be starting from the position that you should buy a house. You're asking if you should buy it now, or wait. You are rich enough now (and if your earnings keep going up, will be even more rich in a few years) that you should perhaps question your need to buy a house. With your kind of money, at this stage of your life, you can do a lot better.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on your financial expertise, provide your response or viewpoint on the given financial question or topic. The response format is open.\nText: Small investing for spending money?", "role": "user" }, { "content": "First thing to know about investing is that you make money by taking risks. That means the possibility of losing money as well as making it. There are low risk investments that pretty much always pay out but they don't earn much. Making $200 a month on $10,000 is about 26% per year. That's vastly more than you are going to earn on low risk assets. If you want that kind of return, you can invest in a diversified portfolio of equities through an equity index fund. Some years you may make 26% or more. Other years you may make nothing or lose that much or more. On average you may earn maybe 7%-10% hopefully. Overall, investing is a game of making money over long horizons. It's very useful for putting away your $10k now and having hopefully more than that when it comes time to buy a house or retire or something some years into the future. You have to accept that you might also end up with less than $10K in the end, but you are more likely to make money than to use it. What you describe doesn't seem like a possible situation. In developed markets, you can't reliably expect anything close to the return you desire from assets that are unlikely to lose you money. It might be time to re-evaluate your financial goals. Do you want spending money now, or do you want to invest for use down the road?", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Share your insights or perspective on the financial matter presented in the input.\nText: Small investing for spending money?", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Congrats on saving the money but unfortunately, you're looking for a 24% annual rate of return and that's not \"reasonable\" to expect. $200 per month, is $2,400 per year. $2,400/$10,000 is 24%. In a 1% savings account with spending of $200 per month spending you'll have about $7,882 at the end of the year. You'll earn about $90 of interest over the course of the year. I'm sure other people will have more specific opinions about the best way to deploy that money. I'd open a brokerage account (not an IRA, just a regular plain vanilla brokerage account), break off $5,000 and put it in to a low fee no commission S&P index fund; which CAN lose value. Put the rest in a savings account/checking account and just spend wisely.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Offer your thoughts or opinion on the input financial query or topic using your financial background.\nText: Small investing for spending money?", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The existing answers are good, I justed wanted to provide a simpler answer to your question: Would I be able to invest this in a reasonable way that it would provide me with say $200 spending money per month over the school year? No. There is no way to invest $10,000 to reliably get $200 every month. Any way that you invest it that has even the possibility of getting that much will have a significant possibility of losing a lot of money. If you want to get \"free\" spending money out without risk of losing money, you're unlikely to be able to find an investment that will give you more than a couple dollars per month.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Utilize your financial knowledge, give your answer or opinion to the input question or subject . Answer format is not limited.\nText: Small investing for spending money?", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Just to offer another alternative, consider Certificates of Deposit (CDs) at an FDIC insured bank or credit union for small or short-term investments. If you don't need access to the money, as stated, and are not willing to take much risk, you could put money into a number of CDs instead of investing it in stocks, or just letting it sit in a regular savings/checking account. You are essentially lending money to the bank for a guaranteed length of time (anywhere from 3 to 60 months), and therefore they can give you a better rate of return than a savings account (which is basically lending it to them with the condition that you could ask for it all back at any time). Your rate of return in CDs is lower a typical stock investment, but carries no risk at all. CD rates typically increase with the length of the CD. For example, my credit union currently offers a 2.3% APY on a 5-year CD, but only 0.75% for 12 month CDs, and a mere 0.1% APY on regular savings/checking accounts. Putting your full $10K deposit into one or more CDs would yield $230 a year instead of a mere $10 in their savings account. If you go this route with some or all of your principal, note that withdrawing the money from a CD before the end of the deposit term will mean forfeiting the interest earned. Some banks may let you withdraw just a portion of a CD, but typically not. Work around this by splitting your funds into multiple CDs, and possibly different term lengths as well, to give you more flexibility in accessing the funds. Personally, I have a rolling emergency fund (~6 months living expenses, separate from all investments and day-to-day income/expenses) split evenly among 5 CDs, each with a 5-year deposit term (for the highest rate) with evenly staggered maturity dates. In any given year, I could close one of these CDs to cover an emergency and lose only a few months of interest on just 20% of my emergency fund, instead of several years interest on all of it. If I needed more funds, I could withdraw more of the CDs as needed, in order of youngest deposit age to minimize the interest loss - although that loss would probably be the least of my worries by then, if I'm dipping deeply into these funds I'll be needing them pretty badly. Initially I created the CDs with a very small amount and differing term lengths (1 year increments from 1-5 years) and then as each matured, I rolled it back into a 5 year CD. Now every year when one matures, I add a little more principal (to account for increased living expenses), and roll everything back in for another 5 years. Minimal thought and effort, no risk, much higher return than savings, fairly liquid (accessible) in an emergency, and great peace of mind. Plus it ensures I don't blow the money on something else, and that I have something to fall back on if all my other investments completely tanked, or I had massive medical bills, or lost my job, etc.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Offer your insights or judgment on the input financial query or topic using your financial expertise. Reply as normal question answering\nText: Pay off credit card debt or earn employer 401(k) match?", "role": "user" }, { "content": "A matching pension scheme is like free money. No wait, it actually IS free money. You are literally earning 100% interest rate on that money the instant you pay it in to the account. That money would have to sit in your credit card account for at least five years to earn that kind of return; five years in which the pension money would have earned an additional return over and above the 100%. Mathematically there is no contest that contributing to a matching pension scheme is one of the best investment there is. You should always do it. Well, almost always. When should you not do it?", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on your financial expertise, provide your response or viewpoint on the given financial question or topic. The response format is open.\nText: Pay off credit card debt or earn employer 401(k) match?", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Nope, take the match. I cannot see not taking the match unless you don't have enough money to cover the bills. Every situation is different of course, and if the option is to missing minimum payments or other bills in order to get the match, make your payments. But in all other circumstances, take the match. My reasoning is, it is hard enough to earn money so take every chance you can. If you save for retirement in the process, all the better.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Share your insights or perspective on the financial matter presented in the input.\nText: Pay off credit card debt or earn employer 401(k) match?", "role": "user" }, { "content": "For easy math, say you are in the 25% tax bracket. A thousand deposited dollars is $750 out of your pocket, but $2000 after the match. Now, you say you want to take the $750 and pay down the card. If you wait a year (at 20%) you'll owe $900, but have access to borrow a full $1000, at a low rate, 4% or so. The payment is less than $19/mo for 5 years. So long as one is comfortable juggling their debt a bit, the impact of a fully matched 401(k) cannot be beat. Keep in mind, this is a different story than those who just say \"don't take a 401(k) loan.\" Here, it's the loan that offers you the chance to fund the account. If you are let go, and withdraw the money, even at the 25% rate, you net $1500 less the $200 penalty, or $1300 compared to the $750 you are out of pocket. If you don't want to take the loan, you're still ahead so long as you are able to pay the cards over a reasonable time. I'll admit, a 20% card paid over 10+ years can still trash a 100% return. This is why I add the 401(k) loan to the mix. The question for you - jldugger - is how tight is the budget? And how much is the match? Is it dollar for dollar on first X%?", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Offer your thoughts or opinion on the input financial query or topic using your financial background.\nText: Pay off credit card debt or earn employer 401(k) match?", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Agree with Randy, if debt and debt reduction was all about math, nobody would be in debt. It is an emotional game. If you've taken care of the reasons you're in debt, changed your behaviors, then start focusing on the math of getting it done faster. Otherwise, if you don't have a handle on the behaviors that got you there, you're just going to get more rope to hang yourself with. I.e., makes sense to take a low-interest home equity loan to pay off high-interest credit card debt, but more likely than not, you'll just re-rack up the debt on the cards because you never fixed the behavior that put you into debt. Same thing here, if you opt not to contribute to \"pay off the cards\" without fixing the debt-accumulating behaviors, what you're going to do is stay in debt AND not provide for retirement. Take the match until you're certain you have your debt accumulation habits in check.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Utilize your financial knowledge, give your answer or opinion to the input question or subject . Answer format is not limited.\nText: Pay off credit card debt or earn employer 401(k) match?", "role": "user" }, { "content": "I'd take the match, but I wouldn't contribute beyond your match, for two reasons:", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Offer your insights or judgment on the input financial query or topic using your financial expertise. Reply as normal question answering\nText: Pay off credit card debt or earn employer 401(k) match?", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Mathwise, I absolutely agree with the other answers. No contest, you should keep getting the match. But, just for completeness, I'll give a contrarian opinion that is generally not very popular, but does have some merit. If you can focus on just one main financial goal at a time, and throw every extra dollar you have at that one focus (i.e., getting out of debt, in your case), you will make better progress than if you're trying to do too many things at once. Also, there something incredibly freeing about being out of debt that has other beneficial impacts on your life. So, if you can bring a lot of focus to the credit card debt and get it paid off quickly, it may be worth deferring the 401(k) investing long enough to do that, even though it doesn't make as much mathematical sense. (This is essentially what Dave Ramsey teaches, BTW.)", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on your financial expertise, provide your response or viewpoint on the given financial question or topic. The response format is open.\nText: Pay off credit card debt or earn employer 401(k) match?", "role": "user" }, { "content": "I would definitely be putting in enough to get the most out of the match. Only reasons I can think of not too would be: Other than that, not investing in the 401(k) is turning down free money. Edit based on feedback in comments. The only time I would advocate number 1 is if you are intensely committed to getting out of debt, were on a very tight budget and had eliminated all non-essential spending. In that situation only, I think the mental benefit of having that last debt paid off would be worth more than a few dollars in interest.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Share your insights or perspective on the financial matter presented in the input.\nText: Pay off credit card debt or earn employer 401(k) match?", "role": "user" }, { "content": "There is a very simple calculation that will answer the question: Is the expected ROI of the 401K including the match greater than the interest rate of your credit card? Some assumptions that don't affect the calculation, but do help illustrate the points. You have 30 years until you can pull out the 401K. Your credit card interest rate is 20% compounded annually. The minimum payoffs are being disregarded, because that would legally just force a certain percentage to credit card. You only have $1000. You can either pay off your credit card or invest, but not both. For most people, this isn't the case. Ideally, you would simply forego $1000 worth of spending, AND DO BOTH Worked Example: Pay $1000 in Credit Card Debt, at 20% interest. After 1 year, if you pay off that debt, you no longer owe $1200. ROI = 20% (Duh!) After 30 years, you no longer owe (and this is pretty amazing) $237,376.31. ROI = 23,638% In all cases, the ROI is GUARANTEED. Invest $1000 in matching 401k, with expected ROI of 5%. 2a. For illustration purposes, let's assume no match After 1 year, you have $1050 ($1000 principal, $0 match, 5% interest) - but you can't take it out. ROI = 5% After 30 years, you have $4321.94, ROI of 332% - assuming away all risk. 2b. Then, we'll assume a 50% match. After 1 year, you have $1575 ($1000 principle, $500 match, 5% interest) - but you can't take it out. ROI = 57% - but you are stuck for a bit After 30 years, you have $6482.91, ROI of 548% - assuming away all risk. 2c. Finally, a full match After 1 year, you have $2100 ($1000 principle, $1000 match, 5% interest) - but you can't take it out. ROI = 110% - but again, you are stuck. After 30 years, you have $8643.89, ROI of 764% - assuming away all risk. Here's the summary - The interest rate is really all that matters. Paying off a credit card is a guaranteed investment. The only reason not to pay off a 20% credit card interest rate is if, after taxes, time, etc..., you could earn more than 20% somewhere else. Note that at 1 year, the matching funds of a 401k, in all cases where the match exceeded 20%, beat the credit card. If you could take that money before you could have paid off the credit card, it would have been a good deal. The problem with the 401k is that you can't realize that gain until you retire. Credit Card debt, on the other hand, keeps growing until you pay it off. As such, paying off your credit card debt - assuming its interest rate is greater than the stock market (which trust me, it almost always is) - is the better deal. Indeed, with the exception of tax advantaged mortgages, there is almost no debt that has an interest rate than is \"better\" than the market.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Offer your thoughts or opinion on the input financial query or topic using your financial background.\nText: Where can I find a company's earnings history for free? ", "role": "user" }, { "content": "www.earnings.com is helpful thinkorswim's thinkDesktop platform has a lot of earnings information tied with flags on their charts they are free.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Utilize your financial knowledge, give your answer or opinion to the input question or subject . Answer format is not limited.\nText: Where can I find a company's earnings history for free? ", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Regulators? SEC, in the US. Its public records for public companies.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Offer your insights or judgment on the input financial query or topic using your financial expertise. Reply as normal question answering\nText: Where can I find a company's earnings history for free? ", "role": "user" }, { "content": "I was going to comment above, but I must have 50 reputation to comment. This is a question that vexes me, and I've given it some thought in the past. Morningstar is a good choice for simple, well-organized financial histories. It has more info available for free than some may realize. Enter the ticker symbol, and then click either the Financials or the Key Ratios tab, and you will get 5-10 years of some key financial stats. (A premium subscription is $185 per year, which is not too outrageous.) The American Association of Individual Investors (AAII) provides some good histories, and a screener, for a $29 annual fee. Zacks allows you to chart a metric like EPS going back a long ways, and so you can then click the chart in order to get the specific number. That is certainly easier than sorting through financial reports from the SEC. (A message just popped up to say that I'm not allowed to provide more than 2 links, so my contribution to this topic will end here. You can do a search to find the Zacks website. I love StackExchange and usually consult it for coding advice. It just happens to be an odd coincidence that this is my first answer. I might even have added that aside in a comment, but again, I can't comment as of yet.) It's problem, however, that the universe of free financial information is a graveyard of good resources that no longer exist. It seems that eventually everyone who provides this information wants to cash in on it. littleadv, above, says that someone should be paid to organize all this information. However, think that some basic financial information, organized like normal data (and, hey, this is not rocket science, but Excel 101) should be readily available for free. Maybe this is a project that needs to happen. With a mission statement of not selling people out later on. The closest thing out there may be Quandl (can't link; do a search), which provides a lot of charts for free, and provides a beautiful and flexible API. But its core US fundamental data, provided by Sharadar, costs $150 per quarter. So, not even a basic EPS chart is available there for free. With all of the power that corporations have over our society, I think they could be tabulating this information for us, rather than providing it to us in a data-dumb format that is the equivalent of printing a SQL database as a PDF! A company that is worth hundreds of billions on the stock market, and it can't be bothered to provide us with a basic Excel chart that summarizes its own historical earnings? Or, with all that the government does to try to help us understand all of these investments, they cannot simply tabulate some basic financial information for us? This stuff matters a great deal to our lives, and I think that much of it could and should be available, for free, to all of us, rather than mainly to financial professionals and those creating glossy annual reports. So, I disagree that yet another entity needs to be making money off providing the BASIC transparency about something as simple as historical earnings. Thank you for indulging that tangent. I know that SE prides itself on focused answers. A wonderful resource that I greatly appreciate.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on your financial expertise, provide your response or viewpoint on the given financial question or topic. The response format is open.\nText: Remit money to India from balance transfer of credit card", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Is this transaction legal Yes it is. Are there any tax implications in US? The interest is taxable in US. From what I understand, there are no tax implications in India. Yes this is right. The question you haven't asked is does this makes sense? So you are paying 3% upfront. Getting 8% at end of one year. You can making monthly repayments through the year. You have not factored in the Fx Rate and their fluctuations. For Example you would convert USD to INR and back to USD. Even if you do this the same day, you loose around 2% that is referred to as Fx Spread. Plus the rates for USD and INR get adjusted for inflation. This means that INR will loose value in a year. In long term it would be balance out [i.e. the gain in interest rate is offset by loss in Fx rate]. At times its ahead or behind due to local conditions.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Share your insights or perspective on the financial matter presented in the input.\nText: Remit money to India from balance transfer of credit card", "role": "user" }, { "content": "As Dheer has already told you in his answer, your plan is perfectly legal, and there are no US tax issues other than making sure that you report all the interest that you earn in all your NRE accounts (not just this one) as well as all your NRO accounts, stock and mutual fund dividends and capital gains, rental income, etc to the IRS and pay appropriate taxes. (You do get a credit from the IRS for taxes paid to India on NRO account income etc) You also may also need to report the existence of accounts if the balance exceeds $10K at any time etc. But, in addition to the foreign exchange conversion risk that Dheer has pointed out to you, have you given any thought to what is going to happen with that credit card? That 0% interest balance of $5K does not mean an interest-free loan 0f $5K for a year (with $150 service charge on that transaction). Instead, consider the following. If you use the card for any purchases, then after the first month, your purchases will be charged interest from the day that you make them till the day they are paid off: there is no 25-day grace period. The only way to avoid this is to pay off the full balance ($5K 0% interest loan PLUS $150 service charge as well as any other service charges, annual fees etc PLUS all purchases PLUS any interest) shown on the first monthly statement that you receive after taking that loan. If you choose this option, then, in effect, have taken a $5K loan for only about 55 days and have paid 3% interest (sorry, I meant to write) service fee for the privilege. If you don't use the card for any purchases at all, then the first monthly statement will show a statement balance of $5130 and (most likely) a minimum required payment of $200. By law, the minimum required payment is all interest charged for that month($0) PLUS all service fees charged during that month ($150) PLUS 1% of the rest ($50). Well, actually the law says something like \"a sufficient fraction of the balance to ensure that a person making the required minimum payment each month can pay off the debt in a reasonable time\" and most credit card companies choose 1% as the sufficient fraction and 108 months as a reasonable time. OK, so you pay the $200 and feel that you have paid off the service fee and $50 of that 0% interest loan. Not so! If you make the required minimum payment, the law allows that amount to be be applied to any part of the balance owing. It is only the excess over the minimum payment that the law says must be applied to the balance being charged the highest rate. So, you have paid off $200 of that $5K loan and still owe the service fee. The following month's statement will include interest on that unpaid $150. In short, to leave only the 0% balance owing, you have to pay $350 that first month so that next month's statement balance will be $4800 at 0%. The next month's required minimum payment will be $48, and so on. In short, you really need to keep on top of things and understand how credit-card payments really work in order to pull off your scheme successfully. Note also that the remaining part of that 0% interest balance must be paid off by the end of the period or else a humongous rate of interest will be applied retroactively from Day One, more than enough to blow away all that FD interest. So make sure that you have the cash handy to pay it off in timely fashion when it comes due.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Offer your thoughts or opinion on the input financial query or topic using your financial background.\nText: Do I need to own all the funds my target-date funds owns to mimic it?", "role": "user" }, { "content": "If you read Joel Greenblatt's The Little Book That Beats the Market, he says: Owning two stocks eliminates 46% of the non market risk of owning just one stock. This risk is reduced by 72% with 4 stocks, by 81% with 8 stocks, by 93% with 16 stocks, by 96% with 32 stocks, and by 99% with 500 stocks. Conclusion: After purchasing 6-8 stocks, benefits of adding stocks to decrease risk are small. Overall market risk won't be eliminated merely by adding more stocks. And that's just specific stocks. So you're very right that allocating a 1% share to a specific type of fund is not going to offset your other funds by much. You are correct that you can emulate the lifecycle fund by simply buying all the underlying funds, but there are two caveats: Generally, these funds are supposed to be cheaper than buying the separate funds individually. Check over your math and make sure everything is in order. Call the fund manager and tell him about your findings and see what they have to say. If you are going to emulate the lifecycle fund, be sure to stay on top of rebalancing. One advantage of buying the actual fund is that the portfolio distributions are managed for you, so if you're going to buy separate ETFs, make sure you're rebalancing. As for whether you need all those funds, my answer is a definite no. Consider Mark Cuban's blog post Wall Street's new lie to Main Street - Asset Allocation. Although there are some highly questionable points in the article, one portion is indisputably clear: Let me translate this all for you. “I want you to invest 5pct in cash and the rest in 10 different funds about which you know absolutely nothing. I want you to make this investment knowing that even if there were 128 hours in a day and you had a year long vacation, you could not possibly begin to understand all of these products. In fact, I don’t understand them either, but because I know it sounds good and everyone is making the same kind of recommendations, we all can pretend we are smart and going to make a lot of money. Until we don’t\" Standard theory says that you want to invest in low-cost funds (like those provided by Vanguard), and you want to have enough variety to protect against risk. Although I can't give a specific allocation recommendation because I don't know your personal circumstances, you should ideally have some in US Equities, US Fixed Income, International Equities, Commodities, of varying sizes to have adequate diversification \"as defined by theory.\" You can either do your own research to establish a distribution, or speak to an investment advisor to get help on what your target allocation should be.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Utilize your financial knowledge, give your answer or opinion to the input question or subject . Answer format is not limited.\nText: Do I need to own all the funds my target-date funds owns to mimic it?", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The goal of the single-fund with a retirement date is that they do the rebalancing for you. They have some set of magic ratios (specific to each fund) that go something like this: Note: I completely made up those numbers and asset mix. When you invest in the \"Mutual-Fund Super Account 2025 fund\" you get the benefit that in 2015 (10 years until retirement) they automatically change your asset mix and when you hit 2025, they do it again. You can replace the functionality by being on top of your rebalancing. That being said, I don't think you need to exactly match the fund choices they provide, just research asset allocation strategies and remember to adjust them as you get closer to retirement.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Offer your insights or judgment on the input financial query or topic using your financial expertise. Reply as normal question answering\nText: Do I need to own all the funds my target-date funds owns to mimic it?", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Over time, fees are a killer. The $65k is a lot of money, of course, but I'd like to know the fees involved. Are you doubling from 1 to 2%? if so, I'd rethink this. Diversification adds value, I agree, but 2%/yr? A very low cost S&P fund will be about .10%, others may go a bit higher. There's little magic in creating the target allocation, no two companies are going to be exactly the same, just in the general ballpark. I'd encourage you to get an idea of what makes sense, and go DIY. I agree 2% slices of some sectors don't add much, don't get carried away with this.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on your financial expertise, provide your response or viewpoint on the given financial question or topic. The response format is open.\nText: Extended family investment or pay debt and save", "role": "user" }, { "content": "I would suggest, both as an investor and as someone who has some experience with a family-run trust (not my own), that this is probably not something you should get involved with, unless the money is money you're not worried about - money that otherwise would turn into trips to the movies or something like that. If you're willing to treat it as such, then I'd say go for it. First off, this is not a short or medium term investment. This sort of thing will not be profitable right away, and it will take quite a few years to become profitable to the point that you could take money out of it - if ever. Your money will be effectively, if not actually, locked up for years, and be nearly entirely illiquid. Second, it's not necessarily a good investment even considering that. Real estate is something people tend to feel like it should be an amazing investment that just makes you money, and is better than risky things like the stock market; except it's really not. It's quite risky, vulnerable to things like the 2008 crash, but also to things like a local market being a bit down, or having several months with no renter. The amount your fund will have in it (at most $100x15/month) won't be enough to buy even one property for years ($1500/month means you're looking at what, 100-150 months before you have enough?), and as such won't have enough to buy multiple properties for even longer, which is where you reach some stability. Having a washing machine break down or a roof leak is a big deal when you only have one property to manage; having five or six properties spreads out the risk significantly. You won't get tax breaks from this, of course, and that's where the real issue is for you. You would be far better off putting your money in a Roth IRA (or a regular IRA, but based on your career choice and current income, I'd strongly consider a Roth). You'll get tax free growth, less risky than this fund AND probably faster growing - but regardless of both of those, tax free. That 15-25% that Uncle Sam is giving you back is a huge, huge deal, greater than any return a fund is going to give you (and if they promise that high, run far and fast). Finally, as someone who's watched a family trust work at managing itself - it's a huge, huge headache, and not something I'd recommend at least (unless it comes with money, in which case it's of course a different story). You won't agree on investments, inevitably, and you'll end up spending huge amounts of time trying to convince each other to go with your idea - and it will likely end up being fairly stagnant and conservative, because that's what everyone will be able to at least not object to. It might be something you all enjoy doing, in which case good luck - but definitely not my cup of tea.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Share your insights or perspective on the financial matter presented in the input.\nText: Extended family investment or pay debt and save", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Here's a little different perspective. I'm not going to talk about the quality of the investment, the expected return, or any of the other things you normally talk about when evaluating investments. This is about family, and the most important thing here is the relationships. What you need to do here is look at the different possible scenarios and figure out how each of these would make you feel. Only you can evaluate this. For example, here are some questions to ask yourself: I know how I would answer these questions, but that wouldn't help you any. But the advice I would give you is, assuming you have this money to lose, and are also investing elsewhere, evaluate this solely on the basis of the effect on your family relationships. The only other piece of advice I would give you is to knock out that student loan and car loan debt as fast as you possibly can. Minimize your investments until that debt is gone, so you can get rid of it even faster.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Offer your thoughts or opinion on the input financial query or topic using your financial background.\nText: Extended family investment or pay debt and save", "role": "user" }, { "content": "It's a matter of opinion. As a general rule, my advice is to take charge of your own investments. Sending money to someone else to have them invest it, though it is a common practice, seems unwise to me. This particular fund seems especially risky to me, because there is no known portfolio. Normally, real estate investment trusts (REITs) have a specific portfolio of known properties, or at least a property strategy that you know going in. Simply handing money over to someone else with no known properties, or specific strategy is buying a pig in a poke.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Utilize your financial knowledge, give your answer or opinion to the input question or subject . Answer format is not limited.\nText: Couch Potato Portfolio for Europeans?", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The question is asking for a European equivalent of the so-called \"Couch Potato\" portfolio. \"Couch Potato\" portfolio is defined by the two URLs provided in question as, Criteria for fund composition Fixed-income: Regardless of country or supra-national market, the fixed-income fund should have holdings throughout the entire length of the yield curve (most available maturities), as well as being a mix of government, municipal (general obligation), corporate and high-yield bonds. Equity: The common equity position should be in one equity market index fund. It shouldn't be a DAX-30 or CAC-40 or DJIA type fund. Instead, you want a combination of growth and value companies. The fund should have as many holdings as possible, while avoiding too much expense due to transaction costs. You can determine how much is too much by comparing candidate funds with those that are only investing in highly liquid, large company stocks. Why it is easier for U.S. and Canadian couch potatoes It will be easier to find two good funds, at lower cost, if one is investing in a country with sizable markets and its own currency. That's why the Couch Potato strategy lends itself most naturally to the U.S.A, Canada, Japan and probably Australia, Brazil, South Korea and possibly Mexico too. In Europe, pre-EU, any of Germany, France, Spain, Italy or the Scandinavian countries would probably have worked well. The only concern would be (possibly) higher equity transactions costs and certainly larger fixed-income buy-sell spreads, due to smaller and less liquid markets other than Germany. These costs would be experienced by the portfolio manager, and passed on to you, as the investor. For the EU couch potato Remember the criteria, especially part 2, and the intent as described by the Couch Potato name, implying extremely passive investing. You want to choose two funds offered by very stable, reputable fund management companies. You will be re-balancing every six months or a year, only. That is four transactions per year, maximum. You don't need a lot of interaction with anyone, but you DO need to have the means to quickly exit both sides of the trade, should you decide, for any reason, that you need the money or that the strategy isn't right for you. I would not choose an ETF from iShares just because it is easy to do online transactions. For many investors, that is important! Here, you don't need that convenience. Instead, you need stability and an index fund with a good reputation. You should try to choose an EU based fund manager, or one in your home country, as you'll be more likely to know who is good and who isn't. Don't use Vanguard's FTSE ETF or the equivalent, as there will probably be currency and foreign tax concerns, and possibly forex risk. The couch potato strategy requires an emphasis on low fees with high quality funds and brokers (if not buying directly from the fund). As for type of fund, it would be best to choose a fund that is invested in mostly or only EU or EEU (European Economic Union) stocks, and the same for bonds. That will help minimize your transaction costs and tax liability, while allowing for the sort of broad diversity that helps buy and hold index fund investors.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Offer your insights or judgment on the input financial query or topic using your financial expertise. Reply as normal question answering\nText: In what order should I save?", "role": "user" }, { "content": "This is a bit of an open-ended answer as certain assumptions must be covered. Hope it helps though. My concern is that you have 1 year of university left - is there a chance that this money will be needed to fund this year of uni? And might it be needed for the period between uni and starting your first job? If the answer is 'yes' to either of these, keep any money you have as liquid as possible - ie. cash in an instant access Cash ISA. If the answer is 'no', let's move on... Are you likely to touch this money in the next 5 years? I'm thinking house & flat deposits - whether you rent or buy, cars, etc, etc. If yes, again keep it liquid in a Cash ISA but this time, perhaps look to get a slightly better interest rate by fixing for a 1 year or 2 year at a time. Something like MoneySavingExpert will show you best buy Cash ISAs. If this money is not going to be touched for more than 5 years, then things like bonds and equities come into play. Ultimately your appetite for risk determines your options. If you are uncomfortable with swings in value, then fixed-income products with fixed-term (ie. buy a bond, hold the bond, when the bond finishes, you get your money back plus the yield [interest]) may suit you better than equity-based investments. Equity-based means alot of things - stocks in just one company, an index tracker of a well-known stock market (eg. FTSE100 tracker), actively managed growth funds, passive ETFs of high-dividend stocks... And each of these has different volatility (price swings) and long-term performance - as well as different charges and risks. The only way to understand this is to learn. So that's my ultimate advice. Learn about bonds. Learn about equities. Learn about gilts, corporate bonds, bond funds, index trackers, ETFs, dividends, active v passive management. In the meantime, keep the money in a Cash ISA - where £1 stays £1 plus interest. Once you want to lock the money away into a long-term investment, then you can look at Stocks ISAs to protect the investment against taxation. You may also put just enough into a pension get the company 'match' for contributions. It's not uncommon to split your long-term saving between the two routes. Then come back and ask where to go next... but chances are you'll know yourself by then - because you self-educated. If you want an alternative to the US-based generic advice, check out my Simple Steps concept here (sspf.co.uk/seven-simple-steps) and my free posts on this framework at sspf.co.uk/blog. I also host a free weekly podcast at sspf.co.uk/podcast (also on iTunes, Miro, Mixcloud, and others...) They were designed to offer exactly that kind of guidance to the UK for free.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on your financial expertise, provide your response or viewpoint on the given financial question or topic. The response format is open.\nText: What bonds do I keep and which do I cash, why is the interest so different", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Bonds released at the same time have different interest rates because they have different levels of risks and liquidity associated. Risk will depend on the company / country / municipality that offers the bond: their financial position, and their resulting ability to make future payments & avoid default. Riskier organizations must offer higher interest rates to ensure that investors remain willing to loan them money. Liquidity depends on the terms of the loan - principal-only bonds give you minimal liquidity, as there are no ongoing interest payments, and nothing received until the bond's maturity date. All bonds provide lower liquidity if they have longer maturity dates. Bonds with lower liquidity must have higher returns to compensate for the fact that you will have to give up your cash for a longer period of time. Bonds released at different times will have different interest rates because of what the general 'market rate' for interest was in those periods. ie: if a bond is released in 2016 with interest rates approaching 0%, even a high risk bond would have a lower interest rate than a bond released in the 1980s, when market rates were approaching 20%. Some bonds offer variable interest tied to some market indicator - those will typically have higher interest at the time of issuance, because the bondholder bears some risk that the prevailing market rate will drop. Note regarding sale of bonds after market rates have changed: The value of your bonds will fluctuate with the market. If a bond was offered with 1% interest, and next year interest rates go up and a new identical bond is offered for 2% interest, when you sell your old bond you will take a loss, because the market won't want to pay full price for it anymore. Whether you should sell lower-interest rate bonds depends on how you feel about the factors above - do you want junk bonds that have stock-like levels of returns but high risks of default, maturing in 30 years? Or do you want AAA+ Bonds that have essentially 0% returns maturing in 30 days? If you are paying interest on debt, it is quite likely that you could achieve a net income benefit by selling the bonds, and paying off debt [assuming your debt has a higher interest rate than your low-rate bonds]. Paying off debt is sometimes referred to as a 'zero risk return', because essentially there is no real risk that your lender would otherwise go bankrupt. That is, you will owe your bank the car loan until you pay it, and paying it is the only thing you can do to reduce it. However, some schools of thought suggest that maintaining savings + liquid investments makes sense even if you have some debt, because cash + liquid investments can cover you in some emergencies that credit cards can't help you with. ie: if you lose your job, perhaps your credit could be pulled and you would have nothing except for your liquid savings to tide you over. How much you should save in this way is a matter of opinion, but often repeated numbers are either 3 months or 6 months worth [which is sometimes taken as x months of expenses, and sometimes as x months of after-tax income]. You should look into this issue further; there are many questions on this site that discuss it, I'm sure.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Share your insights or perspective on the financial matter presented in the input.\nText: Why would I want a diversified portfolio, versus throwing my investments into an index fund?", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Index funds are well-known to give the best long-term investment. Not exactly. Indexes give the best long term performance when compared to actively managing investments directly in the underlying stocks. That is, if you compare an S&P500 index to trying to pick stocks that are part of it, you're more likely to succeed with blindly following the index than trying to actively beat it. That said, no-one promises that investing in S&P500 is better than investing in DJIA, for example. These are two different indexes tracking different stocks and areas. So when advisers say \"diversify\" they don't mean it that you should diversify between different stocks that build up the S&P500 index. They mean that you should diversify your investments in different areas. Some in S&P500, some in DJIA, some in international indexes, some in bond indexes, etc. Still, investing in various indexes will likely yield better results than actively managing the investments trying to beat those indexes, but you should not invest in only one, and that is the meaning of diversification. In the comments you asked \"why diversify at all?\", and that is entirely a different question from your original \"what diversification is?\". You diversify to reduce the risk of loss from one side, and widen the net for gains from another. The thing is that any single investment can eventually fail, regardless of how it performed before. You can see that the S&P500 index lost 50% of its value twice within ten years, whereas before it was doubling itself every several years. Many people who were only invested in that index (or what's underlying to it) lost a lot of money. But consider you've diversified, and in the last 20 years you've invested in a blend of indexes that include the S&P500, but also other investments like S&P BSE SENSEX mentioned by Victor below. You would reduce your risk of loss on the American market by increasing your gains on the Indian market. Add to the mix soaring Chinese Real Estate market during the time of the collapse of the US real-estate, gains on the dollar losing its value by investing in other currencies (Canadian dollar, for example), etc. There are many risks, and by diversifying you mitigate them, and also have a chance to create other potential gains. Now, another question is why invest in indexes. That has been answered before on this site. It is my opinion that some methods of investing are just gambling by trying to catch the wave and they will almost always fail, and rarely will individual stock picking beat the market. Of course, after the fact its easy to be smart and pick the winning stocks. But the problem is to be able to predict those charts ahead of time.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Offer your thoughts or opinion on the input financial query or topic using your financial background.\nText: Why would I want a diversified portfolio, versus throwing my investments into an index fund?", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Diversification is extremely important and the one true \"Free Lunch\" of investing, meaning it can provide both greater returns and less risk than a portfolio that is not diversified. The reason people say otherwise is because they are talking about \"true\" portfolio diversification, which cannot be achieved by simply spreading money across stocks. To truly diversify a portfolio it must be diversified across multiple, unrelated \"Return Drivers.\" I describe this throughout my best-selling book and am pleased to provide complimentary links to the following two chapters, where I discuss the lack of diversification from spreading money solely across stocks (including correlation tables), as well as the benefits of true portfolio diversification: Jackass Investing - Myth #8: Trading is Gambling – Investing is Safer Jackass Investing - Myth #20: There is No Free Lunch", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Utilize your financial knowledge, give your answer or opinion to the input question or subject . Answer format is not limited.\nText: Why would I want a diversified portfolio, versus throwing my investments into an index fund?", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Index funds are well-known to give the best long-term investment. Are they? Maybe not all the time! If you had invested in an index fund tracking the S&P500 at the start of 2000 you would still be behind in terms of capital appreciation when taking inflation into considerations. Your only returns in 13.5 years would have been any dividends you may have received. See the monthly chart of the S&P500 below. Diversification can be good for your overall returns, but diversification simply for diversification sake is as you said, a way of reducing your overall returns in order of smoothing out your equity curve. After looking up indexes for various countries the only one that had made decent returns over a 13.5 year period was the Indian BSE 30 index, almost 400% over 13.5 years, although it also has gone nowhere since the end of 2007 (5.5 years). See monthly chart below. So investing internationally (especially in developing countries when developed nations are stagnating) can improve your returns, but I would learn about the various international markets first before plunging straight in. Regarding investing in an Index fund vs direct investment in a select group of shares, I did a search on the US markets with the following criteria on the 3rd January 2000: If the resulting top 10 from the search were bought on 3rd January 2000 and held up until the close of the market on the 19th June 2013, the results would be as per the table below: The result, almost 250% return in 13.5 years compared to almost no return if you had invested into the whole S&P 500 Index. Note, this table lists only the top ten from the search without screening through the charts, and no risk management was applied (if risk management was applied the 4 losses of 40%+ would have been limited to a maximum of 20%, but possibly much smaller losses or even for gains, as they might have gone into positive territory before coming back down - as I have not looked at any of the charts I cannot confirm this). This is one simple example how selecting good shares can result in much better returns than investing into a whole Index, as you are not pulled down by the bad stocks.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Offer your insights or judgment on the input financial query or topic using your financial expertise. Reply as normal question answering\nText: When the market crashes, should I sell bonds and buy equities for the inevitable recovery? ", "role": "user" }, { "content": "When the market moves significantly, you should rebalance your investments to maintain the diversification ratios you have selected. That means if bonds go up and stocks go down, you sell bonds and buy stocks (to some degree), and vice versa. Sell high to buy low, and remember that over the long run most things regress to the mean.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on your financial expertise, provide your response or viewpoint on the given financial question or topic. The response format is open.\nText: When the market crashes, should I sell bonds and buy equities for the inevitable recovery? ", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The problem with the proposed plan is the word \"inevitable\". There is no such thing as a recovery that is guaranteed (though we may wish it to be so), and even if there was there is no telling how long it will take for a recovery to occur to a sufficient degree. There are also no foolproof ways to determine when you have hit the bottom. For historical examples, consider the Nikkei. In 2000 the value fell from 20000 to 15000 in a single year. Had you bought then, you would have found the market still fell and didn't get back to 15k until 2005...where it went up and down for years, when in 2008 it fell again and would not get back to that level again until 2014. Lest you think this was an isolated international incident, the same issues happened to the S&P in 2002, where things went up until they fell even lower in 2009 before finally climbing again. Will there be another recession at some point? Surely. Will there be a single, double, or triple dip, and at what point is the true bottom - and will it take 5, 10, or 20+ years for things to get back above when you bought? No one really knows, and we can only guess. So if you want to double down after a recession, you can, but it's important you not fool yourself into thinking you aren't greatly increasing your risk exposure, because you are.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Share your insights or perspective on the financial matter presented in the input.\nText: When the market crashes, should I sell bonds and buy equities for the inevitable recovery? ", "role": "user" }, { "content": "In a comment you say, if the market crashes, doesn't \"regress to the mean\" mean that I should still expect 7% over the long run? That being the case, wouldn't I benefit from intentionally unbalancing my portfolio and going all in on equities? I can can still rebalance using new savings. No. Regress to the mean just tells you that the future rate is likely to average 7%. The past rate and the future rate are entirely unconnected. Consider a series: The running average is That running average is (slowly) regressing to the long term mean without ever a member of the series being above 7%. Real markets actually go farther than this though. Real value may be increasing by 7% per year, but prices may move differently. Then market prices may revert to the real value. This happened to the S&P 500 in 2000-2002. Then the market started climbing again in 2003. In your system, you would have bought into the falling markets of 2001 and 2002. And you would have missed the positive bond returns in those years. That's about a -25% annual shift in returns on that portion of your portfolio. Since that's a third of your portfolio, you'd have lost 8% more than with the balanced strategy each of those two years. Note that in that case, the market was in an over-valued bubble. The bubble spent three years popping and overshot the actual value. So 2003 was a good year for stocks. But the three year return was still -11%. In retrospect, investors should have gone all in on bonds before 2000 and switched back to stocks for 2003. But no one knew that in 2000. People in the know actually started backing off in 1998 rather than 2000 and missed out on the tail end of the bubble. The rebalancing strategy automatically helps with your regression to the mean. It sells expensive bonds and buys cheaper stocks on average. Occasionally it sells modest priced bonds and buys over-priced stocks. But rarely enough that it is a better strategy overall. Incidentally, I would consider a 33% share high for bonds. 30% is better. And that shouldn't increase as you age (less than 30% bonds may be practical when you are young enough). Once you get close to retirement (five to ten years), start converting some of your savings to cash equivalents. The cash equivalents are guaranteed not to lose value (but might not gain much). This gives you predictable returns for your immediate expenses. Once retired, try to keep about five years of expenses in cash equivalents. Then you don't have to worry about short term market fluctuations. Spend down your buffer until the market catches back up. It's true that bonds are less volatile than stocks, but they can still have bad years. A 70%/30% mix of stocks/bonds is safer than either alone and gives almost as good of a return as stocks alone. Adding more bonds actually increases your risk unless you carefully balance them with the right stocks. And if you're doing that, you don't need simplistic rules like a 70%/30% balance.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Offer your thoughts or opinion on the input financial query or topic using your financial background.\nText: Is there anything I can do to prepare myself for the tax consequences of selling investments to buy a house?", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Don't let tax considerations be the main driver. That's generally a bad idea. You should keep tax in mind when making the decision, but don't let it be the main reason for an action. selling the higher priced shares (possibly at a loss even) - I think it's ok to do that, and it doesn't necessarily have to be FIFO? It is OK to do that, but consider also the term. Long term gain has much lower taxes than short term gain, and short term loss will be offsetting long term gain - means you can lose some of the potential tax benefit. any potential writeoffs related to buying a home that can offset capital gains? No, and anyway if you're buying a personal residence (a home for yourself) - there's nothing to write off (except for the mortgage interest and property taxes of course). selling other investments for a capital loss to offset this sale? Again - why sell at a loss? anything related to retirement accounts? e.g. I think I recall being able to take a loan from your retirement account in order to buy a home You can take a loan, and you can also withdraw up to 10K without a penalty (if conditions are met). Bottom line - be prepared to pay the tax on the gains, and check how much it is going to be roughly. You can apply previous year refund to the next year to mitigate the shock, you can put some money aside, and you can raise your salary withholding to make sure you're not hit with a high bill and penalties next April after you do that. As long as you keep in mind the tax bill and put aside an amount to pay it - you'll be fine. I see no reason to sell at loss or pay extra interest to someone just to reduce the nominal amount of the tax. If you're selling at loss - you're losing money. If you're selling at gain and paying tax - you're earning money, even if the earnings are reduced by the tax.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Utilize your financial knowledge, give your answer or opinion to the input question or subject . Answer format is not limited.\nText: Is there anything I can do to prepare myself for the tax consequences of selling investments to buy a house?", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Have you changed how you handle fund distributions? While it is typical to re-invest the distributions to buy additional shares, this may not make sense if you want to get a little cash to use for the home purchase. While you may already handle this, it isn't mentioned in the question. While it likely won't make a big difference, it could be a useful factor to consider, potentially if you ponder how risky is it having your down payment fluctuate in value from day to day. I'd just think it is more convenient to take the distributions in cash and that way have fewer transactions to report in the following year. Unless you have a working crystal ball, there is no way to definitively predict if the market will be up or down in exactly 2 years from now. Thus, I suggest taking the distributions in cash and investing in something much lower risk like a money market mutual fund.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Offer your insights or judgment on the input financial query or topic using your financial expertise. Reply as normal question answering\nText: Is there anything I can do to prepare myself for the tax consequences of selling investments to buy a house?", "role": "user" }, { "content": "If you need less than $125k for the downpayment, I recommend you convert your mutual fund shares to their ETF counterparts tax-free: Can I convert conventional Vanguard mutual fund shares to Vanguard ETFs? Shareholders of Vanguard stock index funds that offer Vanguard ETFs may convert their conventional shares to Vanguard ETFs of the same fund. This conversion is generally tax-free, although some brokerage firms may be unable to convert fractional shares, which could result in a modest taxable gain. (Four of our bond ETFs—Total Bond Market, Short-Term Bond, Intermediate-Term Bond, and Long-Term Bond—do not allow the conversion of bond index fund shares to bond ETF shares of the same fund; the other eight Vanguard bond ETFs allow conversions.) There is no fee for Vanguard Brokerage clients to convert conventional shares to Vanguard ETFs of the same fund. Other brokerage providers may charge a fee for this service. For more information, contact your brokerage firm, or call 866-499-8473. Once you convert from conventional shares to Vanguard ETFs, you cannot convert back to conventional shares. Also, conventional shares held through a 401(k) account cannot be converted to Vanguard ETFs. https://personal.vanguard.com/us/content/Funds/FundsVIPERWhatAreVIPERSharesJSP.jsp Withdraw the money you need as a margin loan, buy the house, get a second mortgage of $125k, take the proceeds from the second mortgage and pay back the margin loan. Even if you have short term credit funds, it'd still be wiser to lever up the house completely as long as you're not overpaying or in a bubble area, considering your ample personal investments and the combined rate of return of the house and the funds exceeding the mortgage interest rate. Also, mortgage interest is tax deductible while margin interest isn't, pushing the net return even higher. $125k Generally, I recommend this figure to you because the biggest S&P collapse since the recession took off about 50% from the top. If you borrow $125k on margin, and the total value of the funds drop 50%, you shouldn't suffer margin calls. I assumed that you were more or less invested in the S&P on average (as most modern \"asset allocations\" basically recommend a back-door S&P as a mix of credit assets, managed futures, and small caps average the S&P). Second mortgage Yes, you will have two loans that you're paying interest on. You've traded having less invested in securities & a capital gains tax bill for more liabilities, interest payments, interest deductions, more invested in securities, a higher combined rate of return. If you have $500k set aside in securities and want $500k in real estate, this is more than safe for you as you will most likely have a combined rate of return of ~5% on $500k with interest on $500k at ~3.5%. If you're in small cap value, you'll probably be grossing ~15% on $500k. You definitely need to secure your labor income with supplementary insurance. Start a new question if you need a model for that. Secure real estate with securities A local bank would be more likely to do this than a major one, but if you secure the house with the investment account with special provisions like giving them copies of your monthly statements, etc, you might even get a lower rate on your mortgage considering how over-secured the loan would be. You might even be able to wrap it up without a down payment in one loan if it's still legal. Mortgage regulations have changed a lot since the housing crash.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on your financial expertise, provide your response or viewpoint on the given financial question or topic. The response format is open.\nText: How can I profit on the Chinese Real-Estate Bubble?", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Perhaps buying some internationally exchanged stock of China real-estate companies? It's never too late to enter a bubble or profit from a bubble after it bursts. As a native Chinese, my observations suggest that the bubble may exist in a few of the most populated cities of China such as Beijing, Shanghai and Shenzhen, the price doesn't seem to be much higher than expected in cities further within the mainland, such as Xi'an and Chengdu. I myself is living in Xi'an. I did a post about the urban housing cost of Xi'an at the end of last year: http://www.xianhotels.info/urban-housing-cost-of-xian-china~15 It may give you a rough idea of the pricing level. The average of 5,500 CNY per square meter (condo) hasn't fluctuated much since the posting of the entry. But you need to pay about 1,000 to 3,000 higher to get something desirable. For location, just search \"Xi'an, China\" in Google Maps. =========== I actually have no idea how you, a foreigner can safely and easily profit from this. I'll just share what I know. It's really hard to financially enter China. To prevent oversea speculative funds from freely entering and leaving China, the Admin of Forex (safe.gov.cn) has laid down a range of rigid policies regarding currency exchange. By law, any native individual, such as me, is imposed of a maximum of $50,000 that can be converted from USD to CNY or the other way around per year AND a maximum of $10,000 per day. Larger chunks of exchange must get the written consent of the Admin of Forex or it will simply not be cleared by any of the banks in China, even HSBC that's not owned by China. However, you can circumvent this limit by using the social ID of your immediate relatives when submitting exchange requests. It takes extra time and effort but viable. However, things may change drastically should China be in a forex crisis or simply war. You may not be able to withdraw USD at all from the banks in China, even with a positive balance that's your own money. My whole income stream are USD which is wired monthly from US to Bank of China. I purchased a property in the middle of last year that's worth 275,000 CNY using the funds I exchanged from USD I had earned. It's a 43.7% down payment on a mortgage loan of 20 years: http://www.mlcalc.com/#mortgage-275000-43.7-20-4.284-0-0-0.52-7-2009-year (in CNY, not USD) The current household loan rate is 6.12% across the entire China. However, because this is my first property, it is discounted by 30% to 4.284% to encourage the first house purchase. There will be no more discounts of loan rate for the 2nd property and so forth to discourage speculative stocking that drives the price high. The apartment I bought in July of 2009 can easily be sold at 300,000 now. Some of the earlier buyers have enjoyed much more appreciation than I do. To give you a rough idea, a house bought in 2006 is now evaluated 100% more, one bought in 2008 now 50% more and one bought in the beginning of 2009 now 25% more.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Share your insights or perspective on the financial matter presented in the input.\nText: How can I profit on the Chinese Real-Estate Bubble?", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Create, market and perform seminars advising others how to get rich from the Chinese Real-Estate Bubble. Much more likely to be profitable; and you can do it from the comfort of your own country, without currency conversions.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Offer your thoughts or opinion on the input financial query or topic using your financial background.\nText: Short Term Capital Gains tax vs. IRA Withdrawal Tax w/o Quarterly Est. Taxes", "role": "user" }, { "content": "There is not a special rate for short-term capital gains. Only long-term gains have a special rate. Short-term gains are taxed at your ordinary-income rate (see here). Hence if you're in the 25% bracket, your short-term gain would be taxed at 25%. The IRA withdrawal, as you already mentioned, would be taxed at 25%, plus a 10% penalty, for 35% total. Thus the bite on the IRA withdrawal is larger than that on a non-IRA withdrawal. As for the estimated tax issue, I don't think there will be a significant difference there. The reason is that (traditional) IRA withdrawals count as ordinary taxable income (see here). This means that, when you withdraw the funds from your IRA, you will increase your income. If that increase pushes you too far beyond what your withholding is accounting for, then you owe estimated tax. In other words, whether you get the money by selling stocks in a taxable account or by withdrawing them from an IRA, you still increase your taxable income, and thus potentially expose yourself to the estimated tax obligation. (In fact, there may be a difference. As you note, you will pay tax at the capital gains rate on gains from selling in a taxable account. But if you sell the stocks inside the IRA and withdraw, that is ordinary income. However, since ordinary income is taxed at a higher rate than long-term capital gains, you will potentially pay more tax on the IRA withdrawal, since it will be taxed at the higher rate, if your gains are long-term rather than short term. This is doubly true if you withdraw early, incurring the extra 10% penalty. See this question for some more discussion of this issue.) In addition, I think you may be somewhat misunderstanding the nature of estimated tax. The IRS will not \"ask\" you for a quarterly estimated tax when you sell stock. The IRS does not monitor your activity and send you a bill each quarter. They may indeed check whether your reported income jibes with info they received from your bank, etc., but they'll still do that regardless of whether you got that income by selling in a taxable account or withdrawing money from an IRA, because both of those increase your taxable income. Quarterly estimated tax is not an extra tax; it is just you paying your normal income tax over the course of the year instead of all at once. If your withholdings will not cover enough of your tax liability, you must figure that out yourself and pay the estimated tax (see here); if you don't do so, you may be assessed a penalty. It doesn't matter how you got the money; if your taxable income is too high relative to your withheld tax, then you have to pay the estimated tax. Typically tax will be withheld from your IRA distribution, but if it's not withheld, you'll still owe it as estimated tax.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Utilize your financial knowledge, give your answer or opinion to the input question or subject . Answer format is not limited.\nText: Short Term Capital Gains tax vs. IRA Withdrawal Tax w/o Quarterly Est. Taxes", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Bottom line is this: there's no \"short term capital gains tax\" in the US. There's only long term capital gains tax, which is lower than the regular (aka ordinary) tax rates. Short term capital gains are taxed using the ordinary tax rates, depending on your bracket. So if you're in the 25% bracket - your short term gains are taxed at 25%. You're describing two options: For the case #1 you'll pay 25% tax (your marginal rate) + 10% penalty (flat rate), total 35%. For the case #2 you'll pay 25% tax (your marginal rate) + 0% penalty. Total 25%. Thus, by withdrawing from IRA you'll be 10% worse than by realizing capital gains. In addition, if you need $10K - taking it from IRA will make the whole amount taxable. While realizing capital gains from a taxable account will make only the gains taxable, the original investment amount is yours and had been taxed before. So not only there's a 10% difference in the tax rate, there's also a significant difference in the amount being taxed. Thus, withdrawing from IRA is generally not a good idea, and you will never be better off with withdrawing from IRA than with cashing out taxable investments (from tax perspective). That's by design.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Offer your insights or judgment on the input financial query or topic using your financial expertise. Reply as normal question answering\nText: What is a trust? What are the different types of trusts?", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Trusts are a way of holding assets with a specific goal in mind. At its simplest, a trust can be used to avoid probate, a sometimes lengthy process in which a will is made public along with the assets bequeathed. A trust allows for fast transfer and no public disclosure. Depending on the current estate tax laws (the death tax) a trust can help preserve an estate exemption. e.g. Say the law reverts back to a $1M exemption. Note, this is $1M per deceased person, not per beneficiary. My wife and I happened to have assets of exactly $2M, and I die tomorrow. Now she has $2M, and when she passes, the estate has that $2M and estate taxes are based on this total, $1M fully taxed. But - If we set up trusts, that first million can be put into trust on my death, the interest and some principal going to the surviving spouse each year, but staying out of the survivor's estate. Second spouse dies, little or no tax due. This is known as a bypass trust. Another example is a spendthrift trust. Say, hypothetically, my sister in law can't save a nickel to save her life. Spends every dime and then some. So the best thing my mother in law can do to provide for her is to leave her estate in trust with specific instructions on how to distribute some percent each year. This is not a tax dodge of any kind, it's strictly to protect the daughter from her own irresponsibility. A medical needs trust is a variant of the above. It can provide income to a disabled person without impacting their government benefits adversely. This scratches the surface, illustrating how trusts can be used, there are more variation on this, but I believe it covers the basics. With the interest in this topic, I'm adding another issue where the trust can be useful. In my article On my Death, Please, Take a Breath I described how an inherited IRA was destroyed by ignorance. The beneficiary, fearing the stock market, withdrew it all and was nailed by taxes. He was on social security and no other income, so by taking small withdrawals each year would have had nearly no tax due. (and could have avoided 'market' risk by selling within the IRA and buying treasuries or CDs.) He didn't need a trust of course, just education. The deceased, his sister, might have used a Trust to manage the IRA and enforce limited withdrawals. Mixing IRAs and trust is complex, but the choice between a $2000 expense to create a trust or the $40K tax bill he got is pretty clear to me. He took pride in having sold out as the market soon tanked, but he could have avoided the tax loss as well. He was confusing the account (In this case an IRA, but it could have been a 401(k) or other retirement account) with the investments it contained. One can, and should, keep the IRA in tact, and simply adjust the allocation according to one's comfort level. Note - Inheritance tax laws change frequently, and my answer above was an attempt to be generic. The current (2014) code allows $5.34M to be left by one decedent with no estate tax.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on your financial expertise, provide your response or viewpoint on the given financial question or topic. The response format is open.\nText: What is a trust? What are the different types of trusts?", "role": "user" }, { "content": "From a more technical point of view, a trust is a legal relationship between 3 parties: Trusts can take many forms. People setup trusts to ensure that property is used in a specific way. Owning a home with a spouse is a form of a trust. A pension plan is a trust. Protecting land from development often involves placing it in trust. Wealthy people use trusts for estate planning for a variety of reasons. There's no \"better\" or \"best\" trust on a general level... it all depends on the situation that you are in and the desired outcome that you are looking for.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Share your insights or perspective on the financial matter presented in the input.\nText: What is a trust? What are the different types of trusts?", "role": "user" }, { "content": "A trust is a financial arrangement to put aside money over a period of time (typically years), for a specific purpose to benefit someone. Two purposes of trusts are 1) providing for retirement and 2) providing for a child or minor. There are three parties to a trust: 1) A grantor, the person who establishes and funds a trust. 2) A beneficiary, a person who receives the benefits. 3) a trustee, someone who acts in a fiduciary capacity between the grantor and beneficiary. No one person can be all three parties. A single person can be two of out those three parties. A RETIREMENT trust is something like an IRA (individual retirement account). Here, a person can be both the grantor (contributor) to the IRA, and the beneficiary (a withdrawer after retirement). But you need a bank or a broker to act as a fiduciary, and to handle the reporting to the IRS (Internal Revenue Service). Pension plans have employers as grantors, employees as beneficiaries, and (usually) a third party as trustee. A MINORS' trust can be established under a Gift to the Minors' Act, or other trust mechanisms, such as a Generation Skipping Trust. Here, a parent may be both grantor and trustee (although usually a third party is a trustee). A sum of money is put aside over a period of years for the benefit of a minor, for a college education, or for the minor's attaining a certain age: a minimum of 18, sometimes 21, possibly 25 or even older, depending on when the grantor feels that the minor is responsible enough to handle the money.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Offer your thoughts or opinion on the input financial query or topic using your financial background.\nText: Basic index fund questions", "role": "user" }, { "content": "There are no guarantees in the stock market. The index fund can send you a prospectus which shows what their results have been over the past decade or so, or you can find that info on line, but \"past results are not a guarantee of future performance\". Returns and risk generally trade off against each other; trying for higher than average results requires accepting higher than usual risk, and you need to decide which types of investments, in what mix, balance those in a way you are comfortable with. Reinvested dividends are exactly the same concept as compounded interest in a bank account. That is, you get the chance to earn interest on the interest, and then interest on the interest on the interest; it's a (slow) exponential growth curve, not just linear. Note that this applies to any reinvestment of gains, not just automatic reinvestment back into the same fund -- but automatic reinvestment is very convenient as a default. This is separate from increase in value due to growth in value of the companies. Yes, you will get a yearly report with the results, including the numbers needed for your tax return. You will owe income tax on any dividends or sales of shares. Unless the fund is inside a 401k or IRA, it's just normal property and you can sell or buy shares at any time and in any amount. Of course the advantage of investing through those special retirement accounts is advantageous tax treatment, which is why they have penalties if you use the money before retirement. Re predicting results: Guesswork and rule of thumb and hope that past trends continue a bit longer. Really the right answer is not to try to predict precise numbers, but to make a moderately conservative guess, hope you do at least that well, and be delighted if you do better... And to understand that you can lose value, and that losses often correct themselves if you can avoid having to sell until prices have recovered. You can, of course, compute historical results exactly, since you know how much you put in when, how much you took out when, and how much is in the account now. You can either look at how rate of return varied over time, or just compute an average rate of return; both approaches can be useful when trying to compare one fund against another... I get an approximate version of this reported by my financial management software, but mostly ignore it except for amusement and to reassure myself that things are behaving approximately as expected. (As long as I'm outperforming what I need to hit my retirement goals, I'm happy enough and unwilling to spend much more time on it... and my plans were based on fairly conservative assumptions.) If you invest $3k, it grows at whatever rate it grows, and ten years later you have $3k+X. If you then invest another $10k, you now have $3k+X+10k, all of which grows at whatever rate the fund now grows. When you go to sell shares or fractional shares, your profit has to be calculated based on when those specific shares were purchased and how much you paid for them versus when they were sold and how much you sold them for; this is a more annoying bit of record keeping and accounting than just reporting bank account interest, but many/most brokerages and investment banks will now do that work for you and report it at the end of the year for your taxes, as I mentioned.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Utilize your financial knowledge, give your answer or opinion to the input question or subject . Answer format is not limited.\nText: Is the Yale/Swenson Asset Allocation Too Conservative for a 20 Something?", "role": "user" }, { "content": "You can look the Vanguard funds up on their website and view a risk factor provided by Vanguard on a scale of 1 to 5. Short term bond funds tend to get their lowest risk factor, long term bond funds and blended investments go up to about 3, some stock mutual funds are 4 and some are 5. Note that in 2008 Swenson himself had slightly different target percentages out here that break out the international stocks into emerging versus developed markets. So the average risk of this portfolio is 3.65 out of 5. My guess would be that a typical twenty-something who expects to retire no earlier than 60 could take more risk, but I don't know your personal goals or circumstances. If you are looking to maximize return for a level of risk, look into Modern Portfolio Theory and the work of economist Harry Markowitz, who did extensive work on the topic of maximizing the return given a set risk tolerance. More info on my question here. This question provides some great book resources for learning as well. You can also check out a great comparison and contrast of different portfolio allocations here.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Offer your insights or judgment on the input financial query or topic using your financial expertise. Reply as normal question answering\nText: Is the Yale/Swenson Asset Allocation Too Conservative for a 20 Something?", "role": "user" }, { "content": "I don't think the advice to take lots more risk when young makes so much sense. The additional returns from loading up on stocks are overblown; and the rocky road from owning 75-100% stocks will almost certainly mess you up and make you lose money. Everyone thinks they're different, but none of us are. One big advantage of stocks over bonds is tax efficiency only if you buy index funds and don't ever sell them. But this does not matter in a retirement account, and outside a retirement account you can use tax-exempt bonds. Stocks have higher returns in theory but to have a reasonable guarantee of higher returns from them, you need around a 30-year horizon. That is a long, long time. Psychologically, a 60/40 stocks/bonds portfolio, or something with similar risk mixing in a few more alternative assets like Swenson's, is SO MUCH better. With 100% stocks you can spend 10 or 15 years saving money and your investment returns may get you nowhere. Think what that does to your motivation to save. (And how much you save is way more important than what you invest in.) The same doesn't happen with a balanced portfolio. With a balanced portfolio you get reasonably steady progress. You can still have a down year, but you're a lot less likely to have a down decade or even a down few years. You save steadily and your balance goes up fairly steadily. The way humans really work, this is so important. For the same kind of reason, I think it's great to buy one fund that has both stocks and bonds in there. This forces you to view the thing as a whole instead of wrongly looking at the individual asset class \"buckets.\" And it also means rebalancing will happen automatically, without having to remember to do it, which you won't. Or if you remember you won't do it when you should, because stocks are doing so well, or some other rationalization. Speaking of rebalancing, that's where a lot of the steady, predictable returns come from if you have a nice balanced portfolio. You can make money over time even if both asset classes end up going nowhere, as long as they bounce around somewhat independently, so you'll buy low and sell high when you rebalance. To me the ideal is an all-in-one fund that aims for about 60/40 stocks/bonds level of risk, somewhat more diversified than stocks/bonds is great (international stock, commodities, high yield, REIT, etc.). You can just buy that at age 20 and keep it until you retire. In beautiful ideal-world economic theory, buy 90% stocks when young. Real world with human brain involved: I love balanced funds. The steady gains are such a mental win. The \"target retirement\" funds are not a bad option, but if you buy the matching year for your age, I personally wish they had less in stocks. If you want to read more on the \"equity premium\" (how much more you make from owning stocks) here are a couple of posts on it from a blog I like: Update: I wrote this up more comprehensively on my blog,", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on your financial expertise, provide your response or viewpoint on the given financial question or topic. The response format is open.\nText: Is the Yale/Swenson Asset Allocation Too Conservative for a 20 Something?", "role": "user" }, { "content": "That looks like a portfolio designed to protect against inflation, given the big international presence, the REIT presence and TIPS bonds. Not a bad strategy, but there are a few things that I'd want to look at closely before pulling the trigger.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Share your insights or perspective on the financial matter presented in the input.\nText: Is the Yale/Swenson Asset Allocation Too Conservative for a 20 Something?", "role": "user" }, { "content": "I think Swenson's insight was that the traditional recommendation of 60% stocks plus 40% bonds has two serious flaws: 1) You are exposed to way too much risk by having a portfolio that is so strongly tied to US equities (especially in the way it has historically been recommend). 2) You have too little reward by investing so much of your portfolio in bonds. If you can mix a decent number of asset classes that all have equity-like returns, and those asset classes have a low correlation with each other, then you can achieve equity-like returns without the equity-like risk. This improvement can be explicitly measured in the Sharpe ratio of you portfolio. (The Vanguard Risk Factor looks pretty squishy and lame to me.) The book the \"The Ivy Portfolio\" does a great job at covering the Swenson model and explains how to reasonably replicate it yourself using low fee ETFs.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Offer your thoughts or opinion on the input financial query or topic using your financial background.\nText: Clarification on 529 fund", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Yes, maybe. The 529 is pretty cool in that you can open an account for yourself, and change the beneficiary as you wish, or not. In theory, one can start a 529 for children or grandchildren yet unborn. Back to you - a 529 is not deductible on your federal return. It grows tax deferred, and tax free if used for approved education. Some states offer deductions depending on the state. There is a list of states that offer such a deduction.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Utilize your financial knowledge, give your answer or opinion to the input question or subject . Answer format is not limited.\nText: Clarification on 529 fund", "role": "user" }, { "content": "You are faced with a dilemma. If you use a 529 plan to fund your education, the short timeline of a few years will limit your returns that are tax free. Most people who use a 529 plan either purchase years of tuition via lump sum, when the child is young; or they put aside money on a regular basis that will grow tax deferred/tax free. Some states do give a tax break when the contribution is made by a state taxpayer into a plan run by the state. The long term plans generally use a risk profile that starts off heavily weighted in stock when the child is young, and becomes more fixed income as the child reaches their high school years. The idea is to protect the fund from big losses when there is no time to recover. If you choose the plan with the least risk the issue is that the amount of gains that are being protected from federal tax is small. If you pick a more aggressive plan the risk is that the losses could be larger than the state tax savings. Look at some of the other tax breaks for tuition to see if you qualify Credits An education credit helps with the cost of higher education by reducing the amount of tax owed on your tax return. If the credit reduces your tax to less than zero, you may get a refund. There are two education credits available: the American Opportunity Tax Credit and the Lifetime Learning Credit. Who Can Claim an Education Credit? There are additional rules for each credit, but you must meet all three of the following for either credit: If you’re eligible to claim the lifetime learning credit and are also eligible to claim the American opportunity credit for the same student in the same year, you can choose to claim either credit, but not both. You can't claim the AOTC if you were a nonresident alien for any part of the tax year unless you elect to be treated as a resident alien for federal tax purposes. For more information about AOTC and foreign students, visit American Opportunity Tax Credit - Information for Foreign Students. Deductions Tuition and Fees Deduction You may be able to deduct qualified education expenses paid during the year for yourself, your spouse or your dependent. You cannot claim this deduction if your filing status is married filing separately or if another person can claim an exemption for you as a dependent on his or her tax return. The qualified expenses must be for higher education. The tuition and fees deduction can reduce the amount of your income subject to tax by up to $4,000. This deduction, reported on Form 8917, Tuition and Fees Deduction, is taken as an adjustment to income. This means you can claim this deduction even if you do not itemize deductions on Schedule A (Form 1040). This deduction may be beneficial to you if, for example, you cannot take the lifetime learning credit because your income is too high. You may be able to take one of the education credits for your education expenses instead of a tuition and fees deduction. You can choose the one that will give you the lower tax.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Offer your insights or judgment on the input financial query or topic using your financial expertise. Reply as normal question answering\nText: How do you save money on clothes and shoes for your family?", "role": "user" }, { "content": "I feel the same way too! With two kids, I feel like I am spending what it would cost to run a small country just on clothes, shoes, jackets, replacing everything as it is grown out of! A few things I do: I shop in affordable places and check out sales, and look for the cutest things I can find there in a reasonable price range. If you aren't browsing in the $60 baby dresses, you aren't tempted by them. I don't go looking at $60 shirts for my son, he's five and he doesn't need a $60 shirt. I also really only shop for him two or three times a year for clothing...back to school and early spring are the big ones. For fall I got him five pairs of jeans, maybe 8 tops, new socks, etc. I'll add in a couple of heavier sweatshirts, etc as I go, but I really don't browse for him...it's too easy to find something to buy! I look for inexpensive lines for the things that don't really matter...bright T's for my son for summer that just get dirty and spilled on, sleepers, socks, pj's, etc. Joe Fresh, Walmart, Old Navy, Costco. Then I choose a few things that I know I want brand name or more stylish options for, and find ways to buy them more cheaply. These might be things like logo'd fleece tops, trendy jackets, things where the style is actually noticed. I buy jeans at Old Navy for my son when they are on sale, I buy Gusti/Genevieve LaPierre snowsuits at Sears when they are 40% off in Sept/Oct. The Childrens' Place has good quality, stylish clothing for kids and if you watch, they always have deals on their jeans or tops...then I stock up. And for younger kids, Old Navy and The Children's Place jeans have adjustable waistbands. I've already unrolled cuffs and let out the waist in my son's back to school jeans. I have friends who are starting to take in bags of too-small clothing to consignment shops...if they come away with $100, it's still $100! For preteen and teen kids who want certain brands, etc, I think it is very reasonable to say \"we will pay x for each pair of jeans, or x for winter boots. If you want to throw in some babysitting/birthday money and go buy something more expensive, you are welcome to do so!\" That way, you are still paying for basics, but they can feel like they aren't stuck wearing things they don't like. Tell them...you can buy 5 tops at $x each for back to school, or 10 tops at $x. And lastly, and most sadly of all: buy less..and stop shopping. There, I said it out loud. I try to be careful of what I buy, but I still find things I bought that were never worn. Now I keep a return basket in laundry/mudroom...if I don't love it, if it seems impractical now that I got it home, if I wanted it just in case item #1 didn't work...it goes in the basket. And I return them. I suck it up, I take it with me and go get my money back. Mistakes can be fixed if the items haven't been worn or washed.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on your financial expertise, provide your response or viewpoint on the given financial question or topic. The response format is open.\nText: How do you save money on clothes and shoes for your family?", "role": "user" }, { "content": "I'm all for thrift stores and yard sales. When they're littler they're more into comfort, perhaps insisting on certain colors, but somewhere around 13 they start to become more fashion conscious. If you want name brand clothes for kids, hit yard sales or consignment stores in better neighborhoods. Other places are Ross's or Marshall's. Both carry name brands. It's just you never know what they'll have. Another stategy is to buy fewer clothes. If you do laundry twice a week, you just don't need as much. Aim for mix and match. Also have play clothes for rough and tumble wear and \"good\" clothes for school and church. All these help keep costs down. My sister and I maintained an informal exchange between the cousins. This helped a good deal. A church in our neighborhood has a yearly clothing giveaway. That kind of thing may be an option for you as well. Or you could request needed items on Yahoo's freecycle. I see alot of clothes being given or requested on that site. I had one son who ripped out knees. Double kneed pants were a great investment. It looked like a rather large patch of fusible interfacing attached to the inside knee area. So it might work if you tried that on exisitng pants. Hope these help.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Share your insights or perspective on the financial matter presented in the input.\nText: How do you save money on clothes and shoes for your family?", "role": "user" }, { "content": "I speak as a person without kids, but I'll give this a shot anyway, using my memory of the perspective I had when I was a kid. My advice is, if the kids are young enough to not care much, don't be afraid of the thrift store. My parents got a bunch of clothes from the thrift store as I was growing up (around elementary school age) and I didn't care at all. When I got to be older, (middle school age) shopping at Target and K-mart didn't seem bad either. By the time the kids are old enough to really care beyond, they are probably old enough to get their own part-time jobs and get their own clothing. I however, am probably naive, as I still care little for such things, and judging from popular culture, most care about them a great deal.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Offer your thoughts or opinion on the input financial query or topic using your financial background.\nText: How do you save money on clothes and shoes for your family?", "role": "user" }, { "content": "I look ahead for sizes. I was at the thrift store and saw a good condition, good brand winter coat that will likely fit my daughter next year, so I bought it. I also bought a snowsuit my baby can wear when he's 6 months (~5 months pregnant now). When it starts getting cold next fall, I'll be set, rather than wasting time and money running around town trying to find winter gear. This applies for any regular stores you visit (Costco, thrift stores, kids resale stores, etc): look for clearance/discounted kids clothes in the next few sizes up, even off-season. This works especially well for basics you need lots of (PJs, socks, etc) and more expensive things where you don't want to be desperate when shopping for them. You're always \"buying low.\"", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Utilize your financial knowledge, give your answer or opinion to the input question or subject . Answer format is not limited.\nText: Is it wise to switch investment strategy frequently?", "role": "user" }, { "content": "I understand you're trying to ask a narrow question, but you're basically asking whether you should time the market. You can find tons of books saying you shouldn't try it, and tons more confirming that you can. Both will have data and anecdotes to back them up. So I'll give you my own opinion. Market timing, especially in a macro sense, is a zero-sum game. Your first thought should be: I'm smarter than the average person; the average person is an idiot. However, remember that a whole lot of the money in the market is not controlled by idiots. You really need to ask yourself if you can compete with people who get paid to spend 12 hours a day trying to beat the market. Stick with a mid-range strategy for now. Your convictions aren't and shouldn't be strong enough at the moment to do otherwise. But, if you can't resist, I say go ahead and do what you feel. Regardless of what you do, your returns over the next 3 years won't be life changing. In the meantime, learn as much as you can about investing, and keep a journal of your investment activity to keep yourself honest.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Offer your insights or judgment on the input financial query or topic using your financial expertise. Reply as normal question answering\nText: Is it wise to switch investment strategy frequently?", "role": "user" }, { "content": "My super fund and I would say many other funds give you one free switch of strategies per year. Some suggest you should change from high growth option to a more balance option once you are say about 10 to 15 years from retirement, and then change to a more capital guaranteed option a few years from retirement. This is a more passive approach and has benefits as well as disadvantages. The benefit is that there is not much work involved, you just change your investment option based on your life stage, 2 to 3 times during your lifetime. This allows you to take more risk when you are young to aim for higher returns, take a balanced approach with moderate risk and returns during the middle part of your working life, and take less risk with lower returns (above inflation) during the latter part of your working life. A possible disadvantage of this strategy is you may be in the higher risk/ higher growth option during a market correction and then change to a more balanced option just when the market starts to pick up again. So your funds will be hit with large losses whilst the market is in retreat and just when things look to be getting better you change to a more balanced portfolio and miss out on the big gains. A second more active approach would be to track the market and change investment option as the market changes. One approach which shouldn't take much time is to track the index such as the ASX200 (if you investment option is mainly invested in the Australian stock market) with a 200 day Simple Moving Average (SMA). The concept is that if the index crosses above the 200 day SMA the market is bullish and if it crosses below it is bearish. See the chart below: This strategy will work well when the market is trending up or down but not very well when the market is going sideways, as you will be changing from aggressive to balanced and back too often. Possibly a more appropriate option would be a combination of the two. Use the first passive approach to change investment option from aggressive to balanced to capital guaranteed with your life stages, however use the second active approach to time the change. For example, if you were say in your late 40s now and were looking to change from aggressive to balanced in the near future, you could wait until the ASX200 crosses below the 200 day SMA before making the change. This way you could capture the majority of the uptrend (which could go on for years) before changing from the high growth/aggressive option to the balanced option. If you where after more control over your superannuation assets another option open to you is to start a SMSF, however I would recommend having at least $300K to $400K in assets before starting a SMSF, or else the annual costs would be too high as a percentage of your total super assets.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on your financial expertise, provide your response or viewpoint on the given financial question or topic. The response format is open.\nText: Is it wise to switch investment strategy frequently?", "role": "user" }, { "content": "A guy who does a sports talk show here in the US can be pretty smart about some things. His advice: If you are wondering if something is a good idea, say it out loud. In his book he cites the fact that people thought, at one time, it would be a good idea to allow smoking on airline flights. Keep in mind you are using liquid oxygen, news paper, and are 10,000+ feet up in the air. Say it like that and you hit yourself in the forehead. Read the title of your question in a day or two, and you can answer it yourself with a resounding NO.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Share your insights or perspective on the financial matter presented in the input.\nText: Lump sum annuity distribution — do I owe estate tax?", "role": "user" }, { "content": "There can be Federal estate tax as well as State estate tax due on an estate, but it is not of direct concern to you. Estate taxes are paid by the estate of the decedent, not by the beneficiaries, and so you do not owe any estate tax. As a matter of fact, most estates in the US do not pay Federal estate tax at all because only the amount that exceeds the Federal exemption ($5.5M) is taxable, and most estates are smaller. State estate taxes might be a different matter because while many states exempt exactly what the Federal Government does, others exempt different (usually smaller) amounts. But in any case, estate taxes are not of concern to you except insofar as what you inherit is reduced because the estate had to pay estate tax before distributing the inheritances. As JoeTaxpayer's answer says more succinctly, what you inherit is net of estate tax, if any. What you receive as an inheritance is not taxable income to you either. If you receive stock shares or other property, your basis is the value of the property when you inherit it. Thus, if you sell at a later time, you will have to pay taxes only on the increase in the value of the property from the time you inherit it. The increase in value from the time the decedent acquired the property till the date of death is not taxable income to you. Exceptions to all these favorable rules to you is the treatment of Traditional IRAs, 401ks, pension plans etc that you inherit that contain money on which the decedent never paid income tax. Distributions from such inherited accounts are (mostly) taxable income to you; any part of post-tax money such as nondeductible contributions to Traditional IRAs that is included in the distribution is tax-free. Annuities present another source of complications. For annuities within IRAs, even the IRS throws up its hands at explaining things to mere mortals who are foolhardy enough to delve into Pub 950, saying in effect, talk to your tax advisor. For other annuities, questions arise such as is this a tax-deferred annuity and whether it was purchased with pre-tax money or with post-tax money, etc. One thing that you should check out is whether it is beneficial to take a lump sum distribution or just collect the money as it is distributed in monthly, quarterly, semi-annual, or annual payments. Annuities in particular have heavy surrender charges if they are terminated early and the money taken as a lump sum instead of over time as the insurance company issuing the annuity had planned on happening. So, taking a lump sum would mean more income tax immediately due not just on the lump sum but because the increase in AGI might reduce deductions for medical expenses as well as reduce the overall amount of itemized deductions that can be claimed, increase taxability of social security benefits, etc. You say that you have these angles sussed out, and so I will merely re-iterate Beware the surrender charges.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Offer your thoughts or opinion on the input financial query or topic using your financial background.\nText: Lump sum annuity distribution — do I owe estate tax?", "role": "user" }, { "content": "If you are the beneficiary of an annuity, you might receive a single-sum distribution when the annuity owner dies. The amount of this death benefit might be the current cash value of the annuity or some other amount based upon contract riders that the owner purchased. The tax on death benefits depends on a number of factors. Death benefits are taxed as normal income. Unlike other investments, the named beneficiary of a non-qualified annuity does not get a step-up in tax basis to the date of death. However, that doesn't mean the beneficiary will have to pay taxes on the full amount. Because the purchaser of the annuity made the investment with after-tax dollars, only the amount attributable to investment income is taxed, but it will be taxed as ordinary income and not enjoy any special capital gains treatment. When there is a death benefit that exceeds the value of the account, that additional amount is also taxed as ordinary income. Taxes on annuities depend on several circumstances: For more information on distribution of inherited annuities and taxes - go to Annuities HQ-- http://www.annuitieshq.com/articles/distribution-options-inherited-annuity/ they go into details that could help you even more. One thing that Annuities HQ points out is if you take the lump sum payout, you may be pushed into a higher tax bracket. Along with doing research I would also contact a financial advisor!", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Utilize your financial knowledge, give your answer or opinion to the input question or subject . Answer format is not limited.\nText: Lump sum annuity distribution — do I owe estate tax?", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The page you linked shows \"Federal changes eliminated Florida's estate tax after December 31, 2004\" but no, estates are settled by the decedent's executor in the decedent's state. You receive an inheritance net of estate tax if any was due.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Offer your insights or judgment on the input financial query or topic using your financial expertise. Reply as normal question answering\nText: How much house can a retired person afford", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Consider property taxes (school, municipal, county, etc.) summing to 10% of the property value. So each year, another .02N is removed. Assume the property value rises with inflation. Allow for a 5% after inflation return on a 70/30 stock bond mix for N. After inflation return. Let's assume a 20% rate. And let's bump the .05N after inflation to .07N before inflation. Inflation is still taxable. Result Drop in value of investment funds due to purchase. Return after inflation. After-inflation return minus property taxes. Taxes are on the return including inflation, so we'll assume .06N and a 20% rate (may be lower than that, but better safe than sorry). Amount left. If no property, you would have .036N to live on after taxes. But with the property, that drops to .008N. Given the constraints of the problem, .008N could be anywhere from $8k to $80k. So if we ignore housing, can you live on $8k a year? If so, then no problem. If not, then you need to constrain N more or make do with less house. On the bright side, you don't have to pay rent out of the .008N. You still need housing out of the .036N without the house. These formulas should be considered examples. I don't know how much your property taxes might be. Nor do I know how much you'll pay in taxes. Heck, I don't know that you'll average a 5% return after inflation. You may have to put some of the money into cash equivalents with negligible return. But this should allow you to research more what your situation really is. If we set returns to 3.5% after inflation and 2.4% after inflation and taxes, that changes the numbers slightly but importantly. The \"no house\" number becomes .024N. The \"with house\" number becomes So that's $24,000 (which needs to include rent) versus -$800 (no rent needed). There is not enough money in that plan to have any remainder to live on in the \"with house\" option. Given the constraints for N and these assumptions about returns, you would be $800 to $8000 short every year. This continues to assume that property taxes are 10% of the property value annually. Lower property taxes would of course make this better. Higher property taxes would be even less feasible. When comparing to people with homes, remember the option of selling the home. If you sell your .2N home for .2N and buy a .08N condo instead, that's not just .12N more that is invested. You'll also have less tied up with property taxes. It's a lot easier to live on $20k than $8k. Or do a reverse mortgage where the lender pays the property taxes. You'll get some more savings up front, have a place to live while you're alive, and save money annually. There are options with a house that you don't have without one.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on your financial expertise, provide your response or viewpoint on the given financial question or topic. The response format is open.\nText: How much house can a retired person afford", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Consider a single person with a net worth of N where N is between one and ten million dollars. has no source of income other than his investments How much dividends and interest do your investments return every year? At 5%, a US$10M investment returns $500K/annum. Assuming you have no tax shelters, you'd pay about $50% (fed and state) income tax. https://budgeting.thenest.com/much-income-should-spent-mortgage-10138.html A prudent income multiplier for home ownership is 3x gross income. Thus, you should be able to comfortably afford a $1.5M house. Of course, huge CC debt load, ginormous property taxes and the (full) 5 car garage needed to maintain your status with the Joneses will rapidly eat into that $500K.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Share your insights or perspective on the financial matter presented in the input.\nText: Should I overpay to end a fixed-rate mortgage early? [duplicate]", "role": "user" }, { "content": "I would strongly encourage you to either find specifically where in your written contract the handling of early/over payments are defined and post it for us to help you, or that you go and visit a licensed real estate attorney. Even at a ridiculously high price of 850 pounds per hour for a top UK law firm (and I suspect you can find a competent lawyer for 10-20% of that amount), it would cost you less than a year of prepayment penalty to get professional advice on what to do with your mortgage. A certified public accountant (CPA) might be able to advise you, as well, if that's any easier for you to find. I have the sneaking suspicion that the company representatives are not being entirely forthcoming with you, thus the need for outside advice. Generally speaking, loans are given an interest rate per period (such as yearly APR), and you pay a percentage (the interest) of the total amount of money you owe (the principle). So if you owe 100,000 at 5% APR, you accrue 5,000 in interest that year. If you pay only the interest each year, you'll pay 50,000 in interest over 10 years - but if you pay everything off in year 8, at a minimum you'd have paid 10,000 less in interest (assuming no prepayment penalties, which you have some of those). So paying off early does not change your APR or your principle amount paid, but it should drastically reduce the interest you pay. Amortization schedules don't change that - they just keep the payments even over the scheduled full life of the loan. Even with prepayment penalties, these are customarily billed at less than 6 months of interest (at the rate you would have payed if you kept the loan), so if you are supposedly on the hook for more than that again I highly suspect something fishy is going on - in which case you'd probably want legal representation to help you put a stop to it. In short, something is definitely and most certainly wrong if paying off a loan years in advance - even after taking into account pre-payment penalties - costs you the same or more than paying the loan off over the full term, on schedule. This is highly abnormal, and frankly even in the US I'd consider it scandalous if it were the case. So please, do look deeper into this - something isn't right!", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Offer your thoughts or opinion on the input financial query or topic using your financial background.\nText: Should I overpay to end a fixed-rate mortgage early? [duplicate]", "role": "user" }, { "content": "The simplest argument for overpayment is this: Let's suppose your fixed rate mortgage has an interest rate of 4.00%. Every £1 you can afford to overpay gives you a guaranteed effective return of 4.00% gross. Yes your monthly mortgage payment will stay the same; however, the proportion of it that's paying off interest every month will be less, and the amount that's actually going into acquiring the bricks and mortar of your home will be greater. So in a sense your returns are \"inverted\" i.e. because every £1 you overpay is £1 you don't need to keep paying 4% a year to continue borrowing. In your case this return will be locked away for a few more years, until you can remortgage the property. However, compared to some other things you could do with your excess £1s, this is a very generous and safe return that is well above the average rate of UK inflation for the past ten years. Let's compare that to some other options for your extra £1s: Cash savings: The most competitive rate I can currently find for instant access is 1.63% from ICICI. If you are prepared to lock your money away until March 2020, Melton Mowbray Building Society has a fixed rate bond that will pay you 2.60% gross. On these accounts you pay income tax at your marginal rate on any interest received. For a basic rate taxpayer that's 20%. If you're a higher rate taxpayer that means 40% of this interest is deducted as tax. In other words: assuming you pay income tax at one of these rates, to get an effective return of 4.00% on cash savings you'd have to find an account paying: Cash ISAs: these accounts are tax sheltered, so the income tax equation isn't an issue. However, the best rate I can find on a 4 year fixed rate cash ISA is 2.35% from Leeds Building Society. As you can see, it's a long way below the returns you can get from overpaying. To find returns such as that you would have to take a lot more risk with your money – for example: Stock market investments: For example, an index fund tracking the FTSE 100 (UK-listed blue chip companies) could have given you a total return of 3.62% over the last 3 years (past performance does not equal future returns). Over a longer time period this return should be better – historical performance suggests somewhere between 5 to 6% is the norm. But take a closer look and you'll see that over the last six months of 2015 this fund had a negative return of 6.11%, i.e. for a time you'd have been losing money. How would you feel about that kind of volatility? In conclusion: I understand your frustration at having locked in to a long term fixed rate (effectively insuring against rates going up), then seeing rates stay low for longer than most commentators thought. However, overpaying your mortgage is one way you can turn this situation into a pretty good deal for yourself – a 4% guaranteed return is one that most cash savers would envy. In response to comments, I've uploaded a spreadsheet that I hope will make the numbers clearer. I've used an example of owing £100k over 25 years at an unvarying 4% interest, and shown the scenarios with and without making a £100/month voluntary overpayment, assuming your lender allows this. Here's the sheet: https://www.scribd.com/doc/294640994/Mortgage-Amortization-Sheet-Mortgage-Overpayment-Comparison After one year you have made £1,200 in overpayments. You now owe £1,222.25 less than if you hadn't overpaid. After five years you owe £6,629 less on your mortgage, having overpaid in £6,000 so far. Should you remortgage at this point that £629 is your return so far, and you also have £6k more equity in the property. If you keep going: After 65 months you are paying more capital than interest out of your monthly payment. This takes until 93 months without overpayments. In total, if you keep up £100/month overpayment, you pay £15,533 less interest overall, and end your mortgage six years early. You can play with the spreadsheet inputs to see the effect of different overpayment amounts. Hope this helps.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Utilize your financial knowledge, give your answer or opinion to the input question or subject . Answer format is not limited.\nText: Am I required to have a lawyer create / oversee creation of my will?", "role": "user" }, { "content": "This is not intended as legal advice, and only covers general knowledge I have on the subject of wills as a result of handling my own finances. Each state of the USA has its own laws on wills and trusts. You can find these online. For example, in Kentucky I found state laws here: http://www.lrc.ky.gov/krs/titles.htm and Title XXXIV is about wills and trusts. I would recommend reading this, and then talking to a lawyer if it is not crystal clear. Generally, if a lawyer does not draft your will, then either (1) you have no will, or (2) you use a form or computer program to make a will, that must then be properly witnessed before it is valid. If you don't have it witnessed properly, then you have no will. In some states you can have a holographic will, which means a will in your own handwriting. That's when you have that 3am heart attack, and you get out a pad of paper and write \"I rescind all former wills hereby bequeathing everything to my mistress Samantha, and as to the rest of you go rot in hell. \" One issue with these is that they have to get to court somehow, and someone has to verify the handwriting, and there are often state laws about excluding a current spouse, so you can guess for yourself whether that one might disappear in the fireplace when another family member finds it next to the body or if a court would give it validity. And there can be logic or grammar problems with do it yourself wills, made in your own handwriting, without experience or good references on how to write things out. Lawyers who have done a bunch of these know what is clear and makes sense. (1) In Tennessee, where I live, an intestate's property, someone who died with no will, is divided according to the law. The law looks to find a spouse or relatives to divide the property, before considering giving it to the state. That might be fine for some people. It happened once in my family, and was resolved in court with minimal red tape. But it really depends on the person. Someone in the middle of an unfinalized divorce, for instance, probably needs a will help to sort out who gets what. (2) A form will is valid in Tennessee if it is witnessed properly. That means two witnesses, who sign in yours' and each others' presence. In theory they can be called to testify that the signature is valid. In practice, I don't know if this happens as I am not a lawyer. I have found it difficult to find witnesses who will sign a form will, and it is disconcerting to have to ask friends or coworkers for this sort of favor as most people learn never to sign anything without reading it. But a lawyer often has secretaries that do it... There is a procedure and a treaty for international wills, which I know about from living overseas. To streamline things, you can get the witnesses to each sign an affidavit after they signed the will. The affidavit is sworn written testimony of what happened, that they saw the person sign their will and sign in each others' presence, when, where, no duress, etc. If done correctly, this can be sufficient to prove the will without calling on witnesses. There is another option (3) you arrange your affairs so that most of your funds are disbursed by banks or brokers holding your accounts. Option (3) is really cheap, most stock brokers and banks will create a Transfer-On-Death notice on your account for free. The problem with this is that you also need to write out a letter that explains to your heirs how to get this money, and you need to make sure that they will get the letter if you are dead. Also, you can't deal with physical goods or appoint a guardian for children this way. The advantage of a lawyer is that you know the document is correct and according to local law and custom, and also the lawyer might provide additional services like storing the will in his safe. You can get personalized help that you can not get with a form or computer program.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Offer your insights or judgment on the input financial query or topic using your financial expertise. Reply as normal question answering\nText: Using property to achieve financial independence", "role": "user" }, { "content": "I wrote this in another thread but is also applicable here. In general people make some key mistakes with property: Not factoring in depreciation properly. Houses are perpetually falling down, and if you are renting them perpetually being trashed by the tenants as well - particularly in bad areas. Accurate depreciation costs can often run in the 5-20% range per year depending on the property/area. Add insurance to this as well or be prepared to lose the whole thing in a disaster. Related to 1), they take the index price of house price rises as something they can achieve, when in reality a lot of the house price 'rise' is just everyone having to spend a lot of money keeping them standing up. No investor can actually track a house price graph due to 1) so be careful to make reasonable assumptions about actual achievable future growth (in your example, they could well be lagging inflation/barely growing if you are not pricing in upkeep and depreciation properly). Failure to price in the huge transaction costs (often 5%+ per sale) and capital gains/other taxes (depends on the exact tax structure where you are). These add up very fast if you are buying and selling at all frequently. Costs in either time or fees to real estate rental agents. Having to fill, check, evict, fix and maintain rental properties is a lot more work than most people realise, and you either have to pay this in your own time or someone else’s. Again, has to be factored in. Liquidity issues. Selling houses in down markets is very, very hard. They are not like stocks where they can be moved quickly. Houses can often sit on the market for years before sale if you are not prepared to take low prices. As the bank owns your house if you fail to pay the mortgage (rents collapse, loss of job etc) they can force you to fire sale it leaving you in a whole world of pain depending on the exact legal system (negative equity etc). These factors are generally correlated if you work in the same cities you are buying in so quite a lot of potential long tail risk if the regional economy collapses. Finally, if you’re young they can tie you to areas where your earnings potential is limited. Renting can be immensely beneficial early on in a career as it gives you huge freedom to up sticks and leave fast when new opportunities arise. Locking yourself into 20 yr+ contracts/landlord activities when young can be hugely inhibiting to your earnings potential. Without more details on the exact legal framework, area, house type etc it’s hard to give more specific advise, but in general you need a very large margin of safety with property due to all of the above, so if the numbers you’re running are coming out close (and they are here), it’s probably not worth it, and you’re better of sticking with more hands off investments like stocks and bonds.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on your financial expertise, provide your response or viewpoint on the given financial question or topic. The response format is open.\nText: Using property to achieve financial independence", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Be very careful about buying property because it has been going up quickly in recent years. There are some fundamental factors that limit the amount real-estate can appreciate over time. In a nutshell, the general real-estate market growth is supported by the entry-level property market. That is, when values are appreciating, people can sell and use the capital gains to buy more valuable property. This drives up the prices in higher value properties whose owners can use that to purchase more expensive properties and so on and so forth. At some point in a rising market, the entry-level properties start to become hard for entry-level buyers to afford. The machine of rising prices throughout the market starts grinding to a halt. This price-level can be calculated by looking at average incomes in an area. At some percentage of income, people cannot buy into the market without crazy loans and if those become popular, watch out because things can get really ugly. If you want an example, just look back to the US in 2007-2009 and the nearly apocalyptic financial crisis that ensued. As with most investing, you want to buy low and sell high. Buying into a hot market is generally not very profitable. Buying when the market is abnormally low tends to be a more effective strategy.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Share your insights or perspective on the financial matter presented in the input.\nText: Using property to achieve financial independence", "role": "user" }, { "content": "Will buying a flat which generates $250 rent per month be a good decision? Whether investing in real estate is a good decision or not depends on many things, including the current and future supply/demand for rental units in your particular area. There are many questions on this site about this topic, and another answer to this question which already addresses many risks associated with owning property (though there are also benefits to consider). I just want to focus on this point you raised: I personally think yes, because rent adjusts with inflation and the rise in the price of the property is another benefit. Could this help me become financially independent in the long run since inflation is getting adjusted in it? In my opinion, the fact that rental income general adjusts with 'inflation' is a hedge against some types of economic risk, not an absolute increase in value. First, consider buying a house to live in, instead of to rent: If you pay off your mortgage before your retire, then you have reduced your cost of accommodations to only utilities, property taxes, and repairs. This gives you a (relatively) known, fixed requirement of cash outflows. If the value of property goes up by the time you retire - it doesn't cost you anything extra, because you already own your house. If the value of property goes down by the time you retire, then you don't save anything, because you already own your house. If you instead rent your whole life, and save money each month (instead of paying off a mortgage), then when you retire, you will have a larger amount of savings which you can use to pay your monthly rental costs each month. By the time you retire, your cost of accommodations will be the market price for rent at that time. If the value of property goes up by the time you retire - you will have to pay more on rent. If the value of property goes down by the time you retire, you will save money on rent. You will have larger savings, but your cash outflow will be a little bit less certain, because you don't know what the market price for rent will be. You can see that, because you need to put a roof over your own head, just by existing you bear risk of the cost of property rising. So, buying your own home can be a hedge against that risk. This is called a 'natural hedge', where two competing risks can mitigate each-other just by existing. This doesn't mean buying a house is always the right thing to do, it is just one piece of the puzzle to comparing the two alternatives [see many other threads on buying vs renting on this site, or on google]. Now, consider buying a house to rent out to other people: In the extreme scenario, assume that you do everything you can to buy as much property as possible. Maybe by the time you retire, you own a small apartment building with 11 units, where you live in one of them (as an example), and you have no other savings. Before, owning your own home was, among other pros and cons, a natural hedge against the risk of your own personal cost of accommodations going up. But now, the risk of your many rental units is far greater than the risk of your own personal accommodations. That is, if rent goes up by $100 after you retire, your rental income goes up by $1,000, and your personal cost of accommodations only goes up by $100. If rent goes down by $50 after you retire, your rental income goes down by $500, and your personal cost of accommodations only goes down by $50. You can see that only investing in rental properties puts you at great risk of fluctuations in the rental market. This risk is larger than if you simply bought your own home, because at least in that case, you are guaranteeing your cost of accommodations, which you know you will need to pay one way or another. This is why most investment advice suggests that you diversify your investment portfolio. That means buying some stocks, some bonds, etc.. If you invest to heavily in a single thing, then you bear huge risks for that particular market. In the case of property, each investment is so large that you are often 'undiversified' if you invest heavily in it (you can't just buy a house $100 at a time, like you could a stock or bond). Of course, my above examples are very simplified. I am only trying to suggest the underlying principle, not the full complexities of the real estate market. Note also that there are many types of investments which typically adjust with inflation / cost of living; real estate is only one of them.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Offer your thoughts or opinion on the input financial query or topic using your financial background.\nText: Incorporating real-world parameters into simulated(paper) trading", "role": "user" }, { "content": "I think you're on the wrong track. Getting more and more samples from the real world does not make your backtest more accurate, it just confirms that your strategy can withstand one particular sample path of a stochastic process. The reason why you find it simple to incorporate fees, commissions, taxes, etc. is because they're a static and constant process -- well they might change over time but most definitely uncorrelated to the markets. Modelling overnight returns or the top levels of the order book the next day is serious work. First you have to select a suitable model (that's mostly theoretical work but experience can help a lot). Then, in order to do it data-driven, you'd have to plough through thousands of days of sample data on a set of thousands of instruments to get a \"feeling\" (aka significant model parameters). Apropos data mining, I think Excel might be the wrong tool for the job. Level-2 data (even just the first 10 levels) is a massive blob. For example, the NYSE OpenBook historical data weighs in at a massive 15 TB compressed (uncompressed 74 TB) for the last 10 years, and costs USD 200k. Anyway, as for other factors to take into account: So how to account for all this in a backtest? Personally, I would put in some penalty terms (as % on a return basis) for every factor you want to consider, don't hardcode them. You can then run a stress test by exploring these parameters (i.e. assign some values in the range of 0 to whatever fits). Explore them individually (only set one penalty term at a time) to get a feeling how the strategy might react to stress from that factor. Then you can run the backtest with typical (or observed) combinations of penalty factors and slowly stress them altogether. Edit Just to avoid confusion about terminology. A backtest in the strict sense (had I implemented this strategy X years ago, what would have happened?) won't benefit from any modelling simply because the real-world \"does the sampling\" for us. However, to evaluate a strategy's robustness you should account for the additional factors and run some stress tests. If the strategy performs well in the real-world or no-stress scenario but produces losses once a tiny slippage occurs every now and again, you could conclude that the strategy is very fragile. The key is to explore the maximum stress the strategy can handle (by whatever measure); if a lot you can call the strategy robust. The latter is what I personally call a backtest; the first procedure would go by the name \"extension towards the past\" or so. Some lightweight literature:", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Utilize your financial knowledge, give your answer or opinion to the input question or subject . Answer format is not limited.\nText: Incorporating real-world parameters into simulated(paper) trading", "role": "user" }, { "content": "You said the decision will be made by EOD. If you've made the decision prior to the market close, I'd execute on the closing price. If you are trading stocks with any decent volume, I'd not worry about the liquidity. If your strategy's profits are so small that your gains are significantly impacted by say, the bid/ask spread (a penny or less for liquid stocks) I'd rethink the approach. You'll find the difference between the market open and prior night close is far greater than the normal bid/ask.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Offer your insights or judgment on the input financial query or topic using your financial expertise. Reply as normal question answering\nText: Is real (physical) money traded during online trading?", "role": "user" }, { "content": "With Forex trading - physical currency is not involved. You're playing with the live exchange rates, and it is not designed for purchasing/selling physical currency. Most Forex trading is based on leveraging, thus you're not only buying money that you're not going to physically receive - you're also paying with money that you do not physically have. The \"investment\" is in fact a speculation, and is akin to gambling, which, if I remember correctly, is strictly forbidden under the Islam rules. That said, the positions you have - are yours, and technically you can demand the physical currency to be delivered to you. No broker will allow online trading on these conditions, though, similarly to the stocks - almost no broker allows using physical certificates for stocks trading anymore.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Based on your financial expertise, provide your response or viewpoint on the given financial question or topic. The response format is open.\nText: Is real (physical) money traded during online trading?", "role": "user" }, { "content": "When you buy a currency via FX market, really you are just exchanging one country's currency for another. So if it is permitted to hold one currency electronically, surely it must be permitted to hold a different country's currency electronically.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Share your insights or perspective on the financial matter presented in the input.\nText: Is real (physical) money traded during online trading?", "role": "user" }, { "content": "I asked a followup question on the Islam site. The issue with Islam seems to be that exchanging money for other money is 'riba' (roughly speaking usury). There are different opinions, but it seems that in general exchanging money for 'something else' is fine, but exchanging money for other money is forbidden. The physicality of either the things or the money is not relevant (though again, opinions may differ). It's allowed to buy a piece of software for download, even though nothing physical is ever bought. Speculating on currency is therefore forbidden, and that's true whether or not a pile of banknotes gets moved around at any point. But that's my interpretation of what was said on the Islam site. I'm sure they would answer more detailed questions.", "role": "assistant" } ]

[ { "content": "Offer your thoughts or opinion on the input financial query or topic using your financial background.\nText: Is real (physical) money traded during online trading?", "role": "user" }, { "content": "This is somewhat of a non-answer but I'm not sure you'll ever find a satisfying answer to this question, because the premises on which the question is based on are flawed. Money itself does not \"exist physically,\" at least not in the same sense that a product you buy does. It simply does not make sense to say that you \"physically own money.\" You can build a product out of atoms, but you cannot build a money out of atoms. If you could, then you could print your own money. Actually, you can try to print your own money, but nobody would knowingly accept it and thus is it functionally nonequivalent to real money. The paper has no intrinsic value. Its value is derived from the fact that other people perceive it as valuable and nowhere else. Ergo paper money is no different than electronic money. It is for this reason that, if I were you, I would be okay with online Forex trading.", "role": "assistant" } ]