30), you should look at moving some of your investments into things that less volatile. Bond funds are the usual choice. They tend to be safer than stocks (assuming you don't invest in Junk bonds), but your investment grows at a slower rate. Now this doesn't mean you immediately dump all of your stock and buy bonds. Rather, it is a gradual transition over time. As you get older and older, you gradually shift your investments to bond funds. A general rule of thumb I have seen: 100 - (YOUR AGE) = Percentage of your portfolio that should be in stocks Someone that is 30 would have 70% of their portfolio in stock, someone that is 40 would have 60% in stock, etc. As you get closer to retirement (50s-60s), you will want to start looking at investments that are more conservatie than bonds. Start to look at fixed-income and money market funds.","qid":10975,"docid":"399543","rank":6,"score":138588},{"content":"Title: Content: Some companies allow you to make a post-tax contribution to the 401K. This is not a Roth contribution. This can be money beyond the 18,000 or 24,000 401k limit. The best news is that eventually that money can be rolled into 1 Roth-IRA. Not all companies allow this option. One company I worked for did this automatically when you hit the annual max. Of course that was made more complex if you had multiple employers that year.","qid":10975,"docid":"353009","rank":7,"score":137499},{"content":"Title: Content: \"From a purely analytical standpoint, assuming you are investing your Roth IRA contributions in broad market securities (such as the SPDR S&P 500 ETF, which tracks the S&P 500), the broader market has historically had more upward movement than downward, and therefore a dollar invested today will have a greater expected value than a dollar invested tomorrow. So from this perspective, it is better to \"\"max out\"\" your Roth on the first day of the contribution year and immediately invest in broad market (or at least well diversified) securities. That being said, opportunity costs must also be taken into account--every dollar you use to fund your Roth IRA is a dollar that is no longer available to be invested elsewhere (hence, a lost opportunity). With this in mind, if you are currently eligible for a 401k in which your employer matches some portion of your contributions, it is generally advised that you contribute to the 401k up to the employer-match. For example, if your employer matches 75% of contributions up to 3.5% of your gross salary, then it is advisable that you first contribute this 3.5% to your 401k before even considering contributing to a Roth IRA. The reasoning behind this is two-fold: first, the employer-match can be considered as a guaranteed Return on Investment--so for example, for an employer that matches 75%, for every dollar you contribute you already have earned a 75% return up to the employer's limit. Secondly, 401k contributions have tax implications: not only is the money contributed to the 401k pre-tax (i.e., contributions are not taxed), it also reduces your taxable income, so the marginal tax benefit of these contributions must also be taken into account. Keep in mind that in the usual circumstances, 401k disbursements are taxable. Finally, many financial advisors will also suggest establishing an \"\"emergency fund\"\", which is money that you will not use unless you suffer an emergency that has an impact on your normal income--loss of job, medical emergency, etc. These funds are often kept in highly liquid accounts (savings accounts, money-market funds, etc.) so they can be accessed immediately when you run into one of \"\"life's little surprises\"\". Generally, it is advised that an emergency fund between $500-$1000 is established ASAP, and over time the emergency fund should be increased until it has reached a value equivalent to the sum of 8 months' worth of expenses. If funding an IRA is preventing you from working towards such an emergency fund, then you may want to consider waiting on maxing out the IRA before you have that EF established. Of course, it goes without saying that credit card balances with APRs other than 0.00% (or similar) should be paid off before an IRA is funded, since while you can only hope to match the market at best (between 10-15% a year) in your IRA investments, paying down credit card balances is an instant \"\"return\"\" of whatever the APR is, which usually tends to be between a 15-30% APR. In a nutshell, assuming you are maxing out your 401k (if applicable), have an emergency fund established, are not carrying any high-APR credit card balances, and are able to do so, historical price movements in the markets suggest that funding your Roth IRA upfront and investing these funds immediately in a broadly diversified portfolio will yield a higher expected return than funding the account periodically throughout the year (using dollar cost averaging or similar strategies). If this is not the case, take some time to consider the opportunity costs you are incurring from not fully contributing to your 401k, carrying high credit card balances, or not having a sufficient emergency fund established. This is not financial advice specific to any individual and your mileage may vary. Consider consulting a Certified Financial Planner, Certified Public Accountant, etc. before making any major financial decisions.\"","qid":10975,"docid":"551403","rank":8,"score":137268},{"content":"Title: Content: They are mutually exclusive. Provided you meet the income limits you can contribute to both. Employer match do not count toward the 18K. On the other hand traditional IRA and Roth IRA are inclusive. So if single and making having a MAGI under 118K, you could do the 18K of your own money into a 401(k), and $5,500 into a Roth. You can put in $23,500 of your own money with the employer match on top of that.","qid":10975,"docid":"75766","rank":9,"score":135982},{"content":"Title: Content: if you have a work-sponsored retirement plan A 401k plan counts as a work-sponsored retirement plan. If you are a highly compensated employee (this is $115,000 for 2012), even your 401k contributions are limited. Given that, is there any difference at all between having a traditional IRA and a normal, taxable (non-retirement) investment account? You should consider a Roth IRA if you are making too much for a traditional IRA. When you make even more, then you can't contribute to a Roth, but can only contribute post-tax money to a traditional IRA. Use Form 8606 to keep track of non-deductable contributions over the years. Publication 590 is the official IRS explanation of what is deductable or not.","qid":10975,"docid":"447482","rank":10,"score":134736},{"content":"Title: Content: All data for a single adult in tax year 2010. Roth IRA 401K Roth 401k Traditional IRA and your employer offers a 401k Traditional IRA and your employer does NOT offer a 401k So, here are your options. If you have a 401k at work, you could max that out. If you make close to $120K, you could reduce your AGI enough to contribute to a Roth IRA. If you do not have a 401k at work, you could contribute to a Traditional IRA and deduct the $5K from your AGI similar to how a 401k works. Other than that, I think you are looking at investing outside of a retirement plan which means more flexibility, but no tax advantage.","qid":10975,"docid":"110114","rank":11,"score":134623},{"content":"Title: Content: All the answers that show the equivalency of 401(k) pre-tax and Roth 401(k) post-tax using equivalent contributions are correct assuming equivalent tax rates upon withdrawal. There is some potential gain if your tax rate upon retirement is higher than your working tax rate, but often people calculate a smaller percentage of their working income for their retirement income, which may offset a higher tax-rate anyway. In my mind, the primary advantage of a Roth 401(k) is that it effectively allows you to contribute more for retirement if you are currently maxing out your contributions in a regular 401(k) and IRA and want to contribute more. Doing so can be a big advantage when you are young and can benefit from those additional dollars being put into your retirement account early. This is effectively what is illustrated by the Fidelity calculation, and is something to consider if you are of the mind to aggressively save early for retirement. The reason Roth allows you to contribute more is because traditional IRA contributions are capped. Suppose the cap is $5500. Suppose also you immediately rollover your traditional IRA to a Roth IRA. This is a post-tax contribution, and growth on that is tax-free. If you maxed out your employer pre-tax 401(k) to $17500 and maxed out your IRA, you have maxed out your retirement contributions to $23000. Suppose two doublings, then the 401(k) has grown to $70000, and the IRA has grown to $22000. However, the withdrawal from the 401(k) is taxed, so assuming 25%, the total is $74500 after tax. Now, suppose instead you maxed out your employer Roth 401(k) post-tax instead, so you have put in $17500 post tax. And now, also max out your IRA. Now, all of your $23000 grows tax-free. So upon two doublings, you walk away with $92000. This is because you maxed out your contribution post-tax, meaning it was as if you were allowed to contribute $23333 to your pre-tax 401(k). So if you intend to max out your retirement account contributions, and are looking to contribute even more to retirement accounts, one way is two change over to contributing into the employer Roth 401(k).","qid":10975,"docid":"396257","rank":12,"score":134416},{"content":"Title: Content: You might want to bring this fancy new IRS rule to your employer's attention. If your employer sets it up, an After-Tax 401(k) Plan allows employees to contribute after-tax money above the $18k/year limit into a special 401(k) that allows deferral of tax on all earnings until withdrawal in retirement. Now, if you think about it, that's not all that special on its own. Since you've already paid tax on the contribution, you could imitate the above plan all by yourself by simply investing in things that generate no income until the day you sell them and then just waiting to sell them until retirement. So basically you're locking up money until retirement and getting zero benefit. But here's the cool part: the new IRS rule says you can roll over these contributions into a Roth 401(k) or Roth IRA with no extra taxes or penalties! And a Roth plan is much better, because you don't have to pay tax ever on the earnings. So you can contribute to this After-Tax plan and then immediately roll over into a Roth plan and start earning tax-free forever. Now, the article I linked above gets some important things slightly wrong. It seems to suggest that your company is not allowed to create a brand new 401(k) bucket for these special After-Tax contributions. And that means that you would have to mingle pre-tax and post-tax dollars in your existing Traditional 401(k), which would just completely destroy the usefulness of the rollover to Roth. That would make this whole thing worthless. However, I know from personal experience that this is not true. Your company can most definitely set up a separate After-Tax plan to receive all of these new contributions. Then there's no mingling of pre-tax and post-tax dollars, and you can do the rollover to Roth with the click of a button, no taxes or penalties owed. Now, this new plan still sits under the overall umbrella of your company's total retirement plan offerings. So the total amount of money that you can put into a Traditional 401(k), a Roth 401(k), and this new After-Tax 401(k) -- both your personal contributions and your company's match (if any) -- is still limited to $53k per year and still must satisfy all the non-discrimination rules for HCEs, etc. So it's not trivial to set up, and your company will almost certainly not be able to go all the way to $53k, but they could get a lot closer than they currently do.","qid":10975,"docid":"417257","rank":13,"score":133505},{"content":"Title: Content: This is an older question but things have changed. Its a common misconception on what the contribution cap is. A few things. In 2014, the IRS did not adjust the maximum contribution from the previous year which include 401(k) accounts, 403(b) accounts, most 457 plans, and Thrift Savings Plans, will be $18,000, up $500 from $17,500. Savers and investors aged 50 or older can take advantage of a catch-up contribution. In 2015, taxpayers who meet this age-based criterion can contribute an additional $6,000 above the regular maximum of $18,000, thus you can contribute a maximum of $24,000 into these tax-advantaged accounts. The total contribution limit, including employer contributions, has increased to $53,000 You can actually contribute up to 53k (including matching) so the exact amount you contribute from your actual income may end up being more or less than 24k. If you get a poor employer match you can actually contribute more but it would go in as after tax dollars and not claim the tax deduction. Note: after tax does NOT equal Roth. However if your a high salaried individual you can use this as a potential loop hole for funding a Roth IRA. Chances are if your making enough money to contribute 53k Total Contributions then your not going to qualify for a roth. However once you retire (or possibly before depending on the plan withdraw terms) you can roll the after tax money into a Roth IRA. This is a gray area on the tax policy. The IRS may come back and change their mind about this. If considering this option talk to a tax adviser.","qid":10975,"docid":"360533","rank":14,"score":133466},{"content":"Title: Content: \"With these income levels you cannot deduct any IRA contribution. I.e.: you cannot save pre-tax, as you want. But you still can contribute to IRA (as a non-deductible contribution), and using the \"\"loophole\"\" transfer the contribution to Roth (you are probably over the limit to be able to contribute to Roth directly). For pre-tax contributions - max out your 401k.\"","qid":10975,"docid":"53028","rank":15,"score":133202},{"content":"Title: Content: Your assumptions are flawed or miss crucial details. An employer sponsored 401k typically limits the choices of investments, whereas an IRA typically gives you self directed investment choices at a brokerage house or through a bank account. You are correct in noticing that you are limited in making your own pre-tax contributions to a traditional IRA in many circumstances when you also have an employer sponsored 401k, but you miss the massive benefit you have: You can rollover unlimited amounts from a traditional 401k to a traditional IRA. This is a benefit that far exceeds the capabilities of someone without a traditional 401k who is subject to the IRA contribution limits. Your rollover capabilities completely gets around any statutory contribution limit. You can contribution, at time of writing, $18,000 annually to a 401k from salary deferrals and an additional $35,000 from employer contributions for a maximum of $53,000 annually and roll that same $53,000 into an IRA if you so desired. That is a factor. This should be counterweighed with the borrowing capabilities of a 401k, which vastly exceeds an IRA again. The main rebuttal to your assumptions is that you are not necessarily paying taxes to fund an IRA.","qid":10975,"docid":"81148","rank":16,"score":133134},{"content":"Title: Content: You cannot contribute directly to that 401k account if you no longer work at the sponsoring company - you have to be on their payroll. You can, however, roll the 401k over into an IRA, and contribute to the IRA. Note that in both cases, you are only allowed to contribute from earned income (which includes all the taxable income and wages you get from working or from running your own business). As long as you are employed (and have made more than $5k this year) you should have no problem. I am not certain whether contributing your $5k to a roth IRA would help you achieve your tax goals, someone else here certainly can advise.","qid":10975,"docid":"372014","rank":17,"score":133016},{"content":"Title: Content: \"Unless your 401(k) plan is particularly good (i.e. good fund choices with low fees), you probably want to contribute enough to get the maximum match from your employer, then contribute to an IRA through a low-cost brokerage like Vanguard or Fidelity, then contribute more to your 401(k). As JoeTaxpayer said, contributions to a Roth IRA can be withdrawn tax- and penalty-free, so they are useful for early retirement. But certainly use your 401(k) as well--the tax benefits almost certainly outweigh the difficulty in accessing your money. JB King's link listing ways to access retirement money before the traditional age is fairly exhaustive. One of the main ways you may want to consider that hasn't been highlighted yet is IRS section 72(t) i.e. substantially equal periodic payments (SEPP). With this rule you can withdraw early from retirement plans without penalties. You have a few different ways of calculating the withdrawal amount. The main risk is you have to keep withdrawing that amount for the greater of five years or until you reach age 59½. In your case this is is only 4-5 years, which isn't too bad. Finally, in addition to being able to withdraw from a Roth IRA tax- and penalty-free, you can do the same for Roth conversions, provided 5 years have passed. So after you leave a job, you can rollover 401(k) money to a traditional IRA, then convert to a Roth IRA (the caveat being you have to pay taxes on the amount as income at this point). But after 5 years you can access the money without penalty, and no taxes since they've already been paid. This is commonly called a \"\"Roth conversion ladder\"\".\"","qid":10975,"docid":"73344","rank":18,"score":132487},{"content":"Title: Content: With a Roth IRA, you can withdraw the contributions at any time without penalty as long as you don't withdraw the earnings/interest. There are some circumstances where you can withdraw the earnings such as disability (and maybe first home). Also, the Roth IRA doesn't need to go through your employer and I wouldn't do it through your employer. I have mine setup through Fidelity though I'm not sure if they have any guaranteed 3% return unless it was a CD. All of mine is in stocks. Your wife could also setup a Roth IRA so over 2 years, you could contribute $20,000. If I was you, I would just max out any 403-b matches (which you surely are at 25% of gross income) and then save my down payment money in a normal money market/savings account. You are doing good contributing almost 25% to the 403-b. There are also some income limitations on Roth IRAs. I believe for a married couple, it is $160k.","qid":10975,"docid":"387338","rank":19,"score":132388},{"content":"Title: Content: \"You seem to be treating your Roth IRA as a sort of savings account for use in emergency situations. I would use a savings account for savings as withdrawing money from an IRA will have penalties under various circumstances (more than contributions, Roth IRA less than 5 years old, more than $10k for a down payment). Also, you mention folding your IRA into your 401k so that it will \"\"grow faster\"\". However, this will not have that effect. Imagine you have $30k in an IRA and $100k in a 401k and you are averaging a return of 8% / year on each. This will be identical to having a single 401k with $130k and an 8% / year return. This is not one of your questions, but employer matches are not counted in the 401k contribution limit. If your 22% calculation of your salary includes the match to reach the max contribution, you can still contribute more.\"","qid":10975,"docid":"270818","rank":20,"score":131097},{"content":"Title: Content: Is there any benefit to investing in a Roth 401(k) plan, as opposed to a Roth IRA? They have separate contribution limits, so how much you contribute to one does not change the amount you can contribute to the other. Which is relevant to your question because you said the earnings on that account compounded over the next 40 years growing tax-free will be much higher than what I'd save on current taxes on a traditional 401(k). This is only true if you max out your contribution limits. If you start with the same amount of money and have the same marginal tax rate in both years, it doesn't matter which one you pick. Start with $10,000 to invest. With the traditional, you can invest all $10,000. With the Roth, you pay taxes on it and then invest it. Let's assume a tax rate of 25%. So invest $7500. Let's assume that you invest either amount long enough to double four times (forty years at 7% return after inflation is about right). So the traditional has $160,000 and the Roth has $120,000. Now you withdraw them. For simplicity's sake, we'll pretend it's all one year. It's probably over several years, but the math is easier in a single year. With the Roth, you have $120,000. With the traditional, you have to pay tax. Again, let's assume 25%. So that's $40,000, leaving you with $120,000 from the traditional. That is the same amount as the Roth! So it would make sense to If you can max out both, great. You do that for forty years and your retirement will be as financially secure as you can make it. If you can't max them out, the most important thing is the employer match. That's free money. Then you may prefer your Roth IRA to the 401k. Note that you can also roll over your Roth 401k to a Roth IRA. Then you can withdraw your contributions from the Roth IRA without penalty or additional tax. Alternate source. Beyond answering your question, I would still like to reiterate that Roth or traditional does not have a big effect on your investment unless you max them out or you have different tax rates now versus in retirement. It may change other things. For example, you can roll over a Roth 401k to a Roth IRA without paying taxes. And the Roth IRA will act like it was contributed directly. You have to check with your employer what their rollover rules are. They may allow it any time or only at employment separation (when you leave the job). If you do max out your Roth accounts, then they will perform better than the traditional accounts at the same nominal contribution. This is because they are tax free while your returns in the other accounts will have to pay taxes. But it doesn't matter until you hit the limits. Until then, you could just invest the tax savings of the traditional as well as the money you could invest in a Roth.","qid":10975,"docid":"92442","rank":21,"score":131042},{"content":"Title: Content: \"The Forbes article IRS Announces 2014 Retirement Plan Contribution Limits For 401(k)s And More spells this out pretty clearly. For your wife - \"\"an IRA contributor who is not covered by a workplace retirement plan and is married to someone who is covered, the deduction is phased out if the couple’s income is between $181,000 and $191,000.\"\" So, with your wife not covered by a 401(k), and your income below the stated limit, she can deduct the IRA contribution. When your income gets beyond that limit, she can make a non-deductible contribution and convert to Roth, if she wishes.\"","qid":10975,"docid":"481802","rank":22,"score":130993},{"content":"Title: Content: \"First off, high five on the paycheck. There are a few retirement issues to deal with. 401k issues - At that income level, you will probably fall into the \"\"Highly Compensated Employee\"\" category, which means things get a little more complicated, both for you and your employer. (Wikipedia link) IRA issues - As you already realized, you make too much to directly open and contribute to a Roth IRA. You can open a Traditional IRA, however. Your income is already over the limit for Traditional IRA deduction (bummer), so it would seem there is little point to opening an IRA at all. However, there is a way to take advantage of a Roth IRA, even at your income level. It is possible to convert a Traditional IRA into a Roth IRA. There used to be income limits on the ability to do the conversion, which would have normally made this off limits to you. Starting in 2010, the income limit is removed, so you can do this. Basically, you open a Traditional IRA, max it out, then convert it to a Roth. Since there was no income deduction, you shouldn't have to pay any more taxes. (link) Disclaimer: I've never tried this, nor do I know anyone who has, so you might want to research it a bit more before you try it yourself.\"","qid":10975,"docid":"446226","rank":23,"score":129884},{"content":"Title: Content: \"Couple points: 1) Since the Roth is after tax, you can effectively contribute more than you could with the Traditional IRA before hitting the limits. So in your example, if you had extra money you wanted to invest in an IRA, you could invest up to $1,750 more into the Roth but only $500 more into the Traditional (current limits are $5,500 per year for single filers under 50). Your example assumes that you have exactly $3,750 in spare money looking for an IRA home. 2) The contributions (but not earnings) can be withdrawn from the Roth at any time, penalty and tax free. 3) The tax rate \"\"lock-in\"\" can be significant, especially early on when you are at a relatively low tax bracket, say 15%, but expect to be higher at retirement. 4) Traditional IRAs and 401(k) are taxed as ordinary income, so you go through the tax brackets. Even if the marginal rate is 25%, the effective rate may be lower. If you have a Roth, conceivably you could reduce the amount you need to withdrawal from the Trad IRA/401(k) to reduce the effective tax rate on those (of course subject to minimum distributions and all that). This is more an argument to have a mix of pre- and post-tax retirement accounts than strictly a pro-Roth reason.\"","qid":10975,"docid":"466626","rank":24,"score":129748},{"content":"Title: Content: You are already doing everything you can. If your employer does not have a 401(k) you are limited to investing in a Roth or a traditional IRA (Roth is post tax money, traditional IRA gives you a deduction so it is essentially pre tax money). The contribution limits are the same for both and contributing to either adds to the limit (so you can't duplicate). CNN wrote an article on some other ways to save: One thing you may want to bring up with your employer is that they could set up a SEP-IRA. This allows them to set a % (up to 25%) that they contribute pre-tax to an IRA for everyone at the company that has worked there at least 3 years. If you are at a small company, maybe everyone with that kind of seniority would take an equivalent pay cut to get the automatic retirement contribution? (Note that a SEP-IRA has to apply to everyone equally percentage wise that has worked there for 3 years, and the employer makes the contribution, not you).","qid":10975,"docid":"452592","rank":25,"score":129658},{"content":"Title: Content: With a 401k you will be taxed when you withdraw the money upon retirement (just like an IRA), but conventional wisdom had it that you're likely to be in a lower tax bracket at that time. That may not necessarily be the case though, in which case a Roth IRA would be a better option because you're paying for it with after tax dollars and distributions are untaxed. If you wanted to hedge your bets you could have both an IRA/401k and a Roth IRA. An IRA has income limits above which the contributions are no longer tax deductible, I don't believe a 401k has the same limitations (for completion's sake: a Roth IRA has income limits above which you can't contribute to one). And like you said, the employer match is free money.","qid":10975,"docid":"383472","rank":26,"score":129555},{"content":"Title: Content: \"Yes. Two years after your first contribution to the SIMPLE IRA, you can roll it to a traditional IRA. You can still contribute \"\"pre-tax\"\", but the mechanism will be slightly different, since with an employer plan the contribution was automatically deducted from your paycheck. With an individual plan, you make the contributions yourself and then get a tax deduction when you file. Since contributions to traditional and Roth IRAs combined are capped at $5,500 if you're under 50, some sort of employer-sponsored plan might be better from a contribution standpoint. If your institution offers some sort of plan other than a 401(k), you might still want to roll to a traditional IRA, since you will have much more flexibility in the investments you choose. On the flip side, if that thought is overwhelming, having a smaller set of options might be better for your peace of mind.\"","qid":10975,"docid":"244084","rank":27,"score":129520},{"content":"Title: Content: \"The error in the example is here: \"\"Now, if you contribute 5% to a Roth 401(k), your employer would match your after-tax 5% contribution. If the tax rate is 25%, that would be 5% of $60,000, which is $3,000. However, that $3,000 is put in to a traditional 401(k), so it is taxed when withdrawn. Assuming the tax rate is still 25% when you withdraw, you are only getting $2,250. Essentially you are giving up $750 of free money in this case.\"\" You set your contribution to Roth 401k as a function of the gross, 80,000. You choose 5% and contribute 4000 Your employer matches 4000. At the end of the year, your taxable income to the IRS is 80000, and you pay 30% or 24000. You have 80K-4K-24K to live on, or 52K If you chose the alternate regular 401k,then you contribute 4K, your income to the IRS is (80-4=) 76k, and you pay 30%, 22.8K in tax. You have 80-4-22.8 or 53.2K to live on. Or, to come at it the other way, you have 4000*30% =1200 extra tax reduction in your income this year. If the extra income in 401k versus extra current year tax in Roth IRA means you have to reduce less, like 2800K to the roth so you maintain a 53.2K lifestyle, then yes, the Roth IRA match is reduced. If you have the cash flow to prepay the current year tax and maximum-match contribution, you will get the full match based on your gross income.\"","qid":10975,"docid":"379911","rank":28,"score":128065},{"content":"Title: Content: \"Whether you contribute to an IRA (Traditional or Roth) and whether you contribute to a 401k (Traditional or Roth) are independent. IRAs have one contribution limit, and 401ks have another contribution limits, and these limits are independent. I see no reason why you wouldn't maximize the amount of money in tax-advantaged accounts, if you can afford to. In your first year of work, especially if you only work for part of the year, you're likely in a lower tax bracket than in the future, so Roth is better than Traditional. Another thing to note is that the money in the Roth IRA can be part of your \"\"safety net\"\" -- contributions to a Roth IRA (but not earnings) can be withdrawn at any time without tax or penalty. So if there is an emergency you can withdraw it, and it wouldn't be any worse than in a taxable account. And if you don't need it, then it will enjoy the tax benefits of being in the IRA.\"","qid":10975,"docid":"492971","rank":29,"score":127991},{"content":"Title: Content: Roth and 401k are first because with the Roth you have tax free withdrawals (awesome!) and with the 401k you have tax free contributions (awesome!) as well as potential employer matching. Traditional IRAs would be the final thing I would contribute to after both of those. And in your case, unless you make around 150k, you aren't maxing your 401k; so I'd do that first.","qid":10975,"docid":"552031","rank":30,"score":127982},{"content":"Title: Content: Just the amount contributed to the Roth 401k that you rolled over, not the conversions from regular 401k/traditional IRA (for those there are holding period limitation of 5 year from conversion), the earning on it or the employer's match (neither of these can be withdrawn without penalty as a non-qualified withdrawal). However, I'd suggest not to withdraw from Roth IRA unless you're sleeping on a bench in a park and beg strangers for a piece of bread. This is the best retirement investment you can make while you're in the lower tax brackets, and withdrawing it would reduce dramatically your tax-free retirement income.","qid":10975,"docid":"469311","rank":31,"score":127971},{"content":"Title: Content: The general advise is to contribute to the 401K up to the match limit. Then put money into a Roth IRA. Then put the rest into the 401K above the match. Yes you can have an IRA and a 401K. You can even have Roth and non-Roth versions. You do have to watch the limits, and exclusions, but there is nothing stopping you from contributing to multiple types in one year. Over a long career you may find your self with all the possible types of accounts. When you re-qualify for the company 401K, there is no need to roll over the IRA money into the 401K. Just keep the IRA.","qid":10975,"docid":"547218","rank":32,"score":127907},{"content":"Title: Content: \"It's going to be quite a challenge to give a definitive answer to any \"\"Why\"\" question about law, and especially so for a question about tax law. One would need to try to dig up statements made by the legislators (and/or their aides) crafting and debating the law. As it is, tax law is already inconsistent in many ways. (Why are there people who can't contribute to a Roth IRA directly but can contribute to a Traditional and then immediately convert it to Roth? Why are maximum limits for 401(k) plans and IRAs separate rather than being one combined \"\"retirement\"\" savings maximum?) In the absence of some specific legislative statements saying that it was set up this way for some specific purpose, one must assume that it was written with the some goals as all tax law: As a compromise between various ideas, trying to accomplish some specific purpose. Feel free to add in some level of inefficiency and it being hard to completely understand the entirely of the tax law, which leads to things perhaps not being as \"\"tidy\"\" as one might hope for. But there's no reason to think that the people crafting the tax advantages for HSA plans had any reason to use 401(k) plans as a template, or wanted them to accomplish the same goals.\"","qid":10975,"docid":"233794","rank":33,"score":127543},{"content":"Title: Content: I'm in a similar situation as I have a consulting business in addition to my regular IT job. I called the company who has my IRA to ask about setting up the Individual 401k and also mentioned that I contribute to my employer's 401k plan. The rep was glad I brought this up because he said the IRS has a limit on how much you can contribute to BOTH plans. For me it would be $24K max (myAge >= 50; If you are younger than 50, then the limit might be lower). He said the IRS penalties can be steep if you exceed the limit. I don't know if this is an issue for you, but it's something you need to consider. Be sure to ask your brokerage firm before you start the process.","qid":10975,"docid":"101490","rank":34,"score":127110},{"content":"Title: Content: \"Some 401k plans allow you to make \"\"supplemental post-tax contributions\"\". basically, once you hit the pre-tax contribution limit (17.5k$ in 2014), you are then allowed to contribute funds on a post-tax basis. Because of this timing, they are sometimes called \"\"spillover\"\" contributions. Usually, this option is advertised as a way of continuing to get company match even if you accidentally hit the pre-tax limit. But if you actually pay attention to your finances, it is instead a handy way to put away additional tax-advantaged money. That said, you would only want to use this option if you already maxed out your pre-tax and Roth options since you don't get the traditional tax break on contributions or the Roth tax break on the earnings. However, when you leave the company, you can transfer the post-tax money directly into a Roth IRA when you transfer the pre-tax money, match, and earnings into a traditional IRA.\"","qid":10975,"docid":"120394","rank":35,"score":126435},{"content":"Title: Content: These are plans similar to 401k plans. 457(b) plans available for certain government and non-profit organizations, 403(b) available for certain educational, hospital, religious and non-profit organizations. Your school apparently fits into both classes, so it has both. These plans don't have to allow ROTH contributions, but they may, so you have to check if there's an option. The main (but not only) difference from IRA is the limit: for 401(k), 403(b) and 457(b) plans the contribution limit is $17500, while for IRA its $5500 (for 2013). Additional benefit of 457(b) plan is that there's no 10% penalty on early withdrawal, just taxes (at ordinal rates).","qid":10975,"docid":"316651","rank":36,"score":126289},{"content":"Title: Content: I'm of the opinion that it doesn't matter much unless something in your life changes in retirement. And since many retirement planners assume a default income target of 80 percent of pre-retirement income, I figure many people's tax bracket isn't moving much. The most interesting reason I know to Go Roth in a 401k is limits. You can only contribute like $17k, whether Roth or not. In a traditional contribution, some of the 17k you put in goes to taxes when taken out, but in a Roth contribution you pay taxes up front. So if you have more than $17k to invest, Roth lets you sneak some more into the system.","qid":10975,"docid":"586909","rank":37,"score":125917},{"content":"Title: Content: It sounds like you're comparing (1) the backdoor Roth IRA and (2) the mega backdoor Roth. Although the names are similar they are considerably different, and not mutually exclusive. The goal of the backdoor Roth IRA is to contribute to a Roth IRA even if you are over the income limits. This is accomplished by contributing to a non-deductible Traditional IRA and then converting to Roth. Both of these steps have no income limit (unlike a direct Roth IRA contribution, which does), and only the earnings (which should be minimal) will be taxed. More info here (mirror). The goal of the mega backdoor Roth is to get a lot of money into Roth accounts through salary deferral. This is accomplished by making non-Roth after-tax contributions to your 401(k) after exhausting the $18,000 limit (in 2017) for pre-tax + Roth employee contributions. The after-tax contributions (potentially up to $36,000 for 2017) can be rolled over to the Roth 401(k) or to a Roth IRA, while the earnings can be rolled over to the pre-tax 401(k) or a Traditional IRA, or taxed like regular income and converted to Roth along with the contributions. More info here (mirror).","qid":10975,"docid":"222836","rank":38,"score":125857},{"content":"Title: Content: Your math is correct. As you point out, because of the commutative property of multiplication, Roth and traditional IRAs offer the same terminal wealth if your tax rate is the same when you pull it out as when you put it in. Roth does lock in your tax rate as of today as you point out, which is why it frequently does not maximize wealth (most of us have a higher tax bracket when we are saving than when we are withdrawing from savings). There are a few other potential considerations/advantages of a Roth: Roth and traditional IRAs have the same maximum contribution amount. This means the effective amount you can contribute to a Roth is higher ($5,500 after tax instead of before). If this constraint is binding for you and you don't expect your tax rate to change, Roth is better. Roth IRAs allow you to withdraw your contributed money (not the gains) at any time without any tax or penalty whatsoever. This can be an advantage to some who would like to use it for something like a down payment instead of keeping it all the way to retirement. In this sense the Roth is more flexible. As your income becomes high, the deductibility of traditional IRA contributions goes to zero if you have a 401(k) at work (you can still contribute but can't deduct contributions). At high incomes you also may be disallowed from contributing to a Roth, but because of the backdoor Roth loophole you can make Roth contributions at any income level and preserve the full Roth tax advantage. Which type of account is better for any given person is a complex problem with several unknowns (like future tax rates). However, because tax rates are generally higher when earning money, for most people who can contribute to them, traditional IRAs maximize your tax savings and therefore wealth. Edit: Note that traditional IRA contributions also reduce your AGI, which is used to compute eligibility for other tax advantages, like the child care tax credit and earned income credit. AGI is also often used for state income tax calculation. In retirement, traditional IRA distributions may or may not be state taxable, depending on your state and circumstances.","qid":10975,"docid":"53996","rank":39,"score":125749},{"content":"Title: Content: As far as I know, there is no direct equivalent. An IRA is subject to many rules. Not only are there early withdrawal penalties, but the ability to deduct contributions to an IRA phases out with one's income level. Qualified withdrawals from an IRA won't have penalties, but they will be taxed as income. Contributions to a Roth IRA can be made post-tax and the resulting gains will be tax free, but they cannot be withdrawn early. Another tax-deductable investment is a 529 plan. These can be withdrawn from at any time, but there is a penalty if the money is not used for educational purposes. A 401K or similar employer-sponsored fund is made with pre-tax dollars unless it is designated as a Roth 401K. These plans also require money to be withdrawn specifically for retirement, with a 10% penalty for early withdrawal. Qualifying withdrawals from a regular retirement plan are taxed as income, those from a Roth plan are not (as with an IRA). Money can be made harder to get at by investing in all of the types of funds you can invest in using an IRA through the same brokers under a different type of account, but the contribution will be made with post-tax, non-deductable dollars and the gains will be taxed.","qid":10975,"docid":"545184","rank":40,"score":125626},{"content":"Title: Content: Employer matches (even for Roth 401Ks) are put into traditional 401K accounts and are treated as pre-tax income. Traditional 401K plans are tax deferred accounts, meaning you won't owe any taxes on it this year, but will have to pay taxes on it when you take the money out (likely after retirement). 401K contributions (including the match) are reported to the IRS and are entered in box 12 on the W2 form.","qid":10975,"docid":"221938","rank":41,"score":125463},{"content":"Title: Content: To answer your question: As far as what's available in addition to your 401(k) at work (most financial types will say to contribute up to the match first), you may qualify for a Roth IRA (qualification is based on income), if not, then you may have to go with a Traditional IRA. You and your husband can each have one and contribute up to the limit each year. After that, you could get just a straight up mutual fund, and/or contribute up to limit on your 401(k). My two cents: This may sound counter-intuitive (and I'm sure some folks will disagree), but instead of contributing to your 401(k) now, take whatever that amount is, and use it to pay extra on the car loan. Also take the extra being paid on the mortgage and pay it on the car loan too. Once the car loan is paid off, then set aside 15% of your gross income and use that amount to start your retirement investing. Any additional money beyond this can then go into the mortgage. Once it's paid off, then you can take the extra you were paying, plus the mortgage and invest that amount into mutual funds. You may want to check out Chris Hogan's Retire Inspired book or podcast as well.","qid":10975,"docid":"499606","rank":42,"score":125351},{"content":"Title: Content: Yours two funds are redundant. Both are designed to have a mix of bonds and stocks and allow you to put all your money in them. Pick the one that has the lowest fees and stick with that (I didn't look at the funds you didn't select...they didn't look great either). Although all your funds have high fees, some are higher than others, so don't ignore fees. When you have decided on your portfolio weights, prioritize your money thus: Contribute enough to your 401(k) to get the full match from your employer Put everything else toward paying off that credit card until you have 0 balance. It's ok to use the card, but let it be little enough that you pay your statement balance off each month so you pay no interest. Then set aside some savings and invest any retirement money into a Roth IRA. At your income level your taxes are low so Roth is better than traditional IRA or 401(k). If you max out your Roth, put any other retirement savings in your 401(k).","qid":10975,"docid":"124042","rank":43,"score":125108},{"content":"Title: Content: If you were looking to maximize your ability to save in a qualified plan, why not setup a 401K plan in Company A and keep the SEP in B? Setup the 401K in A such that any employee can contribute 100% of their salary. Then take a salary for around 19K/year (assuming under age 50), so you can contribute and have enough to cover SS taxes. Then continue to move dividends to Company A, and continue the SEP in B. This way if you are below age 50, you can contribute 54K (SEP limit) + 18K (IRA limit) + 5500 (ROTH income dependent) to a qualified plan.","qid":10975,"docid":"363591","rank":44,"score":124565},{"content":"Title: Content: No. Even if you don't need the additional salary income now, you might be able to contribute the incremental amount over the Roth max to either of the other two types of IRAs, or maybe even something else. You never want to take a lower salary, especially not in exchange for something that is conditional e.g. benefits. Your salary is the only thing that is guaranteed as a condition of employment. Other things can be changed by the employer at a future point in time. If you have two different job offers and the salaries are different, that is a separate scenario. You should make the decision based on overall comparison, not just using Roth limit contribution criteria.","qid":10975,"docid":"292230","rank":45,"score":124459},{"content":"Title: Content: \"Your contribution limit to a 401(k) is $18,000. Your employer is allowed to contribute to your 401(k), usually a \"\"matching contribution\"\". That matching contribution comes from your employer, so is not subject to your personal contribution limit. A contribution to a regular 401(k) is typically made with pre-tax money (i.e. you don't pay payroll taxes on the money you contribute) so you pay less taxes for the current tax year. However when you retire and you take money out, you pay taxes on the money you take out. On one hand, your tax rate may be lower when you have retired, but on the other hand, if your investments have appreciated over time, the total amount of tax you pay would be higher. If your company offers a Roth 401(k) plan, you can contribute $18,000 of after tax money. This way you pay the tax on the $18,000 today, as you would if you did not put the money in the 401(k), but when you take the money out at retirement, you would not have to pay tax. In my opinion, that serves as a way to pay effectively more money into your 401(k). Some firms put vesting provisions on the amount that they match in your 401(k), e.g. 4 years at 25% per year. So you have to work 1 full year to be entitled to 25% of their matching contribution, 2 years for 50%, and 4 years to receive all of it. Check your company's Summary Plan Description of the 401(k) to be sure. You are not allowed to invest pre-tax money into a Traditional IRA if you are already contributing to a 401(k) plan and have reached the income limits ($62,000 AGI for single head of household). You are allowed to contribute post-tax money to a Traditional IRA plan if you have already contributed to a 401(k), which you can then Roll-over into a Roth IRA (look up 'backdoor IRA'). The IRA contribution limit applies to all IRA accounts over that calendar year. You could put some money in a traditional IRA, a Roth IRA, another traditional IRA, etc. so long as the total amount is not more than the contribution limit. This gives you an upper limit of 5.5k + 18k = 23.5 investments in retirement accounts. Note however, once you reach age 50, these limits increase to 6.5k (IRA) + 24k (401(k)). They also are adjusted periodically with the rate of inflation. The following approach may be more efficient for building wealth: This ordering is the subject of debate and people have different opinions. There is a separate discussion of these priorities here: Best way to start investing, for a young person just starting their career? Note however, a 401(k) loan becomes payable if you leave your company, and if not repaid, is an unauthorised distribution from your 401k (and therefore subject to an additional 10% tax penalty). You should also be careful putting money into an IRA, as you will be subject to an additional 10% tax penalty if you take out the money (distribution) before retirement, unless one of the exceptions defined by the IRA applies (e.g. $10,000 for first time home purchase), which could wipe out more than any gains you made by putting it in there in the first place. Your specific circumstances may vary, so this approach may not be best for you. A registered financial advisor may be able to help - ensure they are legitimate: https://adviserinfo.sec.gov\"","qid":10975,"docid":"38532","rank":46,"score":124304},{"content":"Title: Content: \"If it was me, I would drop out. You can achieve a better kind of plan when there is no match. For example Fidelity has no fee accounts for IRAs and Roths with thousands of investment choices. You can also setup automatic drafts, so it simulates what happens with your 401K. Not an employee of Fidelity, just a happy customer. Some companies pass the 401K fees onto their employees, and all have limited investment choices. The only caveat is income. There are limits to the deductibility of IRAs and Roth contributions if you make \"\"too much\"\" money. For Roth's the income is quite high so most people can still make those contributions. About 90% of households earn less than $184K, when Roths start phasing out. Now about this 401K company, it looks like the labor department has jurisdiction over these kinds of plans and I would research on how to make a complaint. It would help if you and other employees have proof of the shenanigans. You might also consult a labor attourney, this might make a great class.\"","qid":10975,"docid":"72160","rank":47,"score":124230},{"content":"Title: Content: A good general rule is to save 15% of your income for retirement. As for where you put it: Put as much as it takes to maximize your employer match into your 401(k), but no more. The employer match is free money, and you can't beat free money If you still haven't put in 15%, put the rest into a Roth IRA. By historical standards, taxes are pretty low today. They are almost certainly going to be higher in retirement, especially since you likely won't have the deductions in retirement that you may have now (kids, mortgage, etc). If you've maxed our the allowed contribution for your Roth and still haven't saved 15%, put the rest in a traditional IRA.","qid":10975,"docid":"169232","rank":48,"score":124156},{"content":"Title: Content: If you want to 'offset' current (2016) income, only deductible contribution to a traditional IRA does that. You can make nondeductible contributions to a trad IRA, and there are cases where that makes sense for the future and cases where it doesn't, but it doesn't give you a deduction now. Similarly a Roth IRA has possible advantages and disadvantages, but it does not have a deduction now. Currently he maximum is $5500 per person ($6500 if over age 50, but you aren't) which with two accounts (barely) covers your $10k. To be eligible to make this deductible traditional contribution, you must have earned income (employment or self-employment, but NOT the distribution from another IRA) at least the amount you want to contribute NOT have combined income (specifically MAGI, Modified Adjusted Gross Income) exceeding the phaseout limit (starts at $96,000 for married-joint) IF you were covered during the year (either you or your spouse) by an employer retirement plan (look at box 13 on your W-2's). With whom. Pretty much any bank, brokerage, or mutual fund family can handle IRAs. (To be technical, the bank's holding company will have an investment arm -- to you it will usually look like one operation with one name and logo, one office, one customer service department, one website etc, but the investment part must be legally separate from the insured banking part so you may notice a different name on your legal and tax forms.) If you are satisified with the custodian of the inherited IRA you already have, you might just stay with them -- they may not need as much paperwork, you don't need to meet and get comfortable with new people, you don't need to learn a new website. But if they sold you an annuity at your age -- as opposed to you inheriting an already annuitized IRA -- I'd want a lot of details before trusting they are acting in your best interests; most annuities sold to IRA holders are poor deals. In what. Since you want only moderate risk at least to start, and also since you are starting with a relatively small amount where minimum investments, expenses and fees can make more of an impact on your results, I would go with one or a few broad (= lower risk) index (= lower cost) fund(s). Every major fund familly also offers at least a few 'balanced' funds which give you a mixture of stocks and bonds, and sometimes some 'alternatives', in one fund. Remember this is not committing you forever; any reasonable custodian will allow you to move or spread to more-adventurous (but not wild and crazy) investments, which may be better for you in future years when you have some more money in the account and some more time to ponder your goals and options and comfort level.","qid":10975,"docid":"111350","rank":49,"score":123990},{"content":"Title: Content: HSAs are very similar to IRAs. Any investment returns grow tax-deferred and once you reach age 59 1/2 65, you can withdraw the funds for any purpose (subject to ordinary income tax), just like a traditional IRA. If you can afford to do so, I would recommend you to pay medical expenses out-of-pocket and let the funds in your HSA accumulate and grow. In general, the best way to allocate your funds is in the following order: Contribute to a 401(k) if your employer matches funds at a substantial rate Pay off high-interest debt (8% of more in current environment in 2011) Contribute to an IRA (traditional or Roth) Contribute to an HSA Contribute to a 401(k) without the benefit of employer matching One advantage of HSAs versus IRAs is that you don't have to have earned income (salary or self-employment income) in order to contribute. If you derive income solely from rents, interest or dividends, you can contribute the maximum amount ($3,050 for individuals in 2011) and get a full deduction from your income (Of course, you will need to maintain a high-deductible health plan in order to qualify). One downside of HSAs is the lack of competitively priced providers. Wells Fargo offers HSAs for free, but only allows you to keep your funds in cash, earning a very measly interest rate, or invest them in rather mediocre and expensive Wells Fargo mutual funds. Vanguard, known for its low-fee investment options, provides HSAs through a partner company, but the account maintenance charges are still quite high. Overall, HSAs are a worthwhile option as part of your investment plan.","qid":10975,"docid":"402523","rank":50,"score":123979},{"content":"Title: Content: Are you obligated to do what they ask? Probably not, with one big caveat discussed below. Your employer sent your money and their money after every paycheck to the 401K management company. Then after a while the 401K management company followed your instructions to roll it over into an IRA. Now the IRA management company has it. Pulling it out of the IRA would be very hard, and the IRA company would be required to report it to the IRS as a withdraw. Here is the caveat. If the extra funds you put in allowed you to exceed the annual contribution amount set by the law, or if it allowed you to put more than 100% of your income into the fund, then this would be an excess contribution, and you and your employer would have to resolve or face the excess contribution penalties. Though if the 401K company and HR allowed you to exceed the annual limit they have a much more complex problem with their payroll system. The bigger concern is why they want you to pull out your $27.50 and their $27.50. Unless you were hitting the maximum limit, your $27.50 could have been invested by adjusting the percentage taken out of each check. You could have picked a percentage to reach a goal. That money is yours because you contributed it and unless you exceed the IRS set limits it is still pre-tax retirement money. The return of matching funds may be harder to calculate. The returns for 2013 were very good. Each $1.06 of matching funds each paycheck purchased a fraction of some investment. That investment went up and down, ok mostly up, if it was invested in the broad market. I guess you should be glad they aren't asking for more due to the increase in value. It would be very hard to calculate what happened if you have moved it around since then. Which of course you did when you moved it into an IRA. If the average employee was also given a $55 gift last year, then the suggestion to the employer is that the tax complexity you and your fellow employees face would exceed the cost of the extra funds. They should chalk it up to an expensive lesson and move on.","qid":10975,"docid":"140349","rank":51,"score":123802},{"content":"Title: Content: You are in the perfect window for making an IRA contribution. The IRS allows you to make IRA contributions for last year until tax day. So you know that for 2014 you didn't have access to a 401K at work. You want to avoid making a deductible IRA contribution for this year (2015) until you are sure that you wont have a 401K at work this year. Take your time and decide if the detectible IRA or the Roth works best for your situation. Having a IRA now will be good becasue you have many years for it to grow. Keep in mind that it is not unusual to have multiple retirement accounts: Current 401K; rolled over into a IRA; Roth IRA... Each has different rules, limits, and benefits. There is no reason to pick one way of investing for retirement becasue you never know if the next employer will have the type of plan you like. I am assuming that your spouse, if you are married, doesn't have access to a 401K; otherwise you would have to consider the applicable limits.","qid":10975,"docid":"332113","rank":52,"score":123423},{"content":"Title: Content: Traditional and Roth 401k share a contribution limit of $16.5k. This means you could actually contribute to both if you wished to (say, if you weren't 100% on how taxes will change come retirement time), but the combined contributions for the year cannot exceed that limit.","qid":10975,"docid":"569651","rank":53,"score":123373},{"content":"Title: Content: From your updated information, it seems like you are not eligible to deduct a Traditional IRA contribution, at your income since you are covered by a 401(k) at work. Therefore, contributing to a Roth IRA is the only real option in terms of IRAs. However, if you want to have some pre-tax contributions, you can change some or all of your Roth 401(k) to Traditional 401(k).","qid":10975,"docid":"261369","rank":54,"score":123093},{"content":"Title: Content: You can invest another $5,500 in your Roth IRA each year, so you can invest up to $11,000 between the two tax years. Additionally you can make investments for the previous year up until 15 April the following year. In your case that will be close to graduation time, and you may decide to max out the contribution for 2014, but wait until you are settled into a new job before setting those savings aside long-term. When you start your first job, there will likely also be an option to invest in a 401k. You can still have the advantages of a Roth, but you will be limited to the investments available in the plan. Most employers I've seen today still offer a low-cost index fund, but you may have to speak up at a company meeting to pressure them to include one of those options in the plan. With a 401k your limit increases to $17,500/year. Make sure that the index fund you invest in has the lowest possible expense ratio. I use VOO. Depending on trading fees, etc., you might pick something else.","qid":10975,"docid":"204992","rank":55,"score":123015},{"content":"Title: Content: Luke, I'd like to point out some additional benefits of the Roth IRA accounts 1) Going Roth, you can effectively increase the amount of your contribution to your IRA account. In your example, you are assuming that your contribution to Roth IRA is in fact $ 85 ($100 less $ 15 tax paid). In reality, albeit more costly, Roth IRA allows you to contribute full $ 100 ($117.65 less $ 17.65 tax incurred.) Using this method you can in fact grow your tax-free funds to $ 1.006.27 over 30 years. The larger you effective tax rate is, the larger will be the difference between your maximum effective Traditional vs Roth IRA contribution will be. 2) Should you need to access your IRA funds in case of emergency (unqualified event of not buying your first home, nor paying for your college education), Roth IRA account contributions can be withdrawn without incurring the 10% penalty charge, that would be imposed on your unqualified Traditional IRA distribution. 3) As other contributors noted it's hard to believe that lower US tax rates would prevail. Chances are you will be contributing to Traditional 401k later throughout your work life. Having a Roth IRA account would afford you a tax diversification needed to hedge against possible tax rate hikes coming in the future. Considering the gloomy future of the Social Security funding, and ever-growing US national debt, can we really expect for there to not be any tax rate increases in the next 20-40 years?! By the way, as others pointed out your effective tax rate will always be lower than your marginal tax bracket.","qid":10975,"docid":"436884","rank":56,"score":122679},{"content":"Title: Content: My perspective is from the US. Many employers offer 401(k)s and you can always contribute to an IRA for either tax deferred or tax free investment growth. If you're company offers a 401(k) match you should always contribute the maximum amount they max or you're leaving money on the table. Companies can't always support pensions and it isn't the best idea to rely on one entirely for retirement unless your pension is from the federal government. Even states such as Illinois are going through extreme financial difficulties due to pension funding issues. It's only going to get worse and if you think pension benefit accrual isn't going to be cut eventually you'll have another thing coming. I'd be worried if I was a state employee in the middle of my career with no retirement savings outside of my pension. Ranting: Employees pushed hard for some pretty absurd commitments and public officials let the public down by giving in. It seems a little crazy to me that someone can work for the state until they're in their 50's and then earn 70% of their 6 figure salary for the rest of their life. Something needs to be done but I'd be surprised if anyone has the political will to make tough choices now before thee options get much much worse and these states are forced to make a decision.","qid":10975,"docid":"2103","rank":57,"score":122186},{"content":"Title: Content: I know in the instance that if my MAGI exceeds a certain point, I can not contribute the maximum to the Roth IRA; a traditional IRA and subsequent backdoor is the way to go. My understanding is that if you ever want to do a backdoor Roth, you don't want deductible funds in a Traditional account, because you can't choose to convert only the taxable funds. From the bogleheads wiki: If you have any other (non-Roth) IRAs, the taxable portion of any conversion you make is prorated over all your IRAs; you cannot convert just the non-deductible amount. In order to benefit from the backdoor, you must either convert your other IRAs as well (which may not be a good idea, as you are usually in a high tax bracket if you need to use the backdoor), or else transfer your deductible IRA contributions to an employer plan such as a 401(k) (which may cost you if the 401(k) has poor investment options).","qid":10975,"docid":"123027","rank":58,"score":122100},{"content":"Title: Content: The strength of your plan is that you have considered that if you contribute early the the 401K you might not get the match, so you do stretch it out for the entire year.. One benefit to putting money into the HSA early is that it will be available if you need it early in the year if you have a major medical emergency in the first quarter. If you need to pay a $4,000 deductible in January because of Appendicitis you would hate to have to use post tax money to pay the bill. Of course If you have had the HSA for several years then this might not be a problem. If you haven't maxed the Roth IRA for 2013, you could make contributions to the IRA up until April 15 2014 to count for the previous year. A risk with the HSA is if you leave your employer mid-year. You can keep the money, and use it for medical expenses, but if the new company doesn't have a an HSA/High Deductible plan you might have contributed too much. The 401K, HSA, and IRA are annual limits. So if you will switch companies you are responsible for not going over the limit.","qid":10975,"docid":"122061","rank":59,"score":122070},{"content":"Title: Content: \"The limit on SEP IRA is 25%, not 20%. If you're self-employed (filing on Schedule C), then it's taken on net earning, which in your example would be 25% of $90,000. (https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/retirement-plans-for-self-employed-people) JoeTaxpayer is correct as regards the 401(k) limits. The elective deferrals are per person - That's a cap in sum across multiple plans and across both traditional and Roth if you have those. In general, it's actually across other retirement plan types too - See below. If you're self-employed and set-up a 401(k) for your own business, the elective deferral is still aggregated with any other 401(k) plans in which you participate that year, but you can still make the employer contribution on your own plan. This IRS page is current a pretty good one on this topic: https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/one-participant-401k-plans Key quotes that are relevant: The business owner wears two hats in a 401(k) plan: employee and employer. Contributions can be made to the plan in both capacities. The owner can contribute both: •Elective deferrals up to 100% of compensation (“earned income” in the case of a self-employed individual) up to the annual contribution limit: ◦$18,000 in 2015 and 2016, or $24,000 in 2015 and 2016 if age 50 or over; plus •Employer nonelective contributions up to: ◦25% of compensation as defined by the plan, or ◦for self-employed individuals, see discussion below It continues with this example: The amount you can defer (including pre-tax and Roth contributions) to all your plans (not including 457(b) plans) is $18,000 in 2015 and 2016. Although a plan's terms may place lower limits on contributions, the total amount allowed under the tax law doesn’t depend on how many plans you belong to or who sponsors those plans. EXAMPLE Ben, age 51, earned $50,000 in W-2 wages from his S Corporation in 2015. He deferred $18,000 in regular elective deferrals plus $6,000 in catch-up contributions to the 401(k) plan. His business contributed 25% of his compensation to the plan, $12,500. Total contributions to the plan for 2015 were $36,500. This is the maximum that can be contributed to the plan for Ben for 2015. A business owner who is also employed by a second company and participating in its 401(k) plan should bear in mind that his limits on elective deferrals are by person, not by plan. He must consider the limit for all elective deferrals he makes during a year. Notice in the example that Ben contributed more that than his elective limit in total (his was $24,000 in the example because he was old enough for the $6,000 catch-up in addition to the $18,000 that applies to everyone else). He did this by declaring an employer contribution of $12,500, which was limited by his compensation but not by any of his elective contributions. Beyond the 401(k), keep in mind that elective contributions are capped across different types of retirement plans as well, so if you have a SEP IRA and a solo 401(k), your total contributions across those plans are also capped. That's also mentioned in the example. Now to the extent that you're considering different types of plans, that's a whole question in itself - One that might be worth consulting a dedicated tax advisor. A few things to consider (not extensive list): As for payroll / self-employment tax: Looks like you will end up paying Medicare, including the new \"\"Additional Medicare\"\" tax that came with the ACA, but not SS: If you have wages, as well as self-employment earnings, the tax on your wages is paid first. But this rule only applies if your total earnings are more than $118,500. For example, if you will have $30,000 in wages and $40,000 in selfemployment income in 2016, you will pay the appropriate Social Security taxes on both your wages and business earnings. In 2016, however, if your wages are $78,000, and you have $40,700 in net earnings from a business, you don’t pay dual Social Security taxes on earnings more than $118,500. Your employer will withhold 7.65 percent in Social Security and Medicare taxes on your $78,000 in earnings. You must pay 15.3 percent in Social Security and Medicare taxes on your first $40,500 in self-employment earnings and 2.9 percent in Medicare tax on the remaining $200 in net earnings. https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10022.pdf Other good IRS resources:\"","qid":10975,"docid":"406561","rank":60,"score":121967},{"content":"Title: Content: According to the IRS, you can still put money in your IRA. Here (https://www.irs.gov/Retirement-Plans/Plan-Participant,-Employee/Retirement-Topics-IRA-Contribution-Limits) they say: Can I contribute to an IRA if I participate in a retirement plan at work? You can contribute to a traditional or Roth IRA whether or not you participate in another retirement plan through your employer or business. However, you might not be able to deduct all of your traditional IRA contributions if you or your spouse participates in another retirement plan at work. Roth IRA contributions might be limited if your income exceeds a certain level. In addition, in this link (https://www.irs.gov/Retirement-Plans/IRA-Deduction-Limits), the IRS says: Retirement plan at work: Your deduction may be limited if you (or your spouse, if you are married) are covered by a retirement plan at work and your income exceeds certain levels. The word 'covered' should clarify that - you are not covered anymore in that year, you just got a contribution in that year which was triggered by work done in a previous year. You cannot legally be covered in a plan at an employer where you did not work in that year.","qid":10975,"docid":"248536","rank":61,"score":121052},{"content":"Title: Content: \"typically, your employer will automatically stop making contributions once you hit the 18k$ limit. it is worth noting that employer contributions (e.g. \"\"matching\"\") do not count towards the 18k$ employee pre-tax contribution limit. however, if you have 2 employers during the year their combined payroll deductions might exceed the limit if you do not inform your later employer of the contributions you made at your former employer (or they ignore the info). in which case, you must request a refund of \"\"excess contributions\"\" from one of the plans (your choice). you must report the refund as taxable income on your taxes. if you do not make this request by the time you file your taxes, the tax man will reject your filing and \"\"adjust\"\" your return with more taxes and penalties. sometimes requesting a refund of excess contributions might cause your employer to remove \"\"matching\"\" funds, but i am not clear on the rules behind that. there are some 401k plans that allow \"\"supplemental after-tax contributions\"\" up to the combined employee/employer limit (53k$ in 2015 and 2016). it is a rare feature, and if your company offers it, you probably already know. however, generally it is governed by a separate contribution election that only take effect once you hit the employee pre-tax contribution limit (18k$ in 2015 and 2016). you could ask your hr department to be sure. 401k plans can be changed if there is enough employee demand for a rule change. especially in a small company, simply asking for them to allow dollar based contributions instead of percent based contributions can cause them to change the plan to allow it. similarly, you could request they allow \"\"supplemental after-tax contributions\"\", but that might be a harder change to get.\"","qid":10975,"docid":"427997","rank":62,"score":121030},{"content":"Title: Content: \"If I understand correctly, the Traditional IRA, if you have 401k with an employer already, has the following features: Actually, #1 and #2 are characteristics of Roth IRAs, not Traditional IRAs. Only #3 is a characteristic of a Traditional IRA. Whether you have a 401(k) with your employer or not makes absolutely no difference in how your IRAs are taxed for the vast majority of people. (The rules for IRAs are different if you have a very high income, though). You're allowed to have and contribute to both kinds of accounts. (In fact, I personally have both). Traditional IRAs are tax deferred (not tax-free as people sometimes mistakenly call them - they're very different), meaning that you don't have to pay taxes on the contributions or profits you make inside the account (e.g. from dividends, interest, profits from stock you sell, etc.). Rather, you pay taxes on any money you withdraw. For Roth IRAs, the contributions are taxed, but you never have to pay taxes on the money inside the account again. That means that any money you get over and above the contributions (e.g. through interest, trading profits, dividends, etc.) are genuinely tax-free. Also, if you leave any of the money to people, they don't have to pay any taxes, either. Important point: There are no tax-free retirement accounts in the U.S. The distinction between different kinds of IRAs basically boils down to \"\"pay now or pay later.\"\" Many people make expensive mistakes in their retirement strategy by not understanding that point. Please note that this applies equally to Traditional and Roth 401(k)s as well. You can have Roth 401(k)s and Traditional 401(k)s just like you can have Roth IRAs and Traditional IRAs. The same terminology and logic applies to both kinds of accounts. As far as I know, there aren't major differences tax-wise between them, with two exceptions - you're allowed to contribute more money to a 401(k) per year, and you're allowed to have a 401(k) even if you have a high income. (By way of contrast, people with very high incomes generally aren't allowed to open IRAs). A primary advantage of a Traditional IRA is that you can (in theory, at least) afford to contribute more money to it due to the tax break you're getting. Also, you can defer taxes on any profits you make (e.g. through dividends or selling stock at a profit), so you can grow your money faster.\"","qid":10975,"docid":"308150","rank":63,"score":120710},{"content":"Title: Content: Yes, eligibility for contributing to a Roth IRA is determined by your Modified Adjusted Gross Income (MAGI) which is based on your Adjusted Gross Income (AGI). Now, AGI includes the net capital gains from your transactions and MAGI adds back in things that were subtracted off (e.g. tuition deductions, foreign earned income exclusion) in arriving at the AGI. There is a worksheet in Publication 590 that has the details. You are always entitled to contribute to a Traditional IRA. The MAGI affects how much of your contribution is tax-deductible on that year's tax return, but not your eligibility to contribute. Both the above paragraphs assume that you have enough compensation (wages, salary, self-employment income) to contribute to an IRA: the contribution limit is $5500 or total compensation, whichever is smaller. (If you earned only $2K as wages, you can contribute all of it; not just your take-home pay which is what is left after Social Security and Medicare taxes, Federal taxes etc have been withheld from that $2K). If your entire income is from capital gains and stock dividends, you cannot contribute to any kind of IRA at all.","qid":10975,"docid":"127622","rank":64,"score":120510},{"content":"Title: Content: There are a couple reasons for having a Traditional or Roth IRA in addition to a 401(k) program in general, starting with the Traditional IRA: With regards to the Roth IRA: Also, both the Traditional and Roth IRA allow you to make a $10,000 withdraw as a first time home buyer for the purposes of buying a home. This is much more difficult with the 401(k) and generally you end up having to take a loan against the 401(k) instead. So even if you can't take advantage of the tax deductions from contributions to a Traditional IRA, there are still good reasons to have one around. Unless you plan on staying with the same company for your entire career (and even if you do, they may have other plans) the Traditional IRA tends to be a much better place to park the funds from the 401(k) than just rolling them over to a new employer. Also, don't forget that just because you can't take deductions for the income doesn't mean that you might not need the income that savings now will bring you in retirement. If you use a retirement savings calculator is it saying that you need to be saving more than your current monthly 401(k) contributions? Then odds are pretty good that you also need to be adding additional savings and an IRA is a good location to put those assets because of the other benefits that they confer. Also, some people don't have the fiscal discipline to not use the money when it isn't hard to get to (i.e. regular savings or investment account) and as such it also helps to ensure you aren't going to go and spend the money unless you really need it.","qid":10975,"docid":"27495","rank":65,"score":120408},{"content":"Title: Content: You can use a Roth IRA for retirement and you can still withdraw all of your contributions at any time. You can also withdraw $10,000 worth of the earnings in your Roth IRA for a first-time home purchase. You can also withdraw for unreimbursed medical expenses and qualified education expenses. Full details are available in IRS publication 590. There is a limit of $5,500 for contributions in 2016 ($6,500 if you're over 50) as long as your adjusted gross income is below a certain level. You can still make a contribution for the previous tax year until the filing deadline (usually April 15).","qid":10975,"docid":"122638","rank":66,"score":120108},{"content":"Title: Content: There is a process called a backdoor IRA. You now have effectively made a Roth IRA contribution in a year where technically you aren't eligible. You do not have to pay taxes on earnings with a Roth IRA. You are limited to the normal annual contribution to the IRA (Roth or traditional). If you don't convert your traditional IRA contribution to a Roth IRA, then you are right. That gains nothing except enhanced protection in bankruptcy. Only do this if you are taking advantage of the Roth rollover. I'm ignoring rolling over a 401k into an IRA, as that doesn't increase the amount you can contribute. This does. You can contribute the full $18,000 to the 401k and still make a full contribution to the backdoor IRA. This is the tax advantaged form of an IRA. This avoids double taxation. Let's assume that your investment can go into something with a 5% annual return and you pay a 25% tax rate (doesn't matter as it drops out). You are going to invest for thirty years and then withdraw. You initially have $1000 before taxes. With a regular investment: You now have $2867.74. With a pre-tax IRA. You now have $3241.45 (it is not an accident that this is almost the same as the amount before the capital gains tax in the example without an IRA). You avoided the $373.72 capital gains tax. Even though you paid a lot more tax, you paid it out of the gains from investing the original $250 that you would have paid in tax. This helps you even more if the capital gains tax goes up in the future. Or if your tax bracket changes. If you currently are in the 25% bracket but retire in the 15% bracket, these numbers will get even better in your favor. If you currently are in the 15% bracket and worry that you might retire in the 25% bracket, consider a Roth instead. It also avoids double taxation but its single taxation is at your current rate rather than your future rate.","qid":10975,"docid":"258658","rank":67,"score":120008},{"content":"Title: Content: Your max contribution to your Roth IRA and your traditional IRA share the same cap, so if you are maxing your Roth IRA you cannot have a traditional one as well. I would put the additional into your 401k or perhaps a 529 if you have any kids.","qid":10975,"docid":"113881","rank":68,"score":119608},{"content":"Title: Content: Didn't see it mentioned so far, but depending on modified AGI you may be prevented from a tax deduction for your contribution to a Traditional IRA if you or your spouse are offered a retirement plan at work, even if you don't participate in it. See the IRS page here for the details of deduction limitability: https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/2017-ira-deduction-limits-effect-of-modified-agi-on-deduction-if-you-are-covered-by-a-retirement-plan-at-work In my opinion, because I heavily favor all the benefits of the Roth, I'd contribute first to a Roth IRA and then to the Roth 401(k). The former first because it puts the money in a place where you have more control over fees and how it is invested. The latter because the contribution limits are much higher than the IRA, and the money grows tax-free and incurs no taxes on withdrawal.","qid":10975,"docid":"192857","rank":69,"score":119452},{"content":"Title: Content: The benefit is that your earnings in the 401k are not subject to income tax until you make withdrawals. This allows you to grow your money faster than if you made equivalent investments in a taxable account and had to pay taxes on dividends and capital gains along the way. Also, the theory is that you will be in a lower tax bracket in retirement and thus you will pay lower taxes overall. If this is not true (especially if you will be in a higher tax bracket in retirement), then there may not be any advantage for you to contribute to a 401k. One advantage over the Traditional IRA is the higher contribution limit. Some 401k plans also allow you to take loans from the plan, I don't think this is possible with a Traditional IRA. An alternative to both the 401k and Traditional IRA is the Roth version of either plan. With a Roth, you pay taxes up front, but your withdrawals during retirement are tax free.","qid":10975,"docid":"406239","rank":70,"score":119420},{"content":"Title: Content: The reason the article recommends a Roth 401k for those who have a long time until retirement is based on your salary, marginal tax rates, and effective tax rates and some assumptions. You want to contribute to Roth IRAs when your marginal tax rate now is better than your effective tax rate at the time of withdrawal. That is most likely to be true when your salary is smaller (for you) and your salary is most likely to be smaller (compared to your future salaries) when you have more years until retirement. The article is presenting a rule of thumb. It won't hold true for everyone in every situation.","qid":10975,"docid":"480815","rank":71,"score":119110},{"content":"Title: Content: \"1) Usually, the choice between Traditional vs. Roth is whether you believe that your tax rate will be higher or lower in the future than it is now. Your income is probably in the 25% bracket now. It's hard to say whether that should be considered \"\"high\"\" or \"\"low\"\". Some people advocate Roth only for 15% bracket; but your income would probably go into higher brackets in the future, so Roth may be preferable from this point of view. Roth IRA also has another advantage that the principal of contributions can be taken out at any time without tax or penalty, so it can serve as an emergency fund just as well as money in taxable accounts. Given that you may not have a lot of money saved up right now, this is useful. 2) In a sense, it's nice to have a mix of Traditional and Roth when you withdraw to hedge against uncertainty in future tax rates and have the option of choosing whichever one is advantageous to withdraw when you need to withdraw. That said, you will likely have many years of access to a 401k and high income in your future working years, in which you can contribute to a Traditional 401k (or if no access to 401k, then Traditional IRA), so a mix will almost certainly happen even if you go all Roth IRA now. 3) I think that depends on you, whether you are a hands-on or hands-off kind of investor.\"","qid":10975,"docid":"41417","rank":72,"score":118803},{"content":"Title: Content: Your annual contributions are capped at the maximum of $5500 or your taxable income (wages, salary, tips, self employment income, alimony). You pay taxes by the regular calculations on Form 1040 on your earned income. In this scenario, you earn the income, pay taxes on the amount you earn, and put money in the Roth IRA. The alternative, a Traditional IRA, up to certain income levels, allows you to put the amount you contribute on line 32 of Form 1040, which subtracts the Traditional IRA contribution amount from your Adjusted Gross Income (line 37) before tax is calculated on line 44. In this scenario, you earn the income, put the money in the Traditional IRA, reduce your taxable income, and pay taxes on the reduced amount.","qid":10975,"docid":"549223","rank":73,"score":118630},{"content":"Title: Content: You can contribute to a Traditional IRA instead of a Roth. The main difference is a contribution to a Roth is made with after tax money but at retirement you can withdraw the money tax free. With a Traditional IRA your contribution is tax-deductible but at retirement the withdrawal is not tax free. This is why most people prefer a Roth if they can contribute. You can also contribute to your work's 401k plan assuming they have one. And you can always save for retirement in a regular account.","qid":10975,"docid":"1219","rank":74,"score":118546},{"content":"Title: Content: \"To answer the first part of your question: yes, I've done that! I did even a bit more. I once had a job that I wasn't sure I'd keep and the economy wasn't great either. In case my next employer wouldn't let me contribute to a 401(k) from day one, and because I didn't want to underfund my retirement and be stuck with a higher tax bill - I \"\"front-loaded\"\" my 401(k) contributions to be maxed out before the end of the year. (The contribution limits were lower than $16,500/year back then :-)) As for the reduced cash flow - you need of course a \"\"buffer\"\" account containing several months worth of living expenses to afford maxing out or \"\"front-loading\"\" 401(k) contributions. You should be paying your bills out of such buffer account and not out of each paycheck. As for the reduced cash flow - I think large-scale 401(k)/IRA contributions can crowd out other long-term saving priorities such as saving for a house down payment and the trade-off between them is a real concern. (If they're crowding out basic and discretionary consumer expenses, that's a totally different kind of problem, which you don't seem to have, which is great :-)) So about the trade-off between large-scale 401(k) contributions and saving for the down payment. I'd say maxing out 401(k) can foster the savings culture that will eventually pay its dividends. If, after several years of maxing out your 401(k) you decide that saving for the house is the top priority, you'll see money flow to the money-market account marked for the down payment at a substantial monthly rate, thanks to that savings culture. As for the increasing future earnings - no. Most people I've known for a long time, if they saved 20% when they made $20K/year, they continued to save 20% or more when they later made $100K/year. People who spent the entire paycheck while making $50K/year, always say, if only I got a raise to $60K/year, I'd save a few thousand. But they eventually graduate to $100K/year and still spend the entire paycheck. It's all about your savings culture. On the second part of your question - yes, Roth is a great tool, especially if you believe that the future tax rates will be higher (to fix the long-term budget deficits). So, contributing to 401(k) to maximize the match, then max out Roth, as others suggested, is a great advice. After you've done that, see what else you can do: more 401(k), saving for the house, etc.\"","qid":10975,"docid":"3104","rank":75,"score":117984},{"content":"Title: Content: \"The IRA contribution limit is a limit on the total amount you can contribute to all of your Roth and traditional IRAs. It's not a per-account limit. (See here and here.) Once you've hit the contribution limit on one account, you've hit it on all of them. Even so, supposing you had a reason with try to take money out of one of the accounts, the answer to your question is \"\"sort of\"\". The limit is a limit on your gross contributions, not your net contributions. It is possible to withdraw Roth contributions if you do so before the tax filing deadline for that year, but you must also withdraw (and pay taxes on) any earnings accured during the time the money was in the Roth (see here). In addition, doing this may not be as simple as just taking the money out of your account; you should probably ask your bank about it and let them know you're \"\"undoing\"\" the contribution, since they may otherwise still record the amount as a real contribution and the withdrawal as unqualified early withdrawal (subject to penalties, etc.).\"","qid":10975,"docid":"452870","rank":76,"score":117948},{"content":"Title: Content: \"The money you invested in your Roth was taxed as income when you filed your income tax. A Roth contribution is \"\"post-tax\"\" as opposed to a standard IRA or 401k contribution which are \"\"pre-tax\"\". Pre-tax contributions lower your taxable income for the year. In example, you had income of $100,000 and made a standard IRA contribution of $5000. Your taxable income would be $95,000. In the case of a Roth contribution, the same $5000 investment would not reduce your taxable income for the year.\"","qid":10975,"docid":"86887","rank":77,"score":117632},{"content":"Title: Content: (Note: The OP does not state whether the employer-sponsored retirement savings are pre-tax or post-tax (such as a Roth 401(k)). The following answer assumes the more common case of a pre-tax plan.) This is a bad idea, IMHO. IRS Pub 970 lists exceptions to the 10% early withdrawal penalty for educational expenses. This doesn't include, as far as I can tell, student loan payments. So withdrawing from your retirement account would incur both income tax and penalties. Even if there were an exception, you'd still have to pay income taxes, which, depending on the amount and your income, could be at a higher marginal rate than you are currently paying. If you really want the debt gone as soon as possible, why not reduce the amount you contribute to the retirement plan (but not below the amount that gets you the maximum employer match) and use that money to increase your monthly payments to the student loan? Note that, if you do this, you will pay taxes on income that would have been tax-deferred in order to save money on interest, so there's still a trade-off. (One more thing: rather than rolling over to your new company's plan, you could roll over to a self-directed Traditional IRA.)","qid":10975,"docid":"55954","rank":78,"score":117576},{"content":"Title: Content: Couple of factors here to consider: 1) The savings vehicle 2) The investments Savings Vehicle: Roth IRAs allow you the flexibility to save for retirement and/or your house. Each person can save up to $5,500 in a Roth and you can withdraw your principal at anytime without penalty. (There is a special clause for first time home buyers; however, it limits the amount to $10k per person. Given your estimate of $750k and history of putting down 20%. It would require a bit more.) The only thing is that you can't touch the growth or interest. When you do max out your Roth IRA, it may make sense for you to open a brokerage account (401Ks often have multiple steps in order to convert or withdraw money for your down payment) Investments: Given your timeline (5-7 years) your investments would be more conservative. (More fixed income) While you should stay diversified (both fixed income and equity), the conservative portfolio will allow less fluctuation in your portfolio value while allowing some growth potential.","qid":10975,"docid":"232930","rank":79,"score":117263},{"content":"Title: Content: You cannot roll over your 401k money in an employer's 401k plan into an IRA (of any kind) while you are still employed by that employer. The only way you can start on the conversion before you retire (as Craig W suggests) is to change employers and start rolling over money in the previous employer's 401k into your Roth IRA while possibly contributing to the 401k plan of your new employer. Since the amount rolled over is extra taxable income (that is, in addition to your wages from your new job), you may end up paying more tax (or at higher rates) than you expect.","qid":10975,"docid":"63532","rank":80,"score":117014},{"content":"Title: Content: \"If you're single, the only solution I'm aware of, assuming you are truly getting a 1099-misc and not a W-2 (and don't have a W-2 option available, like TAing), is to save in a nondeductible account for now. Then, when you later do have a job, use that nondeductible account (in part) to fund your retirement accounts. Particularly the first few years (if you're a \"\"young\"\" grad student in particular), you'll probably be low enough on the income side that you can fit this in - in particular if you've got a 401k or 403b plan at work; make your from-salary contributions there, and make deductible IRA or Roth IRA contributions from your in-school savings. If you're not single, or even if you are single but have a child, you have a few other options. Spouses who don't have earned income, but have a spouse who does, can set up a Spousal IRA. You can then, combined, save up to your spouse's total earned income (or the usual per-person maximums). So if you are married and your wife/husband works, you can essentially count his/her earned income towards your earned income. Second, if you have a child, consider setting up a 529 plan for them. You're probably going to want to do this anyway, right? You can even do this for a niece or nephew, if you're feeling generous.\"","qid":10975,"docid":"271266","rank":81,"score":116995},{"content":"Title: Content: Put in the maximum you can into the 401(k), the limit should be $16,500 so long as the highly compensated rules don't kick in. Since you cannot deduct the traditional IRA, it's a great option to deposit to a traditional IRA and immediately convert that balance to a Roth account. That puts you at $21,500/yr saved, nearly 18%. There's nothing stopping you from investing outside these accounts. A nice ETF with low expenses, investing in a stock index (I am thinking SPY for the S&P 500) is great to accumulate long term.","qid":10975,"docid":"175679","rank":82,"score":116994},{"content":"Title: Content: Back in the late 80's I had a co-worked do exactly this. In those days you could only do things quarterly: change the percentage, change the investment mix, make a withdrawal.. There were no Roth 401K accounts, but contributions could be pre-tax or post-tax. Long term employees were matched 100% up to 8%, newer employees were only matched 50% up to 8% (resulting in 4% match). Every quarter this employee put in 8%, and then pulled out the previous quarters contribution. The company match continued to grow. Was it smart? He still ended up with 8% going into the 401K. In those pre-Enron days the law allowed companies to limit the company match to 100% company stock which meant that employees retirement was at risk. Of course by the early 2000's the stock that was purchased for $6 a share was worth $80 a share... Now what about the IRS: Since I make designated Roth contributions from after-tax income, can I make tax-free withdrawals from my designated Roth account at any time? No, the same restrictions on withdrawals that apply to pre-tax elective contributions also apply to designated Roth contributions. If your plan permits distributions from accounts because of hardship, you may choose to receive a hardship distribution from your designated Roth account. The hardship distribution will consist of a pro-rata share of earnings and basis and the earnings portion will be included in gross income unless you have had the designated Roth account for 5 years and are either disabled or over age 59 ½. Regarding getting just contributions: What happens if I take a distribution from my designated Roth account before the end of the 5-taxable-year period? If you take a distribution from your designated Roth account before the end of the 5-taxable-year period, it is a nonqualified distribution. You must include the earnings portion of the nonqualified distribution in gross income. However, the basis (or contributions) portion of the nonqualified distribution is not included in gross income. The basis portion of the distribution is determined by multiplying the amount of the nonqualified distribution by the ratio of designated Roth contributions to the total designated Roth account balance. For example, if a nonqualified distribution of $5,000 is made from your designated Roth account when the account consists of $9,400 of designated Roth contributions and $600 of earnings, the distribution consists of $4,700 of designated Roth contributions (that are not includible in your gross income) and $300 of earnings (that are includible in your gross income). See Q&As regarding Rollovers of Designated Roth Contributions, for additional rules for rolling over both qualified and nonqualified distributions from designated Roth accounts.","qid":10975,"docid":"490497","rank":83,"score":116988},{"content":"Title: Content: Your employer's matching contribution is calculated based on the dollar amounts you end up putting in. The nature of your 401(k) contribution—whether pre-tax or Roth after-tax—doesn't matter with respect to how their match gets calculated, and their match always goes into a pre-tax account, even if you are contributing after-tax. The onus is on you to choose a contribution amount that maximizes your employer match regardless of the nature of your contribution. Maximizing your employer match using Roth after-tax contributions will eat up more of your annual gross salary, but as long as you are willing to do that then you won't leave free employer match money on the table. Roth after-tax contributions don't get the tax deduction inherent in a pre-tax contribution. The tradeoff is that you end up with less take-home pay per period if you contribute the same number of dollars on a Roth after-tax basis to your 401(k) as opposed to on a pre-tax basis. For instance, to make a maximum $18,000 Roth after-tax contribution to a 401(k), it's going to cost you a lot more than $18,000 of your annual gross salary to net the same $18,000 number. (On the flip side, the Roth money is worth more in retirement than pre-tax money, because it won't be subject to taxes then.) However, 401(k) plan contribution amounts are almost always expressed as a percentage of gross salary, i.e. in pre-tax terms, even when electing to make after-tax contributions! So when electing after-tax, one is implicitly accepting that the contribution will cost more than the percentage of gross salary, because you'll need to pay the tax on a gross amount that would yield the same number of dollars but as an after-tax amount.","qid":10975,"docid":"463892","rank":84,"score":116901},{"content":"Title: Content: The first question is essentially asking for specific investment advice which is off-topic per the FAQ, but I'll take a stab at #2 and #3 (2) If my 401k doesn't change before I leave my job (not planned in the near future), I should roll it over into my Roth IRA after I leave due to these high expense ratios, correct? My advice is that you should roll over a 401K into an IRA the first chance you get (usually when you leave the job). 401K plans are NOTORIOUS for high expense ratios and why leave your money in a plan where you have a limited choice of investments anyway versus a self-directed IRA where you can invest in anything you want? (3) Should I still max contribute with these horrible expense ratios? If they are providing a match, yes. Even with the expense ratios it is hard to beat the immediate return of an employer match. If they aren't matching, the answer is still probably yes for a few reasons: You already are maxing out your ability to contribute to sheltered accounts, so assuming you still want to sock away that money for retirement, the tax benefits are still valuable and probably offset the expense ratios. Although you seem to be an exception, it is hard for most people to be disciplined enough to put money in a retirement account after they have it in their hands (versus auto-deduction from paychecks).","qid":10975,"docid":"389202","rank":85,"score":116788},{"content":"Title: Content: I would definitely recommend contributing to an IRA. You don't know for sure you'll get hired full-time and be eligible for the 401(k) with match, so you should save for retirement on your own. I would recommend Roth over Traditional IRA in your situation, because let's say you do get hired full-time. Since the company offers a retirement plan, your 2015 Traditional IRA contribution would no longer be deductible at your income level (assuming you're single), and non-deductible Traditional IRAs aren't a very good deal (see here and here). If there's a decent chance you would get hired, this factor would override the pre-tax versus post-tax debate for me. At your income level you could go either way on that anyway. A Solo 401(k) would be worth looking into if you wanted to increase your contribution limit beyond what IRAs offer, but given that it sounds like you're just starting out saving for retirement, and you may be eligible for a 401(k) soon, it's probably overkill at this point.","qid":10975,"docid":"520924","rank":86,"score":116610},{"content":"Title: Content: On the other hand, I'd be contributing less than with a traditional plan since it is taxed before being invested. You got it backwards. The effective limit is higher for a Roth 401k than a Traditional 401k. The nominal limit is the same -- $17000. But an amount of money in a Roth plan is equivalent to a greater amount of money in a Traditional plan, because money in a Traditional plan is pre-tax that will need to be taxed when taken out, resulting in less post-tax money. Conversely, for a Roth plan, that is post-tax money, which came from a greater amount of pre-tax money; and it won't be taxed again. So it is more money, tax-neutral comparison wise. Of course, since you say that you won't hit the limit, this consideration doesn't matter anyway.","qid":10975,"docid":"561939","rank":87,"score":116530},{"content":"Title: Content: The plan is perfectly valid and legal as tax rules currently stand. There is no limit to the amount you can rollover or convert to Roth. Assuming your 401(k) is traditional pre-tax, you'll have to pay income taxes on the amount you convert above personal exemption + standard deduction, which is currently about $10k/year for single filers. The other caveat is you'll need funds to live off of while your conversion money is seasoning for 5 years in your Roth IRA. If you start the conversion while you are still working, you'll be paying taxes on it in your marginal bracket, which will negate much of the benefit of the pre-tax 401(k). If your living expenses are low, you can convert about $10k/year without federal income taxes, while living off capital gains from a taxable account which have a 0% rate in the 15% income tax bracket (goes up to about $37k/year).","qid":10975,"docid":"380047","rank":88,"score":116478},{"content":"Title: Content: \"if you have 401k with an employer already, has the following features: Your contributions are taxed That's only true if you're a high income earner. https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/2017-ira-deduction-limits-effect-of-modified-agi-on-deduction-if-you-are-covered-by-a-retirement-plan-at-work For example, married filing jointly allows full deduction up to $99,000 even if you have a 401(k). \"\"the timing is just different\"\" And that's a good thing, since if your retirement tax rate is less than your current tax rate, you'll pay less tax on that money.\"","qid":10975,"docid":"361509","rank":89,"score":116424},{"content":"Title: Content: \"If you have wage income that is reported on a W2 form, you can contribute the maximum of your wages, what you can afford, or $5500 in a Roth IRA. One advantage of this is that the nominal amounts you contribute can always be removed without tax consequences, so a Roth IRA can be a deep emergency fund (i.e., if the choice is $2000 in cash as emergency fund or $2000 in cash in a 2015 Roth IRA contribution, choice 2 gives you more flexibility and optimistic upside at the risk of not being able to draw on interest/gains until you retire or claim losses on your tax return). If you let April 15 2016 pass by without making a Roth IRA contribution, you lose the 2015 limit forever. If you are presently a student and partially employed, you are most likely in the lowest marginal tax rate you will be in for decades, which utilizes the Roth tax game effectively. If you're estimating \"\"a few hundred\"\", then what you pick as an investment is going to be less important than making the contributions. That is, you can pick any mutual fund that strikes your fancy and be prepared to gain or lose, call it $50/year (or pick a single stock and be prepared to lose it all). At some point, you need to understand your emotions around volatility, and the only tuition for this school is taking a loss and having the presence of mind to examine any panic responses you may have. No reason not to learn this on \"\"a few hundred\"\". While it's not ideal to have losses in a Roth, \"\"a few hundred\"\" is not consequential in the long run. If you're not prepared at this time in your life for the possibility of losing it all (or will need the money within a year or few, as your edit suggests), keep it in cash and try to reduce your expenses to contribute more. Can you contribute another $100? You will have more money at the end of the year than investment choice will likely return.\"","qid":10975,"docid":"149367","rank":90,"score":116381},{"content":"Title: Content: \"when you contribute to a 401k, you get to invest pre-tax money. that means part of it (e.g. 25%) is money you would otherwise have to pay in taxes (deferred money) and the rest (e.g. 75%) is money you could otherwise invest (base money). growth in the 401k is essentially tax free because the taxes on the growth of the base money are paid for by the growth in the deferred portion. that is of course assuming the same marginal tax rate both now and when you withdraw the money. if your marginal tax rate is lower in retirement than it is now, you would save even more money using a traditional 401k or ira. an alternative is to invest in a roth account (401k or ira). in which case the money goes in after tax and the growth is untaxed. this would be advantageous if you expect to have a higher marginal tax rate during retirement. moreover, it reduces tax risk, which could give you peace of mind considering u.s. marginal tax rates were over 90% in the 1940's. a roth could also be advantageous if you hit the contribution limits since the contributions are after-tax and therefore more valuable. lastly, contributions to a roth account can be withdrawn at any time tax and penalty free. however, the growth in a roth account is basically stuck there until you turn 60. unlike a traditional ira/401k where you can take early retirement with a SEPP plan. another alternative is to invest the money in a normal taxed account. the advantage of this approach is that the money is available to you whenever you need it rather than waiting until you retire. also, investment losses can be deducted from earned income (e.g. 15-25%), while gains can be taxed at the long term capital gains rate (e.g. 0-15%). the upshot being that even if you make money over the course of several years, you can actually realize negative taxes by taking gains and losses in different tax years. finally, when you decide to retire you might end up paying 0% taxes on your long term capital gains if your income is low enough (currently ~50k$/yr for a single person). the biggest limitation of this strategy is that losses are limited to 3k$ per year. also, this strategy works best when you invest in individual stocks rather than mutual funds, increasing volatility (aka risk). lastly, this makes filing your taxes more complicated since you need to report every purchase and sale and watch out for the \"\"wash sale\"\" rules. side note: you should contribute enough to get all the 401k matching your employer offers. even if you cash out the whole account when you want the money, the matching (typically 50%-200%) should exceed the 10% early withdrawal penalty.\"","qid":10975,"docid":"264023","rank":91,"score":116345},{"content":"Title: Content: While the other answers are good, I wanted to expand a little on why I feel a ROTH is a bad way to go unless you are young. First, let's pretend you have a 25% tax rate. And your investments will go up 5% per year for 10 years. You contribute 6% of income for one year. You can do a traditional or a roth 401k/IRA. Here's the math: Traditional: 6% of income invested. Grows at 5% for 10 years. Taxed at 25% on withdrawl. = (Income * 6%) * (1.05 ^ 10) * (100% - 25%) = (Income * 6%) * 1.63 * .75 = 7.33% of your original income - but this is after taxes ROTH: Taxes taken out of income. Then 6% of that goes into the fund(s). Still grows at 5% for 10 years. Not taxed at withdrawl. = (Income * (100% - 25%) * 6%) * (1.05 ^ 10) = (Income * 75% * 6%) * 1.63 = 7.33% of your original income - again this is after taxes. Look familiar? They are the same. It's the simple transitive property of mathematics. So why do a traditional vs. a ROTH? The reason is that your tax bracket changes. This changes because your income changes. Say when you retire you plan to have your home or vehicle paid for. You expect to be able to live on $50,000 per year. This means when you make MORE than $50,000 you should do a traditional plan and when you make less than this you should do a ROTH plan. Example: You make $100,000 and your upper bracket is now 30%. You save 30% by doing a traditional and then pay back 10, 20, and 30% as you withdraw a salary of $50,000. Traditional = better. Example: You make $30,000 annually. Your upper bracket is 20%. You pay 20% on a roth. Then you withdraw funds to get to $50,000 anually and never pay the higher bracket. Roth = better. ROTH advocates typically bring up tax rates. Of course they will go up they insist. So you always should do a ROTH. Not so fast. Taxes have gone down in recent years (No one please start a political debate with me. Some went up, some went down, but overall, federal income rates dropped). Even if taxes rose 5%, a traditional will still be better than a ROTH in many cases.","qid":10975,"docid":"387030","rank":92,"score":116299},{"content":"Title: Content: Does your employer offer a 401(k) match? If so, contribute enough to maximize that--it's free money. After that, contribute to an IRA where you can invest in funds with low expenses. After you max that out, if you still have money left over, max out your 401(k) despite the high expenses for the tax advantages. Remember when you leave the company you can roll over the balance into an IRA and switch to lower-cost investments. Of course this is general advice without knowing your situation. If you're looking to buy a home soon, for example, you might want to keep extra money in a taxable account for a downpayment rather than maxing out your 401(k).","qid":10975,"docid":"140917","rank":93,"score":116298},{"content":"Title: Content: This answer assumes that your purpose for using the ESPP is to generate a relatively safe 15% return on that portion of your income. Frequently before there were Roth 401K options the advice was: This advice was especially good for the younger workers because they wanted to have a Roth account but didn't want to miss the 401K match. As Roth 401K accounts were introduced that advice changed somewhat because it was possible to get the benefit of the Roth and still get the maximum match. for your situation what I would propose is: contribute to the 401K enough to get the maximum match. Contribute as much as you want or are allowed into the ESPP. Take the proceeds and contribute to an IRA or Roth IRA. If you reach the IRA max you have to decide if you will scale back the ESPP to contribute more to the 401K.","qid":10975,"docid":"164628","rank":94,"score":116237},{"content":"Title: Content: Yes, this is right. It is what I am doing. In fact, I took it one step further. During my early career when I was able to deduct traditional IRA contributions, I made them and saved on taxes. When my income got high enough that I could no longer deduct those contributions, I rolled all my traditional IRA's into my 401(k). Now they are no longer subject to the pro-rata rule and I could begin with the backdoor Roths while continuing to contribute the max to my traditional 401(k). Thereafter it's pretty much the process you have described.","qid":10975,"docid":"284681","rank":95,"score":116216},{"content":"Title: Content: \"Just like all employee benefits there is a focus on removing or limiting owners of businesses' ability to abuse tax preferences under the guise of an employee benefit. As you point out there is an overall plan maximum 401(k) for employer contributions and match contributions. There is a nondiscrimination test for FSA programs (there is also a nondiscrimination test for medical plans under sections 125 and 105(h)). Employer contributions are counted toward the total of HSA contributions. Why an HSA has a different maximum arrangement than 401(k) is anyone's guess. But the purpose of the limit is to prevent owners of companies from setting up plans that do little more than funnel tax free funds to themselves. An owner/employee could pay themselves a wage, contribute the maximum, then have the \"\"employer\"\" also match the maximum, so there are limits in place.\"","qid":10975,"docid":"240373","rank":96,"score":115516},{"content":"Title: Content: \"Your retirement PLAN is a lifelong plan and shouldn't be tied to your employer status. Max out your 401(k) contribution to the maximum that your employer matches (that's a 100% ROI!) and as much as you can afford. When you leave the work force rollover your 401(k) to an IRA account (e.g.: you can create an IRA account with any of the online brokerage firms Schwab, E-Trade, Sharebuilder, or go with a brick-and-mortar firm like JP Morgan, Stifel Nicolaus, etc.). You should have a plan: How much money do you need/month for your expenses? Accounting for inflation, how much is that going to be at retirement (whatever age you plan to retire)? How much money do you need to have so that 4.5% of that money will provide for your annual living expenses? That's your target retirement amount of savings. Now figure out how to get to that target. Rule #1 Invest early and invest often! The more money you can sock away early in your career the more time that money has to grow. If you aren't comfortable allocating your investments yourself then you could go with a Targeted Retirement Fund. These funds have a general \"\"date\"\" for retirement and the assets are allocated as appropriate for the amount of risk appropriate for the time to retirement.\"","qid":10975,"docid":"449828","rank":97,"score":115507},{"content":"Title: Content: You have many options, and there is no one-size-fits-all recommendation. You can contribute to your IRA in addition to your 401(k), but because you have that 401(k), it is not tax-deductable. So there is little advantage in putting money in the IRA compared to saving it in a personal investment account, where you keep full control over it. It does, however, open the option to do a backdoor-rollover from that IRA to a Roth IRA, which is a good idea to have; you will not pay any taxes if you do that conversion, if the money in the IRA was not tax deducted (which it isn't as you have the 401(k)). You can also contribute to a Roth IRA directly, if you are under the income limits for that (193k$ for married, I think, not sure for single). If this is the case, you don't need to take the detour through the IRA with the backdoor-rollover. Main advantage for Roth is that gains are tax free. There are many other answers here that give details on where to save if you have more money to save. In a nutshell, In between is 'pay off all high-interest debt', I think right after 1. - if you have any. 'High-Interest' means anything that costs more interest than you can expect when investing.","qid":10975,"docid":"48203","rank":98,"score":115505},{"content":"Title: Content: These are the basics in order: Max your employer contributions to your 401k if available Pay off any loans Contribute to an IRA Perhaps max out your 401k Look into other investment options (refinance your mortgage, buy stocks) Those are the typical rules, special situations may need specials actions...","qid":10975,"docid":"480036","rank":99,"score":115486},{"content":"Title: Content: If you invest in a 401(k), the shares in that plan are yours for as long as you live, or until you pull them out. So, if the employer is offering any sort of matching and those matched funds remain yours after you leave, then definitely contribute; that's an immediate return on your money. If the employer is NOT matching funds, then usually it is better to contribute to an IRA instead; you get the same income tax benefits from the deduction, without the headaches of going through your company (or the company from 3 jobs ago or whoever bought them) to get to your money. If I were in your position, the most I personally would do after I quit the company (which I'm assuming you'd be doing if you were going back to your country of origin) would be to have the 401k shares rolled over into a traditional IRA; that way I'd have more control over it from outside the country. Just keep the bank holding your IRA apprised of your movements around the world and how they can get ahold of you (it may be wise to grant a limited power of attorney to someone who will be staying in the U.S. if you don't want the bank mailing your statements all around the world), and the money can stay in an American account while you do whatever you have to outside it. As long as you don't take the money out in cash before you're 59 1/2 years old, you don't need to pay taxes or penalties on it. If you were to need it to cover unexpected expenses (perhaps relating to the aforementioned family emergency), then that decision can be made at that time. If you think that's even remotely likely, you may consider a Roth IRA. With a Roth, you pay the income taxes on your contributions, but the money is then yours; you can withdraw anything up to the total amount of your contributions without any additional taxes or penalties, and once you hit 59 and a half the interest also becomes available, also tax- and penalty- free. So if you had to leave the country and take a lot of cash with you, you could get out everything you actually put into a Roth with only minor if any transaction fees, and the interest will still be there compounding.","qid":10975,"docid":"20323","rank":100,"score":115455}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: You're correct about the 401(k). Your employer's contributions don't count toward the $18k limit. You're incorrect about the IRAs though. You can contribute a maximum of $5500 total across IRA and Roth IRA, not $5500 to each. There are also limits once you reach higher levels of income. from IRS.gov: Retirement Topics - IRA Contribution Limits: For 2015, 2016, and 2017, your total contributions to all of your traditional and Roth IRAs cannot be more than:\",\n \"qid\": 10975,\n \"docid\": \"441632\",\n \"rank\": 1,\n \"score\": 154456\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Adding to the excellent answers already given, we typically advise members to contribute as much as needed to get a full employer match in their 401K, but not more. We then redirect any additional savings to a traditional IRA or ROTH IRA (depending on their age, income, and future plans). Only once they've exhausted the $5000 maximum in their IRA will we look at putting more money into the 401K. The ROTH IRA is a beautiful and powerful vehicle for savings. The only reason to consider taking money out of the ROTH is in a case of serious catastrophe.\",\n \"qid\": 10975,\n \"docid\": \"140330\",\n \"rank\": 2,\n \"score\": 147238\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"IRA is not always an option. There are income limits for IRA, that leave many employees (those with the higher salaries, but not exactly the \\\"\\\"riches\\\"\\\") out of it. Same for Roth IRA, though the MAGI limits are much higher. Also, the contribution limits on IRA are more than three times less than those on 401K (5K vs 16.5K). Per IRS Publication 590 (page 12) the income limit (AGI) goes away if the employer doesn't provide a 401(k) or similar plan (not if you don't participate, but if the employer doesn't provide). But deduction limits don't change, it's up to $5K (or 100% of the compensation, the lesser) even if you're not covered by the employers' pension plan. Employers are allowed to match the employees' 401K contributions, and this comes on top of the limits (i.e.: with the employers' matching, the employees can save more for their retirement and still have the tax benefits). That's the law. The companies offer the option of 401K because it allows employee retention (I would not work for a company without 401K), and it is part of the overall benefit package - it's an expense for the employer (including the matching). Why would the employer offer matching instead of a raise? Not all employers do. My current employer, for example, pays above average salaries, but doesn't offer 401K match. Some companies have very tight control over the 401K accounts, and until not so long ago were allowed to force employees to invest their retirement savings in the company (see the Enron affair). It is no longer an option, but by now 401K is a standard in some industries, and employers cannot allow themselves not to offer it (see my position above).\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 10975,\n \"docid\": \"242529\",\n \"rank\": 3,\n \"score\": 146333\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"I am not 100% sure, but I think the answer is this: You can't max out both. You could theoretically max out the SIMPLE IRA ($11,500) and then contribute $4,000 to your 401k, but your total can't exceed the 401k limit of $16,500. This also means you could max out your 401k at $16,500, but you couldn't contribute anything to the SIMPLE IRA. Note that no matter what, you can't contribute more than $11,500 to your SIMPLE IRA. (Note that this is all independent from your Traditional or Roth IRA, which are subject to their own limits, and not affected by your participation in employer-sponsored plans.) As I understand it, a 401k and a SIMPLE IRA both fall under the umbrella of \\\"\\\"employer-sponsored plans\\\"\\\". Just like you can't max out two 401k's at two different employers, you can't do it with the 401k and the SIMPLE IRA. The only weird thing is the contribution limit differences between SIMPLE IRA and 401k, but I don't think the IRS could/would penalize you for working two jobs (enforcing the lower SIMPLE IRA limit for all employer-sponsored retirement accounts). You should probably run the numbers, factoring in the employer match, and figure out which account-contribution scenario makes the most financial sense for you. However, I'm not sure how the employer match helps you when you're talking about a small business that you own/run. You may also want to look at how the employer match of the SIMPLE IRA affects the taxes your business pays. Disclaimer #1: I couldn't find a definitive answer on your specific scenario at irs.gov. I pieced the above info from a few different \\\"\\\"SIMPLE IRA info\\\"\\\" sites. That's why I'm not 100% sure. It seems intuitively correct to me, though. Does your small business have an accountant? Maybe you should talk to him/her. Disclaimer #2: The $ amounts listed above are based on the IRS 2010 limits.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 10975,\n \"docid\": \"163865\",\n \"rank\": 4,\n \"score\": 142967\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Are the $18,000 401k 2017 limit and the $5,500 IRA limit mutually exclusive for a combined limit of $23,500 (under 49)? Yes, but the amount that you can deduct from a traditional IRA depends on your gross income and marital status - See publication 590-A for details. Also note that the limit applies to your combined traditional and Roth IRA contributions (meaning you can't contribute $5,500 to both; just a total of $5,500 between the two). I'm also assuming employee match $ count towards these limits - is this correct No - the limit for combined contributions between you and your employer is $54,000 in 2017. So if you contribute $18,000 your employer can only contribute $36,000.\",\n \"qid\": 10975,\n \"docid\": \"189989\",\n \"rank\": 5,\n \"score\": 141346\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Does your employer provide a matching contribution to your 401k? If so, contribute enough to the 401k that you can fully take advantage of the 401k match (e.g. if you employer matches 3% of your income, contribute 3% of your income). It's free money, take advantage of it. Next up, max out your Roth IRA. The limit is $5000 currently a year. After maxing your Roth, revisit your 401k. You can contribute up to 16,500 per year. You savings account is a good place to keep a rainy day fund (do you have one?), but it lacks the tax advantages of a Roth IRA or 401k, so it is not really suitable for retirement savings (unless you have maxed out both your 401k and Roth IRA). Once you have take care of getting money into your 401k and Roth IRA accounts, the next step is investing it. The specific investment options available to you will vary depending on who provides your retirement account(s), so these are general guidelines. Generally, you want to invest in higher-risk, higher-return investments when you are young. This includes things like stocks and developing countries. As you get older (>30), you should look at moving some of your investments into things that less volatile. Bond funds are the usual choice. They tend to be safer than stocks (assuming you don't invest in Junk bonds), but your investment grows at a slower rate. Now this doesn't mean you immediately dump all of your stock and buy bonds. Rather, it is a gradual transition over time. As you get older and older, you gradually shift your investments to bond funds. A general rule of thumb I have seen: 100 - (YOUR AGE) = Percentage of your portfolio that should be in stocks Someone that is 30 would have 70% of their portfolio in stock, someone that is 40 would have 60% in stock, etc. As you get closer to retirement (50s-60s), you will want to start looking at investments that are more conservatie than bonds. Start to look at fixed-income and money market funds.\",\n \"qid\": 10975,\n \"docid\": \"399543\",\n \"rank\": 6,\n \"score\": 138588\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Some companies allow you to make a post-tax contribution to the 401K. This is not a Roth contribution. This can be money beyond the 18,000 or 24,000 401k limit. The best news is that eventually that money can be rolled into 1 Roth-IRA. Not all companies allow this option. One company I worked for did this automatically when you hit the annual max. Of course that was made more complex if you had multiple employers that year.\",\n \"qid\": 10975,\n \"docid\": \"353009\",\n \"rank\": 7,\n \"score\": 137499\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"From a purely analytical standpoint, assuming you are investing your Roth IRA contributions in broad market securities (such as the SPDR S&P 500 ETF, which tracks the S&P 500), the broader market has historically had more upward movement than downward, and therefore a dollar invested today will have a greater expected value than a dollar invested tomorrow. So from this perspective, it is better to \\\"\\\"max out\\\"\\\" your Roth on the first day of the contribution year and immediately invest in broad market (or at least well diversified) securities. That being said, opportunity costs must also be taken into account--every dollar you use to fund your Roth IRA is a dollar that is no longer available to be invested elsewhere (hence, a lost opportunity). With this in mind, if you are currently eligible for a 401k in which your employer matches some portion of your contributions, it is generally advised that you contribute to the 401k up to the employer-match. For example, if your employer matches 75% of contributions up to 3.5% of your gross salary, then it is advisable that you first contribute this 3.5% to your 401k before even considering contributing to a Roth IRA. The reasoning behind this is two-fold: first, the employer-match can be considered as a guaranteed Return on Investment--so for example, for an employer that matches 75%, for every dollar you contribute you already have earned a 75% return up to the employer's limit. Secondly, 401k contributions have tax implications: not only is the money contributed to the 401k pre-tax (i.e., contributions are not taxed), it also reduces your taxable income, so the marginal tax benefit of these contributions must also be taken into account. Keep in mind that in the usual circumstances, 401k disbursements are taxable. Finally, many financial advisors will also suggest establishing an \\\"\\\"emergency fund\\\"\\\", which is money that you will not use unless you suffer an emergency that has an impact on your normal income--loss of job, medical emergency, etc. These funds are often kept in highly liquid accounts (savings accounts, money-market funds, etc.) so they can be accessed immediately when you run into one of \\\"\\\"life's little surprises\\\"\\\". Generally, it is advised that an emergency fund between $500-$1000 is established ASAP, and over time the emergency fund should be increased until it has reached a value equivalent to the sum of 8 months' worth of expenses. If funding an IRA is preventing you from working towards such an emergency fund, then you may want to consider waiting on maxing out the IRA before you have that EF established. Of course, it goes without saying that credit card balances with APRs other than 0.00% (or similar) should be paid off before an IRA is funded, since while you can only hope to match the market at best (between 10-15% a year) in your IRA investments, paying down credit card balances is an instant \\\"\\\"return\\\"\\\" of whatever the APR is, which usually tends to be between a 15-30% APR. In a nutshell, assuming you are maxing out your 401k (if applicable), have an emergency fund established, are not carrying any high-APR credit card balances, and are able to do so, historical price movements in the markets suggest that funding your Roth IRA upfront and investing these funds immediately in a broadly diversified portfolio will yield a higher expected return than funding the account periodically throughout the year (using dollar cost averaging or similar strategies). If this is not the case, take some time to consider the opportunity costs you are incurring from not fully contributing to your 401k, carrying high credit card balances, or not having a sufficient emergency fund established. This is not financial advice specific to any individual and your mileage may vary. Consider consulting a Certified Financial Planner, Certified Public Accountant, etc. before making any major financial decisions.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 10975,\n \"docid\": \"551403\",\n \"rank\": 8,\n \"score\": 137268\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: They are mutually exclusive. Provided you meet the income limits you can contribute to both. Employer match do not count toward the 18K. On the other hand traditional IRA and Roth IRA are inclusive. So if single and making having a MAGI under 118K, you could do the 18K of your own money into a 401(k), and $5,500 into a Roth. You can put in $23,500 of your own money with the employer match on top of that.\",\n \"qid\": 10975,\n \"docid\": \"75766\",\n \"rank\": 9,\n \"score\": 135982\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: if you have a work-sponsored retirement plan A 401k plan counts as a work-sponsored retirement plan. If you are a highly compensated employee (this is $115,000 for 2012), even your 401k contributions are limited. Given that, is there any difference at all between having a traditional IRA and a normal, taxable (non-retirement) investment account? You should consider a Roth IRA if you are making too much for a traditional IRA. When you make even more, then you can't contribute to a Roth, but can only contribute post-tax money to a traditional IRA. Use Form 8606 to keep track of non-deductable contributions over the years. Publication 590 is the official IRS explanation of what is deductable or not.\",\n \"qid\": 10975,\n \"docid\": \"447482\",\n \"rank\": 10,\n \"score\": 134736\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: All data for a single adult in tax year 2010. Roth IRA 401K Roth 401k Traditional IRA and your employer offers a 401k Traditional IRA and your employer does NOT offer a 401k So, here are your options. If you have a 401k at work, you could max that out. If you make close to $120K, you could reduce your AGI enough to contribute to a Roth IRA. If you do not have a 401k at work, you could contribute to a Traditional IRA and deduct the $5K from your AGI similar to how a 401k works. Other than that, I think you are looking at investing outside of a retirement plan which means more flexibility, but no tax advantage.\",\n \"qid\": 10975,\n \"docid\": \"110114\",\n \"rank\": 11,\n \"score\": 134623\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: All the answers that show the equivalency of 401(k) pre-tax and Roth 401(k) post-tax using equivalent contributions are correct assuming equivalent tax rates upon withdrawal. There is some potential gain if your tax rate upon retirement is higher than your working tax rate, but often people calculate a smaller percentage of their working income for their retirement income, which may offset a higher tax-rate anyway. In my mind, the primary advantage of a Roth 401(k) is that it effectively allows you to contribute more for retirement if you are currently maxing out your contributions in a regular 401(k) and IRA and want to contribute more. Doing so can be a big advantage when you are young and can benefit from those additional dollars being put into your retirement account early. This is effectively what is illustrated by the Fidelity calculation, and is something to consider if you are of the mind to aggressively save early for retirement. The reason Roth allows you to contribute more is because traditional IRA contributions are capped. Suppose the cap is $5500. Suppose also you immediately rollover your traditional IRA to a Roth IRA. This is a post-tax contribution, and growth on that is tax-free. If you maxed out your employer pre-tax 401(k) to $17500 and maxed out your IRA, you have maxed out your retirement contributions to $23000. Suppose two doublings, then the 401(k) has grown to $70000, and the IRA has grown to $22000. However, the withdrawal from the 401(k) is taxed, so assuming 25%, the total is $74500 after tax. Now, suppose instead you maxed out your employer Roth 401(k) post-tax instead, so you have put in $17500 post tax. And now, also max out your IRA. Now, all of your $23000 grows tax-free. So upon two doublings, you walk away with $92000. This is because you maxed out your contribution post-tax, meaning it was as if you were allowed to contribute $23333 to your pre-tax 401(k). So if you intend to max out your retirement account contributions, and are looking to contribute even more to retirement accounts, one way is two change over to contributing into the employer Roth 401(k).\",\n \"qid\": 10975,\n \"docid\": \"396257\",\n \"rank\": 12,\n \"score\": 134416\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: You might want to bring this fancy new IRS rule to your employer's attention. If your employer sets it up, an After-Tax 401(k) Plan allows employees to contribute after-tax money above the $18k/year limit into a special 401(k) that allows deferral of tax on all earnings until withdrawal in retirement. Now, if you think about it, that's not all that special on its own. Since you've already paid tax on the contribution, you could imitate the above plan all by yourself by simply investing in things that generate no income until the day you sell them and then just waiting to sell them until retirement. So basically you're locking up money until retirement and getting zero benefit. But here's the cool part: the new IRS rule says you can roll over these contributions into a Roth 401(k) or Roth IRA with no extra taxes or penalties! And a Roth plan is much better, because you don't have to pay tax ever on the earnings. So you can contribute to this After-Tax plan and then immediately roll over into a Roth plan and start earning tax-free forever. Now, the article I linked above gets some important things slightly wrong. It seems to suggest that your company is not allowed to create a brand new 401(k) bucket for these special After-Tax contributions. And that means that you would have to mingle pre-tax and post-tax dollars in your existing Traditional 401(k), which would just completely destroy the usefulness of the rollover to Roth. That would make this whole thing worthless. However, I know from personal experience that this is not true. Your company can most definitely set up a separate After-Tax plan to receive all of these new contributions. Then there's no mingling of pre-tax and post-tax dollars, and you can do the rollover to Roth with the click of a button, no taxes or penalties owed. Now, this new plan still sits under the overall umbrella of your company's total retirement plan offerings. So the total amount of money that you can put into a Traditional 401(k), a Roth 401(k), and this new After-Tax 401(k) -- both your personal contributions and your company's match (if any) -- is still limited to $53k per year and still must satisfy all the non-discrimination rules for HCEs, etc. So it's not trivial to set up, and your company will almost certainly not be able to go all the way to $53k, but they could get a lot closer than they currently do.\",\n \"qid\": 10975,\n \"docid\": \"417257\",\n \"rank\": 13,\n \"score\": 133505\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: This is an older question but things have changed. Its a common misconception on what the contribution cap is. A few things. In 2014, the IRS did not adjust the maximum contribution from the previous year which include 401(k) accounts, 403(b) accounts, most 457 plans, and Thrift Savings Plans, will be $18,000, up $500 from $17,500. Savers and investors aged 50 or older can take advantage of a catch-up contribution. In 2015, taxpayers who meet this age-based criterion can contribute an additional $6,000 above the regular maximum of $18,000, thus you can contribute a maximum of $24,000 into these tax-advantaged accounts. The total contribution limit, including employer contributions, has increased to $53,000 You can actually contribute up to 53k (including matching) so the exact amount you contribute from your actual income may end up being more or less than 24k. If you get a poor employer match you can actually contribute more but it would go in as after tax dollars and not claim the tax deduction. Note: after tax does NOT equal Roth. However if your a high salaried individual you can use this as a potential loop hole for funding a Roth IRA. Chances are if your making enough money to contribute 53k Total Contributions then your not going to qualify for a roth. However once you retire (or possibly before depending on the plan withdraw terms) you can roll the after tax money into a Roth IRA. This is a gray area on the tax policy. The IRS may come back and change their mind about this. If considering this option talk to a tax adviser.\",\n \"qid\": 10975,\n \"docid\": \"360533\",\n \"rank\": 14,\n \"score\": 133466\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"With these income levels you cannot deduct any IRA contribution. I.e.: you cannot save pre-tax, as you want. But you still can contribute to IRA (as a non-deductible contribution), and using the \\\"\\\"loophole\\\"\\\" transfer the contribution to Roth (you are probably over the limit to be able to contribute to Roth directly). For pre-tax contributions - max out your 401k.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 10975,\n \"docid\": \"53028\",\n \"rank\": 15,\n \"score\": 133202\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Your assumptions are flawed or miss crucial details. An employer sponsored 401k typically limits the choices of investments, whereas an IRA typically gives you self directed investment choices at a brokerage house or through a bank account. You are correct in noticing that you are limited in making your own pre-tax contributions to a traditional IRA in many circumstances when you also have an employer sponsored 401k, but you miss the massive benefit you have: You can rollover unlimited amounts from a traditional 401k to a traditional IRA. This is a benefit that far exceeds the capabilities of someone without a traditional 401k who is subject to the IRA contribution limits. Your rollover capabilities completely gets around any statutory contribution limit. You can contribution, at time of writing, $18,000 annually to a 401k from salary deferrals and an additional $35,000 from employer contributions for a maximum of $53,000 annually and roll that same $53,000 into an IRA if you so desired. That is a factor. This should be counterweighed with the borrowing capabilities of a 401k, which vastly exceeds an IRA again. The main rebuttal to your assumptions is that you are not necessarily paying taxes to fund an IRA.\",\n \"qid\": 10975,\n \"docid\": \"81148\",\n \"rank\": 16,\n \"score\": 133134\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: You cannot contribute directly to that 401k account if you no longer work at the sponsoring company - you have to be on their payroll. You can, however, roll the 401k over into an IRA, and contribute to the IRA. Note that in both cases, you are only allowed to contribute from earned income (which includes all the taxable income and wages you get from working or from running your own business). As long as you are employed (and have made more than $5k this year) you should have no problem. I am not certain whether contributing your $5k to a roth IRA would help you achieve your tax goals, someone else here certainly can advise.\",\n \"qid\": 10975,\n \"docid\": \"372014\",\n \"rank\": 17,\n \"score\": 133016\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"Unless your 401(k) plan is particularly good (i.e. good fund choices with low fees), you probably want to contribute enough to get the maximum match from your employer, then contribute to an IRA through a low-cost brokerage like Vanguard or Fidelity, then contribute more to your 401(k). As JoeTaxpayer said, contributions to a Roth IRA can be withdrawn tax- and penalty-free, so they are useful for early retirement. But certainly use your 401(k) as well--the tax benefits almost certainly outweigh the difficulty in accessing your money. JB King's link listing ways to access retirement money before the traditional age is fairly exhaustive. One of the main ways you may want to consider that hasn't been highlighted yet is IRS section 72(t) i.e. substantially equal periodic payments (SEPP). With this rule you can withdraw early from retirement plans without penalties. You have a few different ways of calculating the withdrawal amount. The main risk is you have to keep withdrawing that amount for the greater of five years or until you reach age 59½. In your case this is is only 4-5 years, which isn't too bad. Finally, in addition to being able to withdraw from a Roth IRA tax- and penalty-free, you can do the same for Roth conversions, provided 5 years have passed. So after you leave a job, you can rollover 401(k) money to a traditional IRA, then convert to a Roth IRA (the caveat being you have to pay taxes on the amount as income at this point). But after 5 years you can access the money without penalty, and no taxes since they've already been paid. This is commonly called a \\\"\\\"Roth conversion ladder\\\"\\\".\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 10975,\n \"docid\": \"73344\",\n \"rank\": 18,\n \"score\": 132487\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: With a Roth IRA, you can withdraw the contributions at any time without penalty as long as you don't withdraw the earnings/interest. There are some circumstances where you can withdraw the earnings such as disability (and maybe first home). Also, the Roth IRA doesn't need to go through your employer and I wouldn't do it through your employer. I have mine setup through Fidelity though I'm not sure if they have any guaranteed 3% return unless it was a CD. All of mine is in stocks. Your wife could also setup a Roth IRA so over 2 years, you could contribute $20,000. If I was you, I would just max out any 403-b matches (which you surely are at 25% of gross income) and then save my down payment money in a normal money market/savings account. You are doing good contributing almost 25% to the 403-b. There are also some income limitations on Roth IRAs. I believe for a married couple, it is $160k.\",\n \"qid\": 10975,\n \"docid\": \"387338\",\n \"rank\": 19,\n \"score\": 132388\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"You seem to be treating your Roth IRA as a sort of savings account for use in emergency situations. I would use a savings account for savings as withdrawing money from an IRA will have penalties under various circumstances (more than contributions, Roth IRA less than 5 years old, more than $10k for a down payment). Also, you mention folding your IRA into your 401k so that it will \\\"\\\"grow faster\\\"\\\". However, this will not have that effect. Imagine you have $30k in an IRA and $100k in a 401k and you are averaging a return of 8% / year on each. This will be identical to having a single 401k with $130k and an 8% / year return. This is not one of your questions, but employer matches are not counted in the 401k contribution limit. If your 22% calculation of your salary includes the match to reach the max contribution, you can still contribute more.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 10975,\n \"docid\": \"270818\",\n \"rank\": 20,\n \"score\": 131097\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Is there any benefit to investing in a Roth 401(k) plan, as opposed to a Roth IRA? They have separate contribution limits, so how much you contribute to one does not change the amount you can contribute to the other. Which is relevant to your question because you said the earnings on that account compounded over the next 40 years growing tax-free will be much higher than what I'd save on current taxes on a traditional 401(k). This is only true if you max out your contribution limits. If you start with the same amount of money and have the same marginal tax rate in both years, it doesn't matter which one you pick. Start with $10,000 to invest. With the traditional, you can invest all $10,000. With the Roth, you pay taxes on it and then invest it. Let's assume a tax rate of 25%. So invest $7500. Let's assume that you invest either amount long enough to double four times (forty years at 7% return after inflation is about right). So the traditional has $160,000 and the Roth has $120,000. Now you withdraw them. For simplicity's sake, we'll pretend it's all one year. It's probably over several years, but the math is easier in a single year. With the Roth, you have $120,000. With the traditional, you have to pay tax. Again, let's assume 25%. So that's $40,000, leaving you with $120,000 from the traditional. That is the same amount as the Roth! So it would make sense to If you can max out both, great. You do that for forty years and your retirement will be as financially secure as you can make it. If you can't max them out, the most important thing is the employer match. That's free money. Then you may prefer your Roth IRA to the 401k. Note that you can also roll over your Roth 401k to a Roth IRA. Then you can withdraw your contributions from the Roth IRA without penalty or additional tax. Alternate source. Beyond answering your question, I would still like to reiterate that Roth or traditional does not have a big effect on your investment unless you max them out or you have different tax rates now versus in retirement. It may change other things. For example, you can roll over a Roth 401k to a Roth IRA without paying taxes. And the Roth IRA will act like it was contributed directly. You have to check with your employer what their rollover rules are. They may allow it any time or only at employment separation (when you leave the job). If you do max out your Roth accounts, then they will perform better than the traditional accounts at the same nominal contribution. This is because they are tax free while your returns in the other accounts will have to pay taxes. But it doesn't matter until you hit the limits. Until then, you could just invest the tax savings of the traditional as well as the money you could invest in a Roth.\",\n \"qid\": 10975,\n \"docid\": \"92442\",\n \"rank\": 21,\n \"score\": 131042\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"The Forbes article IRS Announces 2014 Retirement Plan Contribution Limits For 401(k)s And More spells this out pretty clearly. For your wife - \\\"\\\"an IRA contributor who is not covered by a workplace retirement plan and is married to someone who is covered, the deduction is phased out if the couple’s income is between $181,000 and $191,000.\\\"\\\" So, with your wife not covered by a 401(k), and your income below the stated limit, she can deduct the IRA contribution. When your income gets beyond that limit, she can make a non-deductible contribution and convert to Roth, if she wishes.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 10975,\n \"docid\": \"481802\",\n \"rank\": 22,\n \"score\": 130993\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"First off, high five on the paycheck. There are a few retirement issues to deal with. 401k issues - At that income level, you will probably fall into the \\\"\\\"Highly Compensated Employee\\\"\\\" category, which means things get a little more complicated, both for you and your employer. (Wikipedia link) IRA issues - As you already realized, you make too much to directly open and contribute to a Roth IRA. You can open a Traditional IRA, however. Your income is already over the limit for Traditional IRA deduction (bummer), so it would seem there is little point to opening an IRA at all. However, there is a way to take advantage of a Roth IRA, even at your income level. It is possible to convert a Traditional IRA into a Roth IRA. There used to be income limits on the ability to do the conversion, which would have normally made this off limits to you. Starting in 2010, the income limit is removed, so you can do this. Basically, you open a Traditional IRA, max it out, then convert it to a Roth. Since there was no income deduction, you shouldn't have to pay any more taxes. (link) Disclaimer: I've never tried this, nor do I know anyone who has, so you might want to research it a bit more before you try it yourself.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 10975,\n \"docid\": \"446226\",\n \"rank\": 23,\n \"score\": 129884\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"Couple points: 1) Since the Roth is after tax, you can effectively contribute more than you could with the Traditional IRA before hitting the limits. So in your example, if you had extra money you wanted to invest in an IRA, you could invest up to $1,750 more into the Roth but only $500 more into the Traditional (current limits are $5,500 per year for single filers under 50). Your example assumes that you have exactly $3,750 in spare money looking for an IRA home. 2) The contributions (but not earnings) can be withdrawn from the Roth at any time, penalty and tax free. 3) The tax rate \\\"\\\"lock-in\\\"\\\" can be significant, especially early on when you are at a relatively low tax bracket, say 15%, but expect to be higher at retirement. 4) Traditional IRAs and 401(k) are taxed as ordinary income, so you go through the tax brackets. Even if the marginal rate is 25%, the effective rate may be lower. If you have a Roth, conceivably you could reduce the amount you need to withdrawal from the Trad IRA/401(k) to reduce the effective tax rate on those (of course subject to minimum distributions and all that). This is more an argument to have a mix of pre- and post-tax retirement accounts than strictly a pro-Roth reason.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 10975,\n \"docid\": \"466626\",\n \"rank\": 24,\n \"score\": 129748\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: You are already doing everything you can. If your employer does not have a 401(k) you are limited to investing in a Roth or a traditional IRA (Roth is post tax money, traditional IRA gives you a deduction so it is essentially pre tax money). The contribution limits are the same for both and contributing to either adds to the limit (so you can't duplicate). CNN wrote an article on some other ways to save: One thing you may want to bring up with your employer is that they could set up a SEP-IRA. This allows them to set a % (up to 25%) that they contribute pre-tax to an IRA for everyone at the company that has worked there at least 3 years. If you are at a small company, maybe everyone with that kind of seniority would take an equivalent pay cut to get the automatic retirement contribution? (Note that a SEP-IRA has to apply to everyone equally percentage wise that has worked there for 3 years, and the employer makes the contribution, not you).\",\n \"qid\": 10975,\n \"docid\": \"452592\",\n \"rank\": 25,\n \"score\": 129658\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: With a 401k you will be taxed when you withdraw the money upon retirement (just like an IRA), but conventional wisdom had it that you're likely to be in a lower tax bracket at that time. That may not necessarily be the case though, in which case a Roth IRA would be a better option because you're paying for it with after tax dollars and distributions are untaxed. If you wanted to hedge your bets you could have both an IRA/401k and a Roth IRA. An IRA has income limits above which the contributions are no longer tax deductible, I don't believe a 401k has the same limitations (for completion's sake: a Roth IRA has income limits above which you can't contribute to one). And like you said, the employer match is free money.\",\n \"qid\": 10975,\n \"docid\": \"383472\",\n \"rank\": 26,\n \"score\": 129555\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"Yes. Two years after your first contribution to the SIMPLE IRA, you can roll it to a traditional IRA. You can still contribute \\\"\\\"pre-tax\\\"\\\", but the mechanism will be slightly different, since with an employer plan the contribution was automatically deducted from your paycheck. With an individual plan, you make the contributions yourself and then get a tax deduction when you file. Since contributions to traditional and Roth IRAs combined are capped at $5,500 if you're under 50, some sort of employer-sponsored plan might be better from a contribution standpoint. If your institution offers some sort of plan other than a 401(k), you might still want to roll to a traditional IRA, since you will have much more flexibility in the investments you choose. On the flip side, if that thought is overwhelming, having a smaller set of options might be better for your peace of mind.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 10975,\n \"docid\": \"244084\",\n \"rank\": 27,\n \"score\": 129520\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"The error in the example is here: \\\"\\\"Now, if you contribute 5% to a Roth 401(k), your employer would match your after-tax 5% contribution. If the tax rate is 25%, that would be 5% of $60,000, which is $3,000. However, that $3,000 is put in to a traditional 401(k), so it is taxed when withdrawn. Assuming the tax rate is still 25% when you withdraw, you are only getting $2,250. Essentially you are giving up $750 of free money in this case.\\\"\\\" You set your contribution to Roth 401k as a function of the gross, 80,000. You choose 5% and contribute 4000 Your employer matches 4000. At the end of the year, your taxable income to the IRS is 80000, and you pay 30% or 24000. You have 80K-4K-24K to live on, or 52K If you chose the alternate regular 401k,then you contribute 4K, your income to the IRS is (80-4=) 76k, and you pay 30%, 22.8K in tax. You have 80-4-22.8 or 53.2K to live on. Or, to come at it the other way, you have 4000*30% =1200 extra tax reduction in your income this year. If the extra income in 401k versus extra current year tax in Roth IRA means you have to reduce less, like 2800K to the roth so you maintain a 53.2K lifestyle, then yes, the Roth IRA match is reduced. If you have the cash flow to prepay the current year tax and maximum-match contribution, you will get the full match based on your gross income.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 10975,\n \"docid\": \"379911\",\n \"rank\": 28,\n \"score\": 128065\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"Whether you contribute to an IRA (Traditional or Roth) and whether you contribute to a 401k (Traditional or Roth) are independent. IRAs have one contribution limit, and 401ks have another contribution limits, and these limits are independent. I see no reason why you wouldn't maximize the amount of money in tax-advantaged accounts, if you can afford to. In your first year of work, especially if you only work for part of the year, you're likely in a lower tax bracket than in the future, so Roth is better than Traditional. Another thing to note is that the money in the Roth IRA can be part of your \\\"\\\"safety net\\\"\\\" -- contributions to a Roth IRA (but not earnings) can be withdrawn at any time without tax or penalty. So if there is an emergency you can withdraw it, and it wouldn't be any worse than in a taxable account. And if you don't need it, then it will enjoy the tax benefits of being in the IRA.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 10975,\n \"docid\": \"492971\",\n \"rank\": 29,\n \"score\": 127991\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Roth and 401k are first because with the Roth you have tax free withdrawals (awesome!) and with the 401k you have tax free contributions (awesome!) as well as potential employer matching. Traditional IRAs would be the final thing I would contribute to after both of those. And in your case, unless you make around 150k, you aren't maxing your 401k; so I'd do that first.\",\n \"qid\": 10975,\n \"docid\": \"552031\",\n \"rank\": 30,\n \"score\": 127982\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Just the amount contributed to the Roth 401k that you rolled over, not the conversions from regular 401k/traditional IRA (for those there are holding period limitation of 5 year from conversion), the earning on it or the employer's match (neither of these can be withdrawn without penalty as a non-qualified withdrawal). However, I'd suggest not to withdraw from Roth IRA unless you're sleeping on a bench in a park and beg strangers for a piece of bread. This is the best retirement investment you can make while you're in the lower tax brackets, and withdrawing it would reduce dramatically your tax-free retirement income.\",\n \"qid\": 10975,\n \"docid\": \"469311\",\n \"rank\": 31,\n \"score\": 127971\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: The general advise is to contribute to the 401K up to the match limit. Then put money into a Roth IRA. Then put the rest into the 401K above the match. Yes you can have an IRA and a 401K. You can even have Roth and non-Roth versions. You do have to watch the limits, and exclusions, but there is nothing stopping you from contributing to multiple types in one year. Over a long career you may find your self with all the possible types of accounts. When you re-qualify for the company 401K, there is no need to roll over the IRA money into the 401K. Just keep the IRA.\",\n \"qid\": 10975,\n \"docid\": \"547218\",\n \"rank\": 32,\n \"score\": 127907\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"It's going to be quite a challenge to give a definitive answer to any \\\"\\\"Why\\\"\\\" question about law, and especially so for a question about tax law. One would need to try to dig up statements made by the legislators (and/or their aides) crafting and debating the law. As it is, tax law is already inconsistent in many ways. (Why are there people who can't contribute to a Roth IRA directly but can contribute to a Traditional and then immediately convert it to Roth? Why are maximum limits for 401(k) plans and IRAs separate rather than being one combined \\\"\\\"retirement\\\"\\\" savings maximum?) In the absence of some specific legislative statements saying that it was set up this way for some specific purpose, one must assume that it was written with the some goals as all tax law: As a compromise between various ideas, trying to accomplish some specific purpose. Feel free to add in some level of inefficiency and it being hard to completely understand the entirely of the tax law, which leads to things perhaps not being as \\\"\\\"tidy\\\"\\\" as one might hope for. But there's no reason to think that the people crafting the tax advantages for HSA plans had any reason to use 401(k) plans as a template, or wanted them to accomplish the same goals.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 10975,\n \"docid\": \"233794\",\n \"rank\": 33,\n \"score\": 127543\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: I'm in a similar situation as I have a consulting business in addition to my regular IT job. I called the company who has my IRA to ask about setting up the Individual 401k and also mentioned that I contribute to my employer's 401k plan. The rep was glad I brought this up because he said the IRS has a limit on how much you can contribute to BOTH plans. For me it would be $24K max (myAge >= 50; If you are younger than 50, then the limit might be lower). He said the IRS penalties can be steep if you exceed the limit. I don't know if this is an issue for you, but it's something you need to consider. Be sure to ask your brokerage firm before you start the process.\",\n \"qid\": 10975,\n \"docid\": \"101490\",\n \"rank\": 34,\n \"score\": 127110\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"Some 401k plans allow you to make \\\"\\\"supplemental post-tax contributions\\\"\\\". basically, once you hit the pre-tax contribution limit (17.5k$ in 2014), you are then allowed to contribute funds on a post-tax basis. Because of this timing, they are sometimes called \\\"\\\"spillover\\\"\\\" contributions. Usually, this option is advertised as a way of continuing to get company match even if you accidentally hit the pre-tax limit. But if you actually pay attention to your finances, it is instead a handy way to put away additional tax-advantaged money. That said, you would only want to use this option if you already maxed out your pre-tax and Roth options since you don't get the traditional tax break on contributions or the Roth tax break on the earnings. However, when you leave the company, you can transfer the post-tax money directly into a Roth IRA when you transfer the pre-tax money, match, and earnings into a traditional IRA.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 10975,\n \"docid\": \"120394\",\n \"rank\": 35,\n \"score\": 126435\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: These are plans similar to 401k plans. 457(b) plans available for certain government and non-profit organizations, 403(b) available for certain educational, hospital, religious and non-profit organizations. Your school apparently fits into both classes, so it has both. These plans don't have to allow ROTH contributions, but they may, so you have to check if there's an option. The main (but not only) difference from IRA is the limit: for 401(k), 403(b) and 457(b) plans the contribution limit is $17500, while for IRA its $5500 (for 2013). Additional benefit of 457(b) plan is that there's no 10% penalty on early withdrawal, just taxes (at ordinal rates).\",\n \"qid\": 10975,\n \"docid\": \"316651\",\n \"rank\": 36,\n \"score\": 126289\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: I'm of the opinion that it doesn't matter much unless something in your life changes in retirement. And since many retirement planners assume a default income target of 80 percent of pre-retirement income, I figure many people's tax bracket isn't moving much. The most interesting reason I know to Go Roth in a 401k is limits. You can only contribute like $17k, whether Roth or not. In a traditional contribution, some of the 17k you put in goes to taxes when taken out, but in a Roth contribution you pay taxes up front. So if you have more than $17k to invest, Roth lets you sneak some more into the system.\",\n \"qid\": 10975,\n \"docid\": \"586909\",\n \"rank\": 37,\n \"score\": 125917\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: It sounds like you're comparing (1) the backdoor Roth IRA and (2) the mega backdoor Roth. Although the names are similar they are considerably different, and not mutually exclusive. The goal of the backdoor Roth IRA is to contribute to a Roth IRA even if you are over the income limits. This is accomplished by contributing to a non-deductible Traditional IRA and then converting to Roth. Both of these steps have no income limit (unlike a direct Roth IRA contribution, which does), and only the earnings (which should be minimal) will be taxed. More info here (mirror). The goal of the mega backdoor Roth is to get a lot of money into Roth accounts through salary deferral. This is accomplished by making non-Roth after-tax contributions to your 401(k) after exhausting the $18,000 limit (in 2017) for pre-tax + Roth employee contributions. The after-tax contributions (potentially up to $36,000 for 2017) can be rolled over to the Roth 401(k) or to a Roth IRA, while the earnings can be rolled over to the pre-tax 401(k) or a Traditional IRA, or taxed like regular income and converted to Roth along with the contributions. More info here (mirror).\",\n \"qid\": 10975,\n \"docid\": \"222836\",\n \"rank\": 38,\n \"score\": 125857\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Your math is correct. As you point out, because of the commutative property of multiplication, Roth and traditional IRAs offer the same terminal wealth if your tax rate is the same when you pull it out as when you put it in. Roth does lock in your tax rate as of today as you point out, which is why it frequently does not maximize wealth (most of us have a higher tax bracket when we are saving than when we are withdrawing from savings). There are a few other potential considerations/advantages of a Roth: Roth and traditional IRAs have the same maximum contribution amount. This means the effective amount you can contribute to a Roth is higher ($5,500 after tax instead of before). If this constraint is binding for you and you don't expect your tax rate to change, Roth is better. Roth IRAs allow you to withdraw your contributed money (not the gains) at any time without any tax or penalty whatsoever. This can be an advantage to some who would like to use it for something like a down payment instead of keeping it all the way to retirement. In this sense the Roth is more flexible. As your income becomes high, the deductibility of traditional IRA contributions goes to zero if you have a 401(k) at work (you can still contribute but can't deduct contributions). At high incomes you also may be disallowed from contributing to a Roth, but because of the backdoor Roth loophole you can make Roth contributions at any income level and preserve the full Roth tax advantage. Which type of account is better for any given person is a complex problem with several unknowns (like future tax rates). However, because tax rates are generally higher when earning money, for most people who can contribute to them, traditional IRAs maximize your tax savings and therefore wealth. Edit: Note that traditional IRA contributions also reduce your AGI, which is used to compute eligibility for other tax advantages, like the child care tax credit and earned income credit. AGI is also often used for state income tax calculation. In retirement, traditional IRA distributions may or may not be state taxable, depending on your state and circumstances.\",\n \"qid\": 10975,\n \"docid\": \"53996\",\n \"rank\": 39,\n \"score\": 125749\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: As far as I know, there is no direct equivalent. An IRA is subject to many rules. Not only are there early withdrawal penalties, but the ability to deduct contributions to an IRA phases out with one's income level. Qualified withdrawals from an IRA won't have penalties, but they will be taxed as income. Contributions to a Roth IRA can be made post-tax and the resulting gains will be tax free, but they cannot be withdrawn early. Another tax-deductable investment is a 529 plan. These can be withdrawn from at any time, but there is a penalty if the money is not used for educational purposes. A 401K or similar employer-sponsored fund is made with pre-tax dollars unless it is designated as a Roth 401K. These plans also require money to be withdrawn specifically for retirement, with a 10% penalty for early withdrawal. Qualifying withdrawals from a regular retirement plan are taxed as income, those from a Roth plan are not (as with an IRA). Money can be made harder to get at by investing in all of the types of funds you can invest in using an IRA through the same brokers under a different type of account, but the contribution will be made with post-tax, non-deductable dollars and the gains will be taxed.\",\n \"qid\": 10975,\n \"docid\": \"545184\",\n \"rank\": 40,\n \"score\": 125626\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Employer matches (even for Roth 401Ks) are put into traditional 401K accounts and are treated as pre-tax income. Traditional 401K plans are tax deferred accounts, meaning you won't owe any taxes on it this year, but will have to pay taxes on it when you take the money out (likely after retirement). 401K contributions (including the match) are reported to the IRS and are entered in box 12 on the W2 form.\",\n \"qid\": 10975,\n \"docid\": \"221938\",\n \"rank\": 41,\n \"score\": 125463\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: To answer your question: As far as what's available in addition to your 401(k) at work (most financial types will say to contribute up to the match first), you may qualify for a Roth IRA (qualification is based on income), if not, then you may have to go with a Traditional IRA. You and your husband can each have one and contribute up to the limit each year. After that, you could get just a straight up mutual fund, and/or contribute up to limit on your 401(k). My two cents: This may sound counter-intuitive (and I'm sure some folks will disagree), but instead of contributing to your 401(k) now, take whatever that amount is, and use it to pay extra on the car loan. Also take the extra being paid on the mortgage and pay it on the car loan too. Once the car loan is paid off, then set aside 15% of your gross income and use that amount to start your retirement investing. Any additional money beyond this can then go into the mortgage. Once it's paid off, then you can take the extra you were paying, plus the mortgage and invest that amount into mutual funds. You may want to check out Chris Hogan's Retire Inspired book or podcast as well.\",\n \"qid\": 10975,\n \"docid\": \"499606\",\n \"rank\": 42,\n \"score\": 125351\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Yours two funds are redundant. Both are designed to have a mix of bonds and stocks and allow you to put all your money in them. Pick the one that has the lowest fees and stick with that (I didn't look at the funds you didn't select...they didn't look great either). Although all your funds have high fees, some are higher than others, so don't ignore fees. When you have decided on your portfolio weights, prioritize your money thus: Contribute enough to your 401(k) to get the full match from your employer Put everything else toward paying off that credit card until you have 0 balance. It's ok to use the card, but let it be little enough that you pay your statement balance off each month so you pay no interest. Then set aside some savings and invest any retirement money into a Roth IRA. At your income level your taxes are low so Roth is better than traditional IRA or 401(k). If you max out your Roth, put any other retirement savings in your 401(k).\",\n \"qid\": 10975,\n \"docid\": \"124042\",\n \"rank\": 43,\n \"score\": 125108\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: If you were looking to maximize your ability to save in a qualified plan, why not setup a 401K plan in Company A and keep the SEP in B? Setup the 401K in A such that any employee can contribute 100% of their salary. Then take a salary for around 19K/year (assuming under age 50), so you can contribute and have enough to cover SS taxes. Then continue to move dividends to Company A, and continue the SEP in B. This way if you are below age 50, you can contribute 54K (SEP limit) + 18K (IRA limit) + 5500 (ROTH income dependent) to a qualified plan.\",\n \"qid\": 10975,\n \"docid\": \"363591\",\n \"rank\": 44,\n \"score\": 124565\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: No. Even if you don't need the additional salary income now, you might be able to contribute the incremental amount over the Roth max to either of the other two types of IRAs, or maybe even something else. You never want to take a lower salary, especially not in exchange for something that is conditional e.g. benefits. Your salary is the only thing that is guaranteed as a condition of employment. Other things can be changed by the employer at a future point in time. If you have two different job offers and the salaries are different, that is a separate scenario. You should make the decision based on overall comparison, not just using Roth limit contribution criteria.\",\n \"qid\": 10975,\n \"docid\": \"292230\",\n \"rank\": 45,\n \"score\": 124459\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"Your contribution limit to a 401(k) is $18,000. Your employer is allowed to contribute to your 401(k), usually a \\\"\\\"matching contribution\\\"\\\". That matching contribution comes from your employer, so is not subject to your personal contribution limit. A contribution to a regular 401(k) is typically made with pre-tax money (i.e. you don't pay payroll taxes on the money you contribute) so you pay less taxes for the current tax year. However when you retire and you take money out, you pay taxes on the money you take out. On one hand, your tax rate may be lower when you have retired, but on the other hand, if your investments have appreciated over time, the total amount of tax you pay would be higher. If your company offers a Roth 401(k) plan, you can contribute $18,000 of after tax money. This way you pay the tax on the $18,000 today, as you would if you did not put the money in the 401(k), but when you take the money out at retirement, you would not have to pay tax. In my opinion, that serves as a way to pay effectively more money into your 401(k). Some firms put vesting provisions on the amount that they match in your 401(k), e.g. 4 years at 25% per year. So you have to work 1 full year to be entitled to 25% of their matching contribution, 2 years for 50%, and 4 years to receive all of it. Check your company's Summary Plan Description of the 401(k) to be sure. You are not allowed to invest pre-tax money into a Traditional IRA if you are already contributing to a 401(k) plan and have reached the income limits ($62,000 AGI for single head of household). You are allowed to contribute post-tax money to a Traditional IRA plan if you have already contributed to a 401(k), which you can then Roll-over into a Roth IRA (look up 'backdoor IRA'). The IRA contribution limit applies to all IRA accounts over that calendar year. You could put some money in a traditional IRA, a Roth IRA, another traditional IRA, etc. so long as the total amount is not more than the contribution limit. This gives you an upper limit of 5.5k + 18k = 23.5 investments in retirement accounts. Note however, once you reach age 50, these limits increase to 6.5k (IRA) + 24k (401(k)). They also are adjusted periodically with the rate of inflation. The following approach may be more efficient for building wealth: This ordering is the subject of debate and people have different opinions. There is a separate discussion of these priorities here: Best way to start investing, for a young person just starting their career? Note however, a 401(k) loan becomes payable if you leave your company, and if not repaid, is an unauthorised distribution from your 401k (and therefore subject to an additional 10% tax penalty). You should also be careful putting money into an IRA, as you will be subject to an additional 10% tax penalty if you take out the money (distribution) before retirement, unless one of the exceptions defined by the IRA applies (e.g. $10,000 for first time home purchase), which could wipe out more than any gains you made by putting it in there in the first place. Your specific circumstances may vary, so this approach may not be best for you. A registered financial advisor may be able to help - ensure they are legitimate: https://adviserinfo.sec.gov\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 10975,\n \"docid\": \"38532\",\n \"rank\": 46,\n \"score\": 124304\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"If it was me, I would drop out. You can achieve a better kind of plan when there is no match. For example Fidelity has no fee accounts for IRAs and Roths with thousands of investment choices. You can also setup automatic drafts, so it simulates what happens with your 401K. Not an employee of Fidelity, just a happy customer. Some companies pass the 401K fees onto their employees, and all have limited investment choices. The only caveat is income. There are limits to the deductibility of IRAs and Roth contributions if you make \\\"\\\"too much\\\"\\\" money. For Roth's the income is quite high so most people can still make those contributions. About 90% of households earn less than $184K, when Roths start phasing out. Now about this 401K company, it looks like the labor department has jurisdiction over these kinds of plans and I would research on how to make a complaint. It would help if you and other employees have proof of the shenanigans. You might also consult a labor attourney, this might make a great class.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 10975,\n \"docid\": \"72160\",\n \"rank\": 47,\n \"score\": 124230\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: A good general rule is to save 15% of your income for retirement. As for where you put it: Put as much as it takes to maximize your employer match into your 401(k), but no more. The employer match is free money, and you can't beat free money If you still haven't put in 15%, put the rest into a Roth IRA. By historical standards, taxes are pretty low today. They are almost certainly going to be higher in retirement, especially since you likely won't have the deductions in retirement that you may have now (kids, mortgage, etc). If you've maxed our the allowed contribution for your Roth and still haven't saved 15%, put the rest in a traditional IRA.\",\n \"qid\": 10975,\n \"docid\": \"169232\",\n \"rank\": 48,\n \"score\": 124156\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: If you want to 'offset' current (2016) income, only deductible contribution to a traditional IRA does that. You can make nondeductible contributions to a trad IRA, and there are cases where that makes sense for the future and cases where it doesn't, but it doesn't give you a deduction now. Similarly a Roth IRA has possible advantages and disadvantages, but it does not have a deduction now. Currently he maximum is $5500 per person ($6500 if over age 50, but you aren't) which with two accounts (barely) covers your $10k. To be eligible to make this deductible traditional contribution, you must have earned income (employment or self-employment, but NOT the distribution from another IRA) at least the amount you want to contribute NOT have combined income (specifically MAGI, Modified Adjusted Gross Income) exceeding the phaseout limit (starts at $96,000 for married-joint) IF you were covered during the year (either you or your spouse) by an employer retirement plan (look at box 13 on your W-2's). With whom. Pretty much any bank, brokerage, or mutual fund family can handle IRAs. (To be technical, the bank's holding company will have an investment arm -- to you it will usually look like one operation with one name and logo, one office, one customer service department, one website etc, but the investment part must be legally separate from the insured banking part so you may notice a different name on your legal and tax forms.) If you are satisified with the custodian of the inherited IRA you already have, you might just stay with them -- they may not need as much paperwork, you don't need to meet and get comfortable with new people, you don't need to learn a new website. But if they sold you an annuity at your age -- as opposed to you inheriting an already annuitized IRA -- I'd want a lot of details before trusting they are acting in your best interests; most annuities sold to IRA holders are poor deals. In what. Since you want only moderate risk at least to start, and also since you are starting with a relatively small amount where minimum investments, expenses and fees can make more of an impact on your results, I would go with one or a few broad (= lower risk) index (= lower cost) fund(s). Every major fund familly also offers at least a few 'balanced' funds which give you a mixture of stocks and bonds, and sometimes some 'alternatives', in one fund. Remember this is not committing you forever; any reasonable custodian will allow you to move or spread to more-adventurous (but not wild and crazy) investments, which may be better for you in future years when you have some more money in the account and some more time to ponder your goals and options and comfort level.\",\n \"qid\": 10975,\n \"docid\": \"111350\",\n \"rank\": 49,\n \"score\": 123990\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: HSAs are very similar to IRAs. Any investment returns grow tax-deferred and once you reach age 59 1/2 65, you can withdraw the funds for any purpose (subject to ordinary income tax), just like a traditional IRA. If you can afford to do so, I would recommend you to pay medical expenses out-of-pocket and let the funds in your HSA accumulate and grow. In general, the best way to allocate your funds is in the following order: Contribute to a 401(k) if your employer matches funds at a substantial rate Pay off high-interest debt (8% of more in current environment in 2011) Contribute to an IRA (traditional or Roth) Contribute to an HSA Contribute to a 401(k) without the benefit of employer matching One advantage of HSAs versus IRAs is that you don't have to have earned income (salary or self-employment income) in order to contribute. If you derive income solely from rents, interest or dividends, you can contribute the maximum amount ($3,050 for individuals in 2011) and get a full deduction from your income (Of course, you will need to maintain a high-deductible health plan in order to qualify). One downside of HSAs is the lack of competitively priced providers. Wells Fargo offers HSAs for free, but only allows you to keep your funds in cash, earning a very measly interest rate, or invest them in rather mediocre and expensive Wells Fargo mutual funds. Vanguard, known for its low-fee investment options, provides HSAs through a partner company, but the account maintenance charges are still quite high. Overall, HSAs are a worthwhile option as part of your investment plan.\",\n \"qid\": 10975,\n \"docid\": \"402523\",\n \"rank\": 50,\n \"score\": 123979\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Are you obligated to do what they ask? Probably not, with one big caveat discussed below. Your employer sent your money and their money after every paycheck to the 401K management company. Then after a while the 401K management company followed your instructions to roll it over into an IRA. Now the IRA management company has it. Pulling it out of the IRA would be very hard, and the IRA company would be required to report it to the IRS as a withdraw. Here is the caveat. If the extra funds you put in allowed you to exceed the annual contribution amount set by the law, or if it allowed you to put more than 100% of your income into the fund, then this would be an excess contribution, and you and your employer would have to resolve or face the excess contribution penalties. Though if the 401K company and HR allowed you to exceed the annual limit they have a much more complex problem with their payroll system. The bigger concern is why they want you to pull out your $27.50 and their $27.50. Unless you were hitting the maximum limit, your $27.50 could have been invested by adjusting the percentage taken out of each check. You could have picked a percentage to reach a goal. That money is yours because you contributed it and unless you exceed the IRS set limits it is still pre-tax retirement money. The return of matching funds may be harder to calculate. The returns for 2013 were very good. Each $1.06 of matching funds each paycheck purchased a fraction of some investment. That investment went up and down, ok mostly up, if it was invested in the broad market. I guess you should be glad they aren't asking for more due to the increase in value. It would be very hard to calculate what happened if you have moved it around since then. Which of course you did when you moved it into an IRA. If the average employee was also given a $55 gift last year, then the suggestion to the employer is that the tax complexity you and your fellow employees face would exceed the cost of the extra funds. They should chalk it up to an expensive lesson and move on.\",\n \"qid\": 10975,\n \"docid\": \"140349\",\n \"rank\": 51,\n \"score\": 123802\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: You are in the perfect window for making an IRA contribution. The IRS allows you to make IRA contributions for last year until tax day. So you know that for 2014 you didn't have access to a 401K at work. You want to avoid making a deductible IRA contribution for this year (2015) until you are sure that you wont have a 401K at work this year. Take your time and decide if the detectible IRA or the Roth works best for your situation. Having a IRA now will be good becasue you have many years for it to grow. Keep in mind that it is not unusual to have multiple retirement accounts: Current 401K; rolled over into a IRA; Roth IRA... Each has different rules, limits, and benefits. There is no reason to pick one way of investing for retirement becasue you never know if the next employer will have the type of plan you like. I am assuming that your spouse, if you are married, doesn't have access to a 401K; otherwise you would have to consider the applicable limits.\",\n \"qid\": 10975,\n \"docid\": \"332113\",\n \"rank\": 52,\n \"score\": 123423\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Traditional and Roth 401k share a contribution limit of $16.5k. This means you could actually contribute to both if you wished to (say, if you weren't 100% on how taxes will change come retirement time), but the combined contributions for the year cannot exceed that limit.\",\n \"qid\": 10975,\n \"docid\": \"569651\",\n \"rank\": 53,\n \"score\": 123373\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: From your updated information, it seems like you are not eligible to deduct a Traditional IRA contribution, at your income since you are covered by a 401(k) at work. Therefore, contributing to a Roth IRA is the only real option in terms of IRAs. However, if you want to have some pre-tax contributions, you can change some or all of your Roth 401(k) to Traditional 401(k).\",\n \"qid\": 10975,\n \"docid\": \"261369\",\n \"rank\": 54,\n \"score\": 123093\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: You can invest another $5,500 in your Roth IRA each year, so you can invest up to $11,000 between the two tax years. Additionally you can make investments for the previous year up until 15 April the following year. In your case that will be close to graduation time, and you may decide to max out the contribution for 2014, but wait until you are settled into a new job before setting those savings aside long-term. When you start your first job, there will likely also be an option to invest in a 401k. You can still have the advantages of a Roth, but you will be limited to the investments available in the plan. Most employers I've seen today still offer a low-cost index fund, but you may have to speak up at a company meeting to pressure them to include one of those options in the plan. With a 401k your limit increases to $17,500/year. Make sure that the index fund you invest in has the lowest possible expense ratio. I use VOO. Depending on trading fees, etc., you might pick something else.\",\n \"qid\": 10975,\n \"docid\": \"204992\",\n \"rank\": 55,\n \"score\": 123015\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Luke, I'd like to point out some additional benefits of the Roth IRA accounts 1) Going Roth, you can effectively increase the amount of your contribution to your IRA account. In your example, you are assuming that your contribution to Roth IRA is in fact $ 85 ($100 less $ 15 tax paid). In reality, albeit more costly, Roth IRA allows you to contribute full $ 100 ($117.65 less $ 17.65 tax incurred.) Using this method you can in fact grow your tax-free funds to $ 1.006.27 over 30 years. The larger you effective tax rate is, the larger will be the difference between your maximum effective Traditional vs Roth IRA contribution will be. 2) Should you need to access your IRA funds in case of emergency (unqualified event of not buying your first home, nor paying for your college education), Roth IRA account contributions can be withdrawn without incurring the 10% penalty charge, that would be imposed on your unqualified Traditional IRA distribution. 3) As other contributors noted it's hard to believe that lower US tax rates would prevail. Chances are you will be contributing to Traditional 401k later throughout your work life. Having a Roth IRA account would afford you a tax diversification needed to hedge against possible tax rate hikes coming in the future. Considering the gloomy future of the Social Security funding, and ever-growing US national debt, can we really expect for there to not be any tax rate increases in the next 20-40 years?! By the way, as others pointed out your effective tax rate will always be lower than your marginal tax bracket.\",\n \"qid\": 10975,\n \"docid\": \"436884\",\n \"rank\": 56,\n \"score\": 122679\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: My perspective is from the US. Many employers offer 401(k)s and you can always contribute to an IRA for either tax deferred or tax free investment growth. If you're company offers a 401(k) match you should always contribute the maximum amount they max or you're leaving money on the table. Companies can't always support pensions and it isn't the best idea to rely on one entirely for retirement unless your pension is from the federal government. Even states such as Illinois are going through extreme financial difficulties due to pension funding issues. It's only going to get worse and if you think pension benefit accrual isn't going to be cut eventually you'll have another thing coming. I'd be worried if I was a state employee in the middle of my career with no retirement savings outside of my pension. Ranting: Employees pushed hard for some pretty absurd commitments and public officials let the public down by giving in. It seems a little crazy to me that someone can work for the state until they're in their 50's and then earn 70% of their 6 figure salary for the rest of their life. Something needs to be done but I'd be surprised if anyone has the political will to make tough choices now before thee options get much much worse and these states are forced to make a decision.\",\n \"qid\": 10975,\n \"docid\": \"2103\",\n \"rank\": 57,\n \"score\": 122186\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: I know in the instance that if my MAGI exceeds a certain point, I can not contribute the maximum to the Roth IRA; a traditional IRA and subsequent backdoor is the way to go. My understanding is that if you ever want to do a backdoor Roth, you don't want deductible funds in a Traditional account, because you can't choose to convert only the taxable funds. From the bogleheads wiki: If you have any other (non-Roth) IRAs, the taxable portion of any conversion you make is prorated over all your IRAs; you cannot convert just the non-deductible amount. In order to benefit from the backdoor, you must either convert your other IRAs as well (which may not be a good idea, as you are usually in a high tax bracket if you need to use the backdoor), or else transfer your deductible IRA contributions to an employer plan such as a 401(k) (which may cost you if the 401(k) has poor investment options).\",\n \"qid\": 10975,\n \"docid\": \"123027\",\n \"rank\": 58,\n \"score\": 122100\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: The strength of your plan is that you have considered that if you contribute early the the 401K you might not get the match, so you do stretch it out for the entire year.. One benefit to putting money into the HSA early is that it will be available if you need it early in the year if you have a major medical emergency in the first quarter. If you need to pay a $4,000 deductible in January because of Appendicitis you would hate to have to use post tax money to pay the bill. Of course If you have had the HSA for several years then this might not be a problem. If you haven't maxed the Roth IRA for 2013, you could make contributions to the IRA up until April 15 2014 to count for the previous year. A risk with the HSA is if you leave your employer mid-year. You can keep the money, and use it for medical expenses, but if the new company doesn't have a an HSA/High Deductible plan you might have contributed too much. The 401K, HSA, and IRA are annual limits. So if you will switch companies you are responsible for not going over the limit.\",\n \"qid\": 10975,\n \"docid\": \"122061\",\n \"rank\": 59,\n \"score\": 122070\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"The limit on SEP IRA is 25%, not 20%. If you're self-employed (filing on Schedule C), then it's taken on net earning, which in your example would be 25% of $90,000. (https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/retirement-plans-for-self-employed-people) JoeTaxpayer is correct as regards the 401(k) limits. The elective deferrals are per person - That's a cap in sum across multiple plans and across both traditional and Roth if you have those. In general, it's actually across other retirement plan types too - See below. If you're self-employed and set-up a 401(k) for your own business, the elective deferral is still aggregated with any other 401(k) plans in which you participate that year, but you can still make the employer contribution on your own plan. This IRS page is current a pretty good one on this topic: https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/one-participant-401k-plans Key quotes that are relevant: The business owner wears two hats in a 401(k) plan: employee and employer. Contributions can be made to the plan in both capacities. The owner can contribute both: •Elective deferrals up to 100% of compensation (“earned income” in the case of a self-employed individual) up to the annual contribution limit: ◦$18,000 in 2015 and 2016, or $24,000 in 2015 and 2016 if age 50 or over; plus •Employer nonelective contributions up to: ◦25% of compensation as defined by the plan, or ◦for self-employed individuals, see discussion below It continues with this example: The amount you can defer (including pre-tax and Roth contributions) to all your plans (not including 457(b) plans) is $18,000 in 2015 and 2016. Although a plan's terms may place lower limits on contributions, the total amount allowed under the tax law doesn’t depend on how many plans you belong to or who sponsors those plans. EXAMPLE Ben, age 51, earned $50,000 in W-2 wages from his S Corporation in 2015. He deferred $18,000 in regular elective deferrals plus $6,000 in catch-up contributions to the 401(k) plan. His business contributed 25% of his compensation to the plan, $12,500. Total contributions to the plan for 2015 were $36,500. This is the maximum that can be contributed to the plan for Ben for 2015. A business owner who is also employed by a second company and participating in its 401(k) plan should bear in mind that his limits on elective deferrals are by person, not by plan. He must consider the limit for all elective deferrals he makes during a year. Notice in the example that Ben contributed more that than his elective limit in total (his was $24,000 in the example because he was old enough for the $6,000 catch-up in addition to the $18,000 that applies to everyone else). He did this by declaring an employer contribution of $12,500, which was limited by his compensation but not by any of his elective contributions. Beyond the 401(k), keep in mind that elective contributions are capped across different types of retirement plans as well, so if you have a SEP IRA and a solo 401(k), your total contributions across those plans are also capped. That's also mentioned in the example. Now to the extent that you're considering different types of plans, that's a whole question in itself - One that might be worth consulting a dedicated tax advisor. A few things to consider (not extensive list): As for payroll / self-employment tax: Looks like you will end up paying Medicare, including the new \\\"\\\"Additional Medicare\\\"\\\" tax that came with the ACA, but not SS: If you have wages, as well as self-employment earnings, the tax on your wages is paid first. But this rule only applies if your total earnings are more than $118,500. For example, if you will have $30,000 in wages and $40,000 in selfemployment income in 2016, you will pay the appropriate Social Security taxes on both your wages and business earnings. In 2016, however, if your wages are $78,000, and you have $40,700 in net earnings from a business, you don’t pay dual Social Security taxes on earnings more than $118,500. Your employer will withhold 7.65 percent in Social Security and Medicare taxes on your $78,000 in earnings. You must pay 15.3 percent in Social Security and Medicare taxes on your first $40,500 in self-employment earnings and 2.9 percent in Medicare tax on the remaining $200 in net earnings. https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10022.pdf Other good IRS resources:\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 10975,\n \"docid\": \"406561\",\n \"rank\": 60,\n \"score\": 121967\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: According to the IRS, you can still put money in your IRA. Here (https://www.irs.gov/Retirement-Plans/Plan-Participant,-Employee/Retirement-Topics-IRA-Contribution-Limits) they say: Can I contribute to an IRA if I participate in a retirement plan at work? You can contribute to a traditional or Roth IRA whether or not you participate in another retirement plan through your employer or business. However, you might not be able to deduct all of your traditional IRA contributions if you or your spouse participates in another retirement plan at work. Roth IRA contributions might be limited if your income exceeds a certain level. In addition, in this link (https://www.irs.gov/Retirement-Plans/IRA-Deduction-Limits), the IRS says: Retirement plan at work: Your deduction may be limited if you (or your spouse, if you are married) are covered by a retirement plan at work and your income exceeds certain levels. The word 'covered' should clarify that - you are not covered anymore in that year, you just got a contribution in that year which was triggered by work done in a previous year. You cannot legally be covered in a plan at an employer where you did not work in that year.\",\n \"qid\": 10975,\n \"docid\": \"248536\",\n \"rank\": 61,\n \"score\": 121052\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"typically, your employer will automatically stop making contributions once you hit the 18k$ limit. it is worth noting that employer contributions (e.g. \\\"\\\"matching\\\"\\\") do not count towards the 18k$ employee pre-tax contribution limit. however, if you have 2 employers during the year their combined payroll deductions might exceed the limit if you do not inform your later employer of the contributions you made at your former employer (or they ignore the info). in which case, you must request a refund of \\\"\\\"excess contributions\\\"\\\" from one of the plans (your choice). you must report the refund as taxable income on your taxes. if you do not make this request by the time you file your taxes, the tax man will reject your filing and \\\"\\\"adjust\\\"\\\" your return with more taxes and penalties. sometimes requesting a refund of excess contributions might cause your employer to remove \\\"\\\"matching\\\"\\\" funds, but i am not clear on the rules behind that. there are some 401k plans that allow \\\"\\\"supplemental after-tax contributions\\\"\\\" up to the combined employee/employer limit (53k$ in 2015 and 2016). it is a rare feature, and if your company offers it, you probably already know. however, generally it is governed by a separate contribution election that only take effect once you hit the employee pre-tax contribution limit (18k$ in 2015 and 2016). you could ask your hr department to be sure. 401k plans can be changed if there is enough employee demand for a rule change. especially in a small company, simply asking for them to allow dollar based contributions instead of percent based contributions can cause them to change the plan to allow it. similarly, you could request they allow \\\"\\\"supplemental after-tax contributions\\\"\\\", but that might be a harder change to get.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 10975,\n \"docid\": \"427997\",\n \"rank\": 62,\n \"score\": 121030\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"If I understand correctly, the Traditional IRA, if you have 401k with an employer already, has the following features: Actually, #1 and #2 are characteristics of Roth IRAs, not Traditional IRAs. Only #3 is a characteristic of a Traditional IRA. Whether you have a 401(k) with your employer or not makes absolutely no difference in how your IRAs are taxed for the vast majority of people. (The rules for IRAs are different if you have a very high income, though). You're allowed to have and contribute to both kinds of accounts. (In fact, I personally have both). Traditional IRAs are tax deferred (not tax-free as people sometimes mistakenly call them - they're very different), meaning that you don't have to pay taxes on the contributions or profits you make inside the account (e.g. from dividends, interest, profits from stock you sell, etc.). Rather, you pay taxes on any money you withdraw. For Roth IRAs, the contributions are taxed, but you never have to pay taxes on the money inside the account again. That means that any money you get over and above the contributions (e.g. through interest, trading profits, dividends, etc.) are genuinely tax-free. Also, if you leave any of the money to people, they don't have to pay any taxes, either. Important point: There are no tax-free retirement accounts in the U.S. The distinction between different kinds of IRAs basically boils down to \\\"\\\"pay now or pay later.\\\"\\\" Many people make expensive mistakes in their retirement strategy by not understanding that point. Please note that this applies equally to Traditional and Roth 401(k)s as well. You can have Roth 401(k)s and Traditional 401(k)s just like you can have Roth IRAs and Traditional IRAs. The same terminology and logic applies to both kinds of accounts. As far as I know, there aren't major differences tax-wise between them, with two exceptions - you're allowed to contribute more money to a 401(k) per year, and you're allowed to have a 401(k) even if you have a high income. (By way of contrast, people with very high incomes generally aren't allowed to open IRAs). A primary advantage of a Traditional IRA is that you can (in theory, at least) afford to contribute more money to it due to the tax break you're getting. Also, you can defer taxes on any profits you make (e.g. through dividends or selling stock at a profit), so you can grow your money faster.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 10975,\n \"docid\": \"308150\",\n \"rank\": 63,\n \"score\": 120710\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Yes, eligibility for contributing to a Roth IRA is determined by your Modified Adjusted Gross Income (MAGI) which is based on your Adjusted Gross Income (AGI). Now, AGI includes the net capital gains from your transactions and MAGI adds back in things that were subtracted off (e.g. tuition deductions, foreign earned income exclusion) in arriving at the AGI. There is a worksheet in Publication 590 that has the details. You are always entitled to contribute to a Traditional IRA. The MAGI affects how much of your contribution is tax-deductible on that year's tax return, but not your eligibility to contribute. Both the above paragraphs assume that you have enough compensation (wages, salary, self-employment income) to contribute to an IRA: the contribution limit is $5500 or total compensation, whichever is smaller. (If you earned only $2K as wages, you can contribute all of it; not just your take-home pay which is what is left after Social Security and Medicare taxes, Federal taxes etc have been withheld from that $2K). If your entire income is from capital gains and stock dividends, you cannot contribute to any kind of IRA at all.\",\n \"qid\": 10975,\n \"docid\": \"127622\",\n \"rank\": 64,\n \"score\": 120510\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: There are a couple reasons for having a Traditional or Roth IRA in addition to a 401(k) program in general, starting with the Traditional IRA: With regards to the Roth IRA: Also, both the Traditional and Roth IRA allow you to make a $10,000 withdraw as a first time home buyer for the purposes of buying a home. This is much more difficult with the 401(k) and generally you end up having to take a loan against the 401(k) instead. So even if you can't take advantage of the tax deductions from contributions to a Traditional IRA, there are still good reasons to have one around. Unless you plan on staying with the same company for your entire career (and even if you do, they may have other plans) the Traditional IRA tends to be a much better place to park the funds from the 401(k) than just rolling them over to a new employer. Also, don't forget that just because you can't take deductions for the income doesn't mean that you might not need the income that savings now will bring you in retirement. If you use a retirement savings calculator is it saying that you need to be saving more than your current monthly 401(k) contributions? Then odds are pretty good that you also need to be adding additional savings and an IRA is a good location to put those assets because of the other benefits that they confer. Also, some people don't have the fiscal discipline to not use the money when it isn't hard to get to (i.e. regular savings or investment account) and as such it also helps to ensure you aren't going to go and spend the money unless you really need it.\",\n \"qid\": 10975,\n \"docid\": \"27495\",\n \"rank\": 65,\n \"score\": 120408\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: You can use a Roth IRA for retirement and you can still withdraw all of your contributions at any time. You can also withdraw $10,000 worth of the earnings in your Roth IRA for a first-time home purchase. You can also withdraw for unreimbursed medical expenses and qualified education expenses. Full details are available in IRS publication 590. There is a limit of $5,500 for contributions in 2016 ($6,500 if you're over 50) as long as your adjusted gross income is below a certain level. You can still make a contribution for the previous tax year until the filing deadline (usually April 15).\",\n \"qid\": 10975,\n \"docid\": \"122638\",\n \"rank\": 66,\n \"score\": 120108\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: There is a process called a backdoor IRA. You now have effectively made a Roth IRA contribution in a year where technically you aren't eligible. You do not have to pay taxes on earnings with a Roth IRA. You are limited to the normal annual contribution to the IRA (Roth or traditional). If you don't convert your traditional IRA contribution to a Roth IRA, then you are right. That gains nothing except enhanced protection in bankruptcy. Only do this if you are taking advantage of the Roth rollover. I'm ignoring rolling over a 401k into an IRA, as that doesn't increase the amount you can contribute. This does. You can contribute the full $18,000 to the 401k and still make a full contribution to the backdoor IRA. This is the tax advantaged form of an IRA. This avoids double taxation. Let's assume that your investment can go into something with a 5% annual return and you pay a 25% tax rate (doesn't matter as it drops out). You are going to invest for thirty years and then withdraw. You initially have $1000 before taxes. With a regular investment: You now have $2867.74. With a pre-tax IRA. You now have $3241.45 (it is not an accident that this is almost the same as the amount before the capital gains tax in the example without an IRA). You avoided the $373.72 capital gains tax. Even though you paid a lot more tax, you paid it out of the gains from investing the original $250 that you would have paid in tax. This helps you even more if the capital gains tax goes up in the future. Or if your tax bracket changes. If you currently are in the 25% bracket but retire in the 15% bracket, these numbers will get even better in your favor. If you currently are in the 15% bracket and worry that you might retire in the 25% bracket, consider a Roth instead. It also avoids double taxation but its single taxation is at your current rate rather than your future rate.\",\n \"qid\": 10975,\n \"docid\": \"258658\",\n \"rank\": 67,\n \"score\": 120008\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Your max contribution to your Roth IRA and your traditional IRA share the same cap, so if you are maxing your Roth IRA you cannot have a traditional one as well. I would put the additional into your 401k or perhaps a 529 if you have any kids.\",\n \"qid\": 10975,\n \"docid\": \"113881\",\n \"rank\": 68,\n \"score\": 119608\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Didn't see it mentioned so far, but depending on modified AGI you may be prevented from a tax deduction for your contribution to a Traditional IRA if you or your spouse are offered a retirement plan at work, even if you don't participate in it. See the IRS page here for the details of deduction limitability: https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/2017-ira-deduction-limits-effect-of-modified-agi-on-deduction-if-you-are-covered-by-a-retirement-plan-at-work In my opinion, because I heavily favor all the benefits of the Roth, I'd contribute first to a Roth IRA and then to the Roth 401(k). The former first because it puts the money in a place where you have more control over fees and how it is invested. The latter because the contribution limits are much higher than the IRA, and the money grows tax-free and incurs no taxes on withdrawal.\",\n \"qid\": 10975,\n \"docid\": \"192857\",\n \"rank\": 69,\n \"score\": 119452\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: The benefit is that your earnings in the 401k are not subject to income tax until you make withdrawals. This allows you to grow your money faster than if you made equivalent investments in a taxable account and had to pay taxes on dividends and capital gains along the way. Also, the theory is that you will be in a lower tax bracket in retirement and thus you will pay lower taxes overall. If this is not true (especially if you will be in a higher tax bracket in retirement), then there may not be any advantage for you to contribute to a 401k. One advantage over the Traditional IRA is the higher contribution limit. Some 401k plans also allow you to take loans from the plan, I don't think this is possible with a Traditional IRA. An alternative to both the 401k and Traditional IRA is the Roth version of either plan. With a Roth, you pay taxes up front, but your withdrawals during retirement are tax free.\",\n \"qid\": 10975,\n \"docid\": \"406239\",\n \"rank\": 70,\n \"score\": 119420\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: The reason the article recommends a Roth 401k for those who have a long time until retirement is based on your salary, marginal tax rates, and effective tax rates and some assumptions. You want to contribute to Roth IRAs when your marginal tax rate now is better than your effective tax rate at the time of withdrawal. That is most likely to be true when your salary is smaller (for you) and your salary is most likely to be smaller (compared to your future salaries) when you have more years until retirement. The article is presenting a rule of thumb. It won't hold true for everyone in every situation.\",\n \"qid\": 10975,\n \"docid\": \"480815\",\n \"rank\": 71,\n \"score\": 119110\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"1) Usually, the choice between Traditional vs. Roth is whether you believe that your tax rate will be higher or lower in the future than it is now. Your income is probably in the 25% bracket now. It's hard to say whether that should be considered \\\"\\\"high\\\"\\\" or \\\"\\\"low\\\"\\\". Some people advocate Roth only for 15% bracket; but your income would probably go into higher brackets in the future, so Roth may be preferable from this point of view. Roth IRA also has another advantage that the principal of contributions can be taken out at any time without tax or penalty, so it can serve as an emergency fund just as well as money in taxable accounts. Given that you may not have a lot of money saved up right now, this is useful. 2) In a sense, it's nice to have a mix of Traditional and Roth when you withdraw to hedge against uncertainty in future tax rates and have the option of choosing whichever one is advantageous to withdraw when you need to withdraw. That said, you will likely have many years of access to a 401k and high income in your future working years, in which you can contribute to a Traditional 401k (or if no access to 401k, then Traditional IRA), so a mix will almost certainly happen even if you go all Roth IRA now. 3) I think that depends on you, whether you are a hands-on or hands-off kind of investor.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 10975,\n \"docid\": \"41417\",\n \"rank\": 72,\n \"score\": 118803\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Your annual contributions are capped at the maximum of $5500 or your taxable income (wages, salary, tips, self employment income, alimony). You pay taxes by the regular calculations on Form 1040 on your earned income. In this scenario, you earn the income, pay taxes on the amount you earn, and put money in the Roth IRA. The alternative, a Traditional IRA, up to certain income levels, allows you to put the amount you contribute on line 32 of Form 1040, which subtracts the Traditional IRA contribution amount from your Adjusted Gross Income (line 37) before tax is calculated on line 44. In this scenario, you earn the income, put the money in the Traditional IRA, reduce your taxable income, and pay taxes on the reduced amount.\",\n \"qid\": 10975,\n \"docid\": \"549223\",\n \"rank\": 73,\n \"score\": 118630\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: You can contribute to a Traditional IRA instead of a Roth. The main difference is a contribution to a Roth is made with after tax money but at retirement you can withdraw the money tax free. With a Traditional IRA your contribution is tax-deductible but at retirement the withdrawal is not tax free. This is why most people prefer a Roth if they can contribute. You can also contribute to your work's 401k plan assuming they have one. And you can always save for retirement in a regular account.\",\n \"qid\": 10975,\n \"docid\": \"1219\",\n \"rank\": 74,\n \"score\": 118546\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"To answer the first part of your question: yes, I've done that! I did even a bit more. I once had a job that I wasn't sure I'd keep and the economy wasn't great either. In case my next employer wouldn't let me contribute to a 401(k) from day one, and because I didn't want to underfund my retirement and be stuck with a higher tax bill - I \\\"\\\"front-loaded\\\"\\\" my 401(k) contributions to be maxed out before the end of the year. (The contribution limits were lower than $16,500/year back then :-)) As for the reduced cash flow - you need of course a \\\"\\\"buffer\\\"\\\" account containing several months worth of living expenses to afford maxing out or \\\"\\\"front-loading\\\"\\\" 401(k) contributions. You should be paying your bills out of such buffer account and not out of each paycheck. As for the reduced cash flow - I think large-scale 401(k)/IRA contributions can crowd out other long-term saving priorities such as saving for a house down payment and the trade-off between them is a real concern. (If they're crowding out basic and discretionary consumer expenses, that's a totally different kind of problem, which you don't seem to have, which is great :-)) So about the trade-off between large-scale 401(k) contributions and saving for the down payment. I'd say maxing out 401(k) can foster the savings culture that will eventually pay its dividends. If, after several years of maxing out your 401(k) you decide that saving for the house is the top priority, you'll see money flow to the money-market account marked for the down payment at a substantial monthly rate, thanks to that savings culture. As for the increasing future earnings - no. Most people I've known for a long time, if they saved 20% when they made $20K/year, they continued to save 20% or more when they later made $100K/year. People who spent the entire paycheck while making $50K/year, always say, if only I got a raise to $60K/year, I'd save a few thousand. But they eventually graduate to $100K/year and still spend the entire paycheck. It's all about your savings culture. On the second part of your question - yes, Roth is a great tool, especially if you believe that the future tax rates will be higher (to fix the long-term budget deficits). So, contributing to 401(k) to maximize the match, then max out Roth, as others suggested, is a great advice. After you've done that, see what else you can do: more 401(k), saving for the house, etc.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 10975,\n \"docid\": \"3104\",\n \"rank\": 75,\n \"score\": 117984\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"The IRA contribution limit is a limit on the total amount you can contribute to all of your Roth and traditional IRAs. It's not a per-account limit. (See here and here.) Once you've hit the contribution limit on one account, you've hit it on all of them. Even so, supposing you had a reason with try to take money out of one of the accounts, the answer to your question is \\\"\\\"sort of\\\"\\\". The limit is a limit on your gross contributions, not your net contributions. It is possible to withdraw Roth contributions if you do so before the tax filing deadline for that year, but you must also withdraw (and pay taxes on) any earnings accured during the time the money was in the Roth (see here). In addition, doing this may not be as simple as just taking the money out of your account; you should probably ask your bank about it and let them know you're \\\"\\\"undoing\\\"\\\" the contribution, since they may otherwise still record the amount as a real contribution and the withdrawal as unqualified early withdrawal (subject to penalties, etc.).\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 10975,\n \"docid\": \"452870\",\n \"rank\": 76,\n \"score\": 117948\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"The money you invested in your Roth was taxed as income when you filed your income tax. A Roth contribution is \\\"\\\"post-tax\\\"\\\" as opposed to a standard IRA or 401k contribution which are \\\"\\\"pre-tax\\\"\\\". Pre-tax contributions lower your taxable income for the year. In example, you had income of $100,000 and made a standard IRA contribution of $5000. Your taxable income would be $95,000. In the case of a Roth contribution, the same $5000 investment would not reduce your taxable income for the year.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 10975,\n \"docid\": \"86887\",\n \"rank\": 77,\n \"score\": 117632\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: (Note: The OP does not state whether the employer-sponsored retirement savings are pre-tax or post-tax (such as a Roth 401(k)). The following answer assumes the more common case of a pre-tax plan.) This is a bad idea, IMHO. IRS Pub 970 lists exceptions to the 10% early withdrawal penalty for educational expenses. This doesn't include, as far as I can tell, student loan payments. So withdrawing from your retirement account would incur both income tax and penalties. Even if there were an exception, you'd still have to pay income taxes, which, depending on the amount and your income, could be at a higher marginal rate than you are currently paying. If you really want the debt gone as soon as possible, why not reduce the amount you contribute to the retirement plan (but not below the amount that gets you the maximum employer match) and use that money to increase your monthly payments to the student loan? Note that, if you do this, you will pay taxes on income that would have been tax-deferred in order to save money on interest, so there's still a trade-off. (One more thing: rather than rolling over to your new company's plan, you could roll over to a self-directed Traditional IRA.)\",\n \"qid\": 10975,\n \"docid\": \"55954\",\n \"rank\": 78,\n \"score\": 117576\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Couple of factors here to consider: 1) The savings vehicle 2) The investments Savings Vehicle: Roth IRAs allow you the flexibility to save for retirement and/or your house. Each person can save up to $5,500 in a Roth and you can withdraw your principal at anytime without penalty. (There is a special clause for first time home buyers; however, it limits the amount to $10k per person. Given your estimate of $750k and history of putting down 20%. It would require a bit more.) The only thing is that you can't touch the growth or interest. When you do max out your Roth IRA, it may make sense for you to open a brokerage account (401Ks often have multiple steps in order to convert or withdraw money for your down payment) Investments: Given your timeline (5-7 years) your investments would be more conservative. (More fixed income) While you should stay diversified (both fixed income and equity), the conservative portfolio will allow less fluctuation in your portfolio value while allowing some growth potential.\",\n \"qid\": 10975,\n \"docid\": \"232930\",\n \"rank\": 79,\n \"score\": 117263\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: You cannot roll over your 401k money in an employer's 401k plan into an IRA (of any kind) while you are still employed by that employer. The only way you can start on the conversion before you retire (as Craig W suggests) is to change employers and start rolling over money in the previous employer's 401k into your Roth IRA while possibly contributing to the 401k plan of your new employer. Since the amount rolled over is extra taxable income (that is, in addition to your wages from your new job), you may end up paying more tax (or at higher rates) than you expect.\",\n \"qid\": 10975,\n \"docid\": \"63532\",\n \"rank\": 80,\n \"score\": 117014\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"If you're single, the only solution I'm aware of, assuming you are truly getting a 1099-misc and not a W-2 (and don't have a W-2 option available, like TAing), is to save in a nondeductible account for now. Then, when you later do have a job, use that nondeductible account (in part) to fund your retirement accounts. Particularly the first few years (if you're a \\\"\\\"young\\\"\\\" grad student in particular), you'll probably be low enough on the income side that you can fit this in - in particular if you've got a 401k or 403b plan at work; make your from-salary contributions there, and make deductible IRA or Roth IRA contributions from your in-school savings. If you're not single, or even if you are single but have a child, you have a few other options. Spouses who don't have earned income, but have a spouse who does, can set up a Spousal IRA. You can then, combined, save up to your spouse's total earned income (or the usual per-person maximums). So if you are married and your wife/husband works, you can essentially count his/her earned income towards your earned income. Second, if you have a child, consider setting up a 529 plan for them. You're probably going to want to do this anyway, right? You can even do this for a niece or nephew, if you're feeling generous.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 10975,\n \"docid\": \"271266\",\n \"rank\": 81,\n \"score\": 116995\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Put in the maximum you can into the 401(k), the limit should be $16,500 so long as the highly compensated rules don't kick in. Since you cannot deduct the traditional IRA, it's a great option to deposit to a traditional IRA and immediately convert that balance to a Roth account. That puts you at $21,500/yr saved, nearly 18%. There's nothing stopping you from investing outside these accounts. A nice ETF with low expenses, investing in a stock index (I am thinking SPY for the S&P 500) is great to accumulate long term.\",\n \"qid\": 10975,\n \"docid\": \"175679\",\n \"rank\": 82,\n \"score\": 116994\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Back in the late 80's I had a co-worked do exactly this. In those days you could only do things quarterly: change the percentage, change the investment mix, make a withdrawal.. There were no Roth 401K accounts, but contributions could be pre-tax or post-tax. Long term employees were matched 100% up to 8%, newer employees were only matched 50% up to 8% (resulting in 4% match). Every quarter this employee put in 8%, and then pulled out the previous quarters contribution. The company match continued to grow. Was it smart? He still ended up with 8% going into the 401K. In those pre-Enron days the law allowed companies to limit the company match to 100% company stock which meant that employees retirement was at risk. Of course by the early 2000's the stock that was purchased for $6 a share was worth $80 a share... Now what about the IRS: Since I make designated Roth contributions from after-tax income, can I make tax-free withdrawals from my designated Roth account at any time? No, the same restrictions on withdrawals that apply to pre-tax elective contributions also apply to designated Roth contributions. If your plan permits distributions from accounts because of hardship, you may choose to receive a hardship distribution from your designated Roth account. The hardship distribution will consist of a pro-rata share of earnings and basis and the earnings portion will be included in gross income unless you have had the designated Roth account for 5 years and are either disabled or over age 59 ½. Regarding getting just contributions: What happens if I take a distribution from my designated Roth account before the end of the 5-taxable-year period? If you take a distribution from your designated Roth account before the end of the 5-taxable-year period, it is a nonqualified distribution. You must include the earnings portion of the nonqualified distribution in gross income. However, the basis (or contributions) portion of the nonqualified distribution is not included in gross income. The basis portion of the distribution is determined by multiplying the amount of the nonqualified distribution by the ratio of designated Roth contributions to the total designated Roth account balance. For example, if a nonqualified distribution of $5,000 is made from your designated Roth account when the account consists of $9,400 of designated Roth contributions and $600 of earnings, the distribution consists of $4,700 of designated Roth contributions (that are not includible in your gross income) and $300 of earnings (that are includible in your gross income). See Q&As regarding Rollovers of Designated Roth Contributions, for additional rules for rolling over both qualified and nonqualified distributions from designated Roth accounts.\",\n \"qid\": 10975,\n \"docid\": \"490497\",\n \"rank\": 83,\n \"score\": 116988\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Your employer's matching contribution is calculated based on the dollar amounts you end up putting in. The nature of your 401(k) contribution—whether pre-tax or Roth after-tax—doesn't matter with respect to how their match gets calculated, and their match always goes into a pre-tax account, even if you are contributing after-tax. The onus is on you to choose a contribution amount that maximizes your employer match regardless of the nature of your contribution. Maximizing your employer match using Roth after-tax contributions will eat up more of your annual gross salary, but as long as you are willing to do that then you won't leave free employer match money on the table. Roth after-tax contributions don't get the tax deduction inherent in a pre-tax contribution. The tradeoff is that you end up with less take-home pay per period if you contribute the same number of dollars on a Roth after-tax basis to your 401(k) as opposed to on a pre-tax basis. For instance, to make a maximum $18,000 Roth after-tax contribution to a 401(k), it's going to cost you a lot more than $18,000 of your annual gross salary to net the same $18,000 number. (On the flip side, the Roth money is worth more in retirement than pre-tax money, because it won't be subject to taxes then.) However, 401(k) plan contribution amounts are almost always expressed as a percentage of gross salary, i.e. in pre-tax terms, even when electing to make after-tax contributions! So when electing after-tax, one is implicitly accepting that the contribution will cost more than the percentage of gross salary, because you'll need to pay the tax on a gross amount that would yield the same number of dollars but as an after-tax amount.\",\n \"qid\": 10975,\n \"docid\": \"463892\",\n \"rank\": 84,\n \"score\": 116901\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: The first question is essentially asking for specific investment advice which is off-topic per the FAQ, but I'll take a stab at #2 and #3 (2) If my 401k doesn't change before I leave my job (not planned in the near future), I should roll it over into my Roth IRA after I leave due to these high expense ratios, correct? My advice is that you should roll over a 401K into an IRA the first chance you get (usually when you leave the job). 401K plans are NOTORIOUS for high expense ratios and why leave your money in a plan where you have a limited choice of investments anyway versus a self-directed IRA where you can invest in anything you want? (3) Should I still max contribute with these horrible expense ratios? If they are providing a match, yes. Even with the expense ratios it is hard to beat the immediate return of an employer match. If they aren't matching, the answer is still probably yes for a few reasons: You already are maxing out your ability to contribute to sheltered accounts, so assuming you still want to sock away that money for retirement, the tax benefits are still valuable and probably offset the expense ratios. Although you seem to be an exception, it is hard for most people to be disciplined enough to put money in a retirement account after they have it in their hands (versus auto-deduction from paychecks).\",\n \"qid\": 10975,\n \"docid\": \"389202\",\n \"rank\": 85,\n \"score\": 116788\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: I would definitely recommend contributing to an IRA. You don't know for sure you'll get hired full-time and be eligible for the 401(k) with match, so you should save for retirement on your own. I would recommend Roth over Traditional IRA in your situation, because let's say you do get hired full-time. Since the company offers a retirement plan, your 2015 Traditional IRA contribution would no longer be deductible at your income level (assuming you're single), and non-deductible Traditional IRAs aren't a very good deal (see here and here). If there's a decent chance you would get hired, this factor would override the pre-tax versus post-tax debate for me. At your income level you could go either way on that anyway. A Solo 401(k) would be worth looking into if you wanted to increase your contribution limit beyond what IRAs offer, but given that it sounds like you're just starting out saving for retirement, and you may be eligible for a 401(k) soon, it's probably overkill at this point.\",\n \"qid\": 10975,\n \"docid\": \"520924\",\n \"rank\": 86,\n \"score\": 116610\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: On the other hand, I'd be contributing less than with a traditional plan since it is taxed before being invested. You got it backwards. The effective limit is higher for a Roth 401k than a Traditional 401k. The nominal limit is the same -- $17000. But an amount of money in a Roth plan is equivalent to a greater amount of money in a Traditional plan, because money in a Traditional plan is pre-tax that will need to be taxed when taken out, resulting in less post-tax money. Conversely, for a Roth plan, that is post-tax money, which came from a greater amount of pre-tax money; and it won't be taxed again. So it is more money, tax-neutral comparison wise. Of course, since you say that you won't hit the limit, this consideration doesn't matter anyway.\",\n \"qid\": 10975,\n \"docid\": \"561939\",\n \"rank\": 87,\n \"score\": 116530\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: The plan is perfectly valid and legal as tax rules currently stand. There is no limit to the amount you can rollover or convert to Roth. Assuming your 401(k) is traditional pre-tax, you'll have to pay income taxes on the amount you convert above personal exemption + standard deduction, which is currently about $10k/year for single filers. The other caveat is you'll need funds to live off of while your conversion money is seasoning for 5 years in your Roth IRA. If you start the conversion while you are still working, you'll be paying taxes on it in your marginal bracket, which will negate much of the benefit of the pre-tax 401(k). If your living expenses are low, you can convert about $10k/year without federal income taxes, while living off capital gains from a taxable account which have a 0% rate in the 15% income tax bracket (goes up to about $37k/year).\",\n \"qid\": 10975,\n \"docid\": \"380047\",\n \"rank\": 88,\n \"score\": 116478\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"if you have 401k with an employer already, has the following features: Your contributions are taxed That's only true if you're a high income earner. https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/2017-ira-deduction-limits-effect-of-modified-agi-on-deduction-if-you-are-covered-by-a-retirement-plan-at-work For example, married filing jointly allows full deduction up to $99,000 even if you have a 401(k). \\\"\\\"the timing is just different\\\"\\\" And that's a good thing, since if your retirement tax rate is less than your current tax rate, you'll pay less tax on that money.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 10975,\n \"docid\": \"361509\",\n \"rank\": 89,\n \"score\": 116424\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"If you have wage income that is reported on a W2 form, you can contribute the maximum of your wages, what you can afford, or $5500 in a Roth IRA. One advantage of this is that the nominal amounts you contribute can always be removed without tax consequences, so a Roth IRA can be a deep emergency fund (i.e., if the choice is $2000 in cash as emergency fund or $2000 in cash in a 2015 Roth IRA contribution, choice 2 gives you more flexibility and optimistic upside at the risk of not being able to draw on interest/gains until you retire or claim losses on your tax return). If you let April 15 2016 pass by without making a Roth IRA contribution, you lose the 2015 limit forever. If you are presently a student and partially employed, you are most likely in the lowest marginal tax rate you will be in for decades, which utilizes the Roth tax game effectively. If you're estimating \\\"\\\"a few hundred\\\"\\\", then what you pick as an investment is going to be less important than making the contributions. That is, you can pick any mutual fund that strikes your fancy and be prepared to gain or lose, call it $50/year (or pick a single stock and be prepared to lose it all). At some point, you need to understand your emotions around volatility, and the only tuition for this school is taking a loss and having the presence of mind to examine any panic responses you may have. No reason not to learn this on \\\"\\\"a few hundred\\\"\\\". While it's not ideal to have losses in a Roth, \\\"\\\"a few hundred\\\"\\\" is not consequential in the long run. If you're not prepared at this time in your life for the possibility of losing it all (or will need the money within a year or few, as your edit suggests), keep it in cash and try to reduce your expenses to contribute more. Can you contribute another $100? You will have more money at the end of the year than investment choice will likely return.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 10975,\n \"docid\": \"149367\",\n \"rank\": 90,\n \"score\": 116381\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"when you contribute to a 401k, you get to invest pre-tax money. that means part of it (e.g. 25%) is money you would otherwise have to pay in taxes (deferred money) and the rest (e.g. 75%) is money you could otherwise invest (base money). growth in the 401k is essentially tax free because the taxes on the growth of the base money are paid for by the growth in the deferred portion. that is of course assuming the same marginal tax rate both now and when you withdraw the money. if your marginal tax rate is lower in retirement than it is now, you would save even more money using a traditional 401k or ira. an alternative is to invest in a roth account (401k or ira). in which case the money goes in after tax and the growth is untaxed. this would be advantageous if you expect to have a higher marginal tax rate during retirement. moreover, it reduces tax risk, which could give you peace of mind considering u.s. marginal tax rates were over 90% in the 1940's. a roth could also be advantageous if you hit the contribution limits since the contributions are after-tax and therefore more valuable. lastly, contributions to a roth account can be withdrawn at any time tax and penalty free. however, the growth in a roth account is basically stuck there until you turn 60. unlike a traditional ira/401k where you can take early retirement with a SEPP plan. another alternative is to invest the money in a normal taxed account. the advantage of this approach is that the money is available to you whenever you need it rather than waiting until you retire. also, investment losses can be deducted from earned income (e.g. 15-25%), while gains can be taxed at the long term capital gains rate (e.g. 0-15%). the upshot being that even if you make money over the course of several years, you can actually realize negative taxes by taking gains and losses in different tax years. finally, when you decide to retire you might end up paying 0% taxes on your long term capital gains if your income is low enough (currently ~50k$/yr for a single person). the biggest limitation of this strategy is that losses are limited to 3k$ per year. also, this strategy works best when you invest in individual stocks rather than mutual funds, increasing volatility (aka risk). lastly, this makes filing your taxes more complicated since you need to report every purchase and sale and watch out for the \\\"\\\"wash sale\\\"\\\" rules. side note: you should contribute enough to get all the 401k matching your employer offers. even if you cash out the whole account when you want the money, the matching (typically 50%-200%) should exceed the 10% early withdrawal penalty.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 10975,\n \"docid\": \"264023\",\n \"rank\": 91,\n \"score\": 116345\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: While the other answers are good, I wanted to expand a little on why I feel a ROTH is a bad way to go unless you are young. First, let's pretend you have a 25% tax rate. And your investments will go up 5% per year for 10 years. You contribute 6% of income for one year. You can do a traditional or a roth 401k/IRA. Here's the math: Traditional: 6% of income invested. Grows at 5% for 10 years. Taxed at 25% on withdrawl. = (Income * 6%) * (1.05 ^ 10) * (100% - 25%) = (Income * 6%) * 1.63 * .75 = 7.33% of your original income - but this is after taxes ROTH: Taxes taken out of income. Then 6% of that goes into the fund(s). Still grows at 5% for 10 years. Not taxed at withdrawl. = (Income * (100% - 25%) * 6%) * (1.05 ^ 10) = (Income * 75% * 6%) * 1.63 = 7.33% of your original income - again this is after taxes. Look familiar? They are the same. It's the simple transitive property of mathematics. So why do a traditional vs. a ROTH? The reason is that your tax bracket changes. This changes because your income changes. Say when you retire you plan to have your home or vehicle paid for. You expect to be able to live on $50,000 per year. This means when you make MORE than $50,000 you should do a traditional plan and when you make less than this you should do a ROTH plan. Example: You make $100,000 and your upper bracket is now 30%. You save 30% by doing a traditional and then pay back 10, 20, and 30% as you withdraw a salary of $50,000. Traditional = better. Example: You make $30,000 annually. Your upper bracket is 20%. You pay 20% on a roth. Then you withdraw funds to get to $50,000 anually and never pay the higher bracket. Roth = better. ROTH advocates typically bring up tax rates. Of course they will go up they insist. So you always should do a ROTH. Not so fast. Taxes have gone down in recent years (No one please start a political debate with me. Some went up, some went down, but overall, federal income rates dropped). Even if taxes rose 5%, a traditional will still be better than a ROTH in many cases.\",\n \"qid\": 10975,\n \"docid\": \"387030\",\n \"rank\": 92,\n \"score\": 116299\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Does your employer offer a 401(k) match? If so, contribute enough to maximize that--it's free money. After that, contribute to an IRA where you can invest in funds with low expenses. After you max that out, if you still have money left over, max out your 401(k) despite the high expenses for the tax advantages. Remember when you leave the company you can roll over the balance into an IRA and switch to lower-cost investments. Of course this is general advice without knowing your situation. If you're looking to buy a home soon, for example, you might want to keep extra money in a taxable account for a downpayment rather than maxing out your 401(k).\",\n \"qid\": 10975,\n \"docid\": \"140917\",\n \"rank\": 93,\n \"score\": 116298\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: This answer assumes that your purpose for using the ESPP is to generate a relatively safe 15% return on that portion of your income. Frequently before there were Roth 401K options the advice was: This advice was especially good for the younger workers because they wanted to have a Roth account but didn't want to miss the 401K match. As Roth 401K accounts were introduced that advice changed somewhat because it was possible to get the benefit of the Roth and still get the maximum match. for your situation what I would propose is: contribute to the 401K enough to get the maximum match. Contribute as much as you want or are allowed into the ESPP. Take the proceeds and contribute to an IRA or Roth IRA. If you reach the IRA max you have to decide if you will scale back the ESPP to contribute more to the 401K.\",\n \"qid\": 10975,\n \"docid\": \"164628\",\n \"rank\": 94,\n \"score\": 116237\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Yes, this is right. It is what I am doing. In fact, I took it one step further. During my early career when I was able to deduct traditional IRA contributions, I made them and saved on taxes. When my income got high enough that I could no longer deduct those contributions, I rolled all my traditional IRA's into my 401(k). Now they are no longer subject to the pro-rata rule and I could begin with the backdoor Roths while continuing to contribute the max to my traditional 401(k). Thereafter it's pretty much the process you have described.\",\n \"qid\": 10975,\n \"docid\": \"284681\",\n \"rank\": 95,\n \"score\": 116216\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"Just like all employee benefits there is a focus on removing or limiting owners of businesses' ability to abuse tax preferences under the guise of an employee benefit. As you point out there is an overall plan maximum 401(k) for employer contributions and match contributions. There is a nondiscrimination test for FSA programs (there is also a nondiscrimination test for medical plans under sections 125 and 105(h)). Employer contributions are counted toward the total of HSA contributions. Why an HSA has a different maximum arrangement than 401(k) is anyone's guess. But the purpose of the limit is to prevent owners of companies from setting up plans that do little more than funnel tax free funds to themselves. An owner/employee could pay themselves a wage, contribute the maximum, then have the \\\"\\\"employer\\\"\\\" also match the maximum, so there are limits in place.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 10975,\n \"docid\": \"240373\",\n \"rank\": 96,\n \"score\": 115516\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"Your retirement PLAN is a lifelong plan and shouldn't be tied to your employer status. Max out your 401(k) contribution to the maximum that your employer matches (that's a 100% ROI!) and as much as you can afford. When you leave the work force rollover your 401(k) to an IRA account (e.g.: you can create an IRA account with any of the online brokerage firms Schwab, E-Trade, Sharebuilder, or go with a brick-and-mortar firm like JP Morgan, Stifel Nicolaus, etc.). You should have a plan: How much money do you need/month for your expenses? Accounting for inflation, how much is that going to be at retirement (whatever age you plan to retire)? How much money do you need to have so that 4.5% of that money will provide for your annual living expenses? That's your target retirement amount of savings. Now figure out how to get to that target. Rule #1 Invest early and invest often! The more money you can sock away early in your career the more time that money has to grow. If you aren't comfortable allocating your investments yourself then you could go with a Targeted Retirement Fund. These funds have a general \\\"\\\"date\\\"\\\" for retirement and the assets are allocated as appropriate for the amount of risk appropriate for the time to retirement.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 10975,\n \"docid\": \"449828\",\n \"rank\": 97,\n \"score\": 115507\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: You have many options, and there is no one-size-fits-all recommendation. You can contribute to your IRA in addition to your 401(k), but because you have that 401(k), it is not tax-deductable. So there is little advantage in putting money in the IRA compared to saving it in a personal investment account, where you keep full control over it. It does, however, open the option to do a backdoor-rollover from that IRA to a Roth IRA, which is a good idea to have; you will not pay any taxes if you do that conversion, if the money in the IRA was not tax deducted (which it isn't as you have the 401(k)). You can also contribute to a Roth IRA directly, if you are under the income limits for that (193k$ for married, I think, not sure for single). If this is the case, you don't need to take the detour through the IRA with the backdoor-rollover. Main advantage for Roth is that gains are tax free. There are many other answers here that give details on where to save if you have more money to save. In a nutshell, In between is 'pay off all high-interest debt', I think right after 1. - if you have any. 'High-Interest' means anything that costs more interest than you can expect when investing.\",\n \"qid\": 10975,\n \"docid\": \"48203\",\n \"rank\": 98,\n \"score\": 115505\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: These are the basics in order: Max your employer contributions to your 401k if available Pay off any loans Contribute to an IRA Perhaps max out your 401k Look into other investment options (refinance your mortgage, buy stocks) Those are the typical rules, special situations may need specials actions...\",\n \"qid\": 10975,\n \"docid\": \"480036\",\n \"rank\": 99,\n \"score\": 115486\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: If you invest in a 401(k), the shares in that plan are yours for as long as you live, or until you pull them out. So, if the employer is offering any sort of matching and those matched funds remain yours after you leave, then definitely contribute; that's an immediate return on your money. If the employer is NOT matching funds, then usually it is better to contribute to an IRA instead; you get the same income tax benefits from the deduction, without the headaches of going through your company (or the company from 3 jobs ago or whoever bought them) to get to your money. If I were in your position, the most I personally would do after I quit the company (which I'm assuming you'd be doing if you were going back to your country of origin) would be to have the 401k shares rolled over into a traditional IRA; that way I'd have more control over it from outside the country. Just keep the bank holding your IRA apprised of your movements around the world and how they can get ahold of you (it may be wise to grant a limited power of attorney to someone who will be staying in the U.S. if you don't want the bank mailing your statements all around the world), and the money can stay in an American account while you do whatever you have to outside it. As long as you don't take the money out in cash before you're 59 1/2 years old, you don't need to pay taxes or penalties on it. If you were to need it to cover unexpected expenses (perhaps relating to the aforementioned family emergency), then that decision can be made at that time. If you think that's even remotely likely, you may consider a Roth IRA. With a Roth, you pay the income taxes on your contributions, but the money is then yours; you can withdraw anything up to the total amount of your contributions without any additional taxes or penalties, and once you hit 59 and a half the interest also becomes available, also tax- and penalty- free. So if you had to leave the country and take a lot of cash with you, you could get out everything you actually put into a Roth with only minor if any transaction fees, and the interest will still be there compounding.\",\n \"qid\": 10975,\n \"docid\": \"20323\",\n \"rank\": 100,\n \"score\": 115455\n }\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":643,"cells":{"query":{"kind":"string","value":"Closing a futures position"},"hits":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"Title: Content: For exchange contracts, yes. A trader can close a position by taking an offsetting position. CME's introduction to Futures explains it quite well (on page 22). Exiting the Market Jack entered the market on the buy side, speculating that the S&P 500 futures price would move higher. He has three choices for exiting the market:","qid":10979,"docid":"362762","rank":1,"score":170485},{"content":"Title: Content: Futures are immediate settlement, and your money is available as soon as you close out your position.","qid":10979,"docid":"503505","rank":2,"score":161884},{"content":"Title: Content: Cart's answer is basically correct, but I'd like to elaborate: A futures contract obligates both the buyer of a contract and the seller of a contract to conduct the underlying transaction (settle) at the agreed-upon future date and price written into the contract. Aside from settlement, the only other way either party can get out of the transaction is to initiate a closing transaction, which means: The party that sold the contract buys back another similar contract to close his position. The party that bought the contract can sell the contract on to somebody else. Whereas, an option contract provides the buyer of the option with the choice of completing the transaction. Because it's a choice, the buyer can choose to walk away from the transaction if the option exercise price is not attractive relative to the underlying stock price at the date written into the contract. When an option buyer walks away, the option is said to have expired. However – and this is the part I think needs elaboration – the original seller (writer) of the option contract doesn't have a choice. If a buyer chooses to exercise the option contract the seller wrote, the seller is obligated to conduct the transaction. In such a case, the seller's option contract is said to have been assigned. Only if the buyer chooses not to exercise does the seller's obligation go away. Before the option expires, the option seller can close their position by initiating a closing transaction. But, the seller can't simply walk away like the option buyer can.","qid":10979,"docid":"357324","rank":3,"score":146678},{"content":"Title: Content: Here's a good link that can answer your question: How to take delivery of a futures contract The relevant part states: Prior to delivery day, they inform customers who have open long positions that they must either close out the position or prepare to take delivery and pay the full value of the underlying contract. By the same token traders with short positions are informed that they must close out their trades or prepare to deliver the underlying commodity. In this case, they must have the required quantity and quality of the deliverable commodity on hand. On the few occasions that a buyer accepts delivery against his futures contract, he is usually not given the underlying commodity itself (except in the case of financials), but rather a receipt entitling him to fetch the hogs, wheat, or corn from warehouses or distribution points. I hope this helps. Good luck!","qid":10979,"docid":"206683","rank":4,"score":141440},{"content":"Title: Content: Yes, 6% is a waste of money, because some other brokers such as IB offer margin rates below 2%. Also, to borrow money for even less than any broker's margin interest rate, one can do an EFP transaction. This involves simultaneously shorting a stock and buying the SSF for the same stock. When the futures contract expires, you take delivery of the underlying stock to automatically close out your short position. Until then, you've effectively borrowed cash for the cost of borrowing the stock, which is typically less than 0.5% interest for widely traded ones. You also pay for the slight difference in price between the stock and the future, which is typically equivalent to another 0.5% interest or less. The total often comes to less than 1% interest. The only risk with this transaction is that the stock could become hard to borrow at some point, so then you would have to pay higher interest on it temporarily or maybe even have to close out your short early. But it is extremely rare for large, high-volume stocks to become hard-to-borrow. The borrowing cost of SPY has spiked above 5% on only a handful of days in the last decade.","qid":10979,"docid":"218904","rank":5,"score":132204},{"content":"Title: Content: \"Nobody has mentioned the futures market yet. Although the stock market closes at 4pm, the futures market continues trading 24 hours a day and 5.5 days a week. Amongst the products that trade in the future market are stock index futures. That includes the Dow Jones, the S&P 500. These are weighted averages of stocks and their sectors. You would think that the price of the underlying stock dictates the price of the average, but in this day and age, the derivative actually changes the value of the underlying stock due to a very complex combination of hedging practices. (this isn't meant to be vague and mysterious, it is \"\"delta hedging\"\") So normal market fluctuations coupled with macroeconomic events affect the futures market, which can ripple down to individual stocks. Very popular stocks with large market caps will most certainly be affected by futures market trading. But it is also worth mentioning that futures can function completely independently of a \"\"spot\"\" price. This is where things start to get complicated and long winded. The futures market factor is worth mentioning because it extends even outside of the aftermarket and pre-market hours of stock trading.\"","qid":10979,"docid":"110966","rank":6,"score":128107},{"content":"Title: Content: \"In general there are two types of futures contract, a put and call. Both contract types have both common sides of a transaction, a buyer and a seller. You can sell a put contract, or sell a call contract also; you're just taking the other side of the agreement. If you're selling it would commonly be called a \"\"sell to open\"\" meaning you're opening your position by selling a contract which is different from simply selling an option that you currently own to close your position. A put contract gives the buyer the right to sell shares (or some asset/commodity) for a specified price on a specified date; the buyer of the contract gets to put the shares on someone else. A call contract gives the buyer the right to buy shares (or some asset/commodity) for a specified price on a specified date; the buyer of the contract gets to call on someone for shares. \"\"American\"\" options contracts allow the buyer can exercise their rights under the contract on or before the expiration date; while \"\"European\"\" type contracts can only be exercised on the expiration date. To address your example. Typically for stock an option contract involves 100 shares of a stock. The value of these contracts fluctuates the same way other assets do. Typically retail investors don't actually exercise their contracts, they just close a profitable position before the exercise deadline, and let unprofitable positions expire worthless. If you were to buy a single call contract with an exercise price of $100 with a maturity date of August 1 for $1 per share, the contract will have cost you $100. Let's say on August 1 the underlying shares are now available for $110 per share. You have two options: Option 1: On August 1, you can exercise your contract to buy 100 shares for $100 per share. You would exercise for $10,000 ($100 times 100 shares), then sell the shares for $10 profit per share; less the cost of the contract and transaction costs. Option 2: Your contract is now worth something closer to $10 per share, up from $1 per share when you bought it. You can just sell your contract without ever exercising it to someone with an account large enough to exercise and/or an actual desire to receive the asset or commodity.\"","qid":10979,"docid":"305676","rank":7,"score":122169},{"content":"Title: Content: There are 2 approaches. One of them is already mentioned by @Afforess. If the approach by @Afforess is not feasible, and you can not see yourself making an unbiased decision, close the position. By closing the position you will not get the best price. But by removing a distraction you will reduce amount of mistakes you make in the other stocks.","qid":10979,"docid":"450067","rank":8,"score":117535},{"content":"Title: Content: Futures exchanges are essentially auction houses facilitating a two-way auction. While they provide a venue for buyers and sellers to come together and transact (be that a physical venue such as a pit at the CME or an electronic network such as Globex), they don't actively seek out or find buyers and sellers to pair them together. The exchanges enable this process through an order book. As a futures trader you may submit one of two types of order to an exchange: Market Order - this is sent to the exchange and is filled immediately by being paired with a limit order. Limit Order - this is placed on the books of the exchange at the price you specify. If other participants enter opposing market orders at this price, then their market order will be paired with your limit order. In your example, trader B wishes to close his long position. To do this he may enter a market sell order, which will immediately close his position at the lowest possible buy limit price, or he may enter a limit sell order, specifying the price at or above which he is willing to sell. In the case of the limit order, he will only sell and successfully close his position if his order becomes the lowest sell order on the book. All this may be a lot easier to understand by looking at a visual image of an order book such as the one given in the explanation that I have published here: Stop Orders for Futures Finally, not that as far as the exchange is concerned, there is no difference between an order to open and an order to close a position. They're all just 'buy' or 'sell' orders. Whether they cause you to reduce/exit a position or increase/establish a position is relative to the position you currently hold; if you're flat a buy order establishes a new position, if you're short it closes your position and leaves you flat.","qid":10979,"docid":"121158","rank":9,"score":117087},{"content":"Title: Content: You would generally have to pay interest for everyday you hold the position overnight. If you never close the position and the stock price goes to zero, you will be closed out and credited with your profit. If you never close the position and the stock price keeps going up and up, your potential loss is an unlimited amount of money. Of course your broker may close you out early for a number of reasons, particularly if your loss goes above the amount of capital you have in your trading account.","qid":10979,"docid":"45065","rank":10,"score":116731},{"content":"Title: Content: Absolutely. There is no requirement that an option be in-the-money for you to close out a position. Remember that there are alwayes two sides to a trade - a buyer and a seller. When you bought your option, it's entirely possible that someone else was closing out their long position by selling it to you.","qid":10979,"docid":"557582","rank":11,"score":115969},{"content":"Title: Content: If the underlying is currently moving as aggressively as stated, the broker would immediately forcibly close positions to maintain margin. What securities are in fact closed depends upon the internal algorithms. If the equity in the account remains negative after closing all positions if necessary, the owner of the account shall owe the broker the balance. The broker will close the account and commence collections if the owner of the account does not pay the balance quickly. Sometimes, brokers will impose higher margin requirements than mandated to prevent the above eventuality. Brokers frequently close positions that violate internal or external margin requirements as soon as they are breached.","qid":10979,"docid":"389501","rank":12,"score":115873},{"content":"Title: Content: \"You avoid pattern day trader status by trading e-mini futures through a futures broker. The PDT rules do not apply in the futures markets. Some of the markets that are available include representatives covering the major indices i.e the YM (DJIA), ES (S&P 500) and NQ (Nasdaq 100) and many more markets. You can take as many round-turn trades as you care to...as many or as few times a day as you like. E-mini futures contracts trade in sessions with \"\"transition\"\" times between sessions. -- Sessions begin Sunday evenings at 6 PM EST and are open through Monday evening at 5 PM EST...The next session begins at 6 pm Monday night running through Tuesday at 5 PM EST...etc...until Friday's session close at 5 PM EST. Just as with stocks, you can either buy first then sell (open and close a position) or short-sell (sell first then cover by buying). You profit (or lose) on a round turn trade in the same manor as you would if trading stocks, options, ETFs etc. The e-mini futures are different than the main futures markets that you may have seen traders working in the \"\"pits\"\" in Chicago...E-mini futures are totally electronic (no floor traders) and do not involve any potential delivery of the 'product'...They just require the closing of positions to end a transaction. A main difference is you need to maintain very little cash in your account in order to trade...$1000 or less per trade, per e-mini contract...You can trade just 1 contract at a time or as many contracts as you have the cash in your account to cover. \"\"Settlement\"\" is immediate upon closing out any position that you may have put on...No waiting for clearing before your next trade. If you want to hold an e-mini contract position over 2 or more sessions, you need to have about $5000 per contract in your account to cover the minimum margin requirement that comes into play during the transition between sessions... With the e-minis you are speculating on gaining from the difference between when you 'put-on' and \"\"close-out\"\" a position in order to profit. For example, if you think the DJIA is about to rise 20 points, you can buy 1 contract. If you were correct in your assessment and sold your contract after the e-mini rose 20 points, you profited $100. (For the DJIA e-mini, each 1 point 'tick' is valued at $5.00)\"","qid":10979,"docid":"533408","rank":13,"score":115705},{"content":"Title: Content: But by closing the short position the broker would still be purchasing shares from the market no? Or at least, someone would be purchasing the shares to close the short position. So, why doesn't the broker just let Client A keep their short position open and buy shares in the market so that Client B can sell them...I know it sounds a bit ridic, but not much more so to me than letting Client A borrow the shares to begin with!","qid":10979,"docid":"523729","rank":14,"score":114901},{"content":"Title: Content: I use futures options as a sort of hedge to an underwater position that I want to hold onto. If I am short at 3900 on /NQ and it moves up 3910 then I can sell a put against my position. For example, I sell this month's 3850 put for 15.00. If the NQ continues up to 3920, I can probably buy back that put for ~12.00 and sell the 3860 for 15.00. Rinse and repeat if it keeps moving up. If then the NQ moves down to 3900 then my futures position will be up +10 where my futures options put position will only be down about -3 for a net of +7. I suppose you could also trade a futures option by itself instead of the future's contract if you didn't want to risk as much $ in a day trade. Keep in mind that price you see for a future's options relates to the underlying. For /NQ 1 point = $20 so if a 3850 put costs 15.00 that is really $300. ES (Sp 500 futures) 1 point = $50 so a 1900 put that costs 15.00 would really be $750.","qid":10979,"docid":"298833","rank":15,"score":114626},{"content":"Title: Content: \"Futures are an agreement to buy or sell something in the future. The futures \"\"price\"\" is the price at which you agree to make the trade. This price does not indicate what will happen in the future so much as it indicates the cost of buying the item today and holding it until the future date. Hence, for very liquid products such as stock index futures, the futures price is a very simple function of today's stock index value and current short-term interest rates. If the stock exchange is closed but the futures exchange is open, then using the futures price and interest rates one can back out an implied \"\"fair value\"\" for the index, which is in essence the market's estimate of what the stock index value would be right now if the stock market were open. Of course, as soon as the stock exchange opens, the futures price trades to within a narrow band of the actual index value, where the size of the band depends on transaction costs (bid-ask spread, commissions, etc.).\"","qid":10979,"docid":"9274","rank":16,"score":113909},{"content":"Title: Content: Context is key here. Futures don't really have to do with a time in the future in this context. Futures are a capital market (futures market), just like Stocks are a market (stock market). Both capital markets have the ability to affect each other. Up until 30 years ago there was a separate use for the futures market, but in the days since they are MOSTLY used for stock derivatives (financial futures are the most widely traded contracts since 1980, hugely eclipsing the commodity futures that the market was designed for.) So there is overlap and one affect the other, I'm not going to go into too much detail here but basically the futures market trades 24 hours a day, 6.5 days of the week and the stock market trades 8-12 hours a day, 5 days a week. So when the stock market closes, the futures market is still running will react and effect the broad stock market. Hope that gets you started in your research","qid":10979,"docid":"261331","rank":17,"score":113024},{"content":"Title: Content: http://www.marketwatch.com/optionscenter/calendar would note some options expiration this week that may be a clue as this would be the typical end of quarter stuff so I suspect it may happen each quarter. http://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/triplewitchinghour.asp would note in part: Triple witching occurs when the contracts for stock index futures, stock index options and stock options expire on the same day. Triple witching days happen four times a year on the third Friday of March, June, September and December. Triple witching days, particularly the final hour of trading preceding the closing bell, can result in escalated trading activity and volatility as traders close, roll out or offset their expiring positions. June 17 would be the 3rd Friday as the 3rd and 10th were the previous two in the month.","qid":10979,"docid":"224714","rank":18,"score":110637},{"content":"Title: Content: Opened Long - is when you open a long position. Long means that you buy to open the position, so you are trying to profit as the price rises. So if you were closing a long position you would sell it. Closed Short - is when you close out a short position. Short means that you sell to open and buy back to close. With a short position you are trying to profit as the price falls. Scaled Out - means you get out of a position in increments as the price climbs (for long positions). Scaled In - means you set a target price and then invest in increments as the stock falls below that price (for long positions).","qid":10979,"docid":"154665","rank":19,"score":110242},{"content":"Title: Content: You're assuming options traded on the open market. To close open positions, a seller buys them back on the open market. If there's little on offer, this will drive the price up.","qid":10979,"docid":"352588","rank":20,"score":108414},{"content":"Title: Content: This is often the case where traders are closing out short positions they don't want to hold overnight, for a variety of reasons that matter to them. Most frequently, this is from day traders or high-frequency traders settling their accounts before the markets close.","qid":10979,"docid":"17231","rank":21,"score":107875},{"content":"Title: Content: In the US you specify explicitly what stocks you're selling. Brokers now are required to keep track of cost basis and report it to the IRS on the 1099-B, so you have to tell the broker which position it is that you're closing. Usually, the default is FIFO (i.e.: when you sell, you're assumed to be closing the oldest position), but you can change it if you want. In the US you cannot average costs basis of stocks (you can for mutual funds), so you either do FIFO, LIFO (last position closed first), or specify the specific positions when you submit the sale order.","qid":10979,"docid":"414636","rank":22,"score":107731},{"content":"Title: Content: With a short position you make your money (profit) when you buy the stocks back to close the position at a lower price than what you bought them at. As short selling is classed as speculation and not investing and you at no time own any actual assets, you cannot donate any short possition to charity. If you did want to avoid paying tax on the profits you could donate the proceeds of the profits after closing the position and thus get a tax deduction equal to the profits you made. But that raises a new and more important question, why are you trading in the first place if you are afraid to make profits in case you have to pay tax on those profits?","qid":10979,"docid":"221427","rank":23,"score":107543},{"content":"Title: Content: \"In futures, once you have established your position, you will earn or lose money depending on what the underlying does. Theoretically, if you had no stop, you could lose far more than you invested. An option will slowly lose all its value if the stock does not rise (assume it is out of the money when purchased). Depending on the strike, it could rise substantially and you'd still lose all your money. But you can't lose more than you put in. So options have limited risk compared to futures, at the expense of a decaying \"\"time value\"\" that you will effectively be paying while holding the option.\"","qid":10979,"docid":"214552","rank":24,"score":107005},{"content":"Title: Content: 2 things may happen. Either your positions are closed by the broker and the loss or profit is credited to your account. Else it is carried over to the next day and you pay interest on the stocks lent to you. What happens will be decided by the agreement signed between you and your broker.","qid":10979,"docid":"176822","rank":25,"score":106453},{"content":"Title: Content: To expand on the comment made by @NateEldredge, you're looking to take a short position. A short position essentially functions as follows: Here's the rub: you have unlimited loss potential. Maybe you borrow a share and sell it at $10. Maybe in a month you still haven't closed the position and now the share is trading at $1,000. The share lender comes calling for their share and you have to close the position at $1,000 for a loss of $990. Now what if it was $1,000,000 per share, etc. To avoid this unlimited loss risk, you can instead buy a put option contract. In this situation you buy a contract that will expire at some point in the future for the right to sell a share of stock for $x. You get to put that share on to someone else. If the underlying stock price were to instead rise above the put's exercise price, the put will expire worthless — but your loss is limited to the premium paid to acquire the put option contract. There are all sorts of advanced options trades sometimes including taking a short or long position in a security. It's generally not advisable to undertake these sorts of trades until you're very comfortable with the mechanics of the contracts. It's definitely not advisable to take an unhedged short position, either by borrowing someone else's share(s) to sell or selling an option (when you sell the option you take the risk), because of the unlimited loss potential described above.","qid":10979,"docid":"140371","rank":26,"score":106148},{"content":"Title: Content: \"Well, futures don't have a \"\"strike\"\" like an option - the price represents how much you're obligated to buy/sell the index for at a specified date in the future. You are correct that there's no cost to enter a contract (though there may be broker fees and margin payments). Any difference between the contract price and the price of the index at settlement is what is exchanged at settlement. It's analogous to the bid/ask on a stock - the bid price represents the price at which someone is willing to \"\"buy\"\" a futures contract (meaning enter into a long position) and the ask is how much someone is willing to \"\"sell\"\" a contract. So if you want to take a long position on S&P500 mini futures you'd have to enter in at the \"\"ask\"\" price. If the index is above your contract price on the future expiry date you'll make a profit; if it is below the contract price you'll take a loss.\"","qid":10979,"docid":"493012","rank":27,"score":106122},{"content":"Title: Content: The shift to trading at the close began in 2008. Traders did not want to be caught off guard by surprise news and there was a lot of volatility during the financial crisis, so they would close their position in the evening. Thats how it began. There are two reasons why it sticks around. First, there has been an increase usage of index funds or passive funds. These funds tend to update their positions at the end of the day. From the WSJ: Another factor behind the shift has been the proliferation of passively managed investments, such as index funds. These funds aim to mimic an index, like the S&P 500, by owning the shares that comprise it. Index funds don’t trade as often as active investors, but when they do, it is typically near the market close, traders say. That is because buying or selling a stock at its closing price better aligns their performance with the index they are trying to emulate. The second reason is simply that volume attracts volume. As a result of whats mentioned above, you have a shift to end of day trading, and the corrolary to that is that there is a liquidity shortage from 10am to 3pm. Thus, if you want to buy or sell a stock, but there are few buyers or sellers around, you will significant move the price when you enter your order. Obviously this does not affect retail traders, but imagine hedge funds entering or closing a billion dollar position. It can make a huge impact on price. And one way to mitigate that is to wait until there are more market participants to take the other end of your trade, just as at the end of the day. So this is a self-reinforcing trend that has begun in the markets and will likely stick around. http://www.wsj.com/articles/traders-pile-in-at-the-close-1432768080","qid":10979,"docid":"149420","rank":28,"score":105771},{"content":"Title: Content: You're confusing open positions and account balance. Your position in GBP is 1000, that's what you've bought. You then used some of it to buy something else, but to the broker you still have an open position of 1000 GBP. They will only close it when you give them the 1000GBP back. What you do with it until then is none of their business. Your account balance (available funds) in GBP is 10.","qid":10979,"docid":"159417","rank":29,"score":104369},{"content":"Title: Content: \"If the stock is below its purchase price, there is no way to exit the position immediately without taking losses. Since presumably you had Good Reasons for buying that stock that haven't changed overnight, what you should probably do is just hold it and wait for the stock to come back up. Otherwise you're putting yourself into an ongoing pattern of \"\"buy high, sell low\"\", which is precisely what you don't want to do. If you actually agree with the market that you made a mistake and believe that the stock will not recover any part of the loss quickly (and indeed will continue going down), you could sell immediately and take your losses rather than waiting and possibly taking more losses. Of course if the stock DOES recover you've made the wrong bet. There are conditions under which the pros will use futures to buffer a swing. But that's essentially a side bet, and what it saves you has to be balanced against what it costs you and how certain you are that you NOW can predict the stock's motion. This whole thing is one of many reasons individuals are encouraged to work with index funds, and to buy-and-hold, rather than playing with individual stocks. It is essentially impossible to reliably \"\"time the market\"\", so all you can do is research a stock to death before making a bet on it. Much easier, and safer, to have your money riding on the market as a whole so the behavior of any one stock doesn't throw you into a panic. If you can't deal with the fact that stocks go down as well as up, you probably shouldn't be in the market.\"","qid":10979,"docid":"221869","rank":30,"score":103842},{"content":"Title: Content: Perhaps it was to close a short position. Suppose the seller had written the calls at some time in the past and maybe made a buck or two off of them. By buying the calls now they can close out the position and go away on vacation, or at least have one less thing they have to pay attention to. If they were covered calls, perhaps the buyer wants to sell the underlying and in order to do so has to get out of the calls.","qid":10979,"docid":"43087","rank":31,"score":103076},{"content":"Title: Content: This depends on a combination of factors: What are you charged (call it margin interest) to hold the position? How does this reduce your buying power and what are the opportunity costs? What are the transaction costs alternative ways to close the position? What are your risks (exposure while legging out) for alternative ways to close? Finally, where is the asset closing relative to the strike? Generally, If asset price is below the put strike then the call expires worthless and you need to exercise the put. If asset is above the call strike then put expires worthless and you'll likely get assigned. Given this framework: If margin interest is eating up your profit faster than you're earning theta (a convenient way to represent the time value) then you have some urgency and you need to exit that position before expiry. I would not exit the stock until the call is covered. Keep minimal risk at all times. If you are limited by the position's impact on your buying power and probable value of available opportunities is greater than the time decay you're earning then once again, you have some urgency about closing instead of unwinding at expiry. Same as above. Cover that call, before you ditch your hedge in the long stock. Playing the tradeoff game of expiration/exercise cost against open market transactions is tough. You need sub-penny commissions on stock (and I would say a lot of leverage) and most importantly you need options charges much lower than IB to make that kind of trading work. IB is the cheapest in the retail brokerage game, but those commissions aren't even close to what the traders are getting who are more than likely on the other side of your options trades.","qid":10979,"docid":"384221","rank":32,"score":102810},{"content":"Title: Content: \"The gap up/down and rapid movement immediately following market open is due to overnight futures activity. In your example, SP500 on June 20, 2016 saw a 20-point gap up at market open. This was because the SP500 futures were trading 20 points higher at 9:30 AM than at its close on Friday. The index will always \"\"catch up\"\" with futures at market open. You can see that below. The top chart is the E-mini SP500 futures from Sunday night to Monday. Beneath it is the SP500 index.\"","qid":10979,"docid":"106314","rank":33,"score":102565},{"content":"Title: Content: \"Assuming these are standardized and regulated contracts, the short answer is yes. In your example, Trader A is short while Trader B is long. If Trader B wants to exit his long position, he merely enters a \"\"sell to close\"\" order with his broker. Trader B never goes short as you state. He was long while he held the contract, then he \"\"sold to close\"\". As to who finds the buyer of Trader B's contract, I believe that would be the exchange or a market maker. Therefore, Trader C ends up the counterparty to Trader A's short position after buying from Trader B. Assuming the contract is held until expiration, Trader A is responsible for delivering contracted product to Trader C for contracted price. In reality this is generally settled up in cash, and Trader A and Trader C never even know each other's identity.\"","qid":10979,"docid":"148728","rank":34,"score":102166},{"content":"Title: Content: If the price had dropped to $4 from $50, and you had $5000 to start with on your account, you will be left with $400 in your account if you closed the position now. So you would not be in debt if this was the only possition you had open.","qid":10979,"docid":"210887","rank":35,"score":102128},{"content":"Title: Content: \"They are not selling stocks. They are selling OJ futures contracts. Selling a futures contract at 142 gives the buyer the right to buy a fixed number of pounds of orange juice concentrate (\"\"OJ\"\") on a future date at 142 cents per pound. The seller has an obligation to suppy that fixed number of pounds of OJ to the buyer on the future date for 142 cents per pound. When the seller turns around and buys future contracts at 29, the seller gets the right to buy OJ on a future date at 29. This \"\"zeros his position\"\" -- meaning he's guaranteed himself the ability to deliver the pounds of OJ he was obligated to supply when he sold futures contracts at 142. And since he'll only have to pay 29 cents per pound, and he'll be selling the OJ for 142 per pound, he'll walk away with 113 cents of profit for every pound sold. You can read a blow-by-blow account of what Winthorpe and Valentine did at the end of \"\"Trading Places\"\" here and here. Note that what they did would not be legal today under the \"\"Eddie Murphy rule\"\", which prohibits trades based on illicitly obtained government information.\"","qid":10979,"docid":"98130","rank":36,"score":100039},{"content":"Title: Content: Trading volumes are higher at the end of the day as many traders close their open positions. In the morning however, traders incorporate various factors like performance of worldwide markets overnight, any corporate or government announcements, global macro events, etc.","qid":10979,"docid":"348886","rank":37,"score":99581},{"content":"Title: Content: This is your best answer so far. A detail left out is that derivatives are mostly known for the amount of leverage allowed, which is typically about 20-1, or 5% down. This is legal because it's generally assumed that someone is not going to buy or sell the underlying asset, that they will offset their long or short position long before the contract's delivery date. Your derivative broker(typically futures instead of forwards, because they're a standardized size, traded on an exchange and more liquid) will call you when you lose about half of your 5% to tell you to either transfer some money to cover your position or to ask you to exit your position at a loss. Fowards are traded through clearinghouses, not exchanges, and they can be for any underlying asset, for any delivery date, for any price, so long as parties agree on it. Just think of it as a contract.","qid":10979,"docid":"10090","rank":38,"score":99531},{"content":"Title: Content: \"Ignoring the complexities of a standardised and regulated market, a futures contract is simply a contract that requires party A to buy a given amount of a commodity from party B at a specified price. The future can be over something tangible like pork bellies or oil, in which case there is a physical transfer of \"\"stuff\"\" or it can be over something intangible like shares. The purpose of the contract is to allow the seller to \"\"lock-in\"\" a price so that they are not subject to price fluctuations between the date the contract is entered and the date it is complete; this risk is transferred to the seller who will therefore generally pay a discounted rate from the spot price on the original day. In many cases, the buyer actually wants the \"\"stuff\"\"; futures contracts between farmers and manufacturers being one example. The farmer who is growing, say, wool will enter a contract to supply 3000kg at $10 per kg (of a given quality etc. there are generally price adjustments detailed for varying quality) with a textile manufacturer to be delivered in 6 months. The spot price today may be $11 - the farmer gives up $1 now to shift the risk of price fluctuations to the manufacturer. When the strike date rolls around the farmer delivers the 3000kg and takes the money - if he has failed to grow at least 3000kg then he must buy it from someone or trigger whatever the penalty clauses in the contract are. For futures over shares and other securities the principle is exactly the same. Say the contract is for 1000 shares of XYZ stock. Party A agrees to sell these for $10 each on a given day to party B. When that day rolls around party A transfers the shares and gets the money. Party A may have owned the shares all along, may have bought them before the settlement day or, if push comes to shove, must buy them on the day of settlement. Notwithstanding when they bought them, if they paid less than $10 they make a profit if they pay more they make a loss. Generally speaking, you can't settle a futures contract with another futures contract - you have to deliver up what you promised - be it wool or shares.\"","qid":10979,"docid":"164001","rank":39,"score":99253},{"content":"Title: Content: \"I don't see EWQ6 in any of your links, so I can't say for certain, but when you buy an option contract on a future, the option will be for a specific future (and strike). So the page you're looking at may be for options on E-mini S&P 500 futures in general, and when you actually purchase one through your broker, you pick a specific expiry (which will be based on the \"\"prompt\"\" future, meaning the next future that expires after the option) and strike. UPDATE: Based on this page mirror, the option EWQ7 is an option on the ESU7 (SEP 2017) future. The next 3 monthly options use ESZ7 as the underlier, which confirms that they use the next prompt future as the underlier.\"","qid":10979,"docid":"262589","rank":40,"score":98640},{"content":"Title: Content: \"You gave your own answer - the 80% is positions, not contracts. Most actors on the option market have no interest in the underlying asset. They want \"\"just\"\" exposure to its price movement. It makes more sense to close your position than to be handed over bushels of wheat or whatever.\"","qid":10979,"docid":"313135","rank":41,"score":98468},{"content":"Title: Content: If you enter a futures contract, it costs nothing. So every time prices move against you, there is a margin call and you must put up some new money. Inverse ETF's use a variety of similar strategies to get their returns. Many of these strategies may indeed require a margin call to the ETF issuer if prices move against you. But remember the ETF did not cost nothing. Investors contributed money in order to purchase each share of the ETF. Therefore the ETF issuer has a big pot of money available for use as margin. That's why the margin call never comes through to you. In a sense, you posted a ton of margin up front, so you won't have to make any additional margin contributions. The money that will be used for margin calls is being kept in treasuries and money market securities by the ETF issuer until it's needed. If prices move against you badly enough that it looks like the ETF is at risk to not be able to post margin, the ETF would liquidate and you'd get whatever pittance was left after they exit all those positions.","qid":10979,"docid":"505410","rank":42,"score":98438},{"content":"Title: Content: \"Your broker likely didn't close your position out because it is a covered position. Why interfere with a trade that has no risk to it, from their perspective? There's no risk for the broker since your account holds the shares available for delivery (definition of covered), for if and when the options you wrote (sold) are exercised. And buyers of those options will eventually exercise the options (by expiration) if they remain in-the-money. There's only a chance that an option buyer exercises prematurely, and usually they don't because there's often time value left in the option. That the option buyer has an (ahem) \"\"option\"\" to exercise is a very key point. You wrote: \"\"I fully expected my position to be automatically liquidated by whoever bought my call\"\". That's a false assumption about the way options actually work. I suggest some study of the option exercise FAQs here: Perhaps if your position were uncovered – i.e. you wrote the call without owning the stock (don't try this at home, kids!) – and you also had insufficient margin to cover such a short position, then the broker might have justifiably liquidated your position. Whereas, in a covered call situation, there's really no reason for them to want to interfere – and I would consider that interference, as opposed to helpful. The situation you've described is neither risky for them, nor out of the ordinary. It is (and should be) completely up to you to decide how to close out the position. Anyway, your choices generally are:\"","qid":10979,"docid":"226546","rank":43,"score":98386},{"content":"Title: Content: \"Derivatives derive their value from underlying assets. This is expressed by the obligation of at least one counterparty to trade with the other counterparty in the future. These can take on as many combinations as one can dream up as it is a matter of contract. For futures, where two parties are obligated to trade at a specific price at a specific date in the future (one buyer, one seller), if you \"\"short\"\" a future, you have entered into a contract to sell the underlying at the time specified. If the price of the future moves against you (goes up), you will have to sell at a loss. The bigger the move, the greater the loss. You go ahead and pay this as well as a little extra to be sure that you satisfy what you owe due to the future. This satisfaction is called margin. If there weren't margin, people could take huge losses on their derivative bets, not pay, and disrupt the markets. Making sure that the money that will trade is already there makes the markets run smoothly. It's the same for shorting stocks where you borrow the stock, sell it, and wait. You have to leave the money with the broker as well as deposit a little extra to be sure you can make good if the market moves to a large degree against you.\"","qid":10979,"docid":"356388","rank":44,"score":98349},{"content":"Title: Content: \"I'll answer this question: \"\"Why do intraday traders close their position at then end of day while most gains can be done overnight (buy just before the market close and sell just after it opens). Is this observation true for other companies or is it specific to apple ?\"\" Intraday traders often trade shares of a company using intraday leverage provided by their firm. For every $5000 dollars they actually have, they may be trading with $100,000, 20:1 leverage as an example. Since a stock can also decrease in value, substantially, while the markets are closed, intraday traders are not allowed to keep their highly leveraged positions opened. Probabilities fail in a random walk scenario, and only one failure can bankrupt you and the firm.\"","qid":10979,"docid":"410887","rank":45,"score":98121},{"content":"Title: Content: \"I know some derivative markets work like this, so maybe similar with futures. A futures contract commits two parties to a buy/sell of the underlying securities, but with a futures contract you also create leverage because generally the margin you post on your futures contract is not sufficient to pay for the collateral in the underlying contract. The person buying the future is essentially \"\"borrowing\"\" money while the person selling the future is essentially \"\"lending\"\" money. The future you enter into is generally a short term contract, so a perfectly hedged lender of funds should expect to receive something that approaches the fed funds rate in the US. Today that would be essentially nothing.\"","qid":10979,"docid":"549040","rank":46,"score":98005},{"content":"Title: Content: When you buy a futures contract you are entering into an agreement to buy gold, in the future (usually a 3 month settlement date). this is not an OPTION, but a contract, so each party is taking risk, the seller that the price will rise, the buyer that the price will fall. Unlike an option which you can simply choose not to exercise if the price goes down, with futures you are obligated to follow through. (or sell the contract to someone else, or buy it back) The price you pay depends on the margin, which is related to how far away the settlement date is, but you can expect around 5% , so the minimum you could get into is 100 troy ounces, at todays price, times 5%. Since we're talking about 100 troy ounces, that means the margin required to buy the smallest sized future contract would be about the same as buying 5 ounces of gold. roughly $9K at current prices. If you are working through a broker they will generally require you to sell or buy back the contract before the settlement date as they don't want to deal with actually following through on the purchase and having to take delivery of the gold. How much do you make or lose? Lets deal with a smaller change in the price, to be a bit more realistic since we are talking typically about a settlement date that is 3 months out. And to make the math easy lets bump the price of gold to $2000/ounce. That means the price of a futures contract is going to be $10K Lets say the price goes up 10%, Well you have basically a 20:1 leverage since you only paid 5%, so you stand to gain $20,000. Sounds great right? WRONG.. because as good as the upside is, the downside is just as bad. If the price went down 10% you would be down $20000, which means you would not only have to cough up the 10K you committed but you would be expected to 'top up the margin' and throw in ANOTHER $10,000 as well. And if you can't pay that up your broker might close out your position for you. oh and if the price hasn't changed, you are mostly just out the fees and commissions you paid to buy and sell the contract. With futures contracts you can lose MORE than your original investment. NOT for the faint of heart or the casual investor. NOT for folks without large reserves who can afford to take big losses if things go against them. I'll close this answer with a quote from the site I'm linking below The large majority of people who trade futures lose their money. That's a fact. They lose even when they are right in the medium term, because futures are fatal to your wealth on an unpredicted and temporary price blip. Now consider that, especially the bit about 'price blip' and then look at the current volatility of most markets right now, and I think you can see how futures trading can be as they say 'Fatal to your Wealth' (man, I love that phrase, what a great way of putting it) This Site has a pretty decent primer on the whole thing. their view is perhaps a bit biased due to the nature of their business, but on the whole their description of how things work is pretty decent. Investopedia has a more detailed (and perhaps more objective) tutorial on the futures thing. Well worth your time if you think you want to do anything related to the futures market.","qid":10979,"docid":"340815","rank":47,"score":97906},{"content":"Title: Content: On expiry, with the underlying share price at $46, we have : You ask : How come they substract 600-100. Why ? Because you have sold the $45 call to open you position, you must now buy it back to close your position. This will cost you $100, so you are debited for $100 and this debit is being represented as a negative (subtracted); i.e., -$100 Because you have purchased the $40 call to open your position, you must now sell it to close your position. Upon selling this option you will receive $600, so you are credited with $600 and this credit is represented as a positive (added) ; i.e., +$600. Therefore, upon settlement, closing your position will get you $600-$100 = $500. This is the first point you are questioning. (However, you should also note that this is the value of the spread at settlement and it does not include the costs of opening the spread position, which are given as $200, so you net profit is $500-$200 = $300.) You then comment : I know I am selling 45 Call that means : As a writer: I want stock price to go down or stay at strike. As a buyer: I want stock price to go up. Here, note that for every penny that the underlying share price rises above $45, the money you will pay to buy back your short $45 call option will be offset by the money you will receive by selling the long $40 call option. Your $40 call option is covering the losses on your short $45 call option. No matter how high the underlying price settles above $45, you will receive the same $500 net credit on settlement. For example, if the underlying price settles at $50, then you will receive a credit of $1000 for selling your $40 call, but you will incur a debit of $500 against for buying back your short $45 call. The net being $500 = $1000-$500. This point is made in response to your comments posted under Dr. Jones answer.","qid":10979,"docid":"22916","rank":48,"score":97630},{"content":"Title: Content: The problem with rate of return calculation on short positions is, that the commonly used approach assumes an initial investment creating a cash outflow. If we want to apply this approach to short selling, we should look at the trade from another perspective. We buy money and pay for this money with stock. Our investment to buy 50$ in your example is 1 share. When closing the short position, we effectively sell back our money (50$) and receive 2 shares. Our profit on this position is obviously 1 share. Setting this in relation to our investment of 1 share yields a performance of 100% in reality, we do not sell back the entire cash but only the amount needed to get back our investment of 1 share. This is actually comparable to a purchase of stock which we only partially close to get back our invested cash amount and keep the remaining shares as our profit","qid":10979,"docid":"422467","rank":49,"score":97296},{"content":"Title: Content: \"Consider the futures market. Traders buy and sell gold futures, but very few contracts, relatively speaking, result in delivery. The contracts are sold, and \"\"Open interest\"\" dwindles to near zero most months as the final date approaches. The seller buys back his short position, the buyer sells off his longs. When I own a call, and am 'winning,' say the option that cost me $1 is now worth $2, I'd rather sell that option for even $1.95 than to buy 100 shares of a $148 stock. The punchline is that very few option buyers actually hope to own the stock in the end. Just like the futures, open interest falls as expiration approaches.\"","qid":10979,"docid":"393134","rank":50,"score":97012},{"content":"Title: Content: Automatic exercisions can be extremely risky, and the closer to the money the options are, the riskier their exercisions are. It is unlikely that the entire account has negative equity since a responsible broker would forcibly close all positions and pursue the holder for the balance of the debt to reduce solvency risk. Since the broker has automatically exercised a near the money option, it's solvency policy is already risky. Regardless of whether there is negative equity or simply a liability, the least risky course of action is to sell enough of the underlying to satisfy the loan by closing all other positions if necessary as soon as possible. If there is a negative equity after trying to satisfy the loan, the account will need to be funded for the balance of the loan to pay for purchases of the underlying to fully satisfy the loan. Since the underlying can move in such a way to cause this loan to increase, the account should also be funded as soon as possible if necessary. Accounts after exercise For deep in the money exercised options, a call turns into a long underlying on margin while a put turns into a short underlying. The next decision should be based upon risk and position selection. First, if the position is no longer attractive, it should be closed. Since it's deep in the money, simply closing out the exposure to the underlying should extinguish the liability as cash is not marginable, so the cash received from the closing out of the position will repay any margin debt. If the position in the underlying is still attractive then the liability should be managed according to one's liability policy and of course to margin limits. In a margin account, closing the underlying positions on the same day as the exercise will only be considered a day trade. If the positions are closed on any business day after the exercision, there will be no penalty or restriction. Cash option accounts While this is possible, many brokers force an upgrade to a margin account, and the ShareBuilder Options Account Agreement seems ambiguous, but their options trading page implies the upgrade. In a cash account, equities are not marginable, so any margin will trigger a margin call. If the margin debt did not trigger a margin call then it is unlikely that it is a cash account as margin for any security in a cash account except for certain options trades is 100%. Equities are convertible to cash presumably at the bid, so during a call exercise, the exercisor or exercisor's broker pays cash for the underlying at the exercise price, and any deficit is financed with debt, thus underlying can be sold to satisfy that debt or be sold for cash as one normally would. To preempt a forced exercise as a call holder, one could short the underlying, but this will be more expensive, and since probably no broker allows shorting against the box because of its intended use to circumvent capital gains taxes by fraud. The least expensive way to trade out of options positions is to close them themselves rather than take delivery.","qid":10979,"docid":"277311","rank":51,"score":96290},{"content":"Title: Content: An option is freely tradable, and all options (of the same kind) are equal. If your position is 0 and you sell 1 option, your new position in that option is -1. If the counterparty to your trade buys or sells more options to close, open, or even reopen their position afterwards, that doesn't matter to your position at all. Of course there's also the issue with American and European Options. European Options expire at their due date, but American Options expire at their due date or at any time before their due date if the holder decides they expire. With American Options, if a holder of an American Option decides to exercise the option, someone who is short the same option will be assigned as the counterparty (this is usually random). Expiry is after market close, so if one of your short American Options expires early, you will need to reopen the position the next day. Keep in mind dividends for slightly increased complexity. American and European Options do not in any way refer to the continents they are traded on, or to the location of the companies. These terms simply describe the expiry rules.","qid":10979,"docid":"575408","rank":52,"score":96223},{"content":"Title: Content: \"Treat each position or partial position as a separate LOT. Each time you open a position, a new lot of shares is created. If you sell the whole position, then the lot is closed. Done. But if you sell a partial quantity, you need to create a new lot. Split the original lot into two. The quantities in each are the amount sold, and the amount remaining. If you were to then buy a few more shares, create a third lot. If you then sell the entire position, you'll be closing out all the remaining lots. This allows you to track each buy/sell pairing. For each lot, simply calculate return based on cost and proceeds. You can't derive an annualized number for ALL the lots as a group, because there's no common timeframe that they share. If you wish to calculate your return over time on the whole series of trades, consider using TWIRR. It treats these positions, plus the cash they represent, as a whole portfolio. See my post in this thread: How can I calculate a \"\"running\"\" return using XIRR in a spreadsheet?\"","qid":10979,"docid":"479874","rank":53,"score":96125},{"content":"Title: Content: \"As I stated in my comment, options are futures, but with the twist that you're allowed to say no to the agreed-on transaction; if the market offers you a better deal on whatever you had contracted to buy or sell, you have the option of simply letting it expire. Options therefore are the insurance policy of the free market. You negotiate a future price (actually you usually take what you can get if you're an individual investor; the institutional fund managers get to negotiate because they're moving billions around every day), then you pay the other guy up front for the right of refusal later. How much you pay depends on how likely the person giving you this option is to have to make good on it; if your position looks like a sure thing, an option's going to be very expensive (and if it's such a sure thing, you should just make your move on the spot market; it's thus useful to track futures prices to see where the various big players are predicting that your portfolio will move). A put option, which is an option for you to sell something at a future price, is a hedge against loss of value of your portfolio. You can take one out on any single item in your portfolio, or against a portion or even your entire portfolio. If the stock loses value such that the contract price is better than the market price as of the delivery date of the contract, you execute the option; otherwise, you let it expire. A call option, which is an option to buy something at a future price, is a hedge against rising costs. The rough analog is a \"\"pre-order\"\" in retail (but more like a \"\"holding fee\"\"). They're unusual in portfolio management but can be useful when moving money around in more complex ways. Basically, if you need to guarantee that you will not pay more than a certain per-share price to buy something in the future, you buy a call option. If the spot price as of the delivery date is less than the contract price, you buy from the market and ignore the contract, while if prices have soared, you exercise it and get the lower contract price. Stock options, offered as benefits in many companies, are a specific form of call option with very generous terms for whomever holds them. A swaption, basically a put and a call rolled into one, allows you to trade something for something else. Call it the free market's \"\"exchange policy\"\". For a price, if a security you currently hold loses value, you can exchange it for something else that you predicted would become more valuable at the same time. One example might be airline stocks and crude oil; when crude spikes, airline stocks generally suffer, and you can take advantage of this, if it happens, with a swaption to sell your airline stocks for crude oil certificates. There are many such closely-related inverse positions in the market, such as between various currencies, between stocks and commodities (gold is inversely related to pretty much everything else), and even straight-up cash-for-bad-debt arrangements (credit-default swaps, which we heard so much about in 2008).\"","qid":10979,"docid":"291600","rank":54,"score":96002},{"content":"Title: Content: In this example, Client A has to buy shares to return them to Client B for his sale (closing Client A's short position). Client B then sells the shares. The end result is there are no shares within the brokerage clientele anymore, so Client A can't borrow them anymore. The broker is just an intermediary, they wouldn't go out and acquire securities on their own for the benefit of a client wanting to short it, as they would be taking on the risk of the opposite position. This would be in addition to the risk they already take on when allowing people to short sell -- which is that Client A won't have the money to buy the shares it owes to Client B, in which case the broker has to make Client B whole.","qid":10979,"docid":"122050","rank":55,"score":95875},{"content":"Title: Content: If the position starts losing money as soon as it is put on, then I would close it out ,taking a small loss. However, if it starts making money,as in the stock inches higher, then you can use part of the premium collected to buy an out of money put, thereby limiting your downside. It is called a collar.","qid":10979,"docid":"55535","rank":56,"score":95460},{"content":"Title: Content: \"Buying (or selling) a futures contract means that you are entering into a contractual agreement to buy (or sell) the contracted commodity or financial instrument in the contracted amount (the contract size) at the price you have bought (or sold) the contract on the contract expire date (maturity date). It is important to understand that futures contracts are tradeable instruments, meaning that you are free to sell (or buy back) your contract at any time before the expiry date. For example, if you buy 1 \"\"lot\"\" (1 contract) of a gold future on the Comex exchange for the contract month of December 2016, then you entering into a contract to buy 100 ounces (the contract size) of gold at the price at which you buy the contract - not the spot price on the day of expiry when the contract comes to maturity. The December 2016 gold futures contract has an expiry date of 28 December. You are free to trade this contract at any time before its expiry by selling it back to another market participant. If you sell the contract at a price higher than you have purchased it, then you will realise a profit of 100 times the difference between the price you bought the contract and the price you sold the contract, where 100 is the contract size of the gold contract. Similarly, if you sell the contract at a price lower than the price you have purchased it, then you will realise a loss. (Commissions paid will also effect your net profit or loss). If you hold your contract until the expiry date and exercise your contract by taking (or making) delivery, then you are obliged to buy (or sell) 100 ounces of gold at the price at which you bought (or sold) the contract - not the current spot price. So long as your contract is \"\"open\"\" (i.e., prior to the expiry date and so long as you own the contract) you are required to make a \"\"good faith deposit\"\" to show that you intend to honour your contractual obligations. This deposit is usually called \"\"initial margin\"\". Typically, the initial margin amount will be about 2% of the total contract value for the gold contract. So if you buy (or sell) one contract for 100 ounces of gold at, say, $1275 an ounce, then the total contract value will be $127,500 and your deposit requirement would be about $2,500. The initial margin is returned to you when you sell (or buy) back your futures contract, or when you exercise your contract on expiry. In addition to initial margin, you will be required to maintain a second type of margin called \"\"variation margin\"\". The variation margin is the running profit or loss you are showing on your open contract. For the sake of simplicity, lets look only at the case where you have purchased a futures contract. If the futures price is higher than your contract (buy) price, then you are showing a profit on your current position and this profit (the variation margin) will be used to offset your initial margin requirement. Conversely, if the futures price has dropped below your contracted (buy) price, then you will be showing a loss on your open position and this loss (the variation margin) will be added to your initial margin and you will be called to put up more money in order to show good faith that you intend to honour your obligations. Note that neither the initial margin nor the variation margin are accounting items. In other words, these are not postings that are debited or credited to the ledger in your trading account. So in some sense \"\"you don't have to pay anything upfront\"\", but you do need to put up a refundable deposit to show good faith.\"","qid":10979,"docid":"289073","rank":57,"score":95212},{"content":"Title: Content: It's unclear what you're asking. When I originally read your question, it seemed that you had closed out one options position and opened another. When I read your question the second time, it seemed that you were writing a second option while the first was still open. In the second case, you have one covered and one naked position. The covered call will expire worthless, the naked call will expire in the money. How your broker will resolve that is a question best left for them, but my expectation is that they will assign the non-worthless calls. Whereas, if both options expired in the money, you would be assigned and you would have to come up with the additional shares (and again, that depends on how your broker works). In general, for both cases, your net is the premiums you received, plus the difference between strike price and the price that you paid for the stock, minus any cost to close out the position. So whether you make a profit is very much dependent on how much you received for your premiums. Scenario #1: close first call, write second: Scenario #2: write covered + naked, one expires worthless Scenario #3: write covered + naked, both expire in the money Disclaimer: the SEC does not consider me a financial/investment advisor, so this is not financial/investment advice","qid":10979,"docid":"105373","rank":58,"score":95100},{"content":"Title: Content: \"There are many reasons. Here are just some possibilities: The stock has a lot of negative sentiment and puts are being \"\"bid up\"\". The stock fell at the close and the options reflect that. The puts closed on the offer and the calls closed on the bid. The traders with big positions marked the puts up and the calls down because they are long puts and short calls. There isn't enough volume in the puts or calls to make any determination - what you are seeing is part of the randomness of a moment in time.\"","qid":10979,"docid":"259659","rank":59,"score":94744},{"content":"Title: Content: \"For stock options, where I'm used to seeing these terms: Volume is usually reported per day, whereas open interest is cumulative. In addition, some volume closes positions and some opens positions. For example, if I am long one contract and sell it to someone who was short one contract, then that adds to volume and reduces open interest. If I hold no contracts and sell (creating a short position) to someone who also had no contracts, then I add to volume and I increase open interest. EDIT: With the clarification in your comment, then I would say some people opened and closed positions in that one day. Their opening and closing trades both contribute to \"\"volume\"\" but they have not net position in the \"\"open interest.\"\"\"","qid":10979,"docid":"73846","rank":60,"score":94534},{"content":"Title: Content: The original option writer (seller) can close his short position in the contracts he wrote by purchasing back matching contracts (i.e. contracts with the same terms: underlying, option type, strike price, expiration date) from any others who hold long positions, or else who write new matching contract instances. Rather than buyer and seller settling directly, options are settled through a central options clearing house, being the Options Clearing Corporation for exchange-listed options in the U.S. See also Wikipedia - Clearing house (finance). So, the original buyer of the put maintains his position (insurance) and the clearing process ensures he is matched up with somebody else holding a matching obligation, if he chooses to exercise his put. I also answered a similar question but in more detail, here.","qid":10979,"docid":"103147","rank":61,"score":94200},{"content":"Title: Content: The initial and overnight margin requirements are set by the exchanges (who calculate them using the Standard Portfolio of Analysis of Risk, or 'SPAN' system), and positions are market to market according to these at the end of the trading session. To find these margin requirements you will need to consult the website of the exchange on which the contract you are trading is issued (i.e. if you're trading on the London Metal Exchange it's no good looking at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange's margin requirements as a previous answer suggests!). However, for positions entered and exited within the same day, the daytrade margin rate will apply. This is set by your broker rather than the exchange, and can be as little as 10% of the exchange requirement. You can find a useful comparison of different margin types and requirements in the article I have published here: Understanding Margin for Futures Trading.","qid":10979,"docid":"326335","rank":62,"score":94092},{"content":"Title: Content: Brokers usually have this kind of information, you can take a look at interactive brokers for instance: http://www.interactivebrokers.co.uk/contract_info/v3.6/index.php?action=Details&site=GEN&conid=90384435 You are interested in the initial margin which in this case is $6,075. So you need that amount to buy/sell 1 future. In the contract specification you see the contract is made for 100 ounces. At the current price ($1,800/oz), that would be a total of $180,000. It is equivalent to saying you are getting 30x leverage. If you buy 1 future and the price goes from $1,800 to $1,850, the contract would go from $180,000 to $185,000. You make $5,000 or a 82% return. I am pretty sure you can imagine what happens if the market goes against you. Futures are great! (when your timing is perfect).","qid":10979,"docid":"534796","rank":63,"score":93665},{"content":"Title: Content: \"In short, yes. By \"\"forward selling\"\", you enter into a futures contract by which you agree to trade Euros for dollars (US or Singapore) at a set rate agreed to by both parties, at some future time. You are basically making a bet; you think that the dollar will gain on the Euro and thus you'd pay a higher rate on the spot than you've locked in with the future. The other party to the contract is betting against you; he thinks the dollar will weaken, and so the dollars he'll sell you will be worth less than the Euros he gets for them at the agreed rate. Now, in a traditional futures contract, you are obligated to execute it, whether it ends up good or bad for you. You can, to avoid this, buy an \"\"option\"\". By buying the option, you pay the other party to the deal for the right to say \"\"no, thanks\"\". That way, if the dollar weakens and you'd rather pay spot price at time of delivery, you simply let the contract expire un-executed. The tradeoff is that options cost money up-front which is now sunk; whether you exercise the option or not, the other party gets the option price. That basically creates a \"\"point spread\"\"; you \"\"win\"\" if the dollar appreciates against the Euro enough that you still save money even after buying the option, or if the dollar depreciates against the Euro enough that again you still save money after subtracting the option price, while you \"\"lose\"\" if the exchange rates are close enough to what was agreed on that it cost you more to buy the option than you gained by being able to choose to use it.\"","qid":10979,"docid":"321579","rank":64,"score":93261},{"content":"Title: Content: \"From my recollection of Warren Buffett's book \"\"Warren Buffett and the Art of Arbitrage\"\", the following factors determine the difference between the market price of a stock and the future expected price of an acquisition or merger: Time: Assuming the deal will close, the market price should approach the offer price as the closing date approaches. The fact that there is a 14% spread partially reflects the time value of money. Probability: Things could happen between now and closing date which could derail the deal. The higher the spread the more likely the market thinks the deal will not occur. For example, LO shareholders could reject the offer saying it is too low, or anti-trust regulators could say the deal is anti-competitive. Part of this 14% spread indicates the probability of the deal completing.\"","qid":10979,"docid":"176327","rank":65,"score":93064},{"content":"Title: Content: That looks very much like an S&P 500 E-Mini index future. However, ES1 is a strange symbol. Futures have the month of expiry encoded in their symbol as well: http://commodities.about.com/od/understandingthebasics/ss/futurescontract_3.htm For example, the September 2011 future in this series would be ESU1. I'm not very familiar with Bloomberg so perhaps this is the front contract (i.e. the one that's closest to expiry (in the is case the September 2011 one)). Only problem is that prices don't exactly match what CME has (high of 1190 and low of 1186.25, for when this page gets out of date): http://www.cmegroup.com/trading/equity-index/us-index/e-mini-sandp500.html - but they are so close I suspect it must be some sort of S&P 500 index future.","qid":10979,"docid":"366526","rank":66,"score":92583},{"content":"Title: Content: For futures, you are obligated to puchase the security at $x when the contract expires. For an option, you have the right or option to do so if it's favorable to you.","qid":10979,"docid":"302164","rank":67,"score":91780},{"content":"Title: Content: Let's make a few assumptions: You have several ways of achieving (almost) that, in ascending complexity: Note that each alternative will have a cost which can be small (forwards, futures) or large (CFDs, debit) and the hedge will never be perfect, but you can get close. You will also need to decide whether you hedge the unrealised P&L on the position and at what frequency.","qid":10979,"docid":"565417","rank":68,"score":91772},{"content":"Title: Content: \"The two dimensions are to open the trade (creating a position) and to buy or sell (becoming long or short the option). If you already own an option, you bought it to open and then you would sell it to close. If you don't own an option, you can either buy it to open, or sell it (short it) to open. If you are already short an option, you can buy it back to close. If you sell to open covered, the point is you're creating a \"\"covered call\"\" which means you own the stock, and then sell a call. Since you own the stock, the covered call has a lot of the risk of loss removed, though it also subtracts much of the reward possible from your stock.\"","qid":10979,"docid":"320101","rank":69,"score":91372},{"content":"Title: Content: Probably the easiest way for individual investors is oil ETFs. In particular, USO seems to be fairly liquid and available. You should check carefully the bid/ask spreads in this volatile time. There are other oil ETFs and leveraged and inverse oil ETFs exist as well, but one should heed the warnings about leveraged ETFs. Oil futures are another possibility though they can be more complicated and tough to access for an individual investor. Note that futures have a drift associated with them as well. Be careful close or roll any positions before delivery, of course, unless you have a need for a bunch of actual barrels of oil. Finally, you can consider investing in commodities ETFs or Energy stocks or stock ETFs that are strongly related to the price of oil. As Keshlam mentions, care is advised in all these methods. Many people thought oil reached its bottom a few weeks back then OPEC decided to do nothing and the price dropped even further.","qid":10979,"docid":"127566","rank":70,"score":91310},{"content":"Title: Content: As far as trading is concerned, these forward curves are the price at which you can speculate on the future value of the commodity. Basically, if you want to speculate on gold, you can either buy the physical and store it somewhere (which may have significant costs) or you can buy futures (ETFs typically hold futures or hold physical and store it for you). If you buy futures, you will have to roll your position every month, meaning you sell the current month's futures and buy the next month's. However, these may not be trading at the same price, so each time you roll your position, you face a risk. If you know you want to hold gold for exactly 1 year, then you can buy a 1-year future, which in this case according to your graph will cost you about $10 more than buying the front month. The forward curve (or sometimes called the futures term structure) represents the prices at which gold can be bought or sold at various points in the future.","qid":10979,"docid":"394886","rank":71,"score":91133},{"content":"Title: Content: \"Often these types of trades fall into two different categories. An error by broker or exchange. Exchange clearing out part of their books incorrectly is an example. Most exchanges make firms reopen their positions for after market hours. There may have been an issue doing so or exchange could incorrectly cancel positions. I was in the direct feed industry for years and this was a big issue. At the same time the broker can issue a no limit buy on accident (or has software that is prospecting and said software has a bug or written poorly). unscrupulous parties looking to feign an upswing or downswing in market. Let's say you hold 500k shares in a stock that sells for $11. You could possibly buy 100 shares for $13. Trust me you will find a seller. Then you are hoping that people see that trade as a \"\"norm\"\" and trade from there, allowing you to rake in $1M for spending an extra $200 - NOTE this is not normal and an extreme example. This was so common in the early days of NASDAQ after hours that they discontinued using the after hours trades as part of historical information that they keep like daily/yearly high or closing price. The liquidity allows for manipulation. It isn't seen as much now since this has been done a million times but it does still happen.\"","qid":10979,"docid":"378889","rank":72,"score":91001},{"content":"Title: Content: If you hold a future plus enough cash collateral it is economically equivalent to owning the underlying asset or shorting the underlying asset. In general financial assets such as stock indices have a positive expected return - that's the main difference between investing and gambling. There's nothing that special about futures, they are just another contractual form of asset ownership. Well, one difference is that regulations or brokerages allow individual investors more leverage with options and futures than with straight borrowing. But this is more a regulatory issue than a conceptual issue with the securities themselves. In theory regulators or brokers could require you to hold enough collateral to make a future equivalent to buying the underlying.","qid":10979,"docid":"369031","rank":73,"score":90817},{"content":"Title: Content: One of the fundamental of technical analysis suggests that holding a security overnight represents a huge commitment. Therefore it would follow that traders would tend to close their positions prior to market close and open them when it opens.","qid":10979,"docid":"355319","rank":74,"score":90460},{"content":"Title: Content: \"The settlement date for any trade is the date on which the seller gets the buyer's money and the buyer gets the seller's product. In US equities markets the settlement date is (almost universally) three trading days after the trade date. This settlement period gives the exchanges, the clearing houses, and the brokers time to figure out how many shares and how many dollars need to actually be moved around in order to give everyone what they're owed (and then to actually do all that moving around). So, \"\"settling\"\" a short trade is the same thing as settling any other trade. It has nothing to do with \"\"closing\"\" (or covering) the seller's short position. Q: Is this referring to when a short is initiated, or closed? A: Initiated. If you initiate a short position by selling borrowed shares on day 1, then settlement occurs on day 4. (Regardless of whether your short position is still open or has been closed.) Q: All open shorts which are still open by the settlement date have to be reported by the due date. A: Not exactly. The requirement is that all short positions evaluated based on their settlement dates (rather than their trade dates) still open on the deadline have to be reported by the due date. You sell short 100 AAPL on day 1. You then cover that short by buying 100 AAPL on day 2. As far as the clearing houses and brokers are concerned, however, you don't even get into the short position until your sell settles at the end of day 4, and you finally get out of your short position (in their eyes) when your buy settles at the end of day 5. So imagine the following scenarios: The NASDAQ deadline happens to be the end of day 2. Since your (FINRA member) broker has been told to report based on settlement date, it would report no open position for you in AAPL even though you executed a trade to sell on day 1. The NASDAQ deadline happens to be the end of day 3. Your sell still has not settled, so there's still no open position to report for you. The NASDAQ deadline happens to be the end of day 4. Your sell has settled but your buy has not, so the broker reports a 100 share open short position for you. The NASDAQ deadline happens to be the end of day 5. Your sell and buy have both settled, so the broker once again has no open position to report for you. So, the point is that when dealing with settlement dates you just pretend the world is 3 days behind where it actually is.\"","qid":10979,"docid":"226984","rank":75,"score":90047},{"content":"Title: Content: No, if your stock is called away, the stock is sold at the agreed upon price. You cannot get it back at your original price. If you don't want your stock to be called, make sure you have the short call position closed by expiration if it is ITM. Also you could be at risk for early assignment if the option has little to no extrinsic value, although probably not. But when dividends are coming, make sure you close your short ITM options. If the dividend is worth more than the extrinsic value, you are pretty much guaranteed to be assigned. Been assigned that way too many times. Especially in ETFs where the dividends aren't dates are not always easy to find. It happens typically during triple witching. If you are assigned on your short option, you will be short stock and you will have to pay the dividend to the shareholder of your short stock. So if you have a covered call on, and you are assigned, your stock will be called away, and you will have to pay the dividend.","qid":10979,"docid":"228810","rank":76,"score":89880},{"content":"Title: Content: \"Your strategy fails to control risk. Your \"\"inversed crash\"\" is called a rally. And These kind of things often turn into bigger rallies because of short squeezes, when all the people that are shorting a stock are forced to close their stock because of margin calls - its not that shorts \"\"scramble\"\" to close their position, the broker AUTOMATICALLY closes your short positions with market orders and you are stuck with the loss. So no, your \"\"trick\"\" is not enough. There are better ways to profit from a bearish outlook.\"","qid":10979,"docid":"333496","rank":77,"score":89591},{"content":"Title: Content: Futures contracts are a member of a larger class of financial assets called derivatives. Derivatives are called such because their payoffs depend on the price of other assets (financial or real). Other kinds of derivatives are call options, put options. Fixed income assets that mimic the behavior of derivatives are callable bonds, puttable bonds etc. A futures contract is a contract that specifies the following: Just like with any other contract, there are two parties involved. One party commits to delivering the underlying asset to the other party on expiration date in exchange for the futures price. The other party commits to paying the futures price in exchange for the asset. There is no price that any of the two parties pay upfront to engage in the contract. The language used is so that the agent committing to receiving the delivery of the underlying asset is said to have bought the contract. The agent that commits to make the delivery is said to have sold the contract. So answer your question, buying on June 1 a futures contract at the futures price of $100, with a maturity date on August 1 means you commit to paying $100 for the underlying asset on August 1. You don't have to pay anything upfront. Futures price is simply what the contract prescribes the underlying asset will exchange hands for.","qid":10979,"docid":"108","rank":78,"score":89471},{"content":"Title: Content: The initial margin is $5940 and maintenance margin $5400. A simple search of Comex Gold Margin gives the CME group site. You then need to specify CMX metals to see the margins. Gold is currently about $1300. A gold future is 100 oz. So the full contract is worth $130K. You want to 'go long' so you enter into a contract for Dec '14. You put up $5940, and if gold rises, you gain $100 for each $1 it goes up. Likewise on the downside. If gold drops $5.40, you lost $540 and will get a call to end the position or to put up more money. It's similar to stock margin requirements, only the numbers are much lower, your leverage with futures is over 20 to 1.","qid":10979,"docid":"474487","rank":79,"score":88803},{"content":"Title: Content: The owner of a long futures contract does not receive dividends, hence this is a disadvantage compared to owning the underlying stock. If the dividend is increased, and the future price would not change, there is an arbitrage possibility. For the sake of simplicity, assume that the stock suddenly starts paying a dividend, and that the risk free rate is zero (so interest does not play a role). One can expect that the future price is (rougly) equal to the stock price before the dividend announcment. If the future price would not change, an investor could buy the stock, and short a futures contract on the stock. At expiration he has to deliver the stock for the price set in the contract, which is under the assumptions here equal to the price he bought the stock for. But because he owned the stock, he receives the announced dividend. Hence he can make a risk-free profit consisting of the divivends. If interest do play a role, the argument is similar.","qid":10979,"docid":"65295","rank":80,"score":88694},{"content":"Title: Content: CFDs (Contracts for Difference) are basically a contract between you and the broker on the difference in price of the underlying between the time you open a position and close a position. You are not actually buying the underlying. With share CFDs, the outcome is a bit like buying the underlying shares on margin. You pay interest for every day you hold the CFDs overnight for long CFDs. However, with short positions, you get paid interest for every day you hold your short position overnight. Most people use CFDs for short term trading, however they can be used for medium to longer term trading just as you would hold a portfolio on margin. What you have to remember is that because you are buying on margin you can lose more than your initial contract amount. A way to manage this risk is by using position sizing and stop loses. With your position sizing, if you wanted to invest $10,000 in a particular share trading at $10 per share, you would then buy 1000 shares or 1000 CFDs in that share. Your initial expense with the CFDs might be only $1000 (at a margin rate of 10%). So instead of increasing your risk by having an initial outlay of $10,000 with the CFDs you limit your risk to the same as you were buying the shares directly.","qid":10979,"docid":"173846","rank":81,"score":88408},{"content":"Title: Content: It would be nice if the broker could be instructed to clear out the position for you, but in my experience the broker will simply give you the shares that you can't afford, then freeze your account because you are over your margin limit, and issue a margin call. This happened to me recently because of a dumb mistake: options I paid $200 for and expected to expire worthless, ended up slightly ITM, so they were auto-exercised on Friday for about $20k, and my account was frozen (only able to close positions). By the next Monday, market news had shifted the stock against me and I had to sell it at a loss of $1200 to meet the margin call. This kind of thing is what gives option trading a reputation for danger: A supposedly max-$200-risk turned into a 6x greater loss. I see no reason to ever exercise, I always try to close my positions, but these things can happen.","qid":10979,"docid":"367928","rank":82,"score":88088},{"content":"Title: Content: There is indeed a market for single stock futures, and they have been trading on the OneChicago exchange since 2002. Futures are available in 12,509 individual stocks, according to the exchange's current product listing. One advantage they offer over trading the underlying stock is the significantly higher leverage that is available, combined with the lack of pattern day trader rules that apply to stocks and similar securities. Single stock futures have proven to be something of a regulatory challenge as it has been unclear whether their oversight is the remit of the SEC/FINRA or the CFTC/NFA.","qid":10979,"docid":"120447","rank":83,"score":88023},{"content":"Title: Content: \"Because you've sold something you've received cash (or at least an entry on your brokerage statement to say you've got cash) so you should record that as a credit in your brokerage account in GnuCash. The other side of the entry should go into another account that you create called something like \"\"Open Positions\"\" and is usually marked as a Liability account type (if you need to mark it as such). If you want to keep an accurate daily tally of your net worth you can add a new entry to your Open Positions account and offset that against Income which will be either negative or positive depending on how the position has moved for/against you. You can also do this at a lower frequency or not at all and just put an entry in when your position closes out because you bought it back or it expired or it was exercised. My preferred method is to have a single entry in the Open Positions account with an arbitrary date near when I expect it to be closed and each time I edit that value (daily or weekly) so I only have the initial entry and the current adjust to look at which reduces the number of entries and confusion if there are too many.\"","qid":10979,"docid":"145892","rank":84,"score":87751},{"content":"Title: Content: In the case of regulated, exchange-traded options, the writer of an options contract is obliged to maintain a margin with their broker, and the broker is obliged to maintain a margin with the clearing house. (Institutional writers of options will deal directly with the clearing house.) In the event that the writer is unable to make a daily margin call, the broker (or clearing house) may automatically close out (all of) their positions using existing margin held. If there was a shortfall, the broker (or clearing house) would be left to persue the client (writer) to make good on their obligations. None of this effects the position of the original buyer of the options contract. Effectively, the buyer's counterparty is their broker's clearing house account.","qid":10979,"docid":"376136","rank":85,"score":87745},{"content":"Title: Content: There are classes of 'traders' who close their positions out every evening, not just on fridays. But their are other types of businesses who trade shortly before or nearly right at market close with both buys and sells There are lots of theories as to how the market behaves at various times of day, days of the week, months of the year. There are some few patterns that can emerge but in general they don't provide a lot of 'lift' above pure random chance, enough so that if you 'bet' on one of these your chances of being wrong are only very slightly different from being right, enough so that it's not really fair to call any of them a 'sure thing'. And since these events are often fairly widely spaced, it's difficult to play them often enough to get the 'law of large numbers' on your side (as opposed to say card-counting at a blackjack table) which basically makes betting on them not much different from gambling","qid":10979,"docid":"471704","rank":86,"score":87467},{"content":"Title: Content: Depending on the currencies you want to trade there are mini-futures available with a contract value of 12.500 (for example EUR/USD) or standard futures with a contract value of 125.000. You will find an overview at the Globex CME website For a broker to trade the futures I would recommend Interactive Brokers. They offer real-time trading at very low commission.","qid":10979,"docid":"190756","rank":87,"score":87336},{"content":"Title: Content: In the UK there are spread betting firms (essentially financial bookmakers) that will take large bets 24x7. Plus, interbank forex is open 24x7 anyway. And there are a wide array of futures markets in different jurisdictions. There are plenty of ways to find organizations who are willing to take the opposite position that you do, day or night, provided that you qualify.","qid":10979,"docid":"276950","rank":88,"score":87038},{"content":"Title: Content: It ought to be possible to buy a foreign exchange future (aka forex future / FX future). Businesses use these futures to make sure their exchange rate is predictable: if they put a bunch of money into manufacturing things that'll be ready a year later, it helps to know that the currency exchange rate shifts won't wipe out all their profits. If you're willing to take on some of that risk, and if things go your way, you can make money. They are essentially contracts between two private parties to pay each other a certain amount of money based on the movement of the currencies, so the Chinese government doesn't actually need to be involved and no renminbi need to change hands, you can just trade the contracts. Note that the exchange rate is currently fixed by the Chinese government, so you're going to be subject to enhanced levels of political risk, and they may not be as widely available or readily tradable as other foreign exchange futures, so check with a broker before opening your account. I couldn't find them on my personal Etrade account, but a quick Google search reveals CME Group offering some. There are probably others. Foreign exchange futures are an advanced investing tool and carry risk. Be sure you understand the risk, in particular how much money you can end up on the hook for if things don't go your way. Also remember, futures expire: you're not just betting on the rate changing, but you're betting on it changing within a certain amount of time.","qid":10979,"docid":"148948","rank":89,"score":86947},{"content":"Title: Content: \"If you sell a stock you don't own, it's called a short sale. You borrowed the shares from an owner of the stock and eventually would buy to close. On most normal shares, you can hold a short position indefinitely, but there are some shares that have a combination of either a small float or too high a short position that shares to short are not available. This can create a \"\"short squeeze\"\" where shorts are burned by being forced to buy the stock back. Last - when you did this, you should have instructed the broker that you were \"\"selling to open\"\" or \"\"selling short.\"\" In the old days, when people held stock certificates, you were required to send the certificate in when you sold. Today, the broker should know that wasn't your intention.\"","qid":10979,"docid":"345368","rank":90,"score":86461},{"content":"Title: Content: Yes there will be enough liquidity to sell your position barring some sort of Flash Crash anomaly. Volume generally rises on the day of expiration to increase this liquidity. Don't forget that there are many investment strategies--buying to cover a short position is closing out a trade similar to your case.","qid":10979,"docid":"92695","rank":91,"score":86415},{"content":"Title: Content: \"In summary: In long form: Spreads and shorts are not allowed in cash accounts, except for covered options. Brokers will allow clients to roll option positions in a single transaction, which look like spreads, but these are not actually \"\"sell to open\"\" transactions. \"\"Sell to open\"\" is forbidden in cash accounts. Short positions from closing the long half of a covered trade are verboten. Day-trading is allowed in both margin and cash accounts. However, \"\"pattern day-trading\"\" only applies to margin accounts, and requires a minimum account balance of $25,000. Cash accounts are free to buy and sell the same security on the same day over and over, provided that there is sufficient buying power to pay for opening a new position. Since proceeds are held for both stock and option sales in a cash account, that means buying power available at the start of the day will drop with each purchase and not rise again until settlement. Unsettled funds are available immediately within margin accounts, without restriction. In cash accounts, using unsettled funds to purchase securities will require you to hold the new position until funds settle -- otherwise your account will be blocked for \"\"free-riding\"\". Legally, you can buy securities in a cash account without available cash on deposit with the broker, but most brokers don't allow this, and some will aggressively liquidate any position that you are somehow able to enter for which you didn't have available cash already on deposit. In a margin account, margin can help gloss over the few days between purchase and deposit, allowing you to be somewhat more aggressive in investing funds. A margin account will allow you to make an investment if you feel the opportunity is right before requiring you to deposit the funds. See a great opportunity? With sufficient margin, you can open the trade immediately and then run to the bank to deposit funds, rather than being stuck waiting for funds to be credited to your account. Margin accounts might show up on your credit report. The possibility of losing more than you invested, having positions liquidated when you least expect it, your broker doing possibly stupid things in order to close out an over-margined account, and other consequences are all very serious risks of margin accounts. Although you mentioned awareness of this issue, any answer is not complete with mentioning those risks.\"","qid":10979,"docid":"300139","rank":92,"score":86254},{"content":"Title: Content: \"Simple answer: Breakeven is when the security being traded reaches a price equal to the cost of the option plus the option's strike price, assuming you choose to exercise it. So for example, if you paid $1.00 for,say, a call option with a strike price of $19.00, breakeven would be when the security itself reaches $20.00. That being said, I can't imagine why you'd \"\"close out a position\"\" at the breakeven point. You wouldn't make or lose money doing that, so it wouldn't be rational. Now, as the option approaches expiration, you may make adjustments to the position to reflect shifts in momentum of the stock. So, if it looks as though the stock may not reach the option strike price, you could close out the position and take your lumps. But if the stock has momentum that will carry it past the strike price by expiration, you may choose to augment your position with additional contracts, although this would obviously mean the new contracts would be priced higher, which raises your dollar cost basis, and this may not make much sense. Another option in this scenario is that if the stock is going to surpass strike price, it might be a good opportunity to buy additional calls with either later expiration dates or with higher strike prices, depending on how much higher you speculate the stock will climb. I've managed to make some money doing this, buying options with strike prices just a dollar or two higher (or lower when playing puts), because the premiums were (in my opinion) underpriced to the potential peak of the stock by the expiration date. Sometimes the new options were actually slightly cheaper than my original positions, so my dollar cost basis overall dropped somewhat, improving my profit percentages.\"","qid":10979,"docid":"112321","rank":93,"score":86087},{"content":"Title: Content: \"Yes this is possible in the most liquid securities, but currently it would take several days to get filled in one contract at that amount There are also position size limits (set by the OCC and other Self Regulatory Organizations) that attempt to prevent people from cornering a market through the options market. (getting loads of contacts without effecting the price of the underlying asset, exercising those contracts and suddenly owning a huge stake of the asset and nobody saw it coming - although this is still VERY VERY possible) So for your example of an option of $1.00 per contract, then the position size limits would have prevented 100 million of those being opened (by one person/account that is). Realistically, you would spread out your orders amongst several options strike prices and expiration dates. Stock Indexes are some very liquid examples, so for the Standard & Poors you can open options contracts on the SPY ETF, as well as the S&P 500 futures, as well as many other S&P 500 products that only trade options and do not have the ability to be traded as the underlying shares. And there is also the saying \"\"liquidity begets liquidity\"\", meaning that because you are making the market more liquid, other large market participants will also see the liquidity and want to participate, where they previously thought it was too illiquid and impossible to close a large position quickly\"","qid":10979,"docid":"271741","rank":94,"score":86070},{"content":"Title: Content: I traded futures for a brief period in school using the BrokersXpress platform (now part of OptionsXpress, which is in turn now part of Charles Schwab). They had a virtual trading platform, and apparently still do, and it was excellent. Since my main account was enabled for futures, this carried over to the virtual account, so I could trade a whole range of futures, options, stocks, etc. I spoke with OptionsXpress, and you don't need to fund your acount to use the virtual trading platform. However, they will cancel your account after an arbitrary period of time if you don't log in every few days. According to their customer service, there is no inactivity fee on your main account if you don't fund it and make no trades. I also used Stock-Trak for a class and despite finding the occasional bug or website performance issue, it provided a good experience. I received a discount because I used it through an educational institution, and customer service was quite good (probably for the same reason), but I don't know if those same benefits would apply to an individual signing up for it. I signed up for top10traders about seven years ago when I was in secondary school, and it's completely free. Unfortunately, you get what you pay for, and the interface was poorly designed and slow. Furthermore, at that time, there were no restrictions that limited the number of shares you could buy to the number of outstanding shares, so you could buy as many as you could afford, even if you exceeded the number that physically existed. While this isn't an issue for large companies, it meant you could earn a killing trading highly illiquid pink sheet stocks because you could purchase billions of shares of companies with only a few thousand shares actually outstanding. I don't know if these issues have been corrected or not, but at the time, I and several other users took advantage of these oversights to rack up hundreds of trillions of dollars in a matter of days, so if you want a realistic simulation, this isn't it. Investopedia also has a stock simulator that I've heard positive things about, although I haven't used it personally.","qid":10979,"docid":"555047","rank":95,"score":85461},{"content":"Title: Content: This is a great question for understanding how futures work, first let's start with your assumptions The most interesting thing here is that neither of these things really matters for the price of the futures. This may seem odd as a futures contract sounds like you are betting on the future price of the index, but remember that the current price already includes the expectations of future earnings as well! There is actually a fairly simple formula for the price of a futures contract (note the link is for forward contracts which are very similar but slightly more simple to understand). Note, that if you are given the current price of the underlying the futures price depends essentially only on the interest rate and the dividends paid during the length of the futures contract. In this case the dividend rate for the S&P500 is higher than the prevailing interest rate so the futures price is lower than the current price. It is slightly more complicated than this as you can see from the formula, but that is essentially how it works. Note, this is why people use futures contracts to mimic other exposures. As the price of the future moves (pretty much) in lockstep with the underlying and sometimes using futures to hedge exposures can be cheaper than buying etfs or using swaps. Edit: Example of the effect of dividends on futures prices For simplicity, let's imagine we are looking at a futures position on a stock that has only one dividend (D) in the near term and that this dividend happens to be scheduled for the day before the futures' delivery date. To make it even more simple lets say the price of the stock is fairly constant around a price P and interest rates are near zero. After the dividend, we would expect the price of the stock to be P' ~ P - D as if you buy the stock after the dividend you wouldn't get that dividend but you still expect to get the rest of the value from additional future cash flows of the company. However, if we buy the futures contract we will eventually own the stock but only after the dividend happens. Since we don't get that dividend cash that the owners of the stock will get we certainly wouldn't want to pay as much as we would pay for the stock (P). We should instead pay about P' the (expected) value of owning the stock after that date. So, in the end, we expect the stock price in the future (P') to be the futures' price today (P') and that should make us feel a lot more comfortable about what we our buying. Neither owning the stock or future is really necessarily favorable in the end you are just buying slightly different future expected cash flows and should expect to pay slightly different prices.","qid":10979,"docid":"529996","rank":96,"score":85247},{"content":"Title: Content: In order to understand how much you might gain or lose from participating in the futures markets, it is important to first understand the different ways in which the slope of the futures markets can be described. In many of the futures markets there is a possibility of somebody buying a commodity at the spot price and selling a futures contract on it. In order to do this they need to hold the commodity in storage. Most commodities cost money to hold in storage, so the futures price will tend to be above the spot price for these commodities. In the case of stock index futures, the holder receives a potential benefit from holding the stocks in an index. If the futures market is upward sloping compared to the spot price, then it can be called normal. If the futures market is usually downward sloping compared to the spot price then it can be called inverted. If the futures market is high enough above the spot price so that more of the commodity gets stored for the future, then the market can be called in contango. If the futures market is below the point where the commodity can be profitably stored for the future, and the market can be called in backwardation. In many of these cases, there is an implicit cost that the buyer of a future pays in order to hold the contract for certainly time. Your question is how much money you make if the price of gold goes up by a specific amount, or how much money you lose if the price of gold goes down by the same specific amount. The problem is, you do not say whether it is the spot price or the futures price which goes up or down. In most cases it is assumed that the change in the futures price will be similar to the change in the spot price of gold. If the spot price of gold goes up by a small amount, then the futures price of gold will go up by a small amount as well. If the futures price of gold goes up by a small amount, this will also drive the spot price of gold up. Even for these small price changes, the expected futures price change in expected spot price change will not be exactly the same. For larger price changes, there will be more of a difference between the expected spot price change in expected future price change. If the price eventually goes up, then the cost of holding the contract will be subtracted from any future gains. If the price eventually goes down, then this holding cost should be added to the losses. If you bought the contract when it was above the spot price, the price will slowly drift toward the spot price, causing you this holding cost. If the price of gold does not change any from the current spot price, then all you are left with is this holding cost.","qid":10979,"docid":"587111","rank":97,"score":85183},{"content":"Title: Content: \"There is more than one exchange where stock can be traded. For example, there is the New York Stock Exchange and the London Stock Exchange. In fact, if you look at all the exchanges, there is essentially continuous trading 24/7 for many financial instruments (eg US government bonds). The closing price quoted in papers is usually the price at the close on the NYSE. However, options close after that and so there is after-the-close trading in many stocks with active options, so the price at the close of options trading at CBOE is often used. The \"\"real\"\" price is always changing. But for the purpose of discussion, using the closing price in NYSE (for NYSE listed stocks) is pretty standard and unlikely to be questioned. Likewise, using Bloomberg's price makes sense. Using some after-hours or small market quote could lead to differences with commonly accepted numbers - until tomorrow :)\"","qid":10979,"docid":"354811","rank":98,"score":85150},{"content":"Title: Content: Generally speaking, you realize options gains or losses for (US) tax purposes when you close out the option position, or when it expires so in your example, if you're discussing an equity option, you'd realize the gain or loss next year, assuming you don't close it out prior to year end. But options tax treatment can get messy fast: Still, if you have no other stock or option positions in the underlying during or within 30 days of the establishment of the naked put, and assuming the option isn't assigned, you won't realize any gains or losses until the year in which the option is closed or expires.","qid":10979,"docid":"487256","rank":99,"score":85012},{"content":"Title: Content: This is dependent on the broker according to The Options Industry Council. Your broker will specify what they would do upon expiry (or hours before last trade) if you did not indicate your preference. Most likely they will conduct a probabilistic simulation to see whether exercising the contracts may result in margin deficit even after selling the delivered shares under extreme circumstances. In most cases, brokers tend to liquidate the option for you (sell to close) before expiry. I've seen people complain about certain brokers forcing liquidation at terrible bid-ask spreads even though the options are still days to expiry. It is better for you to close the position on your own beforehand. The best brokers would allow margin deficit and let you deposit the required amount of money afterward. Please consult your broker's materials. If you can't find them, use live chat or email tickets.","qid":10979,"docid":"151587","rank":100,"score":84964}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: For exchange contracts, yes. A trader can close a position by taking an offsetting position. CME's introduction to Futures explains it quite well (on page 22). Exiting the Market Jack entered the market on the buy side, speculating that the S&P 500 futures price would move higher. He has three choices for exiting the market:\",\n \"qid\": 10979,\n \"docid\": \"362762\",\n \"rank\": 1,\n \"score\": 170485\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Futures are immediate settlement, and your money is available as soon as you close out your position.\",\n \"qid\": 10979,\n \"docid\": \"503505\",\n \"rank\": 2,\n \"score\": 161884\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Cart's answer is basically correct, but I'd like to elaborate: A futures contract obligates both the buyer of a contract and the seller of a contract to conduct the underlying transaction (settle) at the agreed-upon future date and price written into the contract. Aside from settlement, the only other way either party can get out of the transaction is to initiate a closing transaction, which means: The party that sold the contract buys back another similar contract to close his position. The party that bought the contract can sell the contract on to somebody else. Whereas, an option contract provides the buyer of the option with the choice of completing the transaction. Because it's a choice, the buyer can choose to walk away from the transaction if the option exercise price is not attractive relative to the underlying stock price at the date written into the contract. When an option buyer walks away, the option is said to have expired. However – and this is the part I think needs elaboration – the original seller (writer) of the option contract doesn't have a choice. If a buyer chooses to exercise the option contract the seller wrote, the seller is obligated to conduct the transaction. In such a case, the seller's option contract is said to have been assigned. Only if the buyer chooses not to exercise does the seller's obligation go away. Before the option expires, the option seller can close their position by initiating a closing transaction. But, the seller can't simply walk away like the option buyer can.\",\n \"qid\": 10979,\n \"docid\": \"357324\",\n \"rank\": 3,\n \"score\": 146678\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Here's a good link that can answer your question: How to take delivery of a futures contract The relevant part states: Prior to delivery day, they inform customers who have open long positions that they must either close out the position or prepare to take delivery and pay the full value of the underlying contract. By the same token traders with short positions are informed that they must close out their trades or prepare to deliver the underlying commodity. In this case, they must have the required quantity and quality of the deliverable commodity on hand. On the few occasions that a buyer accepts delivery against his futures contract, he is usually not given the underlying commodity itself (except in the case of financials), but rather a receipt entitling him to fetch the hogs, wheat, or corn from warehouses or distribution points. I hope this helps. Good luck!\",\n \"qid\": 10979,\n \"docid\": \"206683\",\n \"rank\": 4,\n \"score\": 141440\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Yes, 6% is a waste of money, because some other brokers such as IB offer margin rates below 2%. Also, to borrow money for even less than any broker's margin interest rate, one can do an EFP transaction. This involves simultaneously shorting a stock and buying the SSF for the same stock. When the futures contract expires, you take delivery of the underlying stock to automatically close out your short position. Until then, you've effectively borrowed cash for the cost of borrowing the stock, which is typically less than 0.5% interest for widely traded ones. You also pay for the slight difference in price between the stock and the future, which is typically equivalent to another 0.5% interest or less. The total often comes to less than 1% interest. The only risk with this transaction is that the stock could become hard to borrow at some point, so then you would have to pay higher interest on it temporarily or maybe even have to close out your short early. But it is extremely rare for large, high-volume stocks to become hard-to-borrow. The borrowing cost of SPY has spiked above 5% on only a handful of days in the last decade.\",\n \"qid\": 10979,\n \"docid\": \"218904\",\n \"rank\": 5,\n \"score\": 132204\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"Nobody has mentioned the futures market yet. Although the stock market closes at 4pm, the futures market continues trading 24 hours a day and 5.5 days a week. Amongst the products that trade in the future market are stock index futures. That includes the Dow Jones, the S&P 500. These are weighted averages of stocks and their sectors. You would think that the price of the underlying stock dictates the price of the average, but in this day and age, the derivative actually changes the value of the underlying stock due to a very complex combination of hedging practices. (this isn't meant to be vague and mysterious, it is \\\"\\\"delta hedging\\\"\\\") So normal market fluctuations coupled with macroeconomic events affect the futures market, which can ripple down to individual stocks. Very popular stocks with large market caps will most certainly be affected by futures market trading. But it is also worth mentioning that futures can function completely independently of a \\\"\\\"spot\\\"\\\" price. This is where things start to get complicated and long winded. The futures market factor is worth mentioning because it extends even outside of the aftermarket and pre-market hours of stock trading.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 10979,\n \"docid\": \"110966\",\n \"rank\": 6,\n \"score\": 128107\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"In general there are two types of futures contract, a put and call. Both contract types have both common sides of a transaction, a buyer and a seller. You can sell a put contract, or sell a call contract also; you're just taking the other side of the agreement. If you're selling it would commonly be called a \\\"\\\"sell to open\\\"\\\" meaning you're opening your position by selling a contract which is different from simply selling an option that you currently own to close your position. A put contract gives the buyer the right to sell shares (or some asset/commodity) for a specified price on a specified date; the buyer of the contract gets to put the shares on someone else. A call contract gives the buyer the right to buy shares (or some asset/commodity) for a specified price on a specified date; the buyer of the contract gets to call on someone for shares. \\\"\\\"American\\\"\\\" options contracts allow the buyer can exercise their rights under the contract on or before the expiration date; while \\\"\\\"European\\\"\\\" type contracts can only be exercised on the expiration date. To address your example. Typically for stock an option contract involves 100 shares of a stock. The value of these contracts fluctuates the same way other assets do. Typically retail investors don't actually exercise their contracts, they just close a profitable position before the exercise deadline, and let unprofitable positions expire worthless. If you were to buy a single call contract with an exercise price of $100 with a maturity date of August 1 for $1 per share, the contract will have cost you $100. Let's say on August 1 the underlying shares are now available for $110 per share. You have two options: Option 1: On August 1, you can exercise your contract to buy 100 shares for $100 per share. You would exercise for $10,000 ($100 times 100 shares), then sell the shares for $10 profit per share; less the cost of the contract and transaction costs. Option 2: Your contract is now worth something closer to $10 per share, up from $1 per share when you bought it. You can just sell your contract without ever exercising it to someone with an account large enough to exercise and/or an actual desire to receive the asset or commodity.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 10979,\n \"docid\": \"305676\",\n \"rank\": 7,\n \"score\": 122169\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: There are 2 approaches. One of them is already mentioned by @Afforess. If the approach by @Afforess is not feasible, and you can not see yourself making an unbiased decision, close the position. By closing the position you will not get the best price. But by removing a distraction you will reduce amount of mistakes you make in the other stocks.\",\n \"qid\": 10979,\n \"docid\": \"450067\",\n \"rank\": 8,\n \"score\": 117535\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Futures exchanges are essentially auction houses facilitating a two-way auction. While they provide a venue for buyers and sellers to come together and transact (be that a physical venue such as a pit at the CME or an electronic network such as Globex), they don't actively seek out or find buyers and sellers to pair them together. The exchanges enable this process through an order book. As a futures trader you may submit one of two types of order to an exchange: Market Order - this is sent to the exchange and is filled immediately by being paired with a limit order. Limit Order - this is placed on the books of the exchange at the price you specify. If other participants enter opposing market orders at this price, then their market order will be paired with your limit order. In your example, trader B wishes to close his long position. To do this he may enter a market sell order, which will immediately close his position at the lowest possible buy limit price, or he may enter a limit sell order, specifying the price at or above which he is willing to sell. In the case of the limit order, he will only sell and successfully close his position if his order becomes the lowest sell order on the book. All this may be a lot easier to understand by looking at a visual image of an order book such as the one given in the explanation that I have published here: Stop Orders for Futures Finally, not that as far as the exchange is concerned, there is no difference between an order to open and an order to close a position. They're all just 'buy' or 'sell' orders. Whether they cause you to reduce/exit a position or increase/establish a position is relative to the position you currently hold; if you're flat a buy order establishes a new position, if you're short it closes your position and leaves you flat.\",\n \"qid\": 10979,\n \"docid\": \"121158\",\n \"rank\": 9,\n \"score\": 117087\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: You would generally have to pay interest for everyday you hold the position overnight. If you never close the position and the stock price goes to zero, you will be closed out and credited with your profit. If you never close the position and the stock price keeps going up and up, your potential loss is an unlimited amount of money. Of course your broker may close you out early for a number of reasons, particularly if your loss goes above the amount of capital you have in your trading account.\",\n \"qid\": 10979,\n \"docid\": \"45065\",\n \"rank\": 10,\n \"score\": 116731\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Absolutely. There is no requirement that an option be in-the-money for you to close out a position. Remember that there are alwayes two sides to a trade - a buyer and a seller. When you bought your option, it's entirely possible that someone else was closing out their long position by selling it to you.\",\n \"qid\": 10979,\n \"docid\": \"557582\",\n \"rank\": 11,\n \"score\": 115969\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: If the underlying is currently moving as aggressively as stated, the broker would immediately forcibly close positions to maintain margin. What securities are in fact closed depends upon the internal algorithms. If the equity in the account remains negative after closing all positions if necessary, the owner of the account shall owe the broker the balance. The broker will close the account and commence collections if the owner of the account does not pay the balance quickly. Sometimes, brokers will impose higher margin requirements than mandated to prevent the above eventuality. Brokers frequently close positions that violate internal or external margin requirements as soon as they are breached.\",\n \"qid\": 10979,\n \"docid\": \"389501\",\n \"rank\": 12,\n \"score\": 115873\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"You avoid pattern day trader status by trading e-mini futures through a futures broker. The PDT rules do not apply in the futures markets. Some of the markets that are available include representatives covering the major indices i.e the YM (DJIA), ES (S&P 500) and NQ (Nasdaq 100) and many more markets. You can take as many round-turn trades as you care to...as many or as few times a day as you like. E-mini futures contracts trade in sessions with \\\"\\\"transition\\\"\\\" times between sessions. -- Sessions begin Sunday evenings at 6 PM EST and are open through Monday evening at 5 PM EST...The next session begins at 6 pm Monday night running through Tuesday at 5 PM EST...etc...until Friday's session close at 5 PM EST. Just as with stocks, you can either buy first then sell (open and close a position) or short-sell (sell first then cover by buying). You profit (or lose) on a round turn trade in the same manor as you would if trading stocks, options, ETFs etc. The e-mini futures are different than the main futures markets that you may have seen traders working in the \\\"\\\"pits\\\"\\\" in Chicago...E-mini futures are totally electronic (no floor traders) and do not involve any potential delivery of the 'product'...They just require the closing of positions to end a transaction. A main difference is you need to maintain very little cash in your account in order to trade...$1000 or less per trade, per e-mini contract...You can trade just 1 contract at a time or as many contracts as you have the cash in your account to cover. \\\"\\\"Settlement\\\"\\\" is immediate upon closing out any position that you may have put on...No waiting for clearing before your next trade. If you want to hold an e-mini contract position over 2 or more sessions, you need to have about $5000 per contract in your account to cover the minimum margin requirement that comes into play during the transition between sessions... With the e-minis you are speculating on gaining from the difference between when you 'put-on' and \\\"\\\"close-out\\\"\\\" a position in order to profit. For example, if you think the DJIA is about to rise 20 points, you can buy 1 contract. If you were correct in your assessment and sold your contract after the e-mini rose 20 points, you profited $100. (For the DJIA e-mini, each 1 point 'tick' is valued at $5.00)\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 10979,\n \"docid\": \"533408\",\n \"rank\": 13,\n \"score\": 115705\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: But by closing the short position the broker would still be purchasing shares from the market no? Or at least, someone would be purchasing the shares to close the short position. So, why doesn't the broker just let Client A keep their short position open and buy shares in the market so that Client B can sell them...I know it sounds a bit ridic, but not much more so to me than letting Client A borrow the shares to begin with!\",\n \"qid\": 10979,\n \"docid\": \"523729\",\n \"rank\": 14,\n \"score\": 114901\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: I use futures options as a sort of hedge to an underwater position that I want to hold onto. If I am short at 3900 on /NQ and it moves up 3910 then I can sell a put against my position. For example, I sell this month's 3850 put for 15.00. If the NQ continues up to 3920, I can probably buy back that put for ~12.00 and sell the 3860 for 15.00. Rinse and repeat if it keeps moving up. If then the NQ moves down to 3900 then my futures position will be up +10 where my futures options put position will only be down about -3 for a net of +7. I suppose you could also trade a futures option by itself instead of the future's contract if you didn't want to risk as much $ in a day trade. Keep in mind that price you see for a future's options relates to the underlying. For /NQ 1 point = $20 so if a 3850 put costs 15.00 that is really $300. ES (Sp 500 futures) 1 point = $50 so a 1900 put that costs 15.00 would really be $750.\",\n \"qid\": 10979,\n \"docid\": \"298833\",\n \"rank\": 15,\n \"score\": 114626\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"Futures are an agreement to buy or sell something in the future. The futures \\\"\\\"price\\\"\\\" is the price at which you agree to make the trade. This price does not indicate what will happen in the future so much as it indicates the cost of buying the item today and holding it until the future date. Hence, for very liquid products such as stock index futures, the futures price is a very simple function of today's stock index value and current short-term interest rates. If the stock exchange is closed but the futures exchange is open, then using the futures price and interest rates one can back out an implied \\\"\\\"fair value\\\"\\\" for the index, which is in essence the market's estimate of what the stock index value would be right now if the stock market were open. Of course, as soon as the stock exchange opens, the futures price trades to within a narrow band of the actual index value, where the size of the band depends on transaction costs (bid-ask spread, commissions, etc.).\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 10979,\n \"docid\": \"9274\",\n \"rank\": 16,\n \"score\": 113909\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Context is key here. Futures don't really have to do with a time in the future in this context. Futures are a capital market (futures market), just like Stocks are a market (stock market). Both capital markets have the ability to affect each other. Up until 30 years ago there was a separate use for the futures market, but in the days since they are MOSTLY used for stock derivatives (financial futures are the most widely traded contracts since 1980, hugely eclipsing the commodity futures that the market was designed for.) So there is overlap and one affect the other, I'm not going to go into too much detail here but basically the futures market trades 24 hours a day, 6.5 days of the week and the stock market trades 8-12 hours a day, 5 days a week. So when the stock market closes, the futures market is still running will react and effect the broad stock market. Hope that gets you started in your research\",\n \"qid\": 10979,\n \"docid\": \"261331\",\n \"rank\": 17,\n \"score\": 113024\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: http://www.marketwatch.com/optionscenter/calendar would note some options expiration this week that may be a clue as this would be the typical end of quarter stuff so I suspect it may happen each quarter. http://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/triplewitchinghour.asp would note in part: Triple witching occurs when the contracts for stock index futures, stock index options and stock options expire on the same day. Triple witching days happen four times a year on the third Friday of March, June, September and December. Triple witching days, particularly the final hour of trading preceding the closing bell, can result in escalated trading activity and volatility as traders close, roll out or offset their expiring positions. June 17 would be the 3rd Friday as the 3rd and 10th were the previous two in the month.\",\n \"qid\": 10979,\n \"docid\": \"224714\",\n \"rank\": 18,\n \"score\": 110637\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Opened Long - is when you open a long position. Long means that you buy to open the position, so you are trying to profit as the price rises. So if you were closing a long position you would sell it. Closed Short - is when you close out a short position. Short means that you sell to open and buy back to close. With a short position you are trying to profit as the price falls. Scaled Out - means you get out of a position in increments as the price climbs (for long positions). Scaled In - means you set a target price and then invest in increments as the stock falls below that price (for long positions).\",\n \"qid\": 10979,\n \"docid\": \"154665\",\n \"rank\": 19,\n \"score\": 110242\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: You're assuming options traded on the open market. To close open positions, a seller buys them back on the open market. If there's little on offer, this will drive the price up.\",\n \"qid\": 10979,\n \"docid\": \"352588\",\n \"rank\": 20,\n \"score\": 108414\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: This is often the case where traders are closing out short positions they don't want to hold overnight, for a variety of reasons that matter to them. Most frequently, this is from day traders or high-frequency traders settling their accounts before the markets close.\",\n \"qid\": 10979,\n \"docid\": \"17231\",\n \"rank\": 21,\n \"score\": 107875\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: In the US you specify explicitly what stocks you're selling. Brokers now are required to keep track of cost basis and report it to the IRS on the 1099-B, so you have to tell the broker which position it is that you're closing. Usually, the default is FIFO (i.e.: when you sell, you're assumed to be closing the oldest position), but you can change it if you want. In the US you cannot average costs basis of stocks (you can for mutual funds), so you either do FIFO, LIFO (last position closed first), or specify the specific positions when you submit the sale order.\",\n \"qid\": 10979,\n \"docid\": \"414636\",\n \"rank\": 22,\n \"score\": 107731\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: With a short position you make your money (profit) when you buy the stocks back to close the position at a lower price than what you bought them at. As short selling is classed as speculation and not investing and you at no time own any actual assets, you cannot donate any short possition to charity. If you did want to avoid paying tax on the profits you could donate the proceeds of the profits after closing the position and thus get a tax deduction equal to the profits you made. But that raises a new and more important question, why are you trading in the first place if you are afraid to make profits in case you have to pay tax on those profits?\",\n \"qid\": 10979,\n \"docid\": \"221427\",\n \"rank\": 23,\n \"score\": 107543\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"In futures, once you have established your position, you will earn or lose money depending on what the underlying does. Theoretically, if you had no stop, you could lose far more than you invested. An option will slowly lose all its value if the stock does not rise (assume it is out of the money when purchased). Depending on the strike, it could rise substantially and you'd still lose all your money. But you can't lose more than you put in. So options have limited risk compared to futures, at the expense of a decaying \\\"\\\"time value\\\"\\\" that you will effectively be paying while holding the option.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 10979,\n \"docid\": \"214552\",\n \"rank\": 24,\n \"score\": 107005\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: 2 things may happen. Either your positions are closed by the broker and the loss or profit is credited to your account. Else it is carried over to the next day and you pay interest on the stocks lent to you. What happens will be decided by the agreement signed between you and your broker.\",\n \"qid\": 10979,\n \"docid\": \"176822\",\n \"rank\": 25,\n \"score\": 106453\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: To expand on the comment made by @NateEldredge, you're looking to take a short position. A short position essentially functions as follows: Here's the rub: you have unlimited loss potential. Maybe you borrow a share and sell it at $10. Maybe in a month you still haven't closed the position and now the share is trading at $1,000. The share lender comes calling for their share and you have to close the position at $1,000 for a loss of $990. Now what if it was $1,000,000 per share, etc. To avoid this unlimited loss risk, you can instead buy a put option contract. In this situation you buy a contract that will expire at some point in the future for the right to sell a share of stock for $x. You get to put that share on to someone else. If the underlying stock price were to instead rise above the put's exercise price, the put will expire worthless — but your loss is limited to the premium paid to acquire the put option contract. There are all sorts of advanced options trades sometimes including taking a short or long position in a security. It's generally not advisable to undertake these sorts of trades until you're very comfortable with the mechanics of the contracts. It's definitely not advisable to take an unhedged short position, either by borrowing someone else's share(s) to sell or selling an option (when you sell the option you take the risk), because of the unlimited loss potential described above.\",\n \"qid\": 10979,\n \"docid\": \"140371\",\n \"rank\": 26,\n \"score\": 106148\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"Well, futures don't have a \\\"\\\"strike\\\"\\\" like an option - the price represents how much you're obligated to buy/sell the index for at a specified date in the future. You are correct that there's no cost to enter a contract (though there may be broker fees and margin payments). Any difference between the contract price and the price of the index at settlement is what is exchanged at settlement. It's analogous to the bid/ask on a stock - the bid price represents the price at which someone is willing to \\\"\\\"buy\\\"\\\" a futures contract (meaning enter into a long position) and the ask is how much someone is willing to \\\"\\\"sell\\\"\\\" a contract. So if you want to take a long position on S&P500 mini futures you'd have to enter in at the \\\"\\\"ask\\\"\\\" price. If the index is above your contract price on the future expiry date you'll make a profit; if it is below the contract price you'll take a loss.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 10979,\n \"docid\": \"493012\",\n \"rank\": 27,\n \"score\": 106122\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: The shift to trading at the close began in 2008. Traders did not want to be caught off guard by surprise news and there was a lot of volatility during the financial crisis, so they would close their position in the evening. Thats how it began. There are two reasons why it sticks around. First, there has been an increase usage of index funds or passive funds. These funds tend to update their positions at the end of the day. From the WSJ: Another factor behind the shift has been the proliferation of passively managed investments, such as index funds. These funds aim to mimic an index, like the S&P 500, by owning the shares that comprise it. Index funds don’t trade as often as active investors, but when they do, it is typically near the market close, traders say. That is because buying or selling a stock at its closing price better aligns their performance with the index they are trying to emulate. The second reason is simply that volume attracts volume. As a result of whats mentioned above, you have a shift to end of day trading, and the corrolary to that is that there is a liquidity shortage from 10am to 3pm. Thus, if you want to buy or sell a stock, but there are few buyers or sellers around, you will significant move the price when you enter your order. Obviously this does not affect retail traders, but imagine hedge funds entering or closing a billion dollar position. It can make a huge impact on price. And one way to mitigate that is to wait until there are more market participants to take the other end of your trade, just as at the end of the day. So this is a self-reinforcing trend that has begun in the markets and will likely stick around. http://www.wsj.com/articles/traders-pile-in-at-the-close-1432768080\",\n \"qid\": 10979,\n \"docid\": \"149420\",\n \"rank\": 28,\n \"score\": 105771\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: You're confusing open positions and account balance. Your position in GBP is 1000, that's what you've bought. You then used some of it to buy something else, but to the broker you still have an open position of 1000 GBP. They will only close it when you give them the 1000GBP back. What you do with it until then is none of their business. Your account balance (available funds) in GBP is 10.\",\n \"qid\": 10979,\n \"docid\": \"159417\",\n \"rank\": 29,\n \"score\": 104369\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"If the stock is below its purchase price, there is no way to exit the position immediately without taking losses. Since presumably you had Good Reasons for buying that stock that haven't changed overnight, what you should probably do is just hold it and wait for the stock to come back up. Otherwise you're putting yourself into an ongoing pattern of \\\"\\\"buy high, sell low\\\"\\\", which is precisely what you don't want to do. If you actually agree with the market that you made a mistake and believe that the stock will not recover any part of the loss quickly (and indeed will continue going down), you could sell immediately and take your losses rather than waiting and possibly taking more losses. Of course if the stock DOES recover you've made the wrong bet. There are conditions under which the pros will use futures to buffer a swing. But that's essentially a side bet, and what it saves you has to be balanced against what it costs you and how certain you are that you NOW can predict the stock's motion. This whole thing is one of many reasons individuals are encouraged to work with index funds, and to buy-and-hold, rather than playing with individual stocks. It is essentially impossible to reliably \\\"\\\"time the market\\\"\\\", so all you can do is research a stock to death before making a bet on it. Much easier, and safer, to have your money riding on the market as a whole so the behavior of any one stock doesn't throw you into a panic. If you can't deal with the fact that stocks go down as well as up, you probably shouldn't be in the market.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 10979,\n \"docid\": \"221869\",\n \"rank\": 30,\n \"score\": 103842\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Perhaps it was to close a short position. Suppose the seller had written the calls at some time in the past and maybe made a buck or two off of them. By buying the calls now they can close out the position and go away on vacation, or at least have one less thing they have to pay attention to. If they were covered calls, perhaps the buyer wants to sell the underlying and in order to do so has to get out of the calls.\",\n \"qid\": 10979,\n \"docid\": \"43087\",\n \"rank\": 31,\n \"score\": 103076\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: This depends on a combination of factors: What are you charged (call it margin interest) to hold the position? How does this reduce your buying power and what are the opportunity costs? What are the transaction costs alternative ways to close the position? What are your risks (exposure while legging out) for alternative ways to close? Finally, where is the asset closing relative to the strike? Generally, If asset price is below the put strike then the call expires worthless and you need to exercise the put. If asset is above the call strike then put expires worthless and you'll likely get assigned. Given this framework: If margin interest is eating up your profit faster than you're earning theta (a convenient way to represent the time value) then you have some urgency and you need to exit that position before expiry. I would not exit the stock until the call is covered. Keep minimal risk at all times. If you are limited by the position's impact on your buying power and probable value of available opportunities is greater than the time decay you're earning then once again, you have some urgency about closing instead of unwinding at expiry. Same as above. Cover that call, before you ditch your hedge in the long stock. Playing the tradeoff game of expiration/exercise cost against open market transactions is tough. You need sub-penny commissions on stock (and I would say a lot of leverage) and most importantly you need options charges much lower than IB to make that kind of trading work. IB is the cheapest in the retail brokerage game, but those commissions aren't even close to what the traders are getting who are more than likely on the other side of your options trades.\",\n \"qid\": 10979,\n \"docid\": \"384221\",\n \"rank\": 32,\n \"score\": 102810\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"The gap up/down and rapid movement immediately following market open is due to overnight futures activity. In your example, SP500 on June 20, 2016 saw a 20-point gap up at market open. This was because the SP500 futures were trading 20 points higher at 9:30 AM than at its close on Friday. The index will always \\\"\\\"catch up\\\"\\\" with futures at market open. You can see that below. The top chart is the E-mini SP500 futures from Sunday night to Monday. Beneath it is the SP500 index.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 10979,\n \"docid\": \"106314\",\n \"rank\": 33,\n \"score\": 102565\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"Assuming these are standardized and regulated contracts, the short answer is yes. In your example, Trader A is short while Trader B is long. If Trader B wants to exit his long position, he merely enters a \\\"\\\"sell to close\\\"\\\" order with his broker. Trader B never goes short as you state. He was long while he held the contract, then he \\\"\\\"sold to close\\\"\\\". As to who finds the buyer of Trader B's contract, I believe that would be the exchange or a market maker. Therefore, Trader C ends up the counterparty to Trader A's short position after buying from Trader B. Assuming the contract is held until expiration, Trader A is responsible for delivering contracted product to Trader C for contracted price. In reality this is generally settled up in cash, and Trader A and Trader C never even know each other's identity.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 10979,\n \"docid\": \"148728\",\n \"rank\": 34,\n \"score\": 102166\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: If the price had dropped to $4 from $50, and you had $5000 to start with on your account, you will be left with $400 in your account if you closed the position now. So you would not be in debt if this was the only possition you had open.\",\n \"qid\": 10979,\n \"docid\": \"210887\",\n \"rank\": 35,\n \"score\": 102128\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"They are not selling stocks. They are selling OJ futures contracts. Selling a futures contract at 142 gives the buyer the right to buy a fixed number of pounds of orange juice concentrate (\\\"\\\"OJ\\\"\\\") on a future date at 142 cents per pound. The seller has an obligation to suppy that fixed number of pounds of OJ to the buyer on the future date for 142 cents per pound. When the seller turns around and buys future contracts at 29, the seller gets the right to buy OJ on a future date at 29. This \\\"\\\"zeros his position\\\"\\\" -- meaning he's guaranteed himself the ability to deliver the pounds of OJ he was obligated to supply when he sold futures contracts at 142. And since he'll only have to pay 29 cents per pound, and he'll be selling the OJ for 142 per pound, he'll walk away with 113 cents of profit for every pound sold. You can read a blow-by-blow account of what Winthorpe and Valentine did at the end of \\\"\\\"Trading Places\\\"\\\" here and here. Note that what they did would not be legal today under the \\\"\\\"Eddie Murphy rule\\\"\\\", which prohibits trades based on illicitly obtained government information.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 10979,\n \"docid\": \"98130\",\n \"rank\": 36,\n \"score\": 100039\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Trading volumes are higher at the end of the day as many traders close their open positions. In the morning however, traders incorporate various factors like performance of worldwide markets overnight, any corporate or government announcements, global macro events, etc.\",\n \"qid\": 10979,\n \"docid\": \"348886\",\n \"rank\": 37,\n \"score\": 99581\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: This is your best answer so far. A detail left out is that derivatives are mostly known for the amount of leverage allowed, which is typically about 20-1, or 5% down. This is legal because it's generally assumed that someone is not going to buy or sell the underlying asset, that they will offset their long or short position long before the contract's delivery date. Your derivative broker(typically futures instead of forwards, because they're a standardized size, traded on an exchange and more liquid) will call you when you lose about half of your 5% to tell you to either transfer some money to cover your position or to ask you to exit your position at a loss. Fowards are traded through clearinghouses, not exchanges, and they can be for any underlying asset, for any delivery date, for any price, so long as parties agree on it. Just think of it as a contract.\",\n \"qid\": 10979,\n \"docid\": \"10090\",\n \"rank\": 38,\n \"score\": 99531\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"Ignoring the complexities of a standardised and regulated market, a futures contract is simply a contract that requires party A to buy a given amount of a commodity from party B at a specified price. The future can be over something tangible like pork bellies or oil, in which case there is a physical transfer of \\\"\\\"stuff\\\"\\\" or it can be over something intangible like shares. The purpose of the contract is to allow the seller to \\\"\\\"lock-in\\\"\\\" a price so that they are not subject to price fluctuations between the date the contract is entered and the date it is complete; this risk is transferred to the seller who will therefore generally pay a discounted rate from the spot price on the original day. In many cases, the buyer actually wants the \\\"\\\"stuff\\\"\\\"; futures contracts between farmers and manufacturers being one example. The farmer who is growing, say, wool will enter a contract to supply 3000kg at $10 per kg (of a given quality etc. there are generally price adjustments detailed for varying quality) with a textile manufacturer to be delivered in 6 months. The spot price today may be $11 - the farmer gives up $1 now to shift the risk of price fluctuations to the manufacturer. When the strike date rolls around the farmer delivers the 3000kg and takes the money - if he has failed to grow at least 3000kg then he must buy it from someone or trigger whatever the penalty clauses in the contract are. For futures over shares and other securities the principle is exactly the same. Say the contract is for 1000 shares of XYZ stock. Party A agrees to sell these for $10 each on a given day to party B. When that day rolls around party A transfers the shares and gets the money. Party A may have owned the shares all along, may have bought them before the settlement day or, if push comes to shove, must buy them on the day of settlement. Notwithstanding when they bought them, if they paid less than $10 they make a profit if they pay more they make a loss. Generally speaking, you can't settle a futures contract with another futures contract - you have to deliver up what you promised - be it wool or shares.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 10979,\n \"docid\": \"164001\",\n \"rank\": 39,\n \"score\": 99253\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"I don't see EWQ6 in any of your links, so I can't say for certain, but when you buy an option contract on a future, the option will be for a specific future (and strike). So the page you're looking at may be for options on E-mini S&P 500 futures in general, and when you actually purchase one through your broker, you pick a specific expiry (which will be based on the \\\"\\\"prompt\\\"\\\" future, meaning the next future that expires after the option) and strike. UPDATE: Based on this page mirror, the option EWQ7 is an option on the ESU7 (SEP 2017) future. The next 3 monthly options use ESZ7 as the underlier, which confirms that they use the next prompt future as the underlier.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 10979,\n \"docid\": \"262589\",\n \"rank\": 40,\n \"score\": 98640\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"You gave your own answer - the 80% is positions, not contracts. Most actors on the option market have no interest in the underlying asset. They want \\\"\\\"just\\\"\\\" exposure to its price movement. It makes more sense to close your position than to be handed over bushels of wheat or whatever.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 10979,\n \"docid\": \"313135\",\n \"rank\": 41,\n \"score\": 98468\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: If you enter a futures contract, it costs nothing. So every time prices move against you, there is a margin call and you must put up some new money. Inverse ETF's use a variety of similar strategies to get their returns. Many of these strategies may indeed require a margin call to the ETF issuer if prices move against you. But remember the ETF did not cost nothing. Investors contributed money in order to purchase each share of the ETF. Therefore the ETF issuer has a big pot of money available for use as margin. That's why the margin call never comes through to you. In a sense, you posted a ton of margin up front, so you won't have to make any additional margin contributions. The money that will be used for margin calls is being kept in treasuries and money market securities by the ETF issuer until it's needed. If prices move against you badly enough that it looks like the ETF is at risk to not be able to post margin, the ETF would liquidate and you'd get whatever pittance was left after they exit all those positions.\",\n \"qid\": 10979,\n \"docid\": \"505410\",\n \"rank\": 42,\n \"score\": 98438\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"Your broker likely didn't close your position out because it is a covered position. Why interfere with a trade that has no risk to it, from their perspective? There's no risk for the broker since your account holds the shares available for delivery (definition of covered), for if and when the options you wrote (sold) are exercised. And buyers of those options will eventually exercise the options (by expiration) if they remain in-the-money. There's only a chance that an option buyer exercises prematurely, and usually they don't because there's often time value left in the option. That the option buyer has an (ahem) \\\"\\\"option\\\"\\\" to exercise is a very key point. You wrote: \\\"\\\"I fully expected my position to be automatically liquidated by whoever bought my call\\\"\\\". That's a false assumption about the way options actually work. I suggest some study of the option exercise FAQs here: Perhaps if your position were uncovered – i.e. you wrote the call without owning the stock (don't try this at home, kids!) – and you also had insufficient margin to cover such a short position, then the broker might have justifiably liquidated your position. Whereas, in a covered call situation, there's really no reason for them to want to interfere – and I would consider that interference, as opposed to helpful. The situation you've described is neither risky for them, nor out of the ordinary. It is (and should be) completely up to you to decide how to close out the position. Anyway, your choices generally are:\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 10979,\n \"docid\": \"226546\",\n \"rank\": 43,\n \"score\": 98386\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"Derivatives derive their value from underlying assets. This is expressed by the obligation of at least one counterparty to trade with the other counterparty in the future. These can take on as many combinations as one can dream up as it is a matter of contract. For futures, where two parties are obligated to trade at a specific price at a specific date in the future (one buyer, one seller), if you \\\"\\\"short\\\"\\\" a future, you have entered into a contract to sell the underlying at the time specified. If the price of the future moves against you (goes up), you will have to sell at a loss. The bigger the move, the greater the loss. You go ahead and pay this as well as a little extra to be sure that you satisfy what you owe due to the future. This satisfaction is called margin. If there weren't margin, people could take huge losses on their derivative bets, not pay, and disrupt the markets. Making sure that the money that will trade is already there makes the markets run smoothly. It's the same for shorting stocks where you borrow the stock, sell it, and wait. You have to leave the money with the broker as well as deposit a little extra to be sure you can make good if the market moves to a large degree against you.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 10979,\n \"docid\": \"356388\",\n \"rank\": 44,\n \"score\": 98349\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"I'll answer this question: \\\"\\\"Why do intraday traders close their position at then end of day while most gains can be done overnight (buy just before the market close and sell just after it opens). Is this observation true for other companies or is it specific to apple ?\\\"\\\" Intraday traders often trade shares of a company using intraday leverage provided by their firm. For every $5000 dollars they actually have, they may be trading with $100,000, 20:1 leverage as an example. Since a stock can also decrease in value, substantially, while the markets are closed, intraday traders are not allowed to keep their highly leveraged positions opened. Probabilities fail in a random walk scenario, and only one failure can bankrupt you and the firm.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 10979,\n \"docid\": \"410887\",\n \"rank\": 45,\n \"score\": 98121\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"I know some derivative markets work like this, so maybe similar with futures. A futures contract commits two parties to a buy/sell of the underlying securities, but with a futures contract you also create leverage because generally the margin you post on your futures contract is not sufficient to pay for the collateral in the underlying contract. The person buying the future is essentially \\\"\\\"borrowing\\\"\\\" money while the person selling the future is essentially \\\"\\\"lending\\\"\\\" money. The future you enter into is generally a short term contract, so a perfectly hedged lender of funds should expect to receive something that approaches the fed funds rate in the US. Today that would be essentially nothing.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 10979,\n \"docid\": \"549040\",\n \"rank\": 46,\n \"score\": 98005\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: When you buy a futures contract you are entering into an agreement to buy gold, in the future (usually a 3 month settlement date). this is not an OPTION, but a contract, so each party is taking risk, the seller that the price will rise, the buyer that the price will fall. Unlike an option which you can simply choose not to exercise if the price goes down, with futures you are obligated to follow through. (or sell the contract to someone else, or buy it back) The price you pay depends on the margin, which is related to how far away the settlement date is, but you can expect around 5% , so the minimum you could get into is 100 troy ounces, at todays price, times 5%. Since we're talking about 100 troy ounces, that means the margin required to buy the smallest sized future contract would be about the same as buying 5 ounces of gold. roughly $9K at current prices. If you are working through a broker they will generally require you to sell or buy back the contract before the settlement date as they don't want to deal with actually following through on the purchase and having to take delivery of the gold. How much do you make or lose? Lets deal with a smaller change in the price, to be a bit more realistic since we are talking typically about a settlement date that is 3 months out. And to make the math easy lets bump the price of gold to $2000/ounce. That means the price of a futures contract is going to be $10K Lets say the price goes up 10%, Well you have basically a 20:1 leverage since you only paid 5%, so you stand to gain $20,000. Sounds great right? WRONG.. because as good as the upside is, the downside is just as bad. If the price went down 10% you would be down $20000, which means you would not only have to cough up the 10K you committed but you would be expected to 'top up the margin' and throw in ANOTHER $10,000 as well. And if you can't pay that up your broker might close out your position for you. oh and if the price hasn't changed, you are mostly just out the fees and commissions you paid to buy and sell the contract. With futures contracts you can lose MORE than your original investment. NOT for the faint of heart or the casual investor. NOT for folks without large reserves who can afford to take big losses if things go against them. I'll close this answer with a quote from the site I'm linking below The large majority of people who trade futures lose their money. That's a fact. They lose even when they are right in the medium term, because futures are fatal to your wealth on an unpredicted and temporary price blip. Now consider that, especially the bit about 'price blip' and then look at the current volatility of most markets right now, and I think you can see how futures trading can be as they say 'Fatal to your Wealth' (man, I love that phrase, what a great way of putting it) This Site has a pretty decent primer on the whole thing. their view is perhaps a bit biased due to the nature of their business, but on the whole their description of how things work is pretty decent. Investopedia has a more detailed (and perhaps more objective) tutorial on the futures thing. Well worth your time if you think you want to do anything related to the futures market.\",\n \"qid\": 10979,\n \"docid\": \"340815\",\n \"rank\": 47,\n \"score\": 97906\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: On expiry, with the underlying share price at $46, we have : You ask : How come they substract 600-100. Why ? Because you have sold the $45 call to open you position, you must now buy it back to close your position. This will cost you $100, so you are debited for $100 and this debit is being represented as a negative (subtracted); i.e., -$100 Because you have purchased the $40 call to open your position, you must now sell it to close your position. Upon selling this option you will receive $600, so you are credited with $600 and this credit is represented as a positive (added) ; i.e., +$600. Therefore, upon settlement, closing your position will get you $600-$100 = $500. This is the first point you are questioning. (However, you should also note that this is the value of the spread at settlement and it does not include the costs of opening the spread position, which are given as $200, so you net profit is $500-$200 = $300.) You then comment : I know I am selling 45 Call that means : As a writer: I want stock price to go down or stay at strike. As a buyer: I want stock price to go up. Here, note that for every penny that the underlying share price rises above $45, the money you will pay to buy back your short $45 call option will be offset by the money you will receive by selling the long $40 call option. Your $40 call option is covering the losses on your short $45 call option. No matter how high the underlying price settles above $45, you will receive the same $500 net credit on settlement. For example, if the underlying price settles at $50, then you will receive a credit of $1000 for selling your $40 call, but you will incur a debit of $500 against for buying back your short $45 call. The net being $500 = $1000-$500. This point is made in response to your comments posted under Dr. Jones answer.\",\n \"qid\": 10979,\n \"docid\": \"22916\",\n \"rank\": 48,\n \"score\": 97630\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: The problem with rate of return calculation on short positions is, that the commonly used approach assumes an initial investment creating a cash outflow. If we want to apply this approach to short selling, we should look at the trade from another perspective. We buy money and pay for this money with stock. Our investment to buy 50$ in your example is 1 share. When closing the short position, we effectively sell back our money (50$) and receive 2 shares. Our profit on this position is obviously 1 share. Setting this in relation to our investment of 1 share yields a performance of 100% in reality, we do not sell back the entire cash but only the amount needed to get back our investment of 1 share. This is actually comparable to a purchase of stock which we only partially close to get back our invested cash amount and keep the remaining shares as our profit\",\n \"qid\": 10979,\n \"docid\": \"422467\",\n \"rank\": 49,\n \"score\": 97296\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"Consider the futures market. Traders buy and sell gold futures, but very few contracts, relatively speaking, result in delivery. The contracts are sold, and \\\"\\\"Open interest\\\"\\\" dwindles to near zero most months as the final date approaches. The seller buys back his short position, the buyer sells off his longs. When I own a call, and am 'winning,' say the option that cost me $1 is now worth $2, I'd rather sell that option for even $1.95 than to buy 100 shares of a $148 stock. The punchline is that very few option buyers actually hope to own the stock in the end. Just like the futures, open interest falls as expiration approaches.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 10979,\n \"docid\": \"393134\",\n \"rank\": 50,\n \"score\": 97012\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Automatic exercisions can be extremely risky, and the closer to the money the options are, the riskier their exercisions are. It is unlikely that the entire account has negative equity since a responsible broker would forcibly close all positions and pursue the holder for the balance of the debt to reduce solvency risk. Since the broker has automatically exercised a near the money option, it's solvency policy is already risky. Regardless of whether there is negative equity or simply a liability, the least risky course of action is to sell enough of the underlying to satisfy the loan by closing all other positions if necessary as soon as possible. If there is a negative equity after trying to satisfy the loan, the account will need to be funded for the balance of the loan to pay for purchases of the underlying to fully satisfy the loan. Since the underlying can move in such a way to cause this loan to increase, the account should also be funded as soon as possible if necessary. Accounts after exercise For deep in the money exercised options, a call turns into a long underlying on margin while a put turns into a short underlying. The next decision should be based upon risk and position selection. First, if the position is no longer attractive, it should be closed. Since it's deep in the money, simply closing out the exposure to the underlying should extinguish the liability as cash is not marginable, so the cash received from the closing out of the position will repay any margin debt. If the position in the underlying is still attractive then the liability should be managed according to one's liability policy and of course to margin limits. In a margin account, closing the underlying positions on the same day as the exercise will only be considered a day trade. If the positions are closed on any business day after the exercision, there will be no penalty or restriction. Cash option accounts While this is possible, many brokers force an upgrade to a margin account, and the ShareBuilder Options Account Agreement seems ambiguous, but their options trading page implies the upgrade. In a cash account, equities are not marginable, so any margin will trigger a margin call. If the margin debt did not trigger a margin call then it is unlikely that it is a cash account as margin for any security in a cash account except for certain options trades is 100%. Equities are convertible to cash presumably at the bid, so during a call exercise, the exercisor or exercisor's broker pays cash for the underlying at the exercise price, and any deficit is financed with debt, thus underlying can be sold to satisfy that debt or be sold for cash as one normally would. To preempt a forced exercise as a call holder, one could short the underlying, but this will be more expensive, and since probably no broker allows shorting against the box because of its intended use to circumvent capital gains taxes by fraud. The least expensive way to trade out of options positions is to close them themselves rather than take delivery.\",\n \"qid\": 10979,\n \"docid\": \"277311\",\n \"rank\": 51,\n \"score\": 96290\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: An option is freely tradable, and all options (of the same kind) are equal. If your position is 0 and you sell 1 option, your new position in that option is -1. If the counterparty to your trade buys or sells more options to close, open, or even reopen their position afterwards, that doesn't matter to your position at all. Of course there's also the issue with American and European Options. European Options expire at their due date, but American Options expire at their due date or at any time before their due date if the holder decides they expire. With American Options, if a holder of an American Option decides to exercise the option, someone who is short the same option will be assigned as the counterparty (this is usually random). Expiry is after market close, so if one of your short American Options expires early, you will need to reopen the position the next day. Keep in mind dividends for slightly increased complexity. American and European Options do not in any way refer to the continents they are traded on, or to the location of the companies. These terms simply describe the expiry rules.\",\n \"qid\": 10979,\n \"docid\": \"575408\",\n \"rank\": 52,\n \"score\": 96223\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"Treat each position or partial position as a separate LOT. Each time you open a position, a new lot of shares is created. If you sell the whole position, then the lot is closed. Done. But if you sell a partial quantity, you need to create a new lot. Split the original lot into two. The quantities in each are the amount sold, and the amount remaining. If you were to then buy a few more shares, create a third lot. If you then sell the entire position, you'll be closing out all the remaining lots. This allows you to track each buy/sell pairing. For each lot, simply calculate return based on cost and proceeds. You can't derive an annualized number for ALL the lots as a group, because there's no common timeframe that they share. If you wish to calculate your return over time on the whole series of trades, consider using TWIRR. It treats these positions, plus the cash they represent, as a whole portfolio. See my post in this thread: How can I calculate a \\\"\\\"running\\\"\\\" return using XIRR in a spreadsheet?\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 10979,\n \"docid\": \"479874\",\n \"rank\": 53,\n \"score\": 96125\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"As I stated in my comment, options are futures, but with the twist that you're allowed to say no to the agreed-on transaction; if the market offers you a better deal on whatever you had contracted to buy or sell, you have the option of simply letting it expire. Options therefore are the insurance policy of the free market. You negotiate a future price (actually you usually take what you can get if you're an individual investor; the institutional fund managers get to negotiate because they're moving billions around every day), then you pay the other guy up front for the right of refusal later. How much you pay depends on how likely the person giving you this option is to have to make good on it; if your position looks like a sure thing, an option's going to be very expensive (and if it's such a sure thing, you should just make your move on the spot market; it's thus useful to track futures prices to see where the various big players are predicting that your portfolio will move). A put option, which is an option for you to sell something at a future price, is a hedge against loss of value of your portfolio. You can take one out on any single item in your portfolio, or against a portion or even your entire portfolio. If the stock loses value such that the contract price is better than the market price as of the delivery date of the contract, you execute the option; otherwise, you let it expire. A call option, which is an option to buy something at a future price, is a hedge against rising costs. The rough analog is a \\\"\\\"pre-order\\\"\\\" in retail (but more like a \\\"\\\"holding fee\\\"\\\"). They're unusual in portfolio management but can be useful when moving money around in more complex ways. Basically, if you need to guarantee that you will not pay more than a certain per-share price to buy something in the future, you buy a call option. If the spot price as of the delivery date is less than the contract price, you buy from the market and ignore the contract, while if prices have soared, you exercise it and get the lower contract price. Stock options, offered as benefits in many companies, are a specific form of call option with very generous terms for whomever holds them. A swaption, basically a put and a call rolled into one, allows you to trade something for something else. Call it the free market's \\\"\\\"exchange policy\\\"\\\". For a price, if a security you currently hold loses value, you can exchange it for something else that you predicted would become more valuable at the same time. One example might be airline stocks and crude oil; when crude spikes, airline stocks generally suffer, and you can take advantage of this, if it happens, with a swaption to sell your airline stocks for crude oil certificates. There are many such closely-related inverse positions in the market, such as between various currencies, between stocks and commodities (gold is inversely related to pretty much everything else), and even straight-up cash-for-bad-debt arrangements (credit-default swaps, which we heard so much about in 2008).\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 10979,\n \"docid\": \"291600\",\n \"rank\": 54,\n \"score\": 96002\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: In this example, Client A has to buy shares to return them to Client B for his sale (closing Client A's short position). Client B then sells the shares. The end result is there are no shares within the brokerage clientele anymore, so Client A can't borrow them anymore. The broker is just an intermediary, they wouldn't go out and acquire securities on their own for the benefit of a client wanting to short it, as they would be taking on the risk of the opposite position. This would be in addition to the risk they already take on when allowing people to short sell -- which is that Client A won't have the money to buy the shares it owes to Client B, in which case the broker has to make Client B whole.\",\n \"qid\": 10979,\n \"docid\": \"122050\",\n \"rank\": 55,\n \"score\": 95875\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: If the position starts losing money as soon as it is put on, then I would close it out ,taking a small loss. However, if it starts making money,as in the stock inches higher, then you can use part of the premium collected to buy an out of money put, thereby limiting your downside. It is called a collar.\",\n \"qid\": 10979,\n \"docid\": \"55535\",\n \"rank\": 56,\n \"score\": 95460\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"Buying (or selling) a futures contract means that you are entering into a contractual agreement to buy (or sell) the contracted commodity or financial instrument in the contracted amount (the contract size) at the price you have bought (or sold) the contract on the contract expire date (maturity date). It is important to understand that futures contracts are tradeable instruments, meaning that you are free to sell (or buy back) your contract at any time before the expiry date. For example, if you buy 1 \\\"\\\"lot\\\"\\\" (1 contract) of a gold future on the Comex exchange for the contract month of December 2016, then you entering into a contract to buy 100 ounces (the contract size) of gold at the price at which you buy the contract - not the spot price on the day of expiry when the contract comes to maturity. The December 2016 gold futures contract has an expiry date of 28 December. You are free to trade this contract at any time before its expiry by selling it back to another market participant. If you sell the contract at a price higher than you have purchased it, then you will realise a profit of 100 times the difference between the price you bought the contract and the price you sold the contract, where 100 is the contract size of the gold contract. Similarly, if you sell the contract at a price lower than the price you have purchased it, then you will realise a loss. (Commissions paid will also effect your net profit or loss). If you hold your contract until the expiry date and exercise your contract by taking (or making) delivery, then you are obliged to buy (or sell) 100 ounces of gold at the price at which you bought (or sold) the contract - not the current spot price. So long as your contract is \\\"\\\"open\\\"\\\" (i.e., prior to the expiry date and so long as you own the contract) you are required to make a \\\"\\\"good faith deposit\\\"\\\" to show that you intend to honour your contractual obligations. This deposit is usually called \\\"\\\"initial margin\\\"\\\". Typically, the initial margin amount will be about 2% of the total contract value for the gold contract. So if you buy (or sell) one contract for 100 ounces of gold at, say, $1275 an ounce, then the total contract value will be $127,500 and your deposit requirement would be about $2,500. The initial margin is returned to you when you sell (or buy) back your futures contract, or when you exercise your contract on expiry. In addition to initial margin, you will be required to maintain a second type of margin called \\\"\\\"variation margin\\\"\\\". The variation margin is the running profit or loss you are showing on your open contract. For the sake of simplicity, lets look only at the case where you have purchased a futures contract. If the futures price is higher than your contract (buy) price, then you are showing a profit on your current position and this profit (the variation margin) will be used to offset your initial margin requirement. Conversely, if the futures price has dropped below your contracted (buy) price, then you will be showing a loss on your open position and this loss (the variation margin) will be added to your initial margin and you will be called to put up more money in order to show good faith that you intend to honour your obligations. Note that neither the initial margin nor the variation margin are accounting items. In other words, these are not postings that are debited or credited to the ledger in your trading account. So in some sense \\\"\\\"you don't have to pay anything upfront\\\"\\\", but you do need to put up a refundable deposit to show good faith.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 10979,\n \"docid\": \"289073\",\n \"rank\": 57,\n \"score\": 95212\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: It's unclear what you're asking. When I originally read your question, it seemed that you had closed out one options position and opened another. When I read your question the second time, it seemed that you were writing a second option while the first was still open. In the second case, you have one covered and one naked position. The covered call will expire worthless, the naked call will expire in the money. How your broker will resolve that is a question best left for them, but my expectation is that they will assign the non-worthless calls. Whereas, if both options expired in the money, you would be assigned and you would have to come up with the additional shares (and again, that depends on how your broker works). In general, for both cases, your net is the premiums you received, plus the difference between strike price and the price that you paid for the stock, minus any cost to close out the position. So whether you make a profit is very much dependent on how much you received for your premiums. Scenario #1: close first call, write second: Scenario #2: write covered + naked, one expires worthless Scenario #3: write covered + naked, both expire in the money Disclaimer: the SEC does not consider me a financial/investment advisor, so this is not financial/investment advice\",\n \"qid\": 10979,\n \"docid\": \"105373\",\n \"rank\": 58,\n \"score\": 95100\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"There are many reasons. Here are just some possibilities: The stock has a lot of negative sentiment and puts are being \\\"\\\"bid up\\\"\\\". The stock fell at the close and the options reflect that. The puts closed on the offer and the calls closed on the bid. The traders with big positions marked the puts up and the calls down because they are long puts and short calls. There isn't enough volume in the puts or calls to make any determination - what you are seeing is part of the randomness of a moment in time.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 10979,\n \"docid\": \"259659\",\n \"rank\": 59,\n \"score\": 94744\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"For stock options, where I'm used to seeing these terms: Volume is usually reported per day, whereas open interest is cumulative. In addition, some volume closes positions and some opens positions. For example, if I am long one contract and sell it to someone who was short one contract, then that adds to volume and reduces open interest. If I hold no contracts and sell (creating a short position) to someone who also had no contracts, then I add to volume and I increase open interest. EDIT: With the clarification in your comment, then I would say some people opened and closed positions in that one day. Their opening and closing trades both contribute to \\\"\\\"volume\\\"\\\" but they have not net position in the \\\"\\\"open interest.\\\"\\\"\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 10979,\n \"docid\": \"73846\",\n \"rank\": 60,\n \"score\": 94534\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: The original option writer (seller) can close his short position in the contracts he wrote by purchasing back matching contracts (i.e. contracts with the same terms: underlying, option type, strike price, expiration date) from any others who hold long positions, or else who write new matching contract instances. Rather than buyer and seller settling directly, options are settled through a central options clearing house, being the Options Clearing Corporation for exchange-listed options in the U.S. See also Wikipedia - Clearing house (finance). So, the original buyer of the put maintains his position (insurance) and the clearing process ensures he is matched up with somebody else holding a matching obligation, if he chooses to exercise his put. I also answered a similar question but in more detail, here.\",\n \"qid\": 10979,\n \"docid\": \"103147\",\n \"rank\": 61,\n \"score\": 94200\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: The initial and overnight margin requirements are set by the exchanges (who calculate them using the Standard Portfolio of Analysis of Risk, or 'SPAN' system), and positions are market to market according to these at the end of the trading session. To find these margin requirements you will need to consult the website of the exchange on which the contract you are trading is issued (i.e. if you're trading on the London Metal Exchange it's no good looking at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange's margin requirements as a previous answer suggests!). However, for positions entered and exited within the same day, the daytrade margin rate will apply. This is set by your broker rather than the exchange, and can be as little as 10% of the exchange requirement. You can find a useful comparison of different margin types and requirements in the article I have published here: Understanding Margin for Futures Trading.\",\n \"qid\": 10979,\n \"docid\": \"326335\",\n \"rank\": 62,\n \"score\": 94092\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Brokers usually have this kind of information, you can take a look at interactive brokers for instance: http://www.interactivebrokers.co.uk/contract_info/v3.6/index.php?action=Details&site=GEN&conid=90384435 You are interested in the initial margin which in this case is $6,075. So you need that amount to buy/sell 1 future. In the contract specification you see the contract is made for 100 ounces. At the current price ($1,800/oz), that would be a total of $180,000. It is equivalent to saying you are getting 30x leverage. If you buy 1 future and the price goes from $1,800 to $1,850, the contract would go from $180,000 to $185,000. You make $5,000 or a 82% return. I am pretty sure you can imagine what happens if the market goes against you. Futures are great! (when your timing is perfect).\",\n \"qid\": 10979,\n \"docid\": \"534796\",\n \"rank\": 63,\n \"score\": 93665\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"In short, yes. By \\\"\\\"forward selling\\\"\\\", you enter into a futures contract by which you agree to trade Euros for dollars (US or Singapore) at a set rate agreed to by both parties, at some future time. You are basically making a bet; you think that the dollar will gain on the Euro and thus you'd pay a higher rate on the spot than you've locked in with the future. The other party to the contract is betting against you; he thinks the dollar will weaken, and so the dollars he'll sell you will be worth less than the Euros he gets for them at the agreed rate. Now, in a traditional futures contract, you are obligated to execute it, whether it ends up good or bad for you. You can, to avoid this, buy an \\\"\\\"option\\\"\\\". By buying the option, you pay the other party to the deal for the right to say \\\"\\\"no, thanks\\\"\\\". That way, if the dollar weakens and you'd rather pay spot price at time of delivery, you simply let the contract expire un-executed. The tradeoff is that options cost money up-front which is now sunk; whether you exercise the option or not, the other party gets the option price. That basically creates a \\\"\\\"point spread\\\"\\\"; you \\\"\\\"win\\\"\\\" if the dollar appreciates against the Euro enough that you still save money even after buying the option, or if the dollar depreciates against the Euro enough that again you still save money after subtracting the option price, while you \\\"\\\"lose\\\"\\\" if the exchange rates are close enough to what was agreed on that it cost you more to buy the option than you gained by being able to choose to use it.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 10979,\n \"docid\": \"321579\",\n \"rank\": 64,\n \"score\": 93261\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"From my recollection of Warren Buffett's book \\\"\\\"Warren Buffett and the Art of Arbitrage\\\"\\\", the following factors determine the difference between the market price of a stock and the future expected price of an acquisition or merger: Time: Assuming the deal will close, the market price should approach the offer price as the closing date approaches. The fact that there is a 14% spread partially reflects the time value of money. Probability: Things could happen between now and closing date which could derail the deal. The higher the spread the more likely the market thinks the deal will not occur. For example, LO shareholders could reject the offer saying it is too low, or anti-trust regulators could say the deal is anti-competitive. Part of this 14% spread indicates the probability of the deal completing.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 10979,\n \"docid\": \"176327\",\n \"rank\": 65,\n \"score\": 93064\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: That looks very much like an S&P 500 E-Mini index future. However, ES1 is a strange symbol. Futures have the month of expiry encoded in their symbol as well: http://commodities.about.com/od/understandingthebasics/ss/futurescontract_3.htm For example, the September 2011 future in this series would be ESU1. I'm not very familiar with Bloomberg so perhaps this is the front contract (i.e. the one that's closest to expiry (in the is case the September 2011 one)). Only problem is that prices don't exactly match what CME has (high of 1190 and low of 1186.25, for when this page gets out of date): http://www.cmegroup.com/trading/equity-index/us-index/e-mini-sandp500.html - but they are so close I suspect it must be some sort of S&P 500 index future.\",\n \"qid\": 10979,\n \"docid\": \"366526\",\n \"rank\": 66,\n \"score\": 92583\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: For futures, you are obligated to puchase the security at $x when the contract expires. For an option, you have the right or option to do so if it's favorable to you.\",\n \"qid\": 10979,\n \"docid\": \"302164\",\n \"rank\": 67,\n \"score\": 91780\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Let's make a few assumptions: You have several ways of achieving (almost) that, in ascending complexity: Note that each alternative will have a cost which can be small (forwards, futures) or large (CFDs, debit) and the hedge will never be perfect, but you can get close. You will also need to decide whether you hedge the unrealised P&L on the position and at what frequency.\",\n \"qid\": 10979,\n \"docid\": \"565417\",\n \"rank\": 68,\n \"score\": 91772\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"The two dimensions are to open the trade (creating a position) and to buy or sell (becoming long or short the option). If you already own an option, you bought it to open and then you would sell it to close. If you don't own an option, you can either buy it to open, or sell it (short it) to open. If you are already short an option, you can buy it back to close. If you sell to open covered, the point is you're creating a \\\"\\\"covered call\\\"\\\" which means you own the stock, and then sell a call. Since you own the stock, the covered call has a lot of the risk of loss removed, though it also subtracts much of the reward possible from your stock.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 10979,\n \"docid\": \"320101\",\n \"rank\": 69,\n \"score\": 91372\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Probably the easiest way for individual investors is oil ETFs. In particular, USO seems to be fairly liquid and available. You should check carefully the bid/ask spreads in this volatile time. There are other oil ETFs and leveraged and inverse oil ETFs exist as well, but one should heed the warnings about leveraged ETFs. Oil futures are another possibility though they can be more complicated and tough to access for an individual investor. Note that futures have a drift associated with them as well. Be careful close or roll any positions before delivery, of course, unless you have a need for a bunch of actual barrels of oil. Finally, you can consider investing in commodities ETFs or Energy stocks or stock ETFs that are strongly related to the price of oil. As Keshlam mentions, care is advised in all these methods. Many people thought oil reached its bottom a few weeks back then OPEC decided to do nothing and the price dropped even further.\",\n \"qid\": 10979,\n \"docid\": \"127566\",\n \"rank\": 70,\n \"score\": 91310\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: As far as trading is concerned, these forward curves are the price at which you can speculate on the future value of the commodity. Basically, if you want to speculate on gold, you can either buy the physical and store it somewhere (which may have significant costs) or you can buy futures (ETFs typically hold futures or hold physical and store it for you). If you buy futures, you will have to roll your position every month, meaning you sell the current month's futures and buy the next month's. However, these may not be trading at the same price, so each time you roll your position, you face a risk. If you know you want to hold gold for exactly 1 year, then you can buy a 1-year future, which in this case according to your graph will cost you about $10 more than buying the front month. The forward curve (or sometimes called the futures term structure) represents the prices at which gold can be bought or sold at various points in the future.\",\n \"qid\": 10979,\n \"docid\": \"394886\",\n \"rank\": 71,\n \"score\": 91133\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"Often these types of trades fall into two different categories. An error by broker or exchange. Exchange clearing out part of their books incorrectly is an example. Most exchanges make firms reopen their positions for after market hours. There may have been an issue doing so or exchange could incorrectly cancel positions. I was in the direct feed industry for years and this was a big issue. At the same time the broker can issue a no limit buy on accident (or has software that is prospecting and said software has a bug or written poorly). unscrupulous parties looking to feign an upswing or downswing in market. Let's say you hold 500k shares in a stock that sells for $11. You could possibly buy 100 shares for $13. Trust me you will find a seller. Then you are hoping that people see that trade as a \\\"\\\"norm\\\"\\\" and trade from there, allowing you to rake in $1M for spending an extra $200 - NOTE this is not normal and an extreme example. This was so common in the early days of NASDAQ after hours that they discontinued using the after hours trades as part of historical information that they keep like daily/yearly high or closing price. The liquidity allows for manipulation. It isn't seen as much now since this has been done a million times but it does still happen.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 10979,\n \"docid\": \"378889\",\n \"rank\": 72,\n \"score\": 91001\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: If you hold a future plus enough cash collateral it is economically equivalent to owning the underlying asset or shorting the underlying asset. In general financial assets such as stock indices have a positive expected return - that's the main difference between investing and gambling. There's nothing that special about futures, they are just another contractual form of asset ownership. Well, one difference is that regulations or brokerages allow individual investors more leverage with options and futures than with straight borrowing. But this is more a regulatory issue than a conceptual issue with the securities themselves. In theory regulators or brokers could require you to hold enough collateral to make a future equivalent to buying the underlying.\",\n \"qid\": 10979,\n \"docid\": \"369031\",\n \"rank\": 73,\n \"score\": 90817\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: One of the fundamental of technical analysis suggests that holding a security overnight represents a huge commitment. Therefore it would follow that traders would tend to close their positions prior to market close and open them when it opens.\",\n \"qid\": 10979,\n \"docid\": \"355319\",\n \"rank\": 74,\n \"score\": 90460\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"The settlement date for any trade is the date on which the seller gets the buyer's money and the buyer gets the seller's product. In US equities markets the settlement date is (almost universally) three trading days after the trade date. This settlement period gives the exchanges, the clearing houses, and the brokers time to figure out how many shares and how many dollars need to actually be moved around in order to give everyone what they're owed (and then to actually do all that moving around). So, \\\"\\\"settling\\\"\\\" a short trade is the same thing as settling any other trade. It has nothing to do with \\\"\\\"closing\\\"\\\" (or covering) the seller's short position. Q: Is this referring to when a short is initiated, or closed? A: Initiated. If you initiate a short position by selling borrowed shares on day 1, then settlement occurs on day 4. (Regardless of whether your short position is still open or has been closed.) Q: All open shorts which are still open by the settlement date have to be reported by the due date. A: Not exactly. The requirement is that all short positions evaluated based on their settlement dates (rather than their trade dates) still open on the deadline have to be reported by the due date. You sell short 100 AAPL on day 1. You then cover that short by buying 100 AAPL on day 2. As far as the clearing houses and brokers are concerned, however, you don't even get into the short position until your sell settles at the end of day 4, and you finally get out of your short position (in their eyes) when your buy settles at the end of day 5. So imagine the following scenarios: The NASDAQ deadline happens to be the end of day 2. Since your (FINRA member) broker has been told to report based on settlement date, it would report no open position for you in AAPL even though you executed a trade to sell on day 1. The NASDAQ deadline happens to be the end of day 3. Your sell still has not settled, so there's still no open position to report for you. The NASDAQ deadline happens to be the end of day 4. Your sell has settled but your buy has not, so the broker reports a 100 share open short position for you. The NASDAQ deadline happens to be the end of day 5. Your sell and buy have both settled, so the broker once again has no open position to report for you. So, the point is that when dealing with settlement dates you just pretend the world is 3 days behind where it actually is.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 10979,\n \"docid\": \"226984\",\n \"rank\": 75,\n \"score\": 90047\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: No, if your stock is called away, the stock is sold at the agreed upon price. You cannot get it back at your original price. If you don't want your stock to be called, make sure you have the short call position closed by expiration if it is ITM. Also you could be at risk for early assignment if the option has little to no extrinsic value, although probably not. But when dividends are coming, make sure you close your short ITM options. If the dividend is worth more than the extrinsic value, you are pretty much guaranteed to be assigned. Been assigned that way too many times. Especially in ETFs where the dividends aren't dates are not always easy to find. It happens typically during triple witching. If you are assigned on your short option, you will be short stock and you will have to pay the dividend to the shareholder of your short stock. So if you have a covered call on, and you are assigned, your stock will be called away, and you will have to pay the dividend.\",\n \"qid\": 10979,\n \"docid\": \"228810\",\n \"rank\": 76,\n \"score\": 89880\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"Your strategy fails to control risk. Your \\\"\\\"inversed crash\\\"\\\" is called a rally. And These kind of things often turn into bigger rallies because of short squeezes, when all the people that are shorting a stock are forced to close their stock because of margin calls - its not that shorts \\\"\\\"scramble\\\"\\\" to close their position, the broker AUTOMATICALLY closes your short positions with market orders and you are stuck with the loss. So no, your \\\"\\\"trick\\\"\\\" is not enough. There are better ways to profit from a bearish outlook.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 10979,\n \"docid\": \"333496\",\n \"rank\": 77,\n \"score\": 89591\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Futures contracts are a member of a larger class of financial assets called derivatives. Derivatives are called such because their payoffs depend on the price of other assets (financial or real). Other kinds of derivatives are call options, put options. Fixed income assets that mimic the behavior of derivatives are callable bonds, puttable bonds etc. A futures contract is a contract that specifies the following: Just like with any other contract, there are two parties involved. One party commits to delivering the underlying asset to the other party on expiration date in exchange for the futures price. The other party commits to paying the futures price in exchange for the asset. There is no price that any of the two parties pay upfront to engage in the contract. The language used is so that the agent committing to receiving the delivery of the underlying asset is said to have bought the contract. The agent that commits to make the delivery is said to have sold the contract. So answer your question, buying on June 1 a futures contract at the futures price of $100, with a maturity date on August 1 means you commit to paying $100 for the underlying asset on August 1. You don't have to pay anything upfront. Futures price is simply what the contract prescribes the underlying asset will exchange hands for.\",\n \"qid\": 10979,\n \"docid\": \"108\",\n \"rank\": 78,\n \"score\": 89471\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: The initial margin is $5940 and maintenance margin $5400. A simple search of Comex Gold Margin gives the CME group site. You then need to specify CMX metals to see the margins. Gold is currently about $1300. A gold future is 100 oz. So the full contract is worth $130K. You want to 'go long' so you enter into a contract for Dec '14. You put up $5940, and if gold rises, you gain $100 for each $1 it goes up. Likewise on the downside. If gold drops $5.40, you lost $540 and will get a call to end the position or to put up more money. It's similar to stock margin requirements, only the numbers are much lower, your leverage with futures is over 20 to 1.\",\n \"qid\": 10979,\n \"docid\": \"474487\",\n \"rank\": 79,\n \"score\": 88803\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: The owner of a long futures contract does not receive dividends, hence this is a disadvantage compared to owning the underlying stock. If the dividend is increased, and the future price would not change, there is an arbitrage possibility. For the sake of simplicity, assume that the stock suddenly starts paying a dividend, and that the risk free rate is zero (so interest does not play a role). One can expect that the future price is (rougly) equal to the stock price before the dividend announcment. If the future price would not change, an investor could buy the stock, and short a futures contract on the stock. At expiration he has to deliver the stock for the price set in the contract, which is under the assumptions here equal to the price he bought the stock for. But because he owned the stock, he receives the announced dividend. Hence he can make a risk-free profit consisting of the divivends. If interest do play a role, the argument is similar.\",\n \"qid\": 10979,\n \"docid\": \"65295\",\n \"rank\": 80,\n \"score\": 88694\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: CFDs (Contracts for Difference) are basically a contract between you and the broker on the difference in price of the underlying between the time you open a position and close a position. You are not actually buying the underlying. With share CFDs, the outcome is a bit like buying the underlying shares on margin. You pay interest for every day you hold the CFDs overnight for long CFDs. However, with short positions, you get paid interest for every day you hold your short position overnight. Most people use CFDs for short term trading, however they can be used for medium to longer term trading just as you would hold a portfolio on margin. What you have to remember is that because you are buying on margin you can lose more than your initial contract amount. A way to manage this risk is by using position sizing and stop loses. With your position sizing, if you wanted to invest $10,000 in a particular share trading at $10 per share, you would then buy 1000 shares or 1000 CFDs in that share. Your initial expense with the CFDs might be only $1000 (at a margin rate of 10%). So instead of increasing your risk by having an initial outlay of $10,000 with the CFDs you limit your risk to the same as you were buying the shares directly.\",\n \"qid\": 10979,\n \"docid\": \"173846\",\n \"rank\": 81,\n \"score\": 88408\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: It would be nice if the broker could be instructed to clear out the position for you, but in my experience the broker will simply give you the shares that you can't afford, then freeze your account because you are over your margin limit, and issue a margin call. This happened to me recently because of a dumb mistake: options I paid $200 for and expected to expire worthless, ended up slightly ITM, so they were auto-exercised on Friday for about $20k, and my account was frozen (only able to close positions). By the next Monday, market news had shifted the stock against me and I had to sell it at a loss of $1200 to meet the margin call. This kind of thing is what gives option trading a reputation for danger: A supposedly max-$200-risk turned into a 6x greater loss. I see no reason to ever exercise, I always try to close my positions, but these things can happen.\",\n \"qid\": 10979,\n \"docid\": \"367928\",\n \"rank\": 82,\n \"score\": 88088\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: There is indeed a market for single stock futures, and they have been trading on the OneChicago exchange since 2002. Futures are available in 12,509 individual stocks, according to the exchange's current product listing. One advantage they offer over trading the underlying stock is the significantly higher leverage that is available, combined with the lack of pattern day trader rules that apply to stocks and similar securities. Single stock futures have proven to be something of a regulatory challenge as it has been unclear whether their oversight is the remit of the SEC/FINRA or the CFTC/NFA.\",\n \"qid\": 10979,\n \"docid\": \"120447\",\n \"rank\": 83,\n \"score\": 88023\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"Because you've sold something you've received cash (or at least an entry on your brokerage statement to say you've got cash) so you should record that as a credit in your brokerage account in GnuCash. The other side of the entry should go into another account that you create called something like \\\"\\\"Open Positions\\\"\\\" and is usually marked as a Liability account type (if you need to mark it as such). If you want to keep an accurate daily tally of your net worth you can add a new entry to your Open Positions account and offset that against Income which will be either negative or positive depending on how the position has moved for/against you. You can also do this at a lower frequency or not at all and just put an entry in when your position closes out because you bought it back or it expired or it was exercised. My preferred method is to have a single entry in the Open Positions account with an arbitrary date near when I expect it to be closed and each time I edit that value (daily or weekly) so I only have the initial entry and the current adjust to look at which reduces the number of entries and confusion if there are too many.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 10979,\n \"docid\": \"145892\",\n \"rank\": 84,\n \"score\": 87751\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: In the case of regulated, exchange-traded options, the writer of an options contract is obliged to maintain a margin with their broker, and the broker is obliged to maintain a margin with the clearing house. (Institutional writers of options will deal directly with the clearing house.) In the event that the writer is unable to make a daily margin call, the broker (or clearing house) may automatically close out (all of) their positions using existing margin held. If there was a shortfall, the broker (or clearing house) would be left to persue the client (writer) to make good on their obligations. None of this effects the position of the original buyer of the options contract. Effectively, the buyer's counterparty is their broker's clearing house account.\",\n \"qid\": 10979,\n \"docid\": \"376136\",\n \"rank\": 85,\n \"score\": 87745\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: There are classes of 'traders' who close their positions out every evening, not just on fridays. But their are other types of businesses who trade shortly before or nearly right at market close with both buys and sells There are lots of theories as to how the market behaves at various times of day, days of the week, months of the year. There are some few patterns that can emerge but in general they don't provide a lot of 'lift' above pure random chance, enough so that if you 'bet' on one of these your chances of being wrong are only very slightly different from being right, enough so that it's not really fair to call any of them a 'sure thing'. And since these events are often fairly widely spaced, it's difficult to play them often enough to get the 'law of large numbers' on your side (as opposed to say card-counting at a blackjack table) which basically makes betting on them not much different from gambling\",\n \"qid\": 10979,\n \"docid\": \"471704\",\n \"rank\": 86,\n \"score\": 87467\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Depending on the currencies you want to trade there are mini-futures available with a contract value of 12.500 (for example EUR/USD) or standard futures with a contract value of 125.000. You will find an overview at the Globex CME website For a broker to trade the futures I would recommend Interactive Brokers. They offer real-time trading at very low commission.\",\n \"qid\": 10979,\n \"docid\": \"190756\",\n \"rank\": 87,\n \"score\": 87336\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: In the UK there are spread betting firms (essentially financial bookmakers) that will take large bets 24x7. Plus, interbank forex is open 24x7 anyway. And there are a wide array of futures markets in different jurisdictions. There are plenty of ways to find organizations who are willing to take the opposite position that you do, day or night, provided that you qualify.\",\n \"qid\": 10979,\n \"docid\": \"276950\",\n \"rank\": 88,\n \"score\": 87038\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: It ought to be possible to buy a foreign exchange future (aka forex future / FX future). Businesses use these futures to make sure their exchange rate is predictable: if they put a bunch of money into manufacturing things that'll be ready a year later, it helps to know that the currency exchange rate shifts won't wipe out all their profits. If you're willing to take on some of that risk, and if things go your way, you can make money. They are essentially contracts between two private parties to pay each other a certain amount of money based on the movement of the currencies, so the Chinese government doesn't actually need to be involved and no renminbi need to change hands, you can just trade the contracts. Note that the exchange rate is currently fixed by the Chinese government, so you're going to be subject to enhanced levels of political risk, and they may not be as widely available or readily tradable as other foreign exchange futures, so check with a broker before opening your account. I couldn't find them on my personal Etrade account, but a quick Google search reveals CME Group offering some. There are probably others. Foreign exchange futures are an advanced investing tool and carry risk. Be sure you understand the risk, in particular how much money you can end up on the hook for if things don't go your way. Also remember, futures expire: you're not just betting on the rate changing, but you're betting on it changing within a certain amount of time.\",\n \"qid\": 10979,\n \"docid\": \"148948\",\n \"rank\": 89,\n \"score\": 86947\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"If you sell a stock you don't own, it's called a short sale. You borrowed the shares from an owner of the stock and eventually would buy to close. On most normal shares, you can hold a short position indefinitely, but there are some shares that have a combination of either a small float or too high a short position that shares to short are not available. This can create a \\\"\\\"short squeeze\\\"\\\" where shorts are burned by being forced to buy the stock back. Last - when you did this, you should have instructed the broker that you were \\\"\\\"selling to open\\\"\\\" or \\\"\\\"selling short.\\\"\\\" In the old days, when people held stock certificates, you were required to send the certificate in when you sold. Today, the broker should know that wasn't your intention.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 10979,\n \"docid\": \"345368\",\n \"rank\": 90,\n \"score\": 86461\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Yes there will be enough liquidity to sell your position barring some sort of Flash Crash anomaly. Volume generally rises on the day of expiration to increase this liquidity. Don't forget that there are many investment strategies--buying to cover a short position is closing out a trade similar to your case.\",\n \"qid\": 10979,\n \"docid\": \"92695\",\n \"rank\": 91,\n \"score\": 86415\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"In summary: In long form: Spreads and shorts are not allowed in cash accounts, except for covered options. Brokers will allow clients to roll option positions in a single transaction, which look like spreads, but these are not actually \\\"\\\"sell to open\\\"\\\" transactions. \\\"\\\"Sell to open\\\"\\\" is forbidden in cash accounts. Short positions from closing the long half of a covered trade are verboten. Day-trading is allowed in both margin and cash accounts. However, \\\"\\\"pattern day-trading\\\"\\\" only applies to margin accounts, and requires a minimum account balance of $25,000. Cash accounts are free to buy and sell the same security on the same day over and over, provided that there is sufficient buying power to pay for opening a new position. Since proceeds are held for both stock and option sales in a cash account, that means buying power available at the start of the day will drop with each purchase and not rise again until settlement. Unsettled funds are available immediately within margin accounts, without restriction. In cash accounts, using unsettled funds to purchase securities will require you to hold the new position until funds settle -- otherwise your account will be blocked for \\\"\\\"free-riding\\\"\\\". Legally, you can buy securities in a cash account without available cash on deposit with the broker, but most brokers don't allow this, and some will aggressively liquidate any position that you are somehow able to enter for which you didn't have available cash already on deposit. In a margin account, margin can help gloss over the few days between purchase and deposit, allowing you to be somewhat more aggressive in investing funds. A margin account will allow you to make an investment if you feel the opportunity is right before requiring you to deposit the funds. See a great opportunity? With sufficient margin, you can open the trade immediately and then run to the bank to deposit funds, rather than being stuck waiting for funds to be credited to your account. Margin accounts might show up on your credit report. The possibility of losing more than you invested, having positions liquidated when you least expect it, your broker doing possibly stupid things in order to close out an over-margined account, and other consequences are all very serious risks of margin accounts. Although you mentioned awareness of this issue, any answer is not complete with mentioning those risks.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 10979,\n \"docid\": \"300139\",\n \"rank\": 92,\n \"score\": 86254\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"Simple answer: Breakeven is when the security being traded reaches a price equal to the cost of the option plus the option's strike price, assuming you choose to exercise it. So for example, if you paid $1.00 for,say, a call option with a strike price of $19.00, breakeven would be when the security itself reaches $20.00. That being said, I can't imagine why you'd \\\"\\\"close out a position\\\"\\\" at the breakeven point. You wouldn't make or lose money doing that, so it wouldn't be rational. Now, as the option approaches expiration, you may make adjustments to the position to reflect shifts in momentum of the stock. So, if it looks as though the stock may not reach the option strike price, you could close out the position and take your lumps. But if the stock has momentum that will carry it past the strike price by expiration, you may choose to augment your position with additional contracts, although this would obviously mean the new contracts would be priced higher, which raises your dollar cost basis, and this may not make much sense. Another option in this scenario is that if the stock is going to surpass strike price, it might be a good opportunity to buy additional calls with either later expiration dates or with higher strike prices, depending on how much higher you speculate the stock will climb. I've managed to make some money doing this, buying options with strike prices just a dollar or two higher (or lower when playing puts), because the premiums were (in my opinion) underpriced to the potential peak of the stock by the expiration date. Sometimes the new options were actually slightly cheaper than my original positions, so my dollar cost basis overall dropped somewhat, improving my profit percentages.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 10979,\n \"docid\": \"112321\",\n \"rank\": 93,\n \"score\": 86087\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"Yes this is possible in the most liquid securities, but currently it would take several days to get filled in one contract at that amount There are also position size limits (set by the OCC and other Self Regulatory Organizations) that attempt to prevent people from cornering a market through the options market. (getting loads of contacts without effecting the price of the underlying asset, exercising those contracts and suddenly owning a huge stake of the asset and nobody saw it coming - although this is still VERY VERY possible) So for your example of an option of $1.00 per contract, then the position size limits would have prevented 100 million of those being opened (by one person/account that is). Realistically, you would spread out your orders amongst several options strike prices and expiration dates. Stock Indexes are some very liquid examples, so for the Standard & Poors you can open options contracts on the SPY ETF, as well as the S&P 500 futures, as well as many other S&P 500 products that only trade options and do not have the ability to be traded as the underlying shares. And there is also the saying \\\"\\\"liquidity begets liquidity\\\"\\\", meaning that because you are making the market more liquid, other large market participants will also see the liquidity and want to participate, where they previously thought it was too illiquid and impossible to close a large position quickly\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 10979,\n \"docid\": \"271741\",\n \"rank\": 94,\n \"score\": 86070\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: I traded futures for a brief period in school using the BrokersXpress platform (now part of OptionsXpress, which is in turn now part of Charles Schwab). They had a virtual trading platform, and apparently still do, and it was excellent. Since my main account was enabled for futures, this carried over to the virtual account, so I could trade a whole range of futures, options, stocks, etc. I spoke with OptionsXpress, and you don't need to fund your acount to use the virtual trading platform. However, they will cancel your account after an arbitrary period of time if you don't log in every few days. According to their customer service, there is no inactivity fee on your main account if you don't fund it and make no trades. I also used Stock-Trak for a class and despite finding the occasional bug or website performance issue, it provided a good experience. I received a discount because I used it through an educational institution, and customer service was quite good (probably for the same reason), but I don't know if those same benefits would apply to an individual signing up for it. I signed up for top10traders about seven years ago when I was in secondary school, and it's completely free. Unfortunately, you get what you pay for, and the interface was poorly designed and slow. Furthermore, at that time, there were no restrictions that limited the number of shares you could buy to the number of outstanding shares, so you could buy as many as you could afford, even if you exceeded the number that physically existed. While this isn't an issue for large companies, it meant you could earn a killing trading highly illiquid pink sheet stocks because you could purchase billions of shares of companies with only a few thousand shares actually outstanding. I don't know if these issues have been corrected or not, but at the time, I and several other users took advantage of these oversights to rack up hundreds of trillions of dollars in a matter of days, so if you want a realistic simulation, this isn't it. Investopedia also has a stock simulator that I've heard positive things about, although I haven't used it personally.\",\n \"qid\": 10979,\n \"docid\": \"555047\",\n \"rank\": 95,\n \"score\": 85461\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: This is a great question for understanding how futures work, first let's start with your assumptions The most interesting thing here is that neither of these things really matters for the price of the futures. This may seem odd as a futures contract sounds like you are betting on the future price of the index, but remember that the current price already includes the expectations of future earnings as well! There is actually a fairly simple formula for the price of a futures contract (note the link is for forward contracts which are very similar but slightly more simple to understand). Note, that if you are given the current price of the underlying the futures price depends essentially only on the interest rate and the dividends paid during the length of the futures contract. In this case the dividend rate for the S&P500 is higher than the prevailing interest rate so the futures price is lower than the current price. It is slightly more complicated than this as you can see from the formula, but that is essentially how it works. Note, this is why people use futures contracts to mimic other exposures. As the price of the future moves (pretty much) in lockstep with the underlying and sometimes using futures to hedge exposures can be cheaper than buying etfs or using swaps. Edit: Example of the effect of dividends on futures prices For simplicity, let's imagine we are looking at a futures position on a stock that has only one dividend (D) in the near term and that this dividend happens to be scheduled for the day before the futures' delivery date. To make it even more simple lets say the price of the stock is fairly constant around a price P and interest rates are near zero. After the dividend, we would expect the price of the stock to be P' ~ P - D as if you buy the stock after the dividend you wouldn't get that dividend but you still expect to get the rest of the value from additional future cash flows of the company. However, if we buy the futures contract we will eventually own the stock but only after the dividend happens. Since we don't get that dividend cash that the owners of the stock will get we certainly wouldn't want to pay as much as we would pay for the stock (P). We should instead pay about P' the (expected) value of owning the stock after that date. So, in the end, we expect the stock price in the future (P') to be the futures' price today (P') and that should make us feel a lot more comfortable about what we our buying. Neither owning the stock or future is really necessarily favorable in the end you are just buying slightly different future expected cash flows and should expect to pay slightly different prices.\",\n \"qid\": 10979,\n \"docid\": \"529996\",\n \"rank\": 96,\n \"score\": 85247\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: In order to understand how much you might gain or lose from participating in the futures markets, it is important to first understand the different ways in which the slope of the futures markets can be described. In many of the futures markets there is a possibility of somebody buying a commodity at the spot price and selling a futures contract on it. In order to do this they need to hold the commodity in storage. Most commodities cost money to hold in storage, so the futures price will tend to be above the spot price for these commodities. In the case of stock index futures, the holder receives a potential benefit from holding the stocks in an index. If the futures market is upward sloping compared to the spot price, then it can be called normal. If the futures market is usually downward sloping compared to the spot price then it can be called inverted. If the futures market is high enough above the spot price so that more of the commodity gets stored for the future, then the market can be called in contango. If the futures market is below the point where the commodity can be profitably stored for the future, and the market can be called in backwardation. In many of these cases, there is an implicit cost that the buyer of a future pays in order to hold the contract for certainly time. Your question is how much money you make if the price of gold goes up by a specific amount, or how much money you lose if the price of gold goes down by the same specific amount. The problem is, you do not say whether it is the spot price or the futures price which goes up or down. In most cases it is assumed that the change in the futures price will be similar to the change in the spot price of gold. If the spot price of gold goes up by a small amount, then the futures price of gold will go up by a small amount as well. If the futures price of gold goes up by a small amount, this will also drive the spot price of gold up. Even for these small price changes, the expected futures price change in expected spot price change will not be exactly the same. For larger price changes, there will be more of a difference between the expected spot price change in expected future price change. If the price eventually goes up, then the cost of holding the contract will be subtracted from any future gains. If the price eventually goes down, then this holding cost should be added to the losses. If you bought the contract when it was above the spot price, the price will slowly drift toward the spot price, causing you this holding cost. If the price of gold does not change any from the current spot price, then all you are left with is this holding cost.\",\n \"qid\": 10979,\n \"docid\": \"587111\",\n \"rank\": 97,\n \"score\": 85183\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"There is more than one exchange where stock can be traded. For example, there is the New York Stock Exchange and the London Stock Exchange. In fact, if you look at all the exchanges, there is essentially continuous trading 24/7 for many financial instruments (eg US government bonds). The closing price quoted in papers is usually the price at the close on the NYSE. However, options close after that and so there is after-the-close trading in many stocks with active options, so the price at the close of options trading at CBOE is often used. The \\\"\\\"real\\\"\\\" price is always changing. But for the purpose of discussion, using the closing price in NYSE (for NYSE listed stocks) is pretty standard and unlikely to be questioned. Likewise, using Bloomberg's price makes sense. Using some after-hours or small market quote could lead to differences with commonly accepted numbers - until tomorrow :)\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 10979,\n \"docid\": \"354811\",\n \"rank\": 98,\n \"score\": 85150\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Generally speaking, you realize options gains or losses for (US) tax purposes when you close out the option position, or when it expires so in your example, if you're discussing an equity option, you'd realize the gain or loss next year, assuming you don't close it out prior to year end. But options tax treatment can get messy fast: Still, if you have no other stock or option positions in the underlying during or within 30 days of the establishment of the naked put, and assuming the option isn't assigned, you won't realize any gains or losses until the year in which the option is closed or expires.\",\n \"qid\": 10979,\n \"docid\": \"487256\",\n \"rank\": 99,\n \"score\": 85012\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: This is dependent on the broker according to The Options Industry Council. Your broker will specify what they would do upon expiry (or hours before last trade) if you did not indicate your preference. Most likely they will conduct a probabilistic simulation to see whether exercising the contracts may result in margin deficit even after selling the delivered shares under extreme circumstances. In most cases, brokers tend to liquidate the option for you (sell to close) before expiry. I've seen people complain about certain brokers forcing liquidation at terrible bid-ask spreads even though the options are still days to expiry. It is better for you to close the position on your own beforehand. The best brokers would allow margin deficit and let you deposit the required amount of money afterward. Please consult your broker's materials. If you can't find them, use live chat or email tickets.\",\n \"qid\": 10979,\n \"docid\": \"151587\",\n \"rank\": 100,\n \"score\": 84964\n }\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":644,"cells":{"query":{"kind":"string","value":"Net loss not distributed by mutual funds to their shareholders?"},"hits":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"Title: Content: Generally speaking, each year, mutual funds distribute to their shareholders the dividends that are earned by the stocks that they hold and also the net capital gains that they make when they sell stocks that they hold. If they did not do so, the money would be income to the fund and the fund would have to pay taxes on the amount not distributed. (On the other hand, net capital losses are held by the fund and carried forward to later years to offset future capital gains). You pay taxes on the amounts of the distributions declared by the fund. Whether the fund sold a particular stock for a loss or a gain (and if so, how much) is not the issue; what the fund declares as its distribution is. This is why it is not a good idea to buy a mutual fund just before it makes a distribution; your share price drops by the per-share amount of the distribution, and you have to pay taxes on the distribution.","qid":10994,"docid":"486974","rank":1,"score":198269},{"content":"Title: Content: \"I'll try to answer using your original example. First, let me restate your assumptions, slightly modified: The mutual fund has: Note that I say the \"\"mutual fund has\"\" those gains and losses. That's because they occur inside the mutual fund and not directly to you as a shareholder. I use \"\"realized\"\" gains and losses because the only gains and losses handled this way are those causes by actual asset (stock) sales within the fund (as directed by fund management). Changes in the value of fund holdings that are not sold are not included in this. As a holder of the fund, you learn the values of X, Y, and Z after the end of the year when the fund management reports the values. For gains, you will also typically see the values reported on your 1099-DIV under \"\"capital gains distributions\"\". For example, your 1099-DIV for year 3 will have the value Z for capital gains (besides reporting any ordinary dividends in another box). Your year 1 1099 will have $0 \"\"capital gains distributions\"\" shown because of the rule you highlighted in bold: net realized losses are not distributed. This capital loss however can later be used to the mutual fund holder's tax advantage. The fund's internal accounting carries forward the loss, and uses it to offset later realized gains. Thus your year 2 1099 will have a capital gain distribution of (Y-X), not Y, thus recognizing the loss which occurred. Thus the loss is taken into account. Note that for capital gains you, the holder, pay no tax in year 1, pay tax in year 2 on Y-X, and pay tax in year 3 on Z. All the above is the way it works whether or not you sell the shares immediately after the end of year 3 or you hold the shares for many more years. Whenever you do sell the shares, you will have a gain or loss, but that is different from the fund's realized losses we have been talking about (X, Y, and Z).\"","qid":10994,"docid":"212394","rank":2,"score":179712},{"content":"Title: Content: A mutual fund makes distributions of its dividends and capital gains, usually once a year, or seminanually or quarterly or monthly etc; it does not distribute any capital losses to its shareholders but holds them for offsetting capital gains in future years, (cf, this answer of mine to a different question). A stock pays dividends; a stock neither has nor does it distribute capital gains: you get capital gains (or losses) when you sell the shares of the stock, but these are not called distributions of any kind. Similarly, you incur capital gains or losses when you redeem shares of mutual funds but these are not called distributions either. Note that non-ETF mutual fund shares are generally not bought and sold on stock exchanges; you buy shares directly from the fund and you sell shares back (redeem them) directly to the fund. All of the above transactions are taxable events for the year to you unless the shares are being held in a tax-deferred account or are tax-free for other reasons (e.g. dividends from a municipal bond fund).","qid":10994,"docid":"110343","rank":3,"score":159110},{"content":"Title: Content: This is really an extended comment on the last paragraph of @BenMiller's answer. When (the manager of) a mutual fund sells securities that the fund holds for a profit, or receives dividends (stock dividends, bond interest, etc.), the fund has the option of paying taxes on that money (at corporate rates) and distributing the rest to shareholders in the fund, or passing on the entire amount (categorized as dividends, qualified dividends, net short-term capital gains, and net long-term capital gains) to the shareholders who then pay taxes on the money that they receive at their own respective tax rates. (If the net gains are negative, i.e. losses, they are not passed on to the shareholders. See the last paragraph below). A shareholder doesn't have to reinvest the distribution amount into the mutual fund: the option of receiving the money as cash always exists, as does the option of investing the distribution into a different mutual fund in the same family, e.g. invest the distributions from Vanguard's S&P 500 Index Fund into Vanguard's Total Bond Index Fund (and/or vice versa). This last can be done without needing a brokerage account, but doing it across fund families will require the money to transit through a brokerage account or a personal account. Such cross-transfers can be helpful in reducing the amounts of money being transferred in re-balancing asset allocations as is recommended be done once or twice a year. Those investing in load funds instead of no-load funds should keep in mind that several load funds waive the load for re-investment of distributions but some funds don't: the sales charge for the reinvestment is pure profit for the fund if the fund was purchased directly or passed on to the brokerage if the fund was purchased through a brokerage account. As Ben points out, a shareholder in a mutual fund must pay taxes (in the appropriate categories) on the distributions from the fund even though no actual cash has been received because the entire distribution has been reinvested. It is worth keeping in mind that when the mutual fund declares a distribution (say $1.22 a share), the Net Asset Value per share drops by the same amount (assuming no change in the prices of the securities that the fund holds) and the new shares issued are at this lower price. That is, there is no change in the value of the investment: if you had $10,000 in the fund the day before the distribution was declared, you still have $10,000 after the distribution is declared but you own more shares in the fund than you had previously. (In actuality, the new shares appear in your account a couple of days later, not immediately when the distribution is declared). In short, a distribution from a mutual fund that is re-invested leads to no change in your net assets, but does increase your tax liability. Ditto for a distribution that is taken as cash or re-invested elsewhere. As a final remark, net capital losses inside a mutual fund are not distributed to shareholders but are retained within the fund to be written off against future capital gains. See also this previous answer or this one.","qid":10994,"docid":"403701","rank":4,"score":145914},{"content":"Title: Content: You did something that you shouldn't have done; you bought a dividend. Most mutual fund companies have educational materials on their sites that recommend against making new investments in mutual funds in the last two months of the year because most mutual funds distribute their earnings (dividends, capital gains etc) to their shareholders in December, and the share price of the funds goes down in the amount of the per share distribution. These distributions can be taken in cash or can be re-invested in the fund; you most likely chose the latter option (it is often the default choice if you ignored all this because you are a newbie). For those who choose to reinvest, the number of shares in the mutual fund increases, but since the price of the shares has decreased, the net amount remains the same. You own more shares at a lower price than the day before when the price was higher but the total value of your account is the same (ignoring normal market fluctuations in the price of the actual stocks held by the fund. Regardless of whether you take the distributions as cash or re-invest in the fund, that money is taxable income to you (unless the fund is owned inside a 401k or IRA or other tax-deferred investment program). You bought 56 shares at a price of $17.857 per share (net cost $1000). The fund distributed its earnings shortly thereafter and gave you 71.333-56= 15.333 additional shares. The new share price is $14.11. So, the total value of your investment is $1012, but the amount that you have invested in the account is the original $1000 plus the amount of the distribution which is (roughly) $14.11 x 15.333 = $216. Your total investment of $1216 is now worth $1012 only, and so you have actually lost money. Besides, you owe income tax on that $216 dividend that you received. Do you see why the mutual fund companies recommend against making new investments late in the year? If you had waited till after the mutual fund had made its distribution, you could have bought $1000/14.11 = 70.871 shares and wouldn't have owed tax on that distribution that you just bought by making the investment just before the distribution was made. See also my answer to this recent question about investing in mutual funds.","qid":10994,"docid":"583203","rank":5,"score":137558},{"content":"Title: Content: \"This answer is applicable to the US. Similar rules may hold in some other countries as well. The shares in an open-ended (non-exchange-traded) mutual fund are not traded on stock exchanges and the \"\"market\"\" does not determine the share price the way it does for shares in companies as brokers make offers to buy and sell stock shares. The price of one share of the mutual fund (usually called Net Asset Value (NAV) per share) is usually calculated at the close of business, and is, as the name implies, the net worth of all the shares in companies that the fund owns plus cash on hand etc divided by the number of mutual fund shares outstanding. The NAV per share of a mutual fund might or might not increase in anticipation of the distribution to occur, but the NAV per share very definitely falls on the day that the distribution is declared. If you choose to re-invest your distribution in the same fund, then you will own more shares at a lower NAV per share but the total value of your investment will not change at all. If you had 100 shares currently priced at $10 and the fund declares a distribution of $2 per share, you will be reinvesting $200 to buy more shares but the fund will be selling you additional shares at $8 per share (and of course, the 100 shares you hold will be priced at $8 per share too. So, you will have 100 previous shares worth only $800 now + 25 new shares worth $200 for a total of 125 shares at $8 = $1000 total investment, just as before. If you take the distribution in cash, then you still hold the 100 shares but they are worth only $800 now, and the fund will send you the $200 as cash. Either way, there is no change in your net worth. However, (assuming that the fund is is not in a tax-advantaged account), that $200 is taxable income to you regardless of whether you reinvest it or take it as cash. The fund will tell you what part of that $200 is dividend income (as well as what part is Qualified Dividend income), what part is short-term capital gains, and what part is long-term capital gains; you declare the income in the appropriate categories on your tax return, and are taxed accordingly. So, what advantage is there in re-investing? Well, your basis in those shares has increased and so if and when you sell the shares, you will owe less tax. If you had bought the original 100 shares at $10 and sell the 125 shares a few years later at $11 and collect $1375, you owe (long-term capital gains) tax on just $1375-$1200 =$175 (which can also be calculated as $1 gain on each of the original 100 shares = $100 plus $3 gain on the 25 new shares = $175). In the past, some people would forget the intermediate transactions and think that they had invested $1000 initially and gotten $1375 back for a gain of $375 and pay taxes on $375 instead. This is less likely to occur now since mutual funds are now required to report more information on the sale to the shareseller than they used to in the past. So, should you buy shares in a mutual fund right now? Most mutual fund companies publish preliminary estimates in November and December of what distributions each fund will be making by the end of the year. They also usually advise against purchasing new shares during this period because one ends up \"\"buying a dividend\"\". If, for example, you bought those 100 shares at $10 on the Friday after Thanksgiving and the fund distributes that $2 per share on December 15, you still have $1000 on December 15, but now owe taxes on $200 that you would not have had to pay if you had postponed buying those shares till after the distribution was paid. Nitpickers: for simplicity of exposition, I have not gone into the detailed chronology of when the fund goes ex-dividend, when the distribution is recorded, and when cash is paid out, etc., but merely treated all these events as happening simultaneously.\"","qid":10994,"docid":"354136","rank":6,"score":135433},{"content":"Title: Content: When you invest (say $1000) in (say 100 shares) of a mutual fund at $10 per share, and the price of the shares changes, you do not have a capital gain or loss, and you do not have to declare anything to the IRS or make any entry on any line on Form 1040 or tell anyone else about it either. You can brag about it at parties if the share price has gone up, or weep bitter tears into your cocktail if the price has gone down, but the IRS not only does not care, but it will not let you deduct the paper loss or pay taxes on the paper gain. What you put down on Form 1040 Schedules B and D is precisely what the mutual fund will tell you on Form 1099-DIV (and Form 1099-B), no more, no less. If you did not report any of these amounts on your previous tax returns, you need to file amended tax returns, both Federal as well as State, A stock mutual fund invests in stocks and the fund manager may buy and sell some stocks during the course of the year. If he makes a profit, that money will be distributed to the share holders of the mutual fund. That money can be re-invested in more shares of the same mutual fund or taken as cash (and possibly invested in some other fund). This capital gain distribution is reported to you on Form 1099-DIV and you have to report sit on your tax return even if you re-invested in more share of the same mutual fund, and the amount of the distribution is taxable income to you. Similarly, if the stocks owned by the mutual fund pay dividends, those will be passed on to you as a dividend distribution and all the above still applies. You can choose to reinvest, etc, the amount will be reported to you on Form 1099-DIV, and you need to report it to the IRS and include it in your taxable income. If the mutual fund manager loses money in the buying and selling he will not tell you that he lost money but it will be visible as a reduction in the price of the shares. The loss will not be reported to you on Form 1099-DIV and you cannot do anything about it. Especially important, you cannot declare to the IRS that you have a loss and you cannot deduct the loss on your income tax returns that year. When you finally sell your shares in the mutual fund, you will have a gain or loss that you can pay taxes on or deduct. Say the mutual fund paid a dividend of $33 one year and you re-invested the money into the mutual fund, buying 3 shares at the then cost of $11 per share. You declare the $33 on your tax return that year and pay taxes on it. Two years later, you sell all 103 shares that you own for $10.50 per share. Your total investment was $1000 + $33 = $1033. You get $1081.50 from the fund, and you will owe taxes on $1081.50 - $1033 = $48.50. You have a profit of $50 on the 100 shares originally bought and a loss of $1.50 on the 3 shares bought for $11: the net result is a gain of $48.50. You do not pay taxes on $81.50 as the profit from your original $1000 investment; you pay taxes only on $48.50 (remember that you already paid taxes on the $33). The mutual fund will report on Form 1099-B that you sold 103 shares for $1081.50 and that you bought the 103 shares for an average price of $1033/103 = $10.029 per share. The difference is taxable income to you. If you sell the 103 shares for $9 per share (say), then you get $927 out of an investment of $1033 for a capital loss of $106. This will be reported to you on Form 1099-B and you will enter the amounts on Schedule D of Form 1040 as a capital loss. What you actually pay taxes on is the net capital gain, if any, after combining all your capital gains and losses for the year. If the net is a loss, you can deduct up to $3000 in a year, and carry the rest forward to later years to offset capital gains in later years. But, your unrealized capital gains or losses (those that occur because the mutual fund share price goes up and down like a yoyo while you grin or grit your teeth and hang on to your shares) are not reported or deducted or taxed anywhere. It is more complicated when you don't sell all the shares you own in the mutual fund or if you sell shares within one year of buying them, but let's stick to simple cases.","qid":10994,"docid":"496820","rank":7,"score":130194},{"content":"Title: Content: \"A mutual fund's return or yield has nothing to do with what you receive from the mutual fund. The annual percentage return is simply the percentage increase (or decrease!) of the value of one share of the mutual fund from January 1 till December 31. The cash value of any distributions (dividend income, short-term capital gains, long-term capital gains) might be reported separately or might be included in the annual return. What you receive from the mutual fund is the distributions which you have the option of taking in cash (and spending on whatever you like, or investing elsewhere) or of re-investing into the fund without ever actually touching the money. Regardless of whether you take a distribution as cash or re-invest it in the mutual fund, that amount is taxable income in most jurisdictions. In the US, long-term capital gains are taxed at different (lower) rates than ordinary income, and I believe that long-term capital gains from mutual funds are not taxed at all in India. You are not taxed on the increase in the value of your investment caused by an increase in the share price over the year nor do you get deduct the \"\"loss\"\" if the share price declined over the year. It is only when you sell the mutual fund shares (back to the mutual fund company) that you have to pay taxes on the capital gains (if you sold for a higher price) or deduct the capital loss (if you sold for a lower price) than the purchase price of the shares. Be aware that different shares in the sale might have different purchase prices because they were bought at different times, and thus have different gains and losses. So, how do you calculate your personal return from the mutual fund investment? If you have a money management program or a spreadsheet program, it can calculate your return for you. If you have online access to your mutual fund account on its website, it will most likely have a tool called something like \"\"Personal rate of return\"\" and this will provide you with the same calculations without your having to type in all the data by hand. Finally, If you want to do it personally by hand, I am sure that someone will soon post an answer writing out the gory details.\"","qid":10994,"docid":"88575","rank":8,"score":124965},{"content":"Title: Content: \"A nondividend distribution is typically a return of capital; in other words, you're getting money back that you've contributed previously (and thus would have been taxed upon in previous years when those funds were first remunerated to you). Nondividend distributions are nontaxable, so they do not represent income from capital gains, but do effect your cost basis when determining the capital gain/loss once that capital gain/loss is realized. As an example, publicly-traded real estate investment trusts (REITs) generally distribute a return of capital back to shareholders throughout the year as a nondividend distribution. This is a return of a portion of the shareholder's original capital investment, not a share of the REITs profits, so it is simply getting a portion of your original investment back, and thus, is not income being received (I like to refer to it as \"\"new income\"\" to differentiate). However, the return of capital does change the cost basis of the original investment, so if one were to then sell the shares of the REIT (in this example), the basis of the original investment has to be adjusted by the nondividend distributions received over the course of ownership (in other words, the cost basis will be reduced when the shares are sold). I'm wondering if the OP could give us some additional information about his/her S-Corp. What type of business is it? In the course of its business and trade activity, does it buy and sell securities (stocks, etc.)? Does it sell assets or business property? Does it own interests in other corporations or partnerships (sales of those interests are one form of capital gain). Long-term capital gains are taxed at rates lower than ordinary income, but the IRS has very specific rules as to what constitutes a capital gain (loss). I hate to answer a question with a question, but we need a little more information before we can weigh-in on whether you have actual capital gains or losses in the course of your S-Corporation trade.\"","qid":10994,"docid":"193485","rank":9,"score":124057},{"content":"Title: Content: \"How is that possible?? The mutual fund doesn't pay taxes and passes along the tax bill to shareholders via distributions would be the short answer. Your basis likely changed as now you have bought more shares. But I gained absolutely nothing from my dividend, so how is it taxable? The fund has either realized capital gains, dividends, interest or some other form of income that it has to pass along to shareholders as the fund doesn't pay taxes itself. Did I get screwed the first year because I bought into the fund too late in the year? Perhaps if you don't notice that your cost basis has changed here so that you'll have lower taxes when you sell your shares. Is anyone familiar with what causes this kind of situation of receiving a \"\"taxable dividend\"\" that doesn't actually increase the account balance? Yes, I am rather familiar with this. The point to understand is that the fund doesn't pay taxes itself but passes this along. The shareholders that hold funds in tax-advantaged accounts like 401ks and IRAs still get the distribution but are shielded from paying taxes on those gains at that point at time. Is it because I bought too late in the year? No, it is because you didn't know the fund would have a distribution of that size that year. Some funds can have negative returns yet still have a capital gains distribution if the fund experiences enough redemptions that the fund had to sell appreciated shares in a security. This is part of the risk in having stock funds in taxable accounts. Or is it because the fund had a negative return that year? No, it is because you don't understand how mutual funds and taxes work along with what distribution schedule the fund had. Do I wait until after the distribution date this year to buy? I'd likely consider it for taxable accounts yes. However, if you are buying in a tax-advantaged account then there isn't that same issue.\"","qid":10994,"docid":"545491","rank":10,"score":123193},{"content":"Title: Content: The net return reported to you (as a percentage) by a mutual fund is the gross return minus the expense ratio. So, if the gross return is X% and the expense ratio is Y%, your account will show a return of (X-Y)%. Be aware that X could be negative too. So, with Y = 1, If X = 10 (as you might get from a stock fund if you believe historical averages will continue), then the net return is 9% and you have lost (Y/X) times 100% = 10% of the gross return. If X = 8 (as you might get from a bond fund if you believe historical averages will continue), then the net return is 7% and you have lost (Y/X) times 100% = 12.5% of the gross return. and so on and so forth. The numbers used are merely examples of the returns that have been obtained historically, though it is worth emphasizing that 10% is an average return, averaged over many decades, from investments in stocks, and to believe that one will get a 10% return year after year is to mislead oneself very badly. I think the point of the illustrations is that expense ratios are important, and should matter a lot to you, but that their impact is proportionately somewhat less if the gross return is high, but very significant if the gross return is low, as in money-market funds. In fact, some money market funds which found that X < Y have even foregone charging the expense ratio fee so as to maintain a fixed $1 per share price. Personally, I would need a lot of persuading to invest in even a stock fund with 1% expense ratio.","qid":10994,"docid":"361013","rank":11,"score":122433},{"content":"Title: Content: \"A mutual fund could make two different kinds of distributions to you: Capital gains: When the fund liquidates positions that it holds, it may realize a gain if it sells the assets for a greater price than the fund purchased them for. As an example, for an index fund, assets may get liquidated if the underlying index changes in composition, thus requiring the manager to sell some stocks and purchase others. Mutual funds are required to distribute most of their income that they generate in this way back to its shareholders; many often do this near the end of the calendar year. When you receive the distribution, the gains will be categorized as either short-term (the asset was held for less than one year) or long-term (vice versa). Based upon the holding period, the gain is taxed differently. Currently in the United States, long-term capital gains are only taxed at 15%, regardless of your income tax bracket (you only pay the capital gains tax, not the income tax). Short-term capital gains are treated as ordinary income, so you will pay your (probably higher) tax rate on any cash that you are given by your mutual fund. You may also be subject to capital gains taxes when you decide to sell your holdings in the fund. Any profit that you made based on the difference between your purchase and sale price is treated as a capital gain. Based upon the period of time that you held the mutual fund shares, it is categorized as a short- or long-term gain and is taxed accordingly in the tax year that you sell the shares. Dividends: Many companies pay dividends to their stockholders as a way of returning a portion of their profits to their collective owners. When you invest in a mutual fund that owns dividend-paying stocks, the fund is the \"\"owner\"\" that receives the dividend payments. As with capital gains, mutual funds will redistribute these dividends to you periodically, often quarterly or annually. The main difference with dividends is that they are always taxed as ordinary income, no matter how long you (or the fund) have held the asset. I'm not aware of Texas state tax laws, so I can't comment on your other question.\"","qid":10994,"docid":"45190","rank":12,"score":122324},{"content":"Title: Content: \"Mutual funds don't pay taxes themselves, they distribute any dividends or capital gains to the shareholders. Thus, if you hold a mutual fund in a tax-advantaged account like a 401k or IRA then the distribution isn't a taxable event while in a regular taxable account you would have to pay taxes on the distributions. From Forbes: There can be foreign companies on US stock exchanges that would still work the same way. Unilever for example is an Anglo-Dutch multinational listed on the NYSE as \"\"UN.\"\"\"","qid":10994,"docid":"407185","rank":13,"score":122264},{"content":"Title: Content: \"FSEMX has an annual expense ratio of 0.1% which is very low. What that means is that each month, the FSEMX will pay itself one-twelfth of 0.1% of the total value of all the shares owned by the shareholders in the mutual fund. If the fund has cash on hand from its trading activities or dividends collected from companies whose stock is owned by FSEMX or interest on bonds owned by FSEMX, the money comes out of that, but if there is no such pot (or the pot is not large enough), then the fund manager has the authority to sell some shares of the stocks held by FSEMX so that the employees can be paid, etc. If the total of cash generated by the trading and the dividend collection in a given year is (say) 3% of the share value of all the outstanding mutual fund, then only 2.9% will be paid out as dividend and capital gain distribution income to the share holders, the remaining 0.1% already having been paid to FSEMX management for operating expenses. It is important to keep in mind that expenses are always paid even if there are no profits, or even if there are losses that year so that no dividends or capital gains distributions are made. You don't see the expenses explicitly on any statement that you receive. If FSEMX sells shares of stocks that it holds to pay the expenses, this reduces the share value (NAV) of the mutual fund shares that you hold. So, if your mutual fund account \"\"lost\"\" 20% in value that year because the market was falling, and you got no dividend or capital gains distributions either, remember that only 19.9% of that loss can be blamed on the President or Congress or Wall Street or public-sector unions or your neighbor's refusal to ditch his old PC in favor of a new Mac, and the rest (0.1%) has gone to FSEMX to pay for fees you agreed to when you bought FSEMX shares. If you invest directly in FSEMX through Fidelity's web site, there is no sales charge, and you pay no expenses other than the 0.1% annual expense ratio. There is a fee for selling FSEMX shares after owning them only for a short time since the fund wants to discourage short-term investors. Whatever other fees finance.yahoo.com lists might be descriptive of the uses that FSEMX puts its expense ratio income to in its internal management, but are not of any importance to the prudent investor in FSEMX who will never encounter them or have to pay them.\"","qid":10994,"docid":"155797","rank":14,"score":121905},{"content":"Title: Content: The price of a share of a mutual fund is its Net Asset Value (nav). Before the payout of dividends and capital gain distribution, the fund was holding both stock shares and cash that resulted from dividends and capital gains. After the payout, a share only holds the stock. Therefore once the cash is paid out the NAV must drop by the same amount as was paid out per share. Thus of course assumes no other activity or valuation changes of the underlying assets. Regular market activity will obscure what the payout does to the NAV.","qid":10994,"docid":"315345","rank":15,"score":121853},{"content":"Title: Content: \"In the case of mutual funds, Net Asset Value (NAV) is the price used to buy and sell shares. NAV is just the value of the underlying assets (which are in turn valued by their underlying holdings and future earnings). So if a fund hands out a billion dollars, it stands to reason their NAV*shares (market cap?) is a billion dollars less. Shareholder's net worth is equal in either scenario, but after the dividend is paid they are more liquid. For people who need investment income to live on, dividends are a cheap way to hold stocks and get regular payments, versus having to sell part of your portfolio every month. But for people who want to hold their investment in the market for a long long time, dividends only increase the rate at which you have to buy. For mutual funds this isn't a problem: you buy the funds and tell them to reinvest for free. So because of that, it's a prohibited practice to \"\"sell\"\" dividends to clients.\"","qid":10994,"docid":"232932","rank":16,"score":121565},{"content":"Title: Content: \"1) When it says \"\"an investment or mutual fund\"\", is a mutual fund not an investment? If no, what is the definition of an investment? A mutual fund is indeed an investment. The article probably mentions mutual funds separately from other investments because it is not uncommon for mutual funds to give you the option to automatically reinvest dividends and capital gains. 2) When it says \"\"In terms of stocks\"\", why does it only mention distribution of dividends but not distribution of capital gains? Since distributions are received as cash deposits they can be used to buy more of the stock. Capital gains, on the other hand, occur when an asset increases in value. These gains are realized when the asset is sold. In the case of stocks, reinvestment of capital gains doesn't make much sense since buying more stock after selling it to realize capital gains results in you owning as much stock as you had before you realized the gains. 3) When it says \"\"In terms of mutual funds\"\", it says about \"\"the reinvestment of distributions and dividends\"\". Does \"\"distributions\"\" not include distributions of \"\"dividends\"\"? why does it mention \"\"distributions\"\" parallel to \"\"dividends\"\"? Used in this setting, dividend and distribution are synonymous, which is highlighted by the way they are used in parallel. 4) Does reinvestment only apply to interest or dividends, but not to capital gain? Reinvestment only applies to dividends in the case of stocks. Mutual funds must distribute capital gains to shareholders, making these distributions essentially cash dividends, usually as a special end of year distribution. If you've requested automatic reinvestment, the fund will buy more shares with these capital gain distributions as well.\"","qid":10994,"docid":"403755","rank":17,"score":118355},{"content":"Title: Content: \"Usually there are annual or semi-annual reports for a mutual fund that may give an idea for when a fund will have \"\"distributions\"\" which can cause the NAV to fall as this is when the fund passes the taxable liabilities to shareholders in the form of a dividend. Alternatively, the prospectus of the fund may also have the data on the recent distribution history that is likely what you want. If you don't understand why a fund would have a distribution, I highly suggest researching the legal structure of an open-end mutual fund where there more than a few rules about how taxes are handled for this case.\"","qid":10994,"docid":"155254","rank":18,"score":118116},{"content":"Title: Content: There are at least a couple of ways you could view this to my mind: Make an Excel spreadsheet and use the IRR function to compute the rate of return you are having based on money being added. Re-invested distributions in a mutual fund aren't really an additional investment as the Net Asset Value of the fund will drop by the amount of the distribution aside from market fluctuation. This is presuming you want a raw percentage that could be tricky to compare to other funds without doing more than a bit of work in a way. Look at what is the fund's returns compared to both the category and the index it is tracking. The tracking error is likely worth noting as some index funds could lag the index by a sizable margin and thus may not be that great. At the same time there may exist cases where an index fund isn't quite measuring up that well. The Small-Growth Indexing Anomaly would be the William Bernstein article from 2001 that has some facts and figures for this that may be useful.","qid":10994,"docid":"470687","rank":19,"score":117358},{"content":"Title: Content: Mutual funds (that are not exchange-traded funds) often need to sell some of their securities to get cash when a shareholder redeems some shares. Such transactions incur costs that are paid (proportionally) by all the shareholders in the fund, not just the person requesting redemption, and thus the remaining shareholders get a lower return. (Exchange-traded funds are traded as if they are shares of common stock, and a shareholder seeking a redemption pays the costs of the redemption). For this reason, many mutual funds do not allow redemptions for some period of time after a purchase, or purchases for some period of time after a redemption. The periods of time are chosen by the fund, and are stated in the prospectus (which everyone has acknowledged has been received before an investment was made).","qid":10994,"docid":"522759","rank":20,"score":113463},{"content":"Title: Content: Capital gain distribution is not capital gain on sale of stock. If you have stock sales (Schedule D) you should be filing 1040, not 1040A. Capital gain distributions are distributions from mutual funds/ETFs that are attributed to capital gains of the funds (you may not have actually received the distribution, but you still may have gain attributed to you). It is reported on 1099-DIV, and if it is 0 - then you don't have any. If you sold a stock, your broker should have given you 1099-B (which is not the same as 1099-DIV, but may be consolidated by your broker into one large PDF and not provided separately). On 1099-B the sales proceeds are recorded, and if you purchased the stock after 2011 - the cost basis is also recorded. The difference between the proceeds and the cost basis is your gain (or loss, if it is negative). Fees are added to cost basis.","qid":10994,"docid":"350555","rank":21,"score":113215},{"content":"Title: Content: \"First, consider what causes taxes to apply to a mutual fund, index or actively managed. Dividends and capital gains are generally what will be distributed to shareholders given the nature of a mutual fund since the fund itself doesn't pay taxes. For funds held in IRAs or other tax-advantaged accounts, this isn't a concern and thus people may not have this concern for those situations which can account for a lot of investing situations as people may have 401(k)s and IRAs that hold their investments rather than taxable accounts. Second, there can be tax-managed funds so there can be cases where a fund is managed with taxes in mind that is worth noting here as what is referenced is a \"\"Dummies\"\" link that is making a generalization. For taxable accounts, it may make more sense to have a tax-managed fund rather than an index fund though I'd also argue to be careful of asset allocation as to maintain a purity of style can require selling of stocks that grow too big and thus trigger capital gains,e.g. small-cap and mid-cap funds that can't hold onto the winners as they would become mid-cap and large-cap instead of representing the proper asset class. A FUND THAT PLAYED IT SAFE--AND WAS SORRY would be a Businessweek story from 1998 of an actively managed fund that went mostly to cash and missed the rise of the stock market at that time if you want a specific example of what an actively managed fund can do that an index fund often cannot do. The index fund is to track the index and stay nearly all invested all the time.\"","qid":10994,"docid":"90858","rank":22,"score":111810},{"content":"Title: Content: There are very strict regulations that requires the assets which a fund buys on behalf of its investors to be kept completely separate from the fund's own assets (which it uses to pay its expenses), except for the published fees. Funds are typically audited regularly to ensure this is the case. So the only way in which a default of the fund could cause a loss of invstor money would be if the fund managers broke the regulations and committed various crimes. I've never heard of this actually happening to a normal mutual fund. There is of course also a default risk when a fund buys bonds or other non-equity securities, and this may sometimes be non-obvious. For example, some ETFs which are nominally based on a stock index don't actually buy stocks; instead they buy or sell options on those stocks, which involves a counterparty risk. The ETF may or may not have rules that limit the exposure to any one counterparty.","qid":10994,"docid":"563324","rank":23,"score":111581},{"content":"Title: Content: You do realize that the fund will have management expenses that are likely already factored into the NAV and that when you sell, the NAV will not yet be known, right? There are often fees to run a mutual fund that may be taken as part of managing the fund that are already factored into the Net Asset Value(NAV) of the shares that would be my caution as well as possible fee changes as Dilip Sarwate notes in a comment. Expense ratios are standard for mutual funds, yes. Individual stocks that represent corporations not structured as a mutual fund don't declare a ratio of how much are their costs, e.g. Apple or Google may well invest in numerous other companies but the costs of making those investments won't be well detailed though these companies do have non-investment operations of course. Don't forget to read the fund's prospectus as sometimes a fund will have other fees like account maintenance fees that may be taken out of distributions as well as being aware of how taxes will be handled as you don't specify what kind of account these purchases are being done using.","qid":10994,"docid":"287537","rank":24,"score":111412},{"content":"Title: Content: The ETF is likely better in this case. The ETF will generally generate less capital gains taxes along the way. In order to pay off investors who leave a mutual fund, the manager will have to sell the fund's assets. This creates a capital gain, which must be distributed to shareholders at the end of the year. The mutual fund holder is essentially taxed on this turnover. The ETF does not have to sell any stock when an investor sells his shares because the investor sells the shares himself on the open market. This will result in a capital gain for the specific person exiting his position, but it does not create a taxable event for anyone else holding the ETF shares.","qid":10994,"docid":"153112","rank":25,"score":109379},{"content":"Title: Content: As the commenters have already indicated, money market mutual funds are not guaranteed to maintain principal during all market conditions, and investments in mutual funds are not insured against loss due to market changes. That said, you can run a price search on Vanguard's website and see these results: So, despite all the economic problems since 1975, VMMXX has never traded at a price other than $1.00.","qid":10994,"docid":"538060","rank":26,"score":109185},{"content":"Title: Content: Dividends from mutual funds reduce the share value the day they are distributed. Mutual funds do this at least once a year, or more times in the year if there are a lot of gains, to pass through taxable gains to individuals who may have lower tax rates or deferred tax accounts such as you. This is meaningful for investors who hold the mutual funds in taxable accounts, but immaterial for 401ks. Your account balance is not affected if you don't get the distribution before roll over.","qid":10994,"docid":"429568","rank":27,"score":108607},{"content":"Title: Content: The short answer is that you would want to use the net inflow or net outflow, aka profit or loss. In my experience, you've got a couple different uses for IRR and that may be driving the confusion. Pretty much the same formula, but just coming at it from different angles. Thinking about a stock or mutual fund investment, you could project a scenario with an up-front investment (net outflow) in the first period and then positive returns (dividends, then final sale proceeds, each a net inflow) in subsequent periods. This is a model that more closely follows some of the logic you laid out. Thinking about a business project or investment, you tend to see more complicated and less smooth cashflows. For example, you may have a large up-front capital expenditure in the first period, then have net profit (revenue less ongoing maintenance expense), then another large capital outlay, and so on. In both cases you would want to base your analysis on the net inflow or net outflow in each period. It just depends on the complexity of the cashflows trend as to whether you see a straightforward example (initial payment, then ongoing net inflows), or a less straightforward example with both inflows and outflows. One other thing to note - you would only want to include those costs that are applicable to the project. So you would not want to include the cost of overhead that would exist even if you did not undertake the project.","qid":10994,"docid":"209838","rank":28,"score":108332},{"content":"Title: Content: No, they do not. Stock funds and bonds funds collect income dividends in different ways. Stock funds collect dividends (as well as any capital gains that are realized) from the underlying stocks and incorporates these into the funds’ net asset value, or daily share price. That’s why a stock fund’s share price drops when the fund makes a distribution – the distribution comes out of the fund’s total net assets. With bond funds, the internal accounting is different: Dividends accrue daily, and are then paid out to shareholders every month or quarter. Bond funds collect the income from the underlying bonds and keep it in a separate internal “bucket.” A bond fund calculates a daily accrual rate for the shares outstanding, and shareholders only earn income for the days they actually hold the fund. For example, if you buy a bond fund two days before the fund’s month-end distribution, you would only receive two days’ worth of income that month. On the other hand, if you sell a fund part-way through the month, you will still receive a partial distribution at the end of the month, pro-rated for the days you actually held the fund. Source Also via bogleheads: Most Vanguard bond funds accrue interest to the share holders daily. Here is a typical statement from a prospectus: Each Fund distributes to shareholders virtually all of its net income (interest less expenses) as well as any net capital gains realized from the sale of its holdings. The Fund’s income dividends accrue daily and are distributed monthly. The term accrue used in this sense means that the income dividends are credited to your account each day, just like interest in a savings account that accrues daily. Since the money set aside for your dividends is both an asset of the fund and a liability, it does not affect the calculated net asset value. When the fund distributes the income dividends at the end of the month, the net asset value does not change as both the assets and liabilities decrease by exactly the same amount. [Note that if you sell all of your bond fund shares in the middle of the month, you will receive as proceeds the value of your shares (calculated as number of shares times net asset value) plus a separate distribution of the accrued income dividends.]","qid":10994,"docid":"110856","rank":29,"score":107302},{"content":"Title: Content: No. You shorted the stock so you are not a shareholder. If you covered your short, again you are not a shareholder as you statement of account must show. You cannot participate in the net settlement fund.","qid":10994,"docid":"202960","rank":30,"score":106618},{"content":"Title: Content: The 20%+ returns you have observed in the mutual funds are not free money. They are compensation for the risk associated with owning those funds. Given the extraordinarily high returns you are seeing I would expect extremely high risk. This means there is a good possibility of extreme losses at some point. By putting a lot of money in those mutual funds you are taking a gamble that may or may not pay off. Assuming what your friend is paying you for rent is fair, you are not losing money on your house relative to the market. You are earning less because you are invested in a less risky asset. If you want a higher return, you should borrow some money (or sell your house) and invest in the market. You may make more money that way. But if you do that, you will have a larger chance of losing a lot of money at some point. That's the way risk works. No one can promise a 20% return on a risky asset, they can only hint that it may do in the future what it did in the past. A reasonable approach to investment is to get invested in lots of different things: stocks, bonds, real estate. If you are afraid of risk and willing to earn less, keep more money in safe assets. If you are willing to take big risks in exchange for the possibility of high returns, move more assets into risky stuff. If you want extreme returns and are willing to take extreme risk, borrow and use the money to invest in risky assets. As you look over investment options, remember that anything that pays high returns most likely has high risk as well.","qid":10994,"docid":"445782","rank":31,"score":106434},{"content":"Title: Content: \"The \"\"risk\"\", other than losing principal (especially when rates go up) is capital gains. As with any mutual fund, this one might need to sell assets for cashflow. In which case the taxes on the sales are shifted to the investors. So you may end up with the fund losing value due to price fluctuations, yet you'll have capital gains (probably with a significant short term part since the maturity periods are relatively short) to pay taxes on. To what extent that may happen depends on the fund's cashflow (influx of money vs. withdrawals). Capital gains reduce your basis (since no money is actually distributed), but if you hold the fund for more than a year - you lose the difference between the short term and the long term tax for the short term portion of the gains.\"","qid":10994,"docid":"472159","rank":32,"score":106137},{"content":"Title: Content: Vanguard (and probably other mutual fund brokers as well) offers easy-to-read performance charts that show the total change in value of a $10K investment over time. This includes the fair market value of the fund plus any distributions (i.e. dividends) paid out. On Vanguard's site they also make a point to show the impact of fees in the chart, since their low fees are their big selling point. Some reasons why a dividend is preferable to selling shares: no loss of voting power, no transaction costs, dividends may have better tax consequences for you than capital gains. NOTE: If your fund is underperforming the benchmark, it is not due to the payment of dividends. Funds do not pay their own dividends; they only forward to shareholders the dividends paid out by the companies in which they invest. So the fair market value of the fund should always reflect the fair market value of the companies it holds, and those companies' shares are the ones that are fluctuating when they pay dividends. If your fund is underperforming its benchmark, then that is either because it is not tracking the benchmark closely enough or because it is charging high fees. The fact that the underperformance you're seeing appears to be in the amount of dividends paid is a coincidence. Check out this example Vanguard performance chart for an S&P500 index fund. Notice how if you add the S&P500 index benchmark to the plot you can't even see the difference between the two -- the fund is designed to track the benchmark exactly. So when IBM (or whoever) pays out a dividend, the index goes down in value and the fund goes down in value.","qid":10994,"docid":"584128","rank":33,"score":106108},{"content":"Title: Content: Generally, ETFs and mutual funds don't pay taxes (although there are some cases where they do, and some countries where it is a common case). What happens is, the fund reports the portion of the gain attributed to each investor, and the investor pays the tax. In the US, this is reported to you on 1099-DIV as capital gains distribution, and can be either short term (as in the scenario you described), long term, or a mix of both. It doesn't mean you actually get a distribution, though, but if you don't - it reduces your basis.","qid":10994,"docid":"350317","rank":34,"score":105740},{"content":"Title: Content: https://personal.vanguard.com/pub/Pdf/sai059.pdf?2210128720 your colleague's right. *The Agreement provides that the Funds will not contribute to Vanguard’s capitalization or pay for corporate management, administrative, and distribution services provided by Vanguard. However, each Fund will bear its own direct expenses, such as legal, auditing, and custodial fees. In addition, the Agreement further provides that the Funds’ direct expenses will be offset, in whole or in part, by a reimbursement from Vanguard for (1) the Funds’ contributions to the cost of operating the underlying Vanguard funds in which the Funds invest and (2) certain savings in administrative and marketing costs that Vanguard expects to derive from the Funds’ operations.* **The Funds expect that the reimbursements should be sufficient to offset most or all of the direct expenses incurred by each Fund.** *Therefore, the Funds are expected to operate at a very low—or zero—direct expense ratio. Of course, there is no guarantee that this will always be the case. Although the Funds are not expected to incur any net expenses directly, the Funds’ shareholders indirectly bear the expenses of the underlying Vanguard funds.* It's basically a gamble...","qid":10994,"docid":"211810","rank":35,"score":105284},{"content":"Title: Content: \"It sounds like this is an entirely unsettled question, unfortunately. In the examples you provide, I think it is safe to say that none of those are 'substantially identical'; a small overlap or no overlap certainly should not be considered such by a reasonable interpretation of the rule. This article on Kitces goes into some detail on the topic. A few specifics. First, Former publication 564 explains: Ordinarily, shares issued by one mutual fund are not considered to be substantially identical to shares issued by another mutual fund. Of course, what \"\"ordinarily\"\" means is unspecified (and this is no longer a current publication, so, who knows). The Kitces article goes on to explain that the IRS hasn't really gone after wash sales for mutual funds: Over the years, the IRS has not pursued wash sale abuses against mutual funds, perhaps because it just wasn’t very feasible to crack down on them, or perhaps because it just wasn’t perceived as that big of an abuse. After all, while the rules might allow you to loss-harvest a particular stock you couldn’t have otherwise, it also limits you from harvesting ANY losses if the overall fund is up in the aggregate, since losses on individual stocks can’t pass through to the mutual fund shareholders. But then goes to explain about ETFs being very different: sell SPY, buy IVV or VTI, and you're basically buying/selling the identical thing (99% or so correlation in stocks owned). The recommendation by the article is to look at the correlation in owned stocks, and stay away from things over 95%; that seems reasonable in my book as well. Ultimately, there will no doubt be a large number of “grey” and murky situations, but I suspect that until the IRS provides better guidance (or Congress rewrites/updates the wash sale rules altogether!), in the near term the easiest “red flag” warning is simply to look at the correlation between the original investment being loss-harvested, and the replacement security; at correlations above 0.95, and especially at 0.99+, it’s difficult to argue that the securities are not ”substantially identical” to each other in performance. Basically - use common sense, and don't do anything you think would be hard to defend in an audit, but otherwise you should be okay.\"","qid":10994,"docid":"530631","rank":36,"score":104906},{"content":"Title: Content: I strongly suggest you go to www.investor.gov as it has excellent information regarding these types of questions. A mutual fund is a company that pools money from many investors and invests the money in securities such as stocks, bonds, and short-term debt. The combined holdings of the mutual fund are known as its portfolio. Investors buy shares in mutual funds. Each share represents an investor’s part ownership in the fund and the income it generates. When you buy shares of a mutual fund you're buying it at NAV, or net asset value. The NAV is the value of the fund’s assets minus its liabilities. SEC rules require funds to calculate the NAV at least once daily. Different funds may own thousands of different stocks. In order to calculate the NAV, the fund company must value every security it owns. Since each security's valuation is changing throughout the day it's difficult to determine the valuation of the mutual fund except for when the market is closed. Once the market has closed (4pm eastern) and securities are no longer trading, the company must get accurate valuations for every security and perform the valuation calculations and distribute the results to the pricing vendors. This has to be done by 6pm eastern. This is a difficult and, more importantly, a time consuming process to get it done right once per day. Having worked for several fund companies I can tell you there are many days where companies are getting this done at the very last minute. When you place a buy or sell order for a mutual fund it doesn't matter what time you placed it as long as you entered it before 4pm ET. Cutoff times may be earlier depending on who you're placing the order with. If companies had to price their funds more frequently, they would undoubtedly raise their fees.","qid":10994,"docid":"245867","rank":37,"score":104786},{"content":"Title: Content: Fund rebalancing typically refers to changing the investment mix to stay within the guidelines of the mutual fund objective. For example, lets say a fund is supposed to have at least 20% in bonds. Because of a dramatic increase in stock price and decrease in bond values it finds itself with only 19.9% in bonds at the end of the trading day. The fund manager would sell sufficient equities to reduce its equity holdings and buy more bonds. Rebalancing is not always preferential because it could cause capital gain distribution, typically once per year, without selling the fund. And really any trading within the fun could do the same. In the case you cite the verbiage is confusing. Often times I wonder if the author knows less then the reader. It might also be a bit of a rush to get the article out, and the author did not write correctly. I agree that the ETFs cited are suitable for short term traders. However, that is because, traditionaly, the market has increased in value over the long term. If you bet it will go down over the long term, you are almost certain to lose money. Like you, I cannot figure out how rebalancing makes this suitable only for short term traders. If the ETFs distribute capital gains events much more frequently then once per year, that is worth mentioning, but does not provide a case for short versus long term traders. Secondly, I don't think these funds are doing true rebalancing. They might change investments daily for the most likely profitable outcome, but that really isn't rebalancing. It seems the author is confused.","qid":10994,"docid":"108721","rank":38,"score":104758},{"content":"Title: Content: For the Roth the earnings: interest, dividends, capital gains distributions and capital gains are tax deferred. Which means that as long as the money stays inside of a Roth or is transferred/rolled over to another Roth there are no taxes due. In December many mutual funds distribute their gains. Let's say people invested in S&P500index fund receive a dividend of 1% of their account value. The investor in a non-retirement fund will be paying tax on that dividend in the Spring with their tax form. The Roth and IRA investors will not be paying tax on those dividends. The Roth investor never will, and the regular IRA investor will only pay taxes on it when they pull the money out.","qid":10994,"docid":"393693","rank":39,"score":104750},{"content":"Title: Content: The expense ratio is 0.17% so doesnt that mean that for every 10K I keep in the money market fund I lose $17/year? Not really. The expense ratio is taken before distributions are paid which applies to all mutual funds. Should I care about this? In this case not really. If it was a taxable account, then other options may be more tax-efficient that is worth noting. The key with money market funds is that the expense ratio often represents how much money the administrators will take before paying out the rest. So, if your money market fund bought investments that paid .25% then you'd likely see .08% as that is what is left over after the .17% is taken in the dividends. If at the start of the year, the funds NAV is $1, and at the end of the year, the funds NAV is still $1, I havent lost anything right? Right. Wikipedia has a good article on money market funds. Keep in mind that most money market funds are run as one of a number of funds from a fund family that may have to take a little less profit on the money market funds when rates are low.","qid":10994,"docid":"113322","rank":40,"score":103708},{"content":"Title: Content: \"Liquid cash (emergency, rainy day fund) should be safe from a loss in value. Mutual funds don't give you this, especially stock funds. You can find \"\"high yield\"\" savings accounts that are now at around .8% to .9% APY which is much better than .05% and will hopefully go up. Barclays US and American Express are two big banks that normally have the highest rates. Most/all Savings and Money Market accounts should be FDIC insured. Mutual funds are not, though the investment IRA, etc. holding them may be.\"","qid":10994,"docid":"253614","rank":41,"score":103011},{"content":"Title: Content: \"Mutual funds generally make distributions once a year in December with the exact date (and the estimated amount) usually being made public in late October or November. Generally, the estimated amounts can get updated as time goes on, but the date does not change. Some funds (money market, bond funds, GNMA funds etc) distribute dividends on the last business day of each month, and the amounts are rarely made available beforehand. Capital gains are usually distributed once a year as per the general statement above. Some funds (e.g. S&P 500 index funds) distribute dividends towards the end of each quarter or on the last business day of the quarter, and capital gains once a year as per the general statement above. Some funds make semi-annual distributions but not necessarily at six-month intervals. Vanguard's Health Care Fund has distributed dividends and capital gains in March and December for as long as I have held it. VDIGX claims to make semi-annual distributions but made distributions three times in 2014 (March, June, December) and has made/will make two distributions this year already (March is done, June is pending -- the fund has gone ex-dividend with re-investment today and payment on 22nd). You can, as Chris Rea suggests, call the fund company directly, but in my experience, they are reluctant to divulge the date of the distribution (\"\"The fund manager has not made the date public as yet\"\") let alone an estimated amount. Even getting a \"\"Yes, the fund intends to make a distribution later this month\"\" was difficult to get from my \"\"Personal Representative\"\" in early March, and he had to put me on hold to talk to someone at the fund before he was willing to say so.\"","qid":10994,"docid":"32172","rank":42,"score":101953},{"content":"Title: Content: \"The Roth vs not debate is irrelevant to the question. It doesn't matter where your emergency fund is kept, as long as it is liquid and safe. I said it before in an answer to another question: your emergency fund is not an investment -- it's your safety net This answer also says it well: an \"\"emergency fund\"\" is just that... for emergencies... NOT investment. While it \"\"hurts\"\" not to have your emergency money making more money... its MORE IMPORTANT to have quick access to it. So at TD Ameritrade, just park it in their FDIC deposit account. It will not earn any meaningful interest (at least until rates rise), but you'll be able to have access to it when you need it. Note that I would caution against putting it in a money market mutual fund. They're safer than many other investments, but they're not FDIC insured against loss and there is a potential for temporary loss of liquidity. In late 2008 when the credit markets collapsed, a lot of people suddenly became unemployed -- and needed access to their emergency funds. When Lehman Brothers went bust in September, the Reserve Primary Fund (with billions of dollars in their fund) \"\"broke the buck\"\" -- they lowered the price of shares below $1, meaning investors lost principal. The worst part is that investors were not as liquid as they wanted to be: the fund froze and it was hard to get money out. The lesson to take away from this is that one of the times you're likely to need access to your emergency fund is during a macroeconomic crisis. This is also the time when any investment that isn't guaranteed safe may potentially be (at least temporarily) unavailable or decline in value. Emergency funds should be 100% government insured. When you have your Roth funded to the point where there's extra money beyond the emergency fund, you can start investing in higher-yielding vehicles: stock or bond index ETFs would be a good start. But then that part of your Roth starts to look like a retirement account and not an emergency fund. If it were me, I'd open a Roth at a stable local bank and just keep it in their FDIC insured money market deposit account. Then if I wanted a slight boost, I might put the \"\"upper half\"\" of my emergency fund into short term CDs, but even CDs aren't worth much at the moment.\"","qid":10994,"docid":"527939","rank":43,"score":100885},{"content":"Title: Content: according to the SEC: Shareholder Reports A mutual fund and a closed-end fund respectively must provide shareholders with annual and semi-annual reports 60 days after the end of the fund’s fiscal year and 60 days after the fund’s fiscal mid-year. These reports contain updated financial information, a list of the fund’s portfolio securities, and other information. The information in the shareholder reports will be current as of the date of the particular report (that is, the last day of the fund’s fiscal year for the annual report, and the last day of the fund’s fiscal mid-year for the semi-annual report). Other Reports A mutual fund and a closed-end fund must file a Form N-Q each quarter and a Form N-PX each year on the SEC’s EDGAR database, although funds are not required to mail these reports to shareholders. Funds disclose portfolio holdings on Form N-Q. Form N-PX identifies specific proposals on which the fund has voted portfolio securities over the past year and discloses how the fund voted on each. This disclosure enables fund shareholders to monitor their funds’ involvement in the governance activities of portfolio companies. which means that sixty days after the end of each quarter they will tell you what they owned 60 days ago. This makes sense; why would they want to tell the world what companies they are buying and selling.","qid":10994,"docid":"347523","rank":44,"score":100116},{"content":"Title: Content: You shouldn't be picking stocks in the first place. From New York Magazine, tweeted by Ezra Klein: New evidence for that reality comes from Goldman Sachs, via Bloomberg News. The investment bank analyzed the holdings of 854 funds with $2.1 trillion in equity positions. It found, first of all, that all those “sophisticated investors” would have been better off stashing their money in basic, hands-off index funds or mutual funds last year — both of them had higher average returns than hedge funds did. The average hedge fund returned 3 percent last year, versus 14 percent for the Standard & Poor’s 500. Mutual funds do worse than index funds. Tangentially-related to the question of whether Wall Street types deserve their compensation packages is the yearly phenomenon in which actively managed mutual funds underperform the market. Between 2004 and 2008, 66.21% of domestic funds did worse than the S&P Composite 1500. In 2008, 64.23% underperformed. In other words, if you had a fund manager and his employees bringing their skill and knowledge to bear on your portfolio, you probably lost money as compared to the market as a whole. That's not to say you lost money in all cases. Just in most. The math is really simple on this one. Stock picking is fun, but undiversified and brings you competing with Wall Streeters with math Ph.Ds. and twenty-thousand-dollars-a-year Bloomberg terminals. What do you know about Apple's new iPhone that they don't? You should compare your emotional reaction to losing 40% in two days to your reaction to gaining 40% in two days... then compare both of those to losing 6% and gaining 6%, respectively. Picking stocks is not financially wise. Period.","qid":10994,"docid":"470861","rank":45,"score":99082},{"content":"Title: Content: The reason for such differences is that there's no source to get this information. The companies do not (and cannot) report who are their shareholders except for large shareholders and stakes of interest. These, in the case of GoPro, were identified during the IPO (you can look the filings up on EDGAR). You can get information from this or that publicly traded mutual fund about their larger holdings from their reports, but private investors don't provide even that. Institutional (public) investors buy and sell shares all the time and only report large investments. So there's no reliable way to get a snapshot picture you're looking for.","qid":10994,"docid":"433490","rank":46,"score":98713},{"content":"Title: Content: Your investment is probably in a Collective Investment Trust. These are not mutual funds, and are not publicly traded. I.e. they are private to plan participants in your company. Because of this, they are not required* to distribute dividends like mutual funds. Instead, they will reinvest dividends automatically, increasing the value of the fund, rather than number of shares, as with dividend reinvestment. Sine you mention the S&P 500 fund you have tracks closely to the S&P Index, keep in mind there's two indexes you could be looking at: Without any new contributions, your fund should closely track the Total Return version for periods 3 months or longer, minus the expense ratio. If you are adding contributions to the fund, you can't just look at the start and end balances. The comparison is trickier and you'll need to use the Internal Rate of Return (look into the XIRR function in Excel/Google Sheets). *MFs are not strictly required to pay dividends, but are strongly tax-incentivized to do so, and essentially all do.","qid":10994,"docid":"52908","rank":47,"score":97893},{"content":"Title: Content: \"The article \"\"Best Stock Fund of the Decade: CGM Focus\"\" from the Wall Street Journal in 2009 describe the highest performing mutual fund in the USA between 2000 and 2009. The investor return in the fund (what the shareholders actually earned) was abysmal. Why? Because the fund was so volatile that investors panicked and bailed out, locking in losses instead of waiting them out. The reality is that almost any strategy will lead to success in investing, so long as it is actually followed. A strategy keeps you from making emotional or knee-jerk decisions. (BTW, beware of anyone selling you a strategy by telling you that everyone in the world is a failure except for the few special people who have the privilege of knowing their \"\"secrets.\"\") (Link removed, as it's gone dead)\"","qid":10994,"docid":"399149","rank":48,"score":97656},{"content":"Title: Content: Mutual funds don't have intraday prices. They have net asset values which are calculated periodically (daily or weekly or any other period depending on the fund).","qid":10994,"docid":"457811","rank":49,"score":97545},{"content":"Title: Content: The literal answer to your question is that a number of different types of mutual funds did not have significant downturns in 2008. Money Market Funds are intended to always preserve capital. VMMXX made 2.77% in 2008. It was a major scandal broke the buck, that its holders took a 3% loss. Inverse funds, which go up when the market goes down, obviously did well that year (RYARX), but if you have a low risk tolerance, that's obviously not what you're looking for. (and they have other problems as well when held long-term) But you're a 24-year-old talking about your retirement funds, you should have a much longer time horizon, at least 30 years. Over a period that long, stocks have never had negative real (inflation-adjusted) returns, dating back at least to the civil war. If you look at the charts here or here, you can see that despite the risk in any individual year, as the period grows longer, the average return for the period gets tighter and tighter. If you look at the second graph here, you see that 2011 was the first time since the civil war that the trailing 30-year return on t-bills exceeded that for stocks, and 1981-2011 was period that saw bond yields drop almost continuously, leading to steady rise in bond prices. Although past performance is no guarantee of future results, everything we've seen historically suggests that the risk of a broad stock-market portfolio held for 30 years is not that large, and it should make up the bulk of your holdings. For example, Vanguard's Target retirement 2055 fund is 90% in stocks (US + international), and only 10% in bonds.","qid":10994,"docid":"522257","rank":50,"score":97016},{"content":"Title: Content: You are not the person or entity against whom the crime was committed, so the Casualty Loss (theft) deduction doesn't apply here. You should report this as a Capital Loss, the same way all of the Enron shareholders did in their 2001 tax returns. Your cost basis is whatever you originally paid for the shares. The final value is presumably zero. You can declare a maximum capital loss of $3000, so if your net capital loss for the year is greater than that, you'll have to carry over the remainder to the following years. IRS publication 547 states: Decline in market value of stock. You can't deduct as a theft loss the decline in market value of stock acquired on the open market for investment if the decline is caused by disclosure of accounting fraud or other illegal misconduct by the officers or directors of the corporation that issued the stock. However, you can deduct as a capital loss the loss you sustain when you sell or exchange the stock or the stock becomes completely worthless. You report a capital loss on Schedule D (Form 1040). For more information about stock sales, worthless stock, and capital losses, see chapter 4 of Pub. 550.","qid":10994,"docid":"15606","rank":51,"score":96810},{"content":"Title: Content: \"I think the real answer to your question here is diversification. You have some fear of having your money in the market, and rightfully so, having all your money in one stock, or even one type of mutual fund is risky as all get out, and you could lose a lot of your money in such a stock-market based undiversified investment. However, the same logic works in your rental property. If you lose your tennant, and are unable to find a new one right away, or if you have some very rare problem that insurance doesn't cover, your property could become very much not a \"\"break even\"\" investment very quickly. In reality, there isn't any single investment you can make that has no risk. Your assets need to be balanced between many different market-investments, that includes bonds, US stocks, European stocks, cash, etc. Also investing in mutual funds instead of individual stocks greatly reduces your risk. Another thing to consider is the benefits of paying down debt. While investments have a risk of not performing, if you pay off a loan with interest payments, you definitely will save the money you would have paid in interest. To be specific, I'd recommend the following plan -\"","qid":10994,"docid":"371392","rank":52,"score":96704},{"content":"Title: Content: Without reading the source, from your description it seems that the author believes that this particular company was undervalued in the marketplace. It seems that investors were blinded by a small dividend, without considering the actual value of the company they were owners of. Remember that a shareholder has the right to their proportion of the company's net value, and that amount will be distributed both (a) in the form of dividends and (b) on liquidation of the company. Theoretically, EPS is an indication of how much value an investor's single share has increased by in the year [of course this is not accurate, because accounting income does not directly correlate with company value increase, but it is a good indicator]. This means in this example that each share had a return of $10, of which the investors only received $1. The remainder sat in the company for further investment. Considering that liquidation may never happen, particularly within the time-frame that a particular investor wants to hold a share, some investors may undervalue share return that does not come in the form of a dividend. This may or may not be legitimate, because if the company reinvests its profits in poorer performing projects, the investors would have been better off getting the dividend immediately. However some value does need to be given to the non-dividend ownership of the company. It seems the author believes that investors failing to consider value of the non-dividend part of the corporation's shares in question led to an undervaluation of the company's shares in the market.","qid":10994,"docid":"266672","rank":53,"score":96388},{"content":"Title: Content: Returns reported by mutual funds to shareholders, google, etc. are computed after all the funds' costs, including Therefore the returns you see on google finance are the returns you would actually have gotten.","qid":10994,"docid":"104198","rank":54,"score":96120},{"content":"Title: Content: Since you are paying taxes on the distributions from your mutual funds anyway, instead of reinvesting the distributions back into the mutual funds, you could receive them as cash, then contribute them to your Roth IRA once you are able to open one.","qid":10994,"docid":"57457","rank":55,"score":96093},{"content":"Title: Content: I'm looking for ways to geared to save for retirement, not general investment. Many mutual fund companies offer a range of target retirement funds for different retirement dates (usually in increments of 5 years). These are funds of funds, that is, a Target 2040 Fund, say, will be invested in five or six different stock and bond mutual funds offered by the same company. Over the years and as the target date approaches closer, the investment mix will change from extra weight given to stock mutual funds towards extra weight being given to bond mutual funds. The disadvantage to these funds is that the Target Fund charges its own expense ratio over and above the expense ratios charged by the mutual funds it invests in: you could do the same investments yourself (or pick your own mix and weighting of various funds) and save the extra expense ratio. However, over the years, as the Target Fund changes its mix, withdrawing money from the stock mutual funds and investing the proceeds into bond mutual funds, you do not have to pay taxes on the profits generated by these transactions except insofar as some part of the profits become distributions from the Target Fund itself. If you were doing the same transactions outside the Target Fund, you would be liable for taxes on the profits when you withdrew money from a stock fund and invested the proceeds into the bond fund.","qid":10994,"docid":"346474","rank":56,"score":95644},{"content":"Title: Content: \"That's a lot of manual checking-in to see if everything is performing the way you \"\"want\"\". Not to insult your intelligence, but that is not your job, and doing that on a monthly basis is going to eat a lot of time. Plus, most 401(k) programs have lockout periods wherein changes can't be made without incurring additional fees (related to distributions, etc). And if you're checking that often, you are [likely] losing the benefits of investing in mutual funds to start with. If you have the stomach to handle the risk, go for the high-risk investment vehicles early in your career - you can afford a 30% drop this year if you then make 105%, 15%, or 50% back each of the next 5. If, on the other hand, you're in your mid-career, switch to more conservative management tactics.\"","qid":10994,"docid":"53100","rank":57,"score":95181},{"content":"Title: Content: This idea does not make sense for most mutual funds. The net asset value, or NAV, is the current market value of a fund's holdings, minus the fund's liabilities, that is usually expressed as a per-share amount. For most funds, the NAV is determined daily, after the close of trading on some specified financial exchange, but some funds update their NAV multiple times during the trading day. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_fund I am not certain, but I believe that OppenheimerFunds does not report intraday prices. I would call them up and ask.","qid":10994,"docid":"384265","rank":58,"score":95111},{"content":"Title: Content: The Paragraph talks about dividends given by Mutual Funds. Say a fund has NAV of $ 10, as the value of the underlying security grows, the value of the fund would also grow, lets say it becomes $ 12 in 2 months. Now if the Mutual Fund decides to pay out a dividend of $ 1 to all unit holder, then post the distribution of dividend, the value of the Fund would become to $ 11. Thus if you are say investing on 1-April and know that dividends of $1 would be paid on 5-April [the divided distribution date is published typically weeks in advance], if you are hoping to make $1 in 5 days, that is not going to happen. On 6-April you would get $1, but the value of the fund would now be $11 from the earlier $12. This may not be wise as in some countries you would ending up paying tax on $1. Even in shares, the concept is similar, however the price may get corrected immediately and one may not actually see it going down by $1 due to market dynamics.","qid":10994,"docid":"41675","rank":59,"score":94668},{"content":"Title: Content: This means that if your capital under my management ends up turning a profit, I will keep half of those profits, but if I lose you money, I will cover half those losses. The bold part is where you lose me. This absolutely exists with the exception of the loss insurance. It just requires a lot more than the general retail consumer investor has to contribute. Nobody wants to take on the responsibility of your money then split 50% of the gross proceeds of your $10,000 (or whatever nominal amount of money you're dealing with) investment and return it all to you after a year. And NO money manager will insure that the market won't decline. Hedge funds, PE Firms, VC Firms, Investment Partnerships, etc all basically run the way you're describing (again without your loss insurance). Everyone's money is pooled and investments are made. Everyone shares the spoils and everyone shares the losses. And to top it off, the people making investment decisions have their money invested in the fund. All of them have to pay rent and accountants and other costs associated with running the fund and that will eat in to the proceeds to some degree; because returns are calculated on net proceeds. With enough money you can buy yourself in to a hedge fund, for the rest of us there are ETFs and other extremely fee-reasonable investment options. And if you don't think the performance and preservation of assets under management is not an incentive to treat the money with care you're kidding yourself (your first bullet point). I'll add that aside from skewing the manager's risk tolerance toward guaranteed returns I doubt you would fair favorably over the long term compared to simply paying even an egregious 1% expense ratio on an ETF. If you look at the S&P performance for 10 or 20 or however many years, I'd venture that a couple good years of giving up half of your gains would have you screaming for your money back. The bad years would put the money manager out of business and the good years would squander your gains.","qid":10994,"docid":"247486","rank":60,"score":94364},{"content":"Title: Content: \"This answer is about the USA. Each time you sell a security (a stock or a bond) or some other asset, you are expected to pay tax on the net gain. It doesn't matter whether you use a broker or mutual fund to make the sale. You still owe the tax. Net capital gain is defined this way: Gross sale prices less (broker fees for selling + cost of buying the asset) The cost of buying the asset is called the \"\"basis price.\"\" You, or your broker, needs to keep track of the basis price for each share. This is easy when you're just getting started investing. It stays easy if you're careful about your record keeping. You owe the capital gains tax whenever you sell an asset, whether or not you reinvest the proceeds in something else. If your capital gains are modest, you can pay all the taxes at the end of the year. If they are larger -- for example if they exceed your wage earnings -- you should pay quarterly estimated tax. The tax authorities ding you for a penalty if you wait to pay five- or six-figure tax bills without paying quarterly estimates. You pay NET capital gains tax. If one asset loses money and another makes money, you pay on your gains minus your losses. If you have more losses than gains in a particular year, you can carry forward up to $3,000 (I think). You can't carry forward tens of thousands in capital losses. Long term and short term gains are treated separately. IRS Schedule B has places to plug in all those numbers, and the tax programs (Turbo etc) do too. Dividend payments are also taxable when they are paid. Those aren't capital gains. They go on Schedule D along with interest payments. The same is true for a mutual fund. If the fund has Ford shares in it, and Ford pays $0.70 per share in March, that's a dividend payment. If the fund managers decide to sell Ford and buy Tesla in June, the selling of Ford shares will be a cap-gains taxable event for you. The good news: the mutual fund managers send you a statement sometime in February or March of each year telling what you should put on your tax forms. This is great. They add it all up for you. They give you a nice consolidated tax statement covering everything: dividends, their buying and selling activity on your behalf, and any selling they did when you withdrew money from the fund for any purpose. Some investment accounts like 401(k) accounts are tax free. You don't pay any tax on those accounts -- capital gains, dividends, interest -- until you withdraw the money to live on after you retire. Then that money is taxed as if it were wage income. If you want an easy and fairly reliable way to invest, and don't want to do a lot of tax-form scrambling, choose a couple of different mutual funds, put money into them, and leave it there. They'll send you consolidated tax statements once a year. Download them into your tax program and you're done. You mentioned \"\"riding out bad times in cash.\"\" No, no, NOT a good idea. That investment strategy almost guarantees you will sell when the market is going down and buy when it's going up. That's \"\"sell low, buy high.\"\" It's a loser. Not even Warren Buffett can call the top of the market and the bottom. Ned Johnson (Fidelity's founder) DEFINITELY can't.\"","qid":10994,"docid":"337993","rank":61,"score":93893},{"content":"Title: Content: No, the reinvestment is done as a courtesy. Consider, one can have, say, 100 shares of a $50 stock. A 2% dividend is $100/yr or $25/quarter. It would be a pretty bad deal if brokers charged you even $5 for that trade. When cap gains and dividends are grouped as you suggest, it refers to Mutual Funds. My funds will have a year end dividend and cap gain distribution. In a non-retirement account, one has to pay the tax due, and be sure to add this to your cost basis, as it's money you are effectively adding to your account. It does not mean cap gain the same as when you sell your shares of Apple for a huge gain. Those check boxes seem to offer you a chance to put all your holding on the same reinvestment plan for div/cap gain. You should also be able to choose one by one what you'd like to do.","qid":10994,"docid":"562481","rank":62,"score":93893},{"content":"Title: Content: The dividend tax credit is not applicable to foreign dividend income, so you would be taxed fully on every dollar of that income. When you sell a stock, there will be a capital gain or capital loss depending on if it gained or lost value, after accounting for the Adjusted Cost Base. You only pay income tax on half of the amount earned through capital gains, and if you have losses, you can use them to offset other investments that had capital gains (or carry forward to offset gains in the future). The dividends from US stocks are subject to a 15% withholding tax that gets paid to the IRS automatically when the dividends are issued. If the stocks are held in an RRSP, they are exempt from the withholding tax. If held in a non-registered account, you can be reimbursed for the tax by claiming the foreign tax credit that you linked to. If held in a TFSA or RESP, the withholding tax cannot be recovered. Also, if you are not directly holding the stocks, and instead buy a mutual fund or ETF that directly holds the stocks, then the RRSP exemption no longer applies, but the foreign tax credit is still claimable for a non-registered account. If the mutual fund or ETF does not directly hold stocks, and instead holds one or more ETFs, there is no way to recover the withholding tax in any type of account.","qid":10994,"docid":"437907","rank":63,"score":93836},{"content":"Title: Content: You can only lose your 7%. The idea that a certain security is more volatile than others in your portfolio does not mean that you can lose more than the value of the investment. The one exception is that a short position has unlimited downside, but i dont think there are any straight short mutual funds.","qid":10994,"docid":"535936","rank":64,"score":93775},{"content":"Title: Content: \"The pros and cons of investing in a closed end fund both stem from the fact that the price per share is likely to differ from the net asset value (NAV) of the underlying assets. That could work to your advantage if the fund is selling for LESS than NAV, or at a discount. Then you get the \"\"benefit of the bargain\"\" and hope to sell the shares in the future for \"\"par\"\" or even a premium (MORE than NAV). On the other hand, if you buy such a fund at a premium, you stand to have a RELATIVE loss if the value of the fund goes back to par (or a discount) compared to NAV. That's because a closed end fund has a FIXED number of shares, with the assets continually being reinvested. In essence, you are \"\"buying out\"\" an existing shareholder of the fund at a price determined by supply and demand. This differs from an OPEN end fund, in which your contribution creates NEW shares (all other things being equal). Then the fund, has to invest YOUR money (and charges you a fee for the service) on exactly a pro rata basis with other investors in the fund, meaning that you will enter and exit such a fund at \"\"par.\"\" In either case, your return depends mainly on the performance of the underlying assets. But there are premium/discount issues for investing in a closed end fund.\"","qid":10994,"docid":"66453","rank":65,"score":93588},{"content":"Title: Content: \"According to the IRS, you must have written confirmation from your broker \"\"or other agent\"\" whenever you sell shares using a method other than FIFO: Specific share identification. If you adequately identify the shares you sold, you can use the adjusted basis of those particular shares to figure your gain or loss. You will adequately identify your mutual fund shares, even if you bought the shares in different lots at various prices and times, if you: Specify to your broker or other agent the particular shares to be sold or transferred at the time of the sale or transfer, and Receive confirmation in writing from your broker or other agent within a reasonable time of your specification of the particular shares sold or transferred. If you don't have a stockbroker, I'm not sure how you even got the shares. If you have an actual stock certificate, then you are selling very specific shares and the purchase date corresponds to the purchase date of those shares represented on the certificate.\"","qid":10994,"docid":"430718","rank":66,"score":93194},{"content":"Title: Content: It looks like it has to deal with an expiration of rights as a taxable event. I found this link via google, which states that Not only does the PSEC shareholder have a TAXABLE EVENT, but he has TWO taxable events. The net effect of these two taxable events has DIFFERENT CONSEQUENCES for DIFFERENT SHAREHOLDERS depending upon their peculiar TAX SITUATIONS. The CORRECT STATEMENT of the tax treatment of unexercised PYLDR rights is in the N-2 on page 32, which reads in relevant part as follows: “…, if you receive a Subscription Right from PSEC and do not sell or exercise that right before it expires, you should generally expect to have (1) taxable dividend income equal to the fair market value (if any) of the Subscription Right on the date of its distribution by PSEC to the extent of PSEC’s current and accumulated earnings and profits and (2) a capital loss upon the expiration of such right in an amount equal to your adjusted tax basis (if any) in such right (which should generally equal the fair market value (if any) of the Subscription Right on the date of its distribution by PSEC).” Please note, for quarterly “estimated taxes” purposes, that the DIVIDEND taxable events occur “ON THE DATE OF ITS DISTRIBUTION BY PSEC (my emphasis),” while the CAPITAL LOSS occurs “UPON EXPIRATION OF SUCH RIGHT” (my emphasis). They do NOT occur on 31 December 2015 or some other date. However, to my knowledge, neither of the taxable events he mentions would be taxed by 4/15. If you are worried about it, I would recommend seeing a tax professional. Otherwise I'd wait to see the tax forms sent by your brokerage.","qid":10994,"docid":"146177","rank":67,"score":93169},{"content":"Title: Content: Mutual funds are a collection of other assets, such as stocks, bonds and property. Unless the fund is a type that is traded on an exchange, you will only be able to buy into the fund by applying for units with the fund manager and sell out by contacting the fund manager. These type of non-traded funds are usually updated at the end of the day once the closing prices of all the assets in it are known.","qid":10994,"docid":"574383","rank":68,"score":93157},{"content":"Title: Content: Two different takes on an answer; the net-loss concept you mentioned and a core-business concept. If a store is actually a net-loss, and anybody is willing to buy it, it may well make sense to sell it. Depending on your capital value invested, and how much it would take you to make it profitable, it may be a sound business decision to sell the asset. The buyer of the asset is of course expecting for some reason to make it not a net loss for them (perhaps they have other stores in the vicinity and can then share staff or stock somehow). The core-business is a fuzzier concept. Investors seem to go in cycles, like can like well-diversified companies that are resilient to a market downturn in one sector, but then they also like so-called pure-play companies, where you are clear on what you are owning. To try an example (which is likely not the case here), lets say that Sunoco in 5% of its stores had migrated away from a gas-station model to a one-stop-gas-and-repairs model. Therefore they had to have service bays, parts, and trained staff at those locations. These things are expensive, and could be seen as not their area of expertise (selling gas). So as an investor, if I want to own gas stations, I don't want to own a full service garage, so perhaps I invest in somebody else. Once they sell off their non-core assets, they free up capital to do what they know best. It is at least one possible explanation.","qid":10994,"docid":"595981","rank":69,"score":93143},{"content":"Title: Content: You will not get a vote on any issues of the underlying stock. The mutual fund owner/manager will do the voting. In 2004, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) required that fund companies disclose proxy votes, voting guidelines and conflicts of interest in the voting process. All funds must make these disclosures to the SEC through an N-PX filing, which must either be available to shareholders on the fund company's websites or upon request by telephone. You can also find your fund's N-PX filing on the SEC website. -- http://www.investopedia.com/articles/mutualfund/08/acting-in-interest.asp","qid":10994,"docid":"244711","rank":70,"score":92854},{"content":"Title: Content: \"I would undoubtedly sell the investments if they are positive, maybe even a little negative. That's what non-retirement investments are for, building wealth to spend, give, etc. Flipping things may put it in perspective. Would you borrow money or liquidate your emergency fund in order to invest in mutual funds? If you can completely ignore risk then this MAY make sense. Let's say if you could borrow money at 3.75% and had a \"\"guaranteed\"\" investment return of 7.5% and a \"\"guaranteed\"\" source of income (job). But mutual funds (stocks, bonds) aren't even guaranteed to make money and they most definitely can lose and lose big. Also, I hope your job isn't in any way tied to the oil industry. On the other hand, if you take a loan and fall on hard times you can liquidate your mutual funds to get out of the bind, but you are at the mercy of the market and the worth of your investments at that point. So it may come down to whether you want to choose when to spend your investments, when they are up or at some future date when they may be worth much less (or much more).\"","qid":10994,"docid":"329930","rank":71,"score":92585},{"content":"Title: Content: \"You can't get started investing. There are preliminary steps that must be taken prior to beginning to invest: Only once these things are complete can you think about investing. Doing so before hand will only likely lose money in the long run. Figure these steps will take about 2.5 years. So you are 2.5 years from investing. Read now: The Total Money Makeover. It is full of inspiring stories of people that were able to turn things around financially. This is good because it is easy to get discouraged and believe all kind of toxic beliefs about money: The little guy can't get ahead, I always will have a car payment, Its too late, etc... They are all false. Part of the book's resources are budgeting forms and hints on budgeting. Read later: John Bogle on Investing and Bogle on Mutual Funds One additional Item: About you calling yourself a \"\"dummy\"\". Building personal wealth is less about knowledge and more about behavior. The reason you don't have a positive net worth is because of how you behaved, not knowledge. Even sticking a small amount in a savings account each paycheck and not spending it would have allowed you to have a positive net worth at this point in your life. Only by changing behavior can you start to build wealth, investing is only a small component.\"","qid":10994,"docid":"70243","rank":72,"score":92305},{"content":"Title: Content: In addition to all the good information that JoeTaxpayer has provided, be aware of this. When you sell mutual fund shares, you can, if you choose to do so, tell the mutual fund company which shares you want to sell (e.g. all shares purchased on xx/yy/2010 plus 10 shares out of 23.147 shares purchased on ss/tt/2011 plus...) and pay taxes on the gains/losses on those specific shares. If you do not specify which shares you want sold, the mutual fund company will tell you the gains/losses based on the average cost basis and you can use this information if you like. Note that some of your gains/losses will be short-term gains or losses if you use the average cost basis. Or, you can use the FIFO method (usually resulting in the largest gain) in which the shares are sold in the order in which they were purchased. This usually results in no short-term gains/losses. Just so that you know, most mutual fund companies will link your checking account in your bank to your account with them (a one-time paperwork deal is necessary in which your bank manager's signature is required on the authorization to be sent to the fund company). After that, the connection is nearly as seamless as with your current system. Tell the fund company you want to invest money in a certain mutual fund and to take the money from your linked checking account, and they will take care of it. Sell some shares and they will deposit the money into your linked bank account, and so on. The mutual fund company will not accept instructions from you (or someone purporting to be you) to sell shares and to send the money to Joe Blow (or to Joe Taxpayer for that matter): the proceeds of redemptions go to your checking account or are used to buy shares in other mutual funds offered by the company (called an exchange and not a redemption). Oh, and most fund companies offer automatic investments (as well as automatic redemptions) at fixed time intervals, just as with your bank.","qid":10994,"docid":"449124","rank":73,"score":92026},{"content":"Title: Content: Not that I am aware. If you are trying to mitigate losses from stock purchases, you may want to consider stock mutual funds. This is why single stocks can be extremely risky.","qid":10994,"docid":"287846","rank":74,"score":91964},{"content":"Title: Content: \"While @JB's \"\"yes\"\" is correct, a few more points to consider: There is no tax penalty for withdrawing any time from a taxable investment, that is, one not using specific tax protections like 401k/IRA or ESA or HSA. But you do pay tax on any income or gain distributions you receive from a taxable investment in a fund (except interest on tax-exempt aka \"\"municipal\"\" bonds), and any net capital gains you realize when selling (or technically redeeming for non-ETF funds). Just like you do for dividends and interest and gains on non-fund taxable investments. Many funds have a sales charge or \"\"load\"\" which means you will very likely lose money if you sell quickly typically within at least several months and usually a year or more, and even some no-load funds, to discourage rapid trading that makes their management more difficult (and costly), have a \"\"contingent sales charge\"\" if you sell after less than a stated period like 3 months or 6 months. For funds that largely or entirely invest in equities or longer term bonds, the share value/price is practically certain to fluctuate up and down, and if you sell during a \"\"down\"\" period you will lose money; if \"\"liquid\"\" means you want to take out money anytime without waiting for the market to move, you might want funds focussing on short-term bonds, especially government bonds, and \"\"money market\"\" funds which hold only very short bonds (usually duration under 90 days), which have much more stable prices (but lower returns over the longer term).\"","qid":10994,"docid":"344283","rank":75,"score":91708},{"content":"Title: Content: Contrary to what you might have heard, moving money between mutual funds, whether or not in the same family of funds, is a taxable event, assuming, of course, that the funds are not in tax-deferred retirement accounts. About the only thing that is not taxable is moving funds between share classes in the same mutual fund, e.g. a conversion from what Vanguard refers to as Investor Shares to Admiral Shares in the same fund. In some cases, the Admiral Shares may have a considerably different price (for example, Vanguard Health Care Fund Investor Shares (VGHCX) and Admiral Shares (VGHAX) are priced at $215.83 and $91.04 respectively and so changing from one class to the other changes the number of shares owned considerably while the net value of the investment remains unchanged.","qid":10994,"docid":"179737","rank":76,"score":91700},{"content":"Title: Content: In a taxable account you're going to owe taxes when you sell the shares for a gain. You're also going to owe taxes on any distributions you receive from the holdings in the account; these distributions can happen one or more times a year. Vanguard has a writeup on mutual fund taxation. Note: for a fund like you linked, you will owe taxes annually, regardless of whether you sell it. The underlying assets will pay dividends and those are distributed to you either in cash, or more beneficially as additional shares of the mutual fund (look into dividend reinvestment.) Taking VFIAX's distributions as an example, if you bought 1 share of the fund on March 19, 2017, on March 20th you would have been given $1.005 that would be taxable. You'd owe taxes on that even if you didn't sell your share during the year. Your last paragraph is based on a false premise. The mutual fund does report to you at the end of the year the short and long term capital gains, along with dividends on a 1099-DIV. You get to pay taxes on those transactions, that's why it's advantageous to hold low turnover mutual funds in taxable accounts.","qid":10994,"docid":"122012","rank":77,"score":91556},{"content":"Title: Content: \"I think you're confusing risk analysis (that is what you quoted as \"\"Taleb Distribution\"\") with arguments against taking risks altogether. You need to understand that not taking a risk - is by itself a risk. You can lose money by not investing it, because of the very same Taleb Distribution: an unpredictable catastrophic event. Take an example of keeping cash in your house and not investing it anywhere. In the 1998 default of the Russian Federation, people lost money by not investing it. Why? Because had they invested the money - they would have the investments/properties, but since they only had cash - it became worthless overnight. There's no argument for or against investing on its own. The arguments are always related to the investment goals and the risk analysis. You're looking for something that doesn't exist.\"","qid":10994,"docid":"252574","rank":78,"score":91454},{"content":"Title: Content: \"Oddly enough, in the USA, there are enough cost and tax savings between buy-and-hold of a static portfolio and buying into a fund that a few brokerages have sprung up around the concept, such as FolioFN, to make it easier for small investors to manage numerous small holdings via fractional shares and no commission window trades. A static buy-and-hold portfolio of stocks can be had for a few dollars per trade. Buying into a fund involves various annual and one time fees that are quoted as percentages of the investment. Even 1-2% can be a lot, especially if it is every year. Typically, a US mutual fund must send out a 1099 tax form to each investor, stating that investors share of the dividends and capital gains for each year. The true impact of this is not obvious until you get a tax bill for gains that you did not enjoy, which can happen when you buy into a fund late in the year that has realized capital gains. What fund investors sometimes fail to appreciate is that they are taxed both on their own holding period of fund shares and the fund's capital gains distributions determined by the fund's holding period of its investments. For example, if ABC tech fund bought Google stock several years ago for $100/share, and sold it for $500/share in the same year you bought into the ABC fund, then you will receive a \"\"capital gains distribution\"\" on your 1099 that will include some dollar amount, which is considered your share of that long-term profit for tax purposes. The amount is not customized for your holding period, capital gains are distributed pro-rata among all current fund shareholders as of the ex-distribution date. Morningstar tracks this as Potential Capital Gains Exposure and so there is a way to check this possibility before investing. Funds who have unsold losers in their portfolio are also affected by these same rules, have been called \"\"free rides\"\" because those funds, if they find some winners, will have losers that they can sell simultaneously with the winners to remain tax neutral. See \"\"On the Lookout for Tax Traps and Free Riders\"\", Morningstar, pdf In contrast, buying-and-holding a portfolio does not attract any capital gains taxes until the stocks in the portfolio are sold at a profit. A fund often is actively managed. That is, experts will alter the portfolio from time to time or advise the fund to buy or sell particular investments. Note however, that even the experts are required to tell you that \"\"past performance is no guarantee of future results.\"\"\"","qid":10994,"docid":"41625","rank":79,"score":91051},{"content":"Title: Content: \"In the case of a specific fund, I'd be tempted to get get an annual report that would disclose distribution data going back up to 5 years. The \"\"View prospectus and reports\"\" would be the link on the site to note and use that to get to the PDF of the report to get the data that was filed with the SEC as that is likely what matters more here. Don't forget that mutual fund distributions can be a mix of dividends, bond interest, short-term and long-term capital gains and thus aren't quite as simple as stock dividends to consider here.\"","qid":10994,"docid":"341192","rank":80,"score":90945},{"content":"Title: Content: Mutual funds buy (and sell) shares in companies in accordance with the policies set forth in their prospectus, not according to the individual needs of an investor, that is, when you invest money in (or withdraw money from) a mutual fund, the manager buys or sells whatever shares that, in the manager's judgement, will be the most appropriate ones (consistent with the investment policies). Thus, a large-cap mutual fund manager will not buy the latest hot small-cap stock that will likely be hugely profitable; he/she must choose only between various large capitalization companies. Some exchange-traded funds are fixed baskets of stocks. Suppose you will not invest in a company X as a matter of principle. Unless a mutual fund prospectus says that it will not invest in X, you may well end up having an investment in X at some time because the fund manager bought shares in X. With such an ETF, you know what is in the basket, and if the basket does not include stock in X now, it will not own stock in X at a later date. Some exchange-traded funds are constructed based on some index and track the index as a matter of policy. Thus, you will not be investing in X unless X becomes part of the index because Standard or Poor or Russell or somebody changed their minds, and the ETF buys X in order to track the index. Finally, some ETFs are exactly like general mutual funds except that you can buy or sell ETF shares at any time at the price at the instant that your order is executed whereas with mutual funds, the price of the mutual fund shares that you have bought or sold is the NAV of the mutual fund shares for that day, which is established based on the closing prices at the end of the trading day of the stocks, bonds etc that the fund owns. So, you might end up owning stock in X at any time based on what the fund manager thinks about X.","qid":10994,"docid":"479420","rank":81,"score":90818},{"content":"Title: Content: Older folk might wish to let the dividends and cap gains be paid in cash, and use that cash towards their RMDs (required distributions). If you are investing in mutual funds and wish to keep adding to the funds you've selected, the reinvestment is a simple way to avoid having to visit the account and make a new purchase. In other words, you invest $5500, buy the fund, and X years from now, you simply have more shares of the fund but no cash o worry about. The pro is as mentioned, and the con is really for the 70-1/2+ people who will need to take their RMDs. (Although even they can take the RMD in kind, as fund shares)","qid":10994,"docid":"484825","rank":82,"score":90794},{"content":"Title: Content: \"Do mutual funds edit/censor underperforming investments to make their returns look better, and if so, is there any way one can figure out if they are doing it? No, that's not what the quote says. What the quote says is that the funds routinely drop investments that do not bring the expected return, which is true. That's their job, that is what is called \"\"active management\"\". Obviously, if you're measuring the fund by their success/failure to beat the market, to beat the market the funds must consistently select over-performers. No-one claims that they only select over-performers, but they select enough of them (or not...) for the average returns to be appealing (or not...) for the investors.\"","qid":10994,"docid":"185460","rank":83,"score":90729},{"content":"Title: Content: \"I'll give the TLDR answer. 1) You can't forecast the price direction. If you get it right you got lucky. If you think you get it right consistently you are either a statistical anomaly or a victim of confirmation bias. Countless academic studies show that you can not do this. 2) You reduce volatility and, importantly, left-tail risk by going to an index tracking ETF or mutual fund. That is, Probability(Gigantic Loss) is MUCH lower in an index tracker. What's the trade off? The good thing is there is NO tradeoff. Your expected return does not go down in the same way the risk goes down! 3) Since point (1) is true, you are wasting time analysing companies. This has the opportunity cost of not earning $ from doing paid work, which can be thought of as a negative return. \"\"With all the successful investors (including myself on a not-infrequent basis) going for individual companies directly\"\" Actually, academic studies show that individual investors are the worst performers of all investors in the stock market.\"","qid":10994,"docid":"355108","rank":84,"score":90524},{"content":"Title: Content: \"Great question, and here is the answer. No. Shares in 401k plans are never registered to an individual while the money is held in the plan. That goes for stock or mutual funds. Technically your account is never \"\"yours\"\" until you request a distribution from the plan. Most people do not understand this, and it's not the easiest of concepts to understand or be willing to grasp.\"","qid":10994,"docid":"305167","rank":85,"score":90454},{"content":"Title: Content: \"If you have an S-Corp with several shareholders - you probably also have a tax adviser who suggested using S-Corp to begin with. You're probably best off asking that adviser about this issue. If you decided to use S-Corp for multiple shareholders without a professional guiding you, you should probably start looking for such a professional, or you may get yourself into trouble. That said, and reminding you that: 1. Free advice on the Internet is worth exactly what you paid for it, and 2. I'm not a tax professional or tax adviser, you should talk to a EA/CPA licensed in your state, here's this: Generally S-Corps are disregarded entities for tax purposes and their income flows to their shareholders individual tax returns through K-1 forms distributed by the S-Corp yearly. The shareholders don't have to actually withdraw the profits, but if not withdrawing - they're added to their cost bases in the shares. I'm guessing your corp doesn't distribute the net income, but keeps it on the corporate account, only distributing enough to cover the shareholders' taxes on their respective income portion. In this case - the amount not distributed is added to their basis, the amount distributed has already been taxed through K-1. If the corporation distributes more than the shareholder's portion of net income, then there can be several different choices, depending on the circumstances: The extra distribution will be treated as salary to the shareholder and a deduction to the corporation (i.e.: increasing the net income for the rest of the shareholders). The extra distribution will be treated as return of investment, reducing that shareholder's basis in the shares, but not affecting the other shareholders. If the basis is 0 then it is treated as income to the shareholder and taxed at ordinary rates. The extra distribution will be treated as \"\"buy-back\"\" - reducing that shareholder's ownership stake in the company and reallocating the \"\"bought-back\"\" portion among the rest of the shareholders. In this case it is treated as a sale of stock, and the gain is calculated as with any other stock sale, including short-term vs. long-term taxation (there's also Sec. 1244 that can come in handy here). The extra distribution will be treated as dividend. This is very rare for S-Corp, but can happen if it was a C-Corp before. In that case it will be taxed as dividends. Note that options #2, #3 and #4 subject the shareholder to the NIIT, while option #1 subjects the shareholder to FICA/Self Employment tax (and subjects the company to payroll taxes). There might be other options. Your licensed tax adviser will go with you through all the facts and circumstances and will suggest the best way to proceed.\"","qid":10994,"docid":"521489","rank":86,"score":90010},{"content":"Title: Content: Yes you should take in the expenses being incurred by the mutual fund. This lists down the fees charged by the mutual fund and where expenses can be found in the annual statement of the fund. To calculate fees and expenses. As you might expect, fees and expenses vary from fund to fund. A fund with high costs must perform better than a low-cost fund to generate the same returns for you. Even small differences in fees can translate into large differences in returns over time. You don't pay expenses, so the money is taken from the assets of the fund. So you pay it indirectly. If the expenses are huge, that may point to something i.e. fund managers are enjoying at your expense, money is being used somewhere else rather than being paid as dividends. If the expenses are used in the growth of the fund, that is a positive sign. Else you can expect the fund to be downgraded or upgraded by the credit rating agencies, depending on how the credit rating agencies see the expenses of the fund and other factors. Generally comparison should be done with funds invested in the same sectors, same distribution of assets so that you have a homogeneous comparison to make. Else it would be unwise to compare between a fund invested in oil companies and other in computers. Yes the economy is inter twined, but that is not how a comparison should be done.","qid":10994,"docid":"518402","rank":87,"score":89920},{"content":"Title: Content: I think you can do better than the straight indexes. For instance Vanguard's High Yield Tax Exempt Fund has made 4.19% over the past 5 years. The S&P 500 Index has lost -2.25% in the same period. I think good mutual funds will continue to outperform the markets because you have skilled managers taking care of your money. The index is just a bet on the whole market. That said, whatever you do, you should diversify. List of Vanguard Funds","qid":10994,"docid":"445322","rank":88,"score":89767},{"content":"Title: Content: \"What in the world to shareholders have to do with it? Nowadays, the vast majority of the shares in most big corporations are \"\"owned\"\" via intermediaries (i.e. mutual funds and 401K's, IRA's and Pension Funds) that do not ALLOW the actual end owners to have any say whatsoever. All those investment vehicles *allow* people to care about ... is the share price.\"","qid":10994,"docid":"21507","rank":89,"score":89655},{"content":"Title: Content: I agree, one should not let the tax tail wag the investing dog. The only question should be whether he'd buy the stock at today's price. If he wishes to own it long term, he keeps it. To take the loss this year, he'd have to sell soon, and can't buy it back for 30 days. If, for whatever reason, the stock comes back a bit, he's going to buy in higher. To be clear, the story changes for ETFs or mutual funds. You can buy a fund to replace one you're selling, capture the loss, and easily not run afoul of wash sale rules.","qid":10994,"docid":"207929","rank":90,"score":89467},{"content":"Title: Content: Distributions of interest from bonds are taxable as income by the Federal, state and municipal (if applicable) government. End of year fund distributions are subject to capital gains taxes as well. You can minimize taxation by: Note that the only bonds that are guaranteed safe are US Government obligations, as the US government has unlimited taxation powers and the ability to print money. Municipal obligations are generally safe, but there is a risk that municipal governments will default. You can also avoid taxation by not realizing gains. If you buy individual stocks or tax-efficient mutual funds, you will have minimal tax liability until you sell. Also, just wanted to point out that bonds do not equal safety and money markets do not pay sufficient interest to offset inflation, you need a diversified portfolio. Five year treasury notes are only paying 1.3% now, and bond prices drop when interest rates go up. Given the level of Federal spending and the wind-down of the war, its likely that rates will rise.","qid":10994,"docid":"428913","rank":91,"score":89173},{"content":"Title: Content: Even with non-voting shares, you own a portion of the company including all of its assets and its future profits. If the company is sold, goes out of business and liquidates, etc., those with non-voting shares still stand collect their share of the funds generated. There's also the possibility, as one of the comments notes, that a company will pay dividends in the future and distribute its assets to shareholders that way. The example of Google (also mentioned in the comments) is interesting because when they went to voting and non-voting stock, there was some theoretical debate about whether the two types of shares (GOOG and GOOGL) would track each other in value. It turned out that they did not - People did put a premium on voting, so that is worth something. Even without the voting rights, however, Google has massive assets and each share (GOOG and GOOGL) represented ownership of a fraction of those assets and that kept them highly correlated in value. (Google had to pay restitution to some shareholders of the non-voting stock as a result of the deviation in value. I won't get into the details here since it's a bit of tangent, but you could easily find details on the web.)","qid":10994,"docid":"488920","rank":92,"score":88973},{"content":"Title: Content: When you are saving for money you need in 5 years or less the only real option is a savings account. I know the return is nothing at this point, but if you cannot take the risk of losing all of your money that's the only thing I would recommend. Now you could try a good growth stock mutual fund if, when you look up in 2 - 3 years and you have lost money you wait it out until it grows enough to get what you lost back then buy your house. I would not do the second option because I wouldn't want to be stuck renting while waiting for the account to recover, and actually thinking about it that way you have more risk. 3 years from now if you have lost money and don't yet have enough saved you will have to continue paying rent, and no mutual fund will out preform that.","qid":10994,"docid":"82159","rank":93,"score":88904},{"content":"Title: Content: Not according to the SEC: A mutual fund is an SEC-registered open-end investment company that pools money from many investors and invests the money in stocks, bonds, short-term money-market instruments, other securities or assets, or some combination of these investments. The combined securities and assets the mutual fund owns are known as its portfolio, which is managed by an SEC-registered investment adviser. Each mutual fund share represents an investor’s proportionate ownership of the mutual fund’s portfolio and the income the portfolio generates. And further down: Mutual funds are open-end funds.","qid":10994,"docid":"180196","rank":94,"score":88552},{"content":"Title: Content: Cost basis is irrelevant because the entire distribution is taxed as ordinary income even if the custodian distributes stock or mutual fund shares to you. Such distributions save you the brokerage fees that you would incur had you taken a cash distribution and promptly bought the shares outside the retirement account for yourself but they have no effect on the tax treatment of the distribution: the market value of the shares distributed to you is taxed as ordinary income, and your basis in the newly acquired shares outside the retirement account is the market value of the shares, all prices being as of the date of the distribution.","qid":10994,"docid":"183926","rank":95,"score":88399},{"content":"Title: Content: In the absence of a country designation where the mutual fund is registered, the question cannot be fully answered. For US mutual funds, the N.A.V per share is calculated each day after the close of the stock exchanges and all purchase and redemption requests received that day are transacted at this share price. So, the price of the mutual fund shares for April 2016 is not enough information: you need to specify the date more accurately. Your calculation of what you get from the mutual fund is incorrect because in the US, declared mutual fund dividends are net of the expense ratio. If the declared dividend is US$ 0.0451 per share, you get a cash payout of US$ 0.0451 for each share that you own: the expense ratio has already been subtracted before the declared dividend is calculated. The N.A.V. price of the mutual fund also falls by the amount of the per-share dividend (assuming that the price of all the fund assets (e.g. shares of stocks, bonds etc) does not change that day). Thus. if you have opted to re-invest your dividend in the same fund, your holding has the same value as before, but you own more shares of the mutual fund (which have a lower price per share). For exchange-traded funds, the rules are slightly different. In other jurisdictions, the rules might be different too.","qid":10994,"docid":"162916","rank":96,"score":88388},{"content":"Title: Content: The S&P 500 is a stock market index, which is a list of 500 stocks from the largest companies in America. You could open a brokerage account with a broker and buy shares in each of these companies, but the easiest, least expensive way to invest in all these stocks is to invest in an S&P 500 index mutual fund. Inside an index mutual fund, your money will be pooled together with everyone else in the fund to purchase all the stocks in the index. These types of funds are very low expense compared to managed mutual funds. Most mutual fund companies have an S&P 500 index fund; two examples are Vanguard and Fidelity. The minimum investment in most of these mutual funds is low enough that you will be able to open an account with your $4000. Something you need to keep in mind, however: investing in any stock mutual fund is not non-risk. It's not even low-risk, really. It is very possible to lose money by investing in the stock market. An S&P 500 index fund is diversified in the sense that you have money in lots of different stocks, but it is also not diversified, in a sense, because it is all in large cap American stocks. Before investing in the stock market, you should have a goal for the money you are investing. If you are investing for something several years away, an index fund can be a good place to invest, but if you will need this money within the next few years, the stock market might be too risky for you.","qid":10994,"docid":"161445","rank":97,"score":87987},{"content":"Title: Content: The fund should be reporting returns net of expenses, so your interpretation is right; it made something like 0.42% (which sounds plausible, based on current yields on short-term securities), and the 0.05% is what's left after expenses. I've never seen a regular mutual fund report raw returns before expenses. If one does, the my personal opinion would be that they're trying to snooker you, as that number isn't actually representative of anybody's actual returns. If you look carefully, you should be able to find a table that reports several kinds of adjusted returns for the fund: As to what happens if a fund can't earn enough returns to cover its expenses, in that case the value of the fund shares will decrease. This happens from time to time with riskier funds. It shouldn't happen with a money market fund because both the returns and the expenses are fairly predictable, so the fund managers should be able to avoid it, unless they get caught up in a major crisis like the 2008 banking crisis. In ordinary times, a money market fund managers who couldn't keep expenses below income would find themselves looking for a new job fairly quickly. Finally, for what it's worth, 0.37% is a really high expense ratio for a money market fund. If you were to shop around, you could easily find comparable funds with expenses less than half that.","qid":10994,"docid":"346762","rank":98,"score":87777},{"content":"Title: Content: \"The larger macro funds, the ones struggling in this environment, need there to be a\"\"normal\"\" amount of volatility in the market to make money. They need price action to provide buy/sell points, and to help them spot trends. The one way market we have been in for a long time makes this difficult/impossible. And then when we get two days in a row like we just had, it can really fuck them up and will lead them to take positions of at the worst time. And the loses are larger because all the macro funds use leverage, so a dollar loss could really become $3-6. The index funds are winning right now, no doubt. But they will have thier day off reckoning too, we just don't know how that plays out...yet. everyone put active mutual funds in the trash two years ago, and they are having the best year they have had in ages. It's all very cyclical. (Sorry for one paragraph, I'm on mobile.)\"","qid":10994,"docid":"238746","rank":99,"score":87694},{"content":"Title: Content: No. You're entitled to 1% of votes at the shareholders' meeting (unless there's class division between shareholders, that is). If more than 50% of the shareholders vote to close the company, sell off its assets and distribute the proceeds to the owners - you'll get 1% share of the distributions.","qid":10994,"docid":"315375","rank":100,"score":87675}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Generally speaking, each year, mutual funds distribute to their shareholders the dividends that are earned by the stocks that they hold and also the net capital gains that they make when they sell stocks that they hold. If they did not do so, the money would be income to the fund and the fund would have to pay taxes on the amount not distributed. (On the other hand, net capital losses are held by the fund and carried forward to later years to offset future capital gains). You pay taxes on the amounts of the distributions declared by the fund. Whether the fund sold a particular stock for a loss or a gain (and if so, how much) is not the issue; what the fund declares as its distribution is. This is why it is not a good idea to buy a mutual fund just before it makes a distribution; your share price drops by the per-share amount of the distribution, and you have to pay taxes on the distribution.\",\n \"qid\": 10994,\n \"docid\": \"486974\",\n \"rank\": 1,\n \"score\": 198269\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"I'll try to answer using your original example. First, let me restate your assumptions, slightly modified: The mutual fund has: Note that I say the \\\"\\\"mutual fund has\\\"\\\" those gains and losses. That's because they occur inside the mutual fund and not directly to you as a shareholder. I use \\\"\\\"realized\\\"\\\" gains and losses because the only gains and losses handled this way are those causes by actual asset (stock) sales within the fund (as directed by fund management). Changes in the value of fund holdings that are not sold are not included in this. As a holder of the fund, you learn the values of X, Y, and Z after the end of the year when the fund management reports the values. For gains, you will also typically see the values reported on your 1099-DIV under \\\"\\\"capital gains distributions\\\"\\\". For example, your 1099-DIV for year 3 will have the value Z for capital gains (besides reporting any ordinary dividends in another box). Your year 1 1099 will have $0 \\\"\\\"capital gains distributions\\\"\\\" shown because of the rule you highlighted in bold: net realized losses are not distributed. This capital loss however can later be used to the mutual fund holder's tax advantage. The fund's internal accounting carries forward the loss, and uses it to offset later realized gains. Thus your year 2 1099 will have a capital gain distribution of (Y-X), not Y, thus recognizing the loss which occurred. Thus the loss is taken into account. Note that for capital gains you, the holder, pay no tax in year 1, pay tax in year 2 on Y-X, and pay tax in year 3 on Z. All the above is the way it works whether or not you sell the shares immediately after the end of year 3 or you hold the shares for many more years. Whenever you do sell the shares, you will have a gain or loss, but that is different from the fund's realized losses we have been talking about (X, Y, and Z).\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 10994,\n \"docid\": \"212394\",\n \"rank\": 2,\n \"score\": 179712\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: A mutual fund makes distributions of its dividends and capital gains, usually once a year, or seminanually or quarterly or monthly etc; it does not distribute any capital losses to its shareholders but holds them for offsetting capital gains in future years, (cf, this answer of mine to a different question). A stock pays dividends; a stock neither has nor does it distribute capital gains: you get capital gains (or losses) when you sell the shares of the stock, but these are not called distributions of any kind. Similarly, you incur capital gains or losses when you redeem shares of mutual funds but these are not called distributions either. Note that non-ETF mutual fund shares are generally not bought and sold on stock exchanges; you buy shares directly from the fund and you sell shares back (redeem them) directly to the fund. All of the above transactions are taxable events for the year to you unless the shares are being held in a tax-deferred account or are tax-free for other reasons (e.g. dividends from a municipal bond fund).\",\n \"qid\": 10994,\n \"docid\": \"110343\",\n \"rank\": 3,\n \"score\": 159110\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: This is really an extended comment on the last paragraph of @BenMiller's answer. When (the manager of) a mutual fund sells securities that the fund holds for a profit, or receives dividends (stock dividends, bond interest, etc.), the fund has the option of paying taxes on that money (at corporate rates) and distributing the rest to shareholders in the fund, or passing on the entire amount (categorized as dividends, qualified dividends, net short-term capital gains, and net long-term capital gains) to the shareholders who then pay taxes on the money that they receive at their own respective tax rates. (If the net gains are negative, i.e. losses, they are not passed on to the shareholders. See the last paragraph below). A shareholder doesn't have to reinvest the distribution amount into the mutual fund: the option of receiving the money as cash always exists, as does the option of investing the distribution into a different mutual fund in the same family, e.g. invest the distributions from Vanguard's S&P 500 Index Fund into Vanguard's Total Bond Index Fund (and/or vice versa). This last can be done without needing a brokerage account, but doing it across fund families will require the money to transit through a brokerage account or a personal account. Such cross-transfers can be helpful in reducing the amounts of money being transferred in re-balancing asset allocations as is recommended be done once or twice a year. Those investing in load funds instead of no-load funds should keep in mind that several load funds waive the load for re-investment of distributions but some funds don't: the sales charge for the reinvestment is pure profit for the fund if the fund was purchased directly or passed on to the brokerage if the fund was purchased through a brokerage account. As Ben points out, a shareholder in a mutual fund must pay taxes (in the appropriate categories) on the distributions from the fund even though no actual cash has been received because the entire distribution has been reinvested. It is worth keeping in mind that when the mutual fund declares a distribution (say $1.22 a share), the Net Asset Value per share drops by the same amount (assuming no change in the prices of the securities that the fund holds) and the new shares issued are at this lower price. That is, there is no change in the value of the investment: if you had $10,000 in the fund the day before the distribution was declared, you still have $10,000 after the distribution is declared but you own more shares in the fund than you had previously. (In actuality, the new shares appear in your account a couple of days later, not immediately when the distribution is declared). In short, a distribution from a mutual fund that is re-invested leads to no change in your net assets, but does increase your tax liability. Ditto for a distribution that is taken as cash or re-invested elsewhere. As a final remark, net capital losses inside a mutual fund are not distributed to shareholders but are retained within the fund to be written off against future capital gains. See also this previous answer or this one.\",\n \"qid\": 10994,\n \"docid\": \"403701\",\n \"rank\": 4,\n \"score\": 145914\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: You did something that you shouldn't have done; you bought a dividend. Most mutual fund companies have educational materials on their sites that recommend against making new investments in mutual funds in the last two months of the year because most mutual funds distribute their earnings (dividends, capital gains etc) to their shareholders in December, and the share price of the funds goes down in the amount of the per share distribution. These distributions can be taken in cash or can be re-invested in the fund; you most likely chose the latter option (it is often the default choice if you ignored all this because you are a newbie). For those who choose to reinvest, the number of shares in the mutual fund increases, but since the price of the shares has decreased, the net amount remains the same. You own more shares at a lower price than the day before when the price was higher but the total value of your account is the same (ignoring normal market fluctuations in the price of the actual stocks held by the fund. Regardless of whether you take the distributions as cash or re-invest in the fund, that money is taxable income to you (unless the fund is owned inside a 401k or IRA or other tax-deferred investment program). You bought 56 shares at a price of $17.857 per share (net cost $1000). The fund distributed its earnings shortly thereafter and gave you 71.333-56= 15.333 additional shares. The new share price is $14.11. So, the total value of your investment is $1012, but the amount that you have invested in the account is the original $1000 plus the amount of the distribution which is (roughly) $14.11 x 15.333 = $216. Your total investment of $1216 is now worth $1012 only, and so you have actually lost money. Besides, you owe income tax on that $216 dividend that you received. Do you see why the mutual fund companies recommend against making new investments late in the year? If you had waited till after the mutual fund had made its distribution, you could have bought $1000/14.11 = 70.871 shares and wouldn't have owed tax on that distribution that you just bought by making the investment just before the distribution was made. See also my answer to this recent question about investing in mutual funds.\",\n \"qid\": 10994,\n \"docid\": \"583203\",\n \"rank\": 5,\n \"score\": 137558\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"This answer is applicable to the US. Similar rules may hold in some other countries as well. The shares in an open-ended (non-exchange-traded) mutual fund are not traded on stock exchanges and the \\\"\\\"market\\\"\\\" does not determine the share price the way it does for shares in companies as brokers make offers to buy and sell stock shares. The price of one share of the mutual fund (usually called Net Asset Value (NAV) per share) is usually calculated at the close of business, and is, as the name implies, the net worth of all the shares in companies that the fund owns plus cash on hand etc divided by the number of mutual fund shares outstanding. The NAV per share of a mutual fund might or might not increase in anticipation of the distribution to occur, but the NAV per share very definitely falls on the day that the distribution is declared. If you choose to re-invest your distribution in the same fund, then you will own more shares at a lower NAV per share but the total value of your investment will not change at all. If you had 100 shares currently priced at $10 and the fund declares a distribution of $2 per share, you will be reinvesting $200 to buy more shares but the fund will be selling you additional shares at $8 per share (and of course, the 100 shares you hold will be priced at $8 per share too. So, you will have 100 previous shares worth only $800 now + 25 new shares worth $200 for a total of 125 shares at $8 = $1000 total investment, just as before. If you take the distribution in cash, then you still hold the 100 shares but they are worth only $800 now, and the fund will send you the $200 as cash. Either way, there is no change in your net worth. However, (assuming that the fund is is not in a tax-advantaged account), that $200 is taxable income to you regardless of whether you reinvest it or take it as cash. The fund will tell you what part of that $200 is dividend income (as well as what part is Qualified Dividend income), what part is short-term capital gains, and what part is long-term capital gains; you declare the income in the appropriate categories on your tax return, and are taxed accordingly. So, what advantage is there in re-investing? Well, your basis in those shares has increased and so if and when you sell the shares, you will owe less tax. If you had bought the original 100 shares at $10 and sell the 125 shares a few years later at $11 and collect $1375, you owe (long-term capital gains) tax on just $1375-$1200 =$175 (which can also be calculated as $1 gain on each of the original 100 shares = $100 plus $3 gain on the 25 new shares = $175). In the past, some people would forget the intermediate transactions and think that they had invested $1000 initially and gotten $1375 back for a gain of $375 and pay taxes on $375 instead. This is less likely to occur now since mutual funds are now required to report more information on the sale to the shareseller than they used to in the past. So, should you buy shares in a mutual fund right now? Most mutual fund companies publish preliminary estimates in November and December of what distributions each fund will be making by the end of the year. They also usually advise against purchasing new shares during this period because one ends up \\\"\\\"buying a dividend\\\"\\\". If, for example, you bought those 100 shares at $10 on the Friday after Thanksgiving and the fund distributes that $2 per share on December 15, you still have $1000 on December 15, but now owe taxes on $200 that you would not have had to pay if you had postponed buying those shares till after the distribution was paid. Nitpickers: for simplicity of exposition, I have not gone into the detailed chronology of when the fund goes ex-dividend, when the distribution is recorded, and when cash is paid out, etc., but merely treated all these events as happening simultaneously.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 10994,\n \"docid\": \"354136\",\n \"rank\": 6,\n \"score\": 135433\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: When you invest (say $1000) in (say 100 shares) of a mutual fund at $10 per share, and the price of the shares changes, you do not have a capital gain or loss, and you do not have to declare anything to the IRS or make any entry on any line on Form 1040 or tell anyone else about it either. You can brag about it at parties if the share price has gone up, or weep bitter tears into your cocktail if the price has gone down, but the IRS not only does not care, but it will not let you deduct the paper loss or pay taxes on the paper gain. What you put down on Form 1040 Schedules B and D is precisely what the mutual fund will tell you on Form 1099-DIV (and Form 1099-B), no more, no less. If you did not report any of these amounts on your previous tax returns, you need to file amended tax returns, both Federal as well as State, A stock mutual fund invests in stocks and the fund manager may buy and sell some stocks during the course of the year. If he makes a profit, that money will be distributed to the share holders of the mutual fund. That money can be re-invested in more shares of the same mutual fund or taken as cash (and possibly invested in some other fund). This capital gain distribution is reported to you on Form 1099-DIV and you have to report sit on your tax return even if you re-invested in more share of the same mutual fund, and the amount of the distribution is taxable income to you. Similarly, if the stocks owned by the mutual fund pay dividends, those will be passed on to you as a dividend distribution and all the above still applies. You can choose to reinvest, etc, the amount will be reported to you on Form 1099-DIV, and you need to report it to the IRS and include it in your taxable income. If the mutual fund manager loses money in the buying and selling he will not tell you that he lost money but it will be visible as a reduction in the price of the shares. The loss will not be reported to you on Form 1099-DIV and you cannot do anything about it. Especially important, you cannot declare to the IRS that you have a loss and you cannot deduct the loss on your income tax returns that year. When you finally sell your shares in the mutual fund, you will have a gain or loss that you can pay taxes on or deduct. Say the mutual fund paid a dividend of $33 one year and you re-invested the money into the mutual fund, buying 3 shares at the then cost of $11 per share. You declare the $33 on your tax return that year and pay taxes on it. Two years later, you sell all 103 shares that you own for $10.50 per share. Your total investment was $1000 + $33 = $1033. You get $1081.50 from the fund, and you will owe taxes on $1081.50 - $1033 = $48.50. You have a profit of $50 on the 100 shares originally bought and a loss of $1.50 on the 3 shares bought for $11: the net result is a gain of $48.50. You do not pay taxes on $81.50 as the profit from your original $1000 investment; you pay taxes only on $48.50 (remember that you already paid taxes on the $33). The mutual fund will report on Form 1099-B that you sold 103 shares for $1081.50 and that you bought the 103 shares for an average price of $1033/103 = $10.029 per share. The difference is taxable income to you. If you sell the 103 shares for $9 per share (say), then you get $927 out of an investment of $1033 for a capital loss of $106. This will be reported to you on Form 1099-B and you will enter the amounts on Schedule D of Form 1040 as a capital loss. What you actually pay taxes on is the net capital gain, if any, after combining all your capital gains and losses for the year. If the net is a loss, you can deduct up to $3000 in a year, and carry the rest forward to later years to offset capital gains in later years. But, your unrealized capital gains or losses (those that occur because the mutual fund share price goes up and down like a yoyo while you grin or grit your teeth and hang on to your shares) are not reported or deducted or taxed anywhere. It is more complicated when you don't sell all the shares you own in the mutual fund or if you sell shares within one year of buying them, but let's stick to simple cases.\",\n \"qid\": 10994,\n \"docid\": \"496820\",\n \"rank\": 7,\n \"score\": 130194\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"A mutual fund's return or yield has nothing to do with what you receive from the mutual fund. The annual percentage return is simply the percentage increase (or decrease!) of the value of one share of the mutual fund from January 1 till December 31. The cash value of any distributions (dividend income, short-term capital gains, long-term capital gains) might be reported separately or might be included in the annual return. What you receive from the mutual fund is the distributions which you have the option of taking in cash (and spending on whatever you like, or investing elsewhere) or of re-investing into the fund without ever actually touching the money. Regardless of whether you take a distribution as cash or re-invest it in the mutual fund, that amount is taxable income in most jurisdictions. In the US, long-term capital gains are taxed at different (lower) rates than ordinary income, and I believe that long-term capital gains from mutual funds are not taxed at all in India. You are not taxed on the increase in the value of your investment caused by an increase in the share price over the year nor do you get deduct the \\\"\\\"loss\\\"\\\" if the share price declined over the year. It is only when you sell the mutual fund shares (back to the mutual fund company) that you have to pay taxes on the capital gains (if you sold for a higher price) or deduct the capital loss (if you sold for a lower price) than the purchase price of the shares. Be aware that different shares in the sale might have different purchase prices because they were bought at different times, and thus have different gains and losses. So, how do you calculate your personal return from the mutual fund investment? If you have a money management program or a spreadsheet program, it can calculate your return for you. If you have online access to your mutual fund account on its website, it will most likely have a tool called something like \\\"\\\"Personal rate of return\\\"\\\" and this will provide you with the same calculations without your having to type in all the data by hand. Finally, If you want to do it personally by hand, I am sure that someone will soon post an answer writing out the gory details.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 10994,\n \"docid\": \"88575\",\n \"rank\": 8,\n \"score\": 124965\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"A nondividend distribution is typically a return of capital; in other words, you're getting money back that you've contributed previously (and thus would have been taxed upon in previous years when those funds were first remunerated to you). Nondividend distributions are nontaxable, so they do not represent income from capital gains, but do effect your cost basis when determining the capital gain/loss once that capital gain/loss is realized. As an example, publicly-traded real estate investment trusts (REITs) generally distribute a return of capital back to shareholders throughout the year as a nondividend distribution. This is a return of a portion of the shareholder's original capital investment, not a share of the REITs profits, so it is simply getting a portion of your original investment back, and thus, is not income being received (I like to refer to it as \\\"\\\"new income\\\"\\\" to differentiate). However, the return of capital does change the cost basis of the original investment, so if one were to then sell the shares of the REIT (in this example), the basis of the original investment has to be adjusted by the nondividend distributions received over the course of ownership (in other words, the cost basis will be reduced when the shares are sold). I'm wondering if the OP could give us some additional information about his/her S-Corp. What type of business is it? In the course of its business and trade activity, does it buy and sell securities (stocks, etc.)? Does it sell assets or business property? Does it own interests in other corporations or partnerships (sales of those interests are one form of capital gain). Long-term capital gains are taxed at rates lower than ordinary income, but the IRS has very specific rules as to what constitutes a capital gain (loss). I hate to answer a question with a question, but we need a little more information before we can weigh-in on whether you have actual capital gains or losses in the course of your S-Corporation trade.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 10994,\n \"docid\": \"193485\",\n \"rank\": 9,\n \"score\": 124057\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"How is that possible?? The mutual fund doesn't pay taxes and passes along the tax bill to shareholders via distributions would be the short answer. Your basis likely changed as now you have bought more shares. But I gained absolutely nothing from my dividend, so how is it taxable? The fund has either realized capital gains, dividends, interest or some other form of income that it has to pass along to shareholders as the fund doesn't pay taxes itself. Did I get screwed the first year because I bought into the fund too late in the year? Perhaps if you don't notice that your cost basis has changed here so that you'll have lower taxes when you sell your shares. Is anyone familiar with what causes this kind of situation of receiving a \\\"\\\"taxable dividend\\\"\\\" that doesn't actually increase the account balance? Yes, I am rather familiar with this. The point to understand is that the fund doesn't pay taxes itself but passes this along. The shareholders that hold funds in tax-advantaged accounts like 401ks and IRAs still get the distribution but are shielded from paying taxes on those gains at that point at time. Is it because I bought too late in the year? No, it is because you didn't know the fund would have a distribution of that size that year. Some funds can have negative returns yet still have a capital gains distribution if the fund experiences enough redemptions that the fund had to sell appreciated shares in a security. This is part of the risk in having stock funds in taxable accounts. Or is it because the fund had a negative return that year? No, it is because you don't understand how mutual funds and taxes work along with what distribution schedule the fund had. Do I wait until after the distribution date this year to buy? I'd likely consider it for taxable accounts yes. However, if you are buying in a tax-advantaged account then there isn't that same issue.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 10994,\n \"docid\": \"545491\",\n \"rank\": 10,\n \"score\": 123193\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: The net return reported to you (as a percentage) by a mutual fund is the gross return minus the expense ratio. So, if the gross return is X% and the expense ratio is Y%, your account will show a return of (X-Y)%. Be aware that X could be negative too. So, with Y = 1, If X = 10 (as you might get from a stock fund if you believe historical averages will continue), then the net return is 9% and you have lost (Y/X) times 100% = 10% of the gross return. If X = 8 (as you might get from a bond fund if you believe historical averages will continue), then the net return is 7% and you have lost (Y/X) times 100% = 12.5% of the gross return. and so on and so forth. The numbers used are merely examples of the returns that have been obtained historically, though it is worth emphasizing that 10% is an average return, averaged over many decades, from investments in stocks, and to believe that one will get a 10% return year after year is to mislead oneself very badly. I think the point of the illustrations is that expense ratios are important, and should matter a lot to you, but that their impact is proportionately somewhat less if the gross return is high, but very significant if the gross return is low, as in money-market funds. In fact, some money market funds which found that X < Y have even foregone charging the expense ratio fee so as to maintain a fixed $1 per share price. Personally, I would need a lot of persuading to invest in even a stock fund with 1% expense ratio.\",\n \"qid\": 10994,\n \"docid\": \"361013\",\n \"rank\": 11,\n \"score\": 122433\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"A mutual fund could make two different kinds of distributions to you: Capital gains: When the fund liquidates positions that it holds, it may realize a gain if it sells the assets for a greater price than the fund purchased them for. As an example, for an index fund, assets may get liquidated if the underlying index changes in composition, thus requiring the manager to sell some stocks and purchase others. Mutual funds are required to distribute most of their income that they generate in this way back to its shareholders; many often do this near the end of the calendar year. When you receive the distribution, the gains will be categorized as either short-term (the asset was held for less than one year) or long-term (vice versa). Based upon the holding period, the gain is taxed differently. Currently in the United States, long-term capital gains are only taxed at 15%, regardless of your income tax bracket (you only pay the capital gains tax, not the income tax). Short-term capital gains are treated as ordinary income, so you will pay your (probably higher) tax rate on any cash that you are given by your mutual fund. You may also be subject to capital gains taxes when you decide to sell your holdings in the fund. Any profit that you made based on the difference between your purchase and sale price is treated as a capital gain. Based upon the period of time that you held the mutual fund shares, it is categorized as a short- or long-term gain and is taxed accordingly in the tax year that you sell the shares. Dividends: Many companies pay dividends to their stockholders as a way of returning a portion of their profits to their collective owners. When you invest in a mutual fund that owns dividend-paying stocks, the fund is the \\\"\\\"owner\\\"\\\" that receives the dividend payments. As with capital gains, mutual funds will redistribute these dividends to you periodically, often quarterly or annually. The main difference with dividends is that they are always taxed as ordinary income, no matter how long you (or the fund) have held the asset. I'm not aware of Texas state tax laws, so I can't comment on your other question.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 10994,\n \"docid\": \"45190\",\n \"rank\": 12,\n \"score\": 122324\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"Mutual funds don't pay taxes themselves, they distribute any dividends or capital gains to the shareholders. Thus, if you hold a mutual fund in a tax-advantaged account like a 401k or IRA then the distribution isn't a taxable event while in a regular taxable account you would have to pay taxes on the distributions. From Forbes: There can be foreign companies on US stock exchanges that would still work the same way. Unilever for example is an Anglo-Dutch multinational listed on the NYSE as \\\"\\\"UN.\\\"\\\"\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 10994,\n \"docid\": \"407185\",\n \"rank\": 13,\n \"score\": 122264\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"FSEMX has an annual expense ratio of 0.1% which is very low. What that means is that each month, the FSEMX will pay itself one-twelfth of 0.1% of the total value of all the shares owned by the shareholders in the mutual fund. If the fund has cash on hand from its trading activities or dividends collected from companies whose stock is owned by FSEMX or interest on bonds owned by FSEMX, the money comes out of that, but if there is no such pot (or the pot is not large enough), then the fund manager has the authority to sell some shares of the stocks held by FSEMX so that the employees can be paid, etc. If the total of cash generated by the trading and the dividend collection in a given year is (say) 3% of the share value of all the outstanding mutual fund, then only 2.9% will be paid out as dividend and capital gain distribution income to the share holders, the remaining 0.1% already having been paid to FSEMX management for operating expenses. It is important to keep in mind that expenses are always paid even if there are no profits, or even if there are losses that year so that no dividends or capital gains distributions are made. You don't see the expenses explicitly on any statement that you receive. If FSEMX sells shares of stocks that it holds to pay the expenses, this reduces the share value (NAV) of the mutual fund shares that you hold. So, if your mutual fund account \\\"\\\"lost\\\"\\\" 20% in value that year because the market was falling, and you got no dividend or capital gains distributions either, remember that only 19.9% of that loss can be blamed on the President or Congress or Wall Street or public-sector unions or your neighbor's refusal to ditch his old PC in favor of a new Mac, and the rest (0.1%) has gone to FSEMX to pay for fees you agreed to when you bought FSEMX shares. If you invest directly in FSEMX through Fidelity's web site, there is no sales charge, and you pay no expenses other than the 0.1% annual expense ratio. There is a fee for selling FSEMX shares after owning them only for a short time since the fund wants to discourage short-term investors. Whatever other fees finance.yahoo.com lists might be descriptive of the uses that FSEMX puts its expense ratio income to in its internal management, but are not of any importance to the prudent investor in FSEMX who will never encounter them or have to pay them.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 10994,\n \"docid\": \"155797\",\n \"rank\": 14,\n \"score\": 121905\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: The price of a share of a mutual fund is its Net Asset Value (nav). Before the payout of dividends and capital gain distribution, the fund was holding both stock shares and cash that resulted from dividends and capital gains. After the payout, a share only holds the stock. Therefore once the cash is paid out the NAV must drop by the same amount as was paid out per share. Thus of course assumes no other activity or valuation changes of the underlying assets. Regular market activity will obscure what the payout does to the NAV.\",\n \"qid\": 10994,\n \"docid\": \"315345\",\n \"rank\": 15,\n \"score\": 121853\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"In the case of mutual funds, Net Asset Value (NAV) is the price used to buy and sell shares. NAV is just the value of the underlying assets (which are in turn valued by their underlying holdings and future earnings). So if a fund hands out a billion dollars, it stands to reason their NAV*shares (market cap?) is a billion dollars less. Shareholder's net worth is equal in either scenario, but after the dividend is paid they are more liquid. For people who need investment income to live on, dividends are a cheap way to hold stocks and get regular payments, versus having to sell part of your portfolio every month. But for people who want to hold their investment in the market for a long long time, dividends only increase the rate at which you have to buy. For mutual funds this isn't a problem: you buy the funds and tell them to reinvest for free. So because of that, it's a prohibited practice to \\\"\\\"sell\\\"\\\" dividends to clients.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 10994,\n \"docid\": \"232932\",\n \"rank\": 16,\n \"score\": 121565\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"1) When it says \\\"\\\"an investment or mutual fund\\\"\\\", is a mutual fund not an investment? If no, what is the definition of an investment? A mutual fund is indeed an investment. The article probably mentions mutual funds separately from other investments because it is not uncommon for mutual funds to give you the option to automatically reinvest dividends and capital gains. 2) When it says \\\"\\\"In terms of stocks\\\"\\\", why does it only mention distribution of dividends but not distribution of capital gains? Since distributions are received as cash deposits they can be used to buy more of the stock. Capital gains, on the other hand, occur when an asset increases in value. These gains are realized when the asset is sold. In the case of stocks, reinvestment of capital gains doesn't make much sense since buying more stock after selling it to realize capital gains results in you owning as much stock as you had before you realized the gains. 3) When it says \\\"\\\"In terms of mutual funds\\\"\\\", it says about \\\"\\\"the reinvestment of distributions and dividends\\\"\\\". Does \\\"\\\"distributions\\\"\\\" not include distributions of \\\"\\\"dividends\\\"\\\"? why does it mention \\\"\\\"distributions\\\"\\\" parallel to \\\"\\\"dividends\\\"\\\"? Used in this setting, dividend and distribution are synonymous, which is highlighted by the way they are used in parallel. 4) Does reinvestment only apply to interest or dividends, but not to capital gain? Reinvestment only applies to dividends in the case of stocks. Mutual funds must distribute capital gains to shareholders, making these distributions essentially cash dividends, usually as a special end of year distribution. If you've requested automatic reinvestment, the fund will buy more shares with these capital gain distributions as well.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 10994,\n \"docid\": \"403755\",\n \"rank\": 17,\n \"score\": 118355\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"Usually there are annual or semi-annual reports for a mutual fund that may give an idea for when a fund will have \\\"\\\"distributions\\\"\\\" which can cause the NAV to fall as this is when the fund passes the taxable liabilities to shareholders in the form of a dividend. Alternatively, the prospectus of the fund may also have the data on the recent distribution history that is likely what you want. If you don't understand why a fund would have a distribution, I highly suggest researching the legal structure of an open-end mutual fund where there more than a few rules about how taxes are handled for this case.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 10994,\n \"docid\": \"155254\",\n \"rank\": 18,\n \"score\": 118116\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: There are at least a couple of ways you could view this to my mind: Make an Excel spreadsheet and use the IRR function to compute the rate of return you are having based on money being added. Re-invested distributions in a mutual fund aren't really an additional investment as the Net Asset Value of the fund will drop by the amount of the distribution aside from market fluctuation. This is presuming you want a raw percentage that could be tricky to compare to other funds without doing more than a bit of work in a way. Look at what is the fund's returns compared to both the category and the index it is tracking. The tracking error is likely worth noting as some index funds could lag the index by a sizable margin and thus may not be that great. At the same time there may exist cases where an index fund isn't quite measuring up that well. The Small-Growth Indexing Anomaly would be the William Bernstein article from 2001 that has some facts and figures for this that may be useful.\",\n \"qid\": 10994,\n \"docid\": \"470687\",\n \"rank\": 19,\n \"score\": 117358\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Mutual funds (that are not exchange-traded funds) often need to sell some of their securities to get cash when a shareholder redeems some shares. Such transactions incur costs that are paid (proportionally) by all the shareholders in the fund, not just the person requesting redemption, and thus the remaining shareholders get a lower return. (Exchange-traded funds are traded as if they are shares of common stock, and a shareholder seeking a redemption pays the costs of the redemption). For this reason, many mutual funds do not allow redemptions for some period of time after a purchase, or purchases for some period of time after a redemption. The periods of time are chosen by the fund, and are stated in the prospectus (which everyone has acknowledged has been received before an investment was made).\",\n \"qid\": 10994,\n \"docid\": \"522759\",\n \"rank\": 20,\n \"score\": 113463\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Capital gain distribution is not capital gain on sale of stock. If you have stock sales (Schedule D) you should be filing 1040, not 1040A. Capital gain distributions are distributions from mutual funds/ETFs that are attributed to capital gains of the funds (you may not have actually received the distribution, but you still may have gain attributed to you). It is reported on 1099-DIV, and if it is 0 - then you don't have any. If you sold a stock, your broker should have given you 1099-B (which is not the same as 1099-DIV, but may be consolidated by your broker into one large PDF and not provided separately). On 1099-B the sales proceeds are recorded, and if you purchased the stock after 2011 - the cost basis is also recorded. The difference between the proceeds and the cost basis is your gain (or loss, if it is negative). Fees are added to cost basis.\",\n \"qid\": 10994,\n \"docid\": \"350555\",\n \"rank\": 21,\n \"score\": 113215\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"First, consider what causes taxes to apply to a mutual fund, index or actively managed. Dividends and capital gains are generally what will be distributed to shareholders given the nature of a mutual fund since the fund itself doesn't pay taxes. For funds held in IRAs or other tax-advantaged accounts, this isn't a concern and thus people may not have this concern for those situations which can account for a lot of investing situations as people may have 401(k)s and IRAs that hold their investments rather than taxable accounts. Second, there can be tax-managed funds so there can be cases where a fund is managed with taxes in mind that is worth noting here as what is referenced is a \\\"\\\"Dummies\\\"\\\" link that is making a generalization. For taxable accounts, it may make more sense to have a tax-managed fund rather than an index fund though I'd also argue to be careful of asset allocation as to maintain a purity of style can require selling of stocks that grow too big and thus trigger capital gains,e.g. small-cap and mid-cap funds that can't hold onto the winners as they would become mid-cap and large-cap instead of representing the proper asset class. A FUND THAT PLAYED IT SAFE--AND WAS SORRY would be a Businessweek story from 1998 of an actively managed fund that went mostly to cash and missed the rise of the stock market at that time if you want a specific example of what an actively managed fund can do that an index fund often cannot do. The index fund is to track the index and stay nearly all invested all the time.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 10994,\n \"docid\": \"90858\",\n \"rank\": 22,\n \"score\": 111810\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: There are very strict regulations that requires the assets which a fund buys on behalf of its investors to be kept completely separate from the fund's own assets (which it uses to pay its expenses), except for the published fees. Funds are typically audited regularly to ensure this is the case. So the only way in which a default of the fund could cause a loss of invstor money would be if the fund managers broke the regulations and committed various crimes. I've never heard of this actually happening to a normal mutual fund. There is of course also a default risk when a fund buys bonds or other non-equity securities, and this may sometimes be non-obvious. For example, some ETFs which are nominally based on a stock index don't actually buy stocks; instead they buy or sell options on those stocks, which involves a counterparty risk. The ETF may or may not have rules that limit the exposure to any one counterparty.\",\n \"qid\": 10994,\n \"docid\": \"563324\",\n \"rank\": 23,\n \"score\": 111581\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: You do realize that the fund will have management expenses that are likely already factored into the NAV and that when you sell, the NAV will not yet be known, right? There are often fees to run a mutual fund that may be taken as part of managing the fund that are already factored into the Net Asset Value(NAV) of the shares that would be my caution as well as possible fee changes as Dilip Sarwate notes in a comment. Expense ratios are standard for mutual funds, yes. Individual stocks that represent corporations not structured as a mutual fund don't declare a ratio of how much are their costs, e.g. Apple or Google may well invest in numerous other companies but the costs of making those investments won't be well detailed though these companies do have non-investment operations of course. Don't forget to read the fund's prospectus as sometimes a fund will have other fees like account maintenance fees that may be taken out of distributions as well as being aware of how taxes will be handled as you don't specify what kind of account these purchases are being done using.\",\n \"qid\": 10994,\n \"docid\": \"287537\",\n \"rank\": 24,\n \"score\": 111412\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: The ETF is likely better in this case. The ETF will generally generate less capital gains taxes along the way. In order to pay off investors who leave a mutual fund, the manager will have to sell the fund's assets. This creates a capital gain, which must be distributed to shareholders at the end of the year. The mutual fund holder is essentially taxed on this turnover. The ETF does not have to sell any stock when an investor sells his shares because the investor sells the shares himself on the open market. This will result in a capital gain for the specific person exiting his position, but it does not create a taxable event for anyone else holding the ETF shares.\",\n \"qid\": 10994,\n \"docid\": \"153112\",\n \"rank\": 25,\n \"score\": 109379\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: As the commenters have already indicated, money market mutual funds are not guaranteed to maintain principal during all market conditions, and investments in mutual funds are not insured against loss due to market changes. That said, you can run a price search on Vanguard's website and see these results: So, despite all the economic problems since 1975, VMMXX has never traded at a price other than $1.00.\",\n \"qid\": 10994,\n \"docid\": \"538060\",\n \"rank\": 26,\n \"score\": 109185\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Dividends from mutual funds reduce the share value the day they are distributed. Mutual funds do this at least once a year, or more times in the year if there are a lot of gains, to pass through taxable gains to individuals who may have lower tax rates or deferred tax accounts such as you. This is meaningful for investors who hold the mutual funds in taxable accounts, but immaterial for 401ks. Your account balance is not affected if you don't get the distribution before roll over.\",\n \"qid\": 10994,\n \"docid\": \"429568\",\n \"rank\": 27,\n \"score\": 108607\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: The short answer is that you would want to use the net inflow or net outflow, aka profit or loss. In my experience, you've got a couple different uses for IRR and that may be driving the confusion. Pretty much the same formula, but just coming at it from different angles. Thinking about a stock or mutual fund investment, you could project a scenario with an up-front investment (net outflow) in the first period and then positive returns (dividends, then final sale proceeds, each a net inflow) in subsequent periods. This is a model that more closely follows some of the logic you laid out. Thinking about a business project or investment, you tend to see more complicated and less smooth cashflows. For example, you may have a large up-front capital expenditure in the first period, then have net profit (revenue less ongoing maintenance expense), then another large capital outlay, and so on. In both cases you would want to base your analysis on the net inflow or net outflow in each period. It just depends on the complexity of the cashflows trend as to whether you see a straightforward example (initial payment, then ongoing net inflows), or a less straightforward example with both inflows and outflows. One other thing to note - you would only want to include those costs that are applicable to the project. So you would not want to include the cost of overhead that would exist even if you did not undertake the project.\",\n \"qid\": 10994,\n \"docid\": \"209838\",\n \"rank\": 28,\n \"score\": 108332\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: No, they do not. Stock funds and bonds funds collect income dividends in different ways. Stock funds collect dividends (as well as any capital gains that are realized) from the underlying stocks and incorporates these into the funds’ net asset value, or daily share price. That’s why a stock fund’s share price drops when the fund makes a distribution – the distribution comes out of the fund’s total net assets. With bond funds, the internal accounting is different: Dividends accrue daily, and are then paid out to shareholders every month or quarter. Bond funds collect the income from the underlying bonds and keep it in a separate internal “bucket.” A bond fund calculates a daily accrual rate for the shares outstanding, and shareholders only earn income for the days they actually hold the fund. For example, if you buy a bond fund two days before the fund’s month-end distribution, you would only receive two days’ worth of income that month. On the other hand, if you sell a fund part-way through the month, you will still receive a partial distribution at the end of the month, pro-rated for the days you actually held the fund. Source Also via bogleheads: Most Vanguard bond funds accrue interest to the share holders daily. Here is a typical statement from a prospectus: Each Fund distributes to shareholders virtually all of its net income (interest less expenses) as well as any net capital gains realized from the sale of its holdings. The Fund’s income dividends accrue daily and are distributed monthly. The term accrue used in this sense means that the income dividends are credited to your account each day, just like interest in a savings account that accrues daily. Since the money set aside for your dividends is both an asset of the fund and a liability, it does not affect the calculated net asset value. When the fund distributes the income dividends at the end of the month, the net asset value does not change as both the assets and liabilities decrease by exactly the same amount. [Note that if you sell all of your bond fund shares in the middle of the month, you will receive as proceeds the value of your shares (calculated as number of shares times net asset value) plus a separate distribution of the accrued income dividends.]\",\n \"qid\": 10994,\n \"docid\": \"110856\",\n \"rank\": 29,\n \"score\": 107302\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: No. You shorted the stock so you are not a shareholder. If you covered your short, again you are not a shareholder as you statement of account must show. You cannot participate in the net settlement fund.\",\n \"qid\": 10994,\n \"docid\": \"202960\",\n \"rank\": 30,\n \"score\": 106618\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: The 20%+ returns you have observed in the mutual funds are not free money. They are compensation for the risk associated with owning those funds. Given the extraordinarily high returns you are seeing I would expect extremely high risk. This means there is a good possibility of extreme losses at some point. By putting a lot of money in those mutual funds you are taking a gamble that may or may not pay off. Assuming what your friend is paying you for rent is fair, you are not losing money on your house relative to the market. You are earning less because you are invested in a less risky asset. If you want a higher return, you should borrow some money (or sell your house) and invest in the market. You may make more money that way. But if you do that, you will have a larger chance of losing a lot of money at some point. That's the way risk works. No one can promise a 20% return on a risky asset, they can only hint that it may do in the future what it did in the past. A reasonable approach to investment is to get invested in lots of different things: stocks, bonds, real estate. If you are afraid of risk and willing to earn less, keep more money in safe assets. If you are willing to take big risks in exchange for the possibility of high returns, move more assets into risky stuff. If you want extreme returns and are willing to take extreme risk, borrow and use the money to invest in risky assets. As you look over investment options, remember that anything that pays high returns most likely has high risk as well.\",\n \"qid\": 10994,\n \"docid\": \"445782\",\n \"rank\": 31,\n \"score\": 106434\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"The \\\"\\\"risk\\\"\\\", other than losing principal (especially when rates go up) is capital gains. As with any mutual fund, this one might need to sell assets for cashflow. In which case the taxes on the sales are shifted to the investors. So you may end up with the fund losing value due to price fluctuations, yet you'll have capital gains (probably with a significant short term part since the maturity periods are relatively short) to pay taxes on. To what extent that may happen depends on the fund's cashflow (influx of money vs. withdrawals). Capital gains reduce your basis (since no money is actually distributed), but if you hold the fund for more than a year - you lose the difference between the short term and the long term tax for the short term portion of the gains.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 10994,\n \"docid\": \"472159\",\n \"rank\": 32,\n \"score\": 106137\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Vanguard (and probably other mutual fund brokers as well) offers easy-to-read performance charts that show the total change in value of a $10K investment over time. This includes the fair market value of the fund plus any distributions (i.e. dividends) paid out. On Vanguard's site they also make a point to show the impact of fees in the chart, since their low fees are their big selling point. Some reasons why a dividend is preferable to selling shares: no loss of voting power, no transaction costs, dividends may have better tax consequences for you than capital gains. NOTE: If your fund is underperforming the benchmark, it is not due to the payment of dividends. Funds do not pay their own dividends; they only forward to shareholders the dividends paid out by the companies in which they invest. So the fair market value of the fund should always reflect the fair market value of the companies it holds, and those companies' shares are the ones that are fluctuating when they pay dividends. If your fund is underperforming its benchmark, then that is either because it is not tracking the benchmark closely enough or because it is charging high fees. The fact that the underperformance you're seeing appears to be in the amount of dividends paid is a coincidence. Check out this example Vanguard performance chart for an S&P500 index fund. Notice how if you add the S&P500 index benchmark to the plot you can't even see the difference between the two -- the fund is designed to track the benchmark exactly. So when IBM (or whoever) pays out a dividend, the index goes down in value and the fund goes down in value.\",\n \"qid\": 10994,\n \"docid\": \"584128\",\n \"rank\": 33,\n \"score\": 106108\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Generally, ETFs and mutual funds don't pay taxes (although there are some cases where they do, and some countries where it is a common case). What happens is, the fund reports the portion of the gain attributed to each investor, and the investor pays the tax. In the US, this is reported to you on 1099-DIV as capital gains distribution, and can be either short term (as in the scenario you described), long term, or a mix of both. It doesn't mean you actually get a distribution, though, but if you don't - it reduces your basis.\",\n \"qid\": 10994,\n \"docid\": \"350317\",\n \"rank\": 34,\n \"score\": 105740\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: https://personal.vanguard.com/pub/Pdf/sai059.pdf?2210128720 your colleague's right. *The Agreement provides that the Funds will not contribute to Vanguard’s capitalization or pay for corporate management, administrative, and distribution services provided by Vanguard. However, each Fund will bear its own direct expenses, such as legal, auditing, and custodial fees. In addition, the Agreement further provides that the Funds’ direct expenses will be offset, in whole or in part, by a reimbursement from Vanguard for (1) the Funds’ contributions to the cost of operating the underlying Vanguard funds in which the Funds invest and (2) certain savings in administrative and marketing costs that Vanguard expects to derive from the Funds’ operations.* **The Funds expect that the reimbursements should be sufficient to offset most or all of the direct expenses incurred by each Fund.** *Therefore, the Funds are expected to operate at a very low—or zero—direct expense ratio. Of course, there is no guarantee that this will always be the case. Although the Funds are not expected to incur any net expenses directly, the Funds’ shareholders indirectly bear the expenses of the underlying Vanguard funds.* It's basically a gamble...\",\n \"qid\": 10994,\n \"docid\": \"211810\",\n \"rank\": 35,\n \"score\": 105284\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"It sounds like this is an entirely unsettled question, unfortunately. In the examples you provide, I think it is safe to say that none of those are 'substantially identical'; a small overlap or no overlap certainly should not be considered such by a reasonable interpretation of the rule. This article on Kitces goes into some detail on the topic. A few specifics. First, Former publication 564 explains: Ordinarily, shares issued by one mutual fund are not considered to be substantially identical to shares issued by another mutual fund. Of course, what \\\"\\\"ordinarily\\\"\\\" means is unspecified (and this is no longer a current publication, so, who knows). The Kitces article goes on to explain that the IRS hasn't really gone after wash sales for mutual funds: Over the years, the IRS has not pursued wash sale abuses against mutual funds, perhaps because it just wasn’t very feasible to crack down on them, or perhaps because it just wasn’t perceived as that big of an abuse. After all, while the rules might allow you to loss-harvest a particular stock you couldn’t have otherwise, it also limits you from harvesting ANY losses if the overall fund is up in the aggregate, since losses on individual stocks can’t pass through to the mutual fund shareholders. But then goes to explain about ETFs being very different: sell SPY, buy IVV or VTI, and you're basically buying/selling the identical thing (99% or so correlation in stocks owned). The recommendation by the article is to look at the correlation in owned stocks, and stay away from things over 95%; that seems reasonable in my book as well. Ultimately, there will no doubt be a large number of “grey” and murky situations, but I suspect that until the IRS provides better guidance (or Congress rewrites/updates the wash sale rules altogether!), in the near term the easiest “red flag” warning is simply to look at the correlation between the original investment being loss-harvested, and the replacement security; at correlations above 0.95, and especially at 0.99+, it’s difficult to argue that the securities are not ”substantially identical” to each other in performance. Basically - use common sense, and don't do anything you think would be hard to defend in an audit, but otherwise you should be okay.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 10994,\n \"docid\": \"530631\",\n \"rank\": 36,\n \"score\": 104906\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: I strongly suggest you go to www.investor.gov as it has excellent information regarding these types of questions. A mutual fund is a company that pools money from many investors and invests the money in securities such as stocks, bonds, and short-term debt. The combined holdings of the mutual fund are known as its portfolio. Investors buy shares in mutual funds. Each share represents an investor’s part ownership in the fund and the income it generates. When you buy shares of a mutual fund you're buying it at NAV, or net asset value. The NAV is the value of the fund’s assets minus its liabilities. SEC rules require funds to calculate the NAV at least once daily. Different funds may own thousands of different stocks. In order to calculate the NAV, the fund company must value every security it owns. Since each security's valuation is changing throughout the day it's difficult to determine the valuation of the mutual fund except for when the market is closed. Once the market has closed (4pm eastern) and securities are no longer trading, the company must get accurate valuations for every security and perform the valuation calculations and distribute the results to the pricing vendors. This has to be done by 6pm eastern. This is a difficult and, more importantly, a time consuming process to get it done right once per day. Having worked for several fund companies I can tell you there are many days where companies are getting this done at the very last minute. When you place a buy or sell order for a mutual fund it doesn't matter what time you placed it as long as you entered it before 4pm ET. Cutoff times may be earlier depending on who you're placing the order with. If companies had to price their funds more frequently, they would undoubtedly raise their fees.\",\n \"qid\": 10994,\n \"docid\": \"245867\",\n \"rank\": 37,\n \"score\": 104786\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Fund rebalancing typically refers to changing the investment mix to stay within the guidelines of the mutual fund objective. For example, lets say a fund is supposed to have at least 20% in bonds. Because of a dramatic increase in stock price and decrease in bond values it finds itself with only 19.9% in bonds at the end of the trading day. The fund manager would sell sufficient equities to reduce its equity holdings and buy more bonds. Rebalancing is not always preferential because it could cause capital gain distribution, typically once per year, without selling the fund. And really any trading within the fun could do the same. In the case you cite the verbiage is confusing. Often times I wonder if the author knows less then the reader. It might also be a bit of a rush to get the article out, and the author did not write correctly. I agree that the ETFs cited are suitable for short term traders. However, that is because, traditionaly, the market has increased in value over the long term. If you bet it will go down over the long term, you are almost certain to lose money. Like you, I cannot figure out how rebalancing makes this suitable only for short term traders. If the ETFs distribute capital gains events much more frequently then once per year, that is worth mentioning, but does not provide a case for short versus long term traders. Secondly, I don't think these funds are doing true rebalancing. They might change investments daily for the most likely profitable outcome, but that really isn't rebalancing. It seems the author is confused.\",\n \"qid\": 10994,\n \"docid\": \"108721\",\n \"rank\": 38,\n \"score\": 104758\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: For the Roth the earnings: interest, dividends, capital gains distributions and capital gains are tax deferred. Which means that as long as the money stays inside of a Roth or is transferred/rolled over to another Roth there are no taxes due. In December many mutual funds distribute their gains. Let's say people invested in S&P500index fund receive a dividend of 1% of their account value. The investor in a non-retirement fund will be paying tax on that dividend in the Spring with their tax form. The Roth and IRA investors will not be paying tax on those dividends. The Roth investor never will, and the regular IRA investor will only pay taxes on it when they pull the money out.\",\n \"qid\": 10994,\n \"docid\": \"393693\",\n \"rank\": 39,\n \"score\": 104750\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: The expense ratio is 0.17% so doesnt that mean that for every 10K I keep in the money market fund I lose $17/year? Not really. The expense ratio is taken before distributions are paid which applies to all mutual funds. Should I care about this? In this case not really. If it was a taxable account, then other options may be more tax-efficient that is worth noting. The key with money market funds is that the expense ratio often represents how much money the administrators will take before paying out the rest. So, if your money market fund bought investments that paid .25% then you'd likely see .08% as that is what is left over after the .17% is taken in the dividends. If at the start of the year, the funds NAV is $1, and at the end of the year, the funds NAV is still $1, I havent lost anything right? Right. Wikipedia has a good article on money market funds. Keep in mind that most money market funds are run as one of a number of funds from a fund family that may have to take a little less profit on the money market funds when rates are low.\",\n \"qid\": 10994,\n \"docid\": \"113322\",\n \"rank\": 40,\n \"score\": 103708\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"Liquid cash (emergency, rainy day fund) should be safe from a loss in value. Mutual funds don't give you this, especially stock funds. You can find \\\"\\\"high yield\\\"\\\" savings accounts that are now at around .8% to .9% APY which is much better than .05% and will hopefully go up. Barclays US and American Express are two big banks that normally have the highest rates. Most/all Savings and Money Market accounts should be FDIC insured. Mutual funds are not, though the investment IRA, etc. holding them may be.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 10994,\n \"docid\": \"253614\",\n \"rank\": 41,\n \"score\": 103011\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"Mutual funds generally make distributions once a year in December with the exact date (and the estimated amount) usually being made public in late October or November. Generally, the estimated amounts can get updated as time goes on, but the date does not change. Some funds (money market, bond funds, GNMA funds etc) distribute dividends on the last business day of each month, and the amounts are rarely made available beforehand. Capital gains are usually distributed once a year as per the general statement above. Some funds (e.g. S&P 500 index funds) distribute dividends towards the end of each quarter or on the last business day of the quarter, and capital gains once a year as per the general statement above. Some funds make semi-annual distributions but not necessarily at six-month intervals. Vanguard's Health Care Fund has distributed dividends and capital gains in March and December for as long as I have held it. VDIGX claims to make semi-annual distributions but made distributions three times in 2014 (March, June, December) and has made/will make two distributions this year already (March is done, June is pending -- the fund has gone ex-dividend with re-investment today and payment on 22nd). You can, as Chris Rea suggests, call the fund company directly, but in my experience, they are reluctant to divulge the date of the distribution (\\\"\\\"The fund manager has not made the date public as yet\\\"\\\") let alone an estimated amount. Even getting a \\\"\\\"Yes, the fund intends to make a distribution later this month\\\"\\\" was difficult to get from my \\\"\\\"Personal Representative\\\"\\\" in early March, and he had to put me on hold to talk to someone at the fund before he was willing to say so.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 10994,\n \"docid\": \"32172\",\n \"rank\": 42,\n \"score\": 101953\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"The Roth vs not debate is irrelevant to the question. It doesn't matter where your emergency fund is kept, as long as it is liquid and safe. I said it before in an answer to another question: your emergency fund is not an investment -- it's your safety net This answer also says it well: an \\\"\\\"emergency fund\\\"\\\" is just that... for emergencies... NOT investment. While it \\\"\\\"hurts\\\"\\\" not to have your emergency money making more money... its MORE IMPORTANT to have quick access to it. So at TD Ameritrade, just park it in their FDIC deposit account. It will not earn any meaningful interest (at least until rates rise), but you'll be able to have access to it when you need it. Note that I would caution against putting it in a money market mutual fund. They're safer than many other investments, but they're not FDIC insured against loss and there is a potential for temporary loss of liquidity. In late 2008 when the credit markets collapsed, a lot of people suddenly became unemployed -- and needed access to their emergency funds. When Lehman Brothers went bust in September, the Reserve Primary Fund (with billions of dollars in their fund) \\\"\\\"broke the buck\\\"\\\" -- they lowered the price of shares below $1, meaning investors lost principal. The worst part is that investors were not as liquid as they wanted to be: the fund froze and it was hard to get money out. The lesson to take away from this is that one of the times you're likely to need access to your emergency fund is during a macroeconomic crisis. This is also the time when any investment that isn't guaranteed safe may potentially be (at least temporarily) unavailable or decline in value. Emergency funds should be 100% government insured. When you have your Roth funded to the point where there's extra money beyond the emergency fund, you can start investing in higher-yielding vehicles: stock or bond index ETFs would be a good start. But then that part of your Roth starts to look like a retirement account and not an emergency fund. If it were me, I'd open a Roth at a stable local bank and just keep it in their FDIC insured money market deposit account. Then if I wanted a slight boost, I might put the \\\"\\\"upper half\\\"\\\" of my emergency fund into short term CDs, but even CDs aren't worth much at the moment.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 10994,\n \"docid\": \"527939\",\n \"rank\": 43,\n \"score\": 100885\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: according to the SEC: Shareholder Reports A mutual fund and a closed-end fund respectively must provide shareholders with annual and semi-annual reports 60 days after the end of the fund’s fiscal year and 60 days after the fund’s fiscal mid-year. These reports contain updated financial information, a list of the fund’s portfolio securities, and other information. The information in the shareholder reports will be current as of the date of the particular report (that is, the last day of the fund’s fiscal year for the annual report, and the last day of the fund’s fiscal mid-year for the semi-annual report). Other Reports A mutual fund and a closed-end fund must file a Form N-Q each quarter and a Form N-PX each year on the SEC’s EDGAR database, although funds are not required to mail these reports to shareholders. Funds disclose portfolio holdings on Form N-Q. Form N-PX identifies specific proposals on which the fund has voted portfolio securities over the past year and discloses how the fund voted on each. This disclosure enables fund shareholders to monitor their funds’ involvement in the governance activities of portfolio companies. which means that sixty days after the end of each quarter they will tell you what they owned 60 days ago. This makes sense; why would they want to tell the world what companies they are buying and selling.\",\n \"qid\": 10994,\n \"docid\": \"347523\",\n \"rank\": 44,\n \"score\": 100116\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: You shouldn't be picking stocks in the first place. From New York Magazine, tweeted by Ezra Klein: New evidence for that reality comes from Goldman Sachs, via Bloomberg News. The investment bank analyzed the holdings of 854 funds with $2.1 trillion in equity positions. It found, first of all, that all those “sophisticated investors” would have been better off stashing their money in basic, hands-off index funds or mutual funds last year — both of them had higher average returns than hedge funds did. The average hedge fund returned 3 percent last year, versus 14 percent for the Standard & Poor’s 500. Mutual funds do worse than index funds. Tangentially-related to the question of whether Wall Street types deserve their compensation packages is the yearly phenomenon in which actively managed mutual funds underperform the market. Between 2004 and 2008, 66.21% of domestic funds did worse than the S&P Composite 1500. In 2008, 64.23% underperformed. In other words, if you had a fund manager and his employees bringing their skill and knowledge to bear on your portfolio, you probably lost money as compared to the market as a whole. That's not to say you lost money in all cases. Just in most. The math is really simple on this one. Stock picking is fun, but undiversified and brings you competing with Wall Streeters with math Ph.Ds. and twenty-thousand-dollars-a-year Bloomberg terminals. What do you know about Apple's new iPhone that they don't? You should compare your emotional reaction to losing 40% in two days to your reaction to gaining 40% in two days... then compare both of those to losing 6% and gaining 6%, respectively. Picking stocks is not financially wise. Period.\",\n \"qid\": 10994,\n \"docid\": \"470861\",\n \"rank\": 45,\n \"score\": 99082\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: The reason for such differences is that there's no source to get this information. The companies do not (and cannot) report who are their shareholders except for large shareholders and stakes of interest. These, in the case of GoPro, were identified during the IPO (you can look the filings up on EDGAR). You can get information from this or that publicly traded mutual fund about their larger holdings from their reports, but private investors don't provide even that. Institutional (public) investors buy and sell shares all the time and only report large investments. So there's no reliable way to get a snapshot picture you're looking for.\",\n \"qid\": 10994,\n \"docid\": \"433490\",\n \"rank\": 46,\n \"score\": 98713\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Your investment is probably in a Collective Investment Trust. These are not mutual funds, and are not publicly traded. I.e. they are private to plan participants in your company. Because of this, they are not required* to distribute dividends like mutual funds. Instead, they will reinvest dividends automatically, increasing the value of the fund, rather than number of shares, as with dividend reinvestment. Sine you mention the S&P 500 fund you have tracks closely to the S&P Index, keep in mind there's two indexes you could be looking at: Without any new contributions, your fund should closely track the Total Return version for periods 3 months or longer, minus the expense ratio. If you are adding contributions to the fund, you can't just look at the start and end balances. The comparison is trickier and you'll need to use the Internal Rate of Return (look into the XIRR function in Excel/Google Sheets). *MFs are not strictly required to pay dividends, but are strongly tax-incentivized to do so, and essentially all do.\",\n \"qid\": 10994,\n \"docid\": \"52908\",\n \"rank\": 47,\n \"score\": 97893\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"The article \\\"\\\"Best Stock Fund of the Decade: CGM Focus\\\"\\\" from the Wall Street Journal in 2009 describe the highest performing mutual fund in the USA between 2000 and 2009. The investor return in the fund (what the shareholders actually earned) was abysmal. Why? Because the fund was so volatile that investors panicked and bailed out, locking in losses instead of waiting them out. The reality is that almost any strategy will lead to success in investing, so long as it is actually followed. A strategy keeps you from making emotional or knee-jerk decisions. (BTW, beware of anyone selling you a strategy by telling you that everyone in the world is a failure except for the few special people who have the privilege of knowing their \\\"\\\"secrets.\\\"\\\") (Link removed, as it's gone dead)\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 10994,\n \"docid\": \"399149\",\n \"rank\": 48,\n \"score\": 97656\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Mutual funds don't have intraday prices. They have net asset values which are calculated periodically (daily or weekly or any other period depending on the fund).\",\n \"qid\": 10994,\n \"docid\": \"457811\",\n \"rank\": 49,\n \"score\": 97545\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: The literal answer to your question is that a number of different types of mutual funds did not have significant downturns in 2008. Money Market Funds are intended to always preserve capital. VMMXX made 2.77% in 2008. It was a major scandal broke the buck, that its holders took a 3% loss. Inverse funds, which go up when the market goes down, obviously did well that year (RYARX), but if you have a low risk tolerance, that's obviously not what you're looking for. (and they have other problems as well when held long-term) But you're a 24-year-old talking about your retirement funds, you should have a much longer time horizon, at least 30 years. Over a period that long, stocks have never had negative real (inflation-adjusted) returns, dating back at least to the civil war. If you look at the charts here or here, you can see that despite the risk in any individual year, as the period grows longer, the average return for the period gets tighter and tighter. If you look at the second graph here, you see that 2011 was the first time since the civil war that the trailing 30-year return on t-bills exceeded that for stocks, and 1981-2011 was period that saw bond yields drop almost continuously, leading to steady rise in bond prices. Although past performance is no guarantee of future results, everything we've seen historically suggests that the risk of a broad stock-market portfolio held for 30 years is not that large, and it should make up the bulk of your holdings. For example, Vanguard's Target retirement 2055 fund is 90% in stocks (US + international), and only 10% in bonds.\",\n \"qid\": 10994,\n \"docid\": \"522257\",\n \"rank\": 50,\n \"score\": 97016\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: You are not the person or entity against whom the crime was committed, so the Casualty Loss (theft) deduction doesn't apply here. You should report this as a Capital Loss, the same way all of the Enron shareholders did in their 2001 tax returns. Your cost basis is whatever you originally paid for the shares. The final value is presumably zero. You can declare a maximum capital loss of $3000, so if your net capital loss for the year is greater than that, you'll have to carry over the remainder to the following years. IRS publication 547 states: Decline in market value of stock. You can't deduct as a theft loss the decline in market value of stock acquired on the open market for investment if the decline is caused by disclosure of accounting fraud or other illegal misconduct by the officers or directors of the corporation that issued the stock. However, you can deduct as a capital loss the loss you sustain when you sell or exchange the stock or the stock becomes completely worthless. You report a capital loss on Schedule D (Form 1040). For more information about stock sales, worthless stock, and capital losses, see chapter 4 of Pub. 550.\",\n \"qid\": 10994,\n \"docid\": \"15606\",\n \"rank\": 51,\n \"score\": 96810\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"I think the real answer to your question here is diversification. You have some fear of having your money in the market, and rightfully so, having all your money in one stock, or even one type of mutual fund is risky as all get out, and you could lose a lot of your money in such a stock-market based undiversified investment. However, the same logic works in your rental property. If you lose your tennant, and are unable to find a new one right away, or if you have some very rare problem that insurance doesn't cover, your property could become very much not a \\\"\\\"break even\\\"\\\" investment very quickly. In reality, there isn't any single investment you can make that has no risk. Your assets need to be balanced between many different market-investments, that includes bonds, US stocks, European stocks, cash, etc. Also investing in mutual funds instead of individual stocks greatly reduces your risk. Another thing to consider is the benefits of paying down debt. While investments have a risk of not performing, if you pay off a loan with interest payments, you definitely will save the money you would have paid in interest. To be specific, I'd recommend the following plan -\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 10994,\n \"docid\": \"371392\",\n \"rank\": 52,\n \"score\": 96704\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Without reading the source, from your description it seems that the author believes that this particular company was undervalued in the marketplace. It seems that investors were blinded by a small dividend, without considering the actual value of the company they were owners of. Remember that a shareholder has the right to their proportion of the company's net value, and that amount will be distributed both (a) in the form of dividends and (b) on liquidation of the company. Theoretically, EPS is an indication of how much value an investor's single share has increased by in the year [of course this is not accurate, because accounting income does not directly correlate with company value increase, but it is a good indicator]. This means in this example that each share had a return of $10, of which the investors only received $1. The remainder sat in the company for further investment. Considering that liquidation may never happen, particularly within the time-frame that a particular investor wants to hold a share, some investors may undervalue share return that does not come in the form of a dividend. This may or may not be legitimate, because if the company reinvests its profits in poorer performing projects, the investors would have been better off getting the dividend immediately. However some value does need to be given to the non-dividend ownership of the company. It seems the author believes that investors failing to consider value of the non-dividend part of the corporation's shares in question led to an undervaluation of the company's shares in the market.\",\n \"qid\": 10994,\n \"docid\": \"266672\",\n \"rank\": 53,\n \"score\": 96388\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Returns reported by mutual funds to shareholders, google, etc. are computed after all the funds' costs, including Therefore the returns you see on google finance are the returns you would actually have gotten.\",\n \"qid\": 10994,\n \"docid\": \"104198\",\n \"rank\": 54,\n \"score\": 96120\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Since you are paying taxes on the distributions from your mutual funds anyway, instead of reinvesting the distributions back into the mutual funds, you could receive them as cash, then contribute them to your Roth IRA once you are able to open one.\",\n \"qid\": 10994,\n \"docid\": \"57457\",\n \"rank\": 55,\n \"score\": 96093\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: I'm looking for ways to geared to save for retirement, not general investment. Many mutual fund companies offer a range of target retirement funds for different retirement dates (usually in increments of 5 years). These are funds of funds, that is, a Target 2040 Fund, say, will be invested in five or six different stock and bond mutual funds offered by the same company. Over the years and as the target date approaches closer, the investment mix will change from extra weight given to stock mutual funds towards extra weight being given to bond mutual funds. The disadvantage to these funds is that the Target Fund charges its own expense ratio over and above the expense ratios charged by the mutual funds it invests in: you could do the same investments yourself (or pick your own mix and weighting of various funds) and save the extra expense ratio. However, over the years, as the Target Fund changes its mix, withdrawing money from the stock mutual funds and investing the proceeds into bond mutual funds, you do not have to pay taxes on the profits generated by these transactions except insofar as some part of the profits become distributions from the Target Fund itself. If you were doing the same transactions outside the Target Fund, you would be liable for taxes on the profits when you withdrew money from a stock fund and invested the proceeds into the bond fund.\",\n \"qid\": 10994,\n \"docid\": \"346474\",\n \"rank\": 56,\n \"score\": 95644\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"That's a lot of manual checking-in to see if everything is performing the way you \\\"\\\"want\\\"\\\". Not to insult your intelligence, but that is not your job, and doing that on a monthly basis is going to eat a lot of time. Plus, most 401(k) programs have lockout periods wherein changes can't be made without incurring additional fees (related to distributions, etc). And if you're checking that often, you are [likely] losing the benefits of investing in mutual funds to start with. If you have the stomach to handle the risk, go for the high-risk investment vehicles early in your career - you can afford a 30% drop this year if you then make 105%, 15%, or 50% back each of the next 5. If, on the other hand, you're in your mid-career, switch to more conservative management tactics.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 10994,\n \"docid\": \"53100\",\n \"rank\": 57,\n \"score\": 95181\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: This idea does not make sense for most mutual funds. The net asset value, or NAV, is the current market value of a fund's holdings, minus the fund's liabilities, that is usually expressed as a per-share amount. For most funds, the NAV is determined daily, after the close of trading on some specified financial exchange, but some funds update their NAV multiple times during the trading day. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_fund I am not certain, but I believe that OppenheimerFunds does not report intraday prices. I would call them up and ask.\",\n \"qid\": 10994,\n \"docid\": \"384265\",\n \"rank\": 58,\n \"score\": 95111\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: The Paragraph talks about dividends given by Mutual Funds. Say a fund has NAV of $ 10, as the value of the underlying security grows, the value of the fund would also grow, lets say it becomes $ 12 in 2 months. Now if the Mutual Fund decides to pay out a dividend of $ 1 to all unit holder, then post the distribution of dividend, the value of the Fund would become to $ 11. Thus if you are say investing on 1-April and know that dividends of $1 would be paid on 5-April [the divided distribution date is published typically weeks in advance], if you are hoping to make $1 in 5 days, that is not going to happen. On 6-April you would get $1, but the value of the fund would now be $11 from the earlier $12. This may not be wise as in some countries you would ending up paying tax on $1. Even in shares, the concept is similar, however the price may get corrected immediately and one may not actually see it going down by $1 due to market dynamics.\",\n \"qid\": 10994,\n \"docid\": \"41675\",\n \"rank\": 59,\n \"score\": 94668\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: This means that if your capital under my management ends up turning a profit, I will keep half of those profits, but if I lose you money, I will cover half those losses. The bold part is where you lose me. This absolutely exists with the exception of the loss insurance. It just requires a lot more than the general retail consumer investor has to contribute. Nobody wants to take on the responsibility of your money then split 50% of the gross proceeds of your $10,000 (or whatever nominal amount of money you're dealing with) investment and return it all to you after a year. And NO money manager will insure that the market won't decline. Hedge funds, PE Firms, VC Firms, Investment Partnerships, etc all basically run the way you're describing (again without your loss insurance). Everyone's money is pooled and investments are made. Everyone shares the spoils and everyone shares the losses. And to top it off, the people making investment decisions have their money invested in the fund. All of them have to pay rent and accountants and other costs associated with running the fund and that will eat in to the proceeds to some degree; because returns are calculated on net proceeds. With enough money you can buy yourself in to a hedge fund, for the rest of us there are ETFs and other extremely fee-reasonable investment options. And if you don't think the performance and preservation of assets under management is not an incentive to treat the money with care you're kidding yourself (your first bullet point). I'll add that aside from skewing the manager's risk tolerance toward guaranteed returns I doubt you would fair favorably over the long term compared to simply paying even an egregious 1% expense ratio on an ETF. If you look at the S&P performance for 10 or 20 or however many years, I'd venture that a couple good years of giving up half of your gains would have you screaming for your money back. The bad years would put the money manager out of business and the good years would squander your gains.\",\n \"qid\": 10994,\n \"docid\": \"247486\",\n \"rank\": 60,\n \"score\": 94364\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"This answer is about the USA. Each time you sell a security (a stock or a bond) or some other asset, you are expected to pay tax on the net gain. It doesn't matter whether you use a broker or mutual fund to make the sale. You still owe the tax. Net capital gain is defined this way: Gross sale prices less (broker fees for selling + cost of buying the asset) The cost of buying the asset is called the \\\"\\\"basis price.\\\"\\\" You, or your broker, needs to keep track of the basis price for each share. This is easy when you're just getting started investing. It stays easy if you're careful about your record keeping. You owe the capital gains tax whenever you sell an asset, whether or not you reinvest the proceeds in something else. If your capital gains are modest, you can pay all the taxes at the end of the year. If they are larger -- for example if they exceed your wage earnings -- you should pay quarterly estimated tax. The tax authorities ding you for a penalty if you wait to pay five- or six-figure tax bills without paying quarterly estimates. You pay NET capital gains tax. If one asset loses money and another makes money, you pay on your gains minus your losses. If you have more losses than gains in a particular year, you can carry forward up to $3,000 (I think). You can't carry forward tens of thousands in capital losses. Long term and short term gains are treated separately. IRS Schedule B has places to plug in all those numbers, and the tax programs (Turbo etc) do too. Dividend payments are also taxable when they are paid. Those aren't capital gains. They go on Schedule D along with interest payments. The same is true for a mutual fund. If the fund has Ford shares in it, and Ford pays $0.70 per share in March, that's a dividend payment. If the fund managers decide to sell Ford and buy Tesla in June, the selling of Ford shares will be a cap-gains taxable event for you. The good news: the mutual fund managers send you a statement sometime in February or March of each year telling what you should put on your tax forms. This is great. They add it all up for you. They give you a nice consolidated tax statement covering everything: dividends, their buying and selling activity on your behalf, and any selling they did when you withdrew money from the fund for any purpose. Some investment accounts like 401(k) accounts are tax free. You don't pay any tax on those accounts -- capital gains, dividends, interest -- until you withdraw the money to live on after you retire. Then that money is taxed as if it were wage income. If you want an easy and fairly reliable way to invest, and don't want to do a lot of tax-form scrambling, choose a couple of different mutual funds, put money into them, and leave it there. They'll send you consolidated tax statements once a year. Download them into your tax program and you're done. You mentioned \\\"\\\"riding out bad times in cash.\\\"\\\" No, no, NOT a good idea. That investment strategy almost guarantees you will sell when the market is going down and buy when it's going up. That's \\\"\\\"sell low, buy high.\\\"\\\" It's a loser. Not even Warren Buffett can call the top of the market and the bottom. Ned Johnson (Fidelity's founder) DEFINITELY can't.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 10994,\n \"docid\": \"337993\",\n \"rank\": 61,\n \"score\": 93893\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: No, the reinvestment is done as a courtesy. Consider, one can have, say, 100 shares of a $50 stock. A 2% dividend is $100/yr or $25/quarter. It would be a pretty bad deal if brokers charged you even $5 for that trade. When cap gains and dividends are grouped as you suggest, it refers to Mutual Funds. My funds will have a year end dividend and cap gain distribution. In a non-retirement account, one has to pay the tax due, and be sure to add this to your cost basis, as it's money you are effectively adding to your account. It does not mean cap gain the same as when you sell your shares of Apple for a huge gain. Those check boxes seem to offer you a chance to put all your holding on the same reinvestment plan for div/cap gain. You should also be able to choose one by one what you'd like to do.\",\n \"qid\": 10994,\n \"docid\": \"562481\",\n \"rank\": 62,\n \"score\": 93893\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: The dividend tax credit is not applicable to foreign dividend income, so you would be taxed fully on every dollar of that income. When you sell a stock, there will be a capital gain or capital loss depending on if it gained or lost value, after accounting for the Adjusted Cost Base. You only pay income tax on half of the amount earned through capital gains, and if you have losses, you can use them to offset other investments that had capital gains (or carry forward to offset gains in the future). The dividends from US stocks are subject to a 15% withholding tax that gets paid to the IRS automatically when the dividends are issued. If the stocks are held in an RRSP, they are exempt from the withholding tax. If held in a non-registered account, you can be reimbursed for the tax by claiming the foreign tax credit that you linked to. If held in a TFSA or RESP, the withholding tax cannot be recovered. Also, if you are not directly holding the stocks, and instead buy a mutual fund or ETF that directly holds the stocks, then the RRSP exemption no longer applies, but the foreign tax credit is still claimable for a non-registered account. If the mutual fund or ETF does not directly hold stocks, and instead holds one or more ETFs, there is no way to recover the withholding tax in any type of account.\",\n \"qid\": 10994,\n \"docid\": \"437907\",\n \"rank\": 63,\n \"score\": 93836\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: You can only lose your 7%. The idea that a certain security is more volatile than others in your portfolio does not mean that you can lose more than the value of the investment. The one exception is that a short position has unlimited downside, but i dont think there are any straight short mutual funds.\",\n \"qid\": 10994,\n \"docid\": \"535936\",\n \"rank\": 64,\n \"score\": 93775\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"The pros and cons of investing in a closed end fund both stem from the fact that the price per share is likely to differ from the net asset value (NAV) of the underlying assets. That could work to your advantage if the fund is selling for LESS than NAV, or at a discount. Then you get the \\\"\\\"benefit of the bargain\\\"\\\" and hope to sell the shares in the future for \\\"\\\"par\\\"\\\" or even a premium (MORE than NAV). On the other hand, if you buy such a fund at a premium, you stand to have a RELATIVE loss if the value of the fund goes back to par (or a discount) compared to NAV. That's because a closed end fund has a FIXED number of shares, with the assets continually being reinvested. In essence, you are \\\"\\\"buying out\\\"\\\" an existing shareholder of the fund at a price determined by supply and demand. This differs from an OPEN end fund, in which your contribution creates NEW shares (all other things being equal). Then the fund, has to invest YOUR money (and charges you a fee for the service) on exactly a pro rata basis with other investors in the fund, meaning that you will enter and exit such a fund at \\\"\\\"par.\\\"\\\" In either case, your return depends mainly on the performance of the underlying assets. But there are premium/discount issues for investing in a closed end fund.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 10994,\n \"docid\": \"66453\",\n \"rank\": 65,\n \"score\": 93588\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"According to the IRS, you must have written confirmation from your broker \\\"\\\"or other agent\\\"\\\" whenever you sell shares using a method other than FIFO: Specific share identification. If you adequately identify the shares you sold, you can use the adjusted basis of those particular shares to figure your gain or loss. You will adequately identify your mutual fund shares, even if you bought the shares in different lots at various prices and times, if you: Specify to your broker or other agent the particular shares to be sold or transferred at the time of the sale or transfer, and Receive confirmation in writing from your broker or other agent within a reasonable time of your specification of the particular shares sold or transferred. If you don't have a stockbroker, I'm not sure how you even got the shares. If you have an actual stock certificate, then you are selling very specific shares and the purchase date corresponds to the purchase date of those shares represented on the certificate.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 10994,\n \"docid\": \"430718\",\n \"rank\": 66,\n \"score\": 93194\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: It looks like it has to deal with an expiration of rights as a taxable event. I found this link via google, which states that Not only does the PSEC shareholder have a TAXABLE EVENT, but he has TWO taxable events. The net effect of these two taxable events has DIFFERENT CONSEQUENCES for DIFFERENT SHAREHOLDERS depending upon their peculiar TAX SITUATIONS. The CORRECT STATEMENT of the tax treatment of unexercised PYLDR rights is in the N-2 on page 32, which reads in relevant part as follows: “…, if you receive a Subscription Right from PSEC and do not sell or exercise that right before it expires, you should generally expect to have (1) taxable dividend income equal to the fair market value (if any) of the Subscription Right on the date of its distribution by PSEC to the extent of PSEC’s current and accumulated earnings and profits and (2) a capital loss upon the expiration of such right in an amount equal to your adjusted tax basis (if any) in such right (which should generally equal the fair market value (if any) of the Subscription Right on the date of its distribution by PSEC).” Please note, for quarterly “estimated taxes” purposes, that the DIVIDEND taxable events occur “ON THE DATE OF ITS DISTRIBUTION BY PSEC (my emphasis),” while the CAPITAL LOSS occurs “UPON EXPIRATION OF SUCH RIGHT” (my emphasis). They do NOT occur on 31 December 2015 or some other date. However, to my knowledge, neither of the taxable events he mentions would be taxed by 4/15. If you are worried about it, I would recommend seeing a tax professional. Otherwise I'd wait to see the tax forms sent by your brokerage.\",\n \"qid\": 10994,\n \"docid\": \"146177\",\n \"rank\": 67,\n \"score\": 93169\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Mutual funds are a collection of other assets, such as stocks, bonds and property. Unless the fund is a type that is traded on an exchange, you will only be able to buy into the fund by applying for units with the fund manager and sell out by contacting the fund manager. These type of non-traded funds are usually updated at the end of the day once the closing prices of all the assets in it are known.\",\n \"qid\": 10994,\n \"docid\": \"574383\",\n \"rank\": 68,\n \"score\": 93157\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Two different takes on an answer; the net-loss concept you mentioned and a core-business concept. If a store is actually a net-loss, and anybody is willing to buy it, it may well make sense to sell it. Depending on your capital value invested, and how much it would take you to make it profitable, it may be a sound business decision to sell the asset. The buyer of the asset is of course expecting for some reason to make it not a net loss for them (perhaps they have other stores in the vicinity and can then share staff or stock somehow). The core-business is a fuzzier concept. Investors seem to go in cycles, like can like well-diversified companies that are resilient to a market downturn in one sector, but then they also like so-called pure-play companies, where you are clear on what you are owning. To try an example (which is likely not the case here), lets say that Sunoco in 5% of its stores had migrated away from a gas-station model to a one-stop-gas-and-repairs model. Therefore they had to have service bays, parts, and trained staff at those locations. These things are expensive, and could be seen as not their area of expertise (selling gas). So as an investor, if I want to own gas stations, I don't want to own a full service garage, so perhaps I invest in somebody else. Once they sell off their non-core assets, they free up capital to do what they know best. It is at least one possible explanation.\",\n \"qid\": 10994,\n \"docid\": \"595981\",\n \"rank\": 69,\n \"score\": 93143\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: You will not get a vote on any issues of the underlying stock. The mutual fund owner/manager will do the voting. In 2004, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) required that fund companies disclose proxy votes, voting guidelines and conflicts of interest in the voting process. All funds must make these disclosures to the SEC through an N-PX filing, which must either be available to shareholders on the fund company's websites or upon request by telephone. You can also find your fund's N-PX filing on the SEC website. -- http://www.investopedia.com/articles/mutualfund/08/acting-in-interest.asp\",\n \"qid\": 10994,\n \"docid\": \"244711\",\n \"rank\": 70,\n \"score\": 92854\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"I would undoubtedly sell the investments if they are positive, maybe even a little negative. That's what non-retirement investments are for, building wealth to spend, give, etc. Flipping things may put it in perspective. Would you borrow money or liquidate your emergency fund in order to invest in mutual funds? If you can completely ignore risk then this MAY make sense. Let's say if you could borrow money at 3.75% and had a \\\"\\\"guaranteed\\\"\\\" investment return of 7.5% and a \\\"\\\"guaranteed\\\"\\\" source of income (job). But mutual funds (stocks, bonds) aren't even guaranteed to make money and they most definitely can lose and lose big. Also, I hope your job isn't in any way tied to the oil industry. On the other hand, if you take a loan and fall on hard times you can liquidate your mutual funds to get out of the bind, but you are at the mercy of the market and the worth of your investments at that point. So it may come down to whether you want to choose when to spend your investments, when they are up or at some future date when they may be worth much less (or much more).\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 10994,\n \"docid\": \"329930\",\n \"rank\": 71,\n \"score\": 92585\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"You can't get started investing. There are preliminary steps that must be taken prior to beginning to invest: Only once these things are complete can you think about investing. Doing so before hand will only likely lose money in the long run. Figure these steps will take about 2.5 years. So you are 2.5 years from investing. Read now: The Total Money Makeover. It is full of inspiring stories of people that were able to turn things around financially. This is good because it is easy to get discouraged and believe all kind of toxic beliefs about money: The little guy can't get ahead, I always will have a car payment, Its too late, etc... They are all false. Part of the book's resources are budgeting forms and hints on budgeting. Read later: John Bogle on Investing and Bogle on Mutual Funds One additional Item: About you calling yourself a \\\"\\\"dummy\\\"\\\". Building personal wealth is less about knowledge and more about behavior. The reason you don't have a positive net worth is because of how you behaved, not knowledge. Even sticking a small amount in a savings account each paycheck and not spending it would have allowed you to have a positive net worth at this point in your life. Only by changing behavior can you start to build wealth, investing is only a small component.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 10994,\n \"docid\": \"70243\",\n \"rank\": 72,\n \"score\": 92305\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: In addition to all the good information that JoeTaxpayer has provided, be aware of this. When you sell mutual fund shares, you can, if you choose to do so, tell the mutual fund company which shares you want to sell (e.g. all shares purchased on xx/yy/2010 plus 10 shares out of 23.147 shares purchased on ss/tt/2011 plus...) and pay taxes on the gains/losses on those specific shares. If you do not specify which shares you want sold, the mutual fund company will tell you the gains/losses based on the average cost basis and you can use this information if you like. Note that some of your gains/losses will be short-term gains or losses if you use the average cost basis. Or, you can use the FIFO method (usually resulting in the largest gain) in which the shares are sold in the order in which they were purchased. This usually results in no short-term gains/losses. Just so that you know, most mutual fund companies will link your checking account in your bank to your account with them (a one-time paperwork deal is necessary in which your bank manager's signature is required on the authorization to be sent to the fund company). After that, the connection is nearly as seamless as with your current system. Tell the fund company you want to invest money in a certain mutual fund and to take the money from your linked checking account, and they will take care of it. Sell some shares and they will deposit the money into your linked bank account, and so on. The mutual fund company will not accept instructions from you (or someone purporting to be you) to sell shares and to send the money to Joe Blow (or to Joe Taxpayer for that matter): the proceeds of redemptions go to your checking account or are used to buy shares in other mutual funds offered by the company (called an exchange and not a redemption). Oh, and most fund companies offer automatic investments (as well as automatic redemptions) at fixed time intervals, just as with your bank.\",\n \"qid\": 10994,\n \"docid\": \"449124\",\n \"rank\": 73,\n \"score\": 92026\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Not that I am aware. If you are trying to mitigate losses from stock purchases, you may want to consider stock mutual funds. This is why single stocks can be extremely risky.\",\n \"qid\": 10994,\n \"docid\": \"287846\",\n \"rank\": 74,\n \"score\": 91964\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"While @JB's \\\"\\\"yes\\\"\\\" is correct, a few more points to consider: There is no tax penalty for withdrawing any time from a taxable investment, that is, one not using specific tax protections like 401k/IRA or ESA or HSA. But you do pay tax on any income or gain distributions you receive from a taxable investment in a fund (except interest on tax-exempt aka \\\"\\\"municipal\\\"\\\" bonds), and any net capital gains you realize when selling (or technically redeeming for non-ETF funds). Just like you do for dividends and interest and gains on non-fund taxable investments. Many funds have a sales charge or \\\"\\\"load\\\"\\\" which means you will very likely lose money if you sell quickly typically within at least several months and usually a year or more, and even some no-load funds, to discourage rapid trading that makes their management more difficult (and costly), have a \\\"\\\"contingent sales charge\\\"\\\" if you sell after less than a stated period like 3 months or 6 months. For funds that largely or entirely invest in equities or longer term bonds, the share value/price is practically certain to fluctuate up and down, and if you sell during a \\\"\\\"down\\\"\\\" period you will lose money; if \\\"\\\"liquid\\\"\\\" means you want to take out money anytime without waiting for the market to move, you might want funds focussing on short-term bonds, especially government bonds, and \\\"\\\"money market\\\"\\\" funds which hold only very short bonds (usually duration under 90 days), which have much more stable prices (but lower returns over the longer term).\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 10994,\n \"docid\": \"344283\",\n \"rank\": 75,\n \"score\": 91708\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Contrary to what you might have heard, moving money between mutual funds, whether or not in the same family of funds, is a taxable event, assuming, of course, that the funds are not in tax-deferred retirement accounts. About the only thing that is not taxable is moving funds between share classes in the same mutual fund, e.g. a conversion from what Vanguard refers to as Investor Shares to Admiral Shares in the same fund. In some cases, the Admiral Shares may have a considerably different price (for example, Vanguard Health Care Fund Investor Shares (VGHCX) and Admiral Shares (VGHAX) are priced at $215.83 and $91.04 respectively and so changing from one class to the other changes the number of shares owned considerably while the net value of the investment remains unchanged.\",\n \"qid\": 10994,\n \"docid\": \"179737\",\n \"rank\": 76,\n \"score\": 91700\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: In a taxable account you're going to owe taxes when you sell the shares for a gain. You're also going to owe taxes on any distributions you receive from the holdings in the account; these distributions can happen one or more times a year. Vanguard has a writeup on mutual fund taxation. Note: for a fund like you linked, you will owe taxes annually, regardless of whether you sell it. The underlying assets will pay dividends and those are distributed to you either in cash, or more beneficially as additional shares of the mutual fund (look into dividend reinvestment.) Taking VFIAX's distributions as an example, if you bought 1 share of the fund on March 19, 2017, on March 20th you would have been given $1.005 that would be taxable. You'd owe taxes on that even if you didn't sell your share during the year. Your last paragraph is based on a false premise. The mutual fund does report to you at the end of the year the short and long term capital gains, along with dividends on a 1099-DIV. You get to pay taxes on those transactions, that's why it's advantageous to hold low turnover mutual funds in taxable accounts.\",\n \"qid\": 10994,\n \"docid\": \"122012\",\n \"rank\": 77,\n \"score\": 91556\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"I think you're confusing risk analysis (that is what you quoted as \\\"\\\"Taleb Distribution\\\"\\\") with arguments against taking risks altogether. You need to understand that not taking a risk - is by itself a risk. You can lose money by not investing it, because of the very same Taleb Distribution: an unpredictable catastrophic event. Take an example of keeping cash in your house and not investing it anywhere. In the 1998 default of the Russian Federation, people lost money by not investing it. Why? Because had they invested the money - they would have the investments/properties, but since they only had cash - it became worthless overnight. There's no argument for or against investing on its own. The arguments are always related to the investment goals and the risk analysis. You're looking for something that doesn't exist.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 10994,\n \"docid\": \"252574\",\n \"rank\": 78,\n \"score\": 91454\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"Oddly enough, in the USA, there are enough cost and tax savings between buy-and-hold of a static portfolio and buying into a fund that a few brokerages have sprung up around the concept, such as FolioFN, to make it easier for small investors to manage numerous small holdings via fractional shares and no commission window trades. A static buy-and-hold portfolio of stocks can be had for a few dollars per trade. Buying into a fund involves various annual and one time fees that are quoted as percentages of the investment. Even 1-2% can be a lot, especially if it is every year. Typically, a US mutual fund must send out a 1099 tax form to each investor, stating that investors share of the dividends and capital gains for each year. The true impact of this is not obvious until you get a tax bill for gains that you did not enjoy, which can happen when you buy into a fund late in the year that has realized capital gains. What fund investors sometimes fail to appreciate is that they are taxed both on their own holding period of fund shares and the fund's capital gains distributions determined by the fund's holding period of its investments. For example, if ABC tech fund bought Google stock several years ago for $100/share, and sold it for $500/share in the same year you bought into the ABC fund, then you will receive a \\\"\\\"capital gains distribution\\\"\\\" on your 1099 that will include some dollar amount, which is considered your share of that long-term profit for tax purposes. The amount is not customized for your holding period, capital gains are distributed pro-rata among all current fund shareholders as of the ex-distribution date. Morningstar tracks this as Potential Capital Gains Exposure and so there is a way to check this possibility before investing. Funds who have unsold losers in their portfolio are also affected by these same rules, have been called \\\"\\\"free rides\\\"\\\" because those funds, if they find some winners, will have losers that they can sell simultaneously with the winners to remain tax neutral. See \\\"\\\"On the Lookout for Tax Traps and Free Riders\\\"\\\", Morningstar, pdf In contrast, buying-and-holding a portfolio does not attract any capital gains taxes until the stocks in the portfolio are sold at a profit. A fund often is actively managed. That is, experts will alter the portfolio from time to time or advise the fund to buy or sell particular investments. Note however, that even the experts are required to tell you that \\\"\\\"past performance is no guarantee of future results.\\\"\\\"\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 10994,\n \"docid\": \"41625\",\n \"rank\": 79,\n \"score\": 91051\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"In the case of a specific fund, I'd be tempted to get get an annual report that would disclose distribution data going back up to 5 years. The \\\"\\\"View prospectus and reports\\\"\\\" would be the link on the site to note and use that to get to the PDF of the report to get the data that was filed with the SEC as that is likely what matters more here. Don't forget that mutual fund distributions can be a mix of dividends, bond interest, short-term and long-term capital gains and thus aren't quite as simple as stock dividends to consider here.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 10994,\n \"docid\": \"341192\",\n \"rank\": 80,\n \"score\": 90945\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Mutual funds buy (and sell) shares in companies in accordance with the policies set forth in their prospectus, not according to the individual needs of an investor, that is, when you invest money in (or withdraw money from) a mutual fund, the manager buys or sells whatever shares that, in the manager's judgement, will be the most appropriate ones (consistent with the investment policies). Thus, a large-cap mutual fund manager will not buy the latest hot small-cap stock that will likely be hugely profitable; he/she must choose only between various large capitalization companies. Some exchange-traded funds are fixed baskets of stocks. Suppose you will not invest in a company X as a matter of principle. Unless a mutual fund prospectus says that it will not invest in X, you may well end up having an investment in X at some time because the fund manager bought shares in X. With such an ETF, you know what is in the basket, and if the basket does not include stock in X now, it will not own stock in X at a later date. Some exchange-traded funds are constructed based on some index and track the index as a matter of policy. Thus, you will not be investing in X unless X becomes part of the index because Standard or Poor or Russell or somebody changed their minds, and the ETF buys X in order to track the index. Finally, some ETFs are exactly like general mutual funds except that you can buy or sell ETF shares at any time at the price at the instant that your order is executed whereas with mutual funds, the price of the mutual fund shares that you have bought or sold is the NAV of the mutual fund shares for that day, which is established based on the closing prices at the end of the trading day of the stocks, bonds etc that the fund owns. So, you might end up owning stock in X at any time based on what the fund manager thinks about X.\",\n \"qid\": 10994,\n \"docid\": \"479420\",\n \"rank\": 81,\n \"score\": 90818\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Older folk might wish to let the dividends and cap gains be paid in cash, and use that cash towards their RMDs (required distributions). If you are investing in mutual funds and wish to keep adding to the funds you've selected, the reinvestment is a simple way to avoid having to visit the account and make a new purchase. In other words, you invest $5500, buy the fund, and X years from now, you simply have more shares of the fund but no cash o worry about. The pro is as mentioned, and the con is really for the 70-1/2+ people who will need to take their RMDs. (Although even they can take the RMD in kind, as fund shares)\",\n \"qid\": 10994,\n \"docid\": \"484825\",\n \"rank\": 82,\n \"score\": 90794\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"Do mutual funds edit/censor underperforming investments to make their returns look better, and if so, is there any way one can figure out if they are doing it? No, that's not what the quote says. What the quote says is that the funds routinely drop investments that do not bring the expected return, which is true. That's their job, that is what is called \\\"\\\"active management\\\"\\\". Obviously, if you're measuring the fund by their success/failure to beat the market, to beat the market the funds must consistently select over-performers. No-one claims that they only select over-performers, but they select enough of them (or not...) for the average returns to be appealing (or not...) for the investors.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 10994,\n \"docid\": \"185460\",\n \"rank\": 83,\n \"score\": 90729\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"I'll give the TLDR answer. 1) You can't forecast the price direction. If you get it right you got lucky. If you think you get it right consistently you are either a statistical anomaly or a victim of confirmation bias. Countless academic studies show that you can not do this. 2) You reduce volatility and, importantly, left-tail risk by going to an index tracking ETF or mutual fund. That is, Probability(Gigantic Loss) is MUCH lower in an index tracker. What's the trade off? The good thing is there is NO tradeoff. Your expected return does not go down in the same way the risk goes down! 3) Since point (1) is true, you are wasting time analysing companies. This has the opportunity cost of not earning $ from doing paid work, which can be thought of as a negative return. \\\"\\\"With all the successful investors (including myself on a not-infrequent basis) going for individual companies directly\\\"\\\" Actually, academic studies show that individual investors are the worst performers of all investors in the stock market.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 10994,\n \"docid\": \"355108\",\n \"rank\": 84,\n \"score\": 90524\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"Great question, and here is the answer. No. Shares in 401k plans are never registered to an individual while the money is held in the plan. That goes for stock or mutual funds. Technically your account is never \\\"\\\"yours\\\"\\\" until you request a distribution from the plan. Most people do not understand this, and it's not the easiest of concepts to understand or be willing to grasp.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 10994,\n \"docid\": \"305167\",\n \"rank\": 85,\n \"score\": 90454\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"If you have an S-Corp with several shareholders - you probably also have a tax adviser who suggested using S-Corp to begin with. You're probably best off asking that adviser about this issue. If you decided to use S-Corp for multiple shareholders without a professional guiding you, you should probably start looking for such a professional, or you may get yourself into trouble. That said, and reminding you that: 1. Free advice on the Internet is worth exactly what you paid for it, and 2. I'm not a tax professional or tax adviser, you should talk to a EA/CPA licensed in your state, here's this: Generally S-Corps are disregarded entities for tax purposes and their income flows to their shareholders individual tax returns through K-1 forms distributed by the S-Corp yearly. The shareholders don't have to actually withdraw the profits, but if not withdrawing - they're added to their cost bases in the shares. I'm guessing your corp doesn't distribute the net income, but keeps it on the corporate account, only distributing enough to cover the shareholders' taxes on their respective income portion. In this case - the amount not distributed is added to their basis, the amount distributed has already been taxed through K-1. If the corporation distributes more than the shareholder's portion of net income, then there can be several different choices, depending on the circumstances: The extra distribution will be treated as salary to the shareholder and a deduction to the corporation (i.e.: increasing the net income for the rest of the shareholders). The extra distribution will be treated as return of investment, reducing that shareholder's basis in the shares, but not affecting the other shareholders. If the basis is 0 then it is treated as income to the shareholder and taxed at ordinary rates. The extra distribution will be treated as \\\"\\\"buy-back\\\"\\\" - reducing that shareholder's ownership stake in the company and reallocating the \\\"\\\"bought-back\\\"\\\" portion among the rest of the shareholders. In this case it is treated as a sale of stock, and the gain is calculated as with any other stock sale, including short-term vs. long-term taxation (there's also Sec. 1244 that can come in handy here). The extra distribution will be treated as dividend. This is very rare for S-Corp, but can happen if it was a C-Corp before. In that case it will be taxed as dividends. Note that options #2, #3 and #4 subject the shareholder to the NIIT, while option #1 subjects the shareholder to FICA/Self Employment tax (and subjects the company to payroll taxes). There might be other options. Your licensed tax adviser will go with you through all the facts and circumstances and will suggest the best way to proceed.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 10994,\n \"docid\": \"521489\",\n \"rank\": 86,\n \"score\": 90010\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Yes you should take in the expenses being incurred by the mutual fund. This lists down the fees charged by the mutual fund and where expenses can be found in the annual statement of the fund. To calculate fees and expenses. As you might expect, fees and expenses vary from fund to fund. A fund with high costs must perform better than a low-cost fund to generate the same returns for you. Even small differences in fees can translate into large differences in returns over time. You don't pay expenses, so the money is taken from the assets of the fund. So you pay it indirectly. If the expenses are huge, that may point to something i.e. fund managers are enjoying at your expense, money is being used somewhere else rather than being paid as dividends. If the expenses are used in the growth of the fund, that is a positive sign. Else you can expect the fund to be downgraded or upgraded by the credit rating agencies, depending on how the credit rating agencies see the expenses of the fund and other factors. Generally comparison should be done with funds invested in the same sectors, same distribution of assets so that you have a homogeneous comparison to make. Else it would be unwise to compare between a fund invested in oil companies and other in computers. Yes the economy is inter twined, but that is not how a comparison should be done.\",\n \"qid\": 10994,\n \"docid\": \"518402\",\n \"rank\": 87,\n \"score\": 89920\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: I think you can do better than the straight indexes. For instance Vanguard's High Yield Tax Exempt Fund has made 4.19% over the past 5 years. The S&P 500 Index has lost -2.25% in the same period. I think good mutual funds will continue to outperform the markets because you have skilled managers taking care of your money. The index is just a bet on the whole market. That said, whatever you do, you should diversify. List of Vanguard Funds\",\n \"qid\": 10994,\n \"docid\": \"445322\",\n \"rank\": 88,\n \"score\": 89767\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"What in the world to shareholders have to do with it? Nowadays, the vast majority of the shares in most big corporations are \\\"\\\"owned\\\"\\\" via intermediaries (i.e. mutual funds and 401K's, IRA's and Pension Funds) that do not ALLOW the actual end owners to have any say whatsoever. All those investment vehicles *allow* people to care about ... is the share price.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 10994,\n \"docid\": \"21507\",\n \"rank\": 89,\n \"score\": 89655\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: I agree, one should not let the tax tail wag the investing dog. The only question should be whether he'd buy the stock at today's price. If he wishes to own it long term, he keeps it. To take the loss this year, he'd have to sell soon, and can't buy it back for 30 days. If, for whatever reason, the stock comes back a bit, he's going to buy in higher. To be clear, the story changes for ETFs or mutual funds. You can buy a fund to replace one you're selling, capture the loss, and easily not run afoul of wash sale rules.\",\n \"qid\": 10994,\n \"docid\": \"207929\",\n \"rank\": 90,\n \"score\": 89467\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Distributions of interest from bonds are taxable as income by the Federal, state and municipal (if applicable) government. End of year fund distributions are subject to capital gains taxes as well. You can minimize taxation by: Note that the only bonds that are guaranteed safe are US Government obligations, as the US government has unlimited taxation powers and the ability to print money. Municipal obligations are generally safe, but there is a risk that municipal governments will default. You can also avoid taxation by not realizing gains. If you buy individual stocks or tax-efficient mutual funds, you will have minimal tax liability until you sell. Also, just wanted to point out that bonds do not equal safety and money markets do not pay sufficient interest to offset inflation, you need a diversified portfolio. Five year treasury notes are only paying 1.3% now, and bond prices drop when interest rates go up. Given the level of Federal spending and the wind-down of the war, its likely that rates will rise.\",\n \"qid\": 10994,\n \"docid\": \"428913\",\n \"rank\": 91,\n \"score\": 89173\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Even with non-voting shares, you own a portion of the company including all of its assets and its future profits. If the company is sold, goes out of business and liquidates, etc., those with non-voting shares still stand collect their share of the funds generated. There's also the possibility, as one of the comments notes, that a company will pay dividends in the future and distribute its assets to shareholders that way. The example of Google (also mentioned in the comments) is interesting because when they went to voting and non-voting stock, there was some theoretical debate about whether the two types of shares (GOOG and GOOGL) would track each other in value. It turned out that they did not - People did put a premium on voting, so that is worth something. Even without the voting rights, however, Google has massive assets and each share (GOOG and GOOGL) represented ownership of a fraction of those assets and that kept them highly correlated in value. (Google had to pay restitution to some shareholders of the non-voting stock as a result of the deviation in value. I won't get into the details here since it's a bit of tangent, but you could easily find details on the web.)\",\n \"qid\": 10994,\n \"docid\": \"488920\",\n \"rank\": 92,\n \"score\": 88973\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: When you are saving for money you need in 5 years or less the only real option is a savings account. I know the return is nothing at this point, but if you cannot take the risk of losing all of your money that's the only thing I would recommend. Now you could try a good growth stock mutual fund if, when you look up in 2 - 3 years and you have lost money you wait it out until it grows enough to get what you lost back then buy your house. I would not do the second option because I wouldn't want to be stuck renting while waiting for the account to recover, and actually thinking about it that way you have more risk. 3 years from now if you have lost money and don't yet have enough saved you will have to continue paying rent, and no mutual fund will out preform that.\",\n \"qid\": 10994,\n \"docid\": \"82159\",\n \"rank\": 93,\n \"score\": 88904\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Not according to the SEC: A mutual fund is an SEC-registered open-end investment company that pools money from many investors and invests the money in stocks, bonds, short-term money-market instruments, other securities or assets, or some combination of these investments. The combined securities and assets the mutual fund owns are known as its portfolio, which is managed by an SEC-registered investment adviser. Each mutual fund share represents an investor’s proportionate ownership of the mutual fund’s portfolio and the income the portfolio generates. And further down: Mutual funds are open-end funds.\",\n \"qid\": 10994,\n \"docid\": \"180196\",\n \"rank\": 94,\n \"score\": 88552\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Cost basis is irrelevant because the entire distribution is taxed as ordinary income even if the custodian distributes stock or mutual fund shares to you. Such distributions save you the brokerage fees that you would incur had you taken a cash distribution and promptly bought the shares outside the retirement account for yourself but they have no effect on the tax treatment of the distribution: the market value of the shares distributed to you is taxed as ordinary income, and your basis in the newly acquired shares outside the retirement account is the market value of the shares, all prices being as of the date of the distribution.\",\n \"qid\": 10994,\n \"docid\": \"183926\",\n \"rank\": 95,\n \"score\": 88399\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: In the absence of a country designation where the mutual fund is registered, the question cannot be fully answered. For US mutual funds, the N.A.V per share is calculated each day after the close of the stock exchanges and all purchase and redemption requests received that day are transacted at this share price. So, the price of the mutual fund shares for April 2016 is not enough information: you need to specify the date more accurately. Your calculation of what you get from the mutual fund is incorrect because in the US, declared mutual fund dividends are net of the expense ratio. If the declared dividend is US$ 0.0451 per share, you get a cash payout of US$ 0.0451 for each share that you own: the expense ratio has already been subtracted before the declared dividend is calculated. The N.A.V. price of the mutual fund also falls by the amount of the per-share dividend (assuming that the price of all the fund assets (e.g. shares of stocks, bonds etc) does not change that day). Thus. if you have opted to re-invest your dividend in the same fund, your holding has the same value as before, but you own more shares of the mutual fund (which have a lower price per share). For exchange-traded funds, the rules are slightly different. In other jurisdictions, the rules might be different too.\",\n \"qid\": 10994,\n \"docid\": \"162916\",\n \"rank\": 96,\n \"score\": 88388\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: The S&P 500 is a stock market index, which is a list of 500 stocks from the largest companies in America. You could open a brokerage account with a broker and buy shares in each of these companies, but the easiest, least expensive way to invest in all these stocks is to invest in an S&P 500 index mutual fund. Inside an index mutual fund, your money will be pooled together with everyone else in the fund to purchase all the stocks in the index. These types of funds are very low expense compared to managed mutual funds. Most mutual fund companies have an S&P 500 index fund; two examples are Vanguard and Fidelity. The minimum investment in most of these mutual funds is low enough that you will be able to open an account with your $4000. Something you need to keep in mind, however: investing in any stock mutual fund is not non-risk. It's not even low-risk, really. It is very possible to lose money by investing in the stock market. An S&P 500 index fund is diversified in the sense that you have money in lots of different stocks, but it is also not diversified, in a sense, because it is all in large cap American stocks. Before investing in the stock market, you should have a goal for the money you are investing. If you are investing for something several years away, an index fund can be a good place to invest, but if you will need this money within the next few years, the stock market might be too risky for you.\",\n \"qid\": 10994,\n \"docid\": \"161445\",\n \"rank\": 97,\n \"score\": 87987\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: The fund should be reporting returns net of expenses, so your interpretation is right; it made something like 0.42% (which sounds plausible, based on current yields on short-term securities), and the 0.05% is what's left after expenses. I've never seen a regular mutual fund report raw returns before expenses. If one does, the my personal opinion would be that they're trying to snooker you, as that number isn't actually representative of anybody's actual returns. If you look carefully, you should be able to find a table that reports several kinds of adjusted returns for the fund: As to what happens if a fund can't earn enough returns to cover its expenses, in that case the value of the fund shares will decrease. This happens from time to time with riskier funds. It shouldn't happen with a money market fund because both the returns and the expenses are fairly predictable, so the fund managers should be able to avoid it, unless they get caught up in a major crisis like the 2008 banking crisis. In ordinary times, a money market fund managers who couldn't keep expenses below income would find themselves looking for a new job fairly quickly. Finally, for what it's worth, 0.37% is a really high expense ratio for a money market fund. If you were to shop around, you could easily find comparable funds with expenses less than half that.\",\n \"qid\": 10994,\n \"docid\": \"346762\",\n \"rank\": 98,\n \"score\": 87777\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"The larger macro funds, the ones struggling in this environment, need there to be a\\\"\\\"normal\\\"\\\" amount of volatility in the market to make money. They need price action to provide buy/sell points, and to help them spot trends. The one way market we have been in for a long time makes this difficult/impossible. And then when we get two days in a row like we just had, it can really fuck them up and will lead them to take positions of at the worst time. And the loses are larger because all the macro funds use leverage, so a dollar loss could really become $3-6. The index funds are winning right now, no doubt. But they will have thier day off reckoning too, we just don't know how that plays out...yet. everyone put active mutual funds in the trash two years ago, and they are having the best year they have had in ages. It's all very cyclical. (Sorry for one paragraph, I'm on mobile.)\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 10994,\n \"docid\": \"238746\",\n \"rank\": 99,\n \"score\": 87694\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: No. You're entitled to 1% of votes at the shareholders' meeting (unless there's class division between shareholders, that is). If more than 50% of the shareholders vote to close the company, sell off its assets and distribute the proceeds to the owners - you'll get 1% share of the distributions.\",\n \"qid\": 10994,\n \"docid\": \"315375\",\n \"rank\": 100,\n \"score\": 87675\n }\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":645,"cells":{"query":{"kind":"string","value":"Pay off credit card debt or earn employer 401(k) match?"},"hits":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"Title: Content: If your employer is matching 50 cents on the dollar then your 401(k) is a better place to put your money than paying off credit cards This. Assuming you can also get the credit cards paid off reasonably soon too (say, by next year). Otherwise, you have to look at how long before you can withdraw that money, to see if the compounded credit card debt isn't growing faster than your retirement. But a guaranteed 50% gain, your first year is a pretty hard deal to beat. And if you currently have no savings, unless all of your surplus income has been reducing your debt, you're living beyond your means. You should be earning more than you're (going to be) spending, when you start paying rent/car bills. If you don't know what this is going to be, you need to be budgeting. Get this under control, by any means necessary. New job/career? Change priorities/expectations? Cut expenses? Live to your budget? Whatever it takes. I don't think you should be in any investment that includes bonds until you're 40, and maybe not even then - equities and cash-equivalents all the way (cash is for emergency funds, and for waiting for buying opportunities). Otherwise Michael has some good ideas. I would caveat that I think you should not buy any investments in one chunk, but dollar average it over some period of time, in case the market is unnaturally high right when you decide to invest. You should also gauge possible returns and potential tax liabilities. Debt is good to get rid of, unless it is good debt (very low interest rates - ie: lower than you could borrow the money for). Good debt should still get paid off - who knows how long your job could last for - but maybe not dump all of your $50K on it. Roth is amazing. You should be maxing that contribution out every year.","qid":11039,"docid":"287876","rank":1,"score":175988},{"content":"Title: Content: \"Aside from employer 401(k) matches (which may double your money immediately), paying off debts is almost always the best place to start. Paying off a debt early is a zero-risk operation and will earn you N% (where N is your interest rate). Is that a good deal for a zero-risk return? The closest equivalent today (Aug 24, 2012) is that you can earn about 2.68% on 10-year Treasury bonds. Unless you have a really, really good interest rate (or the interest is tax-deductible), paying off your loan will offer an excellent risk-adjusted return, so you should do that. The \"\"really good\"\" interest rate is typically a mortgage or student loans. (Mortgage interest is also tax-deductible, at least for now.) In those cases, you're not going to gain nearly as much by paying the loan early, and the loan is large - larger than the amount you want to have in risk-free investments. You want to invest for returns, as well! So you can save for retirement instead (in a 401(k) or similar account) and take on a little risk.\"","qid":11039,"docid":"552383","rank":2,"score":163543},{"content":"Title: Content: I have credit card debt of about $5000 That's the answer right there. You told us the 401(b) has no match. The next highest priority would be credit card debt that's costing you interest. You didn't mention the rate on the card, I'm assuming it's 8% or more. As far as your balance sheet (the 'bottom line') is concerned, pay off a 10% debt is the same as earning 10% on your money. If anyone promises you a higher return with a different investment, I'd run the other way. We hope the market, i.e. the US stock market, as measured by a broad index, say the S&P 500, will return 8-10%/yr over the long term, but this isn't guaranteed. Paying off that credit card will save you the interest every year, and free up the payments to invest elsewhere. In response to Marlene's comment - Crazy? No. Human nature and emotion is what it is. I honestly don't know how to address some of it. Years ago, I was in a similar situation with a reader who had a $5000 'emergency' account, yet had $5000 in credit card debt. I had a tough time getting my head around why it wasn't obvious this made no sense. In your case, I might suggest you pay the card down to below $1000 and have the credit line reduced. Paying high interest on $5K makes no sense at any point in one's life. At least a 20-something can dig his way out and learn a lesson. A pre-retiree shouldn't be throwing this money away.","qid":11039,"docid":"5203","rank":3,"score":159888},{"content":"Title: Content: \"The responses here are excellent. I'd add just a couple points. Debt is not generic. It ranges from low (my HELOC is 2.5%) to insane (24% credit card, anyone?). When I read about the obsession to be completely debt free, I ask questions. Are you saving in your 401(k) at least up to the match? I disagree with the \"\"debt is evil\"\" people who advise to ignore retirement savings while paying off every last debt. My company offers a dollar for dollar match on the first 5% of income deposited. So a $60K earner will see a $3000 deposit doubled. 5 years of this, and he has 1/2 a year's income in his retirement account, more with positive returns. (note - for those so fearful of losses, all 401(k) accounts have to offer a fixed income, low risk choice. currently 1% or less, but the opposite of \"\"I can lose it all\"\".) After that, paying off the higher debt is great. When it's time to hack away at student debt and mortgage, I am concerned that if it's at the risk of having no savings, I'd hold off. Consider - Two people in homes worth $250K. One has a mortgage of $250K and $100K in the bank. The other has his mortgage paid down to $150K. When they lose their jobs, the guy with the $100K in the bank has the funds to float himself through a period of unemployment as well as a house the bank is less likely to foreclose on. The guy with no money is in deep trouble, and the bank can sell his house for $150K and run away (after proper foreclosure proceedings of course.) My mortgage is one bill, like any other, and only a bit more than my property tax. I don't lose sleep over it. It will be paid before I retire, and before my 11yr old is off to college. I don't think you stupid for paying your low interest debt at your own pace.\"","qid":11039,"docid":"232262","rank":4,"score":158220},{"content":"Title: Content: John's answer is great, the question, however, is complex enough that one can write a book on the topic. So, I'll take the liberty to add two observations. The matched 401(k) should be the priority, even before paying off one's credit cards if any. A dollar for dollar match combined with the extra years of compounding is worth a bit longer on the debt pay off. To a younger person, the Roth (either Roth 401(k) or IRA) is a good choice while you are in a lower tax bracket. I recommend you look at the page at Fairmark to understand the tax brackets. It's easy to see how many people straddle that 15% line (at $68K taxable) and with a bit of planning, using Roth while in the 15% bracket and deductible accounts as you go above, you can tax-manage your affairs to avoid the higher rates.","qid":11039,"docid":"508534","rank":5,"score":157664},{"content":"Title: Content: Great questions -- the fact that you're thinking about it is what's most important. I think a priority should be maximizing any employer match in your 401(k) because it's free money. Second would be paying off high interest debt because it's a big expense. Everything else is a matter of setting good financial habits so I think the order of importance will vary from person to person. (That's why I ordered the priorities the way I did: employer matching is the easiest way to get more income with no additional work, and paying down high-interest debt is the best way to lower your long-term expenses.) After that, continue to maximize your income and savings, and be frugal with your expenses. Avoid debt. Take a vacation once in a while, too!","qid":11039,"docid":"105557","rank":6,"score":149738},{"content":"Title: Content: Mathwise, I absolutely agree with the other answers. No contest, you should keep getting the match. But, just for completeness, I'll give a contrarian opinion that is generally not very popular, but does have some merit. If you can focus on just one main financial goal at a time, and throw every extra dollar you have at that one focus (i.e., getting out of debt, in your case), you will make better progress than if you're trying to do too many things at once. Also, there something incredibly freeing about being out of debt that has other beneficial impacts on your life. So, if you can bring a lot of focus to the credit card debt and get it paid off quickly, it may be worth deferring the 401(k) investing long enough to do that, even though it doesn't make as much mathematical sense. (This is essentially what Dave Ramsey teaches, BTW.)","qid":11039,"docid":"79363","rank":7,"score":143579},{"content":"Title: Content: What is my best course of action, trying to minimize future debt? Minimizing expenses is the best thing you can do. The first step to financial independence is making do with less. Assuming I receive this $3500, am I better off using the bulk to pay off my credit cards, or should I keep as much cash available as I can? This would depend on the interest rate that is associated with the credit cards and the $3500. If the $3500 has a higher interest rate than your credit cards, then do not use any of it to pay your credit cards. Paying back the money you borrow hurts but it's the interest rate that does you in. If the interest rate for the $3500 is lower than the credit card interest, then placing some of it on the credit cards may be a wise course of action. But this depends on how long you are out of work. If you could be out of work for an extended period of time, I would recommend holding on to all of the funds. Note on saving I know this goes against the grain, but I would actually not recommend saving several months worth of funds (maybe one month though). Most employers offer some type of retirement savings account (401(k), Thrift Savings Plan, etc.). I contribute 5% to this fund instead of putting the money in savings. This is an especially effective strategy if your employer offers matching contributions such as mine. Because the divedends for a savings account are so low, it is not a wise place to store your money in the long run. If I had placed my Thrift Savings Plan contributions in a standard savings account, I would now be $12,000 poorer. In addition to this, most long term investment accounts allow you to withdraw the money early in case of emergency, such as being without work. (I also find it too temping to have huge amounts of funds on hand).","qid":11039,"docid":"253373","rank":8,"score":141733},{"content":"Title: Content: \"There is a very simple calculation that will answer the question: Is the expected ROI of the 401K including the match greater than the interest rate of your credit card? Some assumptions that don't affect the calculation, but do help illustrate the points. You have 30 years until you can pull out the 401K. Your credit card interest rate is 20% compounded annually. The minimum payoffs are being disregarded, because that would legally just force a certain percentage to credit card. You only have $1000. You can either pay off your credit card or invest, but not both. For most people, this isn't the case. Ideally, you would simply forego $1000 worth of spending, AND DO BOTH Worked Example: Pay $1000 in Credit Card Debt, at 20% interest. After 1 year, if you pay off that debt, you no longer owe $1200. ROI = 20% (Duh!) After 30 years, you no longer owe (and this is pretty amazing) $237,376.31. ROI = 23,638% In all cases, the ROI is GUARANTEED. Invest $1000 in matching 401k, with expected ROI of 5%. 2a. For illustration purposes, let's assume no match After 1 year, you have $1050 ($1000 principal, $0 match, 5% interest) - but you can't take it out. ROI = 5% After 30 years, you have $4321.94, ROI of 332% - assuming away all risk. 2b. Then, we'll assume a 50% match. After 1 year, you have $1575 ($1000 principle, $500 match, 5% interest) - but you can't take it out. ROI = 57% - but you are stuck for a bit After 30 years, you have $6482.91, ROI of 548% - assuming away all risk. 2c. Finally, a full match After 1 year, you have $2100 ($1000 principle, $1000 match, 5% interest) - but you can't take it out. ROI = 110% - but again, you are stuck. After 30 years, you have $8643.89, ROI of 764% - assuming away all risk. Here's the summary - The interest rate is really all that matters. Paying off a credit card is a guaranteed investment. The only reason not to pay off a 20% credit card interest rate is if, after taxes, time, etc..., you could earn more than 20% somewhere else. Note that at 1 year, the matching funds of a 401k, in all cases where the match exceeded 20%, beat the credit card. If you could take that money before you could have paid off the credit card, it would have been a good deal. The problem with the 401k is that you can't realize that gain until you retire. Credit Card debt, on the other hand, keeps growing until you pay it off. As such, paying off your credit card debt - assuming its interest rate is greater than the stock market (which trust me, it almost always is) - is the better deal. Indeed, with the exception of tax advantaged mortgages, there is almost no debt that has an interest rate than is \"\"better\"\" than the market.\"","qid":11039,"docid":"91183","rank":9,"score":140677},{"content":"Title: Content: \"I have never double-answered till now. This loan can't be taken out of context. By the way, how much is it? What rate? \"\"Debt bad.\"\" Really? Line the debt up. This is the highest debt you have. But, you work for a company that offers a generous match, i.e. the match to your 401(k). Now, it's a choice, pay off 6% debt or deposit that money to get an immediate 100% return. Your question has validity. In the end, we can tell you when to pay off the debt. After - The issue is that you are quoting a third party without having the discussion or ever being privy to it. In court, this is called 'hearsay.' The best we can do is offer both sides of the issue and priority for the payments. Welcome to Money.SE, nice first question.\"","qid":11039,"docid":"345895","rank":10,"score":140652},{"content":"Title: Content: Yours two funds are redundant. Both are designed to have a mix of bonds and stocks and allow you to put all your money in them. Pick the one that has the lowest fees and stick with that (I didn't look at the funds you didn't select...they didn't look great either). Although all your funds have high fees, some are higher than others, so don't ignore fees. When you have decided on your portfolio weights, prioritize your money thus: Contribute enough to your 401(k) to get the full match from your employer Put everything else toward paying off that credit card until you have 0 balance. It's ok to use the card, but let it be little enough that you pay your statement balance off each month so you pay no interest. Then set aside some savings and invest any retirement money into a Roth IRA. At your income level your taxes are low so Roth is better than traditional IRA or 401(k). If you max out your Roth, put any other retirement savings in your 401(k).","qid":11039,"docid":"124042","rank":11,"score":139465},{"content":"Title: Content: \"Your initial plan (of minimizing your interest rate, and taking advantage of the 401(k) match) makes sense, except I would put the 401(k) money in a very low risk investment (such as a money market fund) while the stock market seems to be in a bear market. How to decide when the stock market is in a bear market is a separate question. You earn a 100% return immediately on money that receives the company match -- provided that you stay at the company long enough for the company match to \"\"vest\"\". This immediate 100% return far exceeds the 3.25% return by paying down debt. As long as it makes sense to keep your retirement funds in low-risk, low-return investments, it makes more sense to use your remaining free cash flow to pay down debts than to save extra money in retirement funds. After setting aside the 6% of your income that is eligible for the company match, you should be able to rapidly pay down your debts. This will make it far easier for you to qualify for a mortgage later on. Also, if you can pay off your debt in a couple years, you will minimize your risk from the proposed variable rate. First, there will be fewer chances for the rate to go up. Second, even if the rate does go up, you will not owe the money very long.\"","qid":11039,"docid":"163287","rank":12,"score":138473},{"content":"Title: Content: \"Can is fine, and other answered that. I'd suggest that you consider the \"\"should.\"\" Does your employer offer a matched retirement account, typically a 401(k)? Are you depositing up to the match? Do you have any higher interest short term debt, credit cards, car loan, student loan, etc? Do you have 6 months worth of living expenses in liquid funds? One point I like to beat a dead horse over is this - for most normal mortgages, the extra you pay goes to principal, but regardless of how much extra you pay, the next payment is still due next month. So it's possible that you are feeling pretty good that for 5 years you pay so much that you have just 10 left on the 30 year loan, but if you lose your job, you still risk losing the house to foreclosure. It's not like you can ask the bank for that money back. If you are as disciplined as you sound, put the extra money aside, and only when you have well over the recommended 6 months, then make those prepayments if you choose. To pull my comment to @MikeKale into my answer - I avoided this aspect of the discussion. But here I'll suggest that a 4% mortgage costs 3% after tax (in 25% bracket), and I'd bet cap gain rates will stay 15% for non-1%ers. So, with the break-even return of 3.5% (to return 3 after tax) and DVY yielding 3.33%, the questions becomes - do you think the DVY top yielders will be flat over the next 15 years? Any return over .17%/yr is profit. That said, the truly risk averse should heed the advise in original answer, then pre-pay. Update - when asked,in April 2012, the DVY I suggested as an example of an investment that beats the mortgage cost, traded at $56. It's now $83 and still yields 3.84%. To put numbers to this, a lump sum $100K would be worth $148K (this doesn't include dividends), and giving off $5700/yr in dividends for an after-tax $4800/yr. We happened to have a good 4 years, overall. The time horizon (15 years) makes the strategy low risk if one sticks to it.\"","qid":11039,"docid":"568784","rank":13,"score":135706},{"content":"Title: Content: Withdrawing from your 401(k) may include a 10% withdrawal penalty. There are ways to avoid the withdrawal penalty for early disbursements. The idea is to reduce your interest expense by leveraging free loans (0% APR purchases). This will help you pay down your debt more. If you have 0% APR on purchases, you can make purchases on things you already buy. Then use that money towards other debt, while making monthly payments on the 0% APR card. This way, you pay off the credit card before the 0% APR changes. You can then rinse and repeat on another 0% APR card offer. If your credit score is 800, you can do this multiple times. Citi Simplicity gives you 18 months 0% APR. Chase Slate and Chase Freedom gives you 15 months 0% APR. Others typically give you 12 months or less.","qid":11039,"docid":"395376","rank":14,"score":132172},{"content":"Title: Content: \"Welcome to Money.SE. Your question is similar to a number of others. The \"\"How do I pay my debt down?\"\" and \"\"How do I invest extra money?\"\" is a bit of a continuum since there's no consensus than one should pay off the last cent of debt before investing. Oversimplify it for me: the correct order of investing offers a good look at this. You see, Pete's answer on your question is perfectly fine, but, since you make no mention of, say, a matched 401(k), I'd suggest that any answer to a question like yours should first take a step back and evaluate the bigger picture. A dollar for dollar matched 401(k) beats paying off even an 18% credit card. Absent any tangents, any thought of investing, saving for anything else, etc, my answer is simple, line up the debt, highest interest rate to lowest. Keep in mind the post-tax rate, i.e. a 6% student loan you can deduct, is an effective 4.5% if you are in the 25% bracket.\"","qid":11039,"docid":"396889","rank":15,"score":131251},{"content":"Title: Content: I completely agree with Pete that a 401(k) loan is not the answer, but I have an alternate proposal: Reduce your 401(k) contribution down to the 4% that you get a match on. If you are cash poor now and have debts to be cleaned up, those need to be addressed before retirement savings. You'll have plenty of time to make up the lost savings after you get the debts paid off. If your company matches 50% (meaning you have to contribute 8% to get the 4% match), then consider temporarily stopping your 401(k) altogether. A 100% match is very hard to give up, but a 50% match is less difficult. You have plenty of years left ahead of you to make up the lost match. Plus, the pain of knowing you're leaving money on the table will incentivize you to get the loans paid as quickly as possible. It seems to me that I would be reducing middle to high interest debt while also saving myself $150 per month. No, you'd be deferring $150 per month for an additional two years, and not reducing debt at all, just moving it to a different lender. Interest rate is not your problem. Right now you're paying less than $30 per month in interest on these 3 loans and about $270 in principal, and at the current rate should have them paid off in about 2 years. You're wanting to extend these loans to 4 years by borrowing from your retirement savings. I would buckle down, reduce expenses wherever possible (cable? cell phone? coffee? movies? restaurants?) until you get these debts paid off. You make $70,000 per year, or almost $6,000 per month. I bet if you try hard enough you can come up with $1,100 fairly quickly. Then the next $1,200 should come twice as fast. Then attack the next $4,000. (You can argue whether the $1,200 should come first because of the interest rate, but in the end it doesn't matter - either one should be paid off very quickly, so the interest saved is negligible) Maybe you can get one of them paid off, get yourself some breathing room, then loosen up a little bit, but extending the pain for an additional two years is not wise. Some more drastic measures:","qid":11039,"docid":"531051","rank":16,"score":130845},{"content":"Title: Content: The long term growth is not 6.5%, it's 10% give or take. But, that return comes with risk. A standard deviation of 14%. Does the 401(k) have a match? And are you getting the full match? If no match, or you already top it off, the 6.5% is a rate that I'd be happy to get on my money. So, I would pay it off faster. My highest rate debt is my 3.5% mortgage, which is 2.5% after tax. At 2.5%, I prefer to be a borrower, as that gap 2.5%-10% is pretty appealing, long term.","qid":11039,"docid":"422142","rank":17,"score":128994},{"content":"Title: Content: \"The others nailed it, great answers. I'd add - the two things I'd prioritize ahead of this debt, higher interest debt, obviously. And matched 401(k) deposits. I can't repeat enough - many people are so anti debt, they walk away from guaranteed 100% returns. \"\"after I pay my mortgage, I'll max out my 401(k) and catch up.\"\" I've read this, and it will never make sense. After that, pay off the 9% rate as soon as you can.\"","qid":11039,"docid":"60017","rank":18,"score":127665},{"content":"Title: Content: First off, great job on your finances so far. You are off on the right foot and have some sense of planning for the future. Also, it is a great question. First, I agree with @littleadv. Take advantage of your employer match. Do not drop your 401(k) contributions below that. Also, good job on putting your contributions into the Roth account. Second, I would ask: Are you out of debt? If not, put all your extra income towards paying off debt, and then you can work your plan. Third, time to do some math. What will your business look like? How much capital would you need to get started? Are there things you can do now on a part-time basis to start this business or prepare you to start the business? Come up with a figure, find some mutual funds that have a low beta, and back out how much money you need to save per month, so you have around that total. Then you have a figure. e.g. Assume you need $20,000, and you find a fund that has done 8% over the past 20 years. Then, you would need to save about $110/month to be ready to go in 10 years, or $273/month to go in about 5 years. (It's a time value of money calculation.) The house is really a long way off, but you could do the same kind of calculation. I feel that you think your income, and possibly locale, will change dramatically over the next few years. It might not be bad to double what you are saving for the business, and designate one half for the house.","qid":11039,"docid":"526383","rank":19,"score":124763},{"content":"Title: Content: When you leave an employer, 401(k) loans are immediately due (or within 30 days or 60 days). So maybe they are waiting to see if you will pay off your loan. If you wanted to transfer the loan as well, you need to talk to your new 401(k) plan administrator to find out if this even possible. If they say No and you don't pay off the loan, it will count as a premature distribution from your old 401(k) plan and possibly be subject to excise tax in addition to income tax.","qid":11039,"docid":"255277","rank":20,"score":124581},{"content":"Title: Content: With respect to the 401(k). Before taking a hardship withdrawal, one must first deplete the ability to take any 401(k) loans available. This is a regulation. The 401(k) loan limit is the lesser of $50k, 50% your vested balance, or $50k minus the highest loan balance within the last year. Here's the good news: it is not a taxable event; you can pay back over a maximum of 5 years; interest is low (usually 4.25% or so). The bad news: if you terminate employment then the loan balance must be repaid or else it becomes taxable income plus a 10% penalty. I suggest you consider eliminating the credit card debt via this option. Pay back as aggressively as possible and if/when you terminate you can take the 10% penalty - it will be far less of an impact than 25k accruing approximately 25% annually.","qid":11039,"docid":"315836","rank":21,"score":123686},{"content":"Title: Content: Your employer's matching contribution is calculated based on the dollar amounts you end up putting in. The nature of your 401(k) contribution—whether pre-tax or Roth after-tax—doesn't matter with respect to how their match gets calculated, and their match always goes into a pre-tax account, even if you are contributing after-tax. The onus is on you to choose a contribution amount that maximizes your employer match regardless of the nature of your contribution. Maximizing your employer match using Roth after-tax contributions will eat up more of your annual gross salary, but as long as you are willing to do that then you won't leave free employer match money on the table. Roth after-tax contributions don't get the tax deduction inherent in a pre-tax contribution. The tradeoff is that you end up with less take-home pay per period if you contribute the same number of dollars on a Roth after-tax basis to your 401(k) as opposed to on a pre-tax basis. For instance, to make a maximum $18,000 Roth after-tax contribution to a 401(k), it's going to cost you a lot more than $18,000 of your annual gross salary to net the same $18,000 number. (On the flip side, the Roth money is worth more in retirement than pre-tax money, because it won't be subject to taxes then.) However, 401(k) plan contribution amounts are almost always expressed as a percentage of gross salary, i.e. in pre-tax terms, even when electing to make after-tax contributions! So when electing after-tax, one is implicitly accepting that the contribution will cost more than the percentage of gross salary, because you'll need to pay the tax on a gross amount that would yield the same number of dollars but as an after-tax amount.","qid":11039,"docid":"463892","rank":22,"score":123340},{"content":"Title: Content: A 401(k) is just a container. Like real-world containers (those that are usually made out of metal), you can put (almost) anything you want in it. Signing up for your employer's match is a great thing to do. Getting into the habit of saving a significant portion of your take-home pay early in your career is even better; doing so will put you lightyears ahead of lots of people by the time you approach retirement age. Even if you love your job, that will give you options you otherwise wouldn't have. There is no real reason why you can't start out by putting your retirement money in a short-term money-market fund within that 401(k). By doing so you will only earn a pittance, probably not even enough to keep up with inflation in today's economic environment, but at this point in your (savings and investment) career, that doesn't really matter much. What really matters is getting into the habit of setting that money aside every single time you get paid and not thinking much of it. And that's a lot easier if you start out early, especially at a time when you likely have received a significant net pay increase (salaried job vs college student). I know, everyone says to get the best return you can. But if you are just starting out, and feel the need to be conservative, then don't be afraid to at least start out that way. You can always rebalance into investment classes that have the potential for higher return -- and correspondingly higher volatility -- in a few years. In the meantime, you will have built a pretty nice capital that you can move into the stock market eventually. The exact rate of return you get in the first decade matters a lot less than how much money you set aside regularly and that you keep contributing. See for example Your Investment Plan Means Nothing If You Don’t Do This by Matt Becker (no affiliation), which illustrates how it takes 14 years for saving 5% at a consistent 10% return to beat saving 10% at a consistent 0% return. So look through what's being offered in terms of low-risk investments within that 401(k). Go ahead and pick a money-market fund or a bond fund if you want to start out easy. If it gets you into the habit of saving and sticking with it, then the overall return will beat the daylights out of the return you would get from a good stock market fund if you stop contributing after a year or two. Especially (but not only) if you do pick an interest-bearing investment, do make sure to pick one that has as low fees as you can possibly find for what you want, because otherwise the fees are going to eat a lot into your potential returns, benefiting the bank or investment house rather than yourself. Just keep an open mind, and very strongly consider shifting at least some of your investments into the stock market as you grow more comfortable over the next several years. You can always keep a portion of your money in various interest-bearing investments to act as a cushion in case the market slumps.","qid":11039,"docid":"471472","rank":23,"score":122922},{"content":"Title: Content: Paying off the high-interest debt is a good first start. Paying interest, or compound interest on debt is like paying somebody to make you poor. As for your 401k, you want to contribute enough to get the full match from your employer. You might also consider checking out the fees associated with your 401k with an online fee analyzer. If it turns out you're getting reamed with fees, you can reduce them by fiddling with your investments. Checking your investment options is always a good idea since jobs frequently change them. Opening an IRA is a good call. If you're eligible for both Roth and Traditional IRAs, consider the following: Most financial institutions (brokers or banks) can help you open an IRA in a matter of minutes. If you shop around, you will find very cheap or even no fee options. Many brokers might try to get your business by giving away something for ‘free.' Just make sure you read the fine print so you understand the conditions of their promotional offer. Whichever IRA you choose, you want to make sure that it's managed properly. Some people might say, ‘go for it, do it yourself’ but I strongly disagree with that approach. Stock picking is a waste of time and market timing rarely works. I'd look into flat fee financial advisors. You have lots of options. Just make sure they hear you out, and can design/execute an investment plan specific to your needs At a minimum, they should: Hope this is helpful.","qid":11039,"docid":"137267","rank":24,"score":122624},{"content":"Title: Content: First I must say that I'm not a Ramsey fan. Sometimes loans will make your financial situation significantly better. Especially if its a 0% loan. Generally, I do think that leveraging has its place, its the ab-use of loans what causes problems, not the use. Re your question - you're right in trying to first build up an emergency fund. You should have enough in it to be able to pay for yourself for at least half a year of unemployment or zero income. You only have one month. Your family member gave you money for free, which is admirable, but I'm sure there's a limit to everyone's generosity and he might not give it to you for free again, once you pay it off. Thus, you should be able to handle your future troubles on your own, and emergency fund is a crucial part of this. Pay as agreed, try not to be late, and you'll pay the loan off within 3 years. If you accumulate enough emergency fund, and you still have some extra left - pay some extra on the loan in order to pay it off early. Do make sure you take full advantage of the employer's 401k match. This has, IMHO, much higher priority than paying off the 0% loan early.","qid":11039,"docid":"245174","rank":25,"score":122518},{"content":"Title: Content: You should try to take out other loans sufficient to pay off your 401(k) loan if you can. Maybe you can take out a home equity loan? You can also ask your bank about unsecured loans. You should also check the rules for your new employer's 401(k), if you're rolling over your 401(k). There's a small possibility that you could take out another loan right now and apply it to the previous loan balance. Or if you need to wait, you could use it to help pay off any temporary loans that were needed to avoid the distribution penalty.","qid":11039,"docid":"149004","rank":26,"score":121898},{"content":"Title: Content: (Note: The OP does not state whether the employer-sponsored retirement savings are pre-tax or post-tax (such as a Roth 401(k)). The following answer assumes the more common case of a pre-tax plan.) This is a bad idea, IMHO. IRS Pub 970 lists exceptions to the 10% early withdrawal penalty for educational expenses. This doesn't include, as far as I can tell, student loan payments. So withdrawing from your retirement account would incur both income tax and penalties. Even if there were an exception, you'd still have to pay income taxes, which, depending on the amount and your income, could be at a higher marginal rate than you are currently paying. If you really want the debt gone as soon as possible, why not reduce the amount you contribute to the retirement plan (but not below the amount that gets you the maximum employer match) and use that money to increase your monthly payments to the student loan? Note that, if you do this, you will pay taxes on income that would have been tax-deferred in order to save money on interest, so there's still a trade-off. (One more thing: rather than rolling over to your new company's plan, you could roll over to a self-directed Traditional IRA.)","qid":11039,"docid":"55954","rank":27,"score":121481},{"content":"Title: Content: The matching funds are free money, so it is a very good idea to take that money off the table. Look at it as free 100% return: you deposit $1000, your employer matches that $1000, you now have $2000 in your 401(k). (Obviously, I'm keeping things simple. Vesting schedules mean that the employer match isn't yours to keep immediately, but rather after some time; usually in chunks.) Beyond the employer match, you need to consider what is available for investment in a 401(k). Typically, your options are more limited then in an IRA. The cost of the 401(k) should be considered, as it isn't trivial for most. (The specifics will of course vary, but in large IRA accounts are cheaper.) So, it's about the opportunity costs. Up to the employer match, it doesn't matter as much that your investment choices are more limited in a 401(k), because you're getting 100% return just on the matching funds. Once that is exhausted, you have more opportunity for returns, due to having more options available to you, by going with an account that provides more choices. The overall principle here is that you have to look at the whole picture. This is similar to the notion that you should pay-down your high interest debt before investing, because from the perspective of investing the interest you're paying represent a loss, or negative return on investment, since money is going out of your accounts. Specific to your question, you have to consider the various types of investment vehicles available to you. It is not just about 401(k) and IRA accounts. You may also consider a straight brokerage account, a savings account, CDs, etc. The costs and returns that you can typically expect are your guides through the available choices.","qid":11039,"docid":"371886","rank":28,"score":119804},{"content":"Title: Content: \"For easy math, say you are in the 25% tax bracket. A thousand deposited dollars is $750 out of your pocket, but $2000 after the match. Now, you say you want to take the $750 and pay down the card. If you wait a year (at 20%) you'll owe $900, but have access to borrow a full $1000, at a low rate, 4% or so. The payment is less than $19/mo for 5 years. So long as one is comfortable juggling their debt a bit, the impact of a fully matched 401(k) cannot be beat. Keep in mind, this is a different story than those who just say \"\"don't take a 401(k) loan.\"\" Here, it's the loan that offers you the chance to fund the account. If you are let go, and withdraw the money, even at the 25% rate, you net $1500 less the $200 penalty, or $1300 compared to the $750 you are out of pocket. If you don't want to take the loan, you're still ahead so long as you are able to pay the cards over a reasonable time. I'll admit, a 20% card paid over 10+ years can still trash a 100% return. This is why I add the 401(k) loan to the mix. The question for you - jldugger - is how tight is the budget? And how much is the match? Is it dollar for dollar on first X%?\"","qid":11039,"docid":"353625","rank":29,"score":117809},{"content":"Title: Content: \"If you're willing to do a little more work and bookkeeping than just putting money into the 401(k) I would recommend the following. I note that you said you chose some funds based on performance since the expense ratios are all high. I would recommend against chasing performance because active funds will almost always falter; honor the old saw: \"\"past performance is no guarantee of future returns\"\". Assuming the cash in your Ally account is an emergency fund, I would use it to pay off your credit card debt to avoid the interest payments. Use free cash flow in the coming months to bring the emergency fund balance back up to an acceptable level. If the Ally account is not an emergency fund, I would make it one! With no debt and an emergency fund for 3-12 months of living expenses (pick your risk tolerance), then you can concentrate on investing. Your 401(k) options are unfortunately pretty poor. With those choices I would invest this way: Once you fill up your choice of IRA, then you have the tougher decision of where to put any extra money you have to invest (if any). A brokerage account gives you the freedom of investment choices and the ability to easily pull out money in the case of a dire emergency. The 401(k) will give you tax benefits, but high fund expenses. The tax benefits are considerable, so if I were at a job where I plan on moving on in a few years, I'd fund the 401(k) up to the max with the knowledge that I'd roll the 401(k) into a rollover IRA in the (relatively) short term. If I saw myself staying at the employer for a long time (5+ years), I'd probably take the taxable account route since those high fund fees will add up over time. One you start building up a solid base, then I might look into having a small allocation in one of my accounts for \"\"play money\"\" to pick individual stocks, or start making sector bets.\"","qid":11039,"docid":"493578","rank":30,"score":117376},{"content":"Title: Content: You can take a out loan against your 401k, which means you won't be penalized for the withdrawal. You will have to pay that amount back though, but it can help since the interest will be lower than a lot of credit card rates. You could refinance your home if you can get a reasonable interest rate. You could also get a 0% APR balance transfer credit card and transfer the balance and pay it off that way. There are a lot of options. I would contact a Credit Counselor and explore further options. The main objective is to get you out of debt, not put you more in debt - whether that is refinancing your mortgage, cashing in an annuity, etc.","qid":11039,"docid":"19479","rank":31,"score":116085},{"content":"Title: Content: If it were my money, I wouldn't put it in a 401(k) for this purpose. If you were working at a company that provided 401(k) matching, then it might be worth it to put the money in your employer's 401(k) because the employer chips in based on what you put in. But you're self-employed, so there's no matching unless you match it yourself. (Correct?) So, given that there's no matching, a 401(k) arrangement would have more restrictions than a non-tax-advantaged account (like a bank account, or a taxable money market account). This would be taxable in the year you earn the money, but then that's it. If you're expecting to pull out the money pre-retirement, I wouldn't put it in in the first place.","qid":11039,"docid":"595875","rank":32,"score":115787},{"content":"Title: Content: Set up budget categories. Earmark your income as it is paid, for your budget categories. Pay your bills and expenses. For debts, pay the minimum on everything. There will be an amount left once everything is budgeted. That's the 'extra'. Then focus on, in order of priority, the following: So, when your emergency fund is up to an appropriate level (3-6 months of living expenses as a rule of thumb, adjusted according to your comfort level). Once you have your emergency fund started, budget at least enough toward your 401k to capture any matching offered by your employer. Then use the snowball plan to pay off your debts. (From what your post says, this does not apply to you, but you may have some small credit card debts taht were not discussed). Earmark the 'extra' for the smallest debt first. When that debt is paid, the 'extra' grows by the minimum payment of the smallest. Thus the snowball grows as you pay off debts. Once the debts are gone, reward yourself, within reason (and without going into debt). Now shift your extra into fully funding your retirement savings. Consult a financial advisor to help you plan how to distribute your retirement savings across the available retirement savings types. They can explain why it's good to have some of your retirement savings funded from after tax income. They can help you find the balance between pre- and post-tax funded accounts. Eventually, you may come to the point where you're putting the max allowed into your tax advantaged retirement accounts. At your age, this is a significant achievement. Anything left over after retirement savings is funded can be used for whatever you want. If you choose wealth building, it can lead to financial independence. The first two should be a one time thing. You can/should do more than one at a time. The fourth one is optional, and should not be considered until 1 and 2 are completed, and 3 is maxed out. What you achieve is up to you. Look up FIRE, or Financially independent, retire early. There are groups of folks striving for this. They share advice on frugal living and wealth building strategies. The goal is to save enough capital to live off the passive income of interest and dividends. Most of them seem to have pre-50 target ages. At your age and income, you could hit a pre-40 goal. But it takes commitment and a certain type of personality. Not for me but it might be for you.","qid":11039,"docid":"1315","rank":33,"score":115403},{"content":"Title: Content: I suggest rolling it over to the 401(k) with your new employer. Particularly if they match any percentage of your contribution, it would be in your interest to take as much of that money as possible. When it comes to borrowing money from your 401(k), it looks like the issues AbraCadaver mentioned only apply if you don't pay back the money (http://www.kiplinger.com/article/real-estate/T010-C000-S002-borrowing-from-your-retirement-plan-to-buy-a-home.html). The reasonable argument against taking money out of your 401(k) to buy a home is that it leaves a dent in your retirement nest egg (and its earning power) during key earning years. On the plus side for borrowing from your 401(k), it's very low interest--and it's interest you're paying back to yourself over a 5-year period. At its current value, the most you could borrow from your 401(k) is $35K. If you're fortunate in where you live, that could be most or all of the downpayment. In my own experience, my wife borrowed against her 401(k) balance for the earnest money when we purchased a new home. Fortunately for us, an investor snapped up my previous home within 4 days of us listing it, so she was able to pay back her loan in full right away.","qid":11039,"docid":"436331","rank":34,"score":115203},{"content":"Title: Content: What's missing in your question, so Kate couldn't address, is the rest of your financial picture. If you have a fully funded emergency account, are saving for retirement, and have saved up the $15K for the car, buy in cash. If you tell me that if the day after you buy the car in cash, your furnace/AC system dies, that you'd need to pay for it with an $8K charge to a credit card, that's another story. You see, there's more than one rate at play. You get close to zero on you savings today. You have a 1.5% loan rate available. But what is your marginal cost of borrowing? The next $10K, $20K? If it's 18% on a credit card, I personally would find value in borrowing at sub-2.5% and not depleting my savings. On the other side, the saving side, does your company offer a 401(k) with company match? I find too many people obsessing over their 6% debt, while ignoring a 100% match of 4-6% of their gross income. For what it's worth, trying to place labels on debt is a bit pointless. Any use of debt should be discussed 100% based on the finances of the borrower.","qid":11039,"docid":"489729","rank":35,"score":114993},{"content":"Title: Content: Employer matches (even for Roth 401Ks) are put into traditional 401K accounts and are treated as pre-tax income. Traditional 401K plans are tax deferred accounts, meaning you won't owe any taxes on it this year, but will have to pay taxes on it when you take the money out (likely after retirement). 401K contributions (including the match) are reported to the IRS and are entered in box 12 on the W2 form.","qid":11039,"docid":"221938","rank":36,"score":114340},{"content":"Title: Content: The best option for maximizing your money long-term is to contribute to the 401(k) offered by your employer. If you park your inheritance in a savings account you can draw on it to augment your income while you max out your contributions to the 401(k). You will get whatever the employer matches right off the bat and your gains are tax deferred. In essence you will be putting your inheritance into the 401(k) and forcing your employer to match at whatever rate they do. So if your employer matches at 50 cents on the dollar you will turn your 50 thousand into 75 thousand.","qid":11039,"docid":"171196","rank":37,"score":114315},{"content":"Title: Content: HSAs are very similar to IRAs. Any investment returns grow tax-deferred and once you reach age 59 1/2 65, you can withdraw the funds for any purpose (subject to ordinary income tax), just like a traditional IRA. If you can afford to do so, I would recommend you to pay medical expenses out-of-pocket and let the funds in your HSA accumulate and grow. In general, the best way to allocate your funds is in the following order: Contribute to a 401(k) if your employer matches funds at a substantial rate Pay off high-interest debt (8% of more in current environment in 2011) Contribute to an IRA (traditional or Roth) Contribute to an HSA Contribute to a 401(k) without the benefit of employer matching One advantage of HSAs versus IRAs is that you don't have to have earned income (salary or self-employment income) in order to contribute. If you derive income solely from rents, interest or dividends, you can contribute the maximum amount ($3,050 for individuals in 2011) and get a full deduction from your income (Of course, you will need to maintain a high-deductible health plan in order to qualify). One downside of HSAs is the lack of competitively priced providers. Wells Fargo offers HSAs for free, but only allows you to keep your funds in cash, earning a very measly interest rate, or invest them in rather mediocre and expensive Wells Fargo mutual funds. Vanguard, known for its low-fee investment options, provides HSAs through a partner company, but the account maintenance charges are still quite high. Overall, HSAs are a worthwhile option as part of your investment plan.","qid":11039,"docid":"402523","rank":38,"score":114139},{"content":"Title: Content: With a match, the 401(k) becomes the priority, up to that match, often ahead of other high interest debt. Without the match, the analysis is more about the cost within the 401(k). The 401(k) is a tax deferred account (let's not go on a tangent to Roth 401(k)) so ideally, you'd be skimming off money at 25% and saving it till you retire, so some of it is taxed at 0, 10, 15%. If the fees in the 401(k) are say 1.5% between the underlying funds and management fee, it doesn't take long to wipe out the potential 10 or 15% you are trying to gain. Yes, there's a risk that cap gain rates go away, but with today's tax law, the long term rate is 15%. So that money put into a long term low cost ETF will have reinvested dividends taxed at 15% and upon sale, a 15% rate on the gains. There are great index ETFs with sub - .1% annual cost. My simple answer is - If the total cost in that 401(k) is .5% or higher, I'd pass. Save the money in an outside account, using IRAs as best you can. (The exact situation needs to be looked at very carefully. In personal finance, there's a lot of 'grey'. For example, a frequent job changer can view the 401(k) as a way of saving pretax, knowing the fee will only last 2 years, and will end with a transfer to the IRA)","qid":11039,"docid":"147889","rank":39,"score":113891},{"content":"Title: Content: How old are you? With $15k, I assume late twenties. Do you still use your credit cards? or is this just past accumulated debt? (paying them off will do you no good if you just run them back up again.) Does your employer match you contributions? How much? Are you fully vested in their contributions? In general, it is not a good idea, but under the right circumstances it isn't a bad idea.","qid":11039,"docid":"299819","rank":40,"score":113743},{"content":"Title: Content: It's generally considered a bad idea to take a loan from your 401k, for the following reasons: You don't earn returns while the money is out You pay the loan back with after-tax money It's only considered a good idea for emergencies or where you need the money to pay off high interest rate debt like credit cards. Consider the stability of your employment, the expected rate of return and explore other avenues for funds Source: MSN Money","qid":11039,"docid":"506344","rank":41,"score":113532},{"content":"Title: Content: I would definitely be putting in enough to get the most out of the match. Only reasons I can think of not too would be: Other than that, not investing in the 401(k) is turning down free money. Edit based on feedback in comments. The only time I would advocate number 1 is if you are intensely committed to getting out of debt, were on a very tight budget and had eliminated all non-essential spending. In that situation only, I think the mental benefit of having that last debt paid off would be worth more than a few dollars in interest.","qid":11039,"docid":"330058","rank":42,"score":113477},{"content":"Title: Content: Gaining traction is your first priority. WARNING: as @JosephZambrano explains in his answer the tax penalty for withdrawing from a 401(k) can easily exceed the APR of the credit card making it a very bad strategy. Consult in-depth with a financial advisor to see before taking that path. As @JoeTaxpayer has noted a loan is another alternative. The 401k is no good to you if you can't have shelter or comfort in the mean time. The idea is to look at all the money as a single thing and balance it together. There is no credit and retirement, just a single target that you can hit by moving the good money to clear the bad. Consolidating the credit card debt somehow would be very wise if you can. Assuming it is 30% APR shrinking that quickly is the first priority. You may be able to justify a hardship withdrawal to finance the reduction/consolidation of the credit card. It may be worth considering negotiating a closure arrangement with a reduced principal. Credit card companies can be quite open to this as it gets their money back. You may also be able to negotiate a lower interest rate. You may be able to negotiate a non-credit-affecting debt consolidation with a debt consolidator. They want to make money and a 25K loan to a person with sound credit is a pretty good bet. Moving, buying a house, or any of that may just relocate the problem. You may be able to withdraw $25K from your 401k under hardship, pay the credit card, and come up with a payment plan for the medical debt. It's a retirement setback for sure, but retirement is an illusion with that credit card shark eating all of your hard-earned money. You gotta slay that beast quick. Again, be sure to fully analyze whether the penalty on the 401(k) withdrawal exceeds the APR of the credit card.","qid":11039,"docid":"423816","rank":43,"score":112792},{"content":"Title: Content: \"Since most of the answers are flawed in their logic, I decided to respond here. 1) \"\"What if you lose your job, you can't pay back the loan\"\" The point of the question was to reduce the amount paid per month. So obviously it would be easier to pay off the 401k loan rather than the 3 separate loans that are in place now. Also it's stated in the question that there's a mortgage, a child with medical costs, a car loan, student loans, other debt. On the list of priorities the 401k loan does not make the top 10 concerns if they lost their job. 2) \"\"Consider stopping the 401k contribution\"\" This is such a terrible idea. If you make the full contribution to the 401k and then just withdraw from the 401k rather than getting a loan you only pay a 10% penalty tax. You still get 90% of the company match. 3) \"\"You lose compound interest\"\" While currently the interest you get on a 401k (depending on how that money is invested) is higher than the interest you pay on your loans (which means it would be advantageous to keep the loans and keep contributing to the 401k), it's very unreliable and might even go down. I think you actually have a good case for getting a loan against the 401k if a) You have your spending and budget under control b) Your income is consistent c) You are certain that the loan will be paid back. My suggestion would be to take a loan against the 401k, but keep the current spending on the loans consistent. If you don't need the extra $150 per month, you really should try to pay off the loans as fast as you can. If you do need the $150 extra, you are lowering the mental threshold for getting more loans in the future.\"","qid":11039,"docid":"564796","rank":44,"score":112763},{"content":"Title: Content: If your employer offers a 401(k) match, definitely take advantage of it. It's free money, so take advantage of it!","qid":11039,"docid":"519750","rank":45,"score":112732},{"content":"Title: Content: \"Another consideration is that you are going to wind up with money in the \"\"regular\"\" 401(k) no matter which one you contribute to. The employer match can't go into the Roth 401(k). So all employer matching funds go in with pre-tax dollars and will be deposited in a normal 401(k) account. Edit from JoeTaxpayer - 2013 brought with it the Roth 401(k) conversion the ability to convert from the traditional pretax side of your 401(k) account to the Roth side.\"","qid":11039,"docid":"341493","rank":46,"score":112505},{"content":"Title: Content: \"First of all, you need to stop using the card completely. Yes, that means you lose out on cash back, double miles, whatever, but that's how you got to this mess in the first place. Switch to a cash budget until you can consistently spend less than you bring home. Keep better track of your expenses, build an emergency fund, and learn to save for expenses rather than borrow for them until you have your spending under control. If you can't cut your expenses any more, consider ways to increase your income (more hours at work, part-time jobs, sell stuff, etc.) Assuming that the employer match is 1-to-1 up to 4%, and you're saving an additional 7 percent to get to 15% total, I would definitely lower your contribution down to 4%, get the card paid off, and ONLY bump your contribution back up once you can safely pay off the card each month and know how much you can contribute. It is not wise to put 15% in retirement if that causes you to spend more than your net take-home pay. Your \"\"13%\"\" in your Roth is not guaranteed by any means, but the interest you pay on your credit card is. I would even be tempted to cut your retirement completely until the debt is paid, but more for motivational reasons that mathematical: I would be more concerned about living within your income at this point than getting a company match. I believe the benefits of spending wisely will outweigh a temporary loss in matched retirement funds in the long run.\"","qid":11039,"docid":"392924","rank":47,"score":112356},{"content":"Title: Content: \"Your contribution limit to a 401(k) is $18,000. Your employer is allowed to contribute to your 401(k), usually a \"\"matching contribution\"\". That matching contribution comes from your employer, so is not subject to your personal contribution limit. A contribution to a regular 401(k) is typically made with pre-tax money (i.e. you don't pay payroll taxes on the money you contribute) so you pay less taxes for the current tax year. However when you retire and you take money out, you pay taxes on the money you take out. On one hand, your tax rate may be lower when you have retired, but on the other hand, if your investments have appreciated over time, the total amount of tax you pay would be higher. If your company offers a Roth 401(k) plan, you can contribute $18,000 of after tax money. This way you pay the tax on the $18,000 today, as you would if you did not put the money in the 401(k), but when you take the money out at retirement, you would not have to pay tax. In my opinion, that serves as a way to pay effectively more money into your 401(k). Some firms put vesting provisions on the amount that they match in your 401(k), e.g. 4 years at 25% per year. So you have to work 1 full year to be entitled to 25% of their matching contribution, 2 years for 50%, and 4 years to receive all of it. Check your company's Summary Plan Description of the 401(k) to be sure. You are not allowed to invest pre-tax money into a Traditional IRA if you are already contributing to a 401(k) plan and have reached the income limits ($62,000 AGI for single head of household). You are allowed to contribute post-tax money to a Traditional IRA plan if you have already contributed to a 401(k), which you can then Roll-over into a Roth IRA (look up 'backdoor IRA'). The IRA contribution limit applies to all IRA accounts over that calendar year. You could put some money in a traditional IRA, a Roth IRA, another traditional IRA, etc. so long as the total amount is not more than the contribution limit. This gives you an upper limit of 5.5k + 18k = 23.5 investments in retirement accounts. Note however, once you reach age 50, these limits increase to 6.5k (IRA) + 24k (401(k)). They also are adjusted periodically with the rate of inflation. The following approach may be more efficient for building wealth: This ordering is the subject of debate and people have different opinions. There is a separate discussion of these priorities here: Best way to start investing, for a young person just starting their career? Note however, a 401(k) loan becomes payable if you leave your company, and if not repaid, is an unauthorised distribution from your 401k (and therefore subject to an additional 10% tax penalty). You should also be careful putting money into an IRA, as you will be subject to an additional 10% tax penalty if you take out the money (distribution) before retirement, unless one of the exceptions defined by the IRA applies (e.g. $10,000 for first time home purchase), which could wipe out more than any gains you made by putting it in there in the first place. Your specific circumstances may vary, so this approach may not be best for you. A registered financial advisor may be able to help - ensure they are legitimate: https://adviserinfo.sec.gov\"","qid":11039,"docid":"38532","rank":48,"score":112244},{"content":"Title: Content: \"A fascinating view on this. The math of a 10% deposit and projected 10% return lead to an inevitable point when the account is worth 10X your income (nice) and the deposit, 10% of income only represents 1% of the account balance. The use of an IRA is neither here nor there, as your proposed deposit is still just 1% of your retirement account total. Pay off debt? For one with this level of savings, it should be assumed you aren't carrying any high interest debt. It really depends on your age and retirement budget. Our \"\"number\"\" was 12X our final income, so at 10X, we were still saving. For you, if you project hitting your number soon enough, I'd still deposit to the match, but maybe no more. It might be time to just enjoy the extra money. For others, their goal may be much higher and those extra years deposits are still needed. I'd play with a spreadsheet and see the impact of reduced retirement account deposits. Note - the question asks about funding the 401(k) vs paying down debt. I'd always advise to deposit to the match, but beyond that, one should focus on their high interest debt, especially by their 50's.\"","qid":11039,"docid":"160780","rank":49,"score":111958},{"content":"Title: Content: Separate from some of the other considerations such as the legality, it is likely going to be worth your will if you employer has company matching even if you have to pay the early withdraw penalty because the matching funds from your employer can be viewed as gains on the money deposited. For example, using round numbers to make the math easy: No 401(k) Deposit With 401(k) Deposit So as you can see there is a benefit to deferring some of the earnings to the 401(k) account due to the employer matching but the actual dollar amount that you would be able to take home will be different based upon your own circumstances. Depending upon what the take home would be at the end of the day the percentage return may or may not be worth the time involved with doing the paperwork. However, all of this only applies if you have to pull the money out early as once you hit 59.5 years old you can start withdrawing the money without the tax penalty in which case the returns on your initial deposit will be much more.","qid":11039,"docid":"102291","rank":50,"score":111677},{"content":"Title: Content: Am I thinking correctly and can I do the 2 separate withdrawals? Yes. Is there anything else I'm missing? Yes. For starters - instead of withdrawing 401k - why don't you take a loan out of it? This can be dangerous, but also can be beneficial - both for the same reason. The beneficial part is this: you don't pay neither the income tax nor the penalty on the amount you take out as a loan. I.e.: immediate saving of 35%. You can also get the full loan amount (up to 50% of the 401k balance) at once, no need to wait for the next year. You'll be saving on the difference on the APR between the credit card debt (which is usually huge) and the 401k loan (which is usually very low), and that will allow you to consolidate the debt and cover it quicker. The dangerous part is also taxes. In case you lose your job - you have to pay off the loan immediately (within 3 months). If you don't - the remaining balance will be considered as a taxable distribution and you'll owe the 25%+10% on them. But - if you don't lose your job, you win. And repaying the loan will revert your 401k balances back to the full amount, while with withdrawal - you cannot put it back (after 60 days are over, at least). So keep that in mind. Check with your 401k plan provider on the loan terms and costs (they'll charge some symbolic amount for managing the loan for you).","qid":11039,"docid":"475573","rank":51,"score":111540},{"content":"Title: Content: \"As the comments above have been trying to get across, the prospective employer is offering to pay you for the bonus/unvested compensation that you would be losing by jumping ship right now to go work for them. They are not offering to buy any securities that you already hold, regardless of whether they're profitable or unprofitable. Example 1. You participate in your current company's 401(k), and your company matches your contributions at 50%. However, the matching funds are not yours immediately; they vest in 20%/year increments until you have been at the company for 5 years. Let's say you've been there for 3 years and have contributed $50K to the plan. Your company has matched you at $25K, but only 60% of that ($15K) has vested. If you leave right now for the new employer, you're leaving $10K behind. So the new employer might offer to \"\"buy out\"\" (i.e. pay you) that $10K to help encourage you to switch now. You might then counter their offer by pointing out that if you stay where you are that $10K is coming to you tax-deferred, whereas their $10K signing bonus would be taxed. So you ask for $15K instead. Example 2. You work for a Wall Street investment bank. Each December you receive a performance bonus. Since you began working there, your three yearly bonuses have been (in chronological order) $500K, $750K, and $1M. It's June, so you've worked halfway towards your next bonus. You have a lot of incentive to NOT leave your current employer. A competing employer may offer to \"\"buy you out\"\" of your anticipated bonus by giving you a $1.25M signing bonus (since you'd almost certainly not be eligible for a performance bonus during your first year there). You might negotiate with them and say \"\"I'm on track for $2M this year\"\", and then they would figure out if you're really worth that much to them. So you can see this all has to do with the prospective employer trying to compensate you for any income you're already counting on receiving from your current employer. By jumping ship now you would be foregoing that guaranteed/expected income, so the competitor wants to remove that anchor that might be holding you back from making the move. Stocks/options that you already own are irrelevant to the prospective employer. Since you wouldn't be giving those up by changing jobs, there's no reason for them to factor into the equation.\"","qid":11039,"docid":"145864","rank":52,"score":111448},{"content":"Title: Content: The other answers assumed student loan debt -- and for that, it's rarely worth it (unless your company only offers managed plans w/ really bad returns, or the economy recovers to the point where banks are paying 5% again on money market accounts) ... but if it's high rate debt, such as carrying a credit card debt, and the current rate of returns on the 401k aren't that great at the time, it would be worth doing the calculations to see if it's better to pay them down instead. If you're carrying extremely high interest debt (such as 'payday loans' or similar), it's almost always going to be worth paying down that debt as quickly as possible, even if it means forgoing matching 401k payments. The other possible reason for not taking the matching funds are if the required contributions would put you in a significant bind -- if you're barely scraping by, and you can't squeeze enough savings out of your budget that you'd risk default on a loan (eg, car or house) or might take penalties for late fees on your utilities, it might be preferable to save up for a bit before starting the contributions -- especially if you've maxed your available credit so you can't just push stuff to credit cards as a last resort.","qid":11039,"docid":"281049","rank":53,"score":111312},{"content":"Title: Content: I wouldn't buy a house at this time. Your credit card debt is the most expensive thing you have. Which is to say that you want to get rid of it as soon as possible. The lawyer isn't cheap, and your personal situation is not fully resolved. Congratulations on paying off the IRS, and getting up the 401k to 17.5k. Take care of the two things in paragraph 1, first,and then think about buying a house. You're doing too much good work to have it possibly be derailed by home payments.","qid":11039,"docid":"116755","rank":54,"score":110928},{"content":"Title: Content: First, read my answer here: Oversimplify it for me: the correct order of investing For me, the answer to your question comes down to how badly you want to get rid of your student loan debt. I recommend that you get rid of it as fast as possible, and that you sacrifice a little in your budget temporarily to make that happen. If that is what you want, here is what I would do. Following the steps in my other answer, I would pay off the student loans first. Cash out your non-retirement growth fund to jump start that, then challenge yourself to take as much of your paycheck as you can and throw it at the debt. Figure out how many months it will take before the debt is gone. Once the debt is gone, you won't have those monthly payments anymore and you won't be continually losing money in interest to the bank. At that point, you can build up your cash savings, invest in your employer's 401(k) plan for retirement, and start saving toward other long-term saving goals (car, house, etc.) To address some of your other concerns: If you cash out the non-retirement fund, you'll probably owe some capital gains tax. (Although, on a $3k investment, the long term rate won't add up to very much, depending on your tax bracket and cost basis.) You can't use the money from your non-retirement fund to invest in your 401(k). You can only contribute to your 401(k) via payroll deduction. To explicitly answer your question, your non-retirement fund is not bound by the limitations of retirement funds, meaning that you can cash it out and use it however you like without penalty, only paying perhaps a few hundred dollars of capital gains tax at tax time next year. Think of it as another source of cash for you.","qid":11039,"docid":"422421","rank":55,"score":110629},{"content":"Title: Content: 401k contributions are exempt from employee and employer FICA withholding. The employer withholding is approximately 7% of the gross. The closer the employer match ratio is to 7%, the closer it is to paying for itself. Example: Assuming an employee is match-maximizing and in very round numbers grosses 100,000 per year. A 50% match schedule is about $350 cheaper per employee than a 100% match schedule: Default non participant: The employee will see about 7000 deducted for FICA, and the employer will pay 7000 to FICA if they don't participate. First case: the match is 100%, 1-for-1 to a 5% cap, the employee will deduct 5000, and have 6650 withheld for FICA. The employer will pay 6650 to FICA. The total employer cost of withholding and match is 11,650. Second case: If the match is 50%, 1-for-2 to a 5% cap, the employee will deduct 10000, and have 6300 withheld for FICA. The employer will pay 6300 to FICA. The total employer cost of withholding and match is 11,300.","qid":11039,"docid":"240259","rank":56,"score":110570},{"content":"Title: Content: I moved from contributing 10% to maxing as my salary rose over the course of three years after graduation. Because of my raises, my monthly take home still increased, so it was a pretty painless way to increase my 401(k) contribution and also avoid lifestyle inflation. That said, I would not do it if you have any credit card debt, school loans, or an auto loan. Pay that off first. Then work on maxing the 401(k). Personally I rate owning a home behind that, but that's partially because I'm in an area where the rent ratios are barely on the side of buying, so I don't find buying to be a pressing matter. One thing to investigate is if your company offers a Roth 401(k) option. It's a nice option where you can go Roth without worrying about income limits. My personal experience does not include a Roth IRA because when I still qualified for one I didn't know much about them, and now that I know about them I have the happy issue of not qualifying.","qid":11039,"docid":"481793","rank":57,"score":110462},{"content":"Title: Content: Does your company offer matching on 401(k) deposits? Are you depositing at least to the match? If not, that should be priority one. Kill the card, never pay that kind of interest. Ever. Why are you paying 5%? The 30 year rate is 4% right now, and even if you pay some closing costs, you'll recoup the money quickly. In general, borrowing to invest is a losing game. I agree, get rid of the HELOC as well. If you refine to 15 years, you can get 3.5%, and in 16 years won't regret the decision.","qid":11039,"docid":"284827","rank":58,"score":110001},{"content":"Title: Content: You might also want to talk directly to a bank. If your credit report is clean, they may have some discretion in making the loan. Note - the 'normal' fully qualified loan has two thresholds, 28% (of monthly income) for housing costs, 36% for all debt servicing. A personal, disclosed loan from a friend/family which is not secured against the house, would count as part of the other debt, as would a credit card. While I don't recommend using a credit card for this purpose, the debt fits in that 28-36 gap. As Kevin points out below, not all paths are equally advisable. Nor are rules of thumb always true. Not having the OP's full details, income, assets, price of house, etc, this is just a list of things to consider. The use of a 401(k) loan in the US can be a great idea for some, bad mistake for others. This format doesn't make it easy to go into great detail, and I'm sure the 401(k) loan issue has been asked and answered in other questions. With respect to Kevin, if he wrote 'usually', I'd agree, but never say 'never.'","qid":11039,"docid":"352908","rank":59,"score":109965},{"content":"Title: Content: What is the question? Are you just trying to confirm that for self-employed, a Solo 401(k) is flexible, and a great tool to level out your tax rates? Sure. A W2 employee can turn on and off his 401(k) deduction any time, and bump the holding on each check as high as 75% in some cases. So in a tight stretch, I'd save to the match, but later on, top off the maximum for the year. To the points you listed - Your observation is interesting, but a bit long for what you seem to be asking. Keep in mind, there are 2 great features that you don't mention - a Roth Solo 401(k) flavor which offers even more flexibility for variable income, and loan provisions, up to $50,000 available to borrow from the account. My fellow blogger The Financial Buff offered an article Solo 401k Providers and Their Scope of Services that did a great job addressing this.","qid":11039,"docid":"518562","rank":60,"score":109913},{"content":"Title: Content: Depends upon the debt cost. Assuming it is consumer debt or credit card debt, it is better to pay that off first, it is the best investment you can make. Let's say it is credit card debt. If you pay 18% interst and have for example a $1,000 amount. If you pay it off you save $180 in interest ($1,000 times 18%). You would have to earn 18% on 1,000 to generate $180 if it was in aninvestment. Here is a link discussing ways of reducing debt Once you have debt paid off you have the cashflow to begin building wealth. The key is in the cashflow.","qid":11039,"docid":"457945","rank":61,"score":109557},{"content":"Title: Content: To answer your question: As far as what's available in addition to your 401(k) at work (most financial types will say to contribute up to the match first), you may qualify for a Roth IRA (qualification is based on income), if not, then you may have to go with a Traditional IRA. You and your husband can each have one and contribute up to the limit each year. After that, you could get just a straight up mutual fund, and/or contribute up to limit on your 401(k). My two cents: This may sound counter-intuitive (and I'm sure some folks will disagree), but instead of contributing to your 401(k) now, take whatever that amount is, and use it to pay extra on the car loan. Also take the extra being paid on the mortgage and pay it on the car loan too. Once the car loan is paid off, then set aside 15% of your gross income and use that amount to start your retirement investing. Any additional money beyond this can then go into the mortgage. Once it's paid off, then you can take the extra you were paying, plus the mortgage and invest that amount into mutual funds. You may want to check out Chris Hogan's Retire Inspired book or podcast as well.","qid":11039,"docid":"499606","rank":62,"score":109027},{"content":"Title: Content: I'd be tempted to pay off the 35k in student loans immediately, but if you have to owe money, it's hard to beat zero percent. So I don't think I would pay it all off. Maybe cut it in half to make it a more comfortable payment. Currently, you are looking at $6K a year to pay them off, which is about 20% of your income. Cut that in half and you will sleep better! Definitely pay off the medical and credit cards. You're probably paying 20% on that. Clean it up. If you need a car, buy yourself a car. You have no savings, so I would put the rest in some kind of money market savings account. You are at an age where many people go through frequent changes. Maybe you get your own place, and you'll need to furnish it. Maybe you go back to school. Maybe you get married or have kids. Maybe you take a year off and backpack through Europe or Asia. You have a nice little windfall that puts you in a nice position to enjoy being young, so I would not lock it up into a 401k or other long term situation.","qid":11039,"docid":"454937","rank":63,"score":108486},{"content":"Title: Content: One should fund a 401(k) or matched retirement account up to the match, even if you have other debt. Long term, you will come out ahead, but you must be disciplined in making the payments. If one wants to point out the risk in a 401(k), I'd suggest the money need not be invested in stocks, there's always a short term safe option.","qid":11039,"docid":"534837","rank":64,"score":108485},{"content":"Title: Content: \"The only way to know the specific explanation in your situation is to ask your employer. Different companies do it differently, and they will have their reasons for that difference. I've asked \"\"But why is it that way?\"\" enough times to feel confident in telling you it's rarely an arbitrary decision. In the case of your employer's policy, I can think of a number of reasons why they would limit match earnings per paycheck: Vesting, in a sense - Much as stock options have vesting requirements where you have to work for a certain amount of time to receive the options, this policy works as a sort of vesting mechanism for your employer matching funds. Without it, you could rapidly accumulate your full annual match amount in a few pay periods at the beginning of the year, and then immediately leave for employment elsewhere. You gain 100% of the annual match for only 1-2 months of work, while the employees who remain there all year work 12 months to gain the same 100%. Dollar Cost Averaging - By purchasing the same investment vehicle at different prices over time, you can reduce the impact of volatility on your earnings. For the same reason that 401k plans usually restrict you to a limited selection of mutual funds - namely, the implicit assumption is that you probably have little to no clue about investing - they also do other strategic things to encourage employees to invest (at least somewhat) wisely. By spacing their matching fund out over time, they encourage you to space your contributions over time, and they thereby indirectly force you to practice a sensible strategy of dollar cost averaging. Dollar Cost Averaging, seen from another angle - Mutual funds are the 18-wheeler trucks of the investment super-highway. They carry a lot of cargo, but they are difficult to start, stop, or steer quickly. For the same reasons that DCA is smart for you, it's also smart for a fund. The money is easier to manage and invest according to the goals of the fund if the investments trickle in over time and there are no sudden radical changes. Imagine if every employer that does matching allowed the full maximum match to be earned on the first paycheck of the year - the mutual funds in 401ks would get big balloons of money in January followed by a drastically lower investment for the rest of the year. And that would create volatility. Plan Administration Fees - Your employer has to pay the company managing the 401k for their services. It is likely that their agreement with the management company requires them to pay on a monthly basis, so it potentially makes things convenient for the accounting people on both ends if there's a steady monthly flow of money in and out. (Whether this point is at all relevant is very much dependent on how your company's agreement is structured, and how well the folks handling payroll and accounting understand it.) The Bottom Line - Your employer (let us hope) makes profits. And they pay expenses. And companies, for a variety of financial reasons, prefer to spread their profits and expenses as evenly over the year as they can. There are a lot of ways they achieve this - for example, a seasonal business might offer an annual payment plan to spread their seasonal revenue over the year. Likewise, the matching funds they are paying to you the employees are coming out of their bottom line. And the company would rather not have the majority of those funds being disbursed in a single quarter. They want a nice, even distribution. So once again it behooves them to create a 401k system that supports that objective. To Sum Up Ultimately, those 401k matching funds are a carrot. And that carrot manipulates you the employee into behaving in a way that is good for your employer, good for your investment management company, and good for your own investment success. Unless you are one of the rare birds who can outperform a dollar-cost-averaged investment in a low-cost index fund, there's very little to chafe at about this arrangement. If you are that rare bird, then your investment earning power likely outstrips the value of your annual matching monies significantly, in which case it isn't even worth thinking about.\"","qid":11039,"docid":"92370","rank":65,"score":108025},{"content":"Title: Content: \"Many employees don't contribute enough to maximize the match, so the cost to the employer is not the same. Under the 50% of 6% strategy an employee contributing 5% would get a 2.5% match not a 3% and that saves the company 0.5%. @TTT provided an excellent link in the comments below to a study titled \"\"How much employer 401(k) matching contributions do employees leave on the table?\"\" performed by Financial Engines, an independent financial advisory service. The information meaningful to this answer is on Page 5 (Page 7 of the PDF): 4,378,445 eligible employees were included in the study 1,077,775 of the eligible employees did not contribute enough for the full match; of them, 285,386 Received zero match funds 792,389 Received some match funds, but not the full match available So 792,389 or 18% of the employees studied contributed in to employer 401(k) plans but not enough to maximize their available match.\"","qid":11039,"docid":"296405","rank":66,"score":107931},{"content":"Title: Content: Every $1,000 you use to pay off a 26% interest rate card saves you $260 / year. Every $1,000 you use to pay off a 23% interest rate card saves you $230 / year. Every $1,000 you put in a savings account earning ~0.5% interest earns you $5 / year. Having cash on hand is good in case of emergencies, but typically if your debt is on high interest credit cards, you should consider paying off as much of it as possible. In your case you may want to keep only some small amount (maybe $500, maybe $1000, maybe $100) in cash for emergencies. Paying off your high interest debt should be a top priority for you. You may want to look on this site for help with budgeting, also. Typically, being in debt to credit card companies is a sign of living beyond your means. It costs you a lot of money in the long run.","qid":11039,"docid":"59327","rank":67,"score":107774},{"content":"Title: Content: \"To answer, I'm going to make a few assumptions. First, the ideal scenario for a pre-tax 401(k) is the deposit goes in at a 25% tax rate (i.e. the employee is in that bracket) but withdrawn at 15%. This may be true for many, but not all. It's to illustrate a point. The SPY (S&P 500 index ETF) has a cost of .09% per year. If your 401(k) fees are anywhere near 1% per year total, over 10 years you've paid nearly 10% in fees, vs less than 1% for the ETF. Above, I suggest the ideal is that the 401(k) saves you 10% on your taxes, but if you pay 10% over the decade, the benefit is completely negated. I can add to the above that funds outside the retirement accounts give off dividends which are tax favored, and if you were to sell ETFs held over a year, they receive favorable cap-gains rates. The \"\"deposit to get the matching funds\"\" should always be good advice, it would take many years of high fees to destroy that. But even that seemingly reasonable 1% fee can make any other deposits a bad approach. Keep in mind, when retired you will have a zero bracket (in 2011, the combined standard deduction and exemption) adding to $9500, as well as a 10% bracket (the next $8500), so having some pretax money to take advantage of those brackets will help. Last, the average person changes jobs now and then. The ability to transfer the funds from the (bad) 401(k) to an IRA where you can control the investments is an option I'd not ignore in the analysis. I arbitrarily picked 1% to illustrate my thoughts. The same math will show a long time employee will get hurt by even .5%/yr if enough time passes. What are the fees in your 401(k)? Edit - Study of 401(k) fees - put out by the Dept of Labor. Unfortunately, it's over 10 years old, but it speaks to my point. Back then, even a 2000 participant plan with $60M in assets had 110 basis points (this is 1.1%) in fees on average. Whatever the distribution is, those above this average shouldn't even participate in their plans (except for matching) and those on the other side should look at their expenses. As Radix07 points out below, yes, for those just shy of retirement, the fee has less impact, and of course, they have a better idea if they will retire in a lower bracket. Those who have some catching up to do, may benefit despite the fees.\"","qid":11039,"docid":"45053","rank":68,"score":107516},{"content":"Title: Content: \"Just like all employee benefits there is a focus on removing or limiting owners of businesses' ability to abuse tax preferences under the guise of an employee benefit. As you point out there is an overall plan maximum 401(k) for employer contributions and match contributions. There is a nondiscrimination test for FSA programs (there is also a nondiscrimination test for medical plans under sections 125 and 105(h)). Employer contributions are counted toward the total of HSA contributions. Why an HSA has a different maximum arrangement than 401(k) is anyone's guess. But the purpose of the limit is to prevent owners of companies from setting up plans that do little more than funnel tax free funds to themselves. An owner/employee could pay themselves a wage, contribute the maximum, then have the \"\"employer\"\" also match the maximum, so there are limits in place.\"","qid":11039,"docid":"240373","rank":69,"score":107328},{"content":"Title: Content: \"Thirty thousand in credit card debt is a \"\"big elephant to eat\"\" so to speak. But you do it by taking a bite at a time. One positive is that you do not want to borrow from your 401K. Doing so is a horrible idea. The first question you have to ask yourself and understand, is how you accumulated 30K in credit card debt in the first place? Most people get there by running up a relatively small amount, say 5K, and playing the zero transfer game a few times. Then add in a late payment, and a negative event or two (like the car breaking down or a trip to the emergency room) and poof a large amount of credit card debt. Obviously, I have no idea if this is how you got there, and providing some insight might help. Also, your age, approximate income, and other debts might also help provide more insight. I assume you are still working and under age 59.5 as you are talking about borrowing from your 401K. Where I come from is that my wife (then girlfriend) found ourselves under stifling debt a few years ago. When we married, we became very intentional and focused on ridding ourselves of debt and now sit completely debt free (including the house). During our debt payoff time, we lived off of less than 25% of our salary. We both took extra jobs when we were able. Intensity was our key. If I were you, I would not refi the house. There are costs associated with this and why would you put more debt on your home? I might cash out the annuity provided that there are no negative tax consequences and depending on how much you can get for it. Numbers are the key here. However, I feel like doing so will not retire this debt. The first thing you need to do is get on a written budget. A game plan for spending and stick to it. If you are married, your spouse has to be part of this process. The budget has to be fresh each month, and each month you and your wife should meet. To deviate from the budget, you will also need to have a meeting. My wife and I still do this despite being debt free and enjoying very healthy incomes. Secondly, it is about cutting expenses. Cable: off. No eating out or vacations. Cut back on cell phone plans, only basic clothing. Gift giving is of the $5 variety and only for those very close to you. Forget lattes, etc. Depending on your income I would cut 401K contributions to zero or only up to the company match (if your household income is above 150K/year). Third, it is about earning more. Ebay, deliver pizzas, cut grass, overtime, whatever. All extra dollars go to credit card balance reduction. At a minimum, you should find an extra $1000/month; however, I would shoot for 2K. If you can find 2K, you will be done with this in 13 months. I know the math doesn't work out for that, but once you get momentum, you find more. How good will it feel to be out from under this oppression next March? I know you can do this without cashing in the annuity or refinancing. Do you believe it?\"","qid":11039,"docid":"297288","rank":70,"score":106894},{"content":"Title: Content: If you invest in a 401(k), the shares in that plan are yours for as long as you live, or until you pull them out. So, if the employer is offering any sort of matching and those matched funds remain yours after you leave, then definitely contribute; that's an immediate return on your money. If the employer is NOT matching funds, then usually it is better to contribute to an IRA instead; you get the same income tax benefits from the deduction, without the headaches of going through your company (or the company from 3 jobs ago or whoever bought them) to get to your money. If I were in your position, the most I personally would do after I quit the company (which I'm assuming you'd be doing if you were going back to your country of origin) would be to have the 401k shares rolled over into a traditional IRA; that way I'd have more control over it from outside the country. Just keep the bank holding your IRA apprised of your movements around the world and how they can get ahold of you (it may be wise to grant a limited power of attorney to someone who will be staying in the U.S. if you don't want the bank mailing your statements all around the world), and the money can stay in an American account while you do whatever you have to outside it. As long as you don't take the money out in cash before you're 59 1/2 years old, you don't need to pay taxes or penalties on it. If you were to need it to cover unexpected expenses (perhaps relating to the aforementioned family emergency), then that decision can be made at that time. If you think that's even remotely likely, you may consider a Roth IRA. With a Roth, you pay the income taxes on your contributions, but the money is then yours; you can withdraw anything up to the total amount of your contributions without any additional taxes or penalties, and once you hit 59 and a half the interest also becomes available, also tax- and penalty- free. So if you had to leave the country and take a lot of cash with you, you could get out everything you actually put into a Roth with only minor if any transaction fees, and the interest will still be there compounding.","qid":11039,"docid":"20323","rank":71,"score":106888},{"content":"Title: Content: You can play with the numbers all you like (and that's good), however, here is a different way to look at it. The debt you have is risk. It limits your choices and eats your cash flow. Without the debt, you can invest at a much greater rate. It frees up you cash flow for all the things you might want to do, or decide in the future you might want to do. Right now is the easiest time for you to focus on debt repayment. It sounds like you are not married and have no children. It is much easier now to cut back your lifestyle and concentrate on paying off this $50k of student debt. This will get harder as your responsibility increases. Build up a small amount of cash for emergencies and put the rest at the debt. You can keep contributing to your 401k to the match if you want. This will give you 2 benefits: Patience. When you actually DO start investing, you will have a new appreciation for the money you are using. If you sacrifice to pay off $50k now, you wont look at money the same for the rest of your life. Drive. If you see the debt as a barrier to achieving your goals, you will work harder to get out of debt. These are all things I would tell my 23 year-old self if i could go back in time. Good luck!","qid":11039,"docid":"52136","rank":72,"score":106633},{"content":"Title: Content: \"The error in the example is here: \"\"Now, if you contribute 5% to a Roth 401(k), your employer would match your after-tax 5% contribution. If the tax rate is 25%, that would be 5% of $60,000, which is $3,000. However, that $3,000 is put in to a traditional 401(k), so it is taxed when withdrawn. Assuming the tax rate is still 25% when you withdraw, you are only getting $2,250. Essentially you are giving up $750 of free money in this case.\"\" You set your contribution to Roth 401k as a function of the gross, 80,000. You choose 5% and contribute 4000 Your employer matches 4000. At the end of the year, your taxable income to the IRS is 80000, and you pay 30% or 24000. You have 80K-4K-24K to live on, or 52K If you chose the alternate regular 401k,then you contribute 4K, your income to the IRS is (80-4=) 76k, and you pay 30%, 22.8K in tax. You have 80-4-22.8 or 53.2K to live on. Or, to come at it the other way, you have 4000*30% =1200 extra tax reduction in your income this year. If the extra income in 401k versus extra current year tax in Roth IRA means you have to reduce less, like 2800K to the roth so you maintain a 53.2K lifestyle, then yes, the Roth IRA match is reduced. If you have the cash flow to prepay the current year tax and maximum-match contribution, you will get the full match based on your gross income.\"","qid":11039,"docid":"379911","rank":73,"score":106604},{"content":"Title: Content: I’m specifically curious as to how employer matches for Roth 401(k)s would work. Even if an employee contributes to a Roth 401(k), matching contributions by the employer must be treated as traditional 401(k) contributions. So even if the treatment of Roth accounts is unchanged, those of us who get an employer match on our Roth 401(k) contributions may still be impacted.","qid":11039,"docid":"175470","rank":74,"score":106060},{"content":"Title: Content: If they leave the extra funds in the account the IRS will consider it as employer match. They weren't funds from your paycheck, they were from the employers profits. Because they don't have a formal matching program the extra funds will still keep then under the max match. There is one other explanation that needs to be considered. If the last paycheck from 2011 was near the end of the year (the last Friday of 2011 was December 30th) the 401K funds from that final paycheck may not have been deposited into your 401K until early January 2012. If you count contributions when looking at your 401K statement it will look like one two many for 2012; but the IRS only cares when it was deducted from your paycheck, not when it was deposited into your account. The Department of Labor only requires they be deposited by the 15th of the following month.","qid":11039,"docid":"366307","rank":75,"score":105831},{"content":"Title: Content: The managers of the 401(k) have to make their money somewhere. Either they'll make it from the employer, or from the employees via the expense ratio. If it's the employer setting up the plan, I can bet whose interest he'll be looking after. Regarding your last comment, I'd recommend looking outside your 401(k) for investing. If you get free money from your employer for contributing to your 401(k), that's a plus, but I wouldn't -- actually, I don't -- contribute anything beyond the match. I pay my taxes and I'm done with it.","qid":11039,"docid":"301616","rank":76,"score":105548},{"content":"Title: Content: They are mutually exclusive. Provided you meet the income limits you can contribute to both. Employer match do not count toward the 18K. On the other hand traditional IRA and Roth IRA are inclusive. So if single and making having a MAGI under 118K, you could do the 18K of your own money into a 401(k), and $5,500 into a Roth. You can put in $23,500 of your own money with the employer match on top of that.","qid":11039,"docid":"75766","rank":77,"score":105459},{"content":"Title: Content: Get a loan at a decent interest rate and use that to pay off all of the credit cards. Then pay into that loan and leave the credit cards alone. Cancel them and don't use them. Credit card debt is possibly the worst kind of debt. So expensive. It's not designed for long term borrowing. It's designed to be paid off completely every month. Get a single loan and consolidate all your debt into it. It will have a lower interest rate and cost you a lot less in the long term.","qid":11039,"docid":"559523","rank":78,"score":105257},{"content":"Title: Content: Your comment regarding your existing finances is very relevant and helpful. You need to understand that generally in personal finance circles, when a strong earning 22 year-old is looking for a loan it's usually a gross spending problem. Their car costs $1,000 /month and their bar tabs are adding up so the only logical thing to do is get a loan. Most 22-year-olds don't have a mortgage soaking up their income, or a newborn. With all of this in mind I essentially agree with DStanley and, personally, and many people here would probably disagree, I'd stop the 401(K) contribution and use that money to pay the debt. You're still very young from a retirement standpoint, let the current balance ride and forego the match until the debt is paid. I think this is more about being debt free at 22 quickly than it's about how much marginal money could be saved via 401(k) or personal loan or this strategy or that strategy. I think at your age, you'll benefit greatly from simply being debt free. There are other very good answers on this site and other places regarding the pitfalls of a 401(k) loan. The most serious of which is that you have an extremely limited time to pay the entire loan upon leaving the company. Failure to repay in that situation incurs tax liability and penalties. From my quick math, assuming your contribution is 8% of $70,000 /year, you're contributing something in the neighborhood of $460/month to your 401(k). If you stopped contributing you'd probably take home a high $300 number net of taxes. It'll take around 20 months to pay the loan off using this contribution money without considering your existing payments, in total you're probably looking at closer to 15 months. You'll give up something in the neighborhood of $3,500 in match funds over the repayment time. But again, you're 22, you'll resume your contributions at 24; still WAY ahead of most people from a retirement savings standpoint. I don't think my first retirement dollar was contributed until I was about 29. Sure, retirement savings is important, but if you've already started at age 22 you're probably going to end up way ahead of most either way. When you're 60 you're probably not going to bemoan giving up a few grand of employer match in your 20s. That's what I would do. Edit: I actually like stannius's suggestion in the comments below. IF there's enough vested in your plan that is also available for withdrawal that you could just scoop $6,500 out of your 401(k) net of the 10% penalty and federal and state taxes (which would be on the full amount) to pay the debt, I'd consider that instead of stopping the prospective contributions. That way you could continue your contributions and receive the match contributions on a prospective basis. I doubt this is a legitimate option because it's very common for employers to restrict or forbid withdrawal of employee and/or employer contributions made during your employment, but it would be worth looking in to.","qid":11039,"docid":"437706","rank":79,"score":105232},{"content":"Title: Content: Liquidity. That's the issue. You rent, and that's not bad. No new roof, boiler, etc. But, you have a car? Your savings is a guarantee that you'll not have to charge a $2000 transmission on an 18% credit card. You job may be secure, but employment (aside from self employment) is never 100% guaranteed. With $3000 income per month, I'd not prepay the student loan until I had at least $9000 in savings. We don't know your country, although we don't have fortnights in the US, so if you are in the US, you have a non-US background. Either way, if your employer offers any kind of matching retirement deposits, I'd prioritize that. Never leave that matched money on the table. You are off to a great start, this relatively low student loan debt shouldn't keep you awake at night.","qid":11039,"docid":"585688","rank":80,"score":105213},{"content":"Title: Content: If you're looking for a purely financial answer (ignoring the social/environmental aspects) there are a few different ways you can look at it. For these types of improvements the simplest is a payback calculation. How long would it take you to recoup the initial costs? For example, if the entire installation cost $5,000 (including any tax credits), and you save $100 per month (I'm making both numbers up), you'll pay back your investment in 50 months, or about 4 years. (Note that if you borrow money to do the improvement, then your payback period is longer because you're reducing the amount that you're saving each month by paying interest.) If you're deciding between different uses for the money (like investing, or paying down other debt) then you can look at the return that you're getting. Using the same example, you are spending $5,000 and getting $100 per month back, for a 24% annual return ($1,200 / $5,000), which is better than you can get on almost anything but a 401(k) match (meaning don't stop your 401(k) contributions to do this either). The decision on whether or wait or not then becomes - will the price drop faster than the amount of savings you will realize. So if you will save $100 per month in your electric bill, is the price of the complete installation going down by more than $100 each month? If not, you'd be better off buying now and start paying back the investment sooner.","qid":11039,"docid":"290647","rank":81,"score":105155},{"content":"Title: Content: \"In your situation, you probably should not cash in your IRA and 401(k). A good mortgage lender will want to see that you have \"\"reserves\"\" -- money that you could fall back on if you hit a very rough patch. Your current savings and retirement accounts might add up to a suitable reserve. You might want to do something like this instead: By the way, instead of cashing in a 401(k), it is usually better to: This method avoids large tax penalties, and encourages you to rebuild your 401(k). Unfortunately, your large debt balances might prevent you from getting the PLOC. But even in the worst case scenario (where you cannot use a PLOC to pay off a 401(k) balloon payment), it postpones the tax hit until after the balloon payment.\"","qid":11039,"docid":"280492","rank":82,"score":105136},{"content":"Title: Content: A good general rule is to save 15% of your income for retirement. As for where you put it: Put as much as it takes to maximize your employer match into your 401(k), but no more. The employer match is free money, and you can't beat free money If you still haven't put in 15%, put the rest into a Roth IRA. By historical standards, taxes are pretty low today. They are almost certainly going to be higher in retirement, especially since you likely won't have the deductions in retirement that you may have now (kids, mortgage, etc). If you've maxed our the allowed contribution for your Roth and still haven't saved 15%, put the rest in a traditional IRA.","qid":11039,"docid":"169232","rank":83,"score":104599},{"content":"Title: Content: The company match is not earnings. My company deposits 5% of my income into my 401(k) and it appears nowhere except on the paperwork for the 401(k). To be clear, it doesn't appear on any paystub or W2.","qid":11039,"docid":"470826","rank":84,"score":104497},{"content":"Title: Content: No. It means each month the total amount you owe goes up by a factor of (1+0.298/12). So if you owed $23K at the beginning of the month, at the end you owe a total of 23K*1.0248=$23,571. Then subtract the $804 you are paying. If you want to think of it in terms of interest and principal, you are paying $571 a month in interest and 233 toward principle, I guess. Paying off debt with a lower interest rate using debt with a higher interest rate is throwing a lot of money away and impoverishing yourself needlessly. Psychology can't get around that. If you want a psychological aid, decide how much you are going to pay toward these debts and have it automatically deducted from your paycheck so you never see it. Make the minimum payment on every debt you have except the one with the highest interest rate. Pay the very most you can toward that. Then when it is paid off, move to the next highest. Do all your spending out of the lowest rate card, or avoid using these credit cards until your financial discipline and resources allow you to pay all credit cards off completely at the end of each month.","qid":11039,"docid":"494306","rank":85,"score":104430},{"content":"Title: Content: I used a large portion of my 401k to pay off my credit card. My intentions were to then use my extra cash flow to build up the 401k again. Unfortunately I didn't learn my lesson and now I'm back to where I started, minus my 401k savings. If I could do it again, I would have cut up the card, kept the 401k and pay it down slowly. Good luck to you. I hope you do better than I did.","qid":11039,"docid":"79038","rank":86,"score":104375},{"content":"Title: Content: \"The basic optimization rule on distributing windfalls toward debt is to pay off the highest interest rate debt first putting any extra money into that debt while making minimum payments to the other creditors. If the 5k in \"\"other debt\"\" is credit card debt it is virtually certain to be the highest interest rate debt. Pay it off immediately. Don't wait for the next statement. Once you are paying on credit cards there is no grace period and the sooner you pay it the less interest you will accrue. Second, keep 10k for emergencies but pretend you don't have it. Keep your spending as close as possible to what it is now. Check the interest rate on the auto loan v student loans. If the auto loan is materially higher pay it off, then pay the remaining 20k toward the student loans. Added this comment about credit with a view towards the OP's future: Something to consider for the longer term is getting your credit situation set up so that should you want to buy a new car or a home a few years down the road you will be paying the lowest possible interest. You can jump start your credit by taking out one or two secured credit cards from one of the banks that will, in a few years, unsecure your account, return your deposit, and leave no trace you ever opened a secured account. That's the route I took with Citi and Wells Fargo. While over spending on credit cards can be tempting, they are, with a solid payment history, the single most important positive attribute on a credit report and impact FICO scores more than other type of credit or debt. So make an absolute practice of only using them for things you would buy anyway and always, always, pay each monthly bill in full. This one thing will make it far easier to find a good rental, buy a car on the best terms, or get a mortgage at good rates. And remember: Credit is not equal to debt. Maximize the former and minimize the latter.\"","qid":11039,"docid":"529312","rank":87,"score":104307},{"content":"Title: Content: If you can afford to put money in your 401(k) account, I would say at least you should invest enough to get your employer's matching fund. It's free money, why not get it?","qid":11039,"docid":"1366","rank":88,"score":104285},{"content":"Title: Content: From a long-term planning point of view, is the bump in salary worth not having a 401(k)? In this case, absolutely. At $30k/year, the 4% company match comes to about $1,200 per year. To get that you need to save $1,200 yourself, so your gross pay after retirement contributions is about $28,800. Now you have an offer making $48,000. If you take the new job, you can put $2,400 in retirement (to get to an equivalent retirement rate), and now your gross pay after retirement contributions is $45,600. Now if the raise in salary were not as high, or you were getting a match that let you exceed the individual contribution max, the math might be different, but in this case you can effectively save the company match yourself and still be way ahead. Note that there are MANY other factors that may also be applicable as to whether to take this job or not (do you like the work? The company? The coworkers? The location? Is there upward mobility? Are the benefits equivalent?) but not taking a 67% raise just because you're losing a 4% 401(k) match is not a wise decision.","qid":11039,"docid":"69042","rank":89,"score":104145},{"content":"Title: Content: My perspective is from the US. Many employers offer 401(k)s and you can always contribute to an IRA for either tax deferred or tax free investment growth. If you're company offers a 401(k) match you should always contribute the maximum amount they max or you're leaving money on the table. Companies can't always support pensions and it isn't the best idea to rely on one entirely for retirement unless your pension is from the federal government. Even states such as Illinois are going through extreme financial difficulties due to pension funding issues. It's only going to get worse and if you think pension benefit accrual isn't going to be cut eventually you'll have another thing coming. I'd be worried if I was a state employee in the middle of my career with no retirement savings outside of my pension. Ranting: Employees pushed hard for some pretty absurd commitments and public officials let the public down by giving in. It seems a little crazy to me that someone can work for the state until they're in their 50's and then earn 70% of their 6 figure salary for the rest of their life. Something needs to be done but I'd be surprised if anyone has the political will to make tough choices now before thee options get much much worse and these states are forced to make a decision.","qid":11039,"docid":"2103","rank":90,"score":104046},{"content":"Title: Content: If you have $5k in cash and $5k in credit card debt, you should pay off the credit card and use your line of credit for any emergency cash need. You're worried about not having cash on hand but that's exactly what a credit line provides. You can draw a cash advance from it if you need. If you pay it off, at least you don't pay interest during the time you don't need it. 17% is a ridiculously high rate of interest. In actuality, you don't have $5k in savings because if you had paid for your purchases using cash, you wouldn't have the savings. So it's basically like you've drawn a cash advance from your CC company to fill your bank account with.","qid":11039,"docid":"318730","rank":91,"score":103962},{"content":"Title: Content: If your employer offers a 401k retirement plan then you can contribute a portion of your salary to your retirement and that will lower your effective income to remain in the 15% bracket (although as others have pointed out, only the dollars that exceed the 15% bracket will be taxed at the higher rate anyway). AND if your employer offers any kind of 401k matching contribution, that's effectively a pay-raise or 100% return on investment (depending on how you prefer to look at it).","qid":11039,"docid":"361510","rank":92,"score":103948},{"content":"Title: Content: \"It can be difficult when all your disposable income is spoken for. Your options depend on how good your credit is and how flexible your expenses are. I don't have all the answers without more details (possibly not then). However, couple of points of advice: Paying off that credit card debt (and not adding any more to it) is your #1 priority. You should make minimum payments to every other debt until you have done that because the interest on it will kill you in the mean time. It is always optimal to pay the maximum to your highest interest debt and minimum to all other debts. 11% doesn't sound very good on your house loan. You may want to consider refinancing. That is, if you can get a lower rate. You may also want to get a longer term loan (if you have enough discipline to use the extra income to actually pay off your credit card and then the put it toward the house when the cards are paid off). Look at options to increase your income, at least temporarily. Second jobs and such. When your finances are more in order, you can back off. The debt \"\"trap\"\" is behavioral. We humans tend to increase our spending until we can't any more. But the reason we can't spend any more is that we have increased our debt until we have no flexible income. Then we are stuck for a long time and have few options. The only way out (long term) is to change our habits so that we don't increase spending each time we pay down a debt or get an increase to our income. Financial discipline is the only way to have financial security. Almost always the first step is to pay off credit cards and stop maintaining a balance (always pay off every card at the end of each month). Then start paying off other debts from highest interest rate to lowest. This is a hard challenge and one most of us face at some point in our lives. Good luck!\"","qid":11039,"docid":"397538","rank":93,"score":103883},{"content":"Title: Content: If your credit card's interest rates are not more than your 35% (25% for your tax bracket and 10% penalty), there is no way I would consider this. If you boil it down to the numbers, you are asking whether you should borrow money at a 35% interest to pay off your credit cards. I would say Absolutely Not! $20K of auto loans which equal $1100 a month in payments. Also we purchased a car for me a year ago which is 375 a month. Probably shouldn't have done it but the car I was driving was on it's last leg. Where is the $805 difference going? You've got to make sacrifices, and right now you are leaning towards sacrificing your future for your present. It would take years of Large Contributions to make up for the money lost in early withdraw penalties and taxes, not to mention the loss in growth these accounts would have been earning if left alone. This plan is similar to saying you want to spend $60k to pay off $40k. Don't do it! If it was me, I'd get a couple $3,000 cars. That should free up at least $600 a month and reduces your debt by $14k. I'd also pull my child out of private school unless there is really no public option, which based upon your refusal to consider selling your house, I image there's a decent public school near your neighborhood. That's an extra $500 a month. Next, I'd sell anything that I could through craigslist or garage sales. I'd get on a written budget and the envelope system, to make sure you are really as 'tight' as you are presenting in your question. Hating Debt is a great motivator, but you shouldn't let it lead you to make even bigger financial mistakes. I think you started doing well and got promotions and did what almost everyone else does; you increased your standard of living. No matter what you choose to do, you will never build your retirement or have financial stability without living on a budget and spending less than you make. Maybe attacking this debt the old-fashioned way will give you the tools you need to gain financial stability long-term. Updated to address calculations Assuming 18% CC interest and 10% IRA Growth. And always spending at least $1500 on CC debt until it's gone, then $1,500 back into retirement after that. If you continued paying $1,500 a month the credit cards would take about 71 months to pay off. In that time, you'd spend a total of $106,500 on the debt. Your plan would spend $60k upfront to reduce the debt by $40k. The new balance of $25k would be paid off in 20 months and would cost $30k total. Total cost on your plan would be $90k. Your plan pays $16.5k less in total, and it would be 51 months quicker. However, you would have no retirement at age 40. If you then saved $1500 a month in retirement, you would catch up to the $70k loss in your IRA at age 49 (I'm including growth in both accounts to calculate this). If you had instead just left the IRA alone, you'd be done with the CCs at age 44. If after age 44, you put in $1500 month into retirement your plan would never catch up to this plan. It seems to me that cashing out your IRA is a 5 year detour.","qid":11039,"docid":"515615","rank":94,"score":103780},{"content":"Title: Content: I think it depends on how you're approaching paying off the credit card. If you're doing some sort of debt snowball and/or throw all available cash at the card, it's not likely to matter much. If you're paying a set amount close to the minimum each month then you're probably better off getting a loan, use it to pay off the card and cut up the card. Well, I'd do the latter in either case... Mathematically it would matter if the interest rate on the card is 10%-15% higher than the personal loan but if you're throwing every spare dime at the card and the some, it might not matter. Another option if you have the discipline to pay the debt off quickly is to see if you can find a card with a cheap balance transfer, move the balance over and close the inflexible card.","qid":11039,"docid":"287157","rank":95,"score":103759},{"content":"Title: Content: You asked specifically about the ROTH IRA option and stated you want to get the most bang for your buck in retirement. While others have pointed out the benefits of a tax deduction due to using a Traditional IRA instead, I haven't seen anyone point out some of the other differences between ROTH and Traditional, such as: I agree with your thoughts on using an IRA once you maximize the company match into a 401k plan. My reasoning is: I personally prefer ETFs over mutual funds for the ability to get in and out with limit, stop, or OCO orders, at open or anytime mid-day if needed. However, the price for that flexibility is that you risk discounts to NAV for ETFs that you wouldn't have with the equivalent mutual fund. Said another way, you may find yourself selling your ETF for less than the holdings are actually worth. Personally, I value the ability to exit positions at the time of my choosing more highly than the impact of tracking error on NAV. Also, as a final comment to your plan, if it were me I'd personally pay off the student loans with any money I had after contributing enough to my employer 401k to maximize matching. The net effect of paying down the loans is a guaranteed avg 5.3% annually (given what you've said) whereas any investments in 401k or IRA are at risk and have no such guarantee. In fact, with there being reasonable arguments that this has been an excessively long bull market, you might figure your chances of a 5.3% or better return are pretty low for new money put into an IRA or 401k today. That said, I'm long on stocks still, but then I don't have debt besides my mortgage at the moment. If I weren't so conservative, I'd be looking to maximize my leverage in the continued low rate environment.","qid":11039,"docid":"182305","rank":96,"score":103616},{"content":"Title: Content: \"Agree with Randy, if debt and debt reduction was all about math, nobody would be in debt. It is an emotional game. If you've taken care of the reasons you're in debt, changed your behaviors, then start focusing on the math of getting it done faster. Otherwise, if you don't have a handle on the behaviors that got you there, you're just going to get more rope to hang yourself with. I.e., makes sense to take a low-interest home equity loan to pay off high-interest credit card debt, but more likely than not, you'll just re-rack up the debt on the cards because you never fixed the behavior that put you into debt. Same thing here, if you opt not to contribute to \"\"pay off the cards\"\" without fixing the debt-accumulating behaviors, what you're going to do is stay in debt AND not provide for retirement. Take the match until you're certain you have your debt accumulation habits in check.\"","qid":11039,"docid":"293531","rank":97,"score":103163},{"content":"Title: Content: Congratulations on doing all the right things in your financial life. To me, the answer to your question is a no-brainer: pay off the loans immediately. However, I am sure that some people will post answers arguing exactly the opposite. I would also recommend using the extra cash that you will have each month (since the payments on the loans will disappear) to increase your 401k contributions even though they will not attract additional company match, and once again, you will certainly get answers telling you why doing so is a very bad idea.","qid":11039,"docid":"409681","rank":98,"score":102803},{"content":"Title: Content: Are you working? Does your employer offer a 401(k) and if so, is there any match? Saving should be taught to kids at the same time they are old enough to get an allowance. There are many numbers tossed around, but 10% is a start for any new saver. If a college graduate can start by saving even 15%, better still. If you find that the 10% is too much, just start with what you can spare, and work to build that up over time, perhaps by splitting any future raises, half going toward savings, half to spending. Good luck. Edit - my 12 yr old made good money this summer baby sitting. I'm opening a Roth IRA for her. A 10 yr head start on her retirement savings. Edit (Jan-2013) - she's 14 now, 3 deposits to the Roth total $6000, and she's planning to up the number this year. Her goal is to have $50K saved in her Roth by the time she graduates college. Edit, by request (July-2017) 18, and off to college next month. Just under $24K, all invested in an S&P low cost index. We are planning to continue deposits of $4-$5K/yr, so the $50K is still a good goal.","qid":11039,"docid":"553288","rank":99,"score":102670},{"content":"Title: Content: \"One description of what happened is at 401(k) Plan Fix-It Guide. The issue is the plan was \"\"Top Heavy,\"\" i.e. those making a high income were making disproportionately larger deposits than the lower paid employees. As the IRS article suggests, a nice matching deposit from the employer can eliminate the lower limit caused by the top heavy-ness. Searching on [top heavy 401(k)] will yield more details if you wish to research more.\"","qid":11039,"docid":"333102","rank":100,"score":102204}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: If your employer is matching 50 cents on the dollar then your 401(k) is a better place to put your money than paying off credit cards This. Assuming you can also get the credit cards paid off reasonably soon too (say, by next year). Otherwise, you have to look at how long before you can withdraw that money, to see if the compounded credit card debt isn't growing faster than your retirement. But a guaranteed 50% gain, your first year is a pretty hard deal to beat. And if you currently have no savings, unless all of your surplus income has been reducing your debt, you're living beyond your means. You should be earning more than you're (going to be) spending, when you start paying rent/car bills. If you don't know what this is going to be, you need to be budgeting. Get this under control, by any means necessary. New job/career? Change priorities/expectations? Cut expenses? Live to your budget? Whatever it takes. I don't think you should be in any investment that includes bonds until you're 40, and maybe not even then - equities and cash-equivalents all the way (cash is for emergency funds, and for waiting for buying opportunities). Otherwise Michael has some good ideas. I would caveat that I think you should not buy any investments in one chunk, but dollar average it over some period of time, in case the market is unnaturally high right when you decide to invest. You should also gauge possible returns and potential tax liabilities. Debt is good to get rid of, unless it is good debt (very low interest rates - ie: lower than you could borrow the money for). Good debt should still get paid off - who knows how long your job could last for - but maybe not dump all of your $50K on it. Roth is amazing. You should be maxing that contribution out every year.\",\n \"qid\": 11039,\n \"docid\": \"287876\",\n \"rank\": 1,\n \"score\": 175988\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"Aside from employer 401(k) matches (which may double your money immediately), paying off debts is almost always the best place to start. Paying off a debt early is a zero-risk operation and will earn you N% (where N is your interest rate). Is that a good deal for a zero-risk return? The closest equivalent today (Aug 24, 2012) is that you can earn about 2.68% on 10-year Treasury bonds. Unless you have a really, really good interest rate (or the interest is tax-deductible), paying off your loan will offer an excellent risk-adjusted return, so you should do that. The \\\"\\\"really good\\\"\\\" interest rate is typically a mortgage or student loans. (Mortgage interest is also tax-deductible, at least for now.) In those cases, you're not going to gain nearly as much by paying the loan early, and the loan is large - larger than the amount you want to have in risk-free investments. You want to invest for returns, as well! So you can save for retirement instead (in a 401(k) or similar account) and take on a little risk.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 11039,\n \"docid\": \"552383\",\n \"rank\": 2,\n \"score\": 163543\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: I have credit card debt of about $5000 That's the answer right there. You told us the 401(b) has no match. The next highest priority would be credit card debt that's costing you interest. You didn't mention the rate on the card, I'm assuming it's 8% or more. As far as your balance sheet (the 'bottom line') is concerned, pay off a 10% debt is the same as earning 10% on your money. If anyone promises you a higher return with a different investment, I'd run the other way. We hope the market, i.e. the US stock market, as measured by a broad index, say the S&P 500, will return 8-10%/yr over the long term, but this isn't guaranteed. Paying off that credit card will save you the interest every year, and free up the payments to invest elsewhere. In response to Marlene's comment - Crazy? No. Human nature and emotion is what it is. I honestly don't know how to address some of it. Years ago, I was in a similar situation with a reader who had a $5000 'emergency' account, yet had $5000 in credit card debt. I had a tough time getting my head around why it wasn't obvious this made no sense. In your case, I might suggest you pay the card down to below $1000 and have the credit line reduced. Paying high interest on $5K makes no sense at any point in one's life. At least a 20-something can dig his way out and learn a lesson. A pre-retiree shouldn't be throwing this money away.\",\n \"qid\": 11039,\n \"docid\": \"5203\",\n \"rank\": 3,\n \"score\": 159888\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"The responses here are excellent. I'd add just a couple points. Debt is not generic. It ranges from low (my HELOC is 2.5%) to insane (24% credit card, anyone?). When I read about the obsession to be completely debt free, I ask questions. Are you saving in your 401(k) at least up to the match? I disagree with the \\\"\\\"debt is evil\\\"\\\" people who advise to ignore retirement savings while paying off every last debt. My company offers a dollar for dollar match on the first 5% of income deposited. So a $60K earner will see a $3000 deposit doubled. 5 years of this, and he has 1/2 a year's income in his retirement account, more with positive returns. (note - for those so fearful of losses, all 401(k) accounts have to offer a fixed income, low risk choice. currently 1% or less, but the opposite of \\\"\\\"I can lose it all\\\"\\\".) After that, paying off the higher debt is great. When it's time to hack away at student debt and mortgage, I am concerned that if it's at the risk of having no savings, I'd hold off. Consider - Two people in homes worth $250K. One has a mortgage of $250K and $100K in the bank. The other has his mortgage paid down to $150K. When they lose their jobs, the guy with the $100K in the bank has the funds to float himself through a period of unemployment as well as a house the bank is less likely to foreclose on. The guy with no money is in deep trouble, and the bank can sell his house for $150K and run away (after proper foreclosure proceedings of course.) My mortgage is one bill, like any other, and only a bit more than my property tax. I don't lose sleep over it. It will be paid before I retire, and before my 11yr old is off to college. I don't think you stupid for paying your low interest debt at your own pace.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 11039,\n \"docid\": \"232262\",\n \"rank\": 4,\n \"score\": 158220\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: John's answer is great, the question, however, is complex enough that one can write a book on the topic. So, I'll take the liberty to add two observations. The matched 401(k) should be the priority, even before paying off one's credit cards if any. A dollar for dollar match combined with the extra years of compounding is worth a bit longer on the debt pay off. To a younger person, the Roth (either Roth 401(k) or IRA) is a good choice while you are in a lower tax bracket. I recommend you look at the page at Fairmark to understand the tax brackets. It's easy to see how many people straddle that 15% line (at $68K taxable) and with a bit of planning, using Roth while in the 15% bracket and deductible accounts as you go above, you can tax-manage your affairs to avoid the higher rates.\",\n \"qid\": 11039,\n \"docid\": \"508534\",\n \"rank\": 5,\n \"score\": 157664\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Great questions -- the fact that you're thinking about it is what's most important. I think a priority should be maximizing any employer match in your 401(k) because it's free money. Second would be paying off high interest debt because it's a big expense. Everything else is a matter of setting good financial habits so I think the order of importance will vary from person to person. (That's why I ordered the priorities the way I did: employer matching is the easiest way to get more income with no additional work, and paying down high-interest debt is the best way to lower your long-term expenses.) After that, continue to maximize your income and savings, and be frugal with your expenses. Avoid debt. Take a vacation once in a while, too!\",\n \"qid\": 11039,\n \"docid\": \"105557\",\n \"rank\": 6,\n \"score\": 149738\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Mathwise, I absolutely agree with the other answers. No contest, you should keep getting the match. But, just for completeness, I'll give a contrarian opinion that is generally not very popular, but does have some merit. If you can focus on just one main financial goal at a time, and throw every extra dollar you have at that one focus (i.e., getting out of debt, in your case), you will make better progress than if you're trying to do too many things at once. Also, there something incredibly freeing about being out of debt that has other beneficial impacts on your life. So, if you can bring a lot of focus to the credit card debt and get it paid off quickly, it may be worth deferring the 401(k) investing long enough to do that, even though it doesn't make as much mathematical sense. (This is essentially what Dave Ramsey teaches, BTW.)\",\n \"qid\": 11039,\n \"docid\": \"79363\",\n \"rank\": 7,\n \"score\": 143579\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: What is my best course of action, trying to minimize future debt? Minimizing expenses is the best thing you can do. The first step to financial independence is making do with less. Assuming I receive this $3500, am I better off using the bulk to pay off my credit cards, or should I keep as much cash available as I can? This would depend on the interest rate that is associated with the credit cards and the $3500. If the $3500 has a higher interest rate than your credit cards, then do not use any of it to pay your credit cards. Paying back the money you borrow hurts but it's the interest rate that does you in. If the interest rate for the $3500 is lower than the credit card interest, then placing some of it on the credit cards may be a wise course of action. But this depends on how long you are out of work. If you could be out of work for an extended period of time, I would recommend holding on to all of the funds. Note on saving I know this goes against the grain, but I would actually not recommend saving several months worth of funds (maybe one month though). Most employers offer some type of retirement savings account (401(k), Thrift Savings Plan, etc.). I contribute 5% to this fund instead of putting the money in savings. This is an especially effective strategy if your employer offers matching contributions such as mine. Because the divedends for a savings account are so low, it is not a wise place to store your money in the long run. If I had placed my Thrift Savings Plan contributions in a standard savings account, I would now be $12,000 poorer. In addition to this, most long term investment accounts allow you to withdraw the money early in case of emergency, such as being without work. (I also find it too temping to have huge amounts of funds on hand).\",\n \"qid\": 11039,\n \"docid\": \"253373\",\n \"rank\": 8,\n \"score\": 141733\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"There is a very simple calculation that will answer the question: Is the expected ROI of the 401K including the match greater than the interest rate of your credit card? Some assumptions that don't affect the calculation, but do help illustrate the points. You have 30 years until you can pull out the 401K. Your credit card interest rate is 20% compounded annually. The minimum payoffs are being disregarded, because that would legally just force a certain percentage to credit card. You only have $1000. You can either pay off your credit card or invest, but not both. For most people, this isn't the case. Ideally, you would simply forego $1000 worth of spending, AND DO BOTH Worked Example: Pay $1000 in Credit Card Debt, at 20% interest. After 1 year, if you pay off that debt, you no longer owe $1200. ROI = 20% (Duh!) After 30 years, you no longer owe (and this is pretty amazing) $237,376.31. ROI = 23,638% In all cases, the ROI is GUARANTEED. Invest $1000 in matching 401k, with expected ROI of 5%. 2a. For illustration purposes, let's assume no match After 1 year, you have $1050 ($1000 principal, $0 match, 5% interest) - but you can't take it out. ROI = 5% After 30 years, you have $4321.94, ROI of 332% - assuming away all risk. 2b. Then, we'll assume a 50% match. After 1 year, you have $1575 ($1000 principle, $500 match, 5% interest) - but you can't take it out. ROI = 57% - but you are stuck for a bit After 30 years, you have $6482.91, ROI of 548% - assuming away all risk. 2c. Finally, a full match After 1 year, you have $2100 ($1000 principle, $1000 match, 5% interest) - but you can't take it out. ROI = 110% - but again, you are stuck. After 30 years, you have $8643.89, ROI of 764% - assuming away all risk. Here's the summary - The interest rate is really all that matters. Paying off a credit card is a guaranteed investment. The only reason not to pay off a 20% credit card interest rate is if, after taxes, time, etc..., you could earn more than 20% somewhere else. Note that at 1 year, the matching funds of a 401k, in all cases where the match exceeded 20%, beat the credit card. If you could take that money before you could have paid off the credit card, it would have been a good deal. The problem with the 401k is that you can't realize that gain until you retire. Credit Card debt, on the other hand, keeps growing until you pay it off. As such, paying off your credit card debt - assuming its interest rate is greater than the stock market (which trust me, it almost always is) - is the better deal. Indeed, with the exception of tax advantaged mortgages, there is almost no debt that has an interest rate than is \\\"\\\"better\\\"\\\" than the market.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 11039,\n \"docid\": \"91183\",\n \"rank\": 9,\n \"score\": 140677\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"I have never double-answered till now. This loan can't be taken out of context. By the way, how much is it? What rate? \\\"\\\"Debt bad.\\\"\\\" Really? Line the debt up. This is the highest debt you have. But, you work for a company that offers a generous match, i.e. the match to your 401(k). Now, it's a choice, pay off 6% debt or deposit that money to get an immediate 100% return. Your question has validity. In the end, we can tell you when to pay off the debt. After - The issue is that you are quoting a third party without having the discussion or ever being privy to it. In court, this is called 'hearsay.' The best we can do is offer both sides of the issue and priority for the payments. Welcome to Money.SE, nice first question.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 11039,\n \"docid\": \"345895\",\n \"rank\": 10,\n \"score\": 140652\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Yours two funds are redundant. Both are designed to have a mix of bonds and stocks and allow you to put all your money in them. Pick the one that has the lowest fees and stick with that (I didn't look at the funds you didn't select...they didn't look great either). Although all your funds have high fees, some are higher than others, so don't ignore fees. When you have decided on your portfolio weights, prioritize your money thus: Contribute enough to your 401(k) to get the full match from your employer Put everything else toward paying off that credit card until you have 0 balance. It's ok to use the card, but let it be little enough that you pay your statement balance off each month so you pay no interest. Then set aside some savings and invest any retirement money into a Roth IRA. At your income level your taxes are low so Roth is better than traditional IRA or 401(k). If you max out your Roth, put any other retirement savings in your 401(k).\",\n \"qid\": 11039,\n \"docid\": \"124042\",\n \"rank\": 11,\n \"score\": 139465\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"Your initial plan (of minimizing your interest rate, and taking advantage of the 401(k) match) makes sense, except I would put the 401(k) money in a very low risk investment (such as a money market fund) while the stock market seems to be in a bear market. How to decide when the stock market is in a bear market is a separate question. You earn a 100% return immediately on money that receives the company match -- provided that you stay at the company long enough for the company match to \\\"\\\"vest\\\"\\\". This immediate 100% return far exceeds the 3.25% return by paying down debt. As long as it makes sense to keep your retirement funds in low-risk, low-return investments, it makes more sense to use your remaining free cash flow to pay down debts than to save extra money in retirement funds. After setting aside the 6% of your income that is eligible for the company match, you should be able to rapidly pay down your debts. This will make it far easier for you to qualify for a mortgage later on. Also, if you can pay off your debt in a couple years, you will minimize your risk from the proposed variable rate. First, there will be fewer chances for the rate to go up. Second, even if the rate does go up, you will not owe the money very long.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 11039,\n \"docid\": \"163287\",\n \"rank\": 12,\n \"score\": 138473\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"Can is fine, and other answered that. I'd suggest that you consider the \\\"\\\"should.\\\"\\\" Does your employer offer a matched retirement account, typically a 401(k)? Are you depositing up to the match? Do you have any higher interest short term debt, credit cards, car loan, student loan, etc? Do you have 6 months worth of living expenses in liquid funds? One point I like to beat a dead horse over is this - for most normal mortgages, the extra you pay goes to principal, but regardless of how much extra you pay, the next payment is still due next month. So it's possible that you are feeling pretty good that for 5 years you pay so much that you have just 10 left on the 30 year loan, but if you lose your job, you still risk losing the house to foreclosure. It's not like you can ask the bank for that money back. If you are as disciplined as you sound, put the extra money aside, and only when you have well over the recommended 6 months, then make those prepayments if you choose. To pull my comment to @MikeKale into my answer - I avoided this aspect of the discussion. But here I'll suggest that a 4% mortgage costs 3% after tax (in 25% bracket), and I'd bet cap gain rates will stay 15% for non-1%ers. So, with the break-even return of 3.5% (to return 3 after tax) and DVY yielding 3.33%, the questions becomes - do you think the DVY top yielders will be flat over the next 15 years? Any return over .17%/yr is profit. That said, the truly risk averse should heed the advise in original answer, then pre-pay. Update - when asked,in April 2012, the DVY I suggested as an example of an investment that beats the mortgage cost, traded at $56. It's now $83 and still yields 3.84%. To put numbers to this, a lump sum $100K would be worth $148K (this doesn't include dividends), and giving off $5700/yr in dividends for an after-tax $4800/yr. We happened to have a good 4 years, overall. The time horizon (15 years) makes the strategy low risk if one sticks to it.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 11039,\n \"docid\": \"568784\",\n \"rank\": 13,\n \"score\": 135706\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Withdrawing from your 401(k) may include a 10% withdrawal penalty. There are ways to avoid the withdrawal penalty for early disbursements. The idea is to reduce your interest expense by leveraging free loans (0% APR purchases). This will help you pay down your debt more. If you have 0% APR on purchases, you can make purchases on things you already buy. Then use that money towards other debt, while making monthly payments on the 0% APR card. This way, you pay off the credit card before the 0% APR changes. You can then rinse and repeat on another 0% APR card offer. If your credit score is 800, you can do this multiple times. Citi Simplicity gives you 18 months 0% APR. Chase Slate and Chase Freedom gives you 15 months 0% APR. Others typically give you 12 months or less.\",\n \"qid\": 11039,\n \"docid\": \"395376\",\n \"rank\": 14,\n \"score\": 132172\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"Welcome to Money.SE. Your question is similar to a number of others. The \\\"\\\"How do I pay my debt down?\\\"\\\" and \\\"\\\"How do I invest extra money?\\\"\\\" is a bit of a continuum since there's no consensus than one should pay off the last cent of debt before investing. Oversimplify it for me: the correct order of investing offers a good look at this. You see, Pete's answer on your question is perfectly fine, but, since you make no mention of, say, a matched 401(k), I'd suggest that any answer to a question like yours should first take a step back and evaluate the bigger picture. A dollar for dollar matched 401(k) beats paying off even an 18% credit card. Absent any tangents, any thought of investing, saving for anything else, etc, my answer is simple, line up the debt, highest interest rate to lowest. Keep in mind the post-tax rate, i.e. a 6% student loan you can deduct, is an effective 4.5% if you are in the 25% bracket.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 11039,\n \"docid\": \"396889\",\n \"rank\": 15,\n \"score\": 131251\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: I completely agree with Pete that a 401(k) loan is not the answer, but I have an alternate proposal: Reduce your 401(k) contribution down to the 4% that you get a match on. If you are cash poor now and have debts to be cleaned up, those need to be addressed before retirement savings. You'll have plenty of time to make up the lost savings after you get the debts paid off. If your company matches 50% (meaning you have to contribute 8% to get the 4% match), then consider temporarily stopping your 401(k) altogether. A 100% match is very hard to give up, but a 50% match is less difficult. You have plenty of years left ahead of you to make up the lost match. Plus, the pain of knowing you're leaving money on the table will incentivize you to get the loans paid as quickly as possible. It seems to me that I would be reducing middle to high interest debt while also saving myself $150 per month. No, you'd be deferring $150 per month for an additional two years, and not reducing debt at all, just moving it to a different lender. Interest rate is not your problem. Right now you're paying less than $30 per month in interest on these 3 loans and about $270 in principal, and at the current rate should have them paid off in about 2 years. You're wanting to extend these loans to 4 years by borrowing from your retirement savings. I would buckle down, reduce expenses wherever possible (cable? cell phone? coffee? movies? restaurants?) until you get these debts paid off. You make $70,000 per year, or almost $6,000 per month. I bet if you try hard enough you can come up with $1,100 fairly quickly. Then the next $1,200 should come twice as fast. Then attack the next $4,000. (You can argue whether the $1,200 should come first because of the interest rate, but in the end it doesn't matter - either one should be paid off very quickly, so the interest saved is negligible) Maybe you can get one of them paid off, get yourself some breathing room, then loosen up a little bit, but extending the pain for an additional two years is not wise. Some more drastic measures:\",\n \"qid\": 11039,\n \"docid\": \"531051\",\n \"rank\": 16,\n \"score\": 130845\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: The long term growth is not 6.5%, it's 10% give or take. But, that return comes with risk. A standard deviation of 14%. Does the 401(k) have a match? And are you getting the full match? If no match, or you already top it off, the 6.5% is a rate that I'd be happy to get on my money. So, I would pay it off faster. My highest rate debt is my 3.5% mortgage, which is 2.5% after tax. At 2.5%, I prefer to be a borrower, as that gap 2.5%-10% is pretty appealing, long term.\",\n \"qid\": 11039,\n \"docid\": \"422142\",\n \"rank\": 17,\n \"score\": 128994\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"The others nailed it, great answers. I'd add - the two things I'd prioritize ahead of this debt, higher interest debt, obviously. And matched 401(k) deposits. I can't repeat enough - many people are so anti debt, they walk away from guaranteed 100% returns. \\\"\\\"after I pay my mortgage, I'll max out my 401(k) and catch up.\\\"\\\" I've read this, and it will never make sense. After that, pay off the 9% rate as soon as you can.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 11039,\n \"docid\": \"60017\",\n \"rank\": 18,\n \"score\": 127665\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: First off, great job on your finances so far. You are off on the right foot and have some sense of planning for the future. Also, it is a great question. First, I agree with @littleadv. Take advantage of your employer match. Do not drop your 401(k) contributions below that. Also, good job on putting your contributions into the Roth account. Second, I would ask: Are you out of debt? If not, put all your extra income towards paying off debt, and then you can work your plan. Third, time to do some math. What will your business look like? How much capital would you need to get started? Are there things you can do now on a part-time basis to start this business or prepare you to start the business? Come up with a figure, find some mutual funds that have a low beta, and back out how much money you need to save per month, so you have around that total. Then you have a figure. e.g. Assume you need $20,000, and you find a fund that has done 8% over the past 20 years. Then, you would need to save about $110/month to be ready to go in 10 years, or $273/month to go in about 5 years. (It's a time value of money calculation.) The house is really a long way off, but you could do the same kind of calculation. I feel that you think your income, and possibly locale, will change dramatically over the next few years. It might not be bad to double what you are saving for the business, and designate one half for the house.\",\n \"qid\": 11039,\n \"docid\": \"526383\",\n \"rank\": 19,\n \"score\": 124763\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: When you leave an employer, 401(k) loans are immediately due (or within 30 days or 60 days). So maybe they are waiting to see if you will pay off your loan. If you wanted to transfer the loan as well, you need to talk to your new 401(k) plan administrator to find out if this even possible. If they say No and you don't pay off the loan, it will count as a premature distribution from your old 401(k) plan and possibly be subject to excise tax in addition to income tax.\",\n \"qid\": 11039,\n \"docid\": \"255277\",\n \"rank\": 20,\n \"score\": 124581\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: With respect to the 401(k). Before taking a hardship withdrawal, one must first deplete the ability to take any 401(k) loans available. This is a regulation. The 401(k) loan limit is the lesser of $50k, 50% your vested balance, or $50k minus the highest loan balance within the last year. Here's the good news: it is not a taxable event; you can pay back over a maximum of 5 years; interest is low (usually 4.25% or so). The bad news: if you terminate employment then the loan balance must be repaid or else it becomes taxable income plus a 10% penalty. I suggest you consider eliminating the credit card debt via this option. Pay back as aggressively as possible and if/when you terminate you can take the 10% penalty - it will be far less of an impact than 25k accruing approximately 25% annually.\",\n \"qid\": 11039,\n \"docid\": \"315836\",\n \"rank\": 21,\n \"score\": 123686\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Your employer's matching contribution is calculated based on the dollar amounts you end up putting in. The nature of your 401(k) contribution—whether pre-tax or Roth after-tax—doesn't matter with respect to how their match gets calculated, and their match always goes into a pre-tax account, even if you are contributing after-tax. The onus is on you to choose a contribution amount that maximizes your employer match regardless of the nature of your contribution. Maximizing your employer match using Roth after-tax contributions will eat up more of your annual gross salary, but as long as you are willing to do that then you won't leave free employer match money on the table. Roth after-tax contributions don't get the tax deduction inherent in a pre-tax contribution. The tradeoff is that you end up with less take-home pay per period if you contribute the same number of dollars on a Roth after-tax basis to your 401(k) as opposed to on a pre-tax basis. For instance, to make a maximum $18,000 Roth after-tax contribution to a 401(k), it's going to cost you a lot more than $18,000 of your annual gross salary to net the same $18,000 number. (On the flip side, the Roth money is worth more in retirement than pre-tax money, because it won't be subject to taxes then.) However, 401(k) plan contribution amounts are almost always expressed as a percentage of gross salary, i.e. in pre-tax terms, even when electing to make after-tax contributions! So when electing after-tax, one is implicitly accepting that the contribution will cost more than the percentage of gross salary, because you'll need to pay the tax on a gross amount that would yield the same number of dollars but as an after-tax amount.\",\n \"qid\": 11039,\n \"docid\": \"463892\",\n \"rank\": 22,\n \"score\": 123340\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: A 401(k) is just a container. Like real-world containers (those that are usually made out of metal), you can put (almost) anything you want in it. Signing up for your employer's match is a great thing to do. Getting into the habit of saving a significant portion of your take-home pay early in your career is even better; doing so will put you lightyears ahead of lots of people by the time you approach retirement age. Even if you love your job, that will give you options you otherwise wouldn't have. There is no real reason why you can't start out by putting your retirement money in a short-term money-market fund within that 401(k). By doing so you will only earn a pittance, probably not even enough to keep up with inflation in today's economic environment, but at this point in your (savings and investment) career, that doesn't really matter much. What really matters is getting into the habit of setting that money aside every single time you get paid and not thinking much of it. And that's a lot easier if you start out early, especially at a time when you likely have received a significant net pay increase (salaried job vs college student). I know, everyone says to get the best return you can. But if you are just starting out, and feel the need to be conservative, then don't be afraid to at least start out that way. You can always rebalance into investment classes that have the potential for higher return -- and correspondingly higher volatility -- in a few years. In the meantime, you will have built a pretty nice capital that you can move into the stock market eventually. The exact rate of return you get in the first decade matters a lot less than how much money you set aside regularly and that you keep contributing. See for example Your Investment Plan Means Nothing If You Don’t Do This by Matt Becker (no affiliation), which illustrates how it takes 14 years for saving 5% at a consistent 10% return to beat saving 10% at a consistent 0% return. So look through what's being offered in terms of low-risk investments within that 401(k). Go ahead and pick a money-market fund or a bond fund if you want to start out easy. If it gets you into the habit of saving and sticking with it, then the overall return will beat the daylights out of the return you would get from a good stock market fund if you stop contributing after a year or two. Especially (but not only) if you do pick an interest-bearing investment, do make sure to pick one that has as low fees as you can possibly find for what you want, because otherwise the fees are going to eat a lot into your potential returns, benefiting the bank or investment house rather than yourself. Just keep an open mind, and very strongly consider shifting at least some of your investments into the stock market as you grow more comfortable over the next several years. You can always keep a portion of your money in various interest-bearing investments to act as a cushion in case the market slumps.\",\n \"qid\": 11039,\n \"docid\": \"471472\",\n \"rank\": 23,\n \"score\": 122922\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Paying off the high-interest debt is a good first start. Paying interest, or compound interest on debt is like paying somebody to make you poor. As for your 401k, you want to contribute enough to get the full match from your employer. You might also consider checking out the fees associated with your 401k with an online fee analyzer. If it turns out you're getting reamed with fees, you can reduce them by fiddling with your investments. Checking your investment options is always a good idea since jobs frequently change them. Opening an IRA is a good call. If you're eligible for both Roth and Traditional IRAs, consider the following: Most financial institutions (brokers or banks) can help you open an IRA in a matter of minutes. If you shop around, you will find very cheap or even no fee options. Many brokers might try to get your business by giving away something for ‘free.' Just make sure you read the fine print so you understand the conditions of their promotional offer. Whichever IRA you choose, you want to make sure that it's managed properly. Some people might say, ‘go for it, do it yourself’ but I strongly disagree with that approach. Stock picking is a waste of time and market timing rarely works. I'd look into flat fee financial advisors. You have lots of options. Just make sure they hear you out, and can design/execute an investment plan specific to your needs At a minimum, they should: Hope this is helpful.\",\n \"qid\": 11039,\n \"docid\": \"137267\",\n \"rank\": 24,\n \"score\": 122624\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: First I must say that I'm not a Ramsey fan. Sometimes loans will make your financial situation significantly better. Especially if its a 0% loan. Generally, I do think that leveraging has its place, its the ab-use of loans what causes problems, not the use. Re your question - you're right in trying to first build up an emergency fund. You should have enough in it to be able to pay for yourself for at least half a year of unemployment or zero income. You only have one month. Your family member gave you money for free, which is admirable, but I'm sure there's a limit to everyone's generosity and he might not give it to you for free again, once you pay it off. Thus, you should be able to handle your future troubles on your own, and emergency fund is a crucial part of this. Pay as agreed, try not to be late, and you'll pay the loan off within 3 years. If you accumulate enough emergency fund, and you still have some extra left - pay some extra on the loan in order to pay it off early. Do make sure you take full advantage of the employer's 401k match. This has, IMHO, much higher priority than paying off the 0% loan early.\",\n \"qid\": 11039,\n \"docid\": \"245174\",\n \"rank\": 25,\n \"score\": 122518\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: You should try to take out other loans sufficient to pay off your 401(k) loan if you can. Maybe you can take out a home equity loan? You can also ask your bank about unsecured loans. You should also check the rules for your new employer's 401(k), if you're rolling over your 401(k). There's a small possibility that you could take out another loan right now and apply it to the previous loan balance. Or if you need to wait, you could use it to help pay off any temporary loans that were needed to avoid the distribution penalty.\",\n \"qid\": 11039,\n \"docid\": \"149004\",\n \"rank\": 26,\n \"score\": 121898\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: (Note: The OP does not state whether the employer-sponsored retirement savings are pre-tax or post-tax (such as a Roth 401(k)). The following answer assumes the more common case of a pre-tax plan.) This is a bad idea, IMHO. IRS Pub 970 lists exceptions to the 10% early withdrawal penalty for educational expenses. This doesn't include, as far as I can tell, student loan payments. So withdrawing from your retirement account would incur both income tax and penalties. Even if there were an exception, you'd still have to pay income taxes, which, depending on the amount and your income, could be at a higher marginal rate than you are currently paying. If you really want the debt gone as soon as possible, why not reduce the amount you contribute to the retirement plan (but not below the amount that gets you the maximum employer match) and use that money to increase your monthly payments to the student loan? Note that, if you do this, you will pay taxes on income that would have been tax-deferred in order to save money on interest, so there's still a trade-off. (One more thing: rather than rolling over to your new company's plan, you could roll over to a self-directed Traditional IRA.)\",\n \"qid\": 11039,\n \"docid\": \"55954\",\n \"rank\": 27,\n \"score\": 121481\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: The matching funds are free money, so it is a very good idea to take that money off the table. Look at it as free 100% return: you deposit $1000, your employer matches that $1000, you now have $2000 in your 401(k). (Obviously, I'm keeping things simple. Vesting schedules mean that the employer match isn't yours to keep immediately, but rather after some time; usually in chunks.) Beyond the employer match, you need to consider what is available for investment in a 401(k). Typically, your options are more limited then in an IRA. The cost of the 401(k) should be considered, as it isn't trivial for most. (The specifics will of course vary, but in large IRA accounts are cheaper.) So, it's about the opportunity costs. Up to the employer match, it doesn't matter as much that your investment choices are more limited in a 401(k), because you're getting 100% return just on the matching funds. Once that is exhausted, you have more opportunity for returns, due to having more options available to you, by going with an account that provides more choices. The overall principle here is that you have to look at the whole picture. This is similar to the notion that you should pay-down your high interest debt before investing, because from the perspective of investing the interest you're paying represent a loss, or negative return on investment, since money is going out of your accounts. Specific to your question, you have to consider the various types of investment vehicles available to you. It is not just about 401(k) and IRA accounts. You may also consider a straight brokerage account, a savings account, CDs, etc. The costs and returns that you can typically expect are your guides through the available choices.\",\n \"qid\": 11039,\n \"docid\": \"371886\",\n \"rank\": 28,\n \"score\": 119804\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"For easy math, say you are in the 25% tax bracket. A thousand deposited dollars is $750 out of your pocket, but $2000 after the match. Now, you say you want to take the $750 and pay down the card. If you wait a year (at 20%) you'll owe $900, but have access to borrow a full $1000, at a low rate, 4% or so. The payment is less than $19/mo for 5 years. So long as one is comfortable juggling their debt a bit, the impact of a fully matched 401(k) cannot be beat. Keep in mind, this is a different story than those who just say \\\"\\\"don't take a 401(k) loan.\\\"\\\" Here, it's the loan that offers you the chance to fund the account. If you are let go, and withdraw the money, even at the 25% rate, you net $1500 less the $200 penalty, or $1300 compared to the $750 you are out of pocket. If you don't want to take the loan, you're still ahead so long as you are able to pay the cards over a reasonable time. I'll admit, a 20% card paid over 10+ years can still trash a 100% return. This is why I add the 401(k) loan to the mix. The question for you - jldugger - is how tight is the budget? And how much is the match? Is it dollar for dollar on first X%?\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 11039,\n \"docid\": \"353625\",\n \"rank\": 29,\n \"score\": 117809\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"If you're willing to do a little more work and bookkeeping than just putting money into the 401(k) I would recommend the following. I note that you said you chose some funds based on performance since the expense ratios are all high. I would recommend against chasing performance because active funds will almost always falter; honor the old saw: \\\"\\\"past performance is no guarantee of future returns\\\"\\\". Assuming the cash in your Ally account is an emergency fund, I would use it to pay off your credit card debt to avoid the interest payments. Use free cash flow in the coming months to bring the emergency fund balance back up to an acceptable level. If the Ally account is not an emergency fund, I would make it one! With no debt and an emergency fund for 3-12 months of living expenses (pick your risk tolerance), then you can concentrate on investing. Your 401(k) options are unfortunately pretty poor. With those choices I would invest this way: Once you fill up your choice of IRA, then you have the tougher decision of where to put any extra money you have to invest (if any). A brokerage account gives you the freedom of investment choices and the ability to easily pull out money in the case of a dire emergency. The 401(k) will give you tax benefits, but high fund expenses. The tax benefits are considerable, so if I were at a job where I plan on moving on in a few years, I'd fund the 401(k) up to the max with the knowledge that I'd roll the 401(k) into a rollover IRA in the (relatively) short term. If I saw myself staying at the employer for a long time (5+ years), I'd probably take the taxable account route since those high fund fees will add up over time. One you start building up a solid base, then I might look into having a small allocation in one of my accounts for \\\"\\\"play money\\\"\\\" to pick individual stocks, or start making sector bets.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 11039,\n \"docid\": \"493578\",\n \"rank\": 30,\n \"score\": 117376\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: You can take a out loan against your 401k, which means you won't be penalized for the withdrawal. You will have to pay that amount back though, but it can help since the interest will be lower than a lot of credit card rates. You could refinance your home if you can get a reasonable interest rate. You could also get a 0% APR balance transfer credit card and transfer the balance and pay it off that way. There are a lot of options. I would contact a Credit Counselor and explore further options. The main objective is to get you out of debt, not put you more in debt - whether that is refinancing your mortgage, cashing in an annuity, etc.\",\n \"qid\": 11039,\n \"docid\": \"19479\",\n \"rank\": 31,\n \"score\": 116085\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: If it were my money, I wouldn't put it in a 401(k) for this purpose. If you were working at a company that provided 401(k) matching, then it might be worth it to put the money in your employer's 401(k) because the employer chips in based on what you put in. But you're self-employed, so there's no matching unless you match it yourself. (Correct?) So, given that there's no matching, a 401(k) arrangement would have more restrictions than a non-tax-advantaged account (like a bank account, or a taxable money market account). This would be taxable in the year you earn the money, but then that's it. If you're expecting to pull out the money pre-retirement, I wouldn't put it in in the first place.\",\n \"qid\": 11039,\n \"docid\": \"595875\",\n \"rank\": 32,\n \"score\": 115787\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Set up budget categories. Earmark your income as it is paid, for your budget categories. Pay your bills and expenses. For debts, pay the minimum on everything. There will be an amount left once everything is budgeted. That's the 'extra'. Then focus on, in order of priority, the following: So, when your emergency fund is up to an appropriate level (3-6 months of living expenses as a rule of thumb, adjusted according to your comfort level). Once you have your emergency fund started, budget at least enough toward your 401k to capture any matching offered by your employer. Then use the snowball plan to pay off your debts. (From what your post says, this does not apply to you, but you may have some small credit card debts taht were not discussed). Earmark the 'extra' for the smallest debt first. When that debt is paid, the 'extra' grows by the minimum payment of the smallest. Thus the snowball grows as you pay off debts. Once the debts are gone, reward yourself, within reason (and without going into debt). Now shift your extra into fully funding your retirement savings. Consult a financial advisor to help you plan how to distribute your retirement savings across the available retirement savings types. They can explain why it's good to have some of your retirement savings funded from after tax income. They can help you find the balance between pre- and post-tax funded accounts. Eventually, you may come to the point where you're putting the max allowed into your tax advantaged retirement accounts. At your age, this is a significant achievement. Anything left over after retirement savings is funded can be used for whatever you want. If you choose wealth building, it can lead to financial independence. The first two should be a one time thing. You can/should do more than one at a time. The fourth one is optional, and should not be considered until 1 and 2 are completed, and 3 is maxed out. What you achieve is up to you. Look up FIRE, or Financially independent, retire early. There are groups of folks striving for this. They share advice on frugal living and wealth building strategies. The goal is to save enough capital to live off the passive income of interest and dividends. Most of them seem to have pre-50 target ages. At your age and income, you could hit a pre-40 goal. But it takes commitment and a certain type of personality. Not for me but it might be for you.\",\n \"qid\": 11039,\n \"docid\": \"1315\",\n \"rank\": 33,\n \"score\": 115403\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: I suggest rolling it over to the 401(k) with your new employer. Particularly if they match any percentage of your contribution, it would be in your interest to take as much of that money as possible. When it comes to borrowing money from your 401(k), it looks like the issues AbraCadaver mentioned only apply if you don't pay back the money (http://www.kiplinger.com/article/real-estate/T010-C000-S002-borrowing-from-your-retirement-plan-to-buy-a-home.html). The reasonable argument against taking money out of your 401(k) to buy a home is that it leaves a dent in your retirement nest egg (and its earning power) during key earning years. On the plus side for borrowing from your 401(k), it's very low interest--and it's interest you're paying back to yourself over a 5-year period. At its current value, the most you could borrow from your 401(k) is $35K. If you're fortunate in where you live, that could be most or all of the downpayment. In my own experience, my wife borrowed against her 401(k) balance for the earnest money when we purchased a new home. Fortunately for us, an investor snapped up my previous home within 4 days of us listing it, so she was able to pay back her loan in full right away.\",\n \"qid\": 11039,\n \"docid\": \"436331\",\n \"rank\": 34,\n \"score\": 115203\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: What's missing in your question, so Kate couldn't address, is the rest of your financial picture. If you have a fully funded emergency account, are saving for retirement, and have saved up the $15K for the car, buy in cash. If you tell me that if the day after you buy the car in cash, your furnace/AC system dies, that you'd need to pay for it with an $8K charge to a credit card, that's another story. You see, there's more than one rate at play. You get close to zero on you savings today. You have a 1.5% loan rate available. But what is your marginal cost of borrowing? The next $10K, $20K? If it's 18% on a credit card, I personally would find value in borrowing at sub-2.5% and not depleting my savings. On the other side, the saving side, does your company offer a 401(k) with company match? I find too many people obsessing over their 6% debt, while ignoring a 100% match of 4-6% of their gross income. For what it's worth, trying to place labels on debt is a bit pointless. Any use of debt should be discussed 100% based on the finances of the borrower.\",\n \"qid\": 11039,\n \"docid\": \"489729\",\n \"rank\": 35,\n \"score\": 114993\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Employer matches (even for Roth 401Ks) are put into traditional 401K accounts and are treated as pre-tax income. Traditional 401K plans are tax deferred accounts, meaning you won't owe any taxes on it this year, but will have to pay taxes on it when you take the money out (likely after retirement). 401K contributions (including the match) are reported to the IRS and are entered in box 12 on the W2 form.\",\n \"qid\": 11039,\n \"docid\": \"221938\",\n \"rank\": 36,\n \"score\": 114340\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: The best option for maximizing your money long-term is to contribute to the 401(k) offered by your employer. If you park your inheritance in a savings account you can draw on it to augment your income while you max out your contributions to the 401(k). You will get whatever the employer matches right off the bat and your gains are tax deferred. In essence you will be putting your inheritance into the 401(k) and forcing your employer to match at whatever rate they do. So if your employer matches at 50 cents on the dollar you will turn your 50 thousand into 75 thousand.\",\n \"qid\": 11039,\n \"docid\": \"171196\",\n \"rank\": 37,\n \"score\": 114315\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: HSAs are very similar to IRAs. Any investment returns grow tax-deferred and once you reach age 59 1/2 65, you can withdraw the funds for any purpose (subject to ordinary income tax), just like a traditional IRA. If you can afford to do so, I would recommend you to pay medical expenses out-of-pocket and let the funds in your HSA accumulate and grow. In general, the best way to allocate your funds is in the following order: Contribute to a 401(k) if your employer matches funds at a substantial rate Pay off high-interest debt (8% of more in current environment in 2011) Contribute to an IRA (traditional or Roth) Contribute to an HSA Contribute to a 401(k) without the benefit of employer matching One advantage of HSAs versus IRAs is that you don't have to have earned income (salary or self-employment income) in order to contribute. If you derive income solely from rents, interest or dividends, you can contribute the maximum amount ($3,050 for individuals in 2011) and get a full deduction from your income (Of course, you will need to maintain a high-deductible health plan in order to qualify). One downside of HSAs is the lack of competitively priced providers. Wells Fargo offers HSAs for free, but only allows you to keep your funds in cash, earning a very measly interest rate, or invest them in rather mediocre and expensive Wells Fargo mutual funds. Vanguard, known for its low-fee investment options, provides HSAs through a partner company, but the account maintenance charges are still quite high. Overall, HSAs are a worthwhile option as part of your investment plan.\",\n \"qid\": 11039,\n \"docid\": \"402523\",\n \"rank\": 38,\n \"score\": 114139\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: With a match, the 401(k) becomes the priority, up to that match, often ahead of other high interest debt. Without the match, the analysis is more about the cost within the 401(k). The 401(k) is a tax deferred account (let's not go on a tangent to Roth 401(k)) so ideally, you'd be skimming off money at 25% and saving it till you retire, so some of it is taxed at 0, 10, 15%. If the fees in the 401(k) are say 1.5% between the underlying funds and management fee, it doesn't take long to wipe out the potential 10 or 15% you are trying to gain. Yes, there's a risk that cap gain rates go away, but with today's tax law, the long term rate is 15%. So that money put into a long term low cost ETF will have reinvested dividends taxed at 15% and upon sale, a 15% rate on the gains. There are great index ETFs with sub - .1% annual cost. My simple answer is - If the total cost in that 401(k) is .5% or higher, I'd pass. Save the money in an outside account, using IRAs as best you can. (The exact situation needs to be looked at very carefully. In personal finance, there's a lot of 'grey'. For example, a frequent job changer can view the 401(k) as a way of saving pretax, knowing the fee will only last 2 years, and will end with a transfer to the IRA)\",\n \"qid\": 11039,\n \"docid\": \"147889\",\n \"rank\": 39,\n \"score\": 113891\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: How old are you? With $15k, I assume late twenties. Do you still use your credit cards? or is this just past accumulated debt? (paying them off will do you no good if you just run them back up again.) Does your employer match you contributions? How much? Are you fully vested in their contributions? In general, it is not a good idea, but under the right circumstances it isn't a bad idea.\",\n \"qid\": 11039,\n \"docid\": \"299819\",\n \"rank\": 40,\n \"score\": 113743\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: It's generally considered a bad idea to take a loan from your 401k, for the following reasons: You don't earn returns while the money is out You pay the loan back with after-tax money It's only considered a good idea for emergencies or where you need the money to pay off high interest rate debt like credit cards. Consider the stability of your employment, the expected rate of return and explore other avenues for funds Source: MSN Money\",\n \"qid\": 11039,\n \"docid\": \"506344\",\n \"rank\": 41,\n \"score\": 113532\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: I would definitely be putting in enough to get the most out of the match. Only reasons I can think of not too would be: Other than that, not investing in the 401(k) is turning down free money. Edit based on feedback in comments. The only time I would advocate number 1 is if you are intensely committed to getting out of debt, were on a very tight budget and had eliminated all non-essential spending. In that situation only, I think the mental benefit of having that last debt paid off would be worth more than a few dollars in interest.\",\n \"qid\": 11039,\n \"docid\": \"330058\",\n \"rank\": 42,\n \"score\": 113477\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Gaining traction is your first priority. WARNING: as @JosephZambrano explains in his answer the tax penalty for withdrawing from a 401(k) can easily exceed the APR of the credit card making it a very bad strategy. Consult in-depth with a financial advisor to see before taking that path. As @JoeTaxpayer has noted a loan is another alternative. The 401k is no good to you if you can't have shelter or comfort in the mean time. The idea is to look at all the money as a single thing and balance it together. There is no credit and retirement, just a single target that you can hit by moving the good money to clear the bad. Consolidating the credit card debt somehow would be very wise if you can. Assuming it is 30% APR shrinking that quickly is the first priority. You may be able to justify a hardship withdrawal to finance the reduction/consolidation of the credit card. It may be worth considering negotiating a closure arrangement with a reduced principal. Credit card companies can be quite open to this as it gets their money back. You may also be able to negotiate a lower interest rate. You may be able to negotiate a non-credit-affecting debt consolidation with a debt consolidator. They want to make money and a 25K loan to a person with sound credit is a pretty good bet. Moving, buying a house, or any of that may just relocate the problem. You may be able to withdraw $25K from your 401k under hardship, pay the credit card, and come up with a payment plan for the medical debt. It's a retirement setback for sure, but retirement is an illusion with that credit card shark eating all of your hard-earned money. You gotta slay that beast quick. Again, be sure to fully analyze whether the penalty on the 401(k) withdrawal exceeds the APR of the credit card.\",\n \"qid\": 11039,\n \"docid\": \"423816\",\n \"rank\": 43,\n \"score\": 112792\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"Since most of the answers are flawed in their logic, I decided to respond here. 1) \\\"\\\"What if you lose your job, you can't pay back the loan\\\"\\\" The point of the question was to reduce the amount paid per month. So obviously it would be easier to pay off the 401k loan rather than the 3 separate loans that are in place now. Also it's stated in the question that there's a mortgage, a child with medical costs, a car loan, student loans, other debt. On the list of priorities the 401k loan does not make the top 10 concerns if they lost their job. 2) \\\"\\\"Consider stopping the 401k contribution\\\"\\\" This is such a terrible idea. If you make the full contribution to the 401k and then just withdraw from the 401k rather than getting a loan you only pay a 10% penalty tax. You still get 90% of the company match. 3) \\\"\\\"You lose compound interest\\\"\\\" While currently the interest you get on a 401k (depending on how that money is invested) is higher than the interest you pay on your loans (which means it would be advantageous to keep the loans and keep contributing to the 401k), it's very unreliable and might even go down. I think you actually have a good case for getting a loan against the 401k if a) You have your spending and budget under control b) Your income is consistent c) You are certain that the loan will be paid back. My suggestion would be to take a loan against the 401k, but keep the current spending on the loans consistent. If you don't need the extra $150 per month, you really should try to pay off the loans as fast as you can. If you do need the $150 extra, you are lowering the mental threshold for getting more loans in the future.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 11039,\n \"docid\": \"564796\",\n \"rank\": 44,\n \"score\": 112763\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: If your employer offers a 401(k) match, definitely take advantage of it. It's free money, so take advantage of it!\",\n \"qid\": 11039,\n \"docid\": \"519750\",\n \"rank\": 45,\n \"score\": 112732\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"Another consideration is that you are going to wind up with money in the \\\"\\\"regular\\\"\\\" 401(k) no matter which one you contribute to. The employer match can't go into the Roth 401(k). So all employer matching funds go in with pre-tax dollars and will be deposited in a normal 401(k) account. Edit from JoeTaxpayer - 2013 brought with it the Roth 401(k) conversion the ability to convert from the traditional pretax side of your 401(k) account to the Roth side.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 11039,\n \"docid\": \"341493\",\n \"rank\": 46,\n \"score\": 112505\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"First of all, you need to stop using the card completely. Yes, that means you lose out on cash back, double miles, whatever, but that's how you got to this mess in the first place. Switch to a cash budget until you can consistently spend less than you bring home. Keep better track of your expenses, build an emergency fund, and learn to save for expenses rather than borrow for them until you have your spending under control. If you can't cut your expenses any more, consider ways to increase your income (more hours at work, part-time jobs, sell stuff, etc.) Assuming that the employer match is 1-to-1 up to 4%, and you're saving an additional 7 percent to get to 15% total, I would definitely lower your contribution down to 4%, get the card paid off, and ONLY bump your contribution back up once you can safely pay off the card each month and know how much you can contribute. It is not wise to put 15% in retirement if that causes you to spend more than your net take-home pay. Your \\\"\\\"13%\\\"\\\" in your Roth is not guaranteed by any means, but the interest you pay on your credit card is. I would even be tempted to cut your retirement completely until the debt is paid, but more for motivational reasons that mathematical: I would be more concerned about living within your income at this point than getting a company match. I believe the benefits of spending wisely will outweigh a temporary loss in matched retirement funds in the long run.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 11039,\n \"docid\": \"392924\",\n \"rank\": 47,\n \"score\": 112356\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"Your contribution limit to a 401(k) is $18,000. Your employer is allowed to contribute to your 401(k), usually a \\\"\\\"matching contribution\\\"\\\". That matching contribution comes from your employer, so is not subject to your personal contribution limit. A contribution to a regular 401(k) is typically made with pre-tax money (i.e. you don't pay payroll taxes on the money you contribute) so you pay less taxes for the current tax year. However when you retire and you take money out, you pay taxes on the money you take out. On one hand, your tax rate may be lower when you have retired, but on the other hand, if your investments have appreciated over time, the total amount of tax you pay would be higher. If your company offers a Roth 401(k) plan, you can contribute $18,000 of after tax money. This way you pay the tax on the $18,000 today, as you would if you did not put the money in the 401(k), but when you take the money out at retirement, you would not have to pay tax. In my opinion, that serves as a way to pay effectively more money into your 401(k). Some firms put vesting provisions on the amount that they match in your 401(k), e.g. 4 years at 25% per year. So you have to work 1 full year to be entitled to 25% of their matching contribution, 2 years for 50%, and 4 years to receive all of it. Check your company's Summary Plan Description of the 401(k) to be sure. You are not allowed to invest pre-tax money into a Traditional IRA if you are already contributing to a 401(k) plan and have reached the income limits ($62,000 AGI for single head of household). You are allowed to contribute post-tax money to a Traditional IRA plan if you have already contributed to a 401(k), which you can then Roll-over into a Roth IRA (look up 'backdoor IRA'). The IRA contribution limit applies to all IRA accounts over that calendar year. You could put some money in a traditional IRA, a Roth IRA, another traditional IRA, etc. so long as the total amount is not more than the contribution limit. This gives you an upper limit of 5.5k + 18k = 23.5 investments in retirement accounts. Note however, once you reach age 50, these limits increase to 6.5k (IRA) + 24k (401(k)). They also are adjusted periodically with the rate of inflation. The following approach may be more efficient for building wealth: This ordering is the subject of debate and people have different opinions. There is a separate discussion of these priorities here: Best way to start investing, for a young person just starting their career? Note however, a 401(k) loan becomes payable if you leave your company, and if not repaid, is an unauthorised distribution from your 401k (and therefore subject to an additional 10% tax penalty). You should also be careful putting money into an IRA, as you will be subject to an additional 10% tax penalty if you take out the money (distribution) before retirement, unless one of the exceptions defined by the IRA applies (e.g. $10,000 for first time home purchase), which could wipe out more than any gains you made by putting it in there in the first place. Your specific circumstances may vary, so this approach may not be best for you. A registered financial advisor may be able to help - ensure they are legitimate: https://adviserinfo.sec.gov\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 11039,\n \"docid\": \"38532\",\n \"rank\": 48,\n \"score\": 112244\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"A fascinating view on this. The math of a 10% deposit and projected 10% return lead to an inevitable point when the account is worth 10X your income (nice) and the deposit, 10% of income only represents 1% of the account balance. The use of an IRA is neither here nor there, as your proposed deposit is still just 1% of your retirement account total. Pay off debt? For one with this level of savings, it should be assumed you aren't carrying any high interest debt. It really depends on your age and retirement budget. Our \\\"\\\"number\\\"\\\" was 12X our final income, so at 10X, we were still saving. For you, if you project hitting your number soon enough, I'd still deposit to the match, but maybe no more. It might be time to just enjoy the extra money. For others, their goal may be much higher and those extra years deposits are still needed. I'd play with a spreadsheet and see the impact of reduced retirement account deposits. Note - the question asks about funding the 401(k) vs paying down debt. I'd always advise to deposit to the match, but beyond that, one should focus on their high interest debt, especially by their 50's.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 11039,\n \"docid\": \"160780\",\n \"rank\": 49,\n \"score\": 111958\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Separate from some of the other considerations such as the legality, it is likely going to be worth your will if you employer has company matching even if you have to pay the early withdraw penalty because the matching funds from your employer can be viewed as gains on the money deposited. For example, using round numbers to make the math easy: No 401(k) Deposit With 401(k) Deposit So as you can see there is a benefit to deferring some of the earnings to the 401(k) account due to the employer matching but the actual dollar amount that you would be able to take home will be different based upon your own circumstances. Depending upon what the take home would be at the end of the day the percentage return may or may not be worth the time involved with doing the paperwork. However, all of this only applies if you have to pull the money out early as once you hit 59.5 years old you can start withdrawing the money without the tax penalty in which case the returns on your initial deposit will be much more.\",\n \"qid\": 11039,\n \"docid\": \"102291\",\n \"rank\": 50,\n \"score\": 111677\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Am I thinking correctly and can I do the 2 separate withdrawals? Yes. Is there anything else I'm missing? Yes. For starters - instead of withdrawing 401k - why don't you take a loan out of it? This can be dangerous, but also can be beneficial - both for the same reason. The beneficial part is this: you don't pay neither the income tax nor the penalty on the amount you take out as a loan. I.e.: immediate saving of 35%. You can also get the full loan amount (up to 50% of the 401k balance) at once, no need to wait for the next year. You'll be saving on the difference on the APR between the credit card debt (which is usually huge) and the 401k loan (which is usually very low), and that will allow you to consolidate the debt and cover it quicker. The dangerous part is also taxes. In case you lose your job - you have to pay off the loan immediately (within 3 months). If you don't - the remaining balance will be considered as a taxable distribution and you'll owe the 25%+10% on them. But - if you don't lose your job, you win. And repaying the loan will revert your 401k balances back to the full amount, while with withdrawal - you cannot put it back (after 60 days are over, at least). So keep that in mind. Check with your 401k plan provider on the loan terms and costs (they'll charge some symbolic amount for managing the loan for you).\",\n \"qid\": 11039,\n \"docid\": \"475573\",\n \"rank\": 51,\n \"score\": 111540\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"As the comments above have been trying to get across, the prospective employer is offering to pay you for the bonus/unvested compensation that you would be losing by jumping ship right now to go work for them. They are not offering to buy any securities that you already hold, regardless of whether they're profitable or unprofitable. Example 1. You participate in your current company's 401(k), and your company matches your contributions at 50%. However, the matching funds are not yours immediately; they vest in 20%/year increments until you have been at the company for 5 years. Let's say you've been there for 3 years and have contributed $50K to the plan. Your company has matched you at $25K, but only 60% of that ($15K) has vested. If you leave right now for the new employer, you're leaving $10K behind. So the new employer might offer to \\\"\\\"buy out\\\"\\\" (i.e. pay you) that $10K to help encourage you to switch now. You might then counter their offer by pointing out that if you stay where you are that $10K is coming to you tax-deferred, whereas their $10K signing bonus would be taxed. So you ask for $15K instead. Example 2. You work for a Wall Street investment bank. Each December you receive a performance bonus. Since you began working there, your three yearly bonuses have been (in chronological order) $500K, $750K, and $1M. It's June, so you've worked halfway towards your next bonus. You have a lot of incentive to NOT leave your current employer. A competing employer may offer to \\\"\\\"buy you out\\\"\\\" of your anticipated bonus by giving you a $1.25M signing bonus (since you'd almost certainly not be eligible for a performance bonus during your first year there). You might negotiate with them and say \\\"\\\"I'm on track for $2M this year\\\"\\\", and then they would figure out if you're really worth that much to them. So you can see this all has to do with the prospective employer trying to compensate you for any income you're already counting on receiving from your current employer. By jumping ship now you would be foregoing that guaranteed/expected income, so the competitor wants to remove that anchor that might be holding you back from making the move. Stocks/options that you already own are irrelevant to the prospective employer. Since you wouldn't be giving those up by changing jobs, there's no reason for them to factor into the equation.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 11039,\n \"docid\": \"145864\",\n \"rank\": 52,\n \"score\": 111448\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: The other answers assumed student loan debt -- and for that, it's rarely worth it (unless your company only offers managed plans w/ really bad returns, or the economy recovers to the point where banks are paying 5% again on money market accounts) ... but if it's high rate debt, such as carrying a credit card debt, and the current rate of returns on the 401k aren't that great at the time, it would be worth doing the calculations to see if it's better to pay them down instead. If you're carrying extremely high interest debt (such as 'payday loans' or similar), it's almost always going to be worth paying down that debt as quickly as possible, even if it means forgoing matching 401k payments. The other possible reason for not taking the matching funds are if the required contributions would put you in a significant bind -- if you're barely scraping by, and you can't squeeze enough savings out of your budget that you'd risk default on a loan (eg, car or house) or might take penalties for late fees on your utilities, it might be preferable to save up for a bit before starting the contributions -- especially if you've maxed your available credit so you can't just push stuff to credit cards as a last resort.\",\n \"qid\": 11039,\n \"docid\": \"281049\",\n \"rank\": 53,\n \"score\": 111312\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: I wouldn't buy a house at this time. Your credit card debt is the most expensive thing you have. Which is to say that you want to get rid of it as soon as possible. The lawyer isn't cheap, and your personal situation is not fully resolved. Congratulations on paying off the IRS, and getting up the 401k to 17.5k. Take care of the two things in paragraph 1, first,and then think about buying a house. You're doing too much good work to have it possibly be derailed by home payments.\",\n \"qid\": 11039,\n \"docid\": \"116755\",\n \"rank\": 54,\n \"score\": 110928\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: First, read my answer here: Oversimplify it for me: the correct order of investing For me, the answer to your question comes down to how badly you want to get rid of your student loan debt. I recommend that you get rid of it as fast as possible, and that you sacrifice a little in your budget temporarily to make that happen. If that is what you want, here is what I would do. Following the steps in my other answer, I would pay off the student loans first. Cash out your non-retirement growth fund to jump start that, then challenge yourself to take as much of your paycheck as you can and throw it at the debt. Figure out how many months it will take before the debt is gone. Once the debt is gone, you won't have those monthly payments anymore and you won't be continually losing money in interest to the bank. At that point, you can build up your cash savings, invest in your employer's 401(k) plan for retirement, and start saving toward other long-term saving goals (car, house, etc.) To address some of your other concerns: If you cash out the non-retirement fund, you'll probably owe some capital gains tax. (Although, on a $3k investment, the long term rate won't add up to very much, depending on your tax bracket and cost basis.) You can't use the money from your non-retirement fund to invest in your 401(k). You can only contribute to your 401(k) via payroll deduction. To explicitly answer your question, your non-retirement fund is not bound by the limitations of retirement funds, meaning that you can cash it out and use it however you like without penalty, only paying perhaps a few hundred dollars of capital gains tax at tax time next year. Think of it as another source of cash for you.\",\n \"qid\": 11039,\n \"docid\": \"422421\",\n \"rank\": 55,\n \"score\": 110629\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: 401k contributions are exempt from employee and employer FICA withholding. The employer withholding is approximately 7% of the gross. The closer the employer match ratio is to 7%, the closer it is to paying for itself. Example: Assuming an employee is match-maximizing and in very round numbers grosses 100,000 per year. A 50% match schedule is about $350 cheaper per employee than a 100% match schedule: Default non participant: The employee will see about 7000 deducted for FICA, and the employer will pay 7000 to FICA if they don't participate. First case: the match is 100%, 1-for-1 to a 5% cap, the employee will deduct 5000, and have 6650 withheld for FICA. The employer will pay 6650 to FICA. The total employer cost of withholding and match is 11,650. Second case: If the match is 50%, 1-for-2 to a 5% cap, the employee will deduct 10000, and have 6300 withheld for FICA. The employer will pay 6300 to FICA. The total employer cost of withholding and match is 11,300.\",\n \"qid\": 11039,\n \"docid\": \"240259\",\n \"rank\": 56,\n \"score\": 110570\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: I moved from contributing 10% to maxing as my salary rose over the course of three years after graduation. Because of my raises, my monthly take home still increased, so it was a pretty painless way to increase my 401(k) contribution and also avoid lifestyle inflation. That said, I would not do it if you have any credit card debt, school loans, or an auto loan. Pay that off first. Then work on maxing the 401(k). Personally I rate owning a home behind that, but that's partially because I'm in an area where the rent ratios are barely on the side of buying, so I don't find buying to be a pressing matter. One thing to investigate is if your company offers a Roth 401(k) option. It's a nice option where you can go Roth without worrying about income limits. My personal experience does not include a Roth IRA because when I still qualified for one I didn't know much about them, and now that I know about them I have the happy issue of not qualifying.\",\n \"qid\": 11039,\n \"docid\": \"481793\",\n \"rank\": 57,\n \"score\": 110462\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Does your company offer matching on 401(k) deposits? Are you depositing at least to the match? If not, that should be priority one. Kill the card, never pay that kind of interest. Ever. Why are you paying 5%? The 30 year rate is 4% right now, and even if you pay some closing costs, you'll recoup the money quickly. In general, borrowing to invest is a losing game. I agree, get rid of the HELOC as well. If you refine to 15 years, you can get 3.5%, and in 16 years won't regret the decision.\",\n \"qid\": 11039,\n \"docid\": \"284827\",\n \"rank\": 58,\n \"score\": 110001\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: You might also want to talk directly to a bank. If your credit report is clean, they may have some discretion in making the loan. Note - the 'normal' fully qualified loan has two thresholds, 28% (of monthly income) for housing costs, 36% for all debt servicing. A personal, disclosed loan from a friend/family which is not secured against the house, would count as part of the other debt, as would a credit card. While I don't recommend using a credit card for this purpose, the debt fits in that 28-36 gap. As Kevin points out below, not all paths are equally advisable. Nor are rules of thumb always true. Not having the OP's full details, income, assets, price of house, etc, this is just a list of things to consider. The use of a 401(k) loan in the US can be a great idea for some, bad mistake for others. This format doesn't make it easy to go into great detail, and I'm sure the 401(k) loan issue has been asked and answered in other questions. With respect to Kevin, if he wrote 'usually', I'd agree, but never say 'never.'\",\n \"qid\": 11039,\n \"docid\": \"352908\",\n \"rank\": 59,\n \"score\": 109965\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: What is the question? Are you just trying to confirm that for self-employed, a Solo 401(k) is flexible, and a great tool to level out your tax rates? Sure. A W2 employee can turn on and off his 401(k) deduction any time, and bump the holding on each check as high as 75% in some cases. So in a tight stretch, I'd save to the match, but later on, top off the maximum for the year. To the points you listed - Your observation is interesting, but a bit long for what you seem to be asking. Keep in mind, there are 2 great features that you don't mention - a Roth Solo 401(k) flavor which offers even more flexibility for variable income, and loan provisions, up to $50,000 available to borrow from the account. My fellow blogger The Financial Buff offered an article Solo 401k Providers and Their Scope of Services that did a great job addressing this.\",\n \"qid\": 11039,\n \"docid\": \"518562\",\n \"rank\": 60,\n \"score\": 109913\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Depends upon the debt cost. Assuming it is consumer debt or credit card debt, it is better to pay that off first, it is the best investment you can make. Let's say it is credit card debt. If you pay 18% interst and have for example a $1,000 amount. If you pay it off you save $180 in interest ($1,000 times 18%). You would have to earn 18% on 1,000 to generate $180 if it was in aninvestment. Here is a link discussing ways of reducing debt Once you have debt paid off you have the cashflow to begin building wealth. The key is in the cashflow.\",\n \"qid\": 11039,\n \"docid\": \"457945\",\n \"rank\": 61,\n \"score\": 109557\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: To answer your question: As far as what's available in addition to your 401(k) at work (most financial types will say to contribute up to the match first), you may qualify for a Roth IRA (qualification is based on income), if not, then you may have to go with a Traditional IRA. You and your husband can each have one and contribute up to the limit each year. After that, you could get just a straight up mutual fund, and/or contribute up to limit on your 401(k). My two cents: This may sound counter-intuitive (and I'm sure some folks will disagree), but instead of contributing to your 401(k) now, take whatever that amount is, and use it to pay extra on the car loan. Also take the extra being paid on the mortgage and pay it on the car loan too. Once the car loan is paid off, then set aside 15% of your gross income and use that amount to start your retirement investing. Any additional money beyond this can then go into the mortgage. Once it's paid off, then you can take the extra you were paying, plus the mortgage and invest that amount into mutual funds. You may want to check out Chris Hogan's Retire Inspired book or podcast as well.\",\n \"qid\": 11039,\n \"docid\": \"499606\",\n \"rank\": 62,\n \"score\": 109027\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: I'd be tempted to pay off the 35k in student loans immediately, but if you have to owe money, it's hard to beat zero percent. So I don't think I would pay it all off. Maybe cut it in half to make it a more comfortable payment. Currently, you are looking at $6K a year to pay them off, which is about 20% of your income. Cut that in half and you will sleep better! Definitely pay off the medical and credit cards. You're probably paying 20% on that. Clean it up. If you need a car, buy yourself a car. You have no savings, so I would put the rest in some kind of money market savings account. You are at an age where many people go through frequent changes. Maybe you get your own place, and you'll need to furnish it. Maybe you go back to school. Maybe you get married or have kids. Maybe you take a year off and backpack through Europe or Asia. You have a nice little windfall that puts you in a nice position to enjoy being young, so I would not lock it up into a 401k or other long term situation.\",\n \"qid\": 11039,\n \"docid\": \"454937\",\n \"rank\": 63,\n \"score\": 108486\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: One should fund a 401(k) or matched retirement account up to the match, even if you have other debt. Long term, you will come out ahead, but you must be disciplined in making the payments. If one wants to point out the risk in a 401(k), I'd suggest the money need not be invested in stocks, there's always a short term safe option.\",\n \"qid\": 11039,\n \"docid\": \"534837\",\n \"rank\": 64,\n \"score\": 108485\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"The only way to know the specific explanation in your situation is to ask your employer. Different companies do it differently, and they will have their reasons for that difference. I've asked \\\"\\\"But why is it that way?\\\"\\\" enough times to feel confident in telling you it's rarely an arbitrary decision. In the case of your employer's policy, I can think of a number of reasons why they would limit match earnings per paycheck: Vesting, in a sense - Much as stock options have vesting requirements where you have to work for a certain amount of time to receive the options, this policy works as a sort of vesting mechanism for your employer matching funds. Without it, you could rapidly accumulate your full annual match amount in a few pay periods at the beginning of the year, and then immediately leave for employment elsewhere. You gain 100% of the annual match for only 1-2 months of work, while the employees who remain there all year work 12 months to gain the same 100%. Dollar Cost Averaging - By purchasing the same investment vehicle at different prices over time, you can reduce the impact of volatility on your earnings. For the same reason that 401k plans usually restrict you to a limited selection of mutual funds - namely, the implicit assumption is that you probably have little to no clue about investing - they also do other strategic things to encourage employees to invest (at least somewhat) wisely. By spacing their matching fund out over time, they encourage you to space your contributions over time, and they thereby indirectly force you to practice a sensible strategy of dollar cost averaging. Dollar Cost Averaging, seen from another angle - Mutual funds are the 18-wheeler trucks of the investment super-highway. They carry a lot of cargo, but they are difficult to start, stop, or steer quickly. For the same reasons that DCA is smart for you, it's also smart for a fund. The money is easier to manage and invest according to the goals of the fund if the investments trickle in over time and there are no sudden radical changes. Imagine if every employer that does matching allowed the full maximum match to be earned on the first paycheck of the year - the mutual funds in 401ks would get big balloons of money in January followed by a drastically lower investment for the rest of the year. And that would create volatility. Plan Administration Fees - Your employer has to pay the company managing the 401k for their services. It is likely that their agreement with the management company requires them to pay on a monthly basis, so it potentially makes things convenient for the accounting people on both ends if there's a steady monthly flow of money in and out. (Whether this point is at all relevant is very much dependent on how your company's agreement is structured, and how well the folks handling payroll and accounting understand it.) The Bottom Line - Your employer (let us hope) makes profits. And they pay expenses. And companies, for a variety of financial reasons, prefer to spread their profits and expenses as evenly over the year as they can. There are a lot of ways they achieve this - for example, a seasonal business might offer an annual payment plan to spread their seasonal revenue over the year. Likewise, the matching funds they are paying to you the employees are coming out of their bottom line. And the company would rather not have the majority of those funds being disbursed in a single quarter. They want a nice, even distribution. So once again it behooves them to create a 401k system that supports that objective. To Sum Up Ultimately, those 401k matching funds are a carrot. And that carrot manipulates you the employee into behaving in a way that is good for your employer, good for your investment management company, and good for your own investment success. Unless you are one of the rare birds who can outperform a dollar-cost-averaged investment in a low-cost index fund, there's very little to chafe at about this arrangement. If you are that rare bird, then your investment earning power likely outstrips the value of your annual matching monies significantly, in which case it isn't even worth thinking about.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 11039,\n \"docid\": \"92370\",\n \"rank\": 65,\n \"score\": 108025\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"Many employees don't contribute enough to maximize the match, so the cost to the employer is not the same. Under the 50% of 6% strategy an employee contributing 5% would get a 2.5% match not a 3% and that saves the company 0.5%. @TTT provided an excellent link in the comments below to a study titled \\\"\\\"How much employer 401(k) matching contributions do employees leave on the table?\\\"\\\" performed by Financial Engines, an independent financial advisory service. The information meaningful to this answer is on Page 5 (Page 7 of the PDF): 4,378,445 eligible employees were included in the study 1,077,775 of the eligible employees did not contribute enough for the full match; of them, 285,386 Received zero match funds 792,389 Received some match funds, but not the full match available So 792,389 or 18% of the employees studied contributed in to employer 401(k) plans but not enough to maximize their available match.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 11039,\n \"docid\": \"296405\",\n \"rank\": 66,\n \"score\": 107931\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Every $1,000 you use to pay off a 26% interest rate card saves you $260 / year. Every $1,000 you use to pay off a 23% interest rate card saves you $230 / year. Every $1,000 you put in a savings account earning ~0.5% interest earns you $5 / year. Having cash on hand is good in case of emergencies, but typically if your debt is on high interest credit cards, you should consider paying off as much of it as possible. In your case you may want to keep only some small amount (maybe $500, maybe $1000, maybe $100) in cash for emergencies. Paying off your high interest debt should be a top priority for you. You may want to look on this site for help with budgeting, also. Typically, being in debt to credit card companies is a sign of living beyond your means. It costs you a lot of money in the long run.\",\n \"qid\": 11039,\n \"docid\": \"59327\",\n \"rank\": 67,\n \"score\": 107774\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"To answer, I'm going to make a few assumptions. First, the ideal scenario for a pre-tax 401(k) is the deposit goes in at a 25% tax rate (i.e. the employee is in that bracket) but withdrawn at 15%. This may be true for many, but not all. It's to illustrate a point. The SPY (S&P 500 index ETF) has a cost of .09% per year. If your 401(k) fees are anywhere near 1% per year total, over 10 years you've paid nearly 10% in fees, vs less than 1% for the ETF. Above, I suggest the ideal is that the 401(k) saves you 10% on your taxes, but if you pay 10% over the decade, the benefit is completely negated. I can add to the above that funds outside the retirement accounts give off dividends which are tax favored, and if you were to sell ETFs held over a year, they receive favorable cap-gains rates. The \\\"\\\"deposit to get the matching funds\\\"\\\" should always be good advice, it would take many years of high fees to destroy that. But even that seemingly reasonable 1% fee can make any other deposits a bad approach. Keep in mind, when retired you will have a zero bracket (in 2011, the combined standard deduction and exemption) adding to $9500, as well as a 10% bracket (the next $8500), so having some pretax money to take advantage of those brackets will help. Last, the average person changes jobs now and then. The ability to transfer the funds from the (bad) 401(k) to an IRA where you can control the investments is an option I'd not ignore in the analysis. I arbitrarily picked 1% to illustrate my thoughts. The same math will show a long time employee will get hurt by even .5%/yr if enough time passes. What are the fees in your 401(k)? Edit - Study of 401(k) fees - put out by the Dept of Labor. Unfortunately, it's over 10 years old, but it speaks to my point. Back then, even a 2000 participant plan with $60M in assets had 110 basis points (this is 1.1%) in fees on average. Whatever the distribution is, those above this average shouldn't even participate in their plans (except for matching) and those on the other side should look at their expenses. As Radix07 points out below, yes, for those just shy of retirement, the fee has less impact, and of course, they have a better idea if they will retire in a lower bracket. Those who have some catching up to do, may benefit despite the fees.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 11039,\n \"docid\": \"45053\",\n \"rank\": 68,\n \"score\": 107516\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"Just like all employee benefits there is a focus on removing or limiting owners of businesses' ability to abuse tax preferences under the guise of an employee benefit. As you point out there is an overall plan maximum 401(k) for employer contributions and match contributions. There is a nondiscrimination test for FSA programs (there is also a nondiscrimination test for medical plans under sections 125 and 105(h)). Employer contributions are counted toward the total of HSA contributions. Why an HSA has a different maximum arrangement than 401(k) is anyone's guess. But the purpose of the limit is to prevent owners of companies from setting up plans that do little more than funnel tax free funds to themselves. An owner/employee could pay themselves a wage, contribute the maximum, then have the \\\"\\\"employer\\\"\\\" also match the maximum, so there are limits in place.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 11039,\n \"docid\": \"240373\",\n \"rank\": 69,\n \"score\": 107328\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"Thirty thousand in credit card debt is a \\\"\\\"big elephant to eat\\\"\\\" so to speak. But you do it by taking a bite at a time. One positive is that you do not want to borrow from your 401K. Doing so is a horrible idea. The first question you have to ask yourself and understand, is how you accumulated 30K in credit card debt in the first place? Most people get there by running up a relatively small amount, say 5K, and playing the zero transfer game a few times. Then add in a late payment, and a negative event or two (like the car breaking down or a trip to the emergency room) and poof a large amount of credit card debt. Obviously, I have no idea if this is how you got there, and providing some insight might help. Also, your age, approximate income, and other debts might also help provide more insight. I assume you are still working and under age 59.5 as you are talking about borrowing from your 401K. Where I come from is that my wife (then girlfriend) found ourselves under stifling debt a few years ago. When we married, we became very intentional and focused on ridding ourselves of debt and now sit completely debt free (including the house). During our debt payoff time, we lived off of less than 25% of our salary. We both took extra jobs when we were able. Intensity was our key. If I were you, I would not refi the house. There are costs associated with this and why would you put more debt on your home? I might cash out the annuity provided that there are no negative tax consequences and depending on how much you can get for it. Numbers are the key here. However, I feel like doing so will not retire this debt. The first thing you need to do is get on a written budget. A game plan for spending and stick to it. If you are married, your spouse has to be part of this process. The budget has to be fresh each month, and each month you and your wife should meet. To deviate from the budget, you will also need to have a meeting. My wife and I still do this despite being debt free and enjoying very healthy incomes. Secondly, it is about cutting expenses. Cable: off. No eating out or vacations. Cut back on cell phone plans, only basic clothing. Gift giving is of the $5 variety and only for those very close to you. Forget lattes, etc. Depending on your income I would cut 401K contributions to zero or only up to the company match (if your household income is above 150K/year). Third, it is about earning more. Ebay, deliver pizzas, cut grass, overtime, whatever. All extra dollars go to credit card balance reduction. At a minimum, you should find an extra $1000/month; however, I would shoot for 2K. If you can find 2K, you will be done with this in 13 months. I know the math doesn't work out for that, but once you get momentum, you find more. How good will it feel to be out from under this oppression next March? I know you can do this without cashing in the annuity or refinancing. Do you believe it?\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 11039,\n \"docid\": \"297288\",\n \"rank\": 70,\n \"score\": 106894\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: If you invest in a 401(k), the shares in that plan are yours for as long as you live, or until you pull them out. So, if the employer is offering any sort of matching and those matched funds remain yours after you leave, then definitely contribute; that's an immediate return on your money. If the employer is NOT matching funds, then usually it is better to contribute to an IRA instead; you get the same income tax benefits from the deduction, without the headaches of going through your company (or the company from 3 jobs ago or whoever bought them) to get to your money. If I were in your position, the most I personally would do after I quit the company (which I'm assuming you'd be doing if you were going back to your country of origin) would be to have the 401k shares rolled over into a traditional IRA; that way I'd have more control over it from outside the country. Just keep the bank holding your IRA apprised of your movements around the world and how they can get ahold of you (it may be wise to grant a limited power of attorney to someone who will be staying in the U.S. if you don't want the bank mailing your statements all around the world), and the money can stay in an American account while you do whatever you have to outside it. As long as you don't take the money out in cash before you're 59 1/2 years old, you don't need to pay taxes or penalties on it. If you were to need it to cover unexpected expenses (perhaps relating to the aforementioned family emergency), then that decision can be made at that time. If you think that's even remotely likely, you may consider a Roth IRA. With a Roth, you pay the income taxes on your contributions, but the money is then yours; you can withdraw anything up to the total amount of your contributions without any additional taxes or penalties, and once you hit 59 and a half the interest also becomes available, also tax- and penalty- free. So if you had to leave the country and take a lot of cash with you, you could get out everything you actually put into a Roth with only minor if any transaction fees, and the interest will still be there compounding.\",\n \"qid\": 11039,\n \"docid\": \"20323\",\n \"rank\": 71,\n \"score\": 106888\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: You can play with the numbers all you like (and that's good), however, here is a different way to look at it. The debt you have is risk. It limits your choices and eats your cash flow. Without the debt, you can invest at a much greater rate. It frees up you cash flow for all the things you might want to do, or decide in the future you might want to do. Right now is the easiest time for you to focus on debt repayment. It sounds like you are not married and have no children. It is much easier now to cut back your lifestyle and concentrate on paying off this $50k of student debt. This will get harder as your responsibility increases. Build up a small amount of cash for emergencies and put the rest at the debt. You can keep contributing to your 401k to the match if you want. This will give you 2 benefits: Patience. When you actually DO start investing, you will have a new appreciation for the money you are using. If you sacrifice to pay off $50k now, you wont look at money the same for the rest of your life. Drive. If you see the debt as a barrier to achieving your goals, you will work harder to get out of debt. These are all things I would tell my 23 year-old self if i could go back in time. Good luck!\",\n \"qid\": 11039,\n \"docid\": \"52136\",\n \"rank\": 72,\n \"score\": 106633\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"The error in the example is here: \\\"\\\"Now, if you contribute 5% to a Roth 401(k), your employer would match your after-tax 5% contribution. If the tax rate is 25%, that would be 5% of $60,000, which is $3,000. However, that $3,000 is put in to a traditional 401(k), so it is taxed when withdrawn. Assuming the tax rate is still 25% when you withdraw, you are only getting $2,250. Essentially you are giving up $750 of free money in this case.\\\"\\\" You set your contribution to Roth 401k as a function of the gross, 80,000. You choose 5% and contribute 4000 Your employer matches 4000. At the end of the year, your taxable income to the IRS is 80000, and you pay 30% or 24000. You have 80K-4K-24K to live on, or 52K If you chose the alternate regular 401k,then you contribute 4K, your income to the IRS is (80-4=) 76k, and you pay 30%, 22.8K in tax. You have 80-4-22.8 or 53.2K to live on. Or, to come at it the other way, you have 4000*30% =1200 extra tax reduction in your income this year. If the extra income in 401k versus extra current year tax in Roth IRA means you have to reduce less, like 2800K to the roth so you maintain a 53.2K lifestyle, then yes, the Roth IRA match is reduced. If you have the cash flow to prepay the current year tax and maximum-match contribution, you will get the full match based on your gross income.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 11039,\n \"docid\": \"379911\",\n \"rank\": 73,\n \"score\": 106604\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: I’m specifically curious as to how employer matches for Roth 401(k)s would work. Even if an employee contributes to a Roth 401(k), matching contributions by the employer must be treated as traditional 401(k) contributions. So even if the treatment of Roth accounts is unchanged, those of us who get an employer match on our Roth 401(k) contributions may still be impacted.\",\n \"qid\": 11039,\n \"docid\": \"175470\",\n \"rank\": 74,\n \"score\": 106060\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: If they leave the extra funds in the account the IRS will consider it as employer match. They weren't funds from your paycheck, they were from the employers profits. Because they don't have a formal matching program the extra funds will still keep then under the max match. There is one other explanation that needs to be considered. If the last paycheck from 2011 was near the end of the year (the last Friday of 2011 was December 30th) the 401K funds from that final paycheck may not have been deposited into your 401K until early January 2012. If you count contributions when looking at your 401K statement it will look like one two many for 2012; but the IRS only cares when it was deducted from your paycheck, not when it was deposited into your account. The Department of Labor only requires they be deposited by the 15th of the following month.\",\n \"qid\": 11039,\n \"docid\": \"366307\",\n \"rank\": 75,\n \"score\": 105831\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: The managers of the 401(k) have to make their money somewhere. Either they'll make it from the employer, or from the employees via the expense ratio. If it's the employer setting up the plan, I can bet whose interest he'll be looking after. Regarding your last comment, I'd recommend looking outside your 401(k) for investing. If you get free money from your employer for contributing to your 401(k), that's a plus, but I wouldn't -- actually, I don't -- contribute anything beyond the match. I pay my taxes and I'm done with it.\",\n \"qid\": 11039,\n \"docid\": \"301616\",\n \"rank\": 76,\n \"score\": 105548\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: They are mutually exclusive. Provided you meet the income limits you can contribute to both. Employer match do not count toward the 18K. On the other hand traditional IRA and Roth IRA are inclusive. So if single and making having a MAGI under 118K, you could do the 18K of your own money into a 401(k), and $5,500 into a Roth. You can put in $23,500 of your own money with the employer match on top of that.\",\n \"qid\": 11039,\n \"docid\": \"75766\",\n \"rank\": 77,\n \"score\": 105459\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Get a loan at a decent interest rate and use that to pay off all of the credit cards. Then pay into that loan and leave the credit cards alone. Cancel them and don't use them. Credit card debt is possibly the worst kind of debt. So expensive. It's not designed for long term borrowing. It's designed to be paid off completely every month. Get a single loan and consolidate all your debt into it. It will have a lower interest rate and cost you a lot less in the long term.\",\n \"qid\": 11039,\n \"docid\": \"559523\",\n \"rank\": 78,\n \"score\": 105257\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Your comment regarding your existing finances is very relevant and helpful. You need to understand that generally in personal finance circles, when a strong earning 22 year-old is looking for a loan it's usually a gross spending problem. Their car costs $1,000 /month and their bar tabs are adding up so the only logical thing to do is get a loan. Most 22-year-olds don't have a mortgage soaking up their income, or a newborn. With all of this in mind I essentially agree with DStanley and, personally, and many people here would probably disagree, I'd stop the 401(K) contribution and use that money to pay the debt. You're still very young from a retirement standpoint, let the current balance ride and forego the match until the debt is paid. I think this is more about being debt free at 22 quickly than it's about how much marginal money could be saved via 401(k) or personal loan or this strategy or that strategy. I think at your age, you'll benefit greatly from simply being debt free. There are other very good answers on this site and other places regarding the pitfalls of a 401(k) loan. The most serious of which is that you have an extremely limited time to pay the entire loan upon leaving the company. Failure to repay in that situation incurs tax liability and penalties. From my quick math, assuming your contribution is 8% of $70,000 /year, you're contributing something in the neighborhood of $460/month to your 401(k). If you stopped contributing you'd probably take home a high $300 number net of taxes. It'll take around 20 months to pay the loan off using this contribution money without considering your existing payments, in total you're probably looking at closer to 15 months. You'll give up something in the neighborhood of $3,500 in match funds over the repayment time. But again, you're 22, you'll resume your contributions at 24; still WAY ahead of most people from a retirement savings standpoint. I don't think my first retirement dollar was contributed until I was about 29. Sure, retirement savings is important, but if you've already started at age 22 you're probably going to end up way ahead of most either way. When you're 60 you're probably not going to bemoan giving up a few grand of employer match in your 20s. That's what I would do. Edit: I actually like stannius's suggestion in the comments below. IF there's enough vested in your plan that is also available for withdrawal that you could just scoop $6,500 out of your 401(k) net of the 10% penalty and federal and state taxes (which would be on the full amount) to pay the debt, I'd consider that instead of stopping the prospective contributions. That way you could continue your contributions and receive the match contributions on a prospective basis. I doubt this is a legitimate option because it's very common for employers to restrict or forbid withdrawal of employee and/or employer contributions made during your employment, but it would be worth looking in to.\",\n \"qid\": 11039,\n \"docid\": \"437706\",\n \"rank\": 79,\n \"score\": 105232\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Liquidity. That's the issue. You rent, and that's not bad. No new roof, boiler, etc. But, you have a car? Your savings is a guarantee that you'll not have to charge a $2000 transmission on an 18% credit card. You job may be secure, but employment (aside from self employment) is never 100% guaranteed. With $3000 income per month, I'd not prepay the student loan until I had at least $9000 in savings. We don't know your country, although we don't have fortnights in the US, so if you are in the US, you have a non-US background. Either way, if your employer offers any kind of matching retirement deposits, I'd prioritize that. Never leave that matched money on the table. You are off to a great start, this relatively low student loan debt shouldn't keep you awake at night.\",\n \"qid\": 11039,\n \"docid\": \"585688\",\n \"rank\": 80,\n \"score\": 105213\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: If you're looking for a purely financial answer (ignoring the social/environmental aspects) there are a few different ways you can look at it. For these types of improvements the simplest is a payback calculation. How long would it take you to recoup the initial costs? For example, if the entire installation cost $5,000 (including any tax credits), and you save $100 per month (I'm making both numbers up), you'll pay back your investment in 50 months, or about 4 years. (Note that if you borrow money to do the improvement, then your payback period is longer because you're reducing the amount that you're saving each month by paying interest.) If you're deciding between different uses for the money (like investing, or paying down other debt) then you can look at the return that you're getting. Using the same example, you are spending $5,000 and getting $100 per month back, for a 24% annual return ($1,200 / $5,000), which is better than you can get on almost anything but a 401(k) match (meaning don't stop your 401(k) contributions to do this either). The decision on whether or wait or not then becomes - will the price drop faster than the amount of savings you will realize. So if you will save $100 per month in your electric bill, is the price of the complete installation going down by more than $100 each month? If not, you'd be better off buying now and start paying back the investment sooner.\",\n \"qid\": 11039,\n \"docid\": \"290647\",\n \"rank\": 81,\n \"score\": 105155\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"In your situation, you probably should not cash in your IRA and 401(k). A good mortgage lender will want to see that you have \\\"\\\"reserves\\\"\\\" -- money that you could fall back on if you hit a very rough patch. Your current savings and retirement accounts might add up to a suitable reserve. You might want to do something like this instead: By the way, instead of cashing in a 401(k), it is usually better to: This method avoids large tax penalties, and encourages you to rebuild your 401(k). Unfortunately, your large debt balances might prevent you from getting the PLOC. But even in the worst case scenario (where you cannot use a PLOC to pay off a 401(k) balloon payment), it postpones the tax hit until after the balloon payment.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 11039,\n \"docid\": \"280492\",\n \"rank\": 82,\n \"score\": 105136\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: A good general rule is to save 15% of your income for retirement. As for where you put it: Put as much as it takes to maximize your employer match into your 401(k), but no more. The employer match is free money, and you can't beat free money If you still haven't put in 15%, put the rest into a Roth IRA. By historical standards, taxes are pretty low today. They are almost certainly going to be higher in retirement, especially since you likely won't have the deductions in retirement that you may have now (kids, mortgage, etc). If you've maxed our the allowed contribution for your Roth and still haven't saved 15%, put the rest in a traditional IRA.\",\n \"qid\": 11039,\n \"docid\": \"169232\",\n \"rank\": 83,\n \"score\": 104599\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: The company match is not earnings. My company deposits 5% of my income into my 401(k) and it appears nowhere except on the paperwork for the 401(k). To be clear, it doesn't appear on any paystub or W2.\",\n \"qid\": 11039,\n \"docid\": \"470826\",\n \"rank\": 84,\n \"score\": 104497\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: No. It means each month the total amount you owe goes up by a factor of (1+0.298/12). So if you owed $23K at the beginning of the month, at the end you owe a total of 23K*1.0248=$23,571. Then subtract the $804 you are paying. If you want to think of it in terms of interest and principal, you are paying $571 a month in interest and 233 toward principle, I guess. Paying off debt with a lower interest rate using debt with a higher interest rate is throwing a lot of money away and impoverishing yourself needlessly. Psychology can't get around that. If you want a psychological aid, decide how much you are going to pay toward these debts and have it automatically deducted from your paycheck so you never see it. Make the minimum payment on every debt you have except the one with the highest interest rate. Pay the very most you can toward that. Then when it is paid off, move to the next highest. Do all your spending out of the lowest rate card, or avoid using these credit cards until your financial discipline and resources allow you to pay all credit cards off completely at the end of each month.\",\n \"qid\": 11039,\n \"docid\": \"494306\",\n \"rank\": 85,\n \"score\": 104430\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: I used a large portion of my 401k to pay off my credit card. My intentions were to then use my extra cash flow to build up the 401k again. Unfortunately I didn't learn my lesson and now I'm back to where I started, minus my 401k savings. If I could do it again, I would have cut up the card, kept the 401k and pay it down slowly. Good luck to you. I hope you do better than I did.\",\n \"qid\": 11039,\n \"docid\": \"79038\",\n \"rank\": 86,\n \"score\": 104375\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"The basic optimization rule on distributing windfalls toward debt is to pay off the highest interest rate debt first putting any extra money into that debt while making minimum payments to the other creditors. If the 5k in \\\"\\\"other debt\\\"\\\" is credit card debt it is virtually certain to be the highest interest rate debt. Pay it off immediately. Don't wait for the next statement. Once you are paying on credit cards there is no grace period and the sooner you pay it the less interest you will accrue. Second, keep 10k for emergencies but pretend you don't have it. Keep your spending as close as possible to what it is now. Check the interest rate on the auto loan v student loans. If the auto loan is materially higher pay it off, then pay the remaining 20k toward the student loans. Added this comment about credit with a view towards the OP's future: Something to consider for the longer term is getting your credit situation set up so that should you want to buy a new car or a home a few years down the road you will be paying the lowest possible interest. You can jump start your credit by taking out one or two secured credit cards from one of the banks that will, in a few years, unsecure your account, return your deposit, and leave no trace you ever opened a secured account. That's the route I took with Citi and Wells Fargo. While over spending on credit cards can be tempting, they are, with a solid payment history, the single most important positive attribute on a credit report and impact FICO scores more than other type of credit or debt. So make an absolute practice of only using them for things you would buy anyway and always, always, pay each monthly bill in full. This one thing will make it far easier to find a good rental, buy a car on the best terms, or get a mortgage at good rates. And remember: Credit is not equal to debt. Maximize the former and minimize the latter.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 11039,\n \"docid\": \"529312\",\n \"rank\": 87,\n \"score\": 104307\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: If you can afford to put money in your 401(k) account, I would say at least you should invest enough to get your employer's matching fund. It's free money, why not get it?\",\n \"qid\": 11039,\n \"docid\": \"1366\",\n \"rank\": 88,\n \"score\": 104285\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: From a long-term planning point of view, is the bump in salary worth not having a 401(k)? In this case, absolutely. At $30k/year, the 4% company match comes to about $1,200 per year. To get that you need to save $1,200 yourself, so your gross pay after retirement contributions is about $28,800. Now you have an offer making $48,000. If you take the new job, you can put $2,400 in retirement (to get to an equivalent retirement rate), and now your gross pay after retirement contributions is $45,600. Now if the raise in salary were not as high, or you were getting a match that let you exceed the individual contribution max, the math might be different, but in this case you can effectively save the company match yourself and still be way ahead. Note that there are MANY other factors that may also be applicable as to whether to take this job or not (do you like the work? The company? The coworkers? The location? Is there upward mobility? Are the benefits equivalent?) but not taking a 67% raise just because you're losing a 4% 401(k) match is not a wise decision.\",\n \"qid\": 11039,\n \"docid\": \"69042\",\n \"rank\": 89,\n \"score\": 104145\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: My perspective is from the US. Many employers offer 401(k)s and you can always contribute to an IRA for either tax deferred or tax free investment growth. If you're company offers a 401(k) match you should always contribute the maximum amount they max or you're leaving money on the table. Companies can't always support pensions and it isn't the best idea to rely on one entirely for retirement unless your pension is from the federal government. Even states such as Illinois are going through extreme financial difficulties due to pension funding issues. It's only going to get worse and if you think pension benefit accrual isn't going to be cut eventually you'll have another thing coming. I'd be worried if I was a state employee in the middle of my career with no retirement savings outside of my pension. Ranting: Employees pushed hard for some pretty absurd commitments and public officials let the public down by giving in. It seems a little crazy to me that someone can work for the state until they're in their 50's and then earn 70% of their 6 figure salary for the rest of their life. Something needs to be done but I'd be surprised if anyone has the political will to make tough choices now before thee options get much much worse and these states are forced to make a decision.\",\n \"qid\": 11039,\n \"docid\": \"2103\",\n \"rank\": 90,\n \"score\": 104046\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: If you have $5k in cash and $5k in credit card debt, you should pay off the credit card and use your line of credit for any emergency cash need. You're worried about not having cash on hand but that's exactly what a credit line provides. You can draw a cash advance from it if you need. If you pay it off, at least you don't pay interest during the time you don't need it. 17% is a ridiculously high rate of interest. In actuality, you don't have $5k in savings because if you had paid for your purchases using cash, you wouldn't have the savings. So it's basically like you've drawn a cash advance from your CC company to fill your bank account with.\",\n \"qid\": 11039,\n \"docid\": \"318730\",\n \"rank\": 91,\n \"score\": 103962\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: If your employer offers a 401k retirement plan then you can contribute a portion of your salary to your retirement and that will lower your effective income to remain in the 15% bracket (although as others have pointed out, only the dollars that exceed the 15% bracket will be taxed at the higher rate anyway). AND if your employer offers any kind of 401k matching contribution, that's effectively a pay-raise or 100% return on investment (depending on how you prefer to look at it).\",\n \"qid\": 11039,\n \"docid\": \"361510\",\n \"rank\": 92,\n \"score\": 103948\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"It can be difficult when all your disposable income is spoken for. Your options depend on how good your credit is and how flexible your expenses are. I don't have all the answers without more details (possibly not then). However, couple of points of advice: Paying off that credit card debt (and not adding any more to it) is your #1 priority. You should make minimum payments to every other debt until you have done that because the interest on it will kill you in the mean time. It is always optimal to pay the maximum to your highest interest debt and minimum to all other debts. 11% doesn't sound very good on your house loan. You may want to consider refinancing. That is, if you can get a lower rate. You may also want to get a longer term loan (if you have enough discipline to use the extra income to actually pay off your credit card and then the put it toward the house when the cards are paid off). Look at options to increase your income, at least temporarily. Second jobs and such. When your finances are more in order, you can back off. The debt \\\"\\\"trap\\\"\\\" is behavioral. We humans tend to increase our spending until we can't any more. But the reason we can't spend any more is that we have increased our debt until we have no flexible income. Then we are stuck for a long time and have few options. The only way out (long term) is to change our habits so that we don't increase spending each time we pay down a debt or get an increase to our income. Financial discipline is the only way to have financial security. Almost always the first step is to pay off credit cards and stop maintaining a balance (always pay off every card at the end of each month). Then start paying off other debts from highest interest rate to lowest. This is a hard challenge and one most of us face at some point in our lives. Good luck!\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 11039,\n \"docid\": \"397538\",\n \"rank\": 93,\n \"score\": 103883\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: If your credit card's interest rates are not more than your 35% (25% for your tax bracket and 10% penalty), there is no way I would consider this. If you boil it down to the numbers, you are asking whether you should borrow money at a 35% interest to pay off your credit cards. I would say Absolutely Not! $20K of auto loans which equal $1100 a month in payments. Also we purchased a car for me a year ago which is 375 a month. Probably shouldn't have done it but the car I was driving was on it's last leg. Where is the $805 difference going? You've got to make sacrifices, and right now you are leaning towards sacrificing your future for your present. It would take years of Large Contributions to make up for the money lost in early withdraw penalties and taxes, not to mention the loss in growth these accounts would have been earning if left alone. This plan is similar to saying you want to spend $60k to pay off $40k. Don't do it! If it was me, I'd get a couple $3,000 cars. That should free up at least $600 a month and reduces your debt by $14k. I'd also pull my child out of private school unless there is really no public option, which based upon your refusal to consider selling your house, I image there's a decent public school near your neighborhood. That's an extra $500 a month. Next, I'd sell anything that I could through craigslist or garage sales. I'd get on a written budget and the envelope system, to make sure you are really as 'tight' as you are presenting in your question. Hating Debt is a great motivator, but you shouldn't let it lead you to make even bigger financial mistakes. I think you started doing well and got promotions and did what almost everyone else does; you increased your standard of living. No matter what you choose to do, you will never build your retirement or have financial stability without living on a budget and spending less than you make. Maybe attacking this debt the old-fashioned way will give you the tools you need to gain financial stability long-term. Updated to address calculations Assuming 18% CC interest and 10% IRA Growth. And always spending at least $1500 on CC debt until it's gone, then $1,500 back into retirement after that. If you continued paying $1,500 a month the credit cards would take about 71 months to pay off. In that time, you'd spend a total of $106,500 on the debt. Your plan would spend $60k upfront to reduce the debt by $40k. The new balance of $25k would be paid off in 20 months and would cost $30k total. Total cost on your plan would be $90k. Your plan pays $16.5k less in total, and it would be 51 months quicker. However, you would have no retirement at age 40. If you then saved $1500 a month in retirement, you would catch up to the $70k loss in your IRA at age 49 (I'm including growth in both accounts to calculate this). If you had instead just left the IRA alone, you'd be done with the CCs at age 44. If after age 44, you put in $1500 month into retirement your plan would never catch up to this plan. It seems to me that cashing out your IRA is a 5 year detour.\",\n \"qid\": 11039,\n \"docid\": \"515615\",\n \"rank\": 94,\n \"score\": 103780\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: I think it depends on how you're approaching paying off the credit card. If you're doing some sort of debt snowball and/or throw all available cash at the card, it's not likely to matter much. If you're paying a set amount close to the minimum each month then you're probably better off getting a loan, use it to pay off the card and cut up the card. Well, I'd do the latter in either case... Mathematically it would matter if the interest rate on the card is 10%-15% higher than the personal loan but if you're throwing every spare dime at the card and the some, it might not matter. Another option if you have the discipline to pay the debt off quickly is to see if you can find a card with a cheap balance transfer, move the balance over and close the inflexible card.\",\n \"qid\": 11039,\n \"docid\": \"287157\",\n \"rank\": 95,\n \"score\": 103759\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: You asked specifically about the ROTH IRA option and stated you want to get the most bang for your buck in retirement. While others have pointed out the benefits of a tax deduction due to using a Traditional IRA instead, I haven't seen anyone point out some of the other differences between ROTH and Traditional, such as: I agree with your thoughts on using an IRA once you maximize the company match into a 401k plan. My reasoning is: I personally prefer ETFs over mutual funds for the ability to get in and out with limit, stop, or OCO orders, at open or anytime mid-day if needed. However, the price for that flexibility is that you risk discounts to NAV for ETFs that you wouldn't have with the equivalent mutual fund. Said another way, you may find yourself selling your ETF for less than the holdings are actually worth. Personally, I value the ability to exit positions at the time of my choosing more highly than the impact of tracking error on NAV. Also, as a final comment to your plan, if it were me I'd personally pay off the student loans with any money I had after contributing enough to my employer 401k to maximize matching. The net effect of paying down the loans is a guaranteed avg 5.3% annually (given what you've said) whereas any investments in 401k or IRA are at risk and have no such guarantee. In fact, with there being reasonable arguments that this has been an excessively long bull market, you might figure your chances of a 5.3% or better return are pretty low for new money put into an IRA or 401k today. That said, I'm long on stocks still, but then I don't have debt besides my mortgage at the moment. If I weren't so conservative, I'd be looking to maximize my leverage in the continued low rate environment.\",\n \"qid\": 11039,\n \"docid\": \"182305\",\n \"rank\": 96,\n \"score\": 103616\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"Agree with Randy, if debt and debt reduction was all about math, nobody would be in debt. It is an emotional game. If you've taken care of the reasons you're in debt, changed your behaviors, then start focusing on the math of getting it done faster. Otherwise, if you don't have a handle on the behaviors that got you there, you're just going to get more rope to hang yourself with. I.e., makes sense to take a low-interest home equity loan to pay off high-interest credit card debt, but more likely than not, you'll just re-rack up the debt on the cards because you never fixed the behavior that put you into debt. Same thing here, if you opt not to contribute to \\\"\\\"pay off the cards\\\"\\\" without fixing the debt-accumulating behaviors, what you're going to do is stay in debt AND not provide for retirement. Take the match until you're certain you have your debt accumulation habits in check.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 11039,\n \"docid\": \"293531\",\n \"rank\": 97,\n \"score\": 103163\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Congratulations on doing all the right things in your financial life. To me, the answer to your question is a no-brainer: pay off the loans immediately. However, I am sure that some people will post answers arguing exactly the opposite. I would also recommend using the extra cash that you will have each month (since the payments on the loans will disappear) to increase your 401k contributions even though they will not attract additional company match, and once again, you will certainly get answers telling you why doing so is a very bad idea.\",\n \"qid\": 11039,\n \"docid\": \"409681\",\n \"rank\": 98,\n \"score\": 102803\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Are you working? Does your employer offer a 401(k) and if so, is there any match? Saving should be taught to kids at the same time they are old enough to get an allowance. There are many numbers tossed around, but 10% is a start for any new saver. If a college graduate can start by saving even 15%, better still. If you find that the 10% is too much, just start with what you can spare, and work to build that up over time, perhaps by splitting any future raises, half going toward savings, half to spending. Good luck. Edit - my 12 yr old made good money this summer baby sitting. I'm opening a Roth IRA for her. A 10 yr head start on her retirement savings. Edit (Jan-2013) - she's 14 now, 3 deposits to the Roth total $6000, and she's planning to up the number this year. Her goal is to have $50K saved in her Roth by the time she graduates college. Edit, by request (July-2017) 18, and off to college next month. Just under $24K, all invested in an S&P low cost index. We are planning to continue deposits of $4-$5K/yr, so the $50K is still a good goal.\",\n \"qid\": 11039,\n \"docid\": \"553288\",\n \"rank\": 99,\n \"score\": 102670\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"One description of what happened is at 401(k) Plan Fix-It Guide. The issue is the plan was \\\"\\\"Top Heavy,\\\"\\\" i.e. those making a high income were making disproportionately larger deposits than the lower paid employees. As the IRS article suggests, a nice matching deposit from the employer can eliminate the lower limit caused by the top heavy-ness. Searching on [top heavy 401(k)] will yield more details if you wish to research more.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 11039,\n \"docid\": \"333102\",\n \"rank\": 100,\n \"score\": 102204\n }\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":646,"cells":{"query":{"kind":"string","value":"Short Term Capital Gains tax vs. IRA Withdrawal Tax w/o Quarterly Est. Taxes"},"hits":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"Title: Content: \"There is not a special rate for short-term capital gains. Only long-term gains have a special rate. Short-term gains are taxed at your ordinary-income rate (see here). Hence if you're in the 25% bracket, your short-term gain would be taxed at 25%. The IRA withdrawal, as you already mentioned, would be taxed at 25%, plus a 10% penalty, for 35% total. Thus the bite on the IRA withdrawal is larger than that on a non-IRA withdrawal. As for the estimated tax issue, I don't think there will be a significant difference there. The reason is that (traditional) IRA withdrawals count as ordinary taxable income (see here). This means that, when you withdraw the funds from your IRA, you will increase your income. If that increase pushes you too far beyond what your withholding is accounting for, then you owe estimated tax. In other words, whether you get the money by selling stocks in a taxable account or by withdrawing them from an IRA, you still increase your taxable income, and thus potentially expose yourself to the estimated tax obligation. (In fact, there may be a difference. As you note, you will pay tax at the capital gains rate on gains from selling in a taxable account. But if you sell the stocks inside the IRA and withdraw, that is ordinary income. However, since ordinary income is taxed at a higher rate than long-term capital gains, you will potentially pay more tax on the IRA withdrawal, since it will be taxed at the higher rate, if your gains are long-term rather than short term. This is doubly true if you withdraw early, incurring the extra 10% penalty. See this question for some more discussion of this issue.) In addition, I think you may be somewhat misunderstanding the nature of estimated tax. The IRS will not \"\"ask\"\" you for a quarterly estimated tax when you sell stock. The IRS does not monitor your activity and send you a bill each quarter. They may indeed check whether your reported income jibes with info they received from your bank, etc., but they'll still do that regardless of whether you got that income by selling in a taxable account or withdrawing money from an IRA, because both of those increase your taxable income. Quarterly estimated tax is not an extra tax; it is just you paying your normal income tax over the course of the year instead of all at once. If your withholdings will not cover enough of your tax liability, you must figure that out yourself and pay the estimated tax (see here); if you don't do so, you may be assessed a penalty. It doesn't matter how you got the money; if your taxable income is too high relative to your withheld tax, then you have to pay the estimated tax. Typically tax will be withheld from your IRA distribution, but if it's not withheld, you'll still owe it as estimated tax.\"","qid":11054,"docid":"155053","rank":1,"score":176065},{"content":"Title: Content: \"Bottom line is this: there's no \"\"short term capital gains tax\"\" in the US. There's only long term capital gains tax, which is lower than the regular (aka ordinary) tax rates. Short term capital gains are taxed using the ordinary tax rates, depending on your bracket. So if you're in the 25% bracket - your short term gains are taxed at 25%. You're describing two options: For the case #1 you'll pay 25% tax (your marginal rate) + 10% penalty (flat rate), total 35%. For the case #2 you'll pay 25% tax (your marginal rate) + 0% penalty. Total 25%. Thus, by withdrawing from IRA you'll be 10% worse than by realizing capital gains. In addition, if you need $10K - taking it from IRA will make the whole amount taxable. While realizing capital gains from a taxable account will make only the gains taxable, the original investment amount is yours and had been taxed before. So not only there's a 10% difference in the tax rate, there's also a significant difference in the amount being taxed. Thus, withdrawing from IRA is generally not a good idea, and you will never be better off with withdrawing from IRA than with cashing out taxable investments (from tax perspective). That's by design.\"","qid":11054,"docid":"321015","rank":2,"score":168994},{"content":"Title: Content: First you need to distinguish between short-term and long-term capital gains. In an IRA you can use investment strategies that incur short-term capital gains without being taxed as ordinary income. As mentioned in a comment above, with a Roth IRA, you can invest now at your low income tax rates and withdraw all gains without incurring any taxes at retirement time. You can also pull out your contributions penalty free before retirement age (59 1/2) if you've had the account for more than 5 years. You only pay taxes and penalties on the earnings. You can also make withdrawals for education expenses and you have one lifetime exclusion of $10,000 for a down-payment on a house.","qid":11054,"docid":"101578","rank":3,"score":156287},{"content":"Title: Content: You're misunderstanding the concept of retirement savings. IRA distributions are taxed, in their entirety, as ordinary income. If you withdraw before the retirement age, additional 10% penalty is added. Investment income has preferential treatment - long term capital gains and qualified dividends are taxed at lower rates than ordinary income. However, IRA contributions are tax deductible. I.e.: you don't pay taxes on the amounts contributed to the IRA when you earned the money, only when you withdraw. In the mean time, the money is growing, tax free, based on your investments. Anything inside the IRA is tax free, including dividends, distributions (from funds to your IRA, not from IRA to you), capital gains, etc. This is very powerful, when taking into account the compounding effect of reinvesting your dividends/sale proceeds without taking a chunk out for taxes. Consider you make an investment in a fund that appreciated 100% in half a year. You cash out to reinvest in something less volatile to lock the gains. In a regular account - you pay taxes when you sell, based on your brackets. In the IRA you reinvest all of your sale proceeds. That would be ~25-35% more of the gains to reinvest and continue working for you! However, if you decide to withdraw - you pay ordinary rate taxes on the whole amount. If you would invest in a single fund for 30 years in a regular account - you'd pay 20% capital gains tax (on the appreciation, not the dividends). In the IRA, if you invest in the same fund for the same period - you'll pay your ordinary income rates. However, the benefit of reinvesting dividends tax-free softens the blow somewhat, but that's much harder to quantify. Bottom line: if you want to plan for retirement - plan for retirment. Otherwise - IRA is not an investment vehicle. Also consider Roth IRA/conversions. Roth IRA has the benefit of tax free distributions at retirement. If your current tax bracket is at 20%, for example, contributing $5K to Roth IRA instead of a traditional will cost you $1K of taxes now, but will save you all the taxes during the retirement (for the distributions from the Roth IRA). It may be very much worth your while, especially if you can contribute directly to Roth IRA (there are some income limitations and phaseouts). You can withdraw contributions (but not earnings) from Roth IRA - something you cannot do with a traditional IRA.","qid":11054,"docid":"561636","rank":4,"score":144984},{"content":"Title: Content: \"Basically, the idea of an IRA is that the money is earned by you and would normally be taxed at the individual rate, but the government is allowing you to avoid paying the taxes on it now by instead putting it in the account. This \"\"tax deferral\"\" encourages retirement savings by reducing your current taxable income (providing a short-term \"\"carrot\"\"). However, the government will want their cut; specifically, when you begin withdrawing from that account, the principal which wasn't taxed when you put it in will be taxed at the current individual rate when you take it out. When you think about it, that's only fair; you didn't pay taxes on it when it came out of your paycheck, so you should pay that tax once you're withdrawing it to live on. Here's the rub; the interest is also taxed at the individual rate. At the time, that was a good thing; the capital gains rate in 1976 (when the Regular IRA was established) was 35%, the highest it's ever been. Now, that's not looking so good because the current cap gains rate is only 15%. However, these rates rise and fall, cap gains more than individual rates, and so by contributing to a Traditional IRA you simplify your tax bill; the principal and interest is taxed at the individual rate as if you were still making a paycheck. A Roth IRA is basically the government trying to get money now by giving up money later. You pay the marginal individual rate on the contributions as you earn them (it becomes a \"\"post-tax deduction\"\") but then that money is completely yours, and the kicker is that the government won't tax the interest on it if you don't withdraw it before retirement age. This makes Roths very attractive to retirement investors as a hedge against higher overall tax rates later in life. If you think that, for any reason, you'll be paying more taxes in 30 years than you would be paying for the same money now, you should be investing in a Roth. A normal (non-IRA) investment account, at first, seems to be the worst of both worlds; you pay individual tax on all earned wages that you invest, then capital gains on the money your investment earns (stock gains and dividends, bond interest, etc) whenever you cash out. However, a traditional account has the most flexibility; you can keep your money in and take your money out on a timeline you choose. This means you can react both to market moves AND to tax changes; when a conservative administration slashes tax rates on capital gains, you can cash out, pay that low rate on the money you made from your account, and then the money's yours to spend or to reinvest. You can, if you're market- and tax-savvy, use all three of these instruments to your overall advantage. When tax rates are high now, contribute to a traditional IRA, and then withdraw the money during your retirement in times where individual tax rates are low. When tax rates are low (like right now), max out your Roth contributions, and use that money after retirement when tax rates are high. Use a regular investment account as an overage to Roth contributions when taxes are low; contribute when the individual rate is low, then capitalize and reinvest during times when capital gains taxes are low (perhaps replacing a paycheck deduction in annual contributions to a Roth, or you can simply fold it back into the investment account). This isn't as good as a Roth but is better than a Traditional; by capitalizing at an advantageous time, you turn interest earned into principal invested and pay a low tax on it at that time to avoid a higher tax later. However, the market and the tax structure have to coincide to make ordinary investing pay off; you may have bought in in the early 90s, taking advantage of the lowest individual rates since the Great Depression. While now, capital gains taxes are the lowest they've ever been, if you cash out you may not be realizing much of a gain in the first place.\"","qid":11054,"docid":"508219","rank":5,"score":141126},{"content":"Title: Content: The point is to provide for yourself in retirement, so it makes sense that these withdrawals would be penalized. Tax deferred accounts are usually created for a specific cause. Using them outside of the scope of that cause triggers penalties. You mentioned 401(k) and IRA that have age limitations because they're geared towards retirement. In the US, here are other types, and if you intend to spend money in the related areas, they may be worth considering. Otherwise, you'll hit penalties as well. Examples: HSA - Health Savings Account allows saving pre-tax contributions and gains towards medical expenses. You must have a high deductible health plan to be eligible. Can be used as IRA once retired. 529 plans - allow saving pre-tax gains (and in some states pre-tax contributions) for education expenses for you or a beneficiary. If a beneficiary - contributions are considered a gift. There's a tax benefit in long term investing in a regular taxable brokerage accounts - long term capital gains are taxed at a preferable (lower) rate than short term or ordinary income. The difference may be significant. Long term = 1+ year holding. The condition here is holding an investment for more than a year, and there's no penalty for not satisfying it but there's a reward (lower rates) if you do.","qid":11054,"docid":"181611","rank":6,"score":139039},{"content":"Title: Content: Capital gains tax is an income tax upon your profit from selling investments. Long-term capital gains (investments you have held for more than a year) are taxed significantly less than short-term gains. It doesn't limit how many shares you can sell; it does discourage selling them too quickly after buying. You can balance losses against gains to reduce the tax due. You can look for tax-advantaged investments (the obvious one being a 401k plan, IRA, or equivalent, though those generally require leaving the money invested until retirement). But in the US, most investments other than the house you are living in (which some of us argue isn't really an investment) are subject to capital gains tax, period.","qid":11054,"docid":"196427","rank":7,"score":137268},{"content":"Title: Content: Is that basically it? Trading off between withdrawing-anytime vs paying-capital-gain-tax? No. Another significant factor is dividends. In an IRA they incur no immediate tax and can be reinvested. This causes the account value to compound over the years. Historically, this compounding of dividends provides about half of the total return on investments. In a non-IRA account you have to pay taxes each year on all dividends received, whether you reinvest them or not. So outside of an IRA you have a tax drag on both capital gains and dividends.","qid":11054,"docid":"199544","rank":8,"score":134908},{"content":"Title: Content: \"IRA is a tax-deferred account. I.e.: you're not paying any taxes on the income within the account (as long as you don't withdraw it) and you can deduct the investment (with certain limitation on how much, depending on your total AGI). It is taxed when you withdraw it - at ordinary rates for the \"\"traditional\"\" IRA and with 0% rate for ROTH, as long as the withdrawal is qualified (if not qualified - you pay ordinary rate tax for ROTH and additional 10% tax for both on the taxable amounts). The details are a bit complicated (there's deductible IRA, non-deductible IRA, roll-overs, etc etc), but that's the basic. Regular investment accounts are taxed currently on any income, but you get the \"\"better\"\" capital gains rates on many things. So which one is better depends how long your investment is going to be, what is your tax situation now, and what you anticipate it to be later when you retire.\"","qid":11054,"docid":"109305","rank":9,"score":131374},{"content":"Title: Content: If you are inside of a ROTH IRA you are not getting taxed on any gain. Dividends, distributions, interest payment, or capital gains are never taxed. This, of course, assumes you wait until age 59.5 to do ROTH withdrawals on your gains.","qid":11054,"docid":"290182","rank":10,"score":131291},{"content":"Title: Content: First of all, there are some differences between the retirement accounts that you mentioned regarding taxes. Traditional IRA and 401(k) accounts allow you to make pre-tax contributions, giving you an immediate tax deduction when you contribute. Roth IRA, Roth 401(k) are funded with after tax money, and a non-retirement account is, of course, also funded with after tax money. So if you are looking for the immediate tax deduction, this is a point in favor of the retirement accounts. Roth IRA & Roth 401(k) accounts allow the investment to grow tax-free, which means that the growth is not taxed, even when taking the investment out at retirement. With Traditional IRA and 401(k) accounts, you need to pay tax on the gains realized in the account when you withdraw the money, just as you do with a non-retirement account. This is a point in favor of the Roth retirement accounts. To answer your question about capital gains, yes, it is true that you do not have a capital gain until an investment is sold. So, discounting the contribution tax deductions of the retirement accounts, if you only bought individual stocks that never paid a dividend, and never sold them until retirement, you are correct that it really wouldn't matter if you had it in a regular brokerage account or in a traditional IRA. However, even people dedicated to buy-and-hold rarely actually buy only individual stocks and hold them for 30 years. There are several different circumstances that will generally happen in the time between now and when you want to withdraw the money in retirement that would be taxable events if you are not in a retirement account: If you sell an investment and buy a different one, the gains would be taxable. If you want to rebalance your holdings, this also involves selling a portion of your investments. For example, if you want to maintain an 80% stock/20% bond ratio, and your stock values have gone up to 90%, you might want to sell some stock and buy bonds. Or if you are getting closer to retirement, you might decide to go with a higher percentage of bonds. This would trigger capital gains. Inside a mutual fund, anytime the management sells investments inside the fund and realizes capital gains, these gains are passed on to the investors, and are taxable. (This happens more often with managed funds than index funds, but still happens occasionally with index funds.) Dividends earned by the investments are taxable. Any of these events in a non-retirement account would trigger taxes that need to be paid immediately, even if you don't withdraw a cent from your account.","qid":11054,"docid":"94496","rank":11,"score":131155},{"content":"Title: Content: \"Here are the few scenarios that may be worth noting in terms of using different types of accounts: Traditional IRA. In this case, the monies would grow tax-deferred and all monies coming out will be taxed as ordinary income. Think of it as everything is in one big black box and the whole thing is coming out to be taxed. Roth IRA. In this case, you could withdraw the contributions anytime without penalty. (Source should one want it for further research.) Past 59.5, the withdrawals are tax-free in my understanding. Thus, one could access some monies earlier than retirement age if one considers all the contributions that are at least 5 years old. Taxable account. In this case, each year there will be distributions to pay taxes as well as anytime one sells shares as that will trigger capital gains. In this case, taxes are worth noting as depending on the index fund one may have various taxes to consider. For example, a bond index fund may have some interest that would be taxed that the IRA could shelter to some extent. While index funds can be a low-cost option, in some cases there may be capital gains each year to keep up with the index. For example, small-cap indices and value indices would have stocks that may \"\"outgrow\"\" the index by either becoming mid-cap or large-cap in the case of small-cap or the value stock's valuation rises enough that it becomes a growth stock that is pulled out of the index. This is why some people may prefer to use tax-advantaged accounts for those funds that may not be as tax-efficient. The Bogleheads have an article on various accounts that can also be useful as dg99's comment referenced. Disclosure: I'm not an accountant or work for the IRS.\"","qid":11054,"docid":"272458","rank":12,"score":130878},{"content":"Title: Content: In the US, the key to understanding the benefits of retirement accounts is to understand capital gains taxes and how they work. Retirement accounts are designed for making investments throughout your career, then after several decades of contributions, withdrawing that money to pay for your needs when your full-time employment has concluded. Normally when you invest money in a brokerage account, if the value of your investment increases, and you sell in less than a year, those investments are considered short-term gains and taxed as ordinary income. If you hold that same investment for over a year, the same investment is taxed at a lower capital gains rate (depending on which tax bracket you are in during that year, the amount due could be up to 20%, but much lower than your regular income tax rate). When you place your money in a retirement account, you are choosing to either pay the tax due on the income when you put it in the account, or put the money in tax free and pay the tax when you withdraw (these are called tax-deferred accounts). When you have money invested several decades, the raw dollar amount increases greatly, but inflation is also reducing the value of those dollars. Imagine you bought some bonds that payed 4% over 40 years, but inflation was 2% during those same years. When you sell those bonds 40 years later, you will owe capital gains on the entire gain even though half of the gain came from inflation. Retirement accounts allow you to buy and sell according to your investment needs and goals without any consideration about whether the gains are short-term or long-term, and they also allow you to pay taxes just once, either when you put it in, or when you take it out, with no worries about whether you're paying taxes on inflated gains.","qid":11054,"docid":"170717","rank":13,"score":129681},{"content":"Title: Content: I'll add this to others: Having non-deductible portion in your IRA requires additional tax forms to be attached to your tax return, and tracking. If you plan to have long-term investments in your non-deductible IRA (such as, say, target funds or long-term stock positions that you expect to hold till retirement) it may be better to keep them in a non-IRA account. This is because the income tax on the withdrawals from the IRA is at ordinary rates, and from the regular investment account is at capital gains rate. While the rates can definitely change, traditionally capital gains rates are significantly lower than the ordinary income bracket rates. So generally I think that having non-deductible IRA deposits is only useful if you're planning a ROTH conversion in a near future.","qid":11054,"docid":"382894","rank":14,"score":128795},{"content":"Title: Content: Yes, you may make non-deductible contributions to an IRA. The main benefit of a non-deductible IRA is tax-deferred earnings. If the investment pays out dividends, they will be kept in the IRA (whether you take them in cash and put them in a Cash Management Account, or you automatically reinvest them). You do not get taxed on these earnings until you withdraw from the IRA during retirement. If your income at that time is significantly lower than your income while you're working, you will be in a lower tax bracket (unless tax rates change drastically between now and then), so the taxes you pay on these earnings will be lower than if you'd invested outside the IRA and paid taxes along the way. You also get the benefit of compounding of the tax-deferred earnings. There's one caveat -- when you withdraw from the IRA, all the growth is treated as ordinary income. Even if some of it is capital gains, it will be taxed at your ordinary income rate, not your capital gains rate. So this is most beneficial for investments that produce dividends. If you have a mix of deductible and non-deductible contributions to your IRA, the tax on the principle portion of your withdrawals is pro-rated based on the ratio of deductible to total contributions. This ensures that you eventually get taxed for the deductible portion (it's not really tax-free, it's tax-deferred), but don't get taxed twice for the non-deductible portion. Another option, if your 401(k) plan allows it, is to make after-tax contributions to the 401(k). At the end of the year, you can make an in-service distribution of these contributions and their earnings from the 401(k) to a Roth Conversion IRA. This allows you to contribute to a Roth IRA even if you're above the income limit for normal Roth IRA contributions. You can also do this even if you're also making non-deductible contributions to your regular IRA.","qid":11054,"docid":"459589","rank":15,"score":128611},{"content":"Title: Content: \"One reason is that you can trade in the IRA without incurring incremental taxes along the way. This may be especially important if you intend to shift your portfolio allocation as you approach retirement. For instance, gradually selling stocks and buying bonds can incur taxes if you do it in a taxable account (if you do it while you have other income and thus may face capital gains taxes). Also, if you have mutual funds in a taxable account, they may distribute capital gains to you that you'll owe taxes on, but holding the funds in an IRA will shield you from that. There are also some other side benefits to IRAs because they are considered to \"\"not count\"\" for certain purposes when determining what you're worth. For instance, if you go bankrupt, you could be forced to sell assets in taxable accounts to pay your creditors, whereas IRAs are protected in many cases. Likewise, if you try to get financial aid to pay for college for your kids, money in an IRA won't be counted among your assets in determining your aid eligibility, potentially giving your kids access to more aid money. Finally, an especially prominent benefit is, paradoxically, the early withdrawal penalty. For many people, part of the purpose of an IRA is to \"\"lock away\"\" their money and prevent themselves from accessing it until retirement. Early withdrawal penalties provide a concrete consequence that psychologically deters them from raiding their retirement savings willy-nilly.\"","qid":11054,"docid":"105468","rank":16,"score":126560},{"content":"Title: Content: \"The \"\"risk\"\", other than losing principal (especially when rates go up) is capital gains. As with any mutual fund, this one might need to sell assets for cashflow. In which case the taxes on the sales are shifted to the investors. So you may end up with the fund losing value due to price fluctuations, yet you'll have capital gains (probably with a significant short term part since the maturity periods are relatively short) to pay taxes on. To what extent that may happen depends on the fund's cashflow (influx of money vs. withdrawals). Capital gains reduce your basis (since no money is actually distributed), but if you hold the fund for more than a year - you lose the difference between the short term and the long term tax for the short term portion of the gains.\"","qid":11054,"docid":"472159","rank":17,"score":126286},{"content":"Title: Content: There are a few incorrect assumptions in your question but the TL;DR version is: All, or most, of the withdrawal is taxable income that is reported on Lines 15a (total distribution) and 15b (taxable amount) of Form 1040. None of the distribution is given special treatment as Qualified Dividends or Capital Gains regardless of what happened inside the IRA, and none of the distribution is subject to the 3.8% Net Investment Income Tax that some high-income people need to compute on Form 8960. If the withdrawal is not a Qualified Distribution, it will be subject to a 10% excise tax (tax penalty on premature withdrawal). Not all contributions to Traditional IRAs are deductible from income for the year for which the contribution was made. People with high income and/or coverage by a workplace retirement plan (pension plan, 401(k) plan, 403(b) plan, etc) cannot deduct any contributions that they choose to make to a Traditional IRA. Such people can always make a contribution (subject to them having compensation (earned income such as salary or wages, self-employment income, commissions on sales, etc), but they don't get a tax deduction for it (just as contributions to Roth IRAs are not deductible). Whether it is wise to make such nondeductible contributions to a Traditional IRA is a question on which reasonable people can hold different opinions. Be that as it may, nondeductible contributions to a Traditional IRA create (or add to) what is called the basis of an IRA. They are reported to the IRS on Form 8606 which is attached to the Federal Form 1040. Note that the IRA custodian or trustee is not told that the contributions are not deductible. Earnings on the basis accumulate tax-deferred within the IRA just as do the earnings on the deductible contributions. Now, when you make a withdrawal from your Traditional IRA, no matter which of your various IRA accounts you take the money from, part of the money is deemed to be taken from the basis (and is not subject to income tax) while the rest is pure taxable income. That is, none of the rest is eligible for the reduced taxation rates for Qualified Dividends or Capital Gains and since it does not count as investment income, it is not subject to the 3.8% Net Investment Tax of Form 8960 either. Computation of how much of your withdrawal is nontaxable basis and how much is taxable income is done on Form 8606. Note that you don't get to withdraw your entire basis until such time as when you close all your Traditional IRA accounts. How is all this reported? Well, your IRA custodian(s) will send you Form 1099-R reporting the total amount of the withdrawal, what income tax, if any, was withheld, etc. The custodian(s) don't know what your basis is, and so Box 2b will say that the taxable amount is not determined. You need to fill out Form 8606 to figure out what the taxable amount is, and then report the taxable amount on Line 15b of Form 1040. (The total withdrawal is reported on Line 15a which is not included in the AGI computations). Note that as far as the IRS is concerned, you have only one Traditional IRA. The A in IRA stands for Arrangement, not Account as most everybody thinks, and your Traditional IRA can invest in many different things, stocks, bonds, mutual funds, etc with different custodians if you choose, but your basis is in the IRA, not the specific investment that you made with your nondeductible contribution. That's why the total IRA contribution is limited, not the per-account contribution, and why you need to look that the total value of your IRA in determining the taxable portion, not the specific account(s) from which you withdrew the money. So, how much basis did you withdraw? Well, if you withdrew $W during 2016 and the total value of all your Traditional IRA accounts was $X at the end of 2016 and your total basis in your Traditional IRA is $B, then (assuming that you did not indulge in any Traditional-to-Roth rollovers for 2016), multiply W by B/(W+X) to get the amount of nontaxable basis in the withdrawal. B thus gets reduced for 2017 by amount of basis withdrawal. What if you never made a nondeductible contribution to your Traditional IRA, or you made some nondeductible contributions many years ago and have forgotten about them? Well, you could still fill out Form 8606 reporting a zero basis, but it will just tell you that your basis continues $0. Or, you could just enter the total amount of your withdrawal in Lines 15a and 15b, effectively saying that all of the withdrawal is taxable income to you. The IRS does not care if you choose to pay taxes on nontaxable income.","qid":11054,"docid":"482768","rank":18,"score":122381},{"content":"Title: Content: No matter what, you owe taxes on the gains, known as capital gains. How much, depends on how long you invested it for. In your example, each month is treated separately - each month you contribute starts a new clock on that set of investments. If you hold it for longer than a year, the taxes are treated as long-term, and less than a year is short-term. Short term taxes are at your marginal rate, and long term taxes are different, usually 15%. https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc400/tc409","qid":11054,"docid":"536390","rank":19,"score":122196},{"content":"Title: Content: There is nothing wrong with self directed IRA's the problem is that most of the assets they specialize in are better done in other ways. Real estate is already extremely tax advantaged in the US. Buying inside a Traditional IRA would turn longterm capital gains (currently 15%) into ordinary income taxed at your tax rate when you withdraw this may be a plus or minus, but it is more likely than not that your ordinary income tax rate is higher. You also can't do the live in each house for 2 years before selling plan to eliminate capital gains taxes (250k individual 500k married couple). The final problem is that you are going to have problems getting a mortgage (it won't be a conforming loan) and will likely have to pay cash for any real estate purchased inside your IRA. Foreign real estate is similar to above except you have additional tax complexities. The key to the ownership in a business is that there are limits on who can control the business (you and maybe your family can't control the business). If you are experienced doing angel investing this might be a viable option (assuming you have a really big IRA you want to gamble with). If you want to speculate on precious metals you will probably be better offer using ETF's in a more traditional brokerage account (lower transactions costs more liquidity).","qid":11054,"docid":"573935","rank":20,"score":121798},{"content":"Title: Content: Your question is missing too much to be answered directly. Instead - here are some points to consider. Short term gains taxed at your marginal rates, whereas long term gains have preferable capital gains rates (up to 20% tax rate, instead of your marginal rate). So if you're selling at gain, you might want to consider to sell FIFO and pay lower capital gains tax rate instead of the short term marginal rate. If you're selling at loss and have other short term gains, you would probably be better selling LIFO, so that the loss could offset other short term gains that you might have. If you're selling at loss and don't have short term gains to offset, you can still offset your long term gains with short term losses, but the tax benefit will be lower. In this case - FIFO might be a better choice again. If you're selling at loss, beware of the wash sale rules, as you might not be able to deduct the loss if you buy/sell within too short a window.","qid":11054,"docid":"366560","rank":21,"score":121130},{"content":"Title: Content: The simplest explanation is that a traditional IRA is a method of deferring taxes. That is, normally you pay taxes on money you earn at the ordinary rate then invest the rest and only pay the capital gains rate. However, with a traditional IRA you don't pay taxes on the money when you earn it, you defer the payment of those taxes until you retire. So in the end it ends up being treated the same. That said, if you are strategic about it you can wind up paying less taxes with this type of account.","qid":11054,"docid":"114912","rank":22,"score":120107},{"content":"Title: Content: The capital gain is either short-term or long-term and will be indicated on the 1099-DiV. You pay taxes on this amount as the capital gain was received in a taxable account (assuming since you received a 1099-DIV). More info here: https://www.mutualfundstore.com/brokerage-account/capital-gains-distributions-taxable","qid":11054,"docid":"251394","rank":23,"score":119787},{"content":"Title: Content: Post-tax (i.e. non-retirement account) investing is nothing to ignore. You don't mention a spouse, so for a start, you still have the $5500 to put in an IRA. The remaining investment funds will earn dividends, if any, at a tax preferred rate, and then the gain on sale will be taxed at 15% if the code doesn't change again. The gains accumulate tax deferred, and you control the timing of the sale. With a 401(k) all withdrawal are taxable as income. In your case, just the gain is taxed at a potential long term cap gain rate. Hopefully the new job pays more than the old one and the loss of 401(k) is compensated.","qid":11054,"docid":"571142","rank":24,"score":119560},{"content":"Title: Content: \"Appreciation of a Capital Asset is a Capital Gain. In the United States, Capital Gains get favorable tax treatment after being held for 12 months. From the IRS newsroom: Capital gains and losses are classified as long-term or short-term, depending on how long you hold the property before you sell it. If you hold it more than one year, your capital gain or loss is long-term. If you hold it one year or less, your capital gain or loss is short-term. The tax rates that apply to net capital gain are generally lower than the tax rates that apply to other income. For 2009, the maximum capital gains rate for most people is15%. For lower-income individuals, the rate may be 0% on some or all of the net capital gain. Special types of net capital gain can be taxed at 25% or 28%. The IRS defines a Capital Asset as \"\"most property you own\"\" with a list of exclusions found in Schedule D Instructions. None of the exclusions listed relate to Bond ETFs.\"","qid":11054,"docid":"149305","rank":25,"score":119075},{"content":"Title: Content: This will work as intended, but there's another point to consider. In the US, the tax rate on proceeds from stock sales is higher for short term holdings, which are defined as held for less than one year. Both rates vary based on your income. Bracket numbers are for fiscal year 2014, filing as single. The difference between short and long term capital gains tax in the US is a minimum of ten percentage points, and works out to 15 percentage points on average. This is substantial. If you won't be reporting much income the year you move to the US (say because you only worked for a portion of the year) it is decidedly to your advantage to wait and sell the stocks in the US, to get that sweet 0% rate. At a minimum, you should hold the position for a year if you sell and rebuy, from a tax optimization perspective. Two caveats:","qid":11054,"docid":"501214","rank":26,"score":118479},{"content":"Title: Content: In the United States Short-term capital gains are taxed at rates similar to regular income which is 25% if you make less than $91,000 and 28% if you make more than that but less than $190,000. If you make more than $190,000 then the rate is 33%. If you hold the stock for a year or more than the tax rate is 15%, unless your income is less than $33,000 in which case there is no tax on long-term gains. As a general rule, the way to make money is to stay out of debt, so I cannot advise you to assume a mortgage. Financially you are better off investing your money. Much like you I bought a house with a mortgage using about $30,000 in a down payment about 20 years ago and I paid it off a few years ago. If I had to do it over again, I would have bought a shack (a steel building) for $30,000 and lived in that and invested my income. If I had done that, I would be about $500,000 richer today than I am now.","qid":11054,"docid":"116017","rank":27,"score":118163},{"content":"Title: Content: You can keep the cash in your account as long as you want, but you have to pay a tax on what's called capital gains. To quote from Wikipedia: A capital gain is a profit that results from investments into a capital asset, such as stocks, bonds or real estate, which exceeds the purchase price. It is the difference between a higher selling price and a lower purchase price, resulting in a financial gain for the investor.[1] Conversely, a capital loss arises if the proceeds from the sale of a capital asset are less than the purchase price. Thus, buying/selling stock counts as investment income which would be a capital gain/loss. When you are filing taxes, you have to report net capital gain/loss. So you don't pay taxes on an individual stock sale or purchase - you pay tax on the sum of all your transactions. Note: You do not pay any tax if you have a net capital loss. Taxes are only on capital gains. The amount you are taxed depends on your tax bracket and your holding period. A short term capital gain is gain on an investment held for less than one year. These gains are taxed at your ordinary income tax rate. A long term capital gain is gain on an investment held for more than one year. These gains are taxed at a special rate: If your income tax rate is 10 or 15%, then long term gains are taxed at 0% i.e. no tax, otherwise the tax rate is 15%. So you're not taxed on specific stock sales - you're taxed on your total gain. There is no tax for a capital loss, and investors sometimes take profits from good investments and take losses from bad investments to lower their total capital gain so they won't be taxed as much. The tax rate is expected to change in 2013, but the current ratios could be extended. Until then, however, the rate is as is. Of course, this all applies if you live in the United States. Other countries have different measures. Hope it helps! Wikipedia has a great chart to refer to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_gains_tax_in_the_United_States.","qid":11054,"docid":"169240","rank":28,"score":116959},{"content":"Title: Content: \"The tax comes when you close the position. If the option expires worthless it's as if you bought it back for $0. There's a short-term capital gain for the difference between your short-sale price and your buyback price on the option. I believe the capital gain is always short-term because short sales are treated as short-term even if you hold them open more than one year. If the option is exercised (calling away your stock) then you add the premium to your sale price on the stock and then compute the capital gain. So in this case you can end up treating the premium as a long-term capital gain. See IRS pub 550 http://www.irs.gov/publications/p550/ch04.html#en_US_2010_publink100010619 Search for \"\"Writers of puts and calls\"\"\"","qid":11054,"docid":"478600","rank":29,"score":116933},{"content":"Title: Content: \"Gee son. That's a potential for a better than 10% gain in a short amount of time. If bought within a tax advantaged account like a IRA then you don't even pay capital gains. Does Lube know? Last I checked he was obsessing over \"\"bowels\"\" or some shit.\"","qid":11054,"docid":"104094","rank":30,"score":116760},{"content":"Title: Content: Here's how capital gains are totaled: Long and Short Term. Capital gains and losses are either long-term or short-term. It depends on how long the taxpayer holds the property. If the taxpayer holds it for one year or less, the gain or loss is short-term. Net Capital Gain. If a taxpayer’s long-term gains are more than their long-term losses, the difference between the two is a net long-term capital gain. If the net long-term capital gain is more than the net short-term capital loss, the taxpayer has a net capital gain. So your net long-term gains (from all investments, through all brokers) are offset by any net short-term loss. Short term gains are taxed separately at a higher rate. I'm trying to avoid realizing a long term capital gain, but at the same time trade the stock. If you close in the next year, one of two things will happen - either the stock will go down, and you'll have short-term gains on the short, or the stock will go up, and you'll have short-term losses on the short that will offset the gains on the stock. So I don;t see how it reduces your tax liability. At best it defers it.","qid":11054,"docid":"444405","rank":31,"score":116676},{"content":"Title: Content: \"There's currently not much reason to keep around a long-term non-deductible Traditional IRA in my opinion -- a Roth IRA is almost strictly better. Think about it: a non-deductible Traditional IRA vs. a Roth IRA of the same amount. In both cases, contributions are after-tax (so no tax deduction). But when you withdraw, for the Roth IRA you don't have to pay tax, and for the non-deductible Traditional IRA, you have to pay tax on the \"\"earnings\"\". A Roth IRA can be contributed to at pretty much any income level, thanks to the backdoor Roth IRA process (which uses a temporary non-deductible Traditional IRA in the process). So there is not much reason for a long-term non-deductible Traditional IRA. As for your question, a non-deductible Traditional IRA vs. a taxable account. Well, a non-deductible Traditional IRA is contributed to with after-tax money, and taxed on the earnings only on withdrawal. So the taxation is almost identical to things like stocks and homes, where the gain is not realized until the thing is sold. However, compared to things like savings accounts and bonds, where you get taxed on the interest yearly, it is much better. Every time you get taxed on gains like this, it is taxing gains earned from after-tax money, so if you think of an amount of money as being equivalent to the amount of money it grows to over time (time value of money), then it is taxing money that is (or grown from money that is) already taxed. So it is better to have this only happen at the end at withdrawal than every year.\"","qid":11054,"docid":"144751","rank":32,"score":116614},{"content":"Title: Content: \"You cannot get \"\"your investment\"\" out and \"\"leave only the capital gains\"\" until they become taxable at the long-term rate. When you sell some shares after holding them for less than a year, you have capital gains on which you will have to pay taxes at the short-term capital gains rate (that is, at the same rate as ordinary income). As an example, if you bought 100 shares at $70 for a net investment of $7000, and sell 70 of them at $100 after five months to get your \"\"initial investment back\"\", you will have short-term capital gains of $30 per share on the 70 shares that you sold and so you have to pay tax on that $30x70=$2100. The other $4900 = $7000-$2100 is \"\"tax-free\"\" since it is just your purchase price of the 70 shares being returned to you. So after paying the tax on your short-term capital gains, you really don't have your \"\"initial investment back\"\"; you have something less. The capital gains on the 30 shares that you continue to hold will become (long-term capital gains) income to you only when you sell the shares after having held them for a full year or more: the gains on the shares sold after five months are taxable income in the year of sale.\"","qid":11054,"docid":"561999","rank":33,"score":116475},{"content":"Title: Content: The idea behind a Roth IRA is taxes will go up in the future so you are best off paying less in taxes now than in the future, which is why Roth IRAs are contributed to with post-tax dollars whereas traditional IRAs are contributed to with pre-tax dollars. The theoritical advantage comes when you want to withdrawal your money. With the traditional IRA, when you withdrawal money, you pay ordinary income tax on all withdrawals. With a Roth IRA, all withdrawals (after the age of 59 1/2) are tax free, including any gains you may have made. To illistrate, with a very simple example, assume you make $50,000 and your IRA grows at 5% for 40 years. Traditional IRA - $5,000 Roth IRA - $3,750 ($5,000 after taxes) Traditional IRA - $604,000 Roth IRA - $453,000 Traditional IRA - $604,000 / 15 = $40,266 * 75% (25% tax) = $30,200 / year Roth IRA - $453,000 / 15 = $30,200/ year First, this was not a contrived example and I was surprised the numbers worked out this way. Second, as you can see with this example there is really no advantage either way unless you by into the theory of higher taxes in the future.","qid":11054,"docid":"364056","rank":34,"score":116022},{"content":"Title: Content: Long-term capital gains, as you note, get special tax treatment. They are lower than regular income tax rates. Short-term capital gains aren't penalized, they are just treated as regular income under the regular rates. So, from a tax perspective, the day-trader gets by the same way as the rest of us because they are paying the same rates on the same progressive income tax scale.","qid":11054,"docid":"177298","rank":35,"score":115646},{"content":"Title: Content: Indeed, there's no short term/long term issue trading inside the IRA, and in fact, no reporting. If you have a large IRA balance and trade 100 (for example) times per year, there's no reporting at all. As you note, long term gains outside the IRA are treated favorably in the tax code (as of now, 2012) but that's subject to change. Also to consider, The worst thing I did was to buy Apple in my IRA. A huge gain that will be taxed as ordinary income when I withdraw it. Had this been in my regular account, I could sell and pay the long term cap gain rate this year. Last, there's no concept of Wash sale in one's IRA, as there's no taking a loss for shares sold below cost. (To clarify, trading solely within an IRA won't trigger wash sale rules. A realized loss in a taxable account, combined with a purchase inside an IRA can trigger the wash sale rule if the stock is purchased inside the IRA 30 days before or after the sale at a loss. Thank you, Dilip, for the comment.) Aside from the warnings of trading too much or running afoul of frequency restrictions, your observation is correct.","qid":11054,"docid":"276333","rank":36,"score":115521},{"content":"Title: Content: If you have held the stocks longer than a year, then there is no tax apart from the STT that is already deducted when you sell the shares. If you have held the stock for less than a year, you would have to pay short term capital gains at the rate of 15% on the profit. Edit: If you buy different shares from the total amount or profits, it makes no difference to taxes.","qid":11054,"docid":"423929","rank":37,"score":115248},{"content":"Title: Content: Are you in the US? Because if so, there are tax discrepancies. Gains from sale of stocks held for less than one year are subject to ordinary income tax, so probably around 30%. If you hold those stocks for a year or more, gains will be taxed as capital gains tax, 15%. For Forex, taxes on your earnings will be split 60/40. 60% will be traded at the lower 15% rate, while the remaining 40& will be taxed at a higher rate, approximately 30%. So purely short-term, there is a tax advantage to dabbling in Forex. HOWEVER - these are both incredibly risky things to do with your money! I never would recommend anyone invest short-term looking to make quick cash! In fact, the tax code DISCOURAGES people from short-term investments.","qid":11054,"docid":"413015","rank":38,"score":114772},{"content":"Title: Content: Don't let tax considerations be the main driver. That's generally a bad idea. You should keep tax in mind when making the decision, but don't let it be the main reason for an action. selling the higher priced shares (possibly at a loss even) - I think it's ok to do that, and it doesn't necessarily have to be FIFO? It is OK to do that, but consider also the term. Long term gain has much lower taxes than short term gain, and short term loss will be offsetting long term gain - means you can lose some of the potential tax benefit. any potential writeoffs related to buying a home that can offset capital gains? No, and anyway if you're buying a personal residence (a home for yourself) - there's nothing to write off (except for the mortgage interest and property taxes of course). selling other investments for a capital loss to offset this sale? Again - why sell at a loss? anything related to retirement accounts? e.g. I think I recall being able to take a loan from your retirement account in order to buy a home You can take a loan, and you can also withdraw up to 10K without a penalty (if conditions are met). Bottom line - be prepared to pay the tax on the gains, and check how much it is going to be roughly. You can apply previous year refund to the next year to mitigate the shock, you can put some money aside, and you can raise your salary withholding to make sure you're not hit with a high bill and penalties next April after you do that. As long as you keep in mind the tax bill and put aside an amount to pay it - you'll be fine. I see no reason to sell at loss or pay extra interest to someone just to reduce the nominal amount of the tax. If you're selling at loss - you're losing money. If you're selling at gain and paying tax - you're earning money, even if the earnings are reduced by the tax.","qid":11054,"docid":"468047","rank":39,"score":114543},{"content":"Title: Content: \"Long-term capital gains, which is often the main element of investment income for investors who are not high-frequency day traders, are taxed at a single rate that is often substantially below the marginal rate they would otherwise be taxed at, particularly for wealthy individuals. There are a few rationales behind this treatment; the two most common are that the government wants to encourage long-term investments (as opposed to short-term speculation), and that capital gains are a kind of double taxation (from one point of view) as they are coming from income that has already been taxed once before (as wage or ordinary income). The latter in particular is highly controversial, but this is one of the more divisive political issues in the taxation front - one party would eliminate the tax entirely, the other would eliminate the difference. For most individuals, the majority of their long-term capital gains are taxed at 15% up to almost half of a million dollars total AGI, which is a fairly low rate - it's equivalent to the rate a taxpayer would pay on up to $37,000 in wage income (after deductions/exemptions/etc.). You can see from this table in Wikipedia that it is much preferred to pay long-term capital gains rates when possible - at every point it's at least 10% lower than the tax rate for ordinary income. Ordinary income includes wages and many other sources of income - basically, anything that is not long term capital gains. Wage income is taxed at this rate, and also subject to some non-income-tax taxes (FICA and Medicare in particular); other sources of ordinary income are not subject to those taxes (including IRA income). Short term capital gains are generally included in this bucket. Qualified Dividends are treated similarly to long-term capital gains (as they are of a similar nature), and taxed accordingly. The \"\"Net Investment Tax\"\" is basically applying the Medicare tax to investment income for higher-income taxpayers ($125k single, $250k joint). It's on top of capital gains rates for them. It came about through the Affordable Care Act, and is one of the first provisions likely to be repealed by the new Congress (as it can be repealed through the budgeting provision). It seems likely that 2017 taxes will not contain this provision.\"","qid":11054,"docid":"66858","rank":40,"score":114338},{"content":"Title: Content: \"While @JB's \"\"yes\"\" is correct, a few more points to consider: There is no tax penalty for withdrawing any time from a taxable investment, that is, one not using specific tax protections like 401k/IRA or ESA or HSA. But you do pay tax on any income or gain distributions you receive from a taxable investment in a fund (except interest on tax-exempt aka \"\"municipal\"\" bonds), and any net capital gains you realize when selling (or technically redeeming for non-ETF funds). Just like you do for dividends and interest and gains on non-fund taxable investments. Many funds have a sales charge or \"\"load\"\" which means you will very likely lose money if you sell quickly typically within at least several months and usually a year or more, and even some no-load funds, to discourage rapid trading that makes their management more difficult (and costly), have a \"\"contingent sales charge\"\" if you sell after less than a stated period like 3 months or 6 months. For funds that largely or entirely invest in equities or longer term bonds, the share value/price is practically certain to fluctuate up and down, and if you sell during a \"\"down\"\" period you will lose money; if \"\"liquid\"\" means you want to take out money anytime without waiting for the market to move, you might want funds focussing on short-term bonds, especially government bonds, and \"\"money market\"\" funds which hold only very short bonds (usually duration under 90 days), which have much more stable prices (but lower returns over the longer term).\"","qid":11054,"docid":"344283","rank":41,"score":114029},{"content":"Title: Content: \"To keep it simple, I will keep the focus between a Trad IRA and a normal Taxable account (Roth's and 401(k) add more complications that make another problem). I will also assume, based on the question, that you aren't able to deduct the IRA contributions. Also, a Roth is better in every way than a non-deductible Trad IRA so the \"\"backdoor Roth\"\" mentioned in other answers is probably the way to go and this is more of an academic exercise. Ok, so why bother with the IRA if you're taxed anyway? Because you aren't taxed as you go! With a normal non-tax-advantaged account you have to pay taxes every year on any realized capital gains and dividends (including fund distributions). Because of the compounding nature of savings, delaying paying taxes is in your best interest. Simple example: Taxable Account: IRA Account: Now, this is a very simplified example. If you're more tax-conscious (i.e. more buy-and-holding), you can delay paying some of the long-term cap gains in the taxable account, but any short-term cap gains (including distributions from the underlying funds) will be at your marginal income tax rate. A few other observations: EDIT: I set up a spreadsheet where each year I deposited $1000 for 35 years. Each year, the balance in the IRA account grows by 5%, but the taxable only by 5%*(1-0.15) = 4.25% due to the effect of taxes. At the end of 35 years, my simulation assumes you pay 15% on all the gains in the IRA, which would likely not be the case, but easier than forecasting through retirement and demonstrates what I'm trying to show. Here's plot showing the balance in the various accounts, the blue is the IRA account, orange the taxable account, and grey is the effective balance of the IRA, after paying taxes on the gains: And here's a plot of the advantage of the IRA (after paying taxes on the gains), vs the taxable account: Whether that's worth it to you or anyone depends on some the assumptions in the simulation, especially effective tax rates, and growth rates, as well as any personal issues. Some people may be less likely to raid an IRA account, for example, than a normal account. Conversely, if you have a project coming up, you may need something a bit more liquid than an IRA.\"","qid":11054,"docid":"532657","rank":42,"score":114014},{"content":"Title: Content: I don't understand the logic in the other answer, and I think it doesn't make sense, so here is my take: You pay taxes on income, not on sales price. So if you put X $ of your own money in the account and it becomes X + Y $ in the future, at the moment of liquidation, you will own taxes on the Y $. Never on the X $, as it was your own (already taxed) money to begin with. The difference between long-term and short-term gains just influences the tax rate on Y. If you donate the gain alone (the Y $) to charity, you can deduct Y from your tax base. So adding Y to your tax base and then deducting Y again obviously leaves your tax base at the old value, so you pay no extra taxes. Which seems logical, as you didn't make any money in the process. Aside from extreme cases where the deductible gain is too large a percentage from your income or negative, I don't see why this would ever be different. So you can take your original 100 $ back out and donate all gains, and be fine. Note that potential losses are seen different, as the IRA regulations are not symmetric.","qid":11054,"docid":"561377","rank":43,"score":113544},{"content":"Title: Content: It would be fairer to the average person if we paid our normal tax rate on the amount we contributed to the IRA and paid at the capital gains rate for the difference. The same as people that invest outside of the IRA. Most IRAs aren't that large and most people are going to have a rough time living on the reduced social security. It seems like we are taxing the average Joe at a higher rate than the rich.","qid":11054,"docid":"112231","rank":44,"score":113455},{"content":"Title: Content: The benefit is that your earnings in the 401k are not subject to income tax until you make withdrawals. This allows you to grow your money faster than if you made equivalent investments in a taxable account and had to pay taxes on dividends and capital gains along the way. Also, the theory is that you will be in a lower tax bracket in retirement and thus you will pay lower taxes overall. If this is not true (especially if you will be in a higher tax bracket in retirement), then there may not be any advantage for you to contribute to a 401k. One advantage over the Traditional IRA is the higher contribution limit. Some 401k plans also allow you to take loans from the plan, I don't think this is possible with a Traditional IRA. An alternative to both the 401k and Traditional IRA is the Roth version of either plan. With a Roth, you pay taxes up front, but your withdrawals during retirement are tax free.","qid":11054,"docid":"406239","rank":45,"score":113336},{"content":"Title: Content: The dividend goes into the IRA (either reinvested automatically or remains as cash until you invest it, per your choice). You're not taxed on this dividend (IRA is a taxed-deferred account - you're taxed on the distributions, but not on the capital gains within the account).","qid":11054,"docid":"33208","rank":46,"score":113139},{"content":"Title: Content: Excise tax on the excess contribution is 6% a year on the amount of the contribution. In addition, gains will be taxable to you. By adding 20K over the limit, you added $1200 to your tax bill. Withdraw it ASAP. Whatever investment you have in your IRA - you can probably buy it (or a comparable) outside of the IRA.","qid":11054,"docid":"46621","rank":47,"score":113130},{"content":"Title: Content: \"Many individual states, counties, and cities have their own income taxes, payroll taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, etc., you will need to consult your state and local government websites for information about additional taxes that apply based on your locale. Wages, Salaries, Tips, Cash bonuses and other taxable employee pay, Strike benefits, Long-term disability, Earnings from self employment Earned income is subject to payroll taxes such as: Earned income is also subject to income taxes which are progressively higher depending on the amount earned minus tax credits, exemptions, and/or deductions depending on how you file. There are 7 tax rates that get progressively larger as your income rises but only applies to the income in each bracket. 10% for the first 18,650 (2017) through 39.6% for any income above 470,700. The full list of rates is in the above linked article about payroll taxes. Earned income is required for contributions to an IRA. You cannot contribute more to an IRA than you have earned in a given year. Interest, Ordinary Dividends, Short-term Capital Gains, Retirement income (pensions, distributions from tax deferred accounts, social security), Unemployment benefits, Worker's Compensation, Alimony/Child support, Income earned while in prison, Non-taxable military pay, most rental income, and S-Corp passthrough income Ordinary income is taxed the same as earned income with the exception that social security taxes do not apply. This is the \"\"pure taxable income\"\" referred to in the other linked question. Dividends paid by US Corporations and qualified foreign corporations to stock-holders (that are held for a certain period of time before the dividend is paid) are taxed at the Long-term Capital Gains rate explained below. Ordinary dividends like the interest earned in your bank account are included with ordinary income. Stocks, Bonds, Real estate, Carried interest -- Held for more than a year Income from assets that increase in value while being held for over a year. Long term capital gains justified by the idea that they encourage people to hold stock and make long term investments rather than buying and then quickly reselling for a short-term profit. The lower tax rates also reflect the fact that many of these assets are already taxed as they are appreciating in value. Real-estate is usually taxed through local property taxes. Equity in US corporations realized by rising stock prices and dividends that are returned to stock holders reflect earnings from a corporation that are already taxed at the 35% Corporate tax rate. Taxing Capital gains as ordinary income would be a second tax on those same profits. Another problem with Long-term capital gains tax is that a big portion of the gains for assets held for multiple decades are not real gains. Inflation increases the price of assets held for longer periods, but you are still taxed on the full gain even if it would be a loss when inflation is calculated. Capital gains are also taxed differently depending on your income level. If you are in the 10% or 15% brackets then Long-term capital gains are assessed at 0%. If you are in the 25%, 28%, 33%, or 35% brackets, they are assessed at 15%. Only those in the 39.6% bracket pay 20%. Capital assets sold at a profit held for less than a year Income from buying and selling any assets such as real-estate, stock, bonds, etc., that you hold for less than a year before selling. After adding up all gains and losses during the year, the net gain is taxed as ordinary income. Collectibles held for more than a year are not considered capital assets and are still taxed at ordinary income rates.\"","qid":11054,"docid":"314342","rank":48,"score":113124},{"content":"Title: Content: First of all depending on the type of IRA you may not have to pay taxes on withdrawals in the US at all. If you are withdrawing your principle from a Roth IRA then you don't owe taxes. Only when you withdraw the gains do you pay taxes on it. You have two options for withdrawals: Lump Sum Withdrawal: If you take a lump sum withdrawal you will owe taxes to the US (30% for non-resident aliens of the US), and according to DTAA; Article 23, you will file your taxes with India declaring your IRA or 401(k) withdrawal proceeds and claim credit on the taxes you paid to the US. Monthly Pension Withdrawal: You can also receive monthly pension payments and you will only be taxed in the country in which you are a resident of. This is according to DTAA, Article 20. You would then have to submit necessary documentation to your payer in the US so that they do not withhold any taxes in the US. Just as a side note it might be just better to keep the money where it is and let it grow or roll it over to a Roth IRA if you are currently in a lower tax bracket for maximum savings of your principle. Here is a link with more detailed information of what I provided you: http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2012-01-25/news/30663129_1_taxable-income-nri-401k-plan","qid":11054,"docid":"197576","rank":49,"score":112914},{"content":"Title: Content: \"Investopedia probably should change the wording to \"\"tax free\"\" since all of the gains in a Roth IRA can be withdrawn without any additional taxes at retirement time. Tax deferred should only refer to the gains in a traditional IRA. \"\"Tax advantaged\"\" might be a reasonable term to use in both cases.\"","qid":11054,"docid":"112182","rank":50,"score":112888},{"content":"Title: Content: \"IRAs have huge tax-advantages. You'll pay taxes when you liquidate gold and silver. While volatile, \"\"the stock market has never produced a loss during any rolling 15-year period (1926-2009)\"\" [PDF]. This is perhaps the most convincing article for retirement accounts over at I Will Teach You To Be Rich. An IRA is just a container for your money and you may invest the money however you like (cash, stocks, funds, etc). A typical investment is the purchase of stocks, bonds, and/or funds containing either or both. Stocks may pay dividends and bonds pay yields. Transactions of these things trigger capital gains (or losses). This happens if you sell or if the fund manager sells pieces of the fund to buy something in its place (i.e. transactions happen without your decision and high turnover can result in huge capital gains). In a taxable account you will pay taxes on dividends and capital gains. In an IRA you don't ever pay taxes on dividends and capital gains. Over the life of the IRA (30+ years) this can be a huge ton of savings. A traditional IRA is funded with pre-tax money and you only pay tax on the withdrawal. Therefore you get more money upfront to invest and more money compounds into greater amounts faster. A Roth IRA you fund with after-tax dollars, but your withdrawals are tax free. Traditional versus Roth comparison calculator. Here are a bunch more IRA and 401k calculators. Take a look at the IRA tax savings for various amounts compared to the same money in a taxable account. Compounding over time will make you rich and there's your reason for starting young. Increases in the value of gold and silver will never touch compounded gains. So tax savings are a huge reason to stash your money in an IRA. You trade liquidity (having to wait until age 59.5) for a heck of a lot more money. Though isn't it nice to be assured that you will have money when you retire? If you aren't going to earn it then, you'll have to earn it now. If you are going to earn it now, you may as well put it in a place that earns you even more. A traditional IRA has penalties for withdrawing before retirement age. With a Roth you can withdraw the principal at anytime without penalty as long as the account has been open 5 years. A traditional IRA requires you take out a certain amount once you reach retirement. A Roth doesn't, which means you can leave money in the account to grow even more. A Roth can be passed on to a spouse after death, and after the spouse's death onto another beneficiary. more on IRA Required Minimum Distributions.\"","qid":11054,"docid":"587727","rank":51,"score":112838},{"content":"Title: Content: You are missing something very significant. The money in a traditional IRA (specifically, a deductible traditional IRA; there is not really any reason to keep a nondeductible traditional IRA anymore) is pre-tax. That means when you pay tax on it when you take it out, you are paying tax on it for the first time. If you take ordinary money to invest it in stocks, and then pay capital gains tax on it when you take it out, that is post-tax money to begin with -- meaning that you have already paid (income) tax on it once. Then you have to pay tax again on the time-value growth of that money (i.e. that growth is earned from money that is already taxed). That means you are effectively paying tax twice on part of that money. If that doesn't make sense to you, and you think that interest, capital gains, etc. is the first time you're paying tax on the money because it's growth, then you have a very simplistic view of money. There's something called time value of money, which means that a certain amount of money is equivalent to a greater amount of money in the future. If you invest $100 now and end up with $150 in the future, that $150 in the future is effectively the same money as the $100 now. Let's consider a few examples. Let's say you have $1000 of pre-tax income you want to invest and withdraw a certain period of time later in retirement. Let's say you have an investment that grows 100% over this period of time. And let's say that your tax rate now and in the future is 25% (and for simplicity, assume that all income is taxed at that rate instead of the tax bracket system). And capital gains tax is 15%. You see a few things: Traditional IRA and Roth IRA are equivalent if the tax rates are the same. This is because, in both cases, you pay tax one time on the money (the only difference between paying tax now and later is the tax rate). It doesn't matter that you're paying tax only on the principal for the Roth and on the principal plus earnings for Traditional, because the principal now is equivalent to the principal plus earnings in the future. And you also see that investing money outside fares worse than both of them. That is because you are paying tax on the money once plus some more. When you compare it against the Roth IRA, the disadvantage is obvious -- in both cases you pay income tax on the principal, but for Roth IRA you pay nothing on the earnings, whereas for the outside stock, you pay some tax on the earnings. What may be less obvious is it is equally disadvantageous compared to a Traditional IRA; Traditional and Roth IRA are equivalent in this comparison. 401(k)s and IRAs have a fundamental tax benefit compared to normal money investment, because they allow money to be taxed only one time. No matter how low the capital gains tax rate it, it is still worse because it is a tax on time-value growth from money that is already taxed.","qid":11054,"docid":"159462","rank":52,"score":112584},{"content":"Title: Content: Start with the tax delta. For example, you'd hope to deposit at 25% bracket, but take withdrawals while at a marginal 15%. In this case, you're 10% to the good with the 401(k) and need to look at the fee eating away at this over time. Pay an extra 1%/yr and after 10 years, you're losing money. That's too simple, however. Along the way, you need to consider that the capital gain rate is lower than ordinary income. It's easier to take those gains as you wish to time them, where the 401(k) offers no flexibly for this. Even with low fees, this account is going to turn long term gains to ordinary income. (Note - in 2013, a couple with up to $72,500 in taxable income has a 0% long term cap gain rate. So, if they wish, they can sell and buy back a fund, claim the gain, and raise their cost basis. A tiny effort for the avoidance of tax on the gains each year.) First paragraph, don't forget, there are the standard deduction, exemption, and 10% bracket. While you are in the range to save enough to create he income to fill the low end at withdrawal, there's more value than just the 10% I discussed earlier. Last, there's a phenomenon I call The Phantom Tax Rate Zone when one's retirement withdrawals trigger the taxation of Social Security. It further complicates the math and analysis you seek.","qid":11054,"docid":"261199","rank":53,"score":112104},{"content":"Title: Content: As far as I know, there is no direct equivalent. An IRA is subject to many rules. Not only are there early withdrawal penalties, but the ability to deduct contributions to an IRA phases out with one's income level. Qualified withdrawals from an IRA won't have penalties, but they will be taxed as income. Contributions to a Roth IRA can be made post-tax and the resulting gains will be tax free, but they cannot be withdrawn early. Another tax-deductable investment is a 529 plan. These can be withdrawn from at any time, but there is a penalty if the money is not used for educational purposes. A 401K or similar employer-sponsored fund is made with pre-tax dollars unless it is designated as a Roth 401K. These plans also require money to be withdrawn specifically for retirement, with a 10% penalty for early withdrawal. Qualifying withdrawals from a regular retirement plan are taxed as income, those from a Roth plan are not (as with an IRA). Money can be made harder to get at by investing in all of the types of funds you can invest in using an IRA through the same brokers under a different type of account, but the contribution will be made with post-tax, non-deductable dollars and the gains will be taxed.","qid":11054,"docid":"545184","rank":54,"score":111707},{"content":"Title: Content: First of all an IRA is a type of account that says nothing about how your money is invested. It seems like you are trying to compare an IRA with a market ETF (like Vanguard Total Market Admiral VTSAX), but the reality is that you can have both. Depending on your IRA some of the investment options may be limited, but you will probably be able to find some version of a passive fund following an index you are interested in. The IRA account is tax advantaged, but you may invest the money in your IRA in an ETF. As for how often a non-IRA account is taxed and how much, that depends on how often you sell. If you park your money in an ETF and do not sell, the IRS will not claim any taxes from it. The taxable event happens when you sell. But if you gain $1000 in a year and a day and you decide to sell, you will owe $150 (assuming 15% capital gains tax), bringing your earnings down to $850. If your investments go poorly and you lose money, there will be no capital gains tax to pay.","qid":11054,"docid":"240651","rank":55,"score":111693},{"content":"Title: Content: \"If the investments are in a non-retirement, taxable account, there's not much you can do to avoid short-term capital gains if you sell now. Ways to limit short-term capital gains taxes: Donate -- you can donate some of the stock to charity (before selling it). Transfer -- you can give some of the stock to, say, a family member in a lower tax bracket. But there are tons of rules, gift limits, and won't work for little kids or full time students. They would still pay taxes at their own rate. Protect your gains by buying puts. Wait it out until the long-term capital gains rate kicks in. This allows you to lock in your gains now (but you won't benefit from potential future appreciation.) Buying puts also costs $, so do the ROI calculation. (You could also sell a call and buy a put at the same time and lock in your gains for certain, but the IRS often looks at that as locking in the short-term capital gain, so be careful and talk to a tax professional if you are considering that method.) Die. There's a \"\"step-up\"\" basis on capital gains for estates. source: http://www.forbes.com/2010/07/30/avoid-capital-gains-tax-anschutz-personal-finance-baldwin-tax-strategy.html\"","qid":11054,"docid":"431443","rank":56,"score":111589},{"content":"Title: Content: \"Long term capital gains are taxed at 15% this year, so the most you stand to save is $150. I wouldn't sell anything at a loss just to offset that, unless you planned on selling anyways. A few reasons: The Long term capital gains rate will go up to 20% next year, so your losses will be \"\"worth more\"\" next year than this year. Short term capital gains rates will go up next year as well, so again, better off saving your losses for next year. You must use capital losses to offset capital gains if you have them, but if you don't have any capital gains, you can use capital losses to offset ordinary income (up to a limit - $3,000 a year IIRC). So, if you just bite the bullet and pay the 15% on your gains this year, you could use your losses to offset your (likely higher rate) ordinary income next year. FYI, complete chart for capital gains tax rates is here. I also posted another answer about capital gains to this question a while back that might be useful.\"","qid":11054,"docid":"403608","rank":57,"score":111293},{"content":"Title: Content: This was the day traders dilemma. You can, on paper, make money doing such trades. But because you do not hold the security for at least a year, the earnings are subject to short term capital gains tax unless these trades are done inside a sheltered account like a traditional IRA. There are other considerations as well: wash sale rules and number of days to settle. In short, the glory days of rags to riches by day trading are long gone, if they were ever here in the first place. Edit: the site will not allow me to add a comment, so I am putting my response here: Possibly, yes. One big 'gotcha' is that your broker reports the proceeds from your sales, but does not report your outflows from your buys. Then there is the risk you take by the broker refusing to sell the security until the transaction settles. Not to mention wash sale rules. You are trying to win at the 'buy low, sell high' game. But you have a 25% chance, at best, of winning at that game. Can you pick the low? Maybe, but you have a 50% chance of being right. Then you have to pick the high. And again you have a 50% chance of doing that. 50% times 50% is 25%. Warren Buffet did not get rich that way. Buffet buys and holds. Don't be a speculator, be a 'buy and hold' investor. Buy securities, inside a sheltered account like a traditional IRA, that pay dividends then reinvest those dividends into the security you bought. Scottrade has a Flexible Reinvestment Program that lets you do this with no commission fees.","qid":11054,"docid":"395783","rank":58,"score":110952},{"content":"Title: Content: You don't have to wait. If you sell your shares now, your gain can be considered a capital gain for income tax purposes. Unlike in the United States, Canada does not distinguish between short-term vs. long-term gains where you'd pay different rates on each type of gain. Whether you buy and sell a stock within minutes or buy and sell over years, any gain you make on a stock can generally be considered a capital gain. I said generally because there is an exception: If you are deemed by CRA to be trading professionally -- that is, if you make a living buying and selling stocks frequently -- then you could be considered doing day trading as a business and have your gains instead taxed as regular income (but you'd also be able to claim additional deductions.) Anyway, as long as your primary source of income isn't from trading, this isn't likely to be a problem. Here are some good articles on these subjects:","qid":11054,"docid":"328073","rank":59,"score":110704},{"content":"Title: Content: E.g. I buy 1 stock unit for $100.00 and sell it later for $150.00 => income taxes arise. Correct. You pay tax on your gains, i.e.: the different between net proceeds and gross costs (proceeds sans fees, acquisition costs including fees). I buy 1 stock unit for $150.00 and sell it later for $100.00 => no income taxes here. Not correct. The loss is deductible from other capital gains, and if no other capital gains - from your income (up to $3000 a year, until exhausted). Also, there are two different tax rate sets for capital gains: short term (holding up to 1 year) and long term (more than that). Short term capital gains tax matches ordinary income brackets, whereas long term capital gains tax brackets are much lower.","qid":11054,"docid":"553253","rank":60,"score":110433},{"content":"Title: Content: The advantage of an IRA (or 401k) is you get taxed effectively one time on your income, whereas you get taxed effectively multiple times on some of the money in a taxable account. You have to consider it from the perspective of time value of money -- the concept that an amount of money now is the same value as a greater amount of money in the future. And in fact, if you put your money in an investment, the principal at the start can be considered the same value as the principal + earnings at the end. In both Traditional and Roth IRA, you pay taxes on the entire value of money once (remember that the principal when depositing is the same value as the principal + earnings when withdrawing). The only difference is when (year deposited or year withdrawn), so the main difference between the two is the tax rate when depositing vs. tax rate when withdrawing. I'll give you an example to demonstrate. We will assume you invest $1000 of pre-tax wages, it grows at 5% per year, there's a 25% flat tax now and in the future, you withdraw it after 20 years, and withdrawals are not subject to any penalty.","qid":11054,"docid":"419160","rank":61,"score":110318},{"content":"Title: Content: Generally it is advisable to mention what country you're asking about, as tax laws differ. To the best of my knowledge, however, this particular issue is handled consistently in every tax jurisdiction I'm familiar with. You invested X, it appreciated and is now worth X + Y. In your example, X = $10,000 and Y = $40,000. Total X + Y = $50,000. When you withdraw an amount, say A (in your example A = $10,000), it is considered a withdrawal of both the earnings and the original capital, in proportion to the total of your account. Taxable portion of the withdrawal is proportional to the earnings. Lets mark it T. In your example, T = $10,000 - $10,000 * $10,000/$50,000 = $8,000. I.e.: 80% of the withdrawal will be attributed to earnings and would be taxable (short term in your case, if you're in the US), and 20% to the original capital. This will keep the proportion of the remained the same - 20% of the remaining amount will be attributed to the original capital (accidentally, it will be $8,000), and the remaining 80% will be attributed to the earnings. The withdrawn amount attributed to the capital ($2,000), and the remaining amount attributed to the capital ($8,000) will equal exactly to the invested amount.","qid":11054,"docid":"144313","rank":62,"score":110079},{"content":"Title: Content: Your answer looks correct. It's the buyer of the option that's long, not the seller (you). If you're doing a lot of trading, you might get hit with wash-sale rules and you could be taxed at the short-term capital gains rate, which is higher than for long-term gains. But those aren't direct fees.","qid":11054,"docid":"528157","rank":63,"score":109783},{"content":"Title: Content: Consult a professional CA. For shares sold outside the Indian Stock Exchanges, these will be treated as normal Long Term Capital Gains if held more than one year. The rate would be 10% without Indexation and 20% with Indexation. If the stocks are held for less than 1 years, it will be short term gains and taxed according you to tax bracket.","qid":11054,"docid":"581632","rank":64,"score":109293},{"content":"Title: Content: You can take out the contributions to your Roth tax and penalty free. That's the good thing. Anything above the amount you contributed that you withdraw early will cost you ordinary income tax (which is higher than capital gains tax) plus a 10 percent penalty on that amount. So if you have $15,000 in the account and $5,000 is gains and you withdraw $11,000, then you owe tax and penalty on $1,000. The penalty is 10% and your taxes (high taxes!) are added to that. Pretty bad deal. If you kept it in a normal account and paid capital gains tax, you just pay 15% (or whatever) on your gains and you get to offset income tax with your losses via tax loss harvesting. So back to your question: your idea works even better than you suggested if you only withdraw up to the amount that you contributed (you pay no tax!). Take out any of the gains and you will be penalized more than you would if you just paid capital gains on them. Leave those in until you are old enough to take them out penalty and tax free. To me, contributing to a Roth, making a bunch of gains on it, and withdrawing only the contribution part whenever you want seems to make good sense.","qid":11054,"docid":"579644","rank":65,"score":109222},{"content":"Title: Content: You will not benefit at tax time like you did with your initial contributions, because you have already benefited and are simply repaying your withdrawn contributions. However, capital gains are not taxed inside of your RRSP, until you withdraw the money. Let's say you have $10,000 to repay and have all the money now. It makes sense to repay it immediately. Whatever interest or capital gains you make inside of the RRSP are not taxed. However, your $10,000 contribution this year will not offer you any deductions on your tax return. There are exactly two reasons I can see to not immediately repay the full amount, if able. First, you may need the money for an emergency fund, and there are significant implications for removing money from your RRSP in such a case. Second, if you believe you will be in a higher tax bracket when you retire, it may not make sense to put any money into an RRSP right now. Almost certainly, you want to repay the entire lump sum if able.","qid":11054,"docid":"304376","rank":66,"score":108746},{"content":"Title: Content: \"You pay tax on the entire amount, not just the capital gains. When cashing out such a plan you would pay the top marginal tax rate on the full amount plus another 10% in penalties. It is very likely that the additional income, of the balance withdrawal, will increase your top marginal rate. It is impossible to come up with a precise answer as we don't know the following: However, you can take a concept away from this that is important: You will be taxed and penalized on the entire 401K balance, not just the capital gain. In the \"\"best case\"\" scenario, that is you had little or no income in a given year. Under current tax law you would owe about 31% of your 401K balance in taxes. As this is such an inefficient use of money most authors recommend against it except in the case of extreme circumstances.\"","qid":11054,"docid":"21699","rank":67,"score":108048},{"content":"Title: Content: I think you're misunderstanding how tax brackets work. If you make $1 more and that bumps you into a higher bracket, only THAT particular dollar will be taxed at the higher tax bracket rate... Not your entire income. Short term capital gains are treated as income. Long term capital gains have a special tax rate currently.","qid":11054,"docid":"395686","rank":68,"score":108020},{"content":"Title: Content: I'm not sure where people keep getting this idea, but I see it come up a lot. Anyway, you pay capital gains taxes when you sell an investment that has appreciated. It makes no difference when/if you reinvest the money or what you invest it in. If you are afraid of the tax burden you can minimize it by: 1) Selling a stock that you have held longer than a year to get the lower long-term rate. 2) Sell a stock that hasn't appreciated that much and therefore doesn't have a lot of gains to tax. 3) Sell a stock that's below purchase price (i.e. at a loss) to offset any short term gains.","qid":11054,"docid":"448659","rank":69,"score":108004},{"content":"Title: Content: For the Roth the earnings: interest, dividends, capital gains distributions and capital gains are tax deferred. Which means that as long as the money stays inside of a Roth or is transferred/rolled over to another Roth there are no taxes due. In December many mutual funds distribute their gains. Let's say people invested in S&P500index fund receive a dividend of 1% of their account value. The investor in a non-retirement fund will be paying tax on that dividend in the Spring with their tax form. The Roth and IRA investors will not be paying tax on those dividends. The Roth investor never will, and the regular IRA investor will only pay taxes on it when they pull the money out.","qid":11054,"docid":"393693","rank":70,"score":107832},{"content":"Title: Content: If you made a contribution to a Traditional IRA for Year X (whether made during Year X or made in Year X+1 before the due date of your tax return for Year X), then you can withdraw the contribution and any gains on that contribution by the due date of your tax return. If the contribution was deductible, then of course you must not take a deduction for it in on your tax return for Year X (or any other year for that matter). As for the gains (if any) that were withdrawn, they are taxable income to you for Year X (not X+1, even if the withdrawal occurred in Year X+1). Publication 590a says You generally can make a tax-free withdrawal of contributions if you do it before the due date for filing your tax return for the year in which you made them. This means that, even if you are under age 59-1/2, the 10% additional tax may not apply. and later in the same Publication If you have an extension of time to file your return, you can withdraw them tax free by the extended due date. You can do this if, for each contribution you withdraw, both of the following conditions apply. - You did not take a deduction for the contribution. - You withdraw any interest or other income earned on the contribution. You can take into account any loss on the contribution while it was in the IRA when calculating the amount that must be withdrawn. If there was a loss, the net income earned on the contribution may be a negative amount. Later, the document says You must include in income any earnings on the contributions you withdraw. Include the earnings in income for the year in which you made the contributions, not the year in which you withdraw them. and The 10% additional tax on distributions made before you reach age 59-1/2 does not apply to these tax-free withdrawals of your contributions. However, the distribution of interest or other income must be reported on Form 5329 and, unless the distribution qualifies as an exception to the age 59-1/2 rule, it will be subject to this tax. Since you have a loss on the contributions that you are withdrawing, there is no interest or other income that needs to be reported.","qid":11054,"docid":"415815","rank":71,"score":107626},{"content":"Title: Content: (All for US.) Yes you (will) have a realized long-term capital gain, which is taxable. Long-term gains (including those distributed by a mutual fund or other RIC, and also 'qualified' dividends, both not relevant here) are taxed at lower rates than 'ordinary' income but are still bracketed almost (not quite) like ordinary income, not always 15%. Specifically if your ordinary taxable income (after deductions and exemptions, equivalent to line 43 minus LTCG/QD) 'ends' in the 25% to 33% brackets, your LTCG/QD income is taxed at 15% unless the total of ordinary+preferred reaches the top of those brackets, then any remainder at 20%. These brackets depend on your filing status and are adjusted yearly for inflation, for 2016 they are: * single 37,650 to 413,350 * married-joint or widow(er) 75,300 to 413,350 * head-of-household 50,400 to 441,000 (special) * married-separate 37,650 to 206,675 which I'd guess covers at least the middle three quintiles of the earning/taxpaying population. OTOH if your ordinary income ends below the 25% bracket, your LTCG/QD income that 'fits' in the lower bracket(s) is taxed at 0% (not at all) and only the portion that would be in the ordinary 25%-and-up brackets is taxed at 15%. IF your ordinary taxable income this year was below those brackets, or you expect next year it will be (possibly due to status/exemption/deduction changes as well as income change), then if all else is equal you are better off realizing the stock gain in the year(s) where some (or more) of it fits in the 0% bracket. If you're over about $400k a similar calculation applies, but you can afford more reliable advice than potential dogs on the Internet. (update) Near dupe found: see also How are long-term capital gains taxed if the gain pushes income into a new tax bracket? Also, a warning on estimated payments: in general you are required to pay most of your income tax liability during the year (not wait until April 15); if you underpay by more than 10% or $1000 (whichever is larger) you usually owe a penalty, computed on Form 2210 whose name(?) is frequently and roundly cursed. For most people, whose income is (mostly) from a job, this is handled by payroll withholding which normally comes out close enough to your liability. If you have other income, like investments (as here) or self-employment or pension/retirement/disability/etc, you are supposed to either make estimated payments each 'quarter' (the IRS' quarters are shifted slightly from everyone else's), or increase your withholding, or a combination. For a large income 'lump' in December that wasn't planned in advance, it won't be practical to adjust withholding. However, if this is the only year increased, there is a safe harbor: if your withholding this year (2016) is enough to pay last year's tax (2015) -- which for most people it is, unless you got a pay cut this year, or a (filed) status change like marrying or having a child -- you get until next April 15 (or next business day -- in 2017 it is actually April 18) to pay the additional amount of this year's tax (2016) without underpayment penalty. However, if you split the gain so that both 2016 and 2017 have income and (thus) taxes higher than normal for you, you will need to make estimated payment(s) and/or increase withholding for 2017. PS: congratulations on your gain -- and on the patience to hold anything for 10 years!","qid":11054,"docid":"453639","rank":72,"score":107277},{"content":"Title: Content: \"In a Roth IRA scenario, this $5,000 would be reduced to $3,750 if we assume a (nice and round) 25% tax rate. For the Traditional IRA, the full $5,000 would be invested. No, that's not how it works. Taxes aren't removed from your Roth account. You'll have $5,000 invested either way. The difference is that you'll have a tax deduction if you invest in a traditional IRA, but not a Roth. So you'll \"\"save\"\" $1,250 in taxes up front if you invest in a traditional IRA versus a Roth. The flip side is when you withdraw the money. Since you've already paid tax on the Roth investment, and it grows tax free, you'll pay no tax when you withdraw it. But you'll pay tax on the investment and the gains when you withdraw from a traditional IRA. Using your numbers, you'd pay tax on $2.2MM from the traditional IRA, but NO TAX on $2.2MM from the Roth. At that point, you've saved over $500,000 in taxes. Now if you invested the tax savings from the traditional IRA and it earned the same amount, then yes, you'd end up in the same place in the end, provided you have the same marginal tax rate. But I suspect that most don't invest that savings, and if you withdraw significant amount, you'll likely move into higher tax brackets. In your example, suppose you only had $3,750 of \"\"discretionary\"\" income that you could put toward retirement. You could put $5,000 in a traditional IRA (since you'll get a $1,250 tax deduction), or $3,750 in a Roth. Then your math works out the same. If you invest the same amount in either, though, the math on the Roth is a no-brainer.\"","qid":11054,"docid":"175968","rank":73,"score":107134},{"content":"Title: Content: may result in more taxes when Fund shares are held in a taxable account. When the fund manager decides to sell shares of a stock, and those shares have grown in value, that growth is a capital gain. If that fund is part of a taxable account then the investors in the fund will have to declare that income/gain on their tax forms. That could require the investors to have to pay taxes on those gains. Of course if the investors are holding the fund shares in a IRA or 401K then there are no taxes due in the near term. A higher portfolio turnover rate may indicate higher transaction costs... ...These costs, which are not reflected in annual fund operating expenses or in the previous expense examples, reduce the Fund’s performance. The annual fund operating expenses are the expenses that they can assume will happen every year. They include salaries, the cost of producing statements, paperwork required by the government, research... It doesn't include transaction costs. Which they can't estimate what they will be in advance. If the fund invests in a particular segment of the market, and there is a disruption in that segment, they may need to make many new investments. If on the other hand last year they made great choices the turnover may be small this year. During the most recent fiscal year, the Fund’s portfolio turnover rate was 3% of the average value of its portfolio. That may be your best indicator.","qid":11054,"docid":"179986","rank":74,"score":107084},{"content":"Title: Content: Some more considerations: (1) Tax rates (both ordinary and capital gains) are likely to be different when you retire. (2) Your marginal tax rate may be different when you retire depending on how much income you have at the time. In retirement your income may be structured completely differently than when you are working. For example, you may also have a Roth IRA/401K to pull from.","qid":11054,"docid":"565410","rank":75,"score":106935},{"content":"Title: Content: My understanding is that losses are first deductible against any capital gains you may have, then against your regular income (up to $3,000 per year). If you still have a loss after that, the loss may be carried over to offset capital gains or income in subsequent years As you suspect, a short term capital loss is deductible against short term capital gains and long term losses are deductible against long term gains. So taking the loss now MIGHT be beneficial from a tax perspective. I say MIGHT because there are a couple scenarios in which it either may not matter, or actually be detrimental: If you don't have any short term capital gains this year, but you have long term capital gains, you would have to use the short term loss to offset the long term gain before you could apply it to ordinary income. So in that situation you lose out on the difference between the long term tax rate (15%) and your ordinary income rate (potentially higher). If you keep the stock, and sell it for a long term loss next year, but you only have short-term capital gains or no capital gains next year, then you may use the long term loss to offset your short-term gains (first) or your ordinary income. Clear as mud? The whole mess is outlined in IRS Publication 550 Finally, if you still think the stock is good, but just want to take the tax loss, you can sell the stock now (to realize the loss) then re-buy it in 30 days. This is called Tax Loss Harvesting. The 30 day delay is an IRS requirement for being allowed to realize the loss.","qid":11054,"docid":"318321","rank":76,"score":106834},{"content":"Title: Content: What asset allocation is right for you (at the most basic the percentage if stocks vs bonds; at the advanced level, percentage of growth vs value, international vs domestic etc) is a function of your age, retirement goals, income stability and employment prospects until retirement. Roth IRA is orthogonal to this. Now, once you have your allocation worked out there are tactical tax advantage decisions available: interest income, REIT and MLP dividends are taxed at income and not capital gains rate, so the tactical decision is to put these investments in tax advantage accounts like Roth and 401ks. Conversely, should you decide to buy and hold growth stocks there are tactical advantages to keeping them in a taxable account: you get tax deferment until the year you choose to sell (barring a takeover), you get the lower lt cap gains rate, and you can employ tax loss harvesting.","qid":11054,"docid":"271949","rank":77,"score":106775},{"content":"Title: Content: When you are investing for 40 years, you will have taxable events before retirement. You'll need to pay tax along the way, which will eat away at your gains. For example, in your taxable account, any dividends and capital gain distributions will need taxes paid each year. In your 401(k) or IRA, these are not taxable until retirement. In addition, what happens if you want to change investments before retirement? In your taxable account, taxes on the capital gains will be due at that time, but in a retirement account, you can change investments anytime you like without having to pay taxes early. Finally, when you do pull money out of your 401(k) at retirement, it will be taxed at whatever your tax rate is at retirement. After you retire, your income will probably be lower than when you were working, so your tax rate might be less.","qid":11054,"docid":"192738","rank":78,"score":106604},{"content":"Title: Content: \"Do I have to pay the stock investment income tax if I bought some stocks in 2016, it made some profits but I didn't sell them at the end of 2016? You pay capital gains taxes only when you sell the stocks. When you sell the stock within a year you will pay the short term capital gains rate which is the same rate as your ordinary income. If the stock pays dividends, however, you will have to pay taxes in the year that the dividend was paid out to you. I bought some stocks in 2011, sold them in 2012 and made some gains. Which year of do I pay the tax for the gains I made? You would pay in 2012, likely at the short term gain rate. I bought some stocks, sold them and made some gains, then use the money plus the gains to buy some other stocks before the end of the same year. Do I have to pay the tax for the gains I made in that year? Yes. There is a specific exception called the \"\"Wash Sale Rule\"\", but that would only apply if you lost money on the original sale and bought a substantially similar or same stock within 30 days. Do I get taxed more for the money I made from buying and selling stocks, even if the gains is only in hundreds? More than what? You pay taxes based on the profit you make from the investment. If you held it less than a year it is the same tax rate as your regular income. If you held it longer you pay a lower tax rate which is usually lower than your regular tax rate.\"","qid":11054,"docid":"537916","rank":79,"score":106553},{"content":"Title: Content: \"Assuming your investments aren't in any kind of tax-advantaged account (like an IRA), they are generally not tracked and you indeed may pay more taxes. What will likely change, however, is your cost basis. You only pay tax on the difference between the value of the investment when you sell it and its value when you bought it. There is no rule that says once you sell an investment and pay taxes on the gain, you will never again pay any taxes on any other investments you then buy with that money. If you own some investment, and it increases in value, and then you sell it, you had a capital gain and owe taxes (depending on your tax bracket, etc.). If you use the money to buy some other investment, and that increases in value, and then you sell it, you had another separate capital gain and again owe taxes. However, every time you sell, you only are subject to capital gains taxes on the gain, not the entire sale price. The value of the investment at the time you bought it is the cost basis. When you sell, you take the sale price and subtract the cost basis to find your gain, So suppose you bought $1000 worth of some ETF many years ago. It went up to $2000 and you sold it. You have $2000 in cash, but $1000 of that is your original money back, so your capital gain is $1000 and that is the amount on which you owe (or may owe) taxes. Suppose you pay 15% tax on this, as you suggest; that is $150, leaving you with $1850. Now suppose you buy another ETF with that. Your cost basis is now $1850. Suppose the investment now increases in value again to $2000. This time when you sell, you still have $2000 in cash, but this is now only $150 more than you paid, so you only owe capital gains taxes on that $150. (A 15% tax on that would be $22.50.) In that example you had one capital gain of $1000 and a second of $150 and paid a total of $172.50 in taxes (150 + 22.50). Suppose instead that you had held the original investment and it had increased in value to $2150 and you had then sold it. You would have a single capital gain of $1150 (2150 minus the original 1000 you paid). 15% of this would be the same $172.50 you paid under the other arrangement. So in essence you pay the same taxes either way. (This example is simplified, of course; in reality, the rate you pay depends on your overall income, so you could pay more if you sell a lot in a single year, since it could push you into a higher tax bracket.) So none of the money is \"\"tax exempt\"\", but each time you sell, you \"\"reset the counter\"\" by paying tax on your gain, and each time you buy, you start a new counter on the basis of whatever you pay for the investment. Assuming you're dealing with ordinary investment instruments like stocks and ETFs, this basis information is typically tracked by the bank or brokerage where you buy and sell them. Technically speaking it is your responsibility to track and report this when you sell an investment, and if you do complicated things like transfer securities from one brokerage to another you may have to do that yourself. In general, however, your bank/brokerage will keep track of cost basis information for you.\"","qid":11054,"docid":"190687","rank":80,"score":106467},{"content":"Title: Content: To explain the capital gains part of the question, non qualified stock options (NSOs) are always treated like earned income and have payroll taxes withheld. It's advantageous for the company to issue these because they can deduct them as expenses just as they do your salary. Articles talking about capital gains would probably be referring to incentive stock options (ISOs) or possibly even restricted stock units (RSUs). If you were granted the option to buy the stock and/or hold it for a period of time, then the stock options could be treated as capital gains, short-term gains if you held them for less than a year, and long-term gains if you held them for more than a year. This payment for your NSOs is exactly like a cash bonus. The withholding follows the same guidelines. You may wish to look at what this will mean for your annual salary and adjust your W-4 withholding up or down as appropriate depending on whether the 25% federal withholding rate is more or less than what you think your final marginal rate will be with this bonus included in your annual salary.","qid":11054,"docid":"203334","rank":81,"score":106396},{"content":"Title: Content: Withdrawals from a traditional 401(k) plan are always treated as cash income and the taxable portion is taxed at ordinary income tax rates, even if the money was held in stocks within the 401(k) plan and the amount withdrawn is equal to whatever capital gains you made by selling the stock within the 401(k) plan. If your plan permits you to take the distribution as stock shares (transferred to your taxable brokerage account), then, for tax purposes, it is treated as if you took a distribution of cash equal to the market price of the shares as of the day of the distribution and promptly bought the same number of shares in your brokerage account. And yes, if the 401(k) plan assets in your ex-employer's plan consists solely of pretax contributions and the earnings thereon, then the entire distribution is ordinary taxable income regardless of whether you sold the stock within the 401(k) plan or took a distribution of stock from the plan and promptly (or after a few days) sold it. The capital gains or losses (if any) from such a sale are, of course, outside the 401(k) plan and taxable accordingly. Finally, the 10% penalty for premature withdrawal from a traditional 401(k) will also apply if you are not 59.5 years of age or older (or maybe 55 since you are separated from service), and it will be computed on the entire distribution.","qid":11054,"docid":"30912","rank":82,"score":106306},{"content":"Title: Content: \"If you sell a stock, with no distributions, then your gain is taxable under §1001. But not all realized gains will be recognized as taxable. And some gains which are arguably not realized, will be recognized as taxable. The stock is usually a capital asset for investors, who will generate capital gains under §1(h), but dealers, traders, and hedgers will get different treatment. If you are an investor, and you held the stock for a year or more, then you can get the beneficial capital gain rates (e.g. 20% instead of 39.6%). If the asset was held short-term, less than a year, then your tax will generally be calculated at the higher ordinary income rates. There is also the problem of the net investment tax under §1411. I am eliding many exceptions, qualifications, and permutations of these rules. If you receive a §316 dividend from a stock, then that is §61 income. Qualified dividends are ordinary income but will generally be taxed at capital gains rates under §1(h)(11). Distributions in redemption of your stock are usually treated as sales of stock. Non-dividend distributions (that are not redemptions) will reduce your basis in the stock to zero (no tax due) and past zero will be treated as gain from a sale. If you exchange stock in a tax-free reorganization (i.e. contribute your company stock in exchange for an acquirer's stock), you have what would normally be considered a realized gain on the exchange, but the differential will not be recognized, if done correctly. If you hold your shares and never sell them, but you engage in other dealings (short sales, options, collars, wash sales, etc.) that impact those shares, then you can sometimes be deemed to have recognized gain on shares that were never sold or exchanged. A more fundamental principle of income tax design is that not all realized gains will be recognized. IRC §1001(c) says that all realized gains are recognized, except as otherwise provided; that \"\"otherwise\"\" is substantial and far-ranging.\"","qid":11054,"docid":"42521","rank":83,"score":106170},{"content":"Title: Content: Yes, it should come out tax free. However you should have reported it to the IRS at the time (currently it is done on form 8606). If you haven't done it, the IRS may disagree with you on that and require taxes. If you have proper documentation of the contribution, then when you withdraw from your IRA - you use that same form 8606 to calculate the non-taxable portion. Note that you cannot just take $2K out of the 1099-R, the non-taxable portion will be prorated through all of your IRA withdrawals. Also, keep in mind that only the actual after tax portion will be tax-free, the gains will be taxable. I.e.: if you deposited $2K after tax (and nothing else), and they have now grown to $100K - you will only have 2% of your distribution tax free (2k/100K * distributed amount).","qid":11054,"docid":"443983","rank":84,"score":105808},{"content":"Title: Content: Assuming that what you want to do is to counter the capital gains tax on the short term and long term gains, and that doing so will avoid any underpayment penalties, it is relatively simple to do so. Figure out the tax on the capital gains by determining your tax bracket. Lets say 25% short term and 15% long term or (0.25x7K) + (0.15*8K) or $2950. If you donate to charities an additional amount of items or money to cover that tax. So taking the numbers in step 1 divide by the marginal tax rate $2950/0.25 or $11,800. Money is easier to donate because you will be contributing enough value that the IRS may ask for proof of the value, and that proof needs to be gathered either before the donation is given or at the time the donation is given. Also don't wait until December 31st, if you miss the deadline and the donation is counted for next year, the purpose will have been missed. Now if the goal is just to avoid the underpayment penalty, you have two other options. The safe harbor is the easiest of the two to determine. Look at last years tax form. Look for the amount of tax you paid last year. Not what was withheld, but what you actually paid. If all your withholding this year, is greater than 110% of the total tax from last year, you have reached the safe harbor. There are a few more twists depending on AGI Special rules for farmers, fishermen, and higher income taxpayers. If at least two-thirds of your gross income for tax year 2014 or 2015 is from farming or fishing, substitute 662/3% for 90% in (2a) under the General rule, earlier. If your AGI for 2014 was more than $150,000 ($75,000 if your filing status for 2015 is married filing a separate return), substitute 110% for 100% in (2b) under General rule , earlier. See Figure 4-A and Publication 505, chapter 2 for more information.","qid":11054,"docid":"176105","rank":85,"score":105776},{"content":"Title: Content: Even if you're paying a lot of taxes now, you're talking marginal dollars when you look at current contribution, and average tax rate when making withdrawals. IE, if you currently pay 28% on your last dollar (and assuming your contribution is entirely in your marginal rate), then you're paying 28% on all of the Roth contributions, but probably paying a lower average tax rate, due to the lower tax rates on the first many dollars. Look at the overall average tax rate of your expected retirement income - if you're expecting to pull out $100k a year, you're probably paying less than 20% in average taxes, because the first third or so is taxed at a very low rate (0 or 15%), assuming things don't change in our tax code. Comparing that to your 28% and you have a net gain of 8% by paying the taxes later - nothing to shake a stick at. At minimum, have enough in your traditional IRA to max out the zero tax bucket (at least $12k). Realistically you probably should have enough to max out the 15% bucket, as you presumably are well above that bucket now. Any Roth savings will be more than eliminated by this difference: 28% tax now, 15% tax later? Yes please. A diversified combination is usually best for those expecting to have a lot of retirement savings - enough in Traditional to get at least $35k or so a year out, say, and then enough in Roth to keep your comfortable lifestyle after that. The one caveat here is in the case when you max out your contribution levels, you may gain by using money that is not in your IRA to pay the taxes on the conversion. Talk to your tax professional or accountant to verify this will be helpful in your particular instance.","qid":11054,"docid":"526520","rank":86,"score":105488},{"content":"Title: Content: Outside of a tax sheltered IRA or 401(k) type of account your transactions may trigger tax liability. However, transactions are not taxed immediately at the time of the transaction; and up to a certain limits capital gains can be offset by capital losses which can mitigate your liability at tax time. Also, remember that dividend receipts are taxable income as well. As others have said, this has nothing to do with whether or not money has been moved out of the account.","qid":11054,"docid":"163836","rank":87,"score":105317},{"content":"Title: Content: \"You have several questions in your post so I'll deal with them individually: Is taking small sums from your IRA really that detrimental? I mean as far as tax is concerned? Percentage wise, you pay the tax on the amount plus a 10% penalty, plus the opportunity cost of the gains that the money would have gotten. At 6% growth annually, in 5 years that's more than a 34% loss. There are much cheaper ways to get funds than tapping your IRA. Isn't the 10% \"\"penalty\"\" really to cover SS and the medicare tax that you did not pay before putting money into your retirement? No - you still pay SS and medicare on your gross income - 401(k) contributions just reduce how much you pay in income tax. The 10% penalty is to dissuade you from using retirement money before you retire. If I ... contributed that to my IRA before taxes (including SS and medicare tax) that money would gain 6% interest. Again, you would still pay SS and Medicare, and like you say there's no guarantee that you'll earn 6% on your money. I don't think you can pay taxes up front when making an early withdrawal from an IRA can you? This one you got right. When you file your taxes, your IRA contributions for the year are totaled up and are deducted from your gross income for tax purposes. There's no tax effect when you make the contribution. Would it not be better to contribute that $5500 to my IRA and if I didn't need it, great, let it grow but if I did need it toward the end of the year, do an early withdrawal? So what do you plan your tax withholdings against? Do you plan on keeping it there (reducing your withholdings) and pay a big tax bill (plus possibly penalties) if you \"\"need it\"\"? Or do you plan to take it out and have a big refund when you file your taxes? You might be better off saving that up in a savings account during the year, and if at the end of the year you didn't use it, then make an IRA contribution, which will lower the taxes you pay. Don't use your IRA as a \"\"hopeful\"\" savings account. So if I needed to withdrawal $5500 and I am in the 25% tax bracket, I would owe the government $1925 in taxes+ 10% penalty. So if I withdrew $7425 to cover the tax and penalty, I would then be taxed $2600 (an additional $675). Sounds like a cat chasing it's tail trying to cover the tax. Yes if you take a withdrawal to pay the taxes. If you pay the tax with non-retirement money then the cycle stops. how can I make a withdrawal from an IRA without having to pay tax on tax. Pay cash for the tax and penalty rather then taking another withdrawal to pay the tax. If you can't afford the tax and penalty in cash, then don't withdraw at all. based on this year's W-2 form, I had an accountant do my taxes and the $27K loan was added as earned income then in another block there was the $2700 amount for the penalty. So you paid 25% in income tax for the earned income and an additional 10% penalty. So in your case it was a 35% overall \"\"tax\"\" instead of the 40% rule of thumb (since many people are in 28% and 35% tax brackets) The bottom line is it sounds like you are completely unorganized and have absolutely no margin to cover any unexpected expenses. I would stop contributing to retirement today until you can get control of your spending, get on a budget, and stop trying to use your IRA as a piggy bank. If you don't plan on using the money for retirement then don't put it in an IRA. Stop borrowing from it and getting into further binds that force you to make bad financial decisions. You don't go into detail about any other aspects (mortgage? car loans? consumer debt?) to even begin to know where the real problem is. So you need to write everything down that you own and you owe, write out your monthly expenses and income, and figure out what you can cut if needed in order to build up some cash savings. Until then, you're driving across country in a car with no tires, worrying about which highway will give you the best gas mileage.\"","qid":11054,"docid":"523521","rank":88,"score":105206},{"content":"Title: Content: \"You have a sequence of questions here, so a sequence of answers: If you stopped at the point where you had multiple wins with a net profit of $72, then you would pay regular income tax on that $72. It's a short term capital gain, which does not get special tax treatment, and the fact that you made it on multiple transactions does not matter. When you enter your next transaction that takes the hypothetical loss the question gets more complicated. In either case, you are paying a percentage on net gains. If you took a two year view in the second case and you don't have anything to offset your loss in the second year, then I guess you could say that you paid more tax than you won in the total sequence of trades over the two years. Although you picked a sequence of trades where it does not appear to play, if you're going to pursue this type of strategy then you are likely at some point to run into a case where the \"\"wash sale\"\" rules apply, so you should be aware of that. You can find information on this elsewhere on this site and also, for example, here: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/understanding-the-wash-sale-rules-2015-03-02 Basically these rules require you to defer recording a loss under some circumstances where you have rapid wins and losses on \"\"substantially identical\"\" securities. EDIT A slight correction, you can take part of your losses in the second year even if you have no off-setting gain. From the IRS: If your capital losses exceed your capital gains, the amount of the excess loss that you can claim on line 13 of Form 1040 to lower your income is the lesser of $3,000, ($1,500 if you are married filing separately)\"","qid":11054,"docid":"207788","rank":89,"score":104917},{"content":"Title: Content: The capital gains is counted towards your income. If you cash out 1 Million dollars, you have a 1 Million dollar income for that year, which puts you at the 39.6% tax bracket. However, because that 1 Million dollars is all long term capital gains, you will only have to pay 20% of it in long term capital gains taxes. The best you can do is to cash the 1 Million dollars through several years instead of just all at once. This will put in a lower tax bracket and thus will pay lower capital gains tax.","qid":11054,"docid":"496217","rank":90,"score":104844},{"content":"Title: Content: My take is that he can avoid a big tax hit by leaving it as and giving the untouched fund to the heirs. 100% correct. By withdrawing now he'll be subjected to the income tax on the gains. Since his gains are almost the whole value of the account, he'll actually find himself in the highest bracket, not the lowest as Joe suggests. Not only that, but his SS income will become taxable as well. Capital gains are included in the AGI. By leaving as is, the heirs will get stepped up basis, and the whole 700K will not be taxed (its below the estate tax threshold, and the basis for the heirs will be the value at death).","qid":11054,"docid":"520379","rank":91,"score":104770},{"content":"Title: Content: Capital losses do mirror capital gains within their holding periods. An asset or investment this is certainly held for a year into the day or less, and sold at a loss, will create a short-term capital loss. A sale of any asset held for over a year to your day, and sold at a loss, will create a loss that is long-term. When capital gains and losses are reported from the tax return, the taxpayer must first categorize all gains and losses between long and short term, and then aggregate the sum total amounts for every single regarding the four categories. Then the gains that are long-term losses are netted against each other, therefore the same is done for short-term gains and losses. Then your net gain that is long-term loss is netted against the net short-term gain or loss. This final net number is then reported on Form 1040. Example Frank has the following gains and losses from his stock trading for the year: Short-term gains - $6,000 Long-term gains - $4,000 Short-term losses - $2,000 Long-term losses - $5,000 Net short-term gain/loss - $4,000 ST gain ($6,000 ST gain - $2,000 ST loss) Net long-term gain/loss - $1,000 LT loss ($4,000 LT gain - $5,000 LT loss) Final net gain/loss - $3,000 short-term gain ($4,000 ST gain - $1,000 LT loss) Again, Frank can only deduct $3,000 of final net short- or long-term losses against other types of income for that year and must carry forward any remaining balance.","qid":11054,"docid":"266898","rank":92,"score":104753},{"content":"Title: Content: \"Since the deduction balances out the future tax (presumably), I am only paying tax on the gains, however over 20 years, those gains could be greater than the original $4000 itself. (Doubling would only take 3.6% annual return over 20 years ) If I put it into a Roth IRA, I don't get a tax deduction, but I get to withdraw the original $4000 and all the gains, tax free in about 20 years. It seems the Roth IRA is a better deal tax wise, but I would like to hear if I am missing something. You are missing the time value of money. $4000 now does not have the same value to you as $4000 years in the future. In fact, the $4000 now has the same value as the money it grows into (principal + earnings) in the future. So a certain percentage of tax on the $4000 now has the same effect to you as the same percentage of tax on the $4000 + earnings in the future, no matter how much \"\"earnings\"\" is. It's simple math. If you start with the same amount of pre-tax money, and have the same flat percentage tax rate, then both Traditional and Roth will leave you with the same amount of money, regardless of how many times the gains are. Try it for yourself.\"","qid":11054,"docid":"581085","rank":93,"score":104725},{"content":"Title: Content: \"This question and your other one indicate you're a bit unclear on how capital gains taxes work, so here's the deal: you buy an asset (like shares of stock or a mutual fund). You later sell it for more than you bought it for. You pay taxes on your profit: the difference between what you sold it for and what you bought it for. What matters is not the amount of money you \"\"withdraw\"\", but the prices at which assets are bought and sold. In fact, often you will be able to choose which individual shares you sell, which means you have some control over the tax you pay. For a simple example, suppose you buy 10 shares of stock for $100 each in January (an investment of $1000); we'll call these the \"\"early\"\" shares. The stock goes up to $200 in July, and you buy 10 more shares (investing an additional $2000); we'll call these the \"\"late\"\" shares. Then the stock drops to $150. Suppose you want $1500 in cash, so you are going to sell 10 shares. The 10 early shares you bought have increased in value, because you bought then for $100 but can now sell them for $150. The 10 late shares have decreased in value, because you bought them for $200 but can now only sell them for $150. If you choose to sell the early shares, you will have a capital gain of $500 ($1500 sale price minus $1000 purchase price), on which you may owe taxes. If you sell the late shares, you will have a capital loss of $500 ($1500 sale price minus $2000 purchase price is -$500), which you can potentially use to reduce your taxes. Or you could sell 5 of each and have no gain or loss (selling five early shares for $150 gives you a gain of $250, but selling five late shares for $150 gives you a loss of $250, and they cancel out). The point of all this is to say that the tax is not determined by the amount of cash you get, but by the difference between the sale price and the price you purchased for (known as the \"\"cost basis\"\"), and this in turn depends on which specific assets you sell. It is not enough to know the total amount you invested and the total gain. You need to know the specific cost basis (i.e., original purchase price) of the specific shares you're selling. (This is also the answer to your question about long-term versus short-term gains. It doesn't matter how much money you make on the sale. What matters is how long you hold the asset before selling it.) That said, many brokers will automatically sell your shares in a certain order unless you tell them otherwise (and some won't let you tell them otherwise). Often they will use the \"\"first in, first out\"\" rule, which means they will always sell the earliest-purchased shares first. To finally get to your specific question about Betterment, they have a page here that says they use a different method. Essentially, they try to sell your shares in a way that minimizes taxes. They do this by first selling shares that have a loss, and only then selling shares that have a gain. This basically means that if you want to cash out $X, and it is possible to do it in a way that incurs no tax liability, they will do that. What gets me very confused is if I continue to invest random amounts of money each month using Betterment, then I need to withdraw some cash, what are the tax implications. As my long answer above should indicate, there is no simple answer to this. The answer is \"\"it depends\"\". It depends on exactly when you bought the shares, exactly how much you paid for them, exactly when and how much the price rose or fell, and exactly how much you sell them for. Betterment is more or less saying \"\"Don't worry about any of this, trust us, we will handle everything so that your tax is minimized.\"\" A final note: if you really do want to track the details of your cost basis, Betterment may not be for you, because it is an automated platform that may do a lot of individual trades that a human wouldn't do, and that can make tracking the cost basis yourself very difficult. Almost the whole point of something like Betterment is that you are supposed to give them your money and forget about these details.\"","qid":11054,"docid":"257625","rank":94,"score":104692},{"content":"Title: Content: \"This answer is about the USA. Each time you sell a security (a stock or a bond) or some other asset, you are expected to pay tax on the net gain. It doesn't matter whether you use a broker or mutual fund to make the sale. You still owe the tax. Net capital gain is defined this way: Gross sale prices less (broker fees for selling + cost of buying the asset) The cost of buying the asset is called the \"\"basis price.\"\" You, or your broker, needs to keep track of the basis price for each share. This is easy when you're just getting started investing. It stays easy if you're careful about your record keeping. You owe the capital gains tax whenever you sell an asset, whether or not you reinvest the proceeds in something else. If your capital gains are modest, you can pay all the taxes at the end of the year. If they are larger -- for example if they exceed your wage earnings -- you should pay quarterly estimated tax. The tax authorities ding you for a penalty if you wait to pay five- or six-figure tax bills without paying quarterly estimates. You pay NET capital gains tax. If one asset loses money and another makes money, you pay on your gains minus your losses. If you have more losses than gains in a particular year, you can carry forward up to $3,000 (I think). You can't carry forward tens of thousands in capital losses. Long term and short term gains are treated separately. IRS Schedule B has places to plug in all those numbers, and the tax programs (Turbo etc) do too. Dividend payments are also taxable when they are paid. Those aren't capital gains. They go on Schedule D along with interest payments. The same is true for a mutual fund. If the fund has Ford shares in it, and Ford pays $0.70 per share in March, that's a dividend payment. If the fund managers decide to sell Ford and buy Tesla in June, the selling of Ford shares will be a cap-gains taxable event for you. The good news: the mutual fund managers send you a statement sometime in February or March of each year telling what you should put on your tax forms. This is great. They add it all up for you. They give you a nice consolidated tax statement covering everything: dividends, their buying and selling activity on your behalf, and any selling they did when you withdrew money from the fund for any purpose. Some investment accounts like 401(k) accounts are tax free. You don't pay any tax on those accounts -- capital gains, dividends, interest -- until you withdraw the money to live on after you retire. Then that money is taxed as if it were wage income. If you want an easy and fairly reliable way to invest, and don't want to do a lot of tax-form scrambling, choose a couple of different mutual funds, put money into them, and leave it there. They'll send you consolidated tax statements once a year. Download them into your tax program and you're done. You mentioned \"\"riding out bad times in cash.\"\" No, no, NOT a good idea. That investment strategy almost guarantees you will sell when the market is going down and buy when it's going up. That's \"\"sell low, buy high.\"\" It's a loser. Not even Warren Buffett can call the top of the market and the bottom. Ned Johnson (Fidelity's founder) DEFINITELY can't.\"","qid":11054,"docid":"337993","rank":95,"score":104594},{"content":"Title: Content: It is not a dump question because it concerns your most important invisible financial partner:the taxman. The answer depends of the legal status of this account. If your account is 401(k) in USA or RRSP in Canada, the answer is no. No capital gain taxes if your money is registered for retirement. You'll pay later on, as taxes are like death, unavoidable. Yes capital gain if your money is not in an retirement account. As soon as you realize a capital gain, it becomes taxable in that fiscal year.","qid":11054,"docid":"564548","rank":96,"score":104570},{"content":"Title: Content: At the end of each calendar year the mutual fund company will send you a 1099 form. It will tell you and the IRS what your account earned. You will see boxes for: You will end up paying taxes on these, unless the fund is part of a 401K or IRA. These taxes will be due even if you never sold any shares. They are due even if it was a bad year and the value of your account went down. Most if not all states will levy an income tax yon your dividends and capital gains each year. When you sell your shares you may also owe income taxes if you made a profit. The actual taxes due is a more complex calculation due to long term vs short term, and what other gains or losses you have. Partial sales also take into account which shares are sold.","qid":11054,"docid":"88947","rank":97,"score":104508},{"content":"Title: Content: \"All transactions within an IRA are irrelevant as far as the taxation of the distributions from the IRA are concerned. You can only take cash from an IRA, and a (cash) distribution from a Traditional IRA is taxable as ordinary income (same as interest from a bank, say) without the advantage of any of the special tax rates for long-term capital gains or qualified dividends even if that cash was generated within the IRA from sales of stock etc. In short, just as with what is alleged to occur with respect to Las Vegas, what happens within the IRA stays within the IRA. Note: some IRA custodians are willing to make a distribution of stock or mutual fund shares to you, so that ownership of the 100 shares of GE, say, that you hold within your IRA is transferred to you in your personal (non-IRA) brokerage account. But, as far as the IRS is concerned, your IRA custodian sold the stock as the closing price on the day of the distribution, gave you the cash, and you promptly bought the 100 shares (at the closing price) in your personal brokerage account with the cash that you received from the IRA. It is just that your custodian saved the transaction fees involved in selling 100 shares of GE stock inside the IRA and you saved the transaction fee for buying 100 shares of GE stock in your personal brokerage account. Your basis in the 100 shares of GE stock is the \"\"cash_ that you imputedly received as a distribution from the IRA, so that when you sell the shares at some future time, your capital gains (or losses) will be with respect to this basis. The capital gains that occurred within the IRA when the shares were imputedly sold by your IRA custodian remain within the IRA, and you don't get to pay taxes on that at capital gains rates. That being said, I would like to add to what NathanL told you in his answer. Your mother passed away in 2011 and you are now 60 years old (so 54 or 55 in 2011?). It is likely that your mother was over 70.5 years old when she passed away, and so she likely had started taking Required Minimum Distributions from her IRA before her death. So, You should have been taking RMDs from the Inherited IRA starting with Year 2012. (The RMD for 2011, if not taken already by your mother before she passed away, should have been taken by her estate, and distributed to her heirs in accordance with her will, or, if she died intestate, in accordance with state law and/or probate court directives). There would not have been any 10% penalty tax due on the RMDs taken by you on the grounds that you were not 59.5 years old as yet; that rule applies to owners (your mom in this case) and not to beneficiaries (you in this case). So, have you taken the RMDs for 2012-2016? Or were you waiting to turn 59.5 before taking distributions in the mistaken belief that you would have to pay a 10% penalty for early wthdrawal? The penalty for not taking a RMD is 50% of the amount not distributed; yes, 50%. If you didn't take RMDs from the Inherited IRA for years 2012-2016, I recommend that you consult a CPA with expertise in tax law. Ask the CPA if he/she is an Enrolled Agent with the IRS: Enrolled Agents have to pass an exam administered by the IRS to show that they really understand tax law and are not just blowing smoke, and can represent you in front of the IRS in cases of audit etc,\"","qid":11054,"docid":"76530","rank":98,"score":104342},{"content":"Title: Content: \"Long term: Assuming you sold stock ABC through a registered stock exchange, e.g., the Bombay Stock Exchange or the National Stock Exchange of India, and you paid the Securities Transaction Tax (STT), you don't owe any other taxes on the long term capital gain of INR 100. If you buy stock BCD afterwards, this doesn't affect the long term capital gains from the sale of stock ABC. Short term: If you sell the BCD stock (or the ABC stock, or some combination therein) within one year of its purchase, you're required to pay short term capital gains on the net profit, in which case you pay the STT and the exchange fees and an additional flat rate of 15%. The Income Tax Department of India has a publication titled \"\"How to Compute your Capital Gains,\"\" which goes into more detail about a variety of relevant situations.\"","qid":11054,"docid":"526661","rank":99,"score":104179},{"content":"Title: Content: \"There are two ways to handle this. The first is that the better brokers, such as Charles Schwab, will produce summaries of your gains and losses (using historical cost information), as well as your trades, on a monthly and annual basis. These summaries are \"\"ready made\"\" for the IRS. More brokers will provide these summaries come 2011. The second is that if you are a \"\"frequent trader\"\" (see IRS rulings for what constitutes one), then they'll allow you to use the net worth method of accounting. That is, you take the account balance at the end of the year, subtract the beginning balance, adjust the value up for withdrawals and down for infusions, and the summary is your gain or loss. A third way is to do all your trading in say, an IRA, which is taxed on distribution, not on stock sales.\"","qid":11054,"docid":"252176","rank":100,"score":104171}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"There is not a special rate for short-term capital gains. Only long-term gains have a special rate. Short-term gains are taxed at your ordinary-income rate (see here). Hence if you're in the 25% bracket, your short-term gain would be taxed at 25%. The IRA withdrawal, as you already mentioned, would be taxed at 25%, plus a 10% penalty, for 35% total. Thus the bite on the IRA withdrawal is larger than that on a non-IRA withdrawal. As for the estimated tax issue, I don't think there will be a significant difference there. The reason is that (traditional) IRA withdrawals count as ordinary taxable income (see here). This means that, when you withdraw the funds from your IRA, you will increase your income. If that increase pushes you too far beyond what your withholding is accounting for, then you owe estimated tax. In other words, whether you get the money by selling stocks in a taxable account or by withdrawing them from an IRA, you still increase your taxable income, and thus potentially expose yourself to the estimated tax obligation. (In fact, there may be a difference. As you note, you will pay tax at the capital gains rate on gains from selling in a taxable account. But if you sell the stocks inside the IRA and withdraw, that is ordinary income. However, since ordinary income is taxed at a higher rate than long-term capital gains, you will potentially pay more tax on the IRA withdrawal, since it will be taxed at the higher rate, if your gains are long-term rather than short term. This is doubly true if you withdraw early, incurring the extra 10% penalty. See this question for some more discussion of this issue.) In addition, I think you may be somewhat misunderstanding the nature of estimated tax. The IRS will not \\\"\\\"ask\\\"\\\" you for a quarterly estimated tax when you sell stock. The IRS does not monitor your activity and send you a bill each quarter. They may indeed check whether your reported income jibes with info they received from your bank, etc., but they'll still do that regardless of whether you got that income by selling in a taxable account or withdrawing money from an IRA, because both of those increase your taxable income. Quarterly estimated tax is not an extra tax; it is just you paying your normal income tax over the course of the year instead of all at once. If your withholdings will not cover enough of your tax liability, you must figure that out yourself and pay the estimated tax (see here); if you don't do so, you may be assessed a penalty. It doesn't matter how you got the money; if your taxable income is too high relative to your withheld tax, then you have to pay the estimated tax. Typically tax will be withheld from your IRA distribution, but if it's not withheld, you'll still owe it as estimated tax.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 11054,\n \"docid\": \"155053\",\n \"rank\": 1,\n \"score\": 176065\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"Bottom line is this: there's no \\\"\\\"short term capital gains tax\\\"\\\" in the US. There's only long term capital gains tax, which is lower than the regular (aka ordinary) tax rates. Short term capital gains are taxed using the ordinary tax rates, depending on your bracket. So if you're in the 25% bracket - your short term gains are taxed at 25%. You're describing two options: For the case #1 you'll pay 25% tax (your marginal rate) + 10% penalty (flat rate), total 35%. For the case #2 you'll pay 25% tax (your marginal rate) + 0% penalty. Total 25%. Thus, by withdrawing from IRA you'll be 10% worse than by realizing capital gains. In addition, if you need $10K - taking it from IRA will make the whole amount taxable. While realizing capital gains from a taxable account will make only the gains taxable, the original investment amount is yours and had been taxed before. So not only there's a 10% difference in the tax rate, there's also a significant difference in the amount being taxed. Thus, withdrawing from IRA is generally not a good idea, and you will never be better off with withdrawing from IRA than with cashing out taxable investments (from tax perspective). That's by design.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 11054,\n \"docid\": \"321015\",\n \"rank\": 2,\n \"score\": 168994\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: First you need to distinguish between short-term and long-term capital gains. In an IRA you can use investment strategies that incur short-term capital gains without being taxed as ordinary income. As mentioned in a comment above, with a Roth IRA, you can invest now at your low income tax rates and withdraw all gains without incurring any taxes at retirement time. You can also pull out your contributions penalty free before retirement age (59 1/2) if you've had the account for more than 5 years. You only pay taxes and penalties on the earnings. You can also make withdrawals for education expenses and you have one lifetime exclusion of $10,000 for a down-payment on a house.\",\n \"qid\": 11054,\n \"docid\": \"101578\",\n \"rank\": 3,\n \"score\": 156287\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: You're misunderstanding the concept of retirement savings. IRA distributions are taxed, in their entirety, as ordinary income. If you withdraw before the retirement age, additional 10% penalty is added. Investment income has preferential treatment - long term capital gains and qualified dividends are taxed at lower rates than ordinary income. However, IRA contributions are tax deductible. I.e.: you don't pay taxes on the amounts contributed to the IRA when you earned the money, only when you withdraw. In the mean time, the money is growing, tax free, based on your investments. Anything inside the IRA is tax free, including dividends, distributions (from funds to your IRA, not from IRA to you), capital gains, etc. This is very powerful, when taking into account the compounding effect of reinvesting your dividends/sale proceeds without taking a chunk out for taxes. Consider you make an investment in a fund that appreciated 100% in half a year. You cash out to reinvest in something less volatile to lock the gains. In a regular account - you pay taxes when you sell, based on your brackets. In the IRA you reinvest all of your sale proceeds. That would be ~25-35% more of the gains to reinvest and continue working for you! However, if you decide to withdraw - you pay ordinary rate taxes on the whole amount. If you would invest in a single fund for 30 years in a regular account - you'd pay 20% capital gains tax (on the appreciation, not the dividends). In the IRA, if you invest in the same fund for the same period - you'll pay your ordinary income rates. However, the benefit of reinvesting dividends tax-free softens the blow somewhat, but that's much harder to quantify. Bottom line: if you want to plan for retirement - plan for retirment. Otherwise - IRA is not an investment vehicle. Also consider Roth IRA/conversions. Roth IRA has the benefit of tax free distributions at retirement. If your current tax bracket is at 20%, for example, contributing $5K to Roth IRA instead of a traditional will cost you $1K of taxes now, but will save you all the taxes during the retirement (for the distributions from the Roth IRA). It may be very much worth your while, especially if you can contribute directly to Roth IRA (there are some income limitations and phaseouts). You can withdraw contributions (but not earnings) from Roth IRA - something you cannot do with a traditional IRA.\",\n \"qid\": 11054,\n \"docid\": \"561636\",\n \"rank\": 4,\n \"score\": 144984\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"Basically, the idea of an IRA is that the money is earned by you and would normally be taxed at the individual rate, but the government is allowing you to avoid paying the taxes on it now by instead putting it in the account. This \\\"\\\"tax deferral\\\"\\\" encourages retirement savings by reducing your current taxable income (providing a short-term \\\"\\\"carrot\\\"\\\"). However, the government will want their cut; specifically, when you begin withdrawing from that account, the principal which wasn't taxed when you put it in will be taxed at the current individual rate when you take it out. When you think about it, that's only fair; you didn't pay taxes on it when it came out of your paycheck, so you should pay that tax once you're withdrawing it to live on. Here's the rub; the interest is also taxed at the individual rate. At the time, that was a good thing; the capital gains rate in 1976 (when the Regular IRA was established) was 35%, the highest it's ever been. Now, that's not looking so good because the current cap gains rate is only 15%. However, these rates rise and fall, cap gains more than individual rates, and so by contributing to a Traditional IRA you simplify your tax bill; the principal and interest is taxed at the individual rate as if you were still making a paycheck. A Roth IRA is basically the government trying to get money now by giving up money later. You pay the marginal individual rate on the contributions as you earn them (it becomes a \\\"\\\"post-tax deduction\\\"\\\") but then that money is completely yours, and the kicker is that the government won't tax the interest on it if you don't withdraw it before retirement age. This makes Roths very attractive to retirement investors as a hedge against higher overall tax rates later in life. If you think that, for any reason, you'll be paying more taxes in 30 years than you would be paying for the same money now, you should be investing in a Roth. A normal (non-IRA) investment account, at first, seems to be the worst of both worlds; you pay individual tax on all earned wages that you invest, then capital gains on the money your investment earns (stock gains and dividends, bond interest, etc) whenever you cash out. However, a traditional account has the most flexibility; you can keep your money in and take your money out on a timeline you choose. This means you can react both to market moves AND to tax changes; when a conservative administration slashes tax rates on capital gains, you can cash out, pay that low rate on the money you made from your account, and then the money's yours to spend or to reinvest. You can, if you're market- and tax-savvy, use all three of these instruments to your overall advantage. When tax rates are high now, contribute to a traditional IRA, and then withdraw the money during your retirement in times where individual tax rates are low. When tax rates are low (like right now), max out your Roth contributions, and use that money after retirement when tax rates are high. Use a regular investment account as an overage to Roth contributions when taxes are low; contribute when the individual rate is low, then capitalize and reinvest during times when capital gains taxes are low (perhaps replacing a paycheck deduction in annual contributions to a Roth, or you can simply fold it back into the investment account). This isn't as good as a Roth but is better than a Traditional; by capitalizing at an advantageous time, you turn interest earned into principal invested and pay a low tax on it at that time to avoid a higher tax later. However, the market and the tax structure have to coincide to make ordinary investing pay off; you may have bought in in the early 90s, taking advantage of the lowest individual rates since the Great Depression. While now, capital gains taxes are the lowest they've ever been, if you cash out you may not be realizing much of a gain in the first place.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 11054,\n \"docid\": \"508219\",\n \"rank\": 5,\n \"score\": 141126\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: The point is to provide for yourself in retirement, so it makes sense that these withdrawals would be penalized. Tax deferred accounts are usually created for a specific cause. Using them outside of the scope of that cause triggers penalties. You mentioned 401(k) and IRA that have age limitations because they're geared towards retirement. In the US, here are other types, and if you intend to spend money in the related areas, they may be worth considering. Otherwise, you'll hit penalties as well. Examples: HSA - Health Savings Account allows saving pre-tax contributions and gains towards medical expenses. You must have a high deductible health plan to be eligible. Can be used as IRA once retired. 529 plans - allow saving pre-tax gains (and in some states pre-tax contributions) for education expenses for you or a beneficiary. If a beneficiary - contributions are considered a gift. There's a tax benefit in long term investing in a regular taxable brokerage accounts - long term capital gains are taxed at a preferable (lower) rate than short term or ordinary income. The difference may be significant. Long term = 1+ year holding. The condition here is holding an investment for more than a year, and there's no penalty for not satisfying it but there's a reward (lower rates) if you do.\",\n \"qid\": 11054,\n \"docid\": \"181611\",\n \"rank\": 6,\n \"score\": 139039\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Capital gains tax is an income tax upon your profit from selling investments. Long-term capital gains (investments you have held for more than a year) are taxed significantly less than short-term gains. It doesn't limit how many shares you can sell; it does discourage selling them too quickly after buying. You can balance losses against gains to reduce the tax due. You can look for tax-advantaged investments (the obvious one being a 401k plan, IRA, or equivalent, though those generally require leaving the money invested until retirement). But in the US, most investments other than the house you are living in (which some of us argue isn't really an investment) are subject to capital gains tax, period.\",\n \"qid\": 11054,\n \"docid\": \"196427\",\n \"rank\": 7,\n \"score\": 137268\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Is that basically it? Trading off between withdrawing-anytime vs paying-capital-gain-tax? No. Another significant factor is dividends. In an IRA they incur no immediate tax and can be reinvested. This causes the account value to compound over the years. Historically, this compounding of dividends provides about half of the total return on investments. In a non-IRA account you have to pay taxes each year on all dividends received, whether you reinvest them or not. So outside of an IRA you have a tax drag on both capital gains and dividends.\",\n \"qid\": 11054,\n \"docid\": \"199544\",\n \"rank\": 8,\n \"score\": 134908\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"IRA is a tax-deferred account. I.e.: you're not paying any taxes on the income within the account (as long as you don't withdraw it) and you can deduct the investment (with certain limitation on how much, depending on your total AGI). It is taxed when you withdraw it - at ordinary rates for the \\\"\\\"traditional\\\"\\\" IRA and with 0% rate for ROTH, as long as the withdrawal is qualified (if not qualified - you pay ordinary rate tax for ROTH and additional 10% tax for both on the taxable amounts). The details are a bit complicated (there's deductible IRA, non-deductible IRA, roll-overs, etc etc), but that's the basic. Regular investment accounts are taxed currently on any income, but you get the \\\"\\\"better\\\"\\\" capital gains rates on many things. So which one is better depends how long your investment is going to be, what is your tax situation now, and what you anticipate it to be later when you retire.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 11054,\n \"docid\": \"109305\",\n \"rank\": 9,\n \"score\": 131374\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: If you are inside of a ROTH IRA you are not getting taxed on any gain. Dividends, distributions, interest payment, or capital gains are never taxed. This, of course, assumes you wait until age 59.5 to do ROTH withdrawals on your gains.\",\n \"qid\": 11054,\n \"docid\": \"290182\",\n \"rank\": 10,\n \"score\": 131291\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: First of all, there are some differences between the retirement accounts that you mentioned regarding taxes. Traditional IRA and 401(k) accounts allow you to make pre-tax contributions, giving you an immediate tax deduction when you contribute. Roth IRA, Roth 401(k) are funded with after tax money, and a non-retirement account is, of course, also funded with after tax money. So if you are looking for the immediate tax deduction, this is a point in favor of the retirement accounts. Roth IRA & Roth 401(k) accounts allow the investment to grow tax-free, which means that the growth is not taxed, even when taking the investment out at retirement. With Traditional IRA and 401(k) accounts, you need to pay tax on the gains realized in the account when you withdraw the money, just as you do with a non-retirement account. This is a point in favor of the Roth retirement accounts. To answer your question about capital gains, yes, it is true that you do not have a capital gain until an investment is sold. So, discounting the contribution tax deductions of the retirement accounts, if you only bought individual stocks that never paid a dividend, and never sold them until retirement, you are correct that it really wouldn't matter if you had it in a regular brokerage account or in a traditional IRA. However, even people dedicated to buy-and-hold rarely actually buy only individual stocks and hold them for 30 years. There are several different circumstances that will generally happen in the time between now and when you want to withdraw the money in retirement that would be taxable events if you are not in a retirement account: If you sell an investment and buy a different one, the gains would be taxable. If you want to rebalance your holdings, this also involves selling a portion of your investments. For example, if you want to maintain an 80% stock/20% bond ratio, and your stock values have gone up to 90%, you might want to sell some stock and buy bonds. Or if you are getting closer to retirement, you might decide to go with a higher percentage of bonds. This would trigger capital gains. Inside a mutual fund, anytime the management sells investments inside the fund and realizes capital gains, these gains are passed on to the investors, and are taxable. (This happens more often with managed funds than index funds, but still happens occasionally with index funds.) Dividends earned by the investments are taxable. Any of these events in a non-retirement account would trigger taxes that need to be paid immediately, even if you don't withdraw a cent from your account.\",\n \"qid\": 11054,\n \"docid\": \"94496\",\n \"rank\": 11,\n \"score\": 131155\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"Here are the few scenarios that may be worth noting in terms of using different types of accounts: Traditional IRA. In this case, the monies would grow tax-deferred and all monies coming out will be taxed as ordinary income. Think of it as everything is in one big black box and the whole thing is coming out to be taxed. Roth IRA. In this case, you could withdraw the contributions anytime without penalty. (Source should one want it for further research.) Past 59.5, the withdrawals are tax-free in my understanding. Thus, one could access some monies earlier than retirement age if one considers all the contributions that are at least 5 years old. Taxable account. In this case, each year there will be distributions to pay taxes as well as anytime one sells shares as that will trigger capital gains. In this case, taxes are worth noting as depending on the index fund one may have various taxes to consider. For example, a bond index fund may have some interest that would be taxed that the IRA could shelter to some extent. While index funds can be a low-cost option, in some cases there may be capital gains each year to keep up with the index. For example, small-cap indices and value indices would have stocks that may \\\"\\\"outgrow\\\"\\\" the index by either becoming mid-cap or large-cap in the case of small-cap or the value stock's valuation rises enough that it becomes a growth stock that is pulled out of the index. This is why some people may prefer to use tax-advantaged accounts for those funds that may not be as tax-efficient. The Bogleheads have an article on various accounts that can also be useful as dg99's comment referenced. Disclosure: I'm not an accountant or work for the IRS.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 11054,\n \"docid\": \"272458\",\n \"rank\": 12,\n \"score\": 130878\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: In the US, the key to understanding the benefits of retirement accounts is to understand capital gains taxes and how they work. Retirement accounts are designed for making investments throughout your career, then after several decades of contributions, withdrawing that money to pay for your needs when your full-time employment has concluded. Normally when you invest money in a brokerage account, if the value of your investment increases, and you sell in less than a year, those investments are considered short-term gains and taxed as ordinary income. If you hold that same investment for over a year, the same investment is taxed at a lower capital gains rate (depending on which tax bracket you are in during that year, the amount due could be up to 20%, but much lower than your regular income tax rate). When you place your money in a retirement account, you are choosing to either pay the tax due on the income when you put it in the account, or put the money in tax free and pay the tax when you withdraw (these are called tax-deferred accounts). When you have money invested several decades, the raw dollar amount increases greatly, but inflation is also reducing the value of those dollars. Imagine you bought some bonds that payed 4% over 40 years, but inflation was 2% during those same years. When you sell those bonds 40 years later, you will owe capital gains on the entire gain even though half of the gain came from inflation. Retirement accounts allow you to buy and sell according to your investment needs and goals without any consideration about whether the gains are short-term or long-term, and they also allow you to pay taxes just once, either when you put it in, or when you take it out, with no worries about whether you're paying taxes on inflated gains.\",\n \"qid\": 11054,\n \"docid\": \"170717\",\n \"rank\": 13,\n \"score\": 129681\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: I'll add this to others: Having non-deductible portion in your IRA requires additional tax forms to be attached to your tax return, and tracking. If you plan to have long-term investments in your non-deductible IRA (such as, say, target funds or long-term stock positions that you expect to hold till retirement) it may be better to keep them in a non-IRA account. This is because the income tax on the withdrawals from the IRA is at ordinary rates, and from the regular investment account is at capital gains rate. While the rates can definitely change, traditionally capital gains rates are significantly lower than the ordinary income bracket rates. So generally I think that having non-deductible IRA deposits is only useful if you're planning a ROTH conversion in a near future.\",\n \"qid\": 11054,\n \"docid\": \"382894\",\n \"rank\": 14,\n \"score\": 128795\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Yes, you may make non-deductible contributions to an IRA. The main benefit of a non-deductible IRA is tax-deferred earnings. If the investment pays out dividends, they will be kept in the IRA (whether you take them in cash and put them in a Cash Management Account, or you automatically reinvest them). You do not get taxed on these earnings until you withdraw from the IRA during retirement. If your income at that time is significantly lower than your income while you're working, you will be in a lower tax bracket (unless tax rates change drastically between now and then), so the taxes you pay on these earnings will be lower than if you'd invested outside the IRA and paid taxes along the way. You also get the benefit of compounding of the tax-deferred earnings. There's one caveat -- when you withdraw from the IRA, all the growth is treated as ordinary income. Even if some of it is capital gains, it will be taxed at your ordinary income rate, not your capital gains rate. So this is most beneficial for investments that produce dividends. If you have a mix of deductible and non-deductible contributions to your IRA, the tax on the principle portion of your withdrawals is pro-rated based on the ratio of deductible to total contributions. This ensures that you eventually get taxed for the deductible portion (it's not really tax-free, it's tax-deferred), but don't get taxed twice for the non-deductible portion. Another option, if your 401(k) plan allows it, is to make after-tax contributions to the 401(k). At the end of the year, you can make an in-service distribution of these contributions and their earnings from the 401(k) to a Roth Conversion IRA. This allows you to contribute to a Roth IRA even if you're above the income limit for normal Roth IRA contributions. You can also do this even if you're also making non-deductible contributions to your regular IRA.\",\n \"qid\": 11054,\n \"docid\": \"459589\",\n \"rank\": 15,\n \"score\": 128611\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"One reason is that you can trade in the IRA without incurring incremental taxes along the way. This may be especially important if you intend to shift your portfolio allocation as you approach retirement. For instance, gradually selling stocks and buying bonds can incur taxes if you do it in a taxable account (if you do it while you have other income and thus may face capital gains taxes). Also, if you have mutual funds in a taxable account, they may distribute capital gains to you that you'll owe taxes on, but holding the funds in an IRA will shield you from that. There are also some other side benefits to IRAs because they are considered to \\\"\\\"not count\\\"\\\" for certain purposes when determining what you're worth. For instance, if you go bankrupt, you could be forced to sell assets in taxable accounts to pay your creditors, whereas IRAs are protected in many cases. Likewise, if you try to get financial aid to pay for college for your kids, money in an IRA won't be counted among your assets in determining your aid eligibility, potentially giving your kids access to more aid money. Finally, an especially prominent benefit is, paradoxically, the early withdrawal penalty. For many people, part of the purpose of an IRA is to \\\"\\\"lock away\\\"\\\" their money and prevent themselves from accessing it until retirement. Early withdrawal penalties provide a concrete consequence that psychologically deters them from raiding their retirement savings willy-nilly.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 11054,\n \"docid\": \"105468\",\n \"rank\": 16,\n \"score\": 126560\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"The \\\"\\\"risk\\\"\\\", other than losing principal (especially when rates go up) is capital gains. As with any mutual fund, this one might need to sell assets for cashflow. In which case the taxes on the sales are shifted to the investors. So you may end up with the fund losing value due to price fluctuations, yet you'll have capital gains (probably with a significant short term part since the maturity periods are relatively short) to pay taxes on. To what extent that may happen depends on the fund's cashflow (influx of money vs. withdrawals). Capital gains reduce your basis (since no money is actually distributed), but if you hold the fund for more than a year - you lose the difference between the short term and the long term tax for the short term portion of the gains.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 11054,\n \"docid\": \"472159\",\n \"rank\": 17,\n \"score\": 126286\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: There are a few incorrect assumptions in your question but the TL;DR version is: All, or most, of the withdrawal is taxable income that is reported on Lines 15a (total distribution) and 15b (taxable amount) of Form 1040. None of the distribution is given special treatment as Qualified Dividends or Capital Gains regardless of what happened inside the IRA, and none of the distribution is subject to the 3.8% Net Investment Income Tax that some high-income people need to compute on Form 8960. If the withdrawal is not a Qualified Distribution, it will be subject to a 10% excise tax (tax penalty on premature withdrawal). Not all contributions to Traditional IRAs are deductible from income for the year for which the contribution was made. People with high income and/or coverage by a workplace retirement plan (pension plan, 401(k) plan, 403(b) plan, etc) cannot deduct any contributions that they choose to make to a Traditional IRA. Such people can always make a contribution (subject to them having compensation (earned income such as salary or wages, self-employment income, commissions on sales, etc), but they don't get a tax deduction for it (just as contributions to Roth IRAs are not deductible). Whether it is wise to make such nondeductible contributions to a Traditional IRA is a question on which reasonable people can hold different opinions. Be that as it may, nondeductible contributions to a Traditional IRA create (or add to) what is called the basis of an IRA. They are reported to the IRS on Form 8606 which is attached to the Federal Form 1040. Note that the IRA custodian or trustee is not told that the contributions are not deductible. Earnings on the basis accumulate tax-deferred within the IRA just as do the earnings on the deductible contributions. Now, when you make a withdrawal from your Traditional IRA, no matter which of your various IRA accounts you take the money from, part of the money is deemed to be taken from the basis (and is not subject to income tax) while the rest is pure taxable income. That is, none of the rest is eligible for the reduced taxation rates for Qualified Dividends or Capital Gains and since it does not count as investment income, it is not subject to the 3.8% Net Investment Tax of Form 8960 either. Computation of how much of your withdrawal is nontaxable basis and how much is taxable income is done on Form 8606. Note that you don't get to withdraw your entire basis until such time as when you close all your Traditional IRA accounts. How is all this reported? Well, your IRA custodian(s) will send you Form 1099-R reporting the total amount of the withdrawal, what income tax, if any, was withheld, etc. The custodian(s) don't know what your basis is, and so Box 2b will say that the taxable amount is not determined. You need to fill out Form 8606 to figure out what the taxable amount is, and then report the taxable amount on Line 15b of Form 1040. (The total withdrawal is reported on Line 15a which is not included in the AGI computations). Note that as far as the IRS is concerned, you have only one Traditional IRA. The A in IRA stands for Arrangement, not Account as most everybody thinks, and your Traditional IRA can invest in many different things, stocks, bonds, mutual funds, etc with different custodians if you choose, but your basis is in the IRA, not the specific investment that you made with your nondeductible contribution. That's why the total IRA contribution is limited, not the per-account contribution, and why you need to look that the total value of your IRA in determining the taxable portion, not the specific account(s) from which you withdrew the money. So, how much basis did you withdraw? Well, if you withdrew $W during 2016 and the total value of all your Traditional IRA accounts was $X at the end of 2016 and your total basis in your Traditional IRA is $B, then (assuming that you did not indulge in any Traditional-to-Roth rollovers for 2016), multiply W by B/(W+X) to get the amount of nontaxable basis in the withdrawal. B thus gets reduced for 2017 by amount of basis withdrawal. What if you never made a nondeductible contribution to your Traditional IRA, or you made some nondeductible contributions many years ago and have forgotten about them? Well, you could still fill out Form 8606 reporting a zero basis, but it will just tell you that your basis continues $0. Or, you could just enter the total amount of your withdrawal in Lines 15a and 15b, effectively saying that all of the withdrawal is taxable income to you. The IRS does not care if you choose to pay taxes on nontaxable income.\",\n \"qid\": 11054,\n \"docid\": \"482768\",\n \"rank\": 18,\n \"score\": 122381\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: No matter what, you owe taxes on the gains, known as capital gains. How much, depends on how long you invested it for. In your example, each month is treated separately - each month you contribute starts a new clock on that set of investments. If you hold it for longer than a year, the taxes are treated as long-term, and less than a year is short-term. Short term taxes are at your marginal rate, and long term taxes are different, usually 15%. https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc400/tc409\",\n \"qid\": 11054,\n \"docid\": \"536390\",\n \"rank\": 19,\n \"score\": 122196\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: There is nothing wrong with self directed IRA's the problem is that most of the assets they specialize in are better done in other ways. Real estate is already extremely tax advantaged in the US. Buying inside a Traditional IRA would turn longterm capital gains (currently 15%) into ordinary income taxed at your tax rate when you withdraw this may be a plus or minus, but it is more likely than not that your ordinary income tax rate is higher. You also can't do the live in each house for 2 years before selling plan to eliminate capital gains taxes (250k individual 500k married couple). The final problem is that you are going to have problems getting a mortgage (it won't be a conforming loan) and will likely have to pay cash for any real estate purchased inside your IRA. Foreign real estate is similar to above except you have additional tax complexities. The key to the ownership in a business is that there are limits on who can control the business (you and maybe your family can't control the business). If you are experienced doing angel investing this might be a viable option (assuming you have a really big IRA you want to gamble with). If you want to speculate on precious metals you will probably be better offer using ETF's in a more traditional brokerage account (lower transactions costs more liquidity).\",\n \"qid\": 11054,\n \"docid\": \"573935\",\n \"rank\": 20,\n \"score\": 121798\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Your question is missing too much to be answered directly. Instead - here are some points to consider. Short term gains taxed at your marginal rates, whereas long term gains have preferable capital gains rates (up to 20% tax rate, instead of your marginal rate). So if you're selling at gain, you might want to consider to sell FIFO and pay lower capital gains tax rate instead of the short term marginal rate. If you're selling at loss and have other short term gains, you would probably be better selling LIFO, so that the loss could offset other short term gains that you might have. If you're selling at loss and don't have short term gains to offset, you can still offset your long term gains with short term losses, but the tax benefit will be lower. In this case - FIFO might be a better choice again. If you're selling at loss, beware of the wash sale rules, as you might not be able to deduct the loss if you buy/sell within too short a window.\",\n \"qid\": 11054,\n \"docid\": \"366560\",\n \"rank\": 21,\n \"score\": 121130\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: The simplest explanation is that a traditional IRA is a method of deferring taxes. That is, normally you pay taxes on money you earn at the ordinary rate then invest the rest and only pay the capital gains rate. However, with a traditional IRA you don't pay taxes on the money when you earn it, you defer the payment of those taxes until you retire. So in the end it ends up being treated the same. That said, if you are strategic about it you can wind up paying less taxes with this type of account.\",\n \"qid\": 11054,\n \"docid\": \"114912\",\n \"rank\": 22,\n \"score\": 120107\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: The capital gain is either short-term or long-term and will be indicated on the 1099-DiV. You pay taxes on this amount as the capital gain was received in a taxable account (assuming since you received a 1099-DIV). More info here: https://www.mutualfundstore.com/brokerage-account/capital-gains-distributions-taxable\",\n \"qid\": 11054,\n \"docid\": \"251394\",\n \"rank\": 23,\n \"score\": 119787\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Post-tax (i.e. non-retirement account) investing is nothing to ignore. You don't mention a spouse, so for a start, you still have the $5500 to put in an IRA. The remaining investment funds will earn dividends, if any, at a tax preferred rate, and then the gain on sale will be taxed at 15% if the code doesn't change again. The gains accumulate tax deferred, and you control the timing of the sale. With a 401(k) all withdrawal are taxable as income. In your case, just the gain is taxed at a potential long term cap gain rate. Hopefully the new job pays more than the old one and the loss of 401(k) is compensated.\",\n \"qid\": 11054,\n \"docid\": \"571142\",\n \"rank\": 24,\n \"score\": 119560\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"Appreciation of a Capital Asset is a Capital Gain. In the United States, Capital Gains get favorable tax treatment after being held for 12 months. From the IRS newsroom: Capital gains and losses are classified as long-term or short-term, depending on how long you hold the property before you sell it. If you hold it more than one year, your capital gain or loss is long-term. If you hold it one year or less, your capital gain or loss is short-term. The tax rates that apply to net capital gain are generally lower than the tax rates that apply to other income. For 2009, the maximum capital gains rate for most people is15%. For lower-income individuals, the rate may be 0% on some or all of the net capital gain. Special types of net capital gain can be taxed at 25% or 28%. The IRS defines a Capital Asset as \\\"\\\"most property you own\\\"\\\" with a list of exclusions found in Schedule D Instructions. None of the exclusions listed relate to Bond ETFs.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 11054,\n \"docid\": \"149305\",\n \"rank\": 25,\n \"score\": 119075\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: This will work as intended, but there's another point to consider. In the US, the tax rate on proceeds from stock sales is higher for short term holdings, which are defined as held for less than one year. Both rates vary based on your income. Bracket numbers are for fiscal year 2014, filing as single. The difference between short and long term capital gains tax in the US is a minimum of ten percentage points, and works out to 15 percentage points on average. This is substantial. If you won't be reporting much income the year you move to the US (say because you only worked for a portion of the year) it is decidedly to your advantage to wait and sell the stocks in the US, to get that sweet 0% rate. At a minimum, you should hold the position for a year if you sell and rebuy, from a tax optimization perspective. Two caveats:\",\n \"qid\": 11054,\n \"docid\": \"501214\",\n \"rank\": 26,\n \"score\": 118479\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: In the United States Short-term capital gains are taxed at rates similar to regular income which is 25% if you make less than $91,000 and 28% if you make more than that but less than $190,000. If you make more than $190,000 then the rate is 33%. If you hold the stock for a year or more than the tax rate is 15%, unless your income is less than $33,000 in which case there is no tax on long-term gains. As a general rule, the way to make money is to stay out of debt, so I cannot advise you to assume a mortgage. Financially you are better off investing your money. Much like you I bought a house with a mortgage using about $30,000 in a down payment about 20 years ago and I paid it off a few years ago. If I had to do it over again, I would have bought a shack (a steel building) for $30,000 and lived in that and invested my income. If I had done that, I would be about $500,000 richer today than I am now.\",\n \"qid\": 11054,\n \"docid\": \"116017\",\n \"rank\": 27,\n \"score\": 118163\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: You can keep the cash in your account as long as you want, but you have to pay a tax on what's called capital gains. To quote from Wikipedia: A capital gain is a profit that results from investments into a capital asset, such as stocks, bonds or real estate, which exceeds the purchase price. It is the difference between a higher selling price and a lower purchase price, resulting in a financial gain for the investor.[1] Conversely, a capital loss arises if the proceeds from the sale of a capital asset are less than the purchase price. Thus, buying/selling stock counts as investment income which would be a capital gain/loss. When you are filing taxes, you have to report net capital gain/loss. So you don't pay taxes on an individual stock sale or purchase - you pay tax on the sum of all your transactions. Note: You do not pay any tax if you have a net capital loss. Taxes are only on capital gains. The amount you are taxed depends on your tax bracket and your holding period. A short term capital gain is gain on an investment held for less than one year. These gains are taxed at your ordinary income tax rate. A long term capital gain is gain on an investment held for more than one year. These gains are taxed at a special rate: If your income tax rate is 10 or 15%, then long term gains are taxed at 0% i.e. no tax, otherwise the tax rate is 15%. So you're not taxed on specific stock sales - you're taxed on your total gain. There is no tax for a capital loss, and investors sometimes take profits from good investments and take losses from bad investments to lower their total capital gain so they won't be taxed as much. The tax rate is expected to change in 2013, but the current ratios could be extended. Until then, however, the rate is as is. Of course, this all applies if you live in the United States. Other countries have different measures. Hope it helps! Wikipedia has a great chart to refer to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_gains_tax_in_the_United_States.\",\n \"qid\": 11054,\n \"docid\": \"169240\",\n \"rank\": 28,\n \"score\": 116959\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"The tax comes when you close the position. If the option expires worthless it's as if you bought it back for $0. There's a short-term capital gain for the difference between your short-sale price and your buyback price on the option. I believe the capital gain is always short-term because short sales are treated as short-term even if you hold them open more than one year. If the option is exercised (calling away your stock) then you add the premium to your sale price on the stock and then compute the capital gain. So in this case you can end up treating the premium as a long-term capital gain. See IRS pub 550 http://www.irs.gov/publications/p550/ch04.html#en_US_2010_publink100010619 Search for \\\"\\\"Writers of puts and calls\\\"\\\"\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 11054,\n \"docid\": \"478600\",\n \"rank\": 29,\n \"score\": 116933\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"Gee son. That's a potential for a better than 10% gain in a short amount of time. If bought within a tax advantaged account like a IRA then you don't even pay capital gains. Does Lube know? Last I checked he was obsessing over \\\"\\\"bowels\\\"\\\" or some shit.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 11054,\n \"docid\": \"104094\",\n \"rank\": 30,\n \"score\": 116760\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Here's how capital gains are totaled: Long and Short Term. Capital gains and losses are either long-term or short-term. It depends on how long the taxpayer holds the property. If the taxpayer holds it for one year or less, the gain or loss is short-term. Net Capital Gain. If a taxpayer’s long-term gains are more than their long-term losses, the difference between the two is a net long-term capital gain. If the net long-term capital gain is more than the net short-term capital loss, the taxpayer has a net capital gain. So your net long-term gains (from all investments, through all brokers) are offset by any net short-term loss. Short term gains are taxed separately at a higher rate. I'm trying to avoid realizing a long term capital gain, but at the same time trade the stock. If you close in the next year, one of two things will happen - either the stock will go down, and you'll have short-term gains on the short, or the stock will go up, and you'll have short-term losses on the short that will offset the gains on the stock. So I don;t see how it reduces your tax liability. At best it defers it.\",\n \"qid\": 11054,\n \"docid\": \"444405\",\n \"rank\": 31,\n \"score\": 116676\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"There's currently not much reason to keep around a long-term non-deductible Traditional IRA in my opinion -- a Roth IRA is almost strictly better. Think about it: a non-deductible Traditional IRA vs. a Roth IRA of the same amount. In both cases, contributions are after-tax (so no tax deduction). But when you withdraw, for the Roth IRA you don't have to pay tax, and for the non-deductible Traditional IRA, you have to pay tax on the \\\"\\\"earnings\\\"\\\". A Roth IRA can be contributed to at pretty much any income level, thanks to the backdoor Roth IRA process (which uses a temporary non-deductible Traditional IRA in the process). So there is not much reason for a long-term non-deductible Traditional IRA. As for your question, a non-deductible Traditional IRA vs. a taxable account. Well, a non-deductible Traditional IRA is contributed to with after-tax money, and taxed on the earnings only on withdrawal. So the taxation is almost identical to things like stocks and homes, where the gain is not realized until the thing is sold. However, compared to things like savings accounts and bonds, where you get taxed on the interest yearly, it is much better. Every time you get taxed on gains like this, it is taxing gains earned from after-tax money, so if you think of an amount of money as being equivalent to the amount of money it grows to over time (time value of money), then it is taxing money that is (or grown from money that is) already taxed. So it is better to have this only happen at the end at withdrawal than every year.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 11054,\n \"docid\": \"144751\",\n \"rank\": 32,\n \"score\": 116614\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"You cannot get \\\"\\\"your investment\\\"\\\" out and \\\"\\\"leave only the capital gains\\\"\\\" until they become taxable at the long-term rate. When you sell some shares after holding them for less than a year, you have capital gains on which you will have to pay taxes at the short-term capital gains rate (that is, at the same rate as ordinary income). As an example, if you bought 100 shares at $70 for a net investment of $7000, and sell 70 of them at $100 after five months to get your \\\"\\\"initial investment back\\\"\\\", you will have short-term capital gains of $30 per share on the 70 shares that you sold and so you have to pay tax on that $30x70=$2100. The other $4900 = $7000-$2100 is \\\"\\\"tax-free\\\"\\\" since it is just your purchase price of the 70 shares being returned to you. So after paying the tax on your short-term capital gains, you really don't have your \\\"\\\"initial investment back\\\"\\\"; you have something less. The capital gains on the 30 shares that you continue to hold will become (long-term capital gains) income to you only when you sell the shares after having held them for a full year or more: the gains on the shares sold after five months are taxable income in the year of sale.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 11054,\n \"docid\": \"561999\",\n \"rank\": 33,\n \"score\": 116475\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: The idea behind a Roth IRA is taxes will go up in the future so you are best off paying less in taxes now than in the future, which is why Roth IRAs are contributed to with post-tax dollars whereas traditional IRAs are contributed to with pre-tax dollars. The theoritical advantage comes when you want to withdrawal your money. With the traditional IRA, when you withdrawal money, you pay ordinary income tax on all withdrawals. With a Roth IRA, all withdrawals (after the age of 59 1/2) are tax free, including any gains you may have made. To illistrate, with a very simple example, assume you make $50,000 and your IRA grows at 5% for 40 years. Traditional IRA - $5,000 Roth IRA - $3,750 ($5,000 after taxes) Traditional IRA - $604,000 Roth IRA - $453,000 Traditional IRA - $604,000 / 15 = $40,266 * 75% (25% tax) = $30,200 / year Roth IRA - $453,000 / 15 = $30,200/ year First, this was not a contrived example and I was surprised the numbers worked out this way. Second, as you can see with this example there is really no advantage either way unless you by into the theory of higher taxes in the future.\",\n \"qid\": 11054,\n \"docid\": \"364056\",\n \"rank\": 34,\n \"score\": 116022\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Long-term capital gains, as you note, get special tax treatment. They are lower than regular income tax rates. Short-term capital gains aren't penalized, they are just treated as regular income under the regular rates. So, from a tax perspective, the day-trader gets by the same way as the rest of us because they are paying the same rates on the same progressive income tax scale.\",\n \"qid\": 11054,\n \"docid\": \"177298\",\n \"rank\": 35,\n \"score\": 115646\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Indeed, there's no short term/long term issue trading inside the IRA, and in fact, no reporting. If you have a large IRA balance and trade 100 (for example) times per year, there's no reporting at all. As you note, long term gains outside the IRA are treated favorably in the tax code (as of now, 2012) but that's subject to change. Also to consider, The worst thing I did was to buy Apple in my IRA. A huge gain that will be taxed as ordinary income when I withdraw it. Had this been in my regular account, I could sell and pay the long term cap gain rate this year. Last, there's no concept of Wash sale in one's IRA, as there's no taking a loss for shares sold below cost. (To clarify, trading solely within an IRA won't trigger wash sale rules. A realized loss in a taxable account, combined with a purchase inside an IRA can trigger the wash sale rule if the stock is purchased inside the IRA 30 days before or after the sale at a loss. Thank you, Dilip, for the comment.) Aside from the warnings of trading too much or running afoul of frequency restrictions, your observation is correct.\",\n \"qid\": 11054,\n \"docid\": \"276333\",\n \"rank\": 36,\n \"score\": 115521\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: If you have held the stocks longer than a year, then there is no tax apart from the STT that is already deducted when you sell the shares. If you have held the stock for less than a year, you would have to pay short term capital gains at the rate of 15% on the profit. Edit: If you buy different shares from the total amount or profits, it makes no difference to taxes.\",\n \"qid\": 11054,\n \"docid\": \"423929\",\n \"rank\": 37,\n \"score\": 115248\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Are you in the US? Because if so, there are tax discrepancies. Gains from sale of stocks held for less than one year are subject to ordinary income tax, so probably around 30%. If you hold those stocks for a year or more, gains will be taxed as capital gains tax, 15%. For Forex, taxes on your earnings will be split 60/40. 60% will be traded at the lower 15% rate, while the remaining 40& will be taxed at a higher rate, approximately 30%. So purely short-term, there is a tax advantage to dabbling in Forex. HOWEVER - these are both incredibly risky things to do with your money! I never would recommend anyone invest short-term looking to make quick cash! In fact, the tax code DISCOURAGES people from short-term investments.\",\n \"qid\": 11054,\n \"docid\": \"413015\",\n \"rank\": 38,\n \"score\": 114772\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Don't let tax considerations be the main driver. That's generally a bad idea. You should keep tax in mind when making the decision, but don't let it be the main reason for an action. selling the higher priced shares (possibly at a loss even) - I think it's ok to do that, and it doesn't necessarily have to be FIFO? It is OK to do that, but consider also the term. Long term gain has much lower taxes than short term gain, and short term loss will be offsetting long term gain - means you can lose some of the potential tax benefit. any potential writeoffs related to buying a home that can offset capital gains? No, and anyway if you're buying a personal residence (a home for yourself) - there's nothing to write off (except for the mortgage interest and property taxes of course). selling other investments for a capital loss to offset this sale? Again - why sell at a loss? anything related to retirement accounts? e.g. I think I recall being able to take a loan from your retirement account in order to buy a home You can take a loan, and you can also withdraw up to 10K without a penalty (if conditions are met). Bottom line - be prepared to pay the tax on the gains, and check how much it is going to be roughly. You can apply previous year refund to the next year to mitigate the shock, you can put some money aside, and you can raise your salary withholding to make sure you're not hit with a high bill and penalties next April after you do that. As long as you keep in mind the tax bill and put aside an amount to pay it - you'll be fine. I see no reason to sell at loss or pay extra interest to someone just to reduce the nominal amount of the tax. If you're selling at loss - you're losing money. If you're selling at gain and paying tax - you're earning money, even if the earnings are reduced by the tax.\",\n \"qid\": 11054,\n \"docid\": \"468047\",\n \"rank\": 39,\n \"score\": 114543\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"Long-term capital gains, which is often the main element of investment income for investors who are not high-frequency day traders, are taxed at a single rate that is often substantially below the marginal rate they would otherwise be taxed at, particularly for wealthy individuals. There are a few rationales behind this treatment; the two most common are that the government wants to encourage long-term investments (as opposed to short-term speculation), and that capital gains are a kind of double taxation (from one point of view) as they are coming from income that has already been taxed once before (as wage or ordinary income). The latter in particular is highly controversial, but this is one of the more divisive political issues in the taxation front - one party would eliminate the tax entirely, the other would eliminate the difference. For most individuals, the majority of their long-term capital gains are taxed at 15% up to almost half of a million dollars total AGI, which is a fairly low rate - it's equivalent to the rate a taxpayer would pay on up to $37,000 in wage income (after deductions/exemptions/etc.). You can see from this table in Wikipedia that it is much preferred to pay long-term capital gains rates when possible - at every point it's at least 10% lower than the tax rate for ordinary income. Ordinary income includes wages and many other sources of income - basically, anything that is not long term capital gains. Wage income is taxed at this rate, and also subject to some non-income-tax taxes (FICA and Medicare in particular); other sources of ordinary income are not subject to those taxes (including IRA income). Short term capital gains are generally included in this bucket. Qualified Dividends are treated similarly to long-term capital gains (as they are of a similar nature), and taxed accordingly. The \\\"\\\"Net Investment Tax\\\"\\\" is basically applying the Medicare tax to investment income for higher-income taxpayers ($125k single, $250k joint). It's on top of capital gains rates for them. It came about through the Affordable Care Act, and is one of the first provisions likely to be repealed by the new Congress (as it can be repealed through the budgeting provision). It seems likely that 2017 taxes will not contain this provision.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 11054,\n \"docid\": \"66858\",\n \"rank\": 40,\n \"score\": 114338\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"While @JB's \\\"\\\"yes\\\"\\\" is correct, a few more points to consider: There is no tax penalty for withdrawing any time from a taxable investment, that is, one not using specific tax protections like 401k/IRA or ESA or HSA. But you do pay tax on any income or gain distributions you receive from a taxable investment in a fund (except interest on tax-exempt aka \\\"\\\"municipal\\\"\\\" bonds), and any net capital gains you realize when selling (or technically redeeming for non-ETF funds). Just like you do for dividends and interest and gains on non-fund taxable investments. Many funds have a sales charge or \\\"\\\"load\\\"\\\" which means you will very likely lose money if you sell quickly typically within at least several months and usually a year or more, and even some no-load funds, to discourage rapid trading that makes their management more difficult (and costly), have a \\\"\\\"contingent sales charge\\\"\\\" if you sell after less than a stated period like 3 months or 6 months. For funds that largely or entirely invest in equities or longer term bonds, the share value/price is practically certain to fluctuate up and down, and if you sell during a \\\"\\\"down\\\"\\\" period you will lose money; if \\\"\\\"liquid\\\"\\\" means you want to take out money anytime without waiting for the market to move, you might want funds focussing on short-term bonds, especially government bonds, and \\\"\\\"money market\\\"\\\" funds which hold only very short bonds (usually duration under 90 days), which have much more stable prices (but lower returns over the longer term).\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 11054,\n \"docid\": \"344283\",\n \"rank\": 41,\n \"score\": 114029\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"To keep it simple, I will keep the focus between a Trad IRA and a normal Taxable account (Roth's and 401(k) add more complications that make another problem). I will also assume, based on the question, that you aren't able to deduct the IRA contributions. Also, a Roth is better in every way than a non-deductible Trad IRA so the \\\"\\\"backdoor Roth\\\"\\\" mentioned in other answers is probably the way to go and this is more of an academic exercise. Ok, so why bother with the IRA if you're taxed anyway? Because you aren't taxed as you go! With a normal non-tax-advantaged account you have to pay taxes every year on any realized capital gains and dividends (including fund distributions). Because of the compounding nature of savings, delaying paying taxes is in your best interest. Simple example: Taxable Account: IRA Account: Now, this is a very simplified example. If you're more tax-conscious (i.e. more buy-and-holding), you can delay paying some of the long-term cap gains in the taxable account, but any short-term cap gains (including distributions from the underlying funds) will be at your marginal income tax rate. A few other observations: EDIT: I set up a spreadsheet where each year I deposited $1000 for 35 years. Each year, the balance in the IRA account grows by 5%, but the taxable only by 5%*(1-0.15) = 4.25% due to the effect of taxes. At the end of 35 years, my simulation assumes you pay 15% on all the gains in the IRA, which would likely not be the case, but easier than forecasting through retirement and demonstrates what I'm trying to show. Here's plot showing the balance in the various accounts, the blue is the IRA account, orange the taxable account, and grey is the effective balance of the IRA, after paying taxes on the gains: And here's a plot of the advantage of the IRA (after paying taxes on the gains), vs the taxable account: Whether that's worth it to you or anyone depends on some the assumptions in the simulation, especially effective tax rates, and growth rates, as well as any personal issues. Some people may be less likely to raid an IRA account, for example, than a normal account. Conversely, if you have a project coming up, you may need something a bit more liquid than an IRA.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 11054,\n \"docid\": \"532657\",\n \"rank\": 42,\n \"score\": 114014\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: I don't understand the logic in the other answer, and I think it doesn't make sense, so here is my take: You pay taxes on income, not on sales price. So if you put X $ of your own money in the account and it becomes X + Y $ in the future, at the moment of liquidation, you will own taxes on the Y $. Never on the X $, as it was your own (already taxed) money to begin with. The difference between long-term and short-term gains just influences the tax rate on Y. If you donate the gain alone (the Y $) to charity, you can deduct Y from your tax base. So adding Y to your tax base and then deducting Y again obviously leaves your tax base at the old value, so you pay no extra taxes. Which seems logical, as you didn't make any money in the process. Aside from extreme cases where the deductible gain is too large a percentage from your income or negative, I don't see why this would ever be different. So you can take your original 100 $ back out and donate all gains, and be fine. Note that potential losses are seen different, as the IRA regulations are not symmetric.\",\n \"qid\": 11054,\n \"docid\": \"561377\",\n \"rank\": 43,\n \"score\": 113544\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: It would be fairer to the average person if we paid our normal tax rate on the amount we contributed to the IRA and paid at the capital gains rate for the difference. The same as people that invest outside of the IRA. Most IRAs aren't that large and most people are going to have a rough time living on the reduced social security. It seems like we are taxing the average Joe at a higher rate than the rich.\",\n \"qid\": 11054,\n \"docid\": \"112231\",\n \"rank\": 44,\n \"score\": 113455\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: The benefit is that your earnings in the 401k are not subject to income tax until you make withdrawals. This allows you to grow your money faster than if you made equivalent investments in a taxable account and had to pay taxes on dividends and capital gains along the way. Also, the theory is that you will be in a lower tax bracket in retirement and thus you will pay lower taxes overall. If this is not true (especially if you will be in a higher tax bracket in retirement), then there may not be any advantage for you to contribute to a 401k. One advantage over the Traditional IRA is the higher contribution limit. Some 401k plans also allow you to take loans from the plan, I don't think this is possible with a Traditional IRA. An alternative to both the 401k and Traditional IRA is the Roth version of either plan. With a Roth, you pay taxes up front, but your withdrawals during retirement are tax free.\",\n \"qid\": 11054,\n \"docid\": \"406239\",\n \"rank\": 45,\n \"score\": 113336\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: The dividend goes into the IRA (either reinvested automatically or remains as cash until you invest it, per your choice). You're not taxed on this dividend (IRA is a taxed-deferred account - you're taxed on the distributions, but not on the capital gains within the account).\",\n \"qid\": 11054,\n \"docid\": \"33208\",\n \"rank\": 46,\n \"score\": 113139\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Excise tax on the excess contribution is 6% a year on the amount of the contribution. In addition, gains will be taxable to you. By adding 20K over the limit, you added $1200 to your tax bill. Withdraw it ASAP. Whatever investment you have in your IRA - you can probably buy it (or a comparable) outside of the IRA.\",\n \"qid\": 11054,\n \"docid\": \"46621\",\n \"rank\": 47,\n \"score\": 113130\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"Many individual states, counties, and cities have their own income taxes, payroll taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, etc., you will need to consult your state and local government websites for information about additional taxes that apply based on your locale. Wages, Salaries, Tips, Cash bonuses and other taxable employee pay, Strike benefits, Long-term disability, Earnings from self employment Earned income is subject to payroll taxes such as: Earned income is also subject to income taxes which are progressively higher depending on the amount earned minus tax credits, exemptions, and/or deductions depending on how you file. There are 7 tax rates that get progressively larger as your income rises but only applies to the income in each bracket. 10% for the first 18,650 (2017) through 39.6% for any income above 470,700. The full list of rates is in the above linked article about payroll taxes. Earned income is required for contributions to an IRA. You cannot contribute more to an IRA than you have earned in a given year. Interest, Ordinary Dividends, Short-term Capital Gains, Retirement income (pensions, distributions from tax deferred accounts, social security), Unemployment benefits, Worker's Compensation, Alimony/Child support, Income earned while in prison, Non-taxable military pay, most rental income, and S-Corp passthrough income Ordinary income is taxed the same as earned income with the exception that social security taxes do not apply. This is the \\\"\\\"pure taxable income\\\"\\\" referred to in the other linked question. Dividends paid by US Corporations and qualified foreign corporations to stock-holders (that are held for a certain period of time before the dividend is paid) are taxed at the Long-term Capital Gains rate explained below. Ordinary dividends like the interest earned in your bank account are included with ordinary income. Stocks, Bonds, Real estate, Carried interest -- Held for more than a year Income from assets that increase in value while being held for over a year. Long term capital gains justified by the idea that they encourage people to hold stock and make long term investments rather than buying and then quickly reselling for a short-term profit. The lower tax rates also reflect the fact that many of these assets are already taxed as they are appreciating in value. Real-estate is usually taxed through local property taxes. Equity in US corporations realized by rising stock prices and dividends that are returned to stock holders reflect earnings from a corporation that are already taxed at the 35% Corporate tax rate. Taxing Capital gains as ordinary income would be a second tax on those same profits. Another problem with Long-term capital gains tax is that a big portion of the gains for assets held for multiple decades are not real gains. Inflation increases the price of assets held for longer periods, but you are still taxed on the full gain even if it would be a loss when inflation is calculated. Capital gains are also taxed differently depending on your income level. If you are in the 10% or 15% brackets then Long-term capital gains are assessed at 0%. If you are in the 25%, 28%, 33%, or 35% brackets, they are assessed at 15%. Only those in the 39.6% bracket pay 20%. Capital assets sold at a profit held for less than a year Income from buying and selling any assets such as real-estate, stock, bonds, etc., that you hold for less than a year before selling. After adding up all gains and losses during the year, the net gain is taxed as ordinary income. Collectibles held for more than a year are not considered capital assets and are still taxed at ordinary income rates.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 11054,\n \"docid\": \"314342\",\n \"rank\": 48,\n \"score\": 113124\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: First of all depending on the type of IRA you may not have to pay taxes on withdrawals in the US at all. If you are withdrawing your principle from a Roth IRA then you don't owe taxes. Only when you withdraw the gains do you pay taxes on it. You have two options for withdrawals: Lump Sum Withdrawal: If you take a lump sum withdrawal you will owe taxes to the US (30% for non-resident aliens of the US), and according to DTAA; Article 23, you will file your taxes with India declaring your IRA or 401(k) withdrawal proceeds and claim credit on the taxes you paid to the US. Monthly Pension Withdrawal: You can also receive monthly pension payments and you will only be taxed in the country in which you are a resident of. This is according to DTAA, Article 20. You would then have to submit necessary documentation to your payer in the US so that they do not withhold any taxes in the US. Just as a side note it might be just better to keep the money where it is and let it grow or roll it over to a Roth IRA if you are currently in a lower tax bracket for maximum savings of your principle. Here is a link with more detailed information of what I provided you: http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2012-01-25/news/30663129_1_taxable-income-nri-401k-plan\",\n \"qid\": 11054,\n \"docid\": \"197576\",\n \"rank\": 49,\n \"score\": 112914\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"Investopedia probably should change the wording to \\\"\\\"tax free\\\"\\\" since all of the gains in a Roth IRA can be withdrawn without any additional taxes at retirement time. Tax deferred should only refer to the gains in a traditional IRA. \\\"\\\"Tax advantaged\\\"\\\" might be a reasonable term to use in both cases.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 11054,\n \"docid\": \"112182\",\n \"rank\": 50,\n \"score\": 112888\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"IRAs have huge tax-advantages. You'll pay taxes when you liquidate gold and silver. While volatile, \\\"\\\"the stock market has never produced a loss during any rolling 15-year period (1926-2009)\\\"\\\" [PDF]. This is perhaps the most convincing article for retirement accounts over at I Will Teach You To Be Rich. An IRA is just a container for your money and you may invest the money however you like (cash, stocks, funds, etc). A typical investment is the purchase of stocks, bonds, and/or funds containing either or both. Stocks may pay dividends and bonds pay yields. Transactions of these things trigger capital gains (or losses). This happens if you sell or if the fund manager sells pieces of the fund to buy something in its place (i.e. transactions happen without your decision and high turnover can result in huge capital gains). In a taxable account you will pay taxes on dividends and capital gains. In an IRA you don't ever pay taxes on dividends and capital gains. Over the life of the IRA (30+ years) this can be a huge ton of savings. A traditional IRA is funded with pre-tax money and you only pay tax on the withdrawal. Therefore you get more money upfront to invest and more money compounds into greater amounts faster. A Roth IRA you fund with after-tax dollars, but your withdrawals are tax free. Traditional versus Roth comparison calculator. Here are a bunch more IRA and 401k calculators. Take a look at the IRA tax savings for various amounts compared to the same money in a taxable account. Compounding over time will make you rich and there's your reason for starting young. Increases in the value of gold and silver will never touch compounded gains. So tax savings are a huge reason to stash your money in an IRA. You trade liquidity (having to wait until age 59.5) for a heck of a lot more money. Though isn't it nice to be assured that you will have money when you retire? If you aren't going to earn it then, you'll have to earn it now. If you are going to earn it now, you may as well put it in a place that earns you even more. A traditional IRA has penalties for withdrawing before retirement age. With a Roth you can withdraw the principal at anytime without penalty as long as the account has been open 5 years. A traditional IRA requires you take out a certain amount once you reach retirement. A Roth doesn't, which means you can leave money in the account to grow even more. A Roth can be passed on to a spouse after death, and after the spouse's death onto another beneficiary. more on IRA Required Minimum Distributions.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 11054,\n \"docid\": \"587727\",\n \"rank\": 51,\n \"score\": 112838\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: You are missing something very significant. The money in a traditional IRA (specifically, a deductible traditional IRA; there is not really any reason to keep a nondeductible traditional IRA anymore) is pre-tax. That means when you pay tax on it when you take it out, you are paying tax on it for the first time. If you take ordinary money to invest it in stocks, and then pay capital gains tax on it when you take it out, that is post-tax money to begin with -- meaning that you have already paid (income) tax on it once. Then you have to pay tax again on the time-value growth of that money (i.e. that growth is earned from money that is already taxed). That means you are effectively paying tax twice on part of that money. If that doesn't make sense to you, and you think that interest, capital gains, etc. is the first time you're paying tax on the money because it's growth, then you have a very simplistic view of money. There's something called time value of money, which means that a certain amount of money is equivalent to a greater amount of money in the future. If you invest $100 now and end up with $150 in the future, that $150 in the future is effectively the same money as the $100 now. Let's consider a few examples. Let's say you have $1000 of pre-tax income you want to invest and withdraw a certain period of time later in retirement. Let's say you have an investment that grows 100% over this period of time. And let's say that your tax rate now and in the future is 25% (and for simplicity, assume that all income is taxed at that rate instead of the tax bracket system). And capital gains tax is 15%. You see a few things: Traditional IRA and Roth IRA are equivalent if the tax rates are the same. This is because, in both cases, you pay tax one time on the money (the only difference between paying tax now and later is the tax rate). It doesn't matter that you're paying tax only on the principal for the Roth and on the principal plus earnings for Traditional, because the principal now is equivalent to the principal plus earnings in the future. And you also see that investing money outside fares worse than both of them. That is because you are paying tax on the money once plus some more. When you compare it against the Roth IRA, the disadvantage is obvious -- in both cases you pay income tax on the principal, but for Roth IRA you pay nothing on the earnings, whereas for the outside stock, you pay some tax on the earnings. What may be less obvious is it is equally disadvantageous compared to a Traditional IRA; Traditional and Roth IRA are equivalent in this comparison. 401(k)s and IRAs have a fundamental tax benefit compared to normal money investment, because they allow money to be taxed only one time. No matter how low the capital gains tax rate it, it is still worse because it is a tax on time-value growth from money that is already taxed.\",\n \"qid\": 11054,\n \"docid\": \"159462\",\n \"rank\": 52,\n \"score\": 112584\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Start with the tax delta. For example, you'd hope to deposit at 25% bracket, but take withdrawals while at a marginal 15%. In this case, you're 10% to the good with the 401(k) and need to look at the fee eating away at this over time. Pay an extra 1%/yr and after 10 years, you're losing money. That's too simple, however. Along the way, you need to consider that the capital gain rate is lower than ordinary income. It's easier to take those gains as you wish to time them, where the 401(k) offers no flexibly for this. Even with low fees, this account is going to turn long term gains to ordinary income. (Note - in 2013, a couple with up to $72,500 in taxable income has a 0% long term cap gain rate. So, if they wish, they can sell and buy back a fund, claim the gain, and raise their cost basis. A tiny effort for the avoidance of tax on the gains each year.) First paragraph, don't forget, there are the standard deduction, exemption, and 10% bracket. While you are in the range to save enough to create he income to fill the low end at withdrawal, there's more value than just the 10% I discussed earlier. Last, there's a phenomenon I call The Phantom Tax Rate Zone when one's retirement withdrawals trigger the taxation of Social Security. It further complicates the math and analysis you seek.\",\n \"qid\": 11054,\n \"docid\": \"261199\",\n \"rank\": 53,\n \"score\": 112104\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: As far as I know, there is no direct equivalent. An IRA is subject to many rules. Not only are there early withdrawal penalties, but the ability to deduct contributions to an IRA phases out with one's income level. Qualified withdrawals from an IRA won't have penalties, but they will be taxed as income. Contributions to a Roth IRA can be made post-tax and the resulting gains will be tax free, but they cannot be withdrawn early. Another tax-deductable investment is a 529 plan. These can be withdrawn from at any time, but there is a penalty if the money is not used for educational purposes. A 401K or similar employer-sponsored fund is made with pre-tax dollars unless it is designated as a Roth 401K. These plans also require money to be withdrawn specifically for retirement, with a 10% penalty for early withdrawal. Qualifying withdrawals from a regular retirement plan are taxed as income, those from a Roth plan are not (as with an IRA). Money can be made harder to get at by investing in all of the types of funds you can invest in using an IRA through the same brokers under a different type of account, but the contribution will be made with post-tax, non-deductable dollars and the gains will be taxed.\",\n \"qid\": 11054,\n \"docid\": \"545184\",\n \"rank\": 54,\n \"score\": 111707\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: First of all an IRA is a type of account that says nothing about how your money is invested. It seems like you are trying to compare an IRA with a market ETF (like Vanguard Total Market Admiral VTSAX), but the reality is that you can have both. Depending on your IRA some of the investment options may be limited, but you will probably be able to find some version of a passive fund following an index you are interested in. The IRA account is tax advantaged, but you may invest the money in your IRA in an ETF. As for how often a non-IRA account is taxed and how much, that depends on how often you sell. If you park your money in an ETF and do not sell, the IRS will not claim any taxes from it. The taxable event happens when you sell. But if you gain $1000 in a year and a day and you decide to sell, you will owe $150 (assuming 15% capital gains tax), bringing your earnings down to $850. If your investments go poorly and you lose money, there will be no capital gains tax to pay.\",\n \"qid\": 11054,\n \"docid\": \"240651\",\n \"rank\": 55,\n \"score\": 111693\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"If the investments are in a non-retirement, taxable account, there's not much you can do to avoid short-term capital gains if you sell now. Ways to limit short-term capital gains taxes: Donate -- you can donate some of the stock to charity (before selling it). Transfer -- you can give some of the stock to, say, a family member in a lower tax bracket. But there are tons of rules, gift limits, and won't work for little kids or full time students. They would still pay taxes at their own rate. Protect your gains by buying puts. Wait it out until the long-term capital gains rate kicks in. This allows you to lock in your gains now (but you won't benefit from potential future appreciation.) Buying puts also costs $, so do the ROI calculation. (You could also sell a call and buy a put at the same time and lock in your gains for certain, but the IRS often looks at that as locking in the short-term capital gain, so be careful and talk to a tax professional if you are considering that method.) Die. There's a \\\"\\\"step-up\\\"\\\" basis on capital gains for estates. source: http://www.forbes.com/2010/07/30/avoid-capital-gains-tax-anschutz-personal-finance-baldwin-tax-strategy.html\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 11054,\n \"docid\": \"431443\",\n \"rank\": 56,\n \"score\": 111589\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"Long term capital gains are taxed at 15% this year, so the most you stand to save is $150. I wouldn't sell anything at a loss just to offset that, unless you planned on selling anyways. A few reasons: The Long term capital gains rate will go up to 20% next year, so your losses will be \\\"\\\"worth more\\\"\\\" next year than this year. Short term capital gains rates will go up next year as well, so again, better off saving your losses for next year. You must use capital losses to offset capital gains if you have them, but if you don't have any capital gains, you can use capital losses to offset ordinary income (up to a limit - $3,000 a year IIRC). So, if you just bite the bullet and pay the 15% on your gains this year, you could use your losses to offset your (likely higher rate) ordinary income next year. FYI, complete chart for capital gains tax rates is here. I also posted another answer about capital gains to this question a while back that might be useful.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 11054,\n \"docid\": \"403608\",\n \"rank\": 57,\n \"score\": 111293\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: This was the day traders dilemma. You can, on paper, make money doing such trades. But because you do not hold the security for at least a year, the earnings are subject to short term capital gains tax unless these trades are done inside a sheltered account like a traditional IRA. There are other considerations as well: wash sale rules and number of days to settle. In short, the glory days of rags to riches by day trading are long gone, if they were ever here in the first place. Edit: the site will not allow me to add a comment, so I am putting my response here: Possibly, yes. One big 'gotcha' is that your broker reports the proceeds from your sales, but does not report your outflows from your buys. Then there is the risk you take by the broker refusing to sell the security until the transaction settles. Not to mention wash sale rules. You are trying to win at the 'buy low, sell high' game. But you have a 25% chance, at best, of winning at that game. Can you pick the low? Maybe, but you have a 50% chance of being right. Then you have to pick the high. And again you have a 50% chance of doing that. 50% times 50% is 25%. Warren Buffet did not get rich that way. Buffet buys and holds. Don't be a speculator, be a 'buy and hold' investor. Buy securities, inside a sheltered account like a traditional IRA, that pay dividends then reinvest those dividends into the security you bought. Scottrade has a Flexible Reinvestment Program that lets you do this with no commission fees.\",\n \"qid\": 11054,\n \"docid\": \"395783\",\n \"rank\": 58,\n \"score\": 110952\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: You don't have to wait. If you sell your shares now, your gain can be considered a capital gain for income tax purposes. Unlike in the United States, Canada does not distinguish between short-term vs. long-term gains where you'd pay different rates on each type of gain. Whether you buy and sell a stock within minutes or buy and sell over years, any gain you make on a stock can generally be considered a capital gain. I said generally because there is an exception: If you are deemed by CRA to be trading professionally -- that is, if you make a living buying and selling stocks frequently -- then you could be considered doing day trading as a business and have your gains instead taxed as regular income (but you'd also be able to claim additional deductions.) Anyway, as long as your primary source of income isn't from trading, this isn't likely to be a problem. Here are some good articles on these subjects:\",\n \"qid\": 11054,\n \"docid\": \"328073\",\n \"rank\": 59,\n \"score\": 110704\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: E.g. I buy 1 stock unit for $100.00 and sell it later for $150.00 => income taxes arise. Correct. You pay tax on your gains, i.e.: the different between net proceeds and gross costs (proceeds sans fees, acquisition costs including fees). I buy 1 stock unit for $150.00 and sell it later for $100.00 => no income taxes here. Not correct. The loss is deductible from other capital gains, and if no other capital gains - from your income (up to $3000 a year, until exhausted). Also, there are two different tax rate sets for capital gains: short term (holding up to 1 year) and long term (more than that). Short term capital gains tax matches ordinary income brackets, whereas long term capital gains tax brackets are much lower.\",\n \"qid\": 11054,\n \"docid\": \"553253\",\n \"rank\": 60,\n \"score\": 110433\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: The advantage of an IRA (or 401k) is you get taxed effectively one time on your income, whereas you get taxed effectively multiple times on some of the money in a taxable account. You have to consider it from the perspective of time value of money -- the concept that an amount of money now is the same value as a greater amount of money in the future. And in fact, if you put your money in an investment, the principal at the start can be considered the same value as the principal + earnings at the end. In both Traditional and Roth IRA, you pay taxes on the entire value of money once (remember that the principal when depositing is the same value as the principal + earnings when withdrawing). The only difference is when (year deposited or year withdrawn), so the main difference between the two is the tax rate when depositing vs. tax rate when withdrawing. I'll give you an example to demonstrate. We will assume you invest $1000 of pre-tax wages, it grows at 5% per year, there's a 25% flat tax now and in the future, you withdraw it after 20 years, and withdrawals are not subject to any penalty.\",\n \"qid\": 11054,\n \"docid\": \"419160\",\n \"rank\": 61,\n \"score\": 110318\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Generally it is advisable to mention what country you're asking about, as tax laws differ. To the best of my knowledge, however, this particular issue is handled consistently in every tax jurisdiction I'm familiar with. You invested X, it appreciated and is now worth X + Y. In your example, X = $10,000 and Y = $40,000. Total X + Y = $50,000. When you withdraw an amount, say A (in your example A = $10,000), it is considered a withdrawal of both the earnings and the original capital, in proportion to the total of your account. Taxable portion of the withdrawal is proportional to the earnings. Lets mark it T. In your example, T = $10,000 - $10,000 * $10,000/$50,000 = $8,000. I.e.: 80% of the withdrawal will be attributed to earnings and would be taxable (short term in your case, if you're in the US), and 20% to the original capital. This will keep the proportion of the remained the same - 20% of the remaining amount will be attributed to the original capital (accidentally, it will be $8,000), and the remaining 80% will be attributed to the earnings. The withdrawn amount attributed to the capital ($2,000), and the remaining amount attributed to the capital ($8,000) will equal exactly to the invested amount.\",\n \"qid\": 11054,\n \"docid\": \"144313\",\n \"rank\": 62,\n \"score\": 110079\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Your answer looks correct. It's the buyer of the option that's long, not the seller (you). If you're doing a lot of trading, you might get hit with wash-sale rules and you could be taxed at the short-term capital gains rate, which is higher than for long-term gains. But those aren't direct fees.\",\n \"qid\": 11054,\n \"docid\": \"528157\",\n \"rank\": 63,\n \"score\": 109783\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Consult a professional CA. For shares sold outside the Indian Stock Exchanges, these will be treated as normal Long Term Capital Gains if held more than one year. The rate would be 10% without Indexation and 20% with Indexation. If the stocks are held for less than 1 years, it will be short term gains and taxed according you to tax bracket.\",\n \"qid\": 11054,\n \"docid\": \"581632\",\n \"rank\": 64,\n \"score\": 109293\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: You can take out the contributions to your Roth tax and penalty free. That's the good thing. Anything above the amount you contributed that you withdraw early will cost you ordinary income tax (which is higher than capital gains tax) plus a 10 percent penalty on that amount. So if you have $15,000 in the account and $5,000 is gains and you withdraw $11,000, then you owe tax and penalty on $1,000. The penalty is 10% and your taxes (high taxes!) are added to that. Pretty bad deal. If you kept it in a normal account and paid capital gains tax, you just pay 15% (or whatever) on your gains and you get to offset income tax with your losses via tax loss harvesting. So back to your question: your idea works even better than you suggested if you only withdraw up to the amount that you contributed (you pay no tax!). Take out any of the gains and you will be penalized more than you would if you just paid capital gains on them. Leave those in until you are old enough to take them out penalty and tax free. To me, contributing to a Roth, making a bunch of gains on it, and withdrawing only the contribution part whenever you want seems to make good sense.\",\n \"qid\": 11054,\n \"docid\": \"579644\",\n \"rank\": 65,\n \"score\": 109222\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: You will not benefit at tax time like you did with your initial contributions, because you have already benefited and are simply repaying your withdrawn contributions. However, capital gains are not taxed inside of your RRSP, until you withdraw the money. Let's say you have $10,000 to repay and have all the money now. It makes sense to repay it immediately. Whatever interest or capital gains you make inside of the RRSP are not taxed. However, your $10,000 contribution this year will not offer you any deductions on your tax return. There are exactly two reasons I can see to not immediately repay the full amount, if able. First, you may need the money for an emergency fund, and there are significant implications for removing money from your RRSP in such a case. Second, if you believe you will be in a higher tax bracket when you retire, it may not make sense to put any money into an RRSP right now. Almost certainly, you want to repay the entire lump sum if able.\",\n \"qid\": 11054,\n \"docid\": \"304376\",\n \"rank\": 66,\n \"score\": 108746\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"You pay tax on the entire amount, not just the capital gains. When cashing out such a plan you would pay the top marginal tax rate on the full amount plus another 10% in penalties. It is very likely that the additional income, of the balance withdrawal, will increase your top marginal rate. It is impossible to come up with a precise answer as we don't know the following: However, you can take a concept away from this that is important: You will be taxed and penalized on the entire 401K balance, not just the capital gain. In the \\\"\\\"best case\\\"\\\" scenario, that is you had little or no income in a given year. Under current tax law you would owe about 31% of your 401K balance in taxes. As this is such an inefficient use of money most authors recommend against it except in the case of extreme circumstances.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 11054,\n \"docid\": \"21699\",\n \"rank\": 67,\n \"score\": 108048\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: I think you're misunderstanding how tax brackets work. If you make $1 more and that bumps you into a higher bracket, only THAT particular dollar will be taxed at the higher tax bracket rate... Not your entire income. Short term capital gains are treated as income. Long term capital gains have a special tax rate currently.\",\n \"qid\": 11054,\n \"docid\": \"395686\",\n \"rank\": 68,\n \"score\": 108020\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: I'm not sure where people keep getting this idea, but I see it come up a lot. Anyway, you pay capital gains taxes when you sell an investment that has appreciated. It makes no difference when/if you reinvest the money or what you invest it in. If you are afraid of the tax burden you can minimize it by: 1) Selling a stock that you have held longer than a year to get the lower long-term rate. 2) Sell a stock that hasn't appreciated that much and therefore doesn't have a lot of gains to tax. 3) Sell a stock that's below purchase price (i.e. at a loss) to offset any short term gains.\",\n \"qid\": 11054,\n \"docid\": \"448659\",\n \"rank\": 69,\n \"score\": 108004\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: For the Roth the earnings: interest, dividends, capital gains distributions and capital gains are tax deferred. Which means that as long as the money stays inside of a Roth or is transferred/rolled over to another Roth there are no taxes due. In December many mutual funds distribute their gains. Let's say people invested in S&P500index fund receive a dividend of 1% of their account value. The investor in a non-retirement fund will be paying tax on that dividend in the Spring with their tax form. The Roth and IRA investors will not be paying tax on those dividends. The Roth investor never will, and the regular IRA investor will only pay taxes on it when they pull the money out.\",\n \"qid\": 11054,\n \"docid\": \"393693\",\n \"rank\": 70,\n \"score\": 107832\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: If you made a contribution to a Traditional IRA for Year X (whether made during Year X or made in Year X+1 before the due date of your tax return for Year X), then you can withdraw the contribution and any gains on that contribution by the due date of your tax return. If the contribution was deductible, then of course you must not take a deduction for it in on your tax return for Year X (or any other year for that matter). As for the gains (if any) that were withdrawn, they are taxable income to you for Year X (not X+1, even if the withdrawal occurred in Year X+1). Publication 590a says You generally can make a tax-free withdrawal of contributions if you do it before the due date for filing your tax return for the year in which you made them. This means that, even if you are under age 59-1/2, the 10% additional tax may not apply. and later in the same Publication If you have an extension of time to file your return, you can withdraw them tax free by the extended due date. You can do this if, for each contribution you withdraw, both of the following conditions apply. - You did not take a deduction for the contribution. - You withdraw any interest or other income earned on the contribution. You can take into account any loss on the contribution while it was in the IRA when calculating the amount that must be withdrawn. If there was a loss, the net income earned on the contribution may be a negative amount. Later, the document says You must include in income any earnings on the contributions you withdraw. Include the earnings in income for the year in which you made the contributions, not the year in which you withdraw them. and The 10% additional tax on distributions made before you reach age 59-1/2 does not apply to these tax-free withdrawals of your contributions. However, the distribution of interest or other income must be reported on Form 5329 and, unless the distribution qualifies as an exception to the age 59-1/2 rule, it will be subject to this tax. Since you have a loss on the contributions that you are withdrawing, there is no interest or other income that needs to be reported.\",\n \"qid\": 11054,\n \"docid\": \"415815\",\n \"rank\": 71,\n \"score\": 107626\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: (All for US.) Yes you (will) have a realized long-term capital gain, which is taxable. Long-term gains (including those distributed by a mutual fund or other RIC, and also 'qualified' dividends, both not relevant here) are taxed at lower rates than 'ordinary' income but are still bracketed almost (not quite) like ordinary income, not always 15%. Specifically if your ordinary taxable income (after deductions and exemptions, equivalent to line 43 minus LTCG/QD) 'ends' in the 25% to 33% brackets, your LTCG/QD income is taxed at 15% unless the total of ordinary+preferred reaches the top of those brackets, then any remainder at 20%. These brackets depend on your filing status and are adjusted yearly for inflation, for 2016 they are: * single 37,650 to 413,350 * married-joint or widow(er) 75,300 to 413,350 * head-of-household 50,400 to 441,000 (special) * married-separate 37,650 to 206,675 which I'd guess covers at least the middle three quintiles of the earning/taxpaying population. OTOH if your ordinary income ends below the 25% bracket, your LTCG/QD income that 'fits' in the lower bracket(s) is taxed at 0% (not at all) and only the portion that would be in the ordinary 25%-and-up brackets is taxed at 15%. IF your ordinary taxable income this year was below those brackets, or you expect next year it will be (possibly due to status/exemption/deduction changes as well as income change), then if all else is equal you are better off realizing the stock gain in the year(s) where some (or more) of it fits in the 0% bracket. If you're over about $400k a similar calculation applies, but you can afford more reliable advice than potential dogs on the Internet. (update) Near dupe found: see also How are long-term capital gains taxed if the gain pushes income into a new tax bracket? Also, a warning on estimated payments: in general you are required to pay most of your income tax liability during the year (not wait until April 15); if you underpay by more than 10% or $1000 (whichever is larger) you usually owe a penalty, computed on Form 2210 whose name(?) is frequently and roundly cursed. For most people, whose income is (mostly) from a job, this is handled by payroll withholding which normally comes out close enough to your liability. If you have other income, like investments (as here) or self-employment or pension/retirement/disability/etc, you are supposed to either make estimated payments each 'quarter' (the IRS' quarters are shifted slightly from everyone else's), or increase your withholding, or a combination. For a large income 'lump' in December that wasn't planned in advance, it won't be practical to adjust withholding. However, if this is the only year increased, there is a safe harbor: if your withholding this year (2016) is enough to pay last year's tax (2015) -- which for most people it is, unless you got a pay cut this year, or a (filed) status change like marrying or having a child -- you get until next April 15 (or next business day -- in 2017 it is actually April 18) to pay the additional amount of this year's tax (2016) without underpayment penalty. However, if you split the gain so that both 2016 and 2017 have income and (thus) taxes higher than normal for you, you will need to make estimated payment(s) and/or increase withholding for 2017. PS: congratulations on your gain -- and on the patience to hold anything for 10 years!\",\n \"qid\": 11054,\n \"docid\": \"453639\",\n \"rank\": 72,\n \"score\": 107277\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"In a Roth IRA scenario, this $5,000 would be reduced to $3,750 if we assume a (nice and round) 25% tax rate. For the Traditional IRA, the full $5,000 would be invested. No, that's not how it works. Taxes aren't removed from your Roth account. You'll have $5,000 invested either way. The difference is that you'll have a tax deduction if you invest in a traditional IRA, but not a Roth. So you'll \\\"\\\"save\\\"\\\" $1,250 in taxes up front if you invest in a traditional IRA versus a Roth. The flip side is when you withdraw the money. Since you've already paid tax on the Roth investment, and it grows tax free, you'll pay no tax when you withdraw it. But you'll pay tax on the investment and the gains when you withdraw from a traditional IRA. Using your numbers, you'd pay tax on $2.2MM from the traditional IRA, but NO TAX on $2.2MM from the Roth. At that point, you've saved over $500,000 in taxes. Now if you invested the tax savings from the traditional IRA and it earned the same amount, then yes, you'd end up in the same place in the end, provided you have the same marginal tax rate. But I suspect that most don't invest that savings, and if you withdraw significant amount, you'll likely move into higher tax brackets. In your example, suppose you only had $3,750 of \\\"\\\"discretionary\\\"\\\" income that you could put toward retirement. You could put $5,000 in a traditional IRA (since you'll get a $1,250 tax deduction), or $3,750 in a Roth. Then your math works out the same. If you invest the same amount in either, though, the math on the Roth is a no-brainer.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 11054,\n \"docid\": \"175968\",\n \"rank\": 73,\n \"score\": 107134\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: may result in more taxes when Fund shares are held in a taxable account. When the fund manager decides to sell shares of a stock, and those shares have grown in value, that growth is a capital gain. If that fund is part of a taxable account then the investors in the fund will have to declare that income/gain on their tax forms. That could require the investors to have to pay taxes on those gains. Of course if the investors are holding the fund shares in a IRA or 401K then there are no taxes due in the near term. A higher portfolio turnover rate may indicate higher transaction costs... ...These costs, which are not reflected in annual fund operating expenses or in the previous expense examples, reduce the Fund’s performance. The annual fund operating expenses are the expenses that they can assume will happen every year. They include salaries, the cost of producing statements, paperwork required by the government, research... It doesn't include transaction costs. Which they can't estimate what they will be in advance. If the fund invests in a particular segment of the market, and there is a disruption in that segment, they may need to make many new investments. If on the other hand last year they made great choices the turnover may be small this year. During the most recent fiscal year, the Fund’s portfolio turnover rate was 3% of the average value of its portfolio. That may be your best indicator.\",\n \"qid\": 11054,\n \"docid\": \"179986\",\n \"rank\": 74,\n \"score\": 107084\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Some more considerations: (1) Tax rates (both ordinary and capital gains) are likely to be different when you retire. (2) Your marginal tax rate may be different when you retire depending on how much income you have at the time. In retirement your income may be structured completely differently than when you are working. For example, you may also have a Roth IRA/401K to pull from.\",\n \"qid\": 11054,\n \"docid\": \"565410\",\n \"rank\": 75,\n \"score\": 106935\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: My understanding is that losses are first deductible against any capital gains you may have, then against your regular income (up to $3,000 per year). If you still have a loss after that, the loss may be carried over to offset capital gains or income in subsequent years As you suspect, a short term capital loss is deductible against short term capital gains and long term losses are deductible against long term gains. So taking the loss now MIGHT be beneficial from a tax perspective. I say MIGHT because there are a couple scenarios in which it either may not matter, or actually be detrimental: If you don't have any short term capital gains this year, but you have long term capital gains, you would have to use the short term loss to offset the long term gain before you could apply it to ordinary income. So in that situation you lose out on the difference between the long term tax rate (15%) and your ordinary income rate (potentially higher). If you keep the stock, and sell it for a long term loss next year, but you only have short-term capital gains or no capital gains next year, then you may use the long term loss to offset your short-term gains (first) or your ordinary income. Clear as mud? The whole mess is outlined in IRS Publication 550 Finally, if you still think the stock is good, but just want to take the tax loss, you can sell the stock now (to realize the loss) then re-buy it in 30 days. This is called Tax Loss Harvesting. The 30 day delay is an IRS requirement for being allowed to realize the loss.\",\n \"qid\": 11054,\n \"docid\": \"318321\",\n \"rank\": 76,\n \"score\": 106834\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: What asset allocation is right for you (at the most basic the percentage if stocks vs bonds; at the advanced level, percentage of growth vs value, international vs domestic etc) is a function of your age, retirement goals, income stability and employment prospects until retirement. Roth IRA is orthogonal to this. Now, once you have your allocation worked out there are tactical tax advantage decisions available: interest income, REIT and MLP dividends are taxed at income and not capital gains rate, so the tactical decision is to put these investments in tax advantage accounts like Roth and 401ks. Conversely, should you decide to buy and hold growth stocks there are tactical advantages to keeping them in a taxable account: you get tax deferment until the year you choose to sell (barring a takeover), you get the lower lt cap gains rate, and you can employ tax loss harvesting.\",\n \"qid\": 11054,\n \"docid\": \"271949\",\n \"rank\": 77,\n \"score\": 106775\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: When you are investing for 40 years, you will have taxable events before retirement. You'll need to pay tax along the way, which will eat away at your gains. For example, in your taxable account, any dividends and capital gain distributions will need taxes paid each year. In your 401(k) or IRA, these are not taxable until retirement. In addition, what happens if you want to change investments before retirement? In your taxable account, taxes on the capital gains will be due at that time, but in a retirement account, you can change investments anytime you like without having to pay taxes early. Finally, when you do pull money out of your 401(k) at retirement, it will be taxed at whatever your tax rate is at retirement. After you retire, your income will probably be lower than when you were working, so your tax rate might be less.\",\n \"qid\": 11054,\n \"docid\": \"192738\",\n \"rank\": 78,\n \"score\": 106604\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"Do I have to pay the stock investment income tax if I bought some stocks in 2016, it made some profits but I didn't sell them at the end of 2016? You pay capital gains taxes only when you sell the stocks. When you sell the stock within a year you will pay the short term capital gains rate which is the same rate as your ordinary income. If the stock pays dividends, however, you will have to pay taxes in the year that the dividend was paid out to you. I bought some stocks in 2011, sold them in 2012 and made some gains. Which year of do I pay the tax for the gains I made? You would pay in 2012, likely at the short term gain rate. I bought some stocks, sold them and made some gains, then use the money plus the gains to buy some other stocks before the end of the same year. Do I have to pay the tax for the gains I made in that year? Yes. There is a specific exception called the \\\"\\\"Wash Sale Rule\\\"\\\", but that would only apply if you lost money on the original sale and bought a substantially similar or same stock within 30 days. Do I get taxed more for the money I made from buying and selling stocks, even if the gains is only in hundreds? More than what? You pay taxes based on the profit you make from the investment. If you held it less than a year it is the same tax rate as your regular income. If you held it longer you pay a lower tax rate which is usually lower than your regular tax rate.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 11054,\n \"docid\": \"537916\",\n \"rank\": 79,\n \"score\": 106553\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"Assuming your investments aren't in any kind of tax-advantaged account (like an IRA), they are generally not tracked and you indeed may pay more taxes. What will likely change, however, is your cost basis. You only pay tax on the difference between the value of the investment when you sell it and its value when you bought it. There is no rule that says once you sell an investment and pay taxes on the gain, you will never again pay any taxes on any other investments you then buy with that money. If you own some investment, and it increases in value, and then you sell it, you had a capital gain and owe taxes (depending on your tax bracket, etc.). If you use the money to buy some other investment, and that increases in value, and then you sell it, you had another separate capital gain and again owe taxes. However, every time you sell, you only are subject to capital gains taxes on the gain, not the entire sale price. The value of the investment at the time you bought it is the cost basis. When you sell, you take the sale price and subtract the cost basis to find your gain, So suppose you bought $1000 worth of some ETF many years ago. It went up to $2000 and you sold it. You have $2000 in cash, but $1000 of that is your original money back, so your capital gain is $1000 and that is the amount on which you owe (or may owe) taxes. Suppose you pay 15% tax on this, as you suggest; that is $150, leaving you with $1850. Now suppose you buy another ETF with that. Your cost basis is now $1850. Suppose the investment now increases in value again to $2000. This time when you sell, you still have $2000 in cash, but this is now only $150 more than you paid, so you only owe capital gains taxes on that $150. (A 15% tax on that would be $22.50.) In that example you had one capital gain of $1000 and a second of $150 and paid a total of $172.50 in taxes (150 + 22.50). Suppose instead that you had held the original investment and it had increased in value to $2150 and you had then sold it. You would have a single capital gain of $1150 (2150 minus the original 1000 you paid). 15% of this would be the same $172.50 you paid under the other arrangement. So in essence you pay the same taxes either way. (This example is simplified, of course; in reality, the rate you pay depends on your overall income, so you could pay more if you sell a lot in a single year, since it could push you into a higher tax bracket.) So none of the money is \\\"\\\"tax exempt\\\"\\\", but each time you sell, you \\\"\\\"reset the counter\\\"\\\" by paying tax on your gain, and each time you buy, you start a new counter on the basis of whatever you pay for the investment. Assuming you're dealing with ordinary investment instruments like stocks and ETFs, this basis information is typically tracked by the bank or brokerage where you buy and sell them. Technically speaking it is your responsibility to track and report this when you sell an investment, and if you do complicated things like transfer securities from one brokerage to another you may have to do that yourself. In general, however, your bank/brokerage will keep track of cost basis information for you.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 11054,\n \"docid\": \"190687\",\n \"rank\": 80,\n \"score\": 106467\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: To explain the capital gains part of the question, non qualified stock options (NSOs) are always treated like earned income and have payroll taxes withheld. It's advantageous for the company to issue these because they can deduct them as expenses just as they do your salary. Articles talking about capital gains would probably be referring to incentive stock options (ISOs) or possibly even restricted stock units (RSUs). If you were granted the option to buy the stock and/or hold it for a period of time, then the stock options could be treated as capital gains, short-term gains if you held them for less than a year, and long-term gains if you held them for more than a year. This payment for your NSOs is exactly like a cash bonus. The withholding follows the same guidelines. You may wish to look at what this will mean for your annual salary and adjust your W-4 withholding up or down as appropriate depending on whether the 25% federal withholding rate is more or less than what you think your final marginal rate will be with this bonus included in your annual salary.\",\n \"qid\": 11054,\n \"docid\": \"203334\",\n \"rank\": 81,\n \"score\": 106396\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Withdrawals from a traditional 401(k) plan are always treated as cash income and the taxable portion is taxed at ordinary income tax rates, even if the money was held in stocks within the 401(k) plan and the amount withdrawn is equal to whatever capital gains you made by selling the stock within the 401(k) plan. If your plan permits you to take the distribution as stock shares (transferred to your taxable brokerage account), then, for tax purposes, it is treated as if you took a distribution of cash equal to the market price of the shares as of the day of the distribution and promptly bought the same number of shares in your brokerage account. And yes, if the 401(k) plan assets in your ex-employer's plan consists solely of pretax contributions and the earnings thereon, then the entire distribution is ordinary taxable income regardless of whether you sold the stock within the 401(k) plan or took a distribution of stock from the plan and promptly (or after a few days) sold it. The capital gains or losses (if any) from such a sale are, of course, outside the 401(k) plan and taxable accordingly. Finally, the 10% penalty for premature withdrawal from a traditional 401(k) will also apply if you are not 59.5 years of age or older (or maybe 55 since you are separated from service), and it will be computed on the entire distribution.\",\n \"qid\": 11054,\n \"docid\": \"30912\",\n \"rank\": 82,\n \"score\": 106306\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"If you sell a stock, with no distributions, then your gain is taxable under §1001. But not all realized gains will be recognized as taxable. And some gains which are arguably not realized, will be recognized as taxable. The stock is usually a capital asset for investors, who will generate capital gains under §1(h), but dealers, traders, and hedgers will get different treatment. If you are an investor, and you held the stock for a year or more, then you can get the beneficial capital gain rates (e.g. 20% instead of 39.6%). If the asset was held short-term, less than a year, then your tax will generally be calculated at the higher ordinary income rates. There is also the problem of the net investment tax under §1411. I am eliding many exceptions, qualifications, and permutations of these rules. If you receive a §316 dividend from a stock, then that is §61 income. Qualified dividends are ordinary income but will generally be taxed at capital gains rates under §1(h)(11). Distributions in redemption of your stock are usually treated as sales of stock. Non-dividend distributions (that are not redemptions) will reduce your basis in the stock to zero (no tax due) and past zero will be treated as gain from a sale. If you exchange stock in a tax-free reorganization (i.e. contribute your company stock in exchange for an acquirer's stock), you have what would normally be considered a realized gain on the exchange, but the differential will not be recognized, if done correctly. If you hold your shares and never sell them, but you engage in other dealings (short sales, options, collars, wash sales, etc.) that impact those shares, then you can sometimes be deemed to have recognized gain on shares that were never sold or exchanged. A more fundamental principle of income tax design is that not all realized gains will be recognized. IRC §1001(c) says that all realized gains are recognized, except as otherwise provided; that \\\"\\\"otherwise\\\"\\\" is substantial and far-ranging.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 11054,\n \"docid\": \"42521\",\n \"rank\": 83,\n \"score\": 106170\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Yes, it should come out tax free. However you should have reported it to the IRS at the time (currently it is done on form 8606). If you haven't done it, the IRS may disagree with you on that and require taxes. If you have proper documentation of the contribution, then when you withdraw from your IRA - you use that same form 8606 to calculate the non-taxable portion. Note that you cannot just take $2K out of the 1099-R, the non-taxable portion will be prorated through all of your IRA withdrawals. Also, keep in mind that only the actual after tax portion will be tax-free, the gains will be taxable. I.e.: if you deposited $2K after tax (and nothing else), and they have now grown to $100K - you will only have 2% of your distribution tax free (2k/100K * distributed amount).\",\n \"qid\": 11054,\n \"docid\": \"443983\",\n \"rank\": 84,\n \"score\": 105808\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Assuming that what you want to do is to counter the capital gains tax on the short term and long term gains, and that doing so will avoid any underpayment penalties, it is relatively simple to do so. Figure out the tax on the capital gains by determining your tax bracket. Lets say 25% short term and 15% long term or (0.25x7K) + (0.15*8K) or $2950. If you donate to charities an additional amount of items or money to cover that tax. So taking the numbers in step 1 divide by the marginal tax rate $2950/0.25 or $11,800. Money is easier to donate because you will be contributing enough value that the IRS may ask for proof of the value, and that proof needs to be gathered either before the donation is given or at the time the donation is given. Also don't wait until December 31st, if you miss the deadline and the donation is counted for next year, the purpose will have been missed. Now if the goal is just to avoid the underpayment penalty, you have two other options. The safe harbor is the easiest of the two to determine. Look at last years tax form. Look for the amount of tax you paid last year. Not what was withheld, but what you actually paid. If all your withholding this year, is greater than 110% of the total tax from last year, you have reached the safe harbor. There are a few more twists depending on AGI Special rules for farmers, fishermen, and higher income taxpayers. If at least two-thirds of your gross income for tax year 2014 or 2015 is from farming or fishing, substitute 662/3% for 90% in (2a) under the General rule, earlier. If your AGI for 2014 was more than $150,000 ($75,000 if your filing status for 2015 is married filing a separate return), substitute 110% for 100% in (2b) under General rule , earlier. See Figure 4-A and Publication 505, chapter 2 for more information.\",\n \"qid\": 11054,\n \"docid\": \"176105\",\n \"rank\": 85,\n \"score\": 105776\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Even if you're paying a lot of taxes now, you're talking marginal dollars when you look at current contribution, and average tax rate when making withdrawals. IE, if you currently pay 28% on your last dollar (and assuming your contribution is entirely in your marginal rate), then you're paying 28% on all of the Roth contributions, but probably paying a lower average tax rate, due to the lower tax rates on the first many dollars. Look at the overall average tax rate of your expected retirement income - if you're expecting to pull out $100k a year, you're probably paying less than 20% in average taxes, because the first third or so is taxed at a very low rate (0 or 15%), assuming things don't change in our tax code. Comparing that to your 28% and you have a net gain of 8% by paying the taxes later - nothing to shake a stick at. At minimum, have enough in your traditional IRA to max out the zero tax bucket (at least $12k). Realistically you probably should have enough to max out the 15% bucket, as you presumably are well above that bucket now. Any Roth savings will be more than eliminated by this difference: 28% tax now, 15% tax later? Yes please. A diversified combination is usually best for those expecting to have a lot of retirement savings - enough in Traditional to get at least $35k or so a year out, say, and then enough in Roth to keep your comfortable lifestyle after that. The one caveat here is in the case when you max out your contribution levels, you may gain by using money that is not in your IRA to pay the taxes on the conversion. Talk to your tax professional or accountant to verify this will be helpful in your particular instance.\",\n \"qid\": 11054,\n \"docid\": \"526520\",\n \"rank\": 86,\n \"score\": 105488\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Outside of a tax sheltered IRA or 401(k) type of account your transactions may trigger tax liability. However, transactions are not taxed immediately at the time of the transaction; and up to a certain limits capital gains can be offset by capital losses which can mitigate your liability at tax time. Also, remember that dividend receipts are taxable income as well. As others have said, this has nothing to do with whether or not money has been moved out of the account.\",\n \"qid\": 11054,\n \"docid\": \"163836\",\n \"rank\": 87,\n \"score\": 105317\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"You have several questions in your post so I'll deal with them individually: Is taking small sums from your IRA really that detrimental? I mean as far as tax is concerned? Percentage wise, you pay the tax on the amount plus a 10% penalty, plus the opportunity cost of the gains that the money would have gotten. At 6% growth annually, in 5 years that's more than a 34% loss. There are much cheaper ways to get funds than tapping your IRA. Isn't the 10% \\\"\\\"penalty\\\"\\\" really to cover SS and the medicare tax that you did not pay before putting money into your retirement? No - you still pay SS and medicare on your gross income - 401(k) contributions just reduce how much you pay in income tax. The 10% penalty is to dissuade you from using retirement money before you retire. If I ... contributed that to my IRA before taxes (including SS and medicare tax) that money would gain 6% interest. Again, you would still pay SS and Medicare, and like you say there's no guarantee that you'll earn 6% on your money. I don't think you can pay taxes up front when making an early withdrawal from an IRA can you? This one you got right. When you file your taxes, your IRA contributions for the year are totaled up and are deducted from your gross income for tax purposes. There's no tax effect when you make the contribution. Would it not be better to contribute that $5500 to my IRA and if I didn't need it, great, let it grow but if I did need it toward the end of the year, do an early withdrawal? So what do you plan your tax withholdings against? Do you plan on keeping it there (reducing your withholdings) and pay a big tax bill (plus possibly penalties) if you \\\"\\\"need it\\\"\\\"? Or do you plan to take it out and have a big refund when you file your taxes? You might be better off saving that up in a savings account during the year, and if at the end of the year you didn't use it, then make an IRA contribution, which will lower the taxes you pay. Don't use your IRA as a \\\"\\\"hopeful\\\"\\\" savings account. So if I needed to withdrawal $5500 and I am in the 25% tax bracket, I would owe the government $1925 in taxes+ 10% penalty. So if I withdrew $7425 to cover the tax and penalty, I would then be taxed $2600 (an additional $675). Sounds like a cat chasing it's tail trying to cover the tax. Yes if you take a withdrawal to pay the taxes. If you pay the tax with non-retirement money then the cycle stops. how can I make a withdrawal from an IRA without having to pay tax on tax. Pay cash for the tax and penalty rather then taking another withdrawal to pay the tax. If you can't afford the tax and penalty in cash, then don't withdraw at all. based on this year's W-2 form, I had an accountant do my taxes and the $27K loan was added as earned income then in another block there was the $2700 amount for the penalty. So you paid 25% in income tax for the earned income and an additional 10% penalty. So in your case it was a 35% overall \\\"\\\"tax\\\"\\\" instead of the 40% rule of thumb (since many people are in 28% and 35% tax brackets) The bottom line is it sounds like you are completely unorganized and have absolutely no margin to cover any unexpected expenses. I would stop contributing to retirement today until you can get control of your spending, get on a budget, and stop trying to use your IRA as a piggy bank. If you don't plan on using the money for retirement then don't put it in an IRA. Stop borrowing from it and getting into further binds that force you to make bad financial decisions. You don't go into detail about any other aspects (mortgage? car loans? consumer debt?) to even begin to know where the real problem is. So you need to write everything down that you own and you owe, write out your monthly expenses and income, and figure out what you can cut if needed in order to build up some cash savings. Until then, you're driving across country in a car with no tires, worrying about which highway will give you the best gas mileage.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 11054,\n \"docid\": \"523521\",\n \"rank\": 88,\n \"score\": 105206\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"You have a sequence of questions here, so a sequence of answers: If you stopped at the point where you had multiple wins with a net profit of $72, then you would pay regular income tax on that $72. It's a short term capital gain, which does not get special tax treatment, and the fact that you made it on multiple transactions does not matter. When you enter your next transaction that takes the hypothetical loss the question gets more complicated. In either case, you are paying a percentage on net gains. If you took a two year view in the second case and you don't have anything to offset your loss in the second year, then I guess you could say that you paid more tax than you won in the total sequence of trades over the two years. Although you picked a sequence of trades where it does not appear to play, if you're going to pursue this type of strategy then you are likely at some point to run into a case where the \\\"\\\"wash sale\\\"\\\" rules apply, so you should be aware of that. You can find information on this elsewhere on this site and also, for example, here: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/understanding-the-wash-sale-rules-2015-03-02 Basically these rules require you to defer recording a loss under some circumstances where you have rapid wins and losses on \\\"\\\"substantially identical\\\"\\\" securities. EDIT A slight correction, you can take part of your losses in the second year even if you have no off-setting gain. From the IRS: If your capital losses exceed your capital gains, the amount of the excess loss that you can claim on line 13 of Form 1040 to lower your income is the lesser of $3,000, ($1,500 if you are married filing separately)\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 11054,\n \"docid\": \"207788\",\n \"rank\": 89,\n \"score\": 104917\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: The capital gains is counted towards your income. If you cash out 1 Million dollars, you have a 1 Million dollar income for that year, which puts you at the 39.6% tax bracket. However, because that 1 Million dollars is all long term capital gains, you will only have to pay 20% of it in long term capital gains taxes. The best you can do is to cash the 1 Million dollars through several years instead of just all at once. This will put in a lower tax bracket and thus will pay lower capital gains tax.\",\n \"qid\": 11054,\n \"docid\": \"496217\",\n \"rank\": 90,\n \"score\": 104844\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: My take is that he can avoid a big tax hit by leaving it as and giving the untouched fund to the heirs. 100% correct. By withdrawing now he'll be subjected to the income tax on the gains. Since his gains are almost the whole value of the account, he'll actually find himself in the highest bracket, not the lowest as Joe suggests. Not only that, but his SS income will become taxable as well. Capital gains are included in the AGI. By leaving as is, the heirs will get stepped up basis, and the whole 700K will not be taxed (its below the estate tax threshold, and the basis for the heirs will be the value at death).\",\n \"qid\": 11054,\n \"docid\": \"520379\",\n \"rank\": 91,\n \"score\": 104770\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Capital losses do mirror capital gains within their holding periods. An asset or investment this is certainly held for a year into the day or less, and sold at a loss, will create a short-term capital loss. A sale of any asset held for over a year to your day, and sold at a loss, will create a loss that is long-term. When capital gains and losses are reported from the tax return, the taxpayer must first categorize all gains and losses between long and short term, and then aggregate the sum total amounts for every single regarding the four categories. Then the gains that are long-term losses are netted against each other, therefore the same is done for short-term gains and losses. Then your net gain that is long-term loss is netted against the net short-term gain or loss. This final net number is then reported on Form 1040. Example Frank has the following gains and losses from his stock trading for the year: Short-term gains - $6,000 Long-term gains - $4,000 Short-term losses - $2,000 Long-term losses - $5,000 Net short-term gain/loss - $4,000 ST gain ($6,000 ST gain - $2,000 ST loss) Net long-term gain/loss - $1,000 LT loss ($4,000 LT gain - $5,000 LT loss) Final net gain/loss - $3,000 short-term gain ($4,000 ST gain - $1,000 LT loss) Again, Frank can only deduct $3,000 of final net short- or long-term losses against other types of income for that year and must carry forward any remaining balance.\",\n \"qid\": 11054,\n \"docid\": \"266898\",\n \"rank\": 92,\n \"score\": 104753\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"Since the deduction balances out the future tax (presumably), I am only paying tax on the gains, however over 20 years, those gains could be greater than the original $4000 itself. (Doubling would only take 3.6% annual return over 20 years ) If I put it into a Roth IRA, I don't get a tax deduction, but I get to withdraw the original $4000 and all the gains, tax free in about 20 years. It seems the Roth IRA is a better deal tax wise, but I would like to hear if I am missing something. You are missing the time value of money. $4000 now does not have the same value to you as $4000 years in the future. In fact, the $4000 now has the same value as the money it grows into (principal + earnings) in the future. So a certain percentage of tax on the $4000 now has the same effect to you as the same percentage of tax on the $4000 + earnings in the future, no matter how much \\\"\\\"earnings\\\"\\\" is. It's simple math. If you start with the same amount of pre-tax money, and have the same flat percentage tax rate, then both Traditional and Roth will leave you with the same amount of money, regardless of how many times the gains are. Try it for yourself.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 11054,\n \"docid\": \"581085\",\n \"rank\": 93,\n \"score\": 104725\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"This question and your other one indicate you're a bit unclear on how capital gains taxes work, so here's the deal: you buy an asset (like shares of stock or a mutual fund). You later sell it for more than you bought it for. You pay taxes on your profit: the difference between what you sold it for and what you bought it for. What matters is not the amount of money you \\\"\\\"withdraw\\\"\\\", but the prices at which assets are bought and sold. In fact, often you will be able to choose which individual shares you sell, which means you have some control over the tax you pay. For a simple example, suppose you buy 10 shares of stock for $100 each in January (an investment of $1000); we'll call these the \\\"\\\"early\\\"\\\" shares. The stock goes up to $200 in July, and you buy 10 more shares (investing an additional $2000); we'll call these the \\\"\\\"late\\\"\\\" shares. Then the stock drops to $150. Suppose you want $1500 in cash, so you are going to sell 10 shares. The 10 early shares you bought have increased in value, because you bought then for $100 but can now sell them for $150. The 10 late shares have decreased in value, because you bought them for $200 but can now only sell them for $150. If you choose to sell the early shares, you will have a capital gain of $500 ($1500 sale price minus $1000 purchase price), on which you may owe taxes. If you sell the late shares, you will have a capital loss of $500 ($1500 sale price minus $2000 purchase price is -$500), which you can potentially use to reduce your taxes. Or you could sell 5 of each and have no gain or loss (selling five early shares for $150 gives you a gain of $250, but selling five late shares for $150 gives you a loss of $250, and they cancel out). The point of all this is to say that the tax is not determined by the amount of cash you get, but by the difference between the sale price and the price you purchased for (known as the \\\"\\\"cost basis\\\"\\\"), and this in turn depends on which specific assets you sell. It is not enough to know the total amount you invested and the total gain. You need to know the specific cost basis (i.e., original purchase price) of the specific shares you're selling. (This is also the answer to your question about long-term versus short-term gains. It doesn't matter how much money you make on the sale. What matters is how long you hold the asset before selling it.) That said, many brokers will automatically sell your shares in a certain order unless you tell them otherwise (and some won't let you tell them otherwise). Often they will use the \\\"\\\"first in, first out\\\"\\\" rule, which means they will always sell the earliest-purchased shares first. To finally get to your specific question about Betterment, they have a page here that says they use a different method. Essentially, they try to sell your shares in a way that minimizes taxes. They do this by first selling shares that have a loss, and only then selling shares that have a gain. This basically means that if you want to cash out $X, and it is possible to do it in a way that incurs no tax liability, they will do that. What gets me very confused is if I continue to invest random amounts of money each month using Betterment, then I need to withdraw some cash, what are the tax implications. As my long answer above should indicate, there is no simple answer to this. The answer is \\\"\\\"it depends\\\"\\\". It depends on exactly when you bought the shares, exactly how much you paid for them, exactly when and how much the price rose or fell, and exactly how much you sell them for. Betterment is more or less saying \\\"\\\"Don't worry about any of this, trust us, we will handle everything so that your tax is minimized.\\\"\\\" A final note: if you really do want to track the details of your cost basis, Betterment may not be for you, because it is an automated platform that may do a lot of individual trades that a human wouldn't do, and that can make tracking the cost basis yourself very difficult. Almost the whole point of something like Betterment is that you are supposed to give them your money and forget about these details.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 11054,\n \"docid\": \"257625\",\n \"rank\": 94,\n \"score\": 104692\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"This answer is about the USA. Each time you sell a security (a stock or a bond) or some other asset, you are expected to pay tax on the net gain. It doesn't matter whether you use a broker or mutual fund to make the sale. You still owe the tax. Net capital gain is defined this way: Gross sale prices less (broker fees for selling + cost of buying the asset) The cost of buying the asset is called the \\\"\\\"basis price.\\\"\\\" You, or your broker, needs to keep track of the basis price for each share. This is easy when you're just getting started investing. It stays easy if you're careful about your record keeping. You owe the capital gains tax whenever you sell an asset, whether or not you reinvest the proceeds in something else. If your capital gains are modest, you can pay all the taxes at the end of the year. If they are larger -- for example if they exceed your wage earnings -- you should pay quarterly estimated tax. The tax authorities ding you for a penalty if you wait to pay five- or six-figure tax bills without paying quarterly estimates. You pay NET capital gains tax. If one asset loses money and another makes money, you pay on your gains minus your losses. If you have more losses than gains in a particular year, you can carry forward up to $3,000 (I think). You can't carry forward tens of thousands in capital losses. Long term and short term gains are treated separately. IRS Schedule B has places to plug in all those numbers, and the tax programs (Turbo etc) do too. Dividend payments are also taxable when they are paid. Those aren't capital gains. They go on Schedule D along with interest payments. The same is true for a mutual fund. If the fund has Ford shares in it, and Ford pays $0.70 per share in March, that's a dividend payment. If the fund managers decide to sell Ford and buy Tesla in June, the selling of Ford shares will be a cap-gains taxable event for you. The good news: the mutual fund managers send you a statement sometime in February or March of each year telling what you should put on your tax forms. This is great. They add it all up for you. They give you a nice consolidated tax statement covering everything: dividends, their buying and selling activity on your behalf, and any selling they did when you withdrew money from the fund for any purpose. Some investment accounts like 401(k) accounts are tax free. You don't pay any tax on those accounts -- capital gains, dividends, interest -- until you withdraw the money to live on after you retire. Then that money is taxed as if it were wage income. If you want an easy and fairly reliable way to invest, and don't want to do a lot of tax-form scrambling, choose a couple of different mutual funds, put money into them, and leave it there. They'll send you consolidated tax statements once a year. Download them into your tax program and you're done. You mentioned \\\"\\\"riding out bad times in cash.\\\"\\\" No, no, NOT a good idea. That investment strategy almost guarantees you will sell when the market is going down and buy when it's going up. That's \\\"\\\"sell low, buy high.\\\"\\\" It's a loser. Not even Warren Buffett can call the top of the market and the bottom. Ned Johnson (Fidelity's founder) DEFINITELY can't.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 11054,\n \"docid\": \"337993\",\n \"rank\": 95,\n \"score\": 104594\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: It is not a dump question because it concerns your most important invisible financial partner:the taxman. The answer depends of the legal status of this account. If your account is 401(k) in USA or RRSP in Canada, the answer is no. No capital gain taxes if your money is registered for retirement. You'll pay later on, as taxes are like death, unavoidable. Yes capital gain if your money is not in an retirement account. As soon as you realize a capital gain, it becomes taxable in that fiscal year.\",\n \"qid\": 11054,\n \"docid\": \"564548\",\n \"rank\": 96,\n \"score\": 104570\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: At the end of each calendar year the mutual fund company will send you a 1099 form. It will tell you and the IRS what your account earned. You will see boxes for: You will end up paying taxes on these, unless the fund is part of a 401K or IRA. These taxes will be due even if you never sold any shares. They are due even if it was a bad year and the value of your account went down. Most if not all states will levy an income tax yon your dividends and capital gains each year. When you sell your shares you may also owe income taxes if you made a profit. The actual taxes due is a more complex calculation due to long term vs short term, and what other gains or losses you have. Partial sales also take into account which shares are sold.\",\n \"qid\": 11054,\n \"docid\": \"88947\",\n \"rank\": 97,\n \"score\": 104508\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"All transactions within an IRA are irrelevant as far as the taxation of the distributions from the IRA are concerned. You can only take cash from an IRA, and a (cash) distribution from a Traditional IRA is taxable as ordinary income (same as interest from a bank, say) without the advantage of any of the special tax rates for long-term capital gains or qualified dividends even if that cash was generated within the IRA from sales of stock etc. In short, just as with what is alleged to occur with respect to Las Vegas, what happens within the IRA stays within the IRA. Note: some IRA custodians are willing to make a distribution of stock or mutual fund shares to you, so that ownership of the 100 shares of GE, say, that you hold within your IRA is transferred to you in your personal (non-IRA) brokerage account. But, as far as the IRS is concerned, your IRA custodian sold the stock as the closing price on the day of the distribution, gave you the cash, and you promptly bought the 100 shares (at the closing price) in your personal brokerage account with the cash that you received from the IRA. It is just that your custodian saved the transaction fees involved in selling 100 shares of GE stock inside the IRA and you saved the transaction fee for buying 100 shares of GE stock in your personal brokerage account. Your basis in the 100 shares of GE stock is the \\\"\\\"cash_ that you imputedly received as a distribution from the IRA, so that when you sell the shares at some future time, your capital gains (or losses) will be with respect to this basis. The capital gains that occurred within the IRA when the shares were imputedly sold by your IRA custodian remain within the IRA, and you don't get to pay taxes on that at capital gains rates. That being said, I would like to add to what NathanL told you in his answer. Your mother passed away in 2011 and you are now 60 years old (so 54 or 55 in 2011?). It is likely that your mother was over 70.5 years old when she passed away, and so she likely had started taking Required Minimum Distributions from her IRA before her death. So, You should have been taking RMDs from the Inherited IRA starting with Year 2012. (The RMD for 2011, if not taken already by your mother before she passed away, should have been taken by her estate, and distributed to her heirs in accordance with her will, or, if she died intestate, in accordance with state law and/or probate court directives). There would not have been any 10% penalty tax due on the RMDs taken by you on the grounds that you were not 59.5 years old as yet; that rule applies to owners (your mom in this case) and not to beneficiaries (you in this case). So, have you taken the RMDs for 2012-2016? Or were you waiting to turn 59.5 before taking distributions in the mistaken belief that you would have to pay a 10% penalty for early wthdrawal? The penalty for not taking a RMD is 50% of the amount not distributed; yes, 50%. If you didn't take RMDs from the Inherited IRA for years 2012-2016, I recommend that you consult a CPA with expertise in tax law. Ask the CPA if he/she is an Enrolled Agent with the IRS: Enrolled Agents have to pass an exam administered by the IRS to show that they really understand tax law and are not just blowing smoke, and can represent you in front of the IRS in cases of audit etc,\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 11054,\n \"docid\": \"76530\",\n \"rank\": 98,\n \"score\": 104342\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"Long term: Assuming you sold stock ABC through a registered stock exchange, e.g., the Bombay Stock Exchange or the National Stock Exchange of India, and you paid the Securities Transaction Tax (STT), you don't owe any other taxes on the long term capital gain of INR 100. If you buy stock BCD afterwards, this doesn't affect the long term capital gains from the sale of stock ABC. Short term: If you sell the BCD stock (or the ABC stock, or some combination therein) within one year of its purchase, you're required to pay short term capital gains on the net profit, in which case you pay the STT and the exchange fees and an additional flat rate of 15%. The Income Tax Department of India has a publication titled \\\"\\\"How to Compute your Capital Gains,\\\"\\\" which goes into more detail about a variety of relevant situations.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 11054,\n \"docid\": \"526661\",\n \"rank\": 99,\n \"score\": 104179\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"There are two ways to handle this. The first is that the better brokers, such as Charles Schwab, will produce summaries of your gains and losses (using historical cost information), as well as your trades, on a monthly and annual basis. These summaries are \\\"\\\"ready made\\\"\\\" for the IRS. More brokers will provide these summaries come 2011. The second is that if you are a \\\"\\\"frequent trader\\\"\\\" (see IRS rulings for what constitutes one), then they'll allow you to use the net worth method of accounting. That is, you take the account balance at the end of the year, subtract the beginning balance, adjust the value up for withdrawals and down for infusions, and the summary is your gain or loss. A third way is to do all your trading in say, an IRA, which is taxed on distribution, not on stock sales.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 11054,\n \"docid\": \"252176\",\n \"rank\": 100,\n \"score\": 104171\n }\n]"}}},{"rowIdx":647,"cells":{"query":{"kind":"string","value":"Am I required to have a lawyer create / oversee creation of my will?"},"hits":{"kind":"list like","value":[{"content":"Title: Content: \"This is not intended as legal advice, and only covers general knowledge I have on the subject of wills as a result of handling my own finances. Each state of the USA has its own laws on wills and trusts. You can find these online. For example, in Kentucky I found state laws here: http://www.lrc.ky.gov/krs/titles.htm and Title XXXIV is about wills and trusts. I would recommend reading this, and then talking to a lawyer if it is not crystal clear. Generally, if a lawyer does not draft your will, then either (1) you have no will, or (2) you use a form or computer program to make a will, that must then be properly witnessed before it is valid. If you don't have it witnessed properly, then you have no will. In some states you can have a holographic will, which means a will in your own handwriting. That's when you have that 3am heart attack, and you get out a pad of paper and write \"\"I rescind all former wills hereby bequeathing everything to my mistress Samantha, and as to the rest of you go rot in hell. \"\" One issue with these is that they have to get to court somehow, and someone has to verify the handwriting, and there are often state laws about excluding a current spouse, so you can guess for yourself whether that one might disappear in the fireplace when another family member finds it next to the body or if a court would give it validity. And there can be logic or grammar problems with do it yourself wills, made in your own handwriting, without experience or good references on how to write things out. Lawyers who have done a bunch of these know what is clear and makes sense. (1) In Tennessee, where I live, an intestate's property, someone who died with no will, is divided according to the law. The law looks to find a spouse or relatives to divide the property, before considering giving it to the state. That might be fine for some people. It happened once in my family, and was resolved in court with minimal red tape. But it really depends on the person. Someone in the middle of an unfinalized divorce, for instance, probably needs a will help to sort out who gets what. (2) A form will is valid in Tennessee if it is witnessed properly. That means two witnesses, who sign in yours' and each others' presence. In theory they can be called to testify that the signature is valid. In practice, I don't know if this happens as I am not a lawyer. I have found it difficult to find witnesses who will sign a form will, and it is disconcerting to have to ask friends or coworkers for this sort of favor as most people learn never to sign anything without reading it. But a lawyer often has secretaries that do it... There is a procedure and a treaty for international wills, which I know about from living overseas. To streamline things, you can get the witnesses to each sign an affidavit after they signed the will. The affidavit is sworn written testimony of what happened, that they saw the person sign their will and sign in each others' presence, when, where, no duress, etc. If done correctly, this can be sufficient to prove the will without calling on witnesses. There is another option (3) you arrange your affairs so that most of your funds are disbursed by banks or brokers holding your accounts. Option (3) is really cheap, most stock brokers and banks will create a Transfer-On-Death notice on your account for free. The problem with this is that you also need to write out a letter that explains to your heirs how to get this money, and you need to make sure that they will get the letter if you are dead. Also, you can't deal with physical goods or appoint a guardian for children this way. The advantage of a lawyer is that you know the document is correct and according to local law and custom, and also the lawyer might provide additional services like storing the will in his safe. You can get personalized help that you can not get with a form or computer program.\"","qid":11088,"docid":"437100","rank":1,"score":113932},{"content":"Title: Content: \"Generally, it would be an accountant. Specifically in the case of very \"\"private\"\" (or unorganized, which is even worse) person - forensic accountant. Since there's no will - it will probably require a lawyer as well to gain access to all the accounts the accountant discovers. I would start with a good estate attorney, who in turn will hire a forensic accountant to trace the accounts.\"","qid":11088,"docid":"385301","rank":2,"score":98851},{"content":"Title: Content: To the best of my knowledge, Los Angeles County does not require a lawyer to be involved in a real-estate transaction. I looked through the County Recorder site and found no evidence that a lawyer is required. I live in a different county in California where a lawyer is also not required for real-estate transactions. Some counties do require a lawyer to be involved. That said, a purchase contract - is a contract. A legal document which you sign. A realtor may be able to help you understand the housing market pricing trends, but cannot (not allowed by law) draft the contract for you or advise to you on the clauses of the contract you're signing. Only a lawyer licensed in your State (California) is allowed to do that. So if you want a legal advice about the contract you're going to sign - you need to talk to a lawyer. Especially if you want a contract drafted for your own special needs, or have some specific titling requirements (for a company, or a trust - for example). Same goes for the mortgage contract and any other piece of paper you'll be signing during the closing meeting (and there will be plenty of such signatures). So it is not a question of need, it's a question of should.","qid":11088,"docid":"209846","rank":3,"score":93414},{"content":"Title: Content: I used LawDepot to do this. It worked well for my simple case, though you are limited in the number of people you can name, for example, to inherit a share of your estate. And as Frazell Thomas pointed out, you do need to have your signature witnessed. I would certainly use LawDepot again for a simple will, though I suspect my next will is going to be complicated enough that I'll actually have to use an attorney. Note that a significant life change such as getting married may invalidate any current will. This is certainly the case in my jurisdiction, but this may not necessarily be true for you. Note that if you die without a will, your estate will be divided up in a deterministic manner. My wife died recently and as her immediate next of kin and with no children, I was therefore entirely esponsible for her estate. Had we had children, the children would have received $40,000 each, the rest coming to me. This will depend greatly on your jurisdiction, and I'm not sure what happens if the estate is insufficient. I bring this up simply because both my wife and I were happy with the other handling the estate, and a will would not have made dealing with her death significantly easier.","qid":11088,"docid":"547388","rank":4,"score":89639},{"content":"Title: Content: Unless you have a law degree and a specific contract you can point to, you're just blowing shit out your ass. I think it's a fair assumption that when those contracts in question were created, they walked the legal line and would hold up in the court room. You know, 'cause if i had a few million on the line, I'd probably have a lawyer look at it and maybe even draft it...","qid":11088,"docid":"481675","rank":5,"score":86396},{"content":"Title: Content: If you are looking for a solicitor to help you with different legal matters, there’s no better place to go than here at MJR Solicitors Ltd. We offer reliable assistance in will writing, lasting power of attorney, and many more. And because we have fixed fees and hourly rates, you will never find overpriced or hidden costs here. To learn more, log on to our website at mjrsolicitors.co.uk.","qid":11088,"docid":"575381","rank":6,"score":85092},{"content":"Title: Content: Bankruptcy law is complex. You need a lawyer who can advise you both on the statute and relevant case law for the district where you file. Your lawyer can advise you whether actions you contemplate are allowed. You can obtain advice prior to filing as you seek to determine whether the law and the relief it offers are suitable to your situation. Anyone considering filing BK should know that they will need to provide fairly extensive information. You should learn about BK as you seek to understand whether that path is the best for your situation. You should ask your lawyer specific questions about your situation and try to learn as much as you can. You should read about the problems with taking out debt or making debt repayments to creditors (especially family) prior to filing BK. These actions could impact your case and cause it to be dismissed, and could even be considered criminal (again, you need a lawyer). Some things to learn about as you contemplate Bankruptcy Be aware that BK is federal law, and you will be required to provide extensive information about your financial situation. You will be required to show up for the creditors meeting and testify that you have provided correct information. The trustee may (will) supply objections to which you and your lawyer will need to respond. Among other things, you will supply, You should seek legal advice about things that might become important, Even though you will have guidance from your lawyer, you are the one seeking relief, and you need to understand your own situation and the law.","qid":11088,"docid":"37183","rank":7,"score":83896},{"content":"Title: Content: If the house is titled to the estate, neither of you own the house and it cannot be mortgaged. Executor of the will is supposed to provide to you and to the probate court periodic reports as to what is going on. Check them up and talk to your probate lawyer.","qid":11088,"docid":"96015","rank":8,"score":83502},{"content":"Title: Content: \"**What you need to know about [estate planning](http://money.cnn.com/magazines/moneymag/money101/lesson21/), including why you may need a will and assigning a power of attorney.** **1. No matter your net worth, it's important to have a basic estate plan in place.** Such a plan ensures that your family and financial goals are met after you die. **2. An estate plan has several elements.** They include: a will; assignment of power of attorney; and a living will or health-care proxy (medical power of attorney). For some people, a trust may also make sense. When putting together a plan, you must be mindful of both [federal and state laws](http://corlisslawgroup.com/) governing estates. **3. Taking inventory of your assets is a good place to start.** Your assets include your investments, retirement savings, insurance policies, and real estate or business interests. Ask yourself three questions: Whom do you want to inherit your assets? Whom do you want handling your financial affairs if you're ever incapacitated? Whom do you want making medical decisions for you if you become unable to make them for yourself? **4. Everybody needs a will.** A will tells the world exactly where you want your assets distributed when you die. It's also the best place to name guardians for your children. Dying without a will -- also known as dying \"\"intestate\"\" -- can be costly to your heirs and leaves you no say over who gets your assets. Even if you have a trust, you still need a will to take care of any holdings outside of that trust when you die. **5. Trusts aren't just for the wealthy.** Trusts are legal mechanisms that let you put conditions on how and when your assets will be distributed upon your death. They also allow you to reduce your estate and gift taxes and to distribute assets to your heirs without the cost, delay and publicity of probate court, which administers wills. Some also offer greater protection of your assets from creditors and lawsuits. **6. Discussing your estate plans with your heirs may prevent disputes or confusion.** Inheritance can be a loaded issue. By being clear about your intentions, you help dispel potential conflicts after you're gone. **7. The federal estate tax exemption -- the amount you may leave to heirs free of federal tax -- is now set permanently at $5 million indexed for inflation.** In 2013, estates under $5.25 million are exempt from the tax. Amounts above that are taxed up to a top rate of 40%. **8. You may leave an unlimited amount of money to your spouse tax-free, but this isn't always the best tactic.** By leaving all your assets to your spouse, you don't use your estate tax exemption and instead increase your surviving spouse's taxable estate. That means your children are likely to pay more in estate taxes if your spouse leaves them the money when he or she dies. Plus, it defers the tough decisions about the distribution of your assets until your spouse's death. **9. There are two easy ways to give gifts tax-free and reduce your estate.** You may give up to $14,000 a year to an individual (or $28,000 if you're married and giving the gift with your spouse). You may also pay an unlimited amount of medical and education bills for someone if you pay the expenses directly to the institutions where they were incurred. **10. There are ways to give charitable gifts that keep on giving.** If you donate to a charitable gift fund or community foundation, your investment grows tax-free and you can select the charities to which contributions are given both before and after you die.\"","qid":11088,"docid":"295142","rank":9,"score":83359},{"content":"Title: Content: \"Should I just create a new account code, i.e. Lawyer's Trust Account? Yes, you should. I have a generic \"\"escrow\"\" account just for that.\"","qid":11088,"docid":"358640","rank":10,"score":79338},{"content":"Title: Content: I am not a lawyer or a tax accountant, but from the description provided it sounds to me like you have created two partnerships: one in which you share 50% of Bob's revenue, and another in which you share 50% of the revenue from the first partnership. If this is the case, then each partnership would need to file form K-1 and issue a copy to the partners of that partnership. I think, but I'm not sure, that each partnership would need an Employer Identification Number (EIN; you can apply for and receive these online with the IRS). You would only pay tax on the portion of profits that are assigned to you on the K-1. (If you've accidentally created a partnership without thinking through all the ramifications, you probably want to straighten this out. You can be held liable for the actions of your partners.) On the other hand, if your contract with Bob explicitly makes you a contractor and not a partner, then Bob should probably be issuing a 1099 to you. Similarly for you and Joe -- if your contract with Joe makes him a subcontractor, then you may need to get an EIN and issue him a 1099 at the end of the year. The money you pay to Joe is a business expense, and would be deducted from the profits you show on your Schedule C. In my opinion, it would be worth the $200 fee paid to a good CPA to make sure you get this right.","qid":11088,"docid":"407378","rank":11,"score":79228},{"content":"Title: Content: ETFs are legally required to publicly disclose their positions at every point in time. The reason for this is that for an ETF to issue shares of ETF they do NOT take cash in exchange but underlying securities - this is called a creation unit. So people need to know which shares to deliver to the fund to get a share of ETF in exchange. This is never done by retail clients, however, but by nominated market makers. Retail persons will normally trade shares only in the secondary market (ie. on a stock exchange), which does not require new shares of the ETF to be issued. However, they do not normally make it easy to find this information in a digestible way, and each ETF does it their own way. So typically services that offer this information are payable (as somebody has to scrape the information from a variety of sources or incentivise ETF providers to send it to them). If you have access to a Bloomberg terminal, this information is available from there. Otherwise there are paid for services that offer it. Searching on Google for ETF constituent data, I found two companies that offer it: See if you can find what you need there. Good luck. (etfdb even has a stock exposure tool freely available that allows you to see which ETFs have large exposure to a stock of your choosing, see here: http://etfdb.com/tool/etf-stock-exposure-tool/). Since this data is in a table format you could easily download it automatically using table parsing tools for your chosen programming language. PS: Don't bother with underlying index constituents, they are NOT required to be made public and index providers will normally charge handsomely for this so normally only institutional investors will have this information.","qid":11088,"docid":"295993","rank":12,"score":78413},{"content":"Title: Content: The president doesn't have a magic wand that automatically makes his will the law of the land. The president is the chief executive over a complicated bureaucratic system we call the US government. With many branches and departments, some of which are legally separated by the US Constitution and not directly under the president's control. No things aren't going to get better because the issues this country faces are beyond the office of the president. Maybe if Congress would get serious about America we would see a little traction on the recovery, as we would have 2/3 branches of the government moving in in the same direction. Currently the US government is a centipede with 2/3rds of its legs busted. **EDIT:** I don't mean to give the impression that the Judicial Branch is dysfunctional so much as I wanted to illustrate that it tends to follow the Legislative and Executive branches, not lead them. The Legislative branch creates the laws that the Executive branch (Office of the President) enforces. The Judicial branch oversees these two branches to make sure they create laws that abide by and operate within the Constitution.","qid":11088,"docid":"83655","rank":13,"score":77143},{"content":"Title: Content: \"First - for anyone else reading - An IRA that has no beneficiary listed on the account itself passes through the will, and this eliminates the opportunity to take withdrawals over the beneficiaries' lifetimes. There's a five year distribution requirement. Also, with a proper beneficiary set up on the IRA account the will does not apply to the IRA. An IRA with me as sole beneficiary regardless of the will saying \"\"all my assets I leave to the ASPCA.\"\" This is also a warning to keep that beneficiary current. It's possible that one's ex-spouse is still on IRA or 401(k) accounts as beneficiary and new spouse is in for a surprise when hubby/wife passes. Sorry for the tangent, but this is all important to know. The funneling of a beneficiary IRA through a trust is not for amateurs. If set up incorrectly, the trust will not allow the stretch/lifetime withdrawals, but will result in a broken IRA. Trusts are not cheap, nor would I have any faith in any attorney setting it up. I would only use an attorney who specializes in Trusts and Estate planning. As littleadv suggested, they don't have to be minors. It turns out that the expense to set up the trust ($1K-2K depending on location) can help keep your adult child from blowing through a huge IRA quickly. I'd suggest that the trust distribute the RMDs in early years, and a higher amount, say 10% in years to follow, unless you want it to go just RMD for its entire life. Or greater flexibility releasing larger amounts based on life events. The tough part of that is you need a trustee who is willing to handle this and will do it at a low cost. If you go with Child's name only, I don't know many 18/21 year old kids who would either understand the RMD rules on IRAs or be willing to use the money over decades instead of blowing it. Edit - A WSJ article Inherited IRAs: a Sweet Deal and my own On my Death, Please, Take a Breath, an article that suggests for even an adult, education on how RMDs work is a great idea.\"","qid":11088,"docid":"410453","rank":14,"score":76580},{"content":"Title: Content: Somebody will have to file all the required paperwork and fees with the local government, state government and even the federal government. This paperwork is used by these governments to record who owns the property and how it is owned. Prior to the settlement date they also will need to verify how the property is described and owned so that you are sure that you are being sold the exact property you expect, and that it is delivered to you free and clear of all other debts. If this is done wrong you might discover years later that you paid money for something that you don't really own. In some jurisdictions this has to be done via a law office, in others there is no requirement for a lawyer. Because a mortgage company, bank, or credit union is giving you money for the loan, they may require you to use a settlement attorney. They don't want to discover in 5 years that a simple mistake will cost them hundreds of thousands to fix. The mortgage company is required to give you a more detailed estimate of all the closing costs before you are committed to the loan. The quoted paragraph is not good enough. Even if you can avoid the use of a lawyer these functions still need to be done by somebody, and that will still cost money.","qid":11088,"docid":"62754","rank":15,"score":76366},{"content":"Title: Content: Assuming United States; answer may be different elsewhere. The best instructions I have seen for this were on the webpage of one of the law firms making an organized business out of intra-family loans, but any lawyer who can deal with normal bank loans should be able to help you set this up and get it filed with the appropriate authorities to make it a legally binding mortgage. Shouldn't cost you much in legal time to do it. You will have to charge interest; your lawyer can tell you what the minimum and maximimum interest rates would be where you are. Your interest income will be taxable. The borrower may or may not be able to deduct the interest paid from their taxes. Of course if the borrower has any sense they'll want to get their own lawyer to review the terms of the agreement, and to tell them whether they can deduct it from taxes or not.","qid":11088,"docid":"324002","rank":16,"score":75666},{"content":"Title: Content: I wasn't being condescending, but I was pointing out there are professional association barriers to entry into higher level professions. So go fuck yourself, and that's condescending. But do yourself a favor and read the goddamn requirements in those states. 3 of the 5 REQUIRE AT LEAST ONE YEAR OF LAW SCHOOL. The other two require at least three years of study, under an experienced lawyer. What lawyer in their right mind is going to hire you, pay you, and train you rather than doing billable work? From Slate: Law office readers comprised only 60 of the 83,986 people who took state and multi-state bar exams last year, according to the New York Times. They are also less likely to pass those exams. Only 28 percent of the tiny minority of law office readers passed their bar exams last year, compared to 78 percent of students who attended American Bar Association-approved law schools, reports The Times. So, 17 people in the whole fucking country went that route in 2013. 17 out of the 65,526 people who passed the bar. So, ok, not impossible, but is .026% of new attorneys a viable path? Fuck no. Or maybe study up on medicine in your non-med school and sit for your USMLE, oh wait you can't. Or go sit for the CPA exam without a bachelor's degree without at least 12 hours of accounting, 150 hours of college credits (30 more than just a bachelors degree), AND at least a year of accounting experience. So thank you for the insult just for pointing out there ARE barriers to entry that cannot be overcome by OpenCourseWare style programs for many professions. Maybe you can take those 12 seconds and reconsider what life choices have brought you this moment where you are such a sad fucking jackass who cannot follow someone else's line of thought if it contradicts your own.","qid":11088,"docid":"423187","rank":17,"score":75653},{"content":"Title: Content: \"Life would be nicer had we not needed lawyers. But for some things - you better get a proper legal advice. This is one of these things. Generally, the United States is a union of 50 different sovereign entities, so you're asking more about Texas, less about the US. So you'd better talk to a Texas lawyer. Usually, stock ownership is only registered by the company itself (and sometimes not even that, look up \"\"street name\"\"), and not reported to the government. You may get a paper stock certificate, but many companies no longer issue those. Don't forget to talk to a lawyer and a tax adviser in your home country, as well. You'll be dealing with tax authorities there as well. The difference between \"\"unoted\"\" (never heard of this term before) and \"\"regular\"\" stocks is that the \"\"unoted\"\" are not publicly traded. As such, many things that your broker does (like tax statements, at source withholding, etc) you and your company will have to do on your own. If your company plans on paying dividends, you'll have to have a US tax ID (ITIN or SSN), and the company will have to withhold the US portion of the taxes. Don't forget to talk to a tax adviser about what happens when you sell the stock. Also, since the company is not publicly traded, consider how will you be able to sell it, if at all.\"","qid":11088,"docid":"177050","rank":18,"score":73969},{"content":"Title: Content: So I actually just messaged him like why do you need a copy of my college diploma and he said his lawyer said he needs a copy of the diplomas of the people he specifically supervises on an Italian client (we work in PR and have companies and sometimes government subsidized companies as clients)... so maybe it does check out? I mean I did my due diligence I'm not sure what else I can do. If he photoshops it, that's on him.","qid":11088,"docid":"347554","rank":19,"score":73524},{"content":"Title: Content: \"Be careful when you say \"\"insurance\"\" -- these things are service plans. They provide you with specific services and discounts in exchange for a pre-determined fee. So you pay $299/year and get a will, telephone advice and similar services. Insurance, like liability insurance, guarantees compensation for specific losses. You can sometimes pay attorneys a retainer and get some discounts on services. This is only cost effective if you have enough work. These plans might make sense, depending on what you need.\"","qid":11088,"docid":"520788","rank":20,"score":73476},{"content":"Title: Content: \"I'm not an attorney or a tax advisor. The following is NOT to be considered advice, just general information. In the US, \"\"putting your name on the deed\"\" would mean making you a co-owner. Absent any other legal agreement between you (e.g. a contract stating each of you owns 50% of the house), both of you would then be considered to own 100% of the house, jointly and severally: In addition, the IRS would almost certainly interpret the creation of your ownership interest as a gift from your partner to you, making them liable for gift tax. The gift tax could be postponed by filing a gift tax return, which would reduce partner's lifetime combined gift/estate tax exemption. And if you sought to get rid of your ownership interest by giving it to your partner, it would again be a taxable gift, with the tax (or loss of estate tax exemption) accruing to you. However, it is likely that this is all moot because of the mortgage on the house. Any change to the deed would have to be approved by the mortgage holder and (if so approved) executed by a title company/registered closing agent or similar (depending on the laws of your state). In my similar case, the mortgage holder refused to add or remove any names from the deed unless I refinanced (at a higher rate, naturally) making the new partners jointly liable for the mortgage. We also had to pay an additional title fee to change the deed.\"","qid":11088,"docid":"209684","rank":21,"score":72907},{"content":"Title: Content: If you're being sued, unless it's small claims court, you need a lawyer. And if/after there's a judgement against you and you want to explore bankruptcy as an option, you'll still need an attorney. Depending on details, your assets may not be protected from the judgement. So any way you look at it, you need a lawyer.","qid":11088,"docid":"487343","rank":22,"score":72497},{"content":"Title: Content: \"I've hired a lawyer to make sure all the T's are crossed. - I am not charging my employer for the service. I created a \"\"Free tier\"\" that fits the scale of my employer, and implemented it that way for them. Larger government bodies are paying for the higher tiers. On multiple levels, i've been sure that nothing conflicts with either our purchasing policy, or any written employee policies. - I did 100% of the work on my own time and using my own resources. I was extremely careful to ensure this was the case. There is no clause anywhere in my employment agreement that says the company owns anything I do outside of company time. Believe it or not, this is actually less of an issue for a government body because the government doesn't exist to make a profit from services, and because they are getting an expensive service for free, it's actually a significant net benefit for them. I certainly would be at a significantly higher risk if I was working for a for-profit corporation as they certainly would try to go after me. - I was also careful in how the software was presented. While I agree there is a level of a obfuscation without a doubt, I've confirmed it certainly not a legal issue for the company, nor is it grounds for a lawsuit, and likely not even grounds for termination (although at this point, I don't really care as I have bigger fish to fry)\"","qid":11088,"docid":"419188","rank":23,"score":72485},{"content":"Title: Content: \"Accounting for this properly is not a trivial matter, and you would be wise to pay a little extra to talk with a lawyer and/or CPA to ensure the precise wording. How best to structure such an arrangement will depend upon your particular jurisdiction, as this is not a federal matter - you need someone licensed to advise in your particular state at least. The law of real estate co-ownership (as defined on a deed) is not sufficient for the task you are asking of it - you need something more sophisticated. Family Partnership (we'll call it FP) is created (LLC, LLP, whatever). We'll say April + A-Husband gets 50%, and Sister gets 50% equity (how you should handle ownership with your husband is outside the scope of this answer, but you should probably talk it over with a lawyer and this will depend on your state!). A loan is taken out to buy the property, in this case with all partners personally guaranteeing the loan equally, but the loan is really being taken out by FP. The mortgage should probably show 100% ownership by FP, not by any of you individually - you will only be guaranteeing the loan, and your ownership is purely through the partnership. You and your husband put $20,000 into the partnership. The FP now lists a $20,000 liability to you, and a $20,000 asset in cash. FP buys the $320,000 house (increase assets) with a $300,000 mortgage (liability) and $20,000 cash (decrease assets). Equity in the partnership is $0 right now. The ownership at present is clear. You own 50% of $0, and your sister owns 50% of $0. Where'd your money go?! Simple - it's a liability of the partnership, so you and your husband are together owed $20,000 by the partnership before any equity exists. Everything balances nicely at this point. Note that you should account for paying closing costs the same as you considered the down payment - that money should be paid back to you before any is doled out as investment profit! Now, how do you handle mortgage payments? This actually isn't as hard as it sounds, thanks to the nature of a partnership and proper business accounting. With a good foundation the rest of the building proceeds quite cleanly. On month 1 your sister pays $1400 into the partnership, while you pay $645 into the partnership. FP will record an increase in assets (cash) of $1800, an increase in liability to your sister of $1400, and an increase in liability to you of $645. FP will then record a decrease in cash assets of $1800 to pay the mortgage, with a matching increase in cost account for the mortgage. No net change in equity, but your individual contributions are still preserved. Let's say that now after only 1 month you decide to sell the property - someone makes an offer you just can't refuse of $350,000 dollars (we'll pretend all the closing costs disappeared in buying and selling, but it should be clear how to account for those as I mention earlier). Now what happens? FP gets an increase in cash assets of $350,000, decreases the house asset ($320,000 - original purchase price), and pays off the mortgage - for simplicity let's pretend it's still $300,000 somehow. Now there's $50,000 in cash left in the partnership - who's money is it? By accounting for the house this way, the answer is easily determined. First all investments are paid back - so you get back $20,000 for the down payment, $645 for your mortgage payments so far, and your sister gets back $1400 for her mortgage payment. There is now $27,995 left, and by being equal partners you get to split it - 13,977 to you and your husband and the same amount to your sister (I'm keeping the extra dollar for my advice to talk to a lawyer/CPA). What About Getting To Live There? The fact is that your sister is getting a little something extra out of the deal - she get's the live there! How do you account for that? Well, you might just be calling it a gift. The problem is you aren't in any way, shape, or form putting that in writing, assigning it a value, nothing. Also, what do you do if you want to sell/cash out or at least get rid of the mortgage, as it will be showing up as a debt on your credit report and will effect your ability to secure financing of your own in the future if you decide to buy a house for your husband and yourself? Now this is the kind of stuff where families get in trouble. You are mixing personal lives and business arrangements, and some things are not written down (like the right to occupy the property) and this can really get messy. Would evicting your sister to sell the house before you all go bankrupt on a bad deal make future family gatherings tense? I'm betting it might. There should be a carefully worded lease probably from the partnership to your sister. That would help protect you from extra court costs in trying to determine who has the rights to occupy the property, especially if it's also written up as part of the partnership agreement...but now you are building the potential for eviction proceedings against your sister right into an investment deal? Ugh, what a potential nightmare! And done right, there should probably be some dollar value assigned to the right to live there and use the property. Unless you just want to really gift that to your sister, but this can be a kind of invisible and poorly quantified gift - and those don't usually work very well psychologically. And it also means she's going to be getting an awfully larger benefit from this \"\"investment\"\" than you and your husband - do you think that might cause animosity over dozens and dozens of writing out the check to pay for the property while not realizing any direct benefit while you pay to keep up your own living circumstances too? In short, you need a legal structure that can properly account for the fact that you are starting out in-equal contributors to your scheme, and ongoing contributions will be different over time too. What if she falls on hard times and you make a few of the mortgage payments? What if she wants to redo the bathroom and insists on paying for the whole thing herself or with her own loan, etc? With a properly documented partnership - or equivalent such business entity - these questions are easily resolved. They can be equitably handled by a court in event of family squabble, divorce, death, bankruptcy, emergency liquidation, early sale, refinance - you name it. No percentage of simple co-ownership recorded on a deed can do any of this for you. No math can provide you the proper protection that a properly organized business entity can. I would thus strongly advise you, your husband, and your sister to spend the comparatively tiny amount of extra money to get advice from a real estate/investment lawyer/CPA to get you set up right. Keep all receipts and you can pay a book keeper or the accountant to do end of the year taxes, and answer questions that will come up like how to properly account for things like depreciation on taxes. Your intuition that you should make sure things are formally written up in times when everyone is on good terms is extremely wise, so please follow it up with in-person paid consultation from an expert. And no matter what, this deal as presently structured has a really large built-in potential for heartache as you have three partners AND one of the partners is also renting the property partially from themselves while putting no money down? This has a great potential to be a train wreck, so please do look into what would happen if these went wrong into some more detail and write up in advance - in a legally binding way - what all parties rights and responsibilities are.\"","qid":11088,"docid":"434257","rank":24,"score":72309},{"content":"Title: Content: \"Of course you don't have to pay them - you just might not like the result. As a matter of law - given that I am not a lawyer - I am not aware of any requirement for a company to pay employees business-related expenses. An example might be having a cell phone, and according to this article companies aren't required to pay for you to have a cell phone even if they require you have one and use it as part of your employment. The primary areas where law does exist relates to company uniforms with a logo (in a very limited number of US states) and necessary personal safety equipment (in California and maybe only few other states). All other tool requirements for a job are not prohibited by law, so long as they are not illegally discriminatory (such as requiring people of a certain race or sex to buy something but no one else, etc). So a company can require all sorts of things, from having an internet connection to cell phone to laptop to specialty tools and equipment of all sorts, and they are even allowed to deduct the cost of some things from your pay - just so long as you still get paid minimum wage after the deductions. With all that said, the company's previous payments of fees and willingness to pay a monthly internet fee does not obligate them to pay other fees too, such as moving/installation/etc. They may even decide to no longer provide internet service at their expense and just require you to provide it as a condition of employment. You can insist on it with your employer, and if you don't have an employment contract that forbids it they can fire you or possibly even deduct it from your pay anyway (and this reason might not be one that allows you to collect unemployment insurance benefits - but you'd need to check with an expert on that). You can refuse to pay AT&T directly, and they can cancel the internet service - and your employer can then do the same as in the previous condition. Or you can choose to pay it - or ask your employer to split the cost over a few checks if it is rather high - and that's about it. Like the cost of anything else you have to pay - from your own food to your computer, clothes, etc - it's best to just consider it your own \"\"cost of doing business\"\" and decide if it's still in your interest to keep working there, and for something to consider in future pay negotiations! You may also qualify for an itemized Employee Business Expense deduction from the IRS, but you'll need to read the requirements carefully and get/keep a receipt for such expenses.\"","qid":11088,"docid":"469198","rank":25,"score":72004},{"content":"Title: Content: \"> But what exactly are the new jobs that will be created? Nadella says to expect “people on people jobs.” These require skills that demand significant interaction, such as eldercare, In other words, low paying undesirable boring jobs... until a robot can do those jobs too... > “So much of the last 10 years has been consumption … now is the time for creation -- like in [building video game] Minecraft, with [Microsoft Paint spinoff] paint3d,” ... to make money for the platform owner (Microsoft who owns Minecraft) and almost nothing for you... and you can do this \"\"creative work\"\" only in your 20s or 30s... after which you are outdated and not so creative... great job security. I never heard of people becoming millionaires from creating apps on Google/Apple, youtube channels or all the other \"\"creative\"\" channels. **BOTTOM LINE: the whole purpose of Robots and AI is to take jobs and work away from people! Simple as that.** **Currently, millions of low skilled people have to do work done by robots and highly skilled people do the work done by AI. With robots and AI, either you are totally useless for any work (low skill people) or lose you job/income (highly skilled).** I am not against robots or AI, but I think they should be regulated. For example, all customer service (i.e. talking to a human being) must be done by humans, where AI is just a tool to help that customer service human. Another example, every group of robots doing work must be supervised by a human who gives them instructions what to do and how to do it.\"","qid":11088,"docid":"182445","rank":26,"score":71684},{"content":"Title: Content: Being a lawyer in London comes with a higher level of prominence and responsibility, given the prominence of the place itself in various fields, including law and justice. This distinction has made the city a veritable battleground for counsels across several courts, with the Old Bailey as the most famous of all.","qid":11088,"docid":"3998","rank":27,"score":71632},{"content":"Title: Content: Whether you need to hire a lawyer depends on whether you are capable enough to understand the fine print and it's consequences in all the contracts you sign with the Builder or not. Even though the REPC is a standard document, the Builder may add additional addendum voiding many of the rights Buyers normally have. If you are not sure or have doubts about specific verbiage, I recommend that you at least get your Realtor to spell it out for you or hire a lawyer as an alternative.","qid":11088,"docid":"225785","rank":28,"score":71492},{"content":"Title: Content: Don't get me started about the law. I'm a lawyer and the business model is a mess. You'll hear about massive unemployment with lawyers. This is because lawyers are exempt from overtime. Firms slave associates for 70-100 weeks for years. No weekends, no holidays. Most associates make less per hour than their secretaries. Then they fire associates instead of making them partners and hire new associates desperate for a job. I know lawyers are hated, but please have some sympathy for associates who work 10-12 hour days and get paid less per hour than the staff. Happened to me. There are two necessary reforms. One is to allow ownership of law firms by non-lawyers. This has happened in the UK. If Costco or other companies could have law firms, it would kill the greedy partner aspect and make legal work accessible to many more people. I'm 100% in favor. I'll happily take a lower wage and serve more people. Everyone should be able to afford a lawyer. The other necessary reform is making *anyone* who isn't an owner entitled to 40 hour work weeks and overtime. If you own your own business and want to put in 90 hours, fine. But you should not be able to force an exempt employee to work 90 hours unless that employee is an owner. Those are entirely fair and reasonable and would transform the profession into what it should be. I've since started teaching. It doesn't pay as well, but at least I don't have to ram down a Christmas dinner and then go into the office. Or spend a Fourth of July on top of the parking structure to see a few fireworks before going back in to work more.","qid":11088,"docid":"23411","rank":29,"score":71478},{"content":"Title: Content: You appear to just have admitted to tax evasion. You need a lawyer. There's a good chance you don't actually owe any money, but you need legal advice. To be clear, you may well not have been obligated to file tax returns, but you have stated you had some income you didn't report, so there's really nothing else we can say other than recommend you seek legal advice.","qid":11088,"docid":"426947","rank":30,"score":70410},{"content":"Title: Content: Sure, form an LLC with an attorney's advice. You need a buyout clause, operating agreement, etc. If you're not married, never buy a home for personal use with someone else.","qid":11088,"docid":"498818","rank":31,"score":69675},{"content":"Title: Content: Don't pay it, see a lawyer. Given your comment, it will depend on the jurisdiction on the passing of the house and the presence of a will or lack thereof. In some states all the assets will be inherited by your mom. Debts cannot be inherited; however, assets can be made to stand for debts. This is a tricky situation that is state dependent. In the end, with few assets and large credit card debt, the credit card companies are often left without payment. I would not pay the debt unless your lawyer specifically told you to do so. Sorry for your loss.","qid":11088,"docid":"264029","rank":32,"score":69280},{"content":"Title: Content: You need to let a lawyer look at it. Concerns you have include:","qid":11088,"docid":"202054","rank":33,"score":69210},{"content":"Title: Content: \"Despite the unmarried status, you need to see a lawyer. Essentially you have a business with this person owning a home as the asset, and a mortgage for which you are responsible for. A lawyer needs to examine any paperwork you have and with knowledge of your particular jurisdiction's laws can advise you on the proper course of action. You paint a really ugly picture of this guy. I bet you are correct that he is kind of a horrible person. \"\"Tough love\"\" time: You willingly entered into a long term contract with this person. Why would you do such a thing? Perhaps some self reflection and counseling is in order. This is probably more important than worrying about your credit. All that being said, it is good of you to want to break ties with this person. You can rebuild. All will be good if you concentrate on the right things.\"","qid":11088,"docid":"302409","rank":34,"score":69127},{"content":"Title: Content: This may effect how much, or under what terms a bank is willing to loan us I don't think this is likely, an investment is an investment whether it is money in a savings account or a loan. However, talk to your bank. Is it worth getting something by a lawyer? Definitely, you need a lawyer and so do your parents. There is a general presumption at law that arrangements between family members are not meant to be contracts. You definitely want this to be a contract and engaging lawyers will make sure that it is. You also definitely want this to be a proper mortgage so that you get first call on the property should your parents die or go bankrupt. In addition, a lawyer will be able to advise you of the pitfalls that you haven't seen. If both of my parents were to pass away before the money is returned, would that document be enough to ensure that the loan is returned promptly? No, see above. Tax implications: Will this count as taxable income for me? And if so, presumably my parents can still count it as a tax deduction? Definitely, however the ATO is very keen that these sorts of arrangements do not result in tax minimisation. Your parents will get a deduction at the rate charged; you will pay tax on the greater of the rate charged or a fair commercial rate i.e. what your parents would be paying a bank. For example, if the going bank mortgage rate is 5.5% and you charged 2% they get the deduction for 2%, you pay tax as though they had paid 5.5%. Property prices collapse, and my parents aren't able to make their repayments, bank forecloses on the place and sells it, but not even enough to cover the outstanding loan, meaning my parents no longer have our money. (I could of course double down and pay their monthly repayments for them in this case). First, property prices collapsing have no impact on whether your parents can pay the loan. If they can it doesn't matter what the property is worth. If they can't then it will be sold as quickly as possible for an amount that covers (as far as possible) the first mortgagee's indebtedness. It is only in reading this far that I realise that there will still be a bank as first mortgagee. This massively increases the risk profile. Any other risks I have missed? Yes, among others: Any mitigations for any identified risks? Talk to a lawyer. Talk to an accountant. Talk to an insurance professional. Anything I flagged as a risk that is not actually an issue? No Assuming you would advise doing this, what fraction of savings would you recommend keeping as a rainy day fund that can be accessed immediately? I wouldn't, 100%.","qid":11088,"docid":"322033","rank":35,"score":68950},{"content":"Title: Content: Both of you sit down with a lawyer who practices in real estate and foreclosures, and hash out every single possibility of what could conceivably go wrong, with nothing out of bounds. Come up with a reasonable and fair plan for resolving each situation, that you are willing to commit to, life and breath, for real, no exit. Put all of it into a legal commitment between you two. However this is a fearless, searching and even ruthless contemplation, requiring a level of intimacy and personal responsibility you may not be comfortable with. and there's absolutely no room for dancing around unspoken questions. So in essence, it puts the hardest stuff up-front. If you put that much thought and honesty into it, you'll probably be OK. But you probably won't want to be that honest, or won't want to do the deal after you do.","qid":11088,"docid":"245903","rank":36,"score":68948},{"content":"Title: Content: The guy is your boss/super? I still don't understand why his lawyer would need *your* credentials. It definitely still does sound sketchy, and in the future I'd ask more questions. Personally I'd tell anyone not HR asking for something like that to piss off. You aren't a client of that guy's lawyer, if he needs anything specifically from you, he can contact you and explain it. But what's done is done, if anything malicious happens it's definitely on him.","qid":11088,"docid":"72740","rank":37,"score":68433},{"content":"Title: Content: No matter what kind of contract you create for your partnership it will cost money to enforce it. Breaking the law is, well, against the law to begin with. You don't need to get a signed contract promising that they won't break the law. You could possibly get them to sign something that states if the contract is breached or laws are broken by one party, they forfeit their shares in the venture, but again you'll have to prove it and lawyers cost money. if the venture is paying you both then he/she will have the same capitol for legal defense. In some cases you can propose a trial period in partnerships. You can try doing business as separate entities for 1-2 years after which you can merge. After two years working together there should be some trust built up. If not, you shouldn't do business with this person anyway. Just my two cents. To be clear, I'm not a lawyer. You should probably ask a lawyer about this, actually.","qid":11088,"docid":"219606","rank":38,"score":68206},{"content":"Title: Content: You should consider using a lawyer as your agent. We once talked to one who was willing to act as our agent for a fixed fee. Not all attorneys can do it where we live, but there are plenty that can. We ended up going another route, but since then we have found a seller's agent that charges us a fixed fee of one thousand dollars (a great deal for us). We are using her again right now. It's all about the contract. Whatever you can legally negotiate is possible - which is yet another reason to consider finding a real estate attorney.","qid":11088,"docid":"181306","rank":39,"score":68070},{"content":"Title: Content: First of all $1k is not enough money to start a web business. You're probably going to lose all your money, your business and your friendship. Second of all you need to retain a lawyer. I really can't emphasize this enough. If a lawyer is too expensive for you, then THIS BUSINESS IS TOO EXPENSIVE FOR YOU. If you don't have the money, then you don't have the time. When you say it's his idea - did he come to you with a fully written business plan? Even if he did, that's not really worth 20% of the equity. I would insist on 50/50 if the capital is 50/50, and salary to whoever is working on it. You're not going to have profits in the first year. Let me repeat that. YOU'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE PROFITS IN THE FIRST YEAR. Things never, ever, EVER work that way. Or ok they do but it's like 1%. It's not going to happen to you.","qid":11088,"docid":"542139","rank":40,"score":68036},{"content":"Title: Content: I think the next big industry will be professional type certifications for more things. Just like you have to pass an exam to be a lawyer (the bar) you'll eventually be able to prove effectiveness and knowledge in a ton of tech and non tech fields without having to have a degree","qid":11088,"docid":"384954","rank":41,"score":68002},{"content":"Title: Content: You don't need to hire a lawyer. In general, there are three things a lawyer might do: (1) Review the language of the deed of sale (2) Review the terms of the mortgage (if there is one) (3) Hire a title search company to do a title search If you do not want to do these things or want to do them yourself, then you do not need a lawyer.","qid":11088,"docid":"542613","rank":42,"score":67664},{"content":"Title: Content: I came here asking for advice because google gave me conflicting answers. I don't need a lawyer to tell me which licenses I need, I just need somebody with experience, which it's obvious you don't have for 2 reasons. 1) You would have told me already and 2) joining existing firms will result in DNC agreements which I don't want. I'd appreciate a little bit more respect and knowledgeable answers than just putting me down for asking a simple question to clarify my confusion. I am new to this sub and your attitude does not make me feel welcomed here nor to other people I'd imagine that may be new as well.","qid":11088,"docid":"67457","rank":43,"score":67103},{"content":"Title: Content: There is heap of instances where you may want a franchise lawyer. For instance, during the ending of your franchise lawyer California agreement, an attorney can make certain that the conditions of the agreement are being duly observed. Likewise, in instances of statutory compliance, your attorney can not only interpret and defend you but can also work as a link between you and the franchise lawyer California. This can help break up whatever matters or concerns arising out of a franchisor's allegation.","qid":11088,"docid":"82144","rank":44,"score":66853},{"content":"Title: Content: \"I agree with this argument. Finance, legal, and tax compliance industries are bogus and add dubious value at best. The creation of more wealth helps those that created the wealth the most, but it oftentimes also does help everyone else as well (think: Steve Jobs & his company's many creations). But I also believe that if you had a \"\"full equalizer day\"\" and redistributed all the wealth in the US so that each of us had the same amount of money (we'd each roughly have $255,000 if my math is correct), then within 1 generation you'd already see a similar wealth distribution to what we have now. Most would consume more- rather than invest- and it would only be a temporary fix. It's a rarity to find people advocating for changing the system that creates inequality (the Fed currently being the biggest perp) instead of simply trying to redistribute the results of that system.\"","qid":11088,"docid":"420233","rank":45,"score":66724},{"content":"Title: Content: \"You cant! There is the risk that between the time you get the check and the time you get to the bank that you will be murdered, have a heart attack, stroke, or aneurysm too. And they are probably more likely than the bank going out of business between the time you deposit the money and get access to it. Prior to accepting the check I would do the following: Get a lawyer that specializes in finance and tax law. There are some steps you can take to minimize your tax exposure. There is little you can do about the immediate tax on the winnings but there are things you can do to maximize the return of your money. You will want to do what you can to protect that money for yourself and your family. Also create or revise your will. This is a lot of money and if something happens to you people from your family and \"\"friends\"\" will come out of the woodwork trying to claim your money. Make sure your money goes where you want it to in the event something happens to you. Get a financial planner. This money can either make you or break you. If you plan for success you will succeed. If you trust yourself to make good decisions with out a plan, in a few years you will be broke and wondering what happened to your money. Even at 1% at 20million dollars that is 200k a year in interest... a pretty good income by itself. You do not have to save every penny but you can plan for a nice lifestyle that will last, if you plan and stick to your plan. Do research and know what bank you are going to deposit the money in. Talk to the bank let them know of your plans so they can be ready for it. It is not every day that they get a 20 million dollar deposit. They will need to make plans to handle it. If you are going to spread the money out among several banks they can prepare for that too. When choosing that bank I would look for one where their holdings are significantly more than you are depositing. I would not really go with one of the banks that was rescued. They have already shown that they can not handle large sums of money and assuming they will not screw it up with my money is not something I would be comfortable with. There were some nice sized banks that did not need a bail out. I would choose one of them.\"","qid":11088,"docid":"22961","rank":46,"score":66475},{"content":"Title: Content: GET A LAWYER. Doing business with relatives is business first, and some effort spent in setting things up and nailing down exactly what the financial relationships and obligations are beforehand can save a lot of agony and animosity later. Assuming it's a legal rental, you may be able to deduct business costs spent on maintaining the rental unit, but of course you will have to declare the rent as income. If it's just a bedroom suite, rather than a full legal apartment, I don't think you can claim it as rental. (Note that whether you decide to share cooking and such is a separate question; apartment in most areas requires its own kitchen and bathroom.) As Joe pointed out, the actual purchase also sounds like it's going to involve a large gift, which has its own tax implications. Either that, or they retain ownership of their share and you get to deal with that if you or they decide to sell. Again: GET A LAWYER. And a tax accountant or tax lawyer to advise you on those implications. This is not someplace where the average wisdom of the Internet should be relied upon except for generalities; local laws and contract details matter.","qid":11088,"docid":"19455","rank":47,"score":66237},{"content":"Title: Content: Lawyers etc are upper middle class yes, but in general you are going for teachers, the higher degree nursing, non super specialist it workers, hr workers, middle management, etc. There is a point that we severely underpay K12 teachers. But the jobs you listed are working class. It used to be in the past that working class job could provide enough money for middle class existence eg car manufacturing union jobs. But that ended up being unsustainable, the companies uncompetitive and TBH the populace uneducated.","qid":11088,"docid":"161096","rank":48,"score":66205},{"content":"Title: Content: Honestly, get a ln employment lawyer, preferably one with a MBA. If you're having to ask these questions, and considering giving away equity, get proper business legal advice. I've seen several lucrative companies torn apart because things were sloppy when it was originally set up. Also remember employees don't need equity to spur them on; that what a paycheck and meaningful employment is for. And certainly don't give anything from the outset.","qid":11088,"docid":"166166","rank":49,"score":66154},{"content":"Title: Content: You can buy DIY will kits from office supply shopes like Staples or specialized publishers like Nolo or Quicken. The most important factor for you to consider will be the witness rules in your state to ensure the validity of your will later. Nolo has a lot of good information in this regard. Hopefully this is helpful :)","qid":11088,"docid":"438080","rank":50,"score":65979},{"content":"Title: Content: There are 2 basic ways to have someone buy partial ownership of your company: OR If they buy shares that you already own, then their shares will have the same rights as yours (same voting rights, same dividend rights, etc.). If they buy shares newly created from the company, they could be either identical shares to what you already own, or they could be a new class of shares [you may need to adjust the articles of incorporation if you did not plan ahead with multiple share classes]. You really need to talk to a lawyer & tax accountant about this. There are a lot of questions you need to consider here. For example: do you want to use the money in the business, or would you rather have it personally? Are you concerned about losing some control of how the business is run? What are the short term and long-term tax consequences of each method? What does your new partner want in terms of their share class? The answers to these questions will be highly valuable, and likely worth much more than the fees you will need to pay. At the very least, you will likely need a lawyer and accountant anyway to ensure the filings & taxes are done correctly, so better to involve them now, rather than later. There are many other situations to consider here, and an online forum is not the best place to get advice that might put you in a sticky legal situation later on.","qid":11088,"docid":"97962","rank":51,"score":65800},{"content":"Title: Content: If you create a block good enough to stop cellular data it will stop radio communications. This will prevent firefighters (should a fire ever occur) from communicating. A lawyer would just need to demonstrate that a single death or injury resulted directly from causing a fire fighter to operate in a diminished capacity by implementing their radio wave blocking system.","qid":11088,"docid":"220132","rank":52,"score":65770},{"content":"Title: Content: The Indian lawyer areas are commercial and investment laws, corporate law and intellectual property laws. You can seek online legal dispute resolution without personally approaching any arbitrator or mediator. This is the most economical way of resolving disputes in minimum possible time.","qid":11088,"docid":"150062","rank":53,"score":65667},{"content":"Title: Content: > I hope you're not trying to become a lawyer. That field is way over saturated. No, but it was one of the better paying jobs offered when I was in school that at least claimed to work with student schedules. I don't have the cash for a top tier law school or even to afford to live near one, and even those who can find work from lower-tiered schools don't make enough to make it worth it. My goal is to work in some form of rehab or addiction treatment or trauma counseling (or possibly emergency medicine, if I decide I still need that pace and get tired of mostly talking). I was thinking about just getting my MSW but, since I'm already an EMT and probably going to be getting my CNA certification for a side job, now I'm leaning toward becoming a Psychiatric Nurse Practitioner or possibly a Physician's Assistant. I was looking at PA first, but NP seems most flexible in terms of being able to keep working and doing school. If all else fails, I'll hop back into sales. I'm licensed for real estate & insurance and sold cars until I got into a wreck and had to take some time off. Good money there and I liked the challenge, but I have personal reasons for wanting to go into the other field.","qid":11088,"docid":"166100","rank":54,"score":65382},{"content":"Title: Content: \"Don't ignore it. If this is a non-trivial amount of money you need a lawyer. You've acknowledged that a loan exists and have personally guaranteed it, so a court can and will ultimately order you to pay. In doing so, they can put liens on your assests. Depending on the state, how the property is titled and other factors, that can include your home. If you don't have the money and are pretty much broke, try to negotiate a settlement. If they balk, you'll eventually need to start talking about bankruptcy -- that's the \"\"nuclear option\"\" and a motivator to settle. Otherwise, you need to either seriously explore bankruptcy or be prepared to lose your stuff to a judgement and having your dirty laundry aired in court. If you're not broke, but don't have liquid capital, you need to figure out a way to raise the money somehow. Again, you need to consult an attorney.\"","qid":11088,"docid":"244016","rank":55,"score":64959},{"content":"Title: Content: The only professional designations for people allowed to provide tax advice are Attorney, EA or CPA. Attorney and CPA must be licensed in the State they practice in, EA's are licensed by the Federal government. Tax preparers are not allowed to provide any tax advice, unless they hold any of these designations. They are only allowed to prepare your tax forms for you. So no, tax preparer is not a solution. Yes, you need to talk to a tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State, you probably don't need a tax attorney). You should do that before you start earning money - so that you can plan properly and understand what expenses you can incur and how they're handled with regards to your future income tax payments. You might also want to consider a bookkeeping service (many EA/CPA offices offer the bookkeeping as well). But that you can also do yourself, not all that complicated if you don't have tons of transactions and accounts.","qid":11088,"docid":"158122","rank":56,"score":64450},{"content":"Title: Content: Save yourself a lot of trouble you both agree on a Real Estate Attorney to prepare all the paperwork (ie. contract) and conduct the closing for or with the Title Company. Then you both split the normal costs of the transaction. (Real simple professionally handled and you both save the 6%)","qid":11088,"docid":"87157","rank":57,"score":64408},{"content":"Title: Content: Disclaimer: I’m not an expert. This is my basic understanding, which I’m sure someone will be glad to tell is horribly wrong... You need an LLC. Many people in my area create an LLC management company, then create individual LLCs for each investment property. Laws vary by state. YMMV Then you start researching properties. Commercial loans typically require a higher equity position than home ownership. Assume minimum 30%. For ease of this conversation let’s say you’re making the horribly poor decision to put that towards a single property. You’d be looking for a property in the 175-200k value range, because you’ll need to account for settlement expenses (attorney, broker, consultants) and a cash reserve. You’d be also be looking for what the average cap rate is for your market. In simplistic terms cap rate is the expected rate of return after expenses. So if the average market cap rate in that region for comparable properties is 5%, you can expect around 5% return on your investment, after you pay fees, maintenance, taxes, insurance, interest, etc. Buy a property and hold that property for a few years, making money every year, and claiming deductions on your earnings for something called depreciation. Fast forward 5 years and you’re ready to sell, the value of your property went up because you made improvements along the way, brought in some better tenants who are paying higher rents, and now you can offer a better cap rate than your competitors. You sell in the blink of an eye, and double your investment. Say you have $500k now sitting in the bank in you LLC’s name, in cash. You can either choose to cash out 100% and pay capital gains tax on your earnings above your basis (at 15% I think?)... OR you can quickly find a new property with that $500k, purchase it, and file a 1031, which says you don’t have to pay ANY capital gains on those earnings. You just increased income significantly without ever paying taxes on the underlying increase in value of your assets. Rinse and repeat for 25 years, develop a portfolio of properties, create a management company so you can stop paying others a percentage of your earnings, and you too can have the problem of too much money. I welcome anyone with actual knowledge of the topic to please expound on, or correct me.","qid":11088,"docid":"131395","rank":58,"score":64390},{"content":"Title: Content: Rent doesn't give you any ownership in a property, so is largely irrelevant here. If you were paying rent after the death of your parents, that money would go to the owners of the house (which may include you). Similarly, whether or not someone was evicted is completely irrelevant. If the will specifies how the estate should be divided, that's what's relevant here. You seem to imply that the house was left to 10 people. Barring specific other arrangements, the most likely case is that the house will be sold by the executrices and the proceeds divided evenly between all ten people. Again, though, it's going to depend on the specifics of the will. There are many possible cases where you may end up with nothing. For example, if there are a lot of debts, these must be paid off before dividing up the money from the sale of the house. If you are not getting the answers you need from the executrices, you need to consult a lawyer.","qid":11088,"docid":"415262","rank":59,"score":64271},{"content":"Title: Content: \"There are TWO parts to an LLC or any company structure. This being the entire point of creating an LLC. The context is that a lawyer is after your LLC, and he's arguing that the LLC is not genuine, so he can go after your personal assets - your house, car, IRAs, tap your wife's salary etc. This is called \"\"piercing the corporate veil\"\". What would he use to claim the LLC is not genuine? The determination here is between you and the judge in a lawsuit. Suffice it to say, the way you withdraw money must consider the above issues, or you risk breaking the liability shield and becoming personally liable, which means you've been wasting the $25 every year to keep it registered. The IRS has a word for single member LLCs: \"\"Disregarded entity\"\". The IRS wants to know that the entity exists and it's connected to you. But for reporting tax numbers, they simply want the LLC's numbers folded into your personal numbers, because you are the same entity for tax purposes. The determination here is made by you. *LLCs are incredible versatile structures, and you can actually choose to have it taxed like a corporation where it is a separate \"\"person\"\" which files its own tax return. * The IRS doesn't care how you move money from the LLC to yourself, since it's all the same to them. The upshot is that while your own lawyer prohibits you from thinking of the assets as \"\"all one big pile\"\", IRS requires you to. Yes, it's enough to give you whiplash.\"","qid":11088,"docid":"540334","rank":60,"score":64153},{"content":"Title: Content: Find a lawyer or law firm who wants to represent you and talk to them.","qid":11088,"docid":"521967","rank":61,"score":63924},{"content":"Title: Content: If your sister paid rent, she was a tenant. There are laws to protect tenants, but those depend on what country, state, and city you live in. In most places in the US (maybe all), she was owed more than 2 days notice. Normally, the local housing authority could help her figure out what her rights are, but since this already happened, they may not be able to do much (depends on the local laws). It's worth asking them anyway. I don't know how partial ownership of the property would affect things if your sister was a partial owner. If the 30 year old will was the most recent document, then that's how the estate will be distributed. There are no laws in the US requiring a will to be fair. An executor's role is to carry out the will. Being an executor does not mean one can choose to unilaterally sell the property in the estate without permission of other heirs. You'll need to speak with a lawyer if you think they're breaking the will by selling property that you have partial ownership of. But since the sale is already done, reversing it would be slow and probably very expensive in legal fees. If it's a small estate, you'll have to judge whether a lawyer is worth the money and the family's animosity. Also, if the estate had debt, debt must be paid before property is distributed to the heirs, so that could also change what your sisters had to do. I'd suggest first asking your sisters to tell you about what they've done to execute the will, and what they do in the future.","qid":11088,"docid":"232329","rank":62,"score":63807},{"content":"Title: Content: I can't. You aren't my client and I can't give specific advice over the internet without the risk of forming an attorney-client relationship, which comes with a lot of specific duties that I owe to the client and would be unable to carry out in this type of setting. Apologies.","qid":11088,"docid":"523905","rank":63,"score":63682},{"content":"Title: Content: You should ask a CPA or tax lawyer to what extent living in specific housing provided by the employer as a job requirement is exempt from taxation. You might find a nice surprise. Your tax professional can also help you to report the items properly if mis-reported. Much of this is in the article you cite in the question, but perhaps a look at some of the original sources is warranted and will show why some expert advice might be useful. I would argue that an RA who is required to police and counsel undergrads in a college dorm in exchange for a room or a flat is closer to a worker with quarters on a ship or at an oil well than a full professor who receives a rental home in a neighborhood near the university as a benefit. In the first case living at the provided premises is necessary to do the job, but in the second case it is merely a benefit of the job. The IRS Publication 15-B guidance on employer provided housing is not entirely clear, so you might want to get some additional advice: Lodging on Your Business Premises You can exclude the value of lodging you furnish to an employee from the employee's wages if it meets the following tests. It is furnished on your business premises. It is furnished for your convenience. The employee must accept it as a condition of employment. Different tests may apply to lodging furnished by educational institutions. See section 119(d) of the Internal Revenue Code for details. If you allow your employee to choose to receive additional pay instead of lodging, then the lodging, if chosen, isn’t excluded. The exclusion also doesn't apply to cash allowances for lodging. On your business premises. For this exclusion, your business premises is generally your employee's place of work. For example, if you're a household employer, then lodging furnished in your home to a household employee would be considered lodging furnished on your business premises. For special rules that apply to lodging furnished in a camp located in a foreign country, see section 119(c) of the Internal Revenue Code and its regulations. For your convenience. Whether or not you furnish lodging for your convenience as an employer depends on all the facts and circumstances. You furnish the lodging to your employee for your convenience if you do this for a substantial business reason other than to provide the employee with additional pay. This is true even if a law or an employment contract provides that the lodging is furnished as pay. However, a written statement that the lodging is furnished for your convenience isn't sufficient. Condition of employment. Lodging meets this test if you require your employees to accept the lodging because they need to live on your business premises to be able to properly perform their duties. Examples include employees who must be available at all times and employees who couldn't perform their required duties without being furnished the lodging. It doesn't matter whether you must furnish the lodging as pay under the terms of an employment contract or a law fixing the terms of employment. Example of qualifying lodging. You employ Sam at a construction project at a remote job site in Alaska. Due to the inaccessibility of facilities for the employees who are working at the job site to obtain lodging and the prevailing weather conditions, you furnish lodging to your employees at the construction site in order to carry on the construction project. You require that your employees accept the lodging as a condition of their employment. You may exclude the lodging that you provide from Sam's wages. Additionally, since sufficient eating facilities aren’t available near your place of employment, you may also exclude meals you provide to Sam from his wages, as discussed under Meals on Your Business Premises , later in this section. Example of nonqualifying lodging. A hospital gives Joan, an employee of the hospital, the choice of living at the hospital free of charge or living elsewhere and receiving a cash allowance in addition to her regular salary. If Joan chooses to live at the hospital, the hospital can't exclude the value of the lodging from her wages because she isn't required to live at the hospital to properly perform the duties of her employment. One question would be how the conflict with IRC 119(d) is resolved for someone who must live in the dorm to watch over the dorm and its undergrads. Here's 26USC119(d) from LII: (d) Lodging furnished by certain educational institutions to employees (1) In general In the case of an employee of an educational institution, gross income shall not include the value of qualified campus lodging furnished to such employee during the taxable year. (2) Exception in cases of inadequate rent Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the extent of the excess of— (A) the lesser of— (i) 5 percent of the appraised value of the qualified campus lodging, or (ii) the average of the rentals paid by individuals (other than employees or students of the educational institution) during such calendar year for lodging provided by the educational institution which is comparable to the qualified campus lodging provided to the employee, over (B) the rent paid by the employee for the qualified campus lodging during such calendar year. The appraised value under subparagraph (A)(i) shall be determined as of the close of the calendar year in which the taxable year begins, or, in the case of a rental period not greater than 1 year, at any time during the calendar year in which such period begins. (3) Qualified campus lodging For purposes of this subsection, the term “qualified campus lodging” means lodging to which subsection (a) does not apply and which is— (A) located on, or in the proximity of, a campus of the educational institution, and (B) furnished to the employee, his spouse, and any of his dependents by or on behalf of such institution for use as a residence. (4) Educational institution, etc. For purposes of this subsection— (A) In generalThe term “educational institution” means— (i) an institution described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(ii) (or an entity organized under State law and composed of public institutions so described), or (ii) an academic health center. (B) Academic health centerFor purposes of subparagraph (A), the term “academic health center” means an entity— (i) which is described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(iii), (ii) which receives (during the calendar year in which the taxable year of the taxpayer begins) payments under subsection (d)(5)(B) or (h) of section 1886 of the Social Security Act (relating to graduate medical education), and (iii) which has as one of its principal purposes or functions the providing and teaching of basic and clinical medical science and research with the entity’s own faculty.","qid":11088,"docid":"7632","rank":64,"score":63644},{"content":"Title: Content: \"Also the will stipulated that the house cannot be sold as long as one of my wife's aunts (not the same one who supposedly took the file cabinet) is alive. This is a turkey of a provision, particularly if she is not living in the house. It essentially renders the house, which is mortgaged, valueless. You'd have to put money into it to maintain the mortgage until she dies and you can sell it. The way that I see it, you have four options: Crack that provision in the will. You'd need to hire a lawyer for that. It may not be possible. Abandon the house. It's currently owned by the estate, so leave it in the estate. Distribute any goods and investments, but let the bank foreclose on the house. You don't get any value from the house, but you don't lose anything either. Your father's credit rating will take a posthumous hit that it can afford. You may need to talk to a lawyer here as well, but this is going to be a standard problem. Explore a reverse mortgage. They may be able to accommodate the weird provision with the aunt and manage the property while giving a payout. Or maybe not. It doesn't hurt to ask. Find a property manager in Philadelphia and have them rent out the house for you. Google gave some results on \"\"find property management company Philadelphia\"\" and you might be able to do better while in Philadelphia to get rid of his stuff. Again, I'd leave the house on the estate, as you are blocked from selling. A lawyer might need to put it in a trust or something to make that work (if the estate has to be closed in a certain time period). Pay the mortgage out of the rent. If there's extra left over, you can either pay down the mortgage faster or distribute it. Note that the rent may not support the mortgage. If not, then option four is not practical. However, in that case, the house is unlikely to be worth much net of the mortgage anyway. Let the bank have it (option two). If the aunt needs to move into the house, then you can give up the rental income. She can either pay the mortgage (possibly by renting rooms) or allow foreclosure. A reverse mortgage might also help in that situation. It's worth noting that three of the options involve a lawyer. Consulting one to help choose among the options might be constructive. You may be able to find a law firm with offices in both Florida and Pennsylvania. It's currently winter. Someone should check on the house to make sure that the heat is running and the pipes aren't freezing. If you can't do anything with it now, consider winterizing by turning off the water and draining the pipes. Turn the heat down to something reasonable and unplug the refrigerator (throw out the food first). Note that the kind of heat matters. You may need to buy oil or pay a gas bill in addition to electricity.\"","qid":11088,"docid":"322314","rank":65,"score":63504},{"content":"Title: Content: You need to talk to an accountant who practices tax accounting, preferaby someone who is an Enrolled Agent (EA) with the IRS, and possibly an attorney who specializes in tax law. There are multiple issues here, and the executor of your father's estate might need to be involved here too. Presumably you were a minor in 2007 since the transactions took place in a custodial account, and perhaps you were a dependent of your father in 2007. So, were the transactions reported on your father's 2007 income tax return? or did he file a separate income tax return in your name? You say you have a W2 for 2007. So you were earning some income in 2007? This complicates matters. It is necessary to determine who has the responsibility to file income tax returns for a minor with earned income. Above all, I urge you to not file income tax returns on your own or using a tax return preparation program, or after talking to a tax return preparation service (where you will likely get someone who works on a seasonal basis and is unlikely to be familiar with tax law as of 2007).","qid":11088,"docid":"232716","rank":66,"score":63331},{"content":"Title: Content: As soon as you get some actual legal action you hire a lawyer, and that $23k is gone in a matter of weeks. They clearly let have another business to run - only a fool would bother chasing this. In terms of 'what legal trouble' - we'll as you must know (since you have experience right?) it's legal trouble as soon as someone else decides to spend the time and money making it so. Just because you think there is no issues doesn't stop them attempting to sue (claim copyright in the suit design for example) - they will have a lawyer on their side saying 'sure if course this is illegal let's go get em!'. If and when that happens you are in a bind because turning up to court with no representation is a non starter - so even if you are right you have to expose yourself to the bills to get to that point.","qid":11088,"docid":"356867","rank":67,"score":63306},{"content":"Title: Content: You need a lawyer and a tax accountant for a sale like this. They will be able to tell you if the proceeds are taxed as income (most likely) or capital gains and will help you structure the deal. How you spend the proceeds will not make a difference, although if it's a large amount and you plan to donate some to charity, you may be able to save on your total tax liability by creating a donor advised fund. Keep in mind the broker is mostly interested in his commission and not about making the best deal for you. Get an attorney with experience in business sales.","qid":11088,"docid":"475896","rank":68,"score":63140},{"content":"Title: Content: Thank you for the pointers! Did you find it necessary to hire an attorney to set up your llc? Have you found any real down-sides with the llc option? It seems to be great in most circumstances from what I'm reading/hearing, there must be some negatives.","qid":11088,"docid":"450015","rank":69,"score":62777},{"content":"Title: Content: No, it's not all long-term capital gain. Depending on the facts of your situation, it will be either ordinary income or partially short-term capital gain. You should consider consulting a tax lawyer if you have this issue. This is sort of a weird little corner of the tax law. IRC §§1221-1223 don't go into it, nor do the attendant Regs. It also somewhat stumped the people on TaxAlmanac years ago (they mostly punted and just declared it self-employment income, avoiding the holding period issue). But I did manage to find it in BNA Portfolio 562, buried in there. That cited to a court case Comm'r v. Williams, 256 F.2d 152 (5th Cir. 1958) and to Revenue Ruling 75-524 (and to another Rev. Rul.). Rev Rul 75-524 cites Fred Draper, 32 T.C. 545 (1959) for the proposition that assets are acquired progressively as they are built. Note also that land and improvements on it are treated as separate assets for purposes of depreciation (Pub 946). So between Williams (which says something similar but about the shipbuilding industry) and 75-524, as well as some related rulings and cases, you may be looking at an analysis of how long your property has been built and how built it was. You may be able to apportion some of the building as long-term and some as short-term. Whether the apportionment should be as to cost expended before 1 year or value created before 1 year is explicitly left open in Williams. It may be simpler to account for costs, since you'll have expenditure records with dates. However, if this is properly ordinary income because this is really business inventory and not merely investment property, then you have fully ordinary income and holding period is irrelevant. Your quick turnaround sale tends to suggest this may have been done as a business, not as an investment. A proper advisor with access to these materials could help you formulate a tax strategy and return position. This may be complex and law-driven enough that you'd need a tax lawyer rather than a CPA or preparer. They can sort through the precedent and if you have the money may even provide a formal tax opinion. Experienced real estate lawyers may be able to help, if you screen them appropriately (i.e. those who help prepare real estate tax returns or otherwise have strong tax crossover knowledge).","qid":11088,"docid":"153281","rank":70,"score":62601},{"content":"Title: Content: \"As a general proposition, no, you do not need to report money transfers into the US. If a transaction exceeds $10,000 then the bank must report it anyway. Note that \"\"structuring\"\" your transactions to avoid a $10,000 deposit is illegal, so be careful if you are moving lots of money. As a general rule, no, transferring your own individual money from a foreign account to a US account does not incur taxes. Only lawyers are authorized to practice law in the US. They should generally be bar licensed in the state of practice. Certified public accountants can assist you with tax preparation and return positions, though tax lawyers may be necessary for some situations or for formal tax opinions. Be sure to use an experienced advisor to file your tax returns and information reporting.\"","qid":11088,"docid":"592133","rank":71,"score":62282},{"content":"Title: Content: charles phoenix lawyer Charles Phoenix is a lawyer who helps his clients work to unlock value in their assets, opportunities, and challenges by applying real estate, tax, business, contract, negotiation, litigation, restructuring, accounting, finance, and other strategies to problems in creative ways focused on their business.","qid":11088,"docid":"561749","rank":72,"score":62170},{"content":"Title: Content: Get a Bankrupsy lawyer. They'll tell you to stop paying the bills and use the money to pay their fee. Yes... You do need to pay in advance. I can tell you honestly that it was the best thing that ever happened to me. Think about it this way... When you loan someone moneyyou're placing a bet that they'll pay you back. You try to keep the dos in your favor by using credit ratings etc but sometimes you win and sometimes you lose that bet. It's nothing personal. It's business. The casino doesn't feel bad when you lose your bets and your money and you don't expect them to. The person placing the bet knows what they're doing and knows all about the risks, etc. it's a calculated risk. Again... It's just business and it's nothing personal. It's also not nesessairly a failure. Depending on the situation... Bankrupsy is an excellent business decision. Big business do it all the time. Sometimes bankruptcy is a very smart decision and not going bankrupt is the worst decision you can make. My only regret with my own bankruptcy is that I didn't do it sooner. I could have saved the family years of unnecessary hardship and I could have gotten it over with much sooner. Don't be emotional. Be smart and do the smart thing.","qid":11088,"docid":"401093","rank":73,"score":61978},{"content":"Title: Content: Lawyers who are paid quite well for it. Who do you think mortgages the future of their firms in some case dedicating themselves to fighting those corporate lawyers for settlements when they've wronged consumers. Unless you want to claim that having a codified legal system is bad I really don't see how thats relevant... It's like saying all people are bad because some were nazis","qid":11088,"docid":"446893","rank":74,"score":61976},{"content":"Title: Content: Sorry for your loss. I am not a lawyer and this isn;t legal advice -- which I am not licensed to give. But I've had to deal with some debt situations of my own. I think the worst case scenario is the creditor can get a judgment, but that won't be against you unless you were a co-signor. The collectors are going to prey on your decency to make you feel like you should pay it, but you are under no legal obligation to do so. If they file in court and then win a judgment, they may be able to collect on the assets of the estate. You mention no money but you mention a house. That is an asset with value, and putting it in your name isn't going to do much. You should see a lawyer on this, because it seems logical that they could collect on the value of the house at the time of the death, and even if it was willed to you it can still be attacked to pay the debt. Here is a good write-up on NJ death and debt and whether it can be inherited by the adult children: https://www.atrbklaw.com/bankruptcy-resources/83-articles/103-can-you-inherit-your-dead-parent-s-debts","qid":11088,"docid":"205865","rank":75,"score":61933},{"content":"Title: Content: Hiring a CPA comes into play if you're doing something that requires judgement or planning, such as valuation of internal shares in a partnership, valuation of assets in an asset swap, or distribution of the proceeds of a liquidation. That said, I would strongly suggest hiring someone who is also a Tax Attorney over a plain old CPA. In the event you do need representation to clarify positions or assertions, you're probably going to need to hire one anyway. Qualified representation is much cheaper to hire up front than after the fact. If all you need is help filing compliance paperwork (returns), software should be more than adequate.","qid":11088,"docid":"432619","rank":76,"score":61911},{"content":"Title: Content: Whether or not you use a real estate agent, at some stage most people use a lawyer to do the actual buying and selling and set up the agreements. If you've never dealt with a lawyer directly before it's probably because your agent has acted as a front-person for the lawyer. If you go to a lawyer and tell them what you want to do they will sort it out, and should tell you in advance how much it will cost. You and your friend will probably need one each.","qid":11088,"docid":"64005","rank":77,"score":61883},{"content":"Title: Content: I would talk to an immigration lawyer. This sounds like the kind of thing that they'd deal with frequently. As I understand it, your concern is mostly about managing the transfer, not the sale. An immigration lawyer is going to see clients with overseas assets frequently. If this isn't something that they do themselves, they can refer you appropriately. In general when I'm looking for a lawyer, I start with the local bar association. The one for San Francisco. If that's the wrong bay area, they are normally at the county level. So you can find them by searching for bar association with the appropriate county or city name. If you explain your problem briefly, they can direct you.","qid":11088,"docid":"256101","rank":78,"score":61817},{"content":"Title: Content: \"You should hire a lawyer. The fact that they told you your personal information shows that they actually had it, and are not imposters, which is a good thing. The fact that they mislead you means that their intentions are not pure (which is not surprising coming from a collection agency of course). When dealing with collections (or any matter of significance for that matter), don't rely on their recording of the call, because they can always conveniently lose it. Make sure to write down every single detail discussed, including the date and time of the call, and the ID/name of the person on the other side. If possible - make your own recording (notifying them of it of course). It's too late to record the calls now, but do try to reconstruct as much information as possible to provide to your lawyer to deal with it. In the end of the day they will either provide you with the recording (and then you might be surprised to hear that what they said was not in fact what you thought they said, and it was just your wishful thinking, it is very possible to be indeed the case), or claim \"\"we lost it\"\" and then it will be a problem to either of you to prove who said what, but they'll have the better hand (having better lawyers) in convincing the court that you're the one trying to avoid paying your debts. That is why proper representation at all stages is important. As to the bankruptcy - it won't help for student loans, student loans is one of the very few types of debts you can't really run away from. You have to solve this, the sooner the better. Get a professional advice. For the future (and for the other readers) - you should have gotten the professional advice before defaulting on these loans, and certainly after the first call.\"","qid":11088,"docid":"254528","rank":79,"score":61686},{"content":"Title: Content: Strange that they're holding you personally legally liable rather than the company. That's normally a big part of the corporate veil. You need a lawyer, not a stackexchange.","qid":11088,"docid":"320777","rank":80,"score":61669},{"content":"Title: Content: Paralegal? It varies from country to country (assuming SomeDutchGuy is Dutch), but in the US you just file papers, no lawyer or legal professional needed. That's why there's a limit on small claims court, so that small disputes can be settled without having to pay a lawyer (probably in excess of the disputed amount).","qid":11088,"docid":"238074","rank":81,"score":61625},{"content":"Title: Content: Yes. I'm not a coder by trade, but learned on my own as a hobby and then launched a barebones version in 2015 and then a full-fledged version just a few months ago. I'm a lawyer by training and I had been thinking for 12+ years that there needed to be a more efficient way for professionals to get clients and for clients to know the level of expertise of a professional through the power of the Internet. I had tried to hire outside web developers on my own about 10 years ago, but got burned but learned some valuable life lessons - if you are passionate about something, learn to do it yourself - you almost always will be better off. The result today is Hire.Bid and I'm happy to say we are kicking ass. If Reddit has taught me anything, it is to chase your dreams and make shit happen yourself. You'll regret not doing so. Make it happen. If it is a hobby and something you are passionate about first, you'll have a much better chance of success in the long run. Just my $0.02.","qid":11088,"docid":"446708","rank":82,"score":61576},{"content":"Title: Content: \"I'm not a tax lawyer, but from what I can tell it looks like you'd be eligible to use your contractor income to fund a Solo 401(k). http://www.irafinancialgroup.com/whatissolo401k.php \"\"To access these benefits an investor must meet two eligibility requirements: The presence of self employment activity. The absence of full-time employees.\"\" And from the IRS itself (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/forum08_401k.pdf)\"","qid":11088,"docid":"367577","rank":83,"score":61548},{"content":"Title: Content: If this is a practical, rather than hypothetical, question, the best advice that we could give would be to see a lawyer. If you think your teenager has done something illegal, get a lawyer. The lawyer will then take care of notifying the relevant parties and manage the accusations. In most cases, it would be sufficient to notify the police directly. They understand the concept of scams, and many of them have teenagers of their own. Most of the time, they will try to work with you rather than against you. But if you are really worried about it, this is what lawyers do. A lawyer can separate the teenager and the police, so the teenager makes no admissions. But the lawyer can get the necessary information to the police so that neither the teenager nor you is subject to an obstruction of justice charge. We can help you by pointing to resources or suggesting ways to document what has happened or is happening. Or just point out that something is a scam. But if you are worrying about prosecution, we can't really help you. You can't confide the relevant details to us. There is no asker/answerer confidentiality. Everything is published on the internet with archives. Without those relevant details, how good will our advice be? Talk to a lawyer. The lawyer can tell you what you can and cannot do. And what you tell the lawyer is privileged. So even if you admit criminality, the lawyer can't then tell anyone. And if you're worried that the lawyer might be restricted by what you've said, you can fire the lawyer and hire another. The first thing to do when you find yourself in a hole is stop digging. Trying to fix things for your teenager is digging. Go to a lawyer and share your concerns. Maybe some of them are groundless. From what you've shared, you could go to the police. But perhaps there is more that we don't know. If so and you are reluctant to share publicly on the internet, that's sensible. Go to a lawyer and share in private. If you are indigent and can't afford an attorney, look into Legal Aid. They may be in the phone book. If not, call the local bar association and ask for a referral for free legal advice for someone low income. Try to have a generic description of the problem, e.g. you're worried that someone scammed your teenager into doing something illegal. And just to say this one more time. As you've described things, it seems like you should be able to just go to the police and the bank and describe the scam. I don't hear anything that they would prosecute. If you've left something out that changes things, then a lawyer is the way to go. Then you can disclose everything to get advice.","qid":11088,"docid":"348377","rank":84,"score":61531},{"content":"Title: Content: You should probably talk to a professional tax adviser. This doesn't seem to be a common situation. From the top of my head, without being a lawyer or a tax professional, I think of it like this: The income is for year 200..., and should have been taxed then. You constructively received it then, and not claimed it. You probably had withholding from this salary that should have been reported to you then on W2 (you can get a copy from the IRS). I'd say you're to amend the return for year 200... with the new income, if it wasn't reported then. Although if more than 3 years passed (6, if its 25% or more of your gross income for that year), its beyond statute. However, as I said, I'm not a lawyer and not a professional tax adviser, so you cannot in any way rely on my opinion for anything that would result in not paying any taxes or penalties you should have. You should talk to a licensed tax professional (EA/CPA/Lawyer licensed in your State).","qid":11088,"docid":"73261","rank":85,"score":61219},{"content":"Title: Content: Yep, you need to hire a lawyer and an accountant, honestly. When I was starting my business, I hired one who was BOTH. Not really for cost-savings, though it did save $$$, but it was super convenient and it's nice to have someone knowledgable in both. It totally depends on your area, but don't overthink it or get intimidated. It won't take as much $$$ as you think to hire someone, maybe $500-$1,000 or so upfront, then a small hourly fee probably every month if you need help with sales tax or accounts or whatever... you need to make sure the gov is getting theirs though from day 1 re: taxes, otherwise you're gonna regret it. Much cheaper to get it all in place now.","qid":11088,"docid":"589862","rank":86,"score":61145},{"content":"Title: Content: Sarasota Short Sale Lawyer are experts in contract law. If you are experiencing unmanageable debt issues such as Short Sale, Foreclosure, or Real Estate, it is important to realize you are not alone and that there are viable options for getting a new financial lease on life that works in the long run.","qid":11088,"docid":"354968","rank":87,"score":60980},{"content":"Title: Content: \"I can't vouch for Australian law, but in the US there is actually a recognized mechanism for \"\"in-family loans\"\" which ensures that it's all fully documented for tax purposes, including filing it as an official second mortgage. (Just did that recently in my own family, which is why I'm aware of it.) We're required to charge at least some interest (there's a minimum set, currently around 0.3%), and the interest is taxable income, and it is wise to get a lawyer to draw up the paperwork (there are a few services which specialize in this, charging a flat fee of about US$700 if the loan is standard enough that they can handle it as fill-in-the-blank), but outside of that it's pretty painless. This can also be used as a way of shifting gift limits from year to year -- if you issue a loan, and then gift the recipient with the payments each year (including the payments), you've effectively spread the immediate transfer of money over multiple years of taxes. Of course it does cost you the legal paperwork and the tax in the interest (which they're still \"\"paying\"\" out of your gift), but it can be a useful tool, and it's one that wasn't well known until recently. Again: This is all US codes, posted only for comparison (and for the benefit of US readers). It may be completely irrelevant. But it may be worth investigating whether Oz has something similar.\"","qid":11088,"docid":"158732","rank":88,"score":60881},{"content":"Title: Content: \"They don't actually need to. They accept deposits for historical reasons and because they make money doing so, but there's nothing key to their business that requires them to do so. Here's a decent summary, but I'll explain in great detail below. By making loans, banks create money. This is what we mean when we say the monetary supply is endogenous. (At least if you believe Sir Mervyn King, who used to run England's central bank...) The only real checks on this are regulatory--capitalization requirements and reserve requirements, which impose a sort of tax on a bank's circulating loans. I'll get into that later. Let's start with Why should you believe that story--that loans create deposits? It seems like a bizarre assertion. But it actually matches how banks behave in practice. If you go borrow money from a bank, the loan officer will do many things. She'll want to look at your credit history. She'll want to look at your income and assets. She'll want to look at what kind of collateral or guarantees you're providing that the loan will be repaid. What she will not do is call down to the vaults and make sure that there's enough bills stacked up for them to lend out. Loans are judged based on a profitability function determined by the interest rate and the loan risk. If those add up to \"\"profitable\"\", the bank makes the loan. So the limiting factor on the loans a bank makes are the available creditworthy borrowers--not the bank's stock of cash. Further, the story makes sense because loans are how banks make money. If a bank that was short of money suddenly stopped making loans, it'd be screwed: no new loans = no way to make money to pay back depositors and also keep the lights on = no more bank. And the story is believable because of the way banks make so little effort to solicit commercial deposit business. Oh sure, they used to give you a free toaster if you opened an account; but now it's really quite challenging to find a no-fee checking account that doesn't impose a super-high deposit limit. And the interest paid on savings deposits is asymptotically approaching zero. If banks actually needed your deposits, they'd be making a lot more of effort to get them. I mean, they won't turn up their noses; your deposited allowance is a couple basis points cheaper to the bank than borrowing from the Fed; but banks seem to value small-potatoes depositors more as a source of fees and sales opportunities for services and consumer credit than as a source of cash. (It's a bit different if you get north of seven figures, but smaller depositors aren't really worth the hassle just for their cash.) This is where someone will mention the regulatory requirements of fractional reserve banking: banks are obliged by regulators to keep enough cash on hand to pay out a certain percentage of deposits. Note nothing about loans was said in that statement: this requirement does not serve as a check on the bank making bad loans, because the bank is ultimately liable to all its depositors for the full value of their deposits; it's more making sure they have enough liquidity to prevent bank runs, the self-fulfilling prophecy in which an undercapitalized bank could be forced into bankruptcy. As you noted in your question, banks can always borrow from the Fed at the Fed Discount Rate (or from other banks at the interbank overnight rate, which is a little lower) to meet this requirement. They do have to pledge collateral, but loans themselves are collateral, so this doesn't present much of a problem. In terms of paying off depositors if the bank should collapse (and minimizing the amount of FDIC insurance payout from the government), it's really capital requirements that are actually important. I.E. the bank has to have investors who don't have a right to be paid back and whose investment is on the hook if the bank goes belly-up. But that's just a safeguard for the depositors; it doesn't really have anything to do with loans other than that bad loans are the main reason a bank might go under. Banks, like any other private business, have assets (things of value) and liabilities (obligations to other people). But banking assets and liabilities are counterintuitive. The bank's assets are loans, because they are theoretically recoverable (the principal) and also generate a revenue stream (the interest payments). The money the bank holds in deposits is actually a liability, because it has to pay that money out to depositors on demand, and the deposited money will never (by itself) bring the bank any revenue at all. In fact, it's a drain, because the bank needs to pay interest to its depositors. (Well, they used to anyway.) So what happens when a bank makes a loan? From a balance sheet perspective, strangely enough, the answer is nothing at all. If I grant you a loan, the minute we shake hands and you sign the paperwork, a teller types on a keyboard and money appears in your account. Your account with my bank. My bank has simultaneously created an asset (the loan you now have to repay me) and an equal-sized liability (the funds I loaned you, which are now deposited in your account). I'll make money on the deal, because the interest you owe me is a much higher rate than the interest I pay on your deposits, or the rate I'd have to pay if I need to borrow cash to cover your withdrawal. (I might just have the cash on hand anyway from interest and origination fees and whatnot from previous loans.) From an accounting perspective, nothing has happened to my balance sheet, but suddenly you owe me closing costs and a stream of extraneous interest payments. (Nice work if you can get it...) Okay, so I've exhaustively demonstrated that I don't need to take deposits to make loans. But we live in a world where banks do! Here's a few reasons: You can probably think of more, but at the end of the day, a bank should be designed so that if every single (non-borrowing) depositor withdrew their deposits, the bank wouldn't collapse or cease to exist.\"","qid":11088,"docid":"22268","rank":89,"score":60662},{"content":"Title: Content: I am not a lawyer. I do however own an LLC. It's setup as a partnership with 50/50 ownership. You can do it as a sole proprietorship. In basic terms, if you separate your money and assets from the money and assets of the company then you are personally immune from lawsuit and thus your personal assets are safe. You have to set it up right (fairly cheap) and keep the records right (ie never mix personal and company assets ) but it provides a nice legal buffer and in some cases tax benefits. Do not construe this as legal or accountanting advice. Speak with pros to understand and get it set up right. But it's worth it.","qid":11088,"docid":"76486","rank":90,"score":60626},{"content":"Title: Content: I would strongly encourage you to either find specifically where in your written contract the handling of early/over payments are defined and post it for us to help you, or that you go and visit a licensed real estate attorney. Even at a ridiculously high price of 850 pounds per hour for a top UK law firm (and I suspect you can find a competent lawyer for 10-20% of that amount), it would cost you less than a year of prepayment penalty to get professional advice on what to do with your mortgage. A certified public accountant (CPA) might be able to advise you, as well, if that's any easier for you to find. I have the sneaking suspicion that the company representatives are not being entirely forthcoming with you, thus the need for outside advice. Generally speaking, loans are given an interest rate per period (such as yearly APR), and you pay a percentage (the interest) of the total amount of money you owe (the principle). So if you owe 100,000 at 5% APR, you accrue 5,000 in interest that year. If you pay only the interest each year, you'll pay 50,000 in interest over 10 years - but if you pay everything off in year 8, at a minimum you'd have paid 10,000 less in interest (assuming no prepayment penalties, which you have some of those). So paying off early does not change your APR or your principle amount paid, but it should drastically reduce the interest you pay. Amortization schedules don't change that - they just keep the payments even over the scheduled full life of the loan. Even with prepayment penalties, these are customarily billed at less than 6 months of interest (at the rate you would have payed if you kept the loan), so if you are supposedly on the hook for more than that again I highly suspect something fishy is going on - in which case you'd probably want legal representation to help you put a stop to it. In short, something is definitely and most certainly wrong if paying off a loan years in advance - even after taking into account pre-payment penalties - costs you the same or more than paying the loan off over the full term, on schedule. This is highly abnormal, and frankly even in the US I'd consider it scandalous if it were the case. So please, do look deeper into this - something isn't right!","qid":11088,"docid":"351044","rank":91,"score":60617},{"content":"Title: Content: If you're creating an S-Corp for consulting services that you personally are going to provide, what would it give her to have 50% of the corporation when you're dead? Not to mention that you can just add it to your will that the corporation stock will go to her, and it will be much better (IMHO, talk to a professional) since she'll be getting stepped-up basis. Why aren't you talking to a professional before making decisions? It doesn't sound like a good way to conduct business.","qid":11088,"docid":"79129","rank":92,"score":60514},{"content":"Title: Content: It may clarify your thinking if you look at this as two transactions: I am an Australian so I cannot comment on US tax laws but this is how the Australian Tax Office would view the transaction. By thinking this way you can allocate the risks correctly, Partnership Tenancy Two things should be clear - you will need a good accountant and a good lawyer. I do not agree that there is a conflict of interest in the lawyer acting for both parties - his role should only be for advice and to document what the two of you agree to. If you end up in dispute, then you need two lawyers.","qid":11088,"docid":"104526","rank":93,"score":60487},{"content":"Title: Content: Christos Vitsentzatos is a pragmatic and forward thinking lawyer. He represents small and medium sized businesses in the financial services, technology and sports and entertainment sectors. His legal career has seen him represent a diverse array of clients in many different roles. He has been an Assistant Crown Attorney for the Province of Ontario.","qid":11088,"docid":"134573","rank":94,"score":60393},{"content":"Title: Content: The process would look something like: 1. Register your investment company with the SEC 2. Get the ETF approved by the SEC 3. Get a custodian bank (likely requires min assets of a few million) 4. Get listed on an exchange like NYSEARCA by meeting requirements and have an IPO 1 and 2 probably require a lot of time and fees and would be wise to have a lawyer advising, 3 is obviously difficult due to asset requirements and 4 would probably involve an investment bank plus more fees","qid":11088,"docid":"257404","rank":95,"score":60282},{"content":"Title: Content: You don't have to provide your personal home address per se. You can provide a legal address where Companies house can send across paper correspondence to. Companies house legally requires an address because directors are liable to their shareholders(even if you are the only shareholder) and to stop them from disappearing just like that with shareholder's money. Moreover your birth date will also be visible on websites which provide comapnies information. You can ask these websites to stop sharing your personal information. Every company must have a registered office within the UK which is the official legal address of the company. It must be a physical address (i.e. not a PO Box without a physical location) as Companies House will use this address to send correspondence to. To incorporate a private limited company you need at least one director, who has to be over 16 years of age. You may also have a secretary, but this is optional. The information you will need to supply for each officer includes: You may also have officers that are companies or firms, and for these you will need to supply the company or firm name, its registered office address, details of the legal form of the company, where it is registered and if applicable its registration number.","qid":11088,"docid":"503678","rank":96,"score":60253},{"content":"Title: Content: Because people with good enough lawyers seem to get away with this. Maybe they will do a trivial amount of time or pay fines less than what they made, but it'll probably be worth it in the long run.","qid":11088,"docid":"512944","rank":97,"score":60191},{"content":"Title: Content: Sarasota Real Estate Lawyer of the firm have litigated real estate, construction and commercial disputes and transacted real estate When you need legal counsel, you deserve experienced attorneys who provide personal attention. The transactional department provides a full range of real estate legal and settlement services throughout Florida, including residential and commercial purchase and sale transactions.","qid":11088,"docid":"470993","rank":98,"score":60087},{"content":"Title: Content: \"Your reply is an ad hominem, which would be fine if that wasn't all it was. I'm waiting for a refutation of any of the facts I've put forth that paint the system in a critical light. Things that would make this system okay: - Banks being allowed far less money creation power, or none at all, forced to literally lend out only the money they have on deposit, and not create any through a pyramid of leveraging which starts at the Fed, coupled with a currency backed by a basket of diversified goods. - A truly nationalized national banking system, without the inherent conflict of interest inherent especially in the New York Fed, which has as its board members and shareholders the very Wall Street banks it regulates. The NY one is the worst example of this because it is the most powerful. - Banking regulation power removed from the Federal Reserve completely and back to Congress. - Stronger federal oversight of markets and corporate governance, which would help prevent the very malfeasance that produced the panics which justified creation of the country's central banks down through the years (the Fed is the fourth central bank, and the third of this kind of scheme in the nation's history). Dude, I mean, the Federal Reserve was started by a bunch of robber barons, is owned and controlled by the very banks it purports to regulate, and it is the largest factor in the character of the national economy. What's not true in any of what I've said? Seriously, what's not true? I mean, I'm pointing out a conflict of interest in a very serious area, and you're like, \"\"TINFOIL HAT!\"\" What a fuck is wrong with you.\"","qid":11088,"docid":"307596","rank":99,"score":60081},{"content":"Title: Content: \"I think the best advice you could get would be to find a lawyer. If that foreign company has any presence in the US, they should be the ones signing off as the successor, otherwise you may find yourself in a limbo that would require some legal assistance. Generally, in most States a Corporation cannot be dissolved without resolving issues like this, which is probably why they told you \"\"the plan is terminating\"\". Someone asked them to terminate it. You need to find that someone.\"","qid":11088,"docid":"131411","rank":100,"score":60028}],"string":"[\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"This is not intended as legal advice, and only covers general knowledge I have on the subject of wills as a result of handling my own finances. Each state of the USA has its own laws on wills and trusts. You can find these online. For example, in Kentucky I found state laws here: http://www.lrc.ky.gov/krs/titles.htm and Title XXXIV is about wills and trusts. I would recommend reading this, and then talking to a lawyer if it is not crystal clear. Generally, if a lawyer does not draft your will, then either (1) you have no will, or (2) you use a form or computer program to make a will, that must then be properly witnessed before it is valid. If you don't have it witnessed properly, then you have no will. In some states you can have a holographic will, which means a will in your own handwriting. That's when you have that 3am heart attack, and you get out a pad of paper and write \\\"\\\"I rescind all former wills hereby bequeathing everything to my mistress Samantha, and as to the rest of you go rot in hell. \\\"\\\" One issue with these is that they have to get to court somehow, and someone has to verify the handwriting, and there are often state laws about excluding a current spouse, so you can guess for yourself whether that one might disappear in the fireplace when another family member finds it next to the body or if a court would give it validity. And there can be logic or grammar problems with do it yourself wills, made in your own handwriting, without experience or good references on how to write things out. Lawyers who have done a bunch of these know what is clear and makes sense. (1) In Tennessee, where I live, an intestate's property, someone who died with no will, is divided according to the law. The law looks to find a spouse or relatives to divide the property, before considering giving it to the state. That might be fine for some people. It happened once in my family, and was resolved in court with minimal red tape. But it really depends on the person. Someone in the middle of an unfinalized divorce, for instance, probably needs a will help to sort out who gets what. (2) A form will is valid in Tennessee if it is witnessed properly. That means two witnesses, who sign in yours' and each others' presence. In theory they can be called to testify that the signature is valid. In practice, I don't know if this happens as I am not a lawyer. I have found it difficult to find witnesses who will sign a form will, and it is disconcerting to have to ask friends or coworkers for this sort of favor as most people learn never to sign anything without reading it. But a lawyer often has secretaries that do it... There is a procedure and a treaty for international wills, which I know about from living overseas. To streamline things, you can get the witnesses to each sign an affidavit after they signed the will. The affidavit is sworn written testimony of what happened, that they saw the person sign their will and sign in each others' presence, when, where, no duress, etc. If done correctly, this can be sufficient to prove the will without calling on witnesses. There is another option (3) you arrange your affairs so that most of your funds are disbursed by banks or brokers holding your accounts. Option (3) is really cheap, most stock brokers and banks will create a Transfer-On-Death notice on your account for free. The problem with this is that you also need to write out a letter that explains to your heirs how to get this money, and you need to make sure that they will get the letter if you are dead. Also, you can't deal with physical goods or appoint a guardian for children this way. The advantage of a lawyer is that you know the document is correct and according to local law and custom, and also the lawyer might provide additional services like storing the will in his safe. You can get personalized help that you can not get with a form or computer program.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 11088,\n \"docid\": \"437100\",\n \"rank\": 1,\n \"score\": 113932\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"Generally, it would be an accountant. Specifically in the case of very \\\"\\\"private\\\"\\\" (or unorganized, which is even worse) person - forensic accountant. Since there's no will - it will probably require a lawyer as well to gain access to all the accounts the accountant discovers. I would start with a good estate attorney, who in turn will hire a forensic accountant to trace the accounts.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 11088,\n \"docid\": \"385301\",\n \"rank\": 2,\n \"score\": 98851\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: To the best of my knowledge, Los Angeles County does not require a lawyer to be involved in a real-estate transaction. I looked through the County Recorder site and found no evidence that a lawyer is required. I live in a different county in California where a lawyer is also not required for real-estate transactions. Some counties do require a lawyer to be involved. That said, a purchase contract - is a contract. A legal document which you sign. A realtor may be able to help you understand the housing market pricing trends, but cannot (not allowed by law) draft the contract for you or advise to you on the clauses of the contract you're signing. Only a lawyer licensed in your State (California) is allowed to do that. So if you want a legal advice about the contract you're going to sign - you need to talk to a lawyer. Especially if you want a contract drafted for your own special needs, or have some specific titling requirements (for a company, or a trust - for example). Same goes for the mortgage contract and any other piece of paper you'll be signing during the closing meeting (and there will be plenty of such signatures). So it is not a question of need, it's a question of should.\",\n \"qid\": 11088,\n \"docid\": \"209846\",\n \"rank\": 3,\n \"score\": 93414\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: I used LawDepot to do this. It worked well for my simple case, though you are limited in the number of people you can name, for example, to inherit a share of your estate. And as Frazell Thomas pointed out, you do need to have your signature witnessed. I would certainly use LawDepot again for a simple will, though I suspect my next will is going to be complicated enough that I'll actually have to use an attorney. Note that a significant life change such as getting married may invalidate any current will. This is certainly the case in my jurisdiction, but this may not necessarily be true for you. Note that if you die without a will, your estate will be divided up in a deterministic manner. My wife died recently and as her immediate next of kin and with no children, I was therefore entirely esponsible for her estate. Had we had children, the children would have received $40,000 each, the rest coming to me. This will depend greatly on your jurisdiction, and I'm not sure what happens if the estate is insufficient. I bring this up simply because both my wife and I were happy with the other handling the estate, and a will would not have made dealing with her death significantly easier.\",\n \"qid\": 11088,\n \"docid\": \"547388\",\n \"rank\": 4,\n \"score\": 89639\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Unless you have a law degree and a specific contract you can point to, you're just blowing shit out your ass. I think it's a fair assumption that when those contracts in question were created, they walked the legal line and would hold up in the court room. You know, 'cause if i had a few million on the line, I'd probably have a lawyer look at it and maybe even draft it...\",\n \"qid\": 11088,\n \"docid\": \"481675\",\n \"rank\": 5,\n \"score\": 86396\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: If you are looking for a solicitor to help you with different legal matters, there’s no better place to go than here at MJR Solicitors Ltd. We offer reliable assistance in will writing, lasting power of attorney, and many more. And because we have fixed fees and hourly rates, you will never find overpriced or hidden costs here. To learn more, log on to our website at mjrsolicitors.co.uk.\",\n \"qid\": 11088,\n \"docid\": \"575381\",\n \"rank\": 6,\n \"score\": 85092\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Bankruptcy law is complex. You need a lawyer who can advise you both on the statute and relevant case law for the district where you file. Your lawyer can advise you whether actions you contemplate are allowed. You can obtain advice prior to filing as you seek to determine whether the law and the relief it offers are suitable to your situation. Anyone considering filing BK should know that they will need to provide fairly extensive information. You should learn about BK as you seek to understand whether that path is the best for your situation. You should ask your lawyer specific questions about your situation and try to learn as much as you can. You should read about the problems with taking out debt or making debt repayments to creditors (especially family) prior to filing BK. These actions could impact your case and cause it to be dismissed, and could even be considered criminal (again, you need a lawyer). Some things to learn about as you contemplate Bankruptcy Be aware that BK is federal law, and you will be required to provide extensive information about your financial situation. You will be required to show up for the creditors meeting and testify that you have provided correct information. The trustee may (will) supply objections to which you and your lawyer will need to respond. Among other things, you will supply, You should seek legal advice about things that might become important, Even though you will have guidance from your lawyer, you are the one seeking relief, and you need to understand your own situation and the law.\",\n \"qid\": 11088,\n \"docid\": \"37183\",\n \"rank\": 7,\n \"score\": 83896\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: If the house is titled to the estate, neither of you own the house and it cannot be mortgaged. Executor of the will is supposed to provide to you and to the probate court periodic reports as to what is going on. Check them up and talk to your probate lawyer.\",\n \"qid\": 11088,\n \"docid\": \"96015\",\n \"rank\": 8,\n \"score\": 83502\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"**What you need to know about [estate planning](http://money.cnn.com/magazines/moneymag/money101/lesson21/), including why you may need a will and assigning a power of attorney.** **1. No matter your net worth, it's important to have a basic estate plan in place.** Such a plan ensures that your family and financial goals are met after you die. **2. An estate plan has several elements.** They include: a will; assignment of power of attorney; and a living will or health-care proxy (medical power of attorney). For some people, a trust may also make sense. When putting together a plan, you must be mindful of both [federal and state laws](http://corlisslawgroup.com/) governing estates. **3. Taking inventory of your assets is a good place to start.** Your assets include your investments, retirement savings, insurance policies, and real estate or business interests. Ask yourself three questions: Whom do you want to inherit your assets? Whom do you want handling your financial affairs if you're ever incapacitated? Whom do you want making medical decisions for you if you become unable to make them for yourself? **4. Everybody needs a will.** A will tells the world exactly where you want your assets distributed when you die. It's also the best place to name guardians for your children. Dying without a will -- also known as dying \\\"\\\"intestate\\\"\\\" -- can be costly to your heirs and leaves you no say over who gets your assets. Even if you have a trust, you still need a will to take care of any holdings outside of that trust when you die. **5. Trusts aren't just for the wealthy.** Trusts are legal mechanisms that let you put conditions on how and when your assets will be distributed upon your death. They also allow you to reduce your estate and gift taxes and to distribute assets to your heirs without the cost, delay and publicity of probate court, which administers wills. Some also offer greater protection of your assets from creditors and lawsuits. **6. Discussing your estate plans with your heirs may prevent disputes or confusion.** Inheritance can be a loaded issue. By being clear about your intentions, you help dispel potential conflicts after you're gone. **7. The federal estate tax exemption -- the amount you may leave to heirs free of federal tax -- is now set permanently at $5 million indexed for inflation.** In 2013, estates under $5.25 million are exempt from the tax. Amounts above that are taxed up to a top rate of 40%. **8. You may leave an unlimited amount of money to your spouse tax-free, but this isn't always the best tactic.** By leaving all your assets to your spouse, you don't use your estate tax exemption and instead increase your surviving spouse's taxable estate. That means your children are likely to pay more in estate taxes if your spouse leaves them the money when he or she dies. Plus, it defers the tough decisions about the distribution of your assets until your spouse's death. **9. There are two easy ways to give gifts tax-free and reduce your estate.** You may give up to $14,000 a year to an individual (or $28,000 if you're married and giving the gift with your spouse). You may also pay an unlimited amount of medical and education bills for someone if you pay the expenses directly to the institutions where they were incurred. **10. There are ways to give charitable gifts that keep on giving.** If you donate to a charitable gift fund or community foundation, your investment grows tax-free and you can select the charities to which contributions are given both before and after you die.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 11088,\n \"docid\": \"295142\",\n \"rank\": 9,\n \"score\": 83359\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"Should I just create a new account code, i.e. Lawyer's Trust Account? Yes, you should. I have a generic \\\"\\\"escrow\\\"\\\" account just for that.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 11088,\n \"docid\": \"358640\",\n \"rank\": 10,\n \"score\": 79338\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: I am not a lawyer or a tax accountant, but from the description provided it sounds to me like you have created two partnerships: one in which you share 50% of Bob's revenue, and another in which you share 50% of the revenue from the first partnership. If this is the case, then each partnership would need to file form K-1 and issue a copy to the partners of that partnership. I think, but I'm not sure, that each partnership would need an Employer Identification Number (EIN; you can apply for and receive these online with the IRS). You would only pay tax on the portion of profits that are assigned to you on the K-1. (If you've accidentally created a partnership without thinking through all the ramifications, you probably want to straighten this out. You can be held liable for the actions of your partners.) On the other hand, if your contract with Bob explicitly makes you a contractor and not a partner, then Bob should probably be issuing a 1099 to you. Similarly for you and Joe -- if your contract with Joe makes him a subcontractor, then you may need to get an EIN and issue him a 1099 at the end of the year. The money you pay to Joe is a business expense, and would be deducted from the profits you show on your Schedule C. In my opinion, it would be worth the $200 fee paid to a good CPA to make sure you get this right.\",\n \"qid\": 11088,\n \"docid\": \"407378\",\n \"rank\": 11,\n \"score\": 79228\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: ETFs are legally required to publicly disclose their positions at every point in time. The reason for this is that for an ETF to issue shares of ETF they do NOT take cash in exchange but underlying securities - this is called a creation unit. So people need to know which shares to deliver to the fund to get a share of ETF in exchange. This is never done by retail clients, however, but by nominated market makers. Retail persons will normally trade shares only in the secondary market (ie. on a stock exchange), which does not require new shares of the ETF to be issued. However, they do not normally make it easy to find this information in a digestible way, and each ETF does it their own way. So typically services that offer this information are payable (as somebody has to scrape the information from a variety of sources or incentivise ETF providers to send it to them). If you have access to a Bloomberg terminal, this information is available from there. Otherwise there are paid for services that offer it. Searching on Google for ETF constituent data, I found two companies that offer it: See if you can find what you need there. Good luck. (etfdb even has a stock exposure tool freely available that allows you to see which ETFs have large exposure to a stock of your choosing, see here: http://etfdb.com/tool/etf-stock-exposure-tool/). Since this data is in a table format you could easily download it automatically using table parsing tools for your chosen programming language. PS: Don't bother with underlying index constituents, they are NOT required to be made public and index providers will normally charge handsomely for this so normally only institutional investors will have this information.\",\n \"qid\": 11088,\n \"docid\": \"295993\",\n \"rank\": 12,\n \"score\": 78413\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: The president doesn't have a magic wand that automatically makes his will the law of the land. The president is the chief executive over a complicated bureaucratic system we call the US government. With many branches and departments, some of which are legally separated by the US Constitution and not directly under the president's control. No things aren't going to get better because the issues this country faces are beyond the office of the president. Maybe if Congress would get serious about America we would see a little traction on the recovery, as we would have 2/3 branches of the government moving in in the same direction. Currently the US government is a centipede with 2/3rds of its legs busted. **EDIT:** I don't mean to give the impression that the Judicial Branch is dysfunctional so much as I wanted to illustrate that it tends to follow the Legislative and Executive branches, not lead them. The Legislative branch creates the laws that the Executive branch (Office of the President) enforces. The Judicial branch oversees these two branches to make sure they create laws that abide by and operate within the Constitution.\",\n \"qid\": 11088,\n \"docid\": \"83655\",\n \"rank\": 13,\n \"score\": 77143\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"First - for anyone else reading - An IRA that has no beneficiary listed on the account itself passes through the will, and this eliminates the opportunity to take withdrawals over the beneficiaries' lifetimes. There's a five year distribution requirement. Also, with a proper beneficiary set up on the IRA account the will does not apply to the IRA. An IRA with me as sole beneficiary regardless of the will saying \\\"\\\"all my assets I leave to the ASPCA.\\\"\\\" This is also a warning to keep that beneficiary current. It's possible that one's ex-spouse is still on IRA or 401(k) accounts as beneficiary and new spouse is in for a surprise when hubby/wife passes. Sorry for the tangent, but this is all important to know. The funneling of a beneficiary IRA through a trust is not for amateurs. If set up incorrectly, the trust will not allow the stretch/lifetime withdrawals, but will result in a broken IRA. Trusts are not cheap, nor would I have any faith in any attorney setting it up. I would only use an attorney who specializes in Trusts and Estate planning. As littleadv suggested, they don't have to be minors. It turns out that the expense to set up the trust ($1K-2K depending on location) can help keep your adult child from blowing through a huge IRA quickly. I'd suggest that the trust distribute the RMDs in early years, and a higher amount, say 10% in years to follow, unless you want it to go just RMD for its entire life. Or greater flexibility releasing larger amounts based on life events. The tough part of that is you need a trustee who is willing to handle this and will do it at a low cost. If you go with Child's name only, I don't know many 18/21 year old kids who would either understand the RMD rules on IRAs or be willing to use the money over decades instead of blowing it. Edit - A WSJ article Inherited IRAs: a Sweet Deal and my own On my Death, Please, Take a Breath, an article that suggests for even an adult, education on how RMDs work is a great idea.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 11088,\n \"docid\": \"410453\",\n \"rank\": 14,\n \"score\": 76580\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Somebody will have to file all the required paperwork and fees with the local government, state government and even the federal government. This paperwork is used by these governments to record who owns the property and how it is owned. Prior to the settlement date they also will need to verify how the property is described and owned so that you are sure that you are being sold the exact property you expect, and that it is delivered to you free and clear of all other debts. If this is done wrong you might discover years later that you paid money for something that you don't really own. In some jurisdictions this has to be done via a law office, in others there is no requirement for a lawyer. Because a mortgage company, bank, or credit union is giving you money for the loan, they may require you to use a settlement attorney. They don't want to discover in 5 years that a simple mistake will cost them hundreds of thousands to fix. The mortgage company is required to give you a more detailed estimate of all the closing costs before you are committed to the loan. The quoted paragraph is not good enough. Even if you can avoid the use of a lawyer these functions still need to be done by somebody, and that will still cost money.\",\n \"qid\": 11088,\n \"docid\": \"62754\",\n \"rank\": 15,\n \"score\": 76366\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Assuming United States; answer may be different elsewhere. The best instructions I have seen for this were on the webpage of one of the law firms making an organized business out of intra-family loans, but any lawyer who can deal with normal bank loans should be able to help you set this up and get it filed with the appropriate authorities to make it a legally binding mortgage. Shouldn't cost you much in legal time to do it. You will have to charge interest; your lawyer can tell you what the minimum and maximimum interest rates would be where you are. Your interest income will be taxable. The borrower may or may not be able to deduct the interest paid from their taxes. Of course if the borrower has any sense they'll want to get their own lawyer to review the terms of the agreement, and to tell them whether they can deduct it from taxes or not.\",\n \"qid\": 11088,\n \"docid\": \"324002\",\n \"rank\": 16,\n \"score\": 75666\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: I wasn't being condescending, but I was pointing out there are professional association barriers to entry into higher level professions. So go fuck yourself, and that's condescending. But do yourself a favor and read the goddamn requirements in those states. 3 of the 5 REQUIRE AT LEAST ONE YEAR OF LAW SCHOOL. The other two require at least three years of study, under an experienced lawyer. What lawyer in their right mind is going to hire you, pay you, and train you rather than doing billable work? From Slate: Law office readers comprised only 60 of the 83,986 people who took state and multi-state bar exams last year, according to the New York Times. They are also less likely to pass those exams. Only 28 percent of the tiny minority of law office readers passed their bar exams last year, compared to 78 percent of students who attended American Bar Association-approved law schools, reports The Times. So, 17 people in the whole fucking country went that route in 2013. 17 out of the 65,526 people who passed the bar. So, ok, not impossible, but is .026% of new attorneys a viable path? Fuck no. Or maybe study up on medicine in your non-med school and sit for your USMLE, oh wait you can't. Or go sit for the CPA exam without a bachelor's degree without at least 12 hours of accounting, 150 hours of college credits (30 more than just a bachelors degree), AND at least a year of accounting experience. So thank you for the insult just for pointing out there ARE barriers to entry that cannot be overcome by OpenCourseWare style programs for many professions. Maybe you can take those 12 seconds and reconsider what life choices have brought you this moment where you are such a sad fucking jackass who cannot follow someone else's line of thought if it contradicts your own.\",\n \"qid\": 11088,\n \"docid\": \"423187\",\n \"rank\": 17,\n \"score\": 75653\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"Life would be nicer had we not needed lawyers. But for some things - you better get a proper legal advice. This is one of these things. Generally, the United States is a union of 50 different sovereign entities, so you're asking more about Texas, less about the US. So you'd better talk to a Texas lawyer. Usually, stock ownership is only registered by the company itself (and sometimes not even that, look up \\\"\\\"street name\\\"\\\"), and not reported to the government. You may get a paper stock certificate, but many companies no longer issue those. Don't forget to talk to a lawyer and a tax adviser in your home country, as well. You'll be dealing with tax authorities there as well. The difference between \\\"\\\"unoted\\\"\\\" (never heard of this term before) and \\\"\\\"regular\\\"\\\" stocks is that the \\\"\\\"unoted\\\"\\\" are not publicly traded. As such, many things that your broker does (like tax statements, at source withholding, etc) you and your company will have to do on your own. If your company plans on paying dividends, you'll have to have a US tax ID (ITIN or SSN), and the company will have to withhold the US portion of the taxes. Don't forget to talk to a tax adviser about what happens when you sell the stock. Also, since the company is not publicly traded, consider how will you be able to sell it, if at all.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 11088,\n \"docid\": \"177050\",\n \"rank\": 18,\n \"score\": 73969\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: So I actually just messaged him like why do you need a copy of my college diploma and he said his lawyer said he needs a copy of the diplomas of the people he specifically supervises on an Italian client (we work in PR and have companies and sometimes government subsidized companies as clients)... so maybe it does check out? I mean I did my due diligence I'm not sure what else I can do. If he photoshops it, that's on him.\",\n \"qid\": 11088,\n \"docid\": \"347554\",\n \"rank\": 19,\n \"score\": 73524\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"Be careful when you say \\\"\\\"insurance\\\"\\\" -- these things are service plans. They provide you with specific services and discounts in exchange for a pre-determined fee. So you pay $299/year and get a will, telephone advice and similar services. Insurance, like liability insurance, guarantees compensation for specific losses. You can sometimes pay attorneys a retainer and get some discounts on services. This is only cost effective if you have enough work. These plans might make sense, depending on what you need.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 11088,\n \"docid\": \"520788\",\n \"rank\": 20,\n \"score\": 73476\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"I'm not an attorney or a tax advisor. The following is NOT to be considered advice, just general information. In the US, \\\"\\\"putting your name on the deed\\\"\\\" would mean making you a co-owner. Absent any other legal agreement between you (e.g. a contract stating each of you owns 50% of the house), both of you would then be considered to own 100% of the house, jointly and severally: In addition, the IRS would almost certainly interpret the creation of your ownership interest as a gift from your partner to you, making them liable for gift tax. The gift tax could be postponed by filing a gift tax return, which would reduce partner's lifetime combined gift/estate tax exemption. And if you sought to get rid of your ownership interest by giving it to your partner, it would again be a taxable gift, with the tax (or loss of estate tax exemption) accruing to you. However, it is likely that this is all moot because of the mortgage on the house. Any change to the deed would have to be approved by the mortgage holder and (if so approved) executed by a title company/registered closing agent or similar (depending on the laws of your state). In my similar case, the mortgage holder refused to add or remove any names from the deed unless I refinanced (at a higher rate, naturally) making the new partners jointly liable for the mortgage. We also had to pay an additional title fee to change the deed.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 11088,\n \"docid\": \"209684\",\n \"rank\": 21,\n \"score\": 72907\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: If you're being sued, unless it's small claims court, you need a lawyer. And if/after there's a judgement against you and you want to explore bankruptcy as an option, you'll still need an attorney. Depending on details, your assets may not be protected from the judgement. So any way you look at it, you need a lawyer.\",\n \"qid\": 11088,\n \"docid\": \"487343\",\n \"rank\": 22,\n \"score\": 72497\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"I've hired a lawyer to make sure all the T's are crossed. - I am not charging my employer for the service. I created a \\\"\\\"Free tier\\\"\\\" that fits the scale of my employer, and implemented it that way for them. Larger government bodies are paying for the higher tiers. On multiple levels, i've been sure that nothing conflicts with either our purchasing policy, or any written employee policies. - I did 100% of the work on my own time and using my own resources. I was extremely careful to ensure this was the case. There is no clause anywhere in my employment agreement that says the company owns anything I do outside of company time. Believe it or not, this is actually less of an issue for a government body because the government doesn't exist to make a profit from services, and because they are getting an expensive service for free, it's actually a significant net benefit for them. I certainly would be at a significantly higher risk if I was working for a for-profit corporation as they certainly would try to go after me. - I was also careful in how the software was presented. While I agree there is a level of a obfuscation without a doubt, I've confirmed it certainly not a legal issue for the company, nor is it grounds for a lawsuit, and likely not even grounds for termination (although at this point, I don't really care as I have bigger fish to fry)\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 11088,\n \"docid\": \"419188\",\n \"rank\": 23,\n \"score\": 72485\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"Accounting for this properly is not a trivial matter, and you would be wise to pay a little extra to talk with a lawyer and/or CPA to ensure the precise wording. How best to structure such an arrangement will depend upon your particular jurisdiction, as this is not a federal matter - you need someone licensed to advise in your particular state at least. The law of real estate co-ownership (as defined on a deed) is not sufficient for the task you are asking of it - you need something more sophisticated. Family Partnership (we'll call it FP) is created (LLC, LLP, whatever). We'll say April + A-Husband gets 50%, and Sister gets 50% equity (how you should handle ownership with your husband is outside the scope of this answer, but you should probably talk it over with a lawyer and this will depend on your state!). A loan is taken out to buy the property, in this case with all partners personally guaranteeing the loan equally, but the loan is really being taken out by FP. The mortgage should probably show 100% ownership by FP, not by any of you individually - you will only be guaranteeing the loan, and your ownership is purely through the partnership. You and your husband put $20,000 into the partnership. The FP now lists a $20,000 liability to you, and a $20,000 asset in cash. FP buys the $320,000 house (increase assets) with a $300,000 mortgage (liability) and $20,000 cash (decrease assets). Equity in the partnership is $0 right now. The ownership at present is clear. You own 50% of $0, and your sister owns 50% of $0. Where'd your money go?! Simple - it's a liability of the partnership, so you and your husband are together owed $20,000 by the partnership before any equity exists. Everything balances nicely at this point. Note that you should account for paying closing costs the same as you considered the down payment - that money should be paid back to you before any is doled out as investment profit! Now, how do you handle mortgage payments? This actually isn't as hard as it sounds, thanks to the nature of a partnership and proper business accounting. With a good foundation the rest of the building proceeds quite cleanly. On month 1 your sister pays $1400 into the partnership, while you pay $645 into the partnership. FP will record an increase in assets (cash) of $1800, an increase in liability to your sister of $1400, and an increase in liability to you of $645. FP will then record a decrease in cash assets of $1800 to pay the mortgage, with a matching increase in cost account for the mortgage. No net change in equity, but your individual contributions are still preserved. Let's say that now after only 1 month you decide to sell the property - someone makes an offer you just can't refuse of $350,000 dollars (we'll pretend all the closing costs disappeared in buying and selling, but it should be clear how to account for those as I mention earlier). Now what happens? FP gets an increase in cash assets of $350,000, decreases the house asset ($320,000 - original purchase price), and pays off the mortgage - for simplicity let's pretend it's still $300,000 somehow. Now there's $50,000 in cash left in the partnership - who's money is it? By accounting for the house this way, the answer is easily determined. First all investments are paid back - so you get back $20,000 for the down payment, $645 for your mortgage payments so far, and your sister gets back $1400 for her mortgage payment. There is now $27,995 left, and by being equal partners you get to split it - 13,977 to you and your husband and the same amount to your sister (I'm keeping the extra dollar for my advice to talk to a lawyer/CPA). What About Getting To Live There? The fact is that your sister is getting a little something extra out of the deal - she get's the live there! How do you account for that? Well, you might just be calling it a gift. The problem is you aren't in any way, shape, or form putting that in writing, assigning it a value, nothing. Also, what do you do if you want to sell/cash out or at least get rid of the mortgage, as it will be showing up as a debt on your credit report and will effect your ability to secure financing of your own in the future if you decide to buy a house for your husband and yourself? Now this is the kind of stuff where families get in trouble. You are mixing personal lives and business arrangements, and some things are not written down (like the right to occupy the property) and this can really get messy. Would evicting your sister to sell the house before you all go bankrupt on a bad deal make future family gatherings tense? I'm betting it might. There should be a carefully worded lease probably from the partnership to your sister. That would help protect you from extra court costs in trying to determine who has the rights to occupy the property, especially if it's also written up as part of the partnership agreement...but now you are building the potential for eviction proceedings against your sister right into an investment deal? Ugh, what a potential nightmare! And done right, there should probably be some dollar value assigned to the right to live there and use the property. Unless you just want to really gift that to your sister, but this can be a kind of invisible and poorly quantified gift - and those don't usually work very well psychologically. And it also means she's going to be getting an awfully larger benefit from this \\\"\\\"investment\\\"\\\" than you and your husband - do you think that might cause animosity over dozens and dozens of writing out the check to pay for the property while not realizing any direct benefit while you pay to keep up your own living circumstances too? In short, you need a legal structure that can properly account for the fact that you are starting out in-equal contributors to your scheme, and ongoing contributions will be different over time too. What if she falls on hard times and you make a few of the mortgage payments? What if she wants to redo the bathroom and insists on paying for the whole thing herself or with her own loan, etc? With a properly documented partnership - or equivalent such business entity - these questions are easily resolved. They can be equitably handled by a court in event of family squabble, divorce, death, bankruptcy, emergency liquidation, early sale, refinance - you name it. No percentage of simple co-ownership recorded on a deed can do any of this for you. No math can provide you the proper protection that a properly organized business entity can. I would thus strongly advise you, your husband, and your sister to spend the comparatively tiny amount of extra money to get advice from a real estate/investment lawyer/CPA to get you set up right. Keep all receipts and you can pay a book keeper or the accountant to do end of the year taxes, and answer questions that will come up like how to properly account for things like depreciation on taxes. Your intuition that you should make sure things are formally written up in times when everyone is on good terms is extremely wise, so please follow it up with in-person paid consultation from an expert. And no matter what, this deal as presently structured has a really large built-in potential for heartache as you have three partners AND one of the partners is also renting the property partially from themselves while putting no money down? This has a great potential to be a train wreck, so please do look into what would happen if these went wrong into some more detail and write up in advance - in a legally binding way - what all parties rights and responsibilities are.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 11088,\n \"docid\": \"434257\",\n \"rank\": 24,\n \"score\": 72309\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"Of course you don't have to pay them - you just might not like the result. As a matter of law - given that I am not a lawyer - I am not aware of any requirement for a company to pay employees business-related expenses. An example might be having a cell phone, and according to this article companies aren't required to pay for you to have a cell phone even if they require you have one and use it as part of your employment. The primary areas where law does exist relates to company uniforms with a logo (in a very limited number of US states) and necessary personal safety equipment (in California and maybe only few other states). All other tool requirements for a job are not prohibited by law, so long as they are not illegally discriminatory (such as requiring people of a certain race or sex to buy something but no one else, etc). So a company can require all sorts of things, from having an internet connection to cell phone to laptop to specialty tools and equipment of all sorts, and they are even allowed to deduct the cost of some things from your pay - just so long as you still get paid minimum wage after the deductions. With all that said, the company's previous payments of fees and willingness to pay a monthly internet fee does not obligate them to pay other fees too, such as moving/installation/etc. They may even decide to no longer provide internet service at their expense and just require you to provide it as a condition of employment. You can insist on it with your employer, and if you don't have an employment contract that forbids it they can fire you or possibly even deduct it from your pay anyway (and this reason might not be one that allows you to collect unemployment insurance benefits - but you'd need to check with an expert on that). You can refuse to pay AT&T directly, and they can cancel the internet service - and your employer can then do the same as in the previous condition. Or you can choose to pay it - or ask your employer to split the cost over a few checks if it is rather high - and that's about it. Like the cost of anything else you have to pay - from your own food to your computer, clothes, etc - it's best to just consider it your own \\\"\\\"cost of doing business\\\"\\\" and decide if it's still in your interest to keep working there, and for something to consider in future pay negotiations! You may also qualify for an itemized Employee Business Expense deduction from the IRS, but you'll need to read the requirements carefully and get/keep a receipt for such expenses.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 11088,\n \"docid\": \"469198\",\n \"rank\": 25,\n \"score\": 72004\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"> But what exactly are the new jobs that will be created? Nadella says to expect “people on people jobs.” These require skills that demand significant interaction, such as eldercare, In other words, low paying undesirable boring jobs... until a robot can do those jobs too... > “So much of the last 10 years has been consumption … now is the time for creation -- like in [building video game] Minecraft, with [Microsoft Paint spinoff] paint3d,” ... to make money for the platform owner (Microsoft who owns Minecraft) and almost nothing for you... and you can do this \\\"\\\"creative work\\\"\\\" only in your 20s or 30s... after which you are outdated and not so creative... great job security. I never heard of people becoming millionaires from creating apps on Google/Apple, youtube channels or all the other \\\"\\\"creative\\\"\\\" channels. **BOTTOM LINE: the whole purpose of Robots and AI is to take jobs and work away from people! Simple as that.** **Currently, millions of low skilled people have to do work done by robots and highly skilled people do the work done by AI. With robots and AI, either you are totally useless for any work (low skill people) or lose you job/income (highly skilled).** I am not against robots or AI, but I think they should be regulated. For example, all customer service (i.e. talking to a human being) must be done by humans, where AI is just a tool to help that customer service human. Another example, every group of robots doing work must be supervised by a human who gives them instructions what to do and how to do it.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 11088,\n \"docid\": \"182445\",\n \"rank\": 26,\n \"score\": 71684\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Being a lawyer in London comes with a higher level of prominence and responsibility, given the prominence of the place itself in various fields, including law and justice. This distinction has made the city a veritable battleground for counsels across several courts, with the Old Bailey as the most famous of all.\",\n \"qid\": 11088,\n \"docid\": \"3998\",\n \"rank\": 27,\n \"score\": 71632\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Whether you need to hire a lawyer depends on whether you are capable enough to understand the fine print and it's consequences in all the contracts you sign with the Builder or not. Even though the REPC is a standard document, the Builder may add additional addendum voiding many of the rights Buyers normally have. If you are not sure or have doubts about specific verbiage, I recommend that you at least get your Realtor to spell it out for you or hire a lawyer as an alternative.\",\n \"qid\": 11088,\n \"docid\": \"225785\",\n \"rank\": 28,\n \"score\": 71492\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Don't get me started about the law. I'm a lawyer and the business model is a mess. You'll hear about massive unemployment with lawyers. This is because lawyers are exempt from overtime. Firms slave associates for 70-100 weeks for years. No weekends, no holidays. Most associates make less per hour than their secretaries. Then they fire associates instead of making them partners and hire new associates desperate for a job. I know lawyers are hated, but please have some sympathy for associates who work 10-12 hour days and get paid less per hour than the staff. Happened to me. There are two necessary reforms. One is to allow ownership of law firms by non-lawyers. This has happened in the UK. If Costco or other companies could have law firms, it would kill the greedy partner aspect and make legal work accessible to many more people. I'm 100% in favor. I'll happily take a lower wage and serve more people. Everyone should be able to afford a lawyer. The other necessary reform is making *anyone* who isn't an owner entitled to 40 hour work weeks and overtime. If you own your own business and want to put in 90 hours, fine. But you should not be able to force an exempt employee to work 90 hours unless that employee is an owner. Those are entirely fair and reasonable and would transform the profession into what it should be. I've since started teaching. It doesn't pay as well, but at least I don't have to ram down a Christmas dinner and then go into the office. Or spend a Fourth of July on top of the parking structure to see a few fireworks before going back in to work more.\",\n \"qid\": 11088,\n \"docid\": \"23411\",\n \"rank\": 29,\n \"score\": 71478\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: You appear to just have admitted to tax evasion. You need a lawyer. There's a good chance you don't actually owe any money, but you need legal advice. To be clear, you may well not have been obligated to file tax returns, but you have stated you had some income you didn't report, so there's really nothing else we can say other than recommend you seek legal advice.\",\n \"qid\": 11088,\n \"docid\": \"426947\",\n \"rank\": 30,\n \"score\": 70410\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Sure, form an LLC with an attorney's advice. You need a buyout clause, operating agreement, etc. If you're not married, never buy a home for personal use with someone else.\",\n \"qid\": 11088,\n \"docid\": \"498818\",\n \"rank\": 31,\n \"score\": 69675\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Don't pay it, see a lawyer. Given your comment, it will depend on the jurisdiction on the passing of the house and the presence of a will or lack thereof. In some states all the assets will be inherited by your mom. Debts cannot be inherited; however, assets can be made to stand for debts. This is a tricky situation that is state dependent. In the end, with few assets and large credit card debt, the credit card companies are often left without payment. I would not pay the debt unless your lawyer specifically told you to do so. Sorry for your loss.\",\n \"qid\": 11088,\n \"docid\": \"264029\",\n \"rank\": 32,\n \"score\": 69280\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: You need to let a lawyer look at it. Concerns you have include:\",\n \"qid\": 11088,\n \"docid\": \"202054\",\n \"rank\": 33,\n \"score\": 69210\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"Despite the unmarried status, you need to see a lawyer. Essentially you have a business with this person owning a home as the asset, and a mortgage for which you are responsible for. A lawyer needs to examine any paperwork you have and with knowledge of your particular jurisdiction's laws can advise you on the proper course of action. You paint a really ugly picture of this guy. I bet you are correct that he is kind of a horrible person. \\\"\\\"Tough love\\\"\\\" time: You willingly entered into a long term contract with this person. Why would you do such a thing? Perhaps some self reflection and counseling is in order. This is probably more important than worrying about your credit. All that being said, it is good of you to want to break ties with this person. You can rebuild. All will be good if you concentrate on the right things.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 11088,\n \"docid\": \"302409\",\n \"rank\": 34,\n \"score\": 69127\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: This may effect how much, or under what terms a bank is willing to loan us I don't think this is likely, an investment is an investment whether it is money in a savings account or a loan. However, talk to your bank. Is it worth getting something by a lawyer? Definitely, you need a lawyer and so do your parents. There is a general presumption at law that arrangements between family members are not meant to be contracts. You definitely want this to be a contract and engaging lawyers will make sure that it is. You also definitely want this to be a proper mortgage so that you get first call on the property should your parents die or go bankrupt. In addition, a lawyer will be able to advise you of the pitfalls that you haven't seen. If both of my parents were to pass away before the money is returned, would that document be enough to ensure that the loan is returned promptly? No, see above. Tax implications: Will this count as taxable income for me? And if so, presumably my parents can still count it as a tax deduction? Definitely, however the ATO is very keen that these sorts of arrangements do not result in tax minimisation. Your parents will get a deduction at the rate charged; you will pay tax on the greater of the rate charged or a fair commercial rate i.e. what your parents would be paying a bank. For example, if the going bank mortgage rate is 5.5% and you charged 2% they get the deduction for 2%, you pay tax as though they had paid 5.5%. Property prices collapse, and my parents aren't able to make their repayments, bank forecloses on the place and sells it, but not even enough to cover the outstanding loan, meaning my parents no longer have our money. (I could of course double down and pay their monthly repayments for them in this case). First, property prices collapsing have no impact on whether your parents can pay the loan. If they can it doesn't matter what the property is worth. If they can't then it will be sold as quickly as possible for an amount that covers (as far as possible) the first mortgagee's indebtedness. It is only in reading this far that I realise that there will still be a bank as first mortgagee. This massively increases the risk profile. Any other risks I have missed? Yes, among others: Any mitigations for any identified risks? Talk to a lawyer. Talk to an accountant. Talk to an insurance professional. Anything I flagged as a risk that is not actually an issue? No Assuming you would advise doing this, what fraction of savings would you recommend keeping as a rainy day fund that can be accessed immediately? I wouldn't, 100%.\",\n \"qid\": 11088,\n \"docid\": \"322033\",\n \"rank\": 35,\n \"score\": 68950\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Both of you sit down with a lawyer who practices in real estate and foreclosures, and hash out every single possibility of what could conceivably go wrong, with nothing out of bounds. Come up with a reasonable and fair plan for resolving each situation, that you are willing to commit to, life and breath, for real, no exit. Put all of it into a legal commitment between you two. However this is a fearless, searching and even ruthless contemplation, requiring a level of intimacy and personal responsibility you may not be comfortable with. and there's absolutely no room for dancing around unspoken questions. So in essence, it puts the hardest stuff up-front. If you put that much thought and honesty into it, you'll probably be OK. But you probably won't want to be that honest, or won't want to do the deal after you do.\",\n \"qid\": 11088,\n \"docid\": \"245903\",\n \"rank\": 36,\n \"score\": 68948\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: The guy is your boss/super? I still don't understand why his lawyer would need *your* credentials. It definitely still does sound sketchy, and in the future I'd ask more questions. Personally I'd tell anyone not HR asking for something like that to piss off. You aren't a client of that guy's lawyer, if he needs anything specifically from you, he can contact you and explain it. But what's done is done, if anything malicious happens it's definitely on him.\",\n \"qid\": 11088,\n \"docid\": \"72740\",\n \"rank\": 37,\n \"score\": 68433\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: No matter what kind of contract you create for your partnership it will cost money to enforce it. Breaking the law is, well, against the law to begin with. You don't need to get a signed contract promising that they won't break the law. You could possibly get them to sign something that states if the contract is breached or laws are broken by one party, they forfeit their shares in the venture, but again you'll have to prove it and lawyers cost money. if the venture is paying you both then he/she will have the same capitol for legal defense. In some cases you can propose a trial period in partnerships. You can try doing business as separate entities for 1-2 years after which you can merge. After two years working together there should be some trust built up. If not, you shouldn't do business with this person anyway. Just my two cents. To be clear, I'm not a lawyer. You should probably ask a lawyer about this, actually.\",\n \"qid\": 11088,\n \"docid\": \"219606\",\n \"rank\": 38,\n \"score\": 68206\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: You should consider using a lawyer as your agent. We once talked to one who was willing to act as our agent for a fixed fee. Not all attorneys can do it where we live, but there are plenty that can. We ended up going another route, but since then we have found a seller's agent that charges us a fixed fee of one thousand dollars (a great deal for us). We are using her again right now. It's all about the contract. Whatever you can legally negotiate is possible - which is yet another reason to consider finding a real estate attorney.\",\n \"qid\": 11088,\n \"docid\": \"181306\",\n \"rank\": 39,\n \"score\": 68070\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: First of all $1k is not enough money to start a web business. You're probably going to lose all your money, your business and your friendship. Second of all you need to retain a lawyer. I really can't emphasize this enough. If a lawyer is too expensive for you, then THIS BUSINESS IS TOO EXPENSIVE FOR YOU. If you don't have the money, then you don't have the time. When you say it's his idea - did he come to you with a fully written business plan? Even if he did, that's not really worth 20% of the equity. I would insist on 50/50 if the capital is 50/50, and salary to whoever is working on it. You're not going to have profits in the first year. Let me repeat that. YOU'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE PROFITS IN THE FIRST YEAR. Things never, ever, EVER work that way. Or ok they do but it's like 1%. It's not going to happen to you.\",\n \"qid\": 11088,\n \"docid\": \"542139\",\n \"rank\": 40,\n \"score\": 68036\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: I think the next big industry will be professional type certifications for more things. Just like you have to pass an exam to be a lawyer (the bar) you'll eventually be able to prove effectiveness and knowledge in a ton of tech and non tech fields without having to have a degree\",\n \"qid\": 11088,\n \"docid\": \"384954\",\n \"rank\": 41,\n \"score\": 68002\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: You don't need to hire a lawyer. In general, there are three things a lawyer might do: (1) Review the language of the deed of sale (2) Review the terms of the mortgage (if there is one) (3) Hire a title search company to do a title search If you do not want to do these things or want to do them yourself, then you do not need a lawyer.\",\n \"qid\": 11088,\n \"docid\": \"542613\",\n \"rank\": 42,\n \"score\": 67664\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: I came here asking for advice because google gave me conflicting answers. I don't need a lawyer to tell me which licenses I need, I just need somebody with experience, which it's obvious you don't have for 2 reasons. 1) You would have told me already and 2) joining existing firms will result in DNC agreements which I don't want. I'd appreciate a little bit more respect and knowledgeable answers than just putting me down for asking a simple question to clarify my confusion. I am new to this sub and your attitude does not make me feel welcomed here nor to other people I'd imagine that may be new as well.\",\n \"qid\": 11088,\n \"docid\": \"67457\",\n \"rank\": 43,\n \"score\": 67103\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: There is heap of instances where you may want a franchise lawyer. For instance, during the ending of your franchise lawyer California agreement, an attorney can make certain that the conditions of the agreement are being duly observed. Likewise, in instances of statutory compliance, your attorney can not only interpret and defend you but can also work as a link between you and the franchise lawyer California. This can help break up whatever matters or concerns arising out of a franchisor's allegation.\",\n \"qid\": 11088,\n \"docid\": \"82144\",\n \"rank\": 44,\n \"score\": 66853\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"I agree with this argument. Finance, legal, and tax compliance industries are bogus and add dubious value at best. The creation of more wealth helps those that created the wealth the most, but it oftentimes also does help everyone else as well (think: Steve Jobs & his company's many creations). But I also believe that if you had a \\\"\\\"full equalizer day\\\"\\\" and redistributed all the wealth in the US so that each of us had the same amount of money (we'd each roughly have $255,000 if my math is correct), then within 1 generation you'd already see a similar wealth distribution to what we have now. Most would consume more- rather than invest- and it would only be a temporary fix. It's a rarity to find people advocating for changing the system that creates inequality (the Fed currently being the biggest perp) instead of simply trying to redistribute the results of that system.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 11088,\n \"docid\": \"420233\",\n \"rank\": 45,\n \"score\": 66724\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"You cant! There is the risk that between the time you get the check and the time you get to the bank that you will be murdered, have a heart attack, stroke, or aneurysm too. And they are probably more likely than the bank going out of business between the time you deposit the money and get access to it. Prior to accepting the check I would do the following: Get a lawyer that specializes in finance and tax law. There are some steps you can take to minimize your tax exposure. There is little you can do about the immediate tax on the winnings but there are things you can do to maximize the return of your money. You will want to do what you can to protect that money for yourself and your family. Also create or revise your will. This is a lot of money and if something happens to you people from your family and \\\"\\\"friends\\\"\\\" will come out of the woodwork trying to claim your money. Make sure your money goes where you want it to in the event something happens to you. Get a financial planner. This money can either make you or break you. If you plan for success you will succeed. If you trust yourself to make good decisions with out a plan, in a few years you will be broke and wondering what happened to your money. Even at 1% at 20million dollars that is 200k a year in interest... a pretty good income by itself. You do not have to save every penny but you can plan for a nice lifestyle that will last, if you plan and stick to your plan. Do research and know what bank you are going to deposit the money in. Talk to the bank let them know of your plans so they can be ready for it. It is not every day that they get a 20 million dollar deposit. They will need to make plans to handle it. If you are going to spread the money out among several banks they can prepare for that too. When choosing that bank I would look for one where their holdings are significantly more than you are depositing. I would not really go with one of the banks that was rescued. They have already shown that they can not handle large sums of money and assuming they will not screw it up with my money is not something I would be comfortable with. There were some nice sized banks that did not need a bail out. I would choose one of them.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 11088,\n \"docid\": \"22961\",\n \"rank\": 46,\n \"score\": 66475\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: GET A LAWYER. Doing business with relatives is business first, and some effort spent in setting things up and nailing down exactly what the financial relationships and obligations are beforehand can save a lot of agony and animosity later. Assuming it's a legal rental, you may be able to deduct business costs spent on maintaining the rental unit, but of course you will have to declare the rent as income. If it's just a bedroom suite, rather than a full legal apartment, I don't think you can claim it as rental. (Note that whether you decide to share cooking and such is a separate question; apartment in most areas requires its own kitchen and bathroom.) As Joe pointed out, the actual purchase also sounds like it's going to involve a large gift, which has its own tax implications. Either that, or they retain ownership of their share and you get to deal with that if you or they decide to sell. Again: GET A LAWYER. And a tax accountant or tax lawyer to advise you on those implications. This is not someplace where the average wisdom of the Internet should be relied upon except for generalities; local laws and contract details matter.\",\n \"qid\": 11088,\n \"docid\": \"19455\",\n \"rank\": 47,\n \"score\": 66237\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Lawyers etc are upper middle class yes, but in general you are going for teachers, the higher degree nursing, non super specialist it workers, hr workers, middle management, etc. There is a point that we severely underpay K12 teachers. But the jobs you listed are working class. It used to be in the past that working class job could provide enough money for middle class existence eg car manufacturing union jobs. But that ended up being unsustainable, the companies uncompetitive and TBH the populace uneducated.\",\n \"qid\": 11088,\n \"docid\": \"161096\",\n \"rank\": 48,\n \"score\": 66205\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Honestly, get a ln employment lawyer, preferably one with a MBA. If you're having to ask these questions, and considering giving away equity, get proper business legal advice. I've seen several lucrative companies torn apart because things were sloppy when it was originally set up. Also remember employees don't need equity to spur them on; that what a paycheck and meaningful employment is for. And certainly don't give anything from the outset.\",\n \"qid\": 11088,\n \"docid\": \"166166\",\n \"rank\": 49,\n \"score\": 66154\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: You can buy DIY will kits from office supply shopes like Staples or specialized publishers like Nolo or Quicken. The most important factor for you to consider will be the witness rules in your state to ensure the validity of your will later. Nolo has a lot of good information in this regard. Hopefully this is helpful :)\",\n \"qid\": 11088,\n \"docid\": \"438080\",\n \"rank\": 50,\n \"score\": 65979\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: There are 2 basic ways to have someone buy partial ownership of your company: OR If they buy shares that you already own, then their shares will have the same rights as yours (same voting rights, same dividend rights, etc.). If they buy shares newly created from the company, they could be either identical shares to what you already own, or they could be a new class of shares [you may need to adjust the articles of incorporation if you did not plan ahead with multiple share classes]. You really need to talk to a lawyer & tax accountant about this. There are a lot of questions you need to consider here. For example: do you want to use the money in the business, or would you rather have it personally? Are you concerned about losing some control of how the business is run? What are the short term and long-term tax consequences of each method? What does your new partner want in terms of their share class? The answers to these questions will be highly valuable, and likely worth much more than the fees you will need to pay. At the very least, you will likely need a lawyer and accountant anyway to ensure the filings & taxes are done correctly, so better to involve them now, rather than later. There are many other situations to consider here, and an online forum is not the best place to get advice that might put you in a sticky legal situation later on.\",\n \"qid\": 11088,\n \"docid\": \"97962\",\n \"rank\": 51,\n \"score\": 65800\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: If you create a block good enough to stop cellular data it will stop radio communications. This will prevent firefighters (should a fire ever occur) from communicating. A lawyer would just need to demonstrate that a single death or injury resulted directly from causing a fire fighter to operate in a diminished capacity by implementing their radio wave blocking system.\",\n \"qid\": 11088,\n \"docid\": \"220132\",\n \"rank\": 52,\n \"score\": 65770\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: The Indian lawyer areas are commercial and investment laws, corporate law and intellectual property laws. You can seek online legal dispute resolution without personally approaching any arbitrator or mediator. This is the most economical way of resolving disputes in minimum possible time.\",\n \"qid\": 11088,\n \"docid\": \"150062\",\n \"rank\": 53,\n \"score\": 65667\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: > I hope you're not trying to become a lawyer. That field is way over saturated. No, but it was one of the better paying jobs offered when I was in school that at least claimed to work with student schedules. I don't have the cash for a top tier law school or even to afford to live near one, and even those who can find work from lower-tiered schools don't make enough to make it worth it. My goal is to work in some form of rehab or addiction treatment or trauma counseling (or possibly emergency medicine, if I decide I still need that pace and get tired of mostly talking). I was thinking about just getting my MSW but, since I'm already an EMT and probably going to be getting my CNA certification for a side job, now I'm leaning toward becoming a Psychiatric Nurse Practitioner or possibly a Physician's Assistant. I was looking at PA first, but NP seems most flexible in terms of being able to keep working and doing school. If all else fails, I'll hop back into sales. I'm licensed for real estate & insurance and sold cars until I got into a wreck and had to take some time off. Good money there and I liked the challenge, but I have personal reasons for wanting to go into the other field.\",\n \"qid\": 11088,\n \"docid\": \"166100\",\n \"rank\": 54,\n \"score\": 65382\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"Don't ignore it. If this is a non-trivial amount of money you need a lawyer. You've acknowledged that a loan exists and have personally guaranteed it, so a court can and will ultimately order you to pay. In doing so, they can put liens on your assests. Depending on the state, how the property is titled and other factors, that can include your home. If you don't have the money and are pretty much broke, try to negotiate a settlement. If they balk, you'll eventually need to start talking about bankruptcy -- that's the \\\"\\\"nuclear option\\\"\\\" and a motivator to settle. Otherwise, you need to either seriously explore bankruptcy or be prepared to lose your stuff to a judgement and having your dirty laundry aired in court. If you're not broke, but don't have liquid capital, you need to figure out a way to raise the money somehow. Again, you need to consult an attorney.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 11088,\n \"docid\": \"244016\",\n \"rank\": 55,\n \"score\": 64959\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: The only professional designations for people allowed to provide tax advice are Attorney, EA or CPA. Attorney and CPA must be licensed in the State they practice in, EA's are licensed by the Federal government. Tax preparers are not allowed to provide any tax advice, unless they hold any of these designations. They are only allowed to prepare your tax forms for you. So no, tax preparer is not a solution. Yes, you need to talk to a tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State, you probably don't need a tax attorney). You should do that before you start earning money - so that you can plan properly and understand what expenses you can incur and how they're handled with regards to your future income tax payments. You might also want to consider a bookkeeping service (many EA/CPA offices offer the bookkeeping as well). But that you can also do yourself, not all that complicated if you don't have tons of transactions and accounts.\",\n \"qid\": 11088,\n \"docid\": \"158122\",\n \"rank\": 56,\n \"score\": 64450\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Save yourself a lot of trouble you both agree on a Real Estate Attorney to prepare all the paperwork (ie. contract) and conduct the closing for or with the Title Company. Then you both split the normal costs of the transaction. (Real simple professionally handled and you both save the 6%)\",\n \"qid\": 11088,\n \"docid\": \"87157\",\n \"rank\": 57,\n \"score\": 64408\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Disclaimer: I’m not an expert. This is my basic understanding, which I’m sure someone will be glad to tell is horribly wrong... You need an LLC. Many people in my area create an LLC management company, then create individual LLCs for each investment property. Laws vary by state. YMMV Then you start researching properties. Commercial loans typically require a higher equity position than home ownership. Assume minimum 30%. For ease of this conversation let’s say you’re making the horribly poor decision to put that towards a single property. You’d be looking for a property in the 175-200k value range, because you’ll need to account for settlement expenses (attorney, broker, consultants) and a cash reserve. You’d be also be looking for what the average cap rate is for your market. In simplistic terms cap rate is the expected rate of return after expenses. So if the average market cap rate in that region for comparable properties is 5%, you can expect around 5% return on your investment, after you pay fees, maintenance, taxes, insurance, interest, etc. Buy a property and hold that property for a few years, making money every year, and claiming deductions on your earnings for something called depreciation. Fast forward 5 years and you’re ready to sell, the value of your property went up because you made improvements along the way, brought in some better tenants who are paying higher rents, and now you can offer a better cap rate than your competitors. You sell in the blink of an eye, and double your investment. Say you have $500k now sitting in the bank in you LLC’s name, in cash. You can either choose to cash out 100% and pay capital gains tax on your earnings above your basis (at 15% I think?)... OR you can quickly find a new property with that $500k, purchase it, and file a 1031, which says you don’t have to pay ANY capital gains on those earnings. You just increased income significantly without ever paying taxes on the underlying increase in value of your assets. Rinse and repeat for 25 years, develop a portfolio of properties, create a management company so you can stop paying others a percentage of your earnings, and you too can have the problem of too much money. I welcome anyone with actual knowledge of the topic to please expound on, or correct me.\",\n \"qid\": 11088,\n \"docid\": \"131395\",\n \"rank\": 58,\n \"score\": 64390\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Rent doesn't give you any ownership in a property, so is largely irrelevant here. If you were paying rent after the death of your parents, that money would go to the owners of the house (which may include you). Similarly, whether or not someone was evicted is completely irrelevant. If the will specifies how the estate should be divided, that's what's relevant here. You seem to imply that the house was left to 10 people. Barring specific other arrangements, the most likely case is that the house will be sold by the executrices and the proceeds divided evenly between all ten people. Again, though, it's going to depend on the specifics of the will. There are many possible cases where you may end up with nothing. For example, if there are a lot of debts, these must be paid off before dividing up the money from the sale of the house. If you are not getting the answers you need from the executrices, you need to consult a lawyer.\",\n \"qid\": 11088,\n \"docid\": \"415262\",\n \"rank\": 59,\n \"score\": 64271\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"There are TWO parts to an LLC or any company structure. This being the entire point of creating an LLC. The context is that a lawyer is after your LLC, and he's arguing that the LLC is not genuine, so he can go after your personal assets - your house, car, IRAs, tap your wife's salary etc. This is called \\\"\\\"piercing the corporate veil\\\"\\\". What would he use to claim the LLC is not genuine? The determination here is between you and the judge in a lawsuit. Suffice it to say, the way you withdraw money must consider the above issues, or you risk breaking the liability shield and becoming personally liable, which means you've been wasting the $25 every year to keep it registered. The IRS has a word for single member LLCs: \\\"\\\"Disregarded entity\\\"\\\". The IRS wants to know that the entity exists and it's connected to you. But for reporting tax numbers, they simply want the LLC's numbers folded into your personal numbers, because you are the same entity for tax purposes. The determination here is made by you. *LLCs are incredible versatile structures, and you can actually choose to have it taxed like a corporation where it is a separate \\\"\\\"person\\\"\\\" which files its own tax return. * The IRS doesn't care how you move money from the LLC to yourself, since it's all the same to them. The upshot is that while your own lawyer prohibits you from thinking of the assets as \\\"\\\"all one big pile\\\"\\\", IRS requires you to. Yes, it's enough to give you whiplash.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 11088,\n \"docid\": \"540334\",\n \"rank\": 60,\n \"score\": 64153\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Find a lawyer or law firm who wants to represent you and talk to them.\",\n \"qid\": 11088,\n \"docid\": \"521967\",\n \"rank\": 61,\n \"score\": 63924\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: If your sister paid rent, she was a tenant. There are laws to protect tenants, but those depend on what country, state, and city you live in. In most places in the US (maybe all), she was owed more than 2 days notice. Normally, the local housing authority could help her figure out what her rights are, but since this already happened, they may not be able to do much (depends on the local laws). It's worth asking them anyway. I don't know how partial ownership of the property would affect things if your sister was a partial owner. If the 30 year old will was the most recent document, then that's how the estate will be distributed. There are no laws in the US requiring a will to be fair. An executor's role is to carry out the will. Being an executor does not mean one can choose to unilaterally sell the property in the estate without permission of other heirs. You'll need to speak with a lawyer if you think they're breaking the will by selling property that you have partial ownership of. But since the sale is already done, reversing it would be slow and probably very expensive in legal fees. If it's a small estate, you'll have to judge whether a lawyer is worth the money and the family's animosity. Also, if the estate had debt, debt must be paid before property is distributed to the heirs, so that could also change what your sisters had to do. I'd suggest first asking your sisters to tell you about what they've done to execute the will, and what they do in the future.\",\n \"qid\": 11088,\n \"docid\": \"232329\",\n \"rank\": 62,\n \"score\": 63807\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: I can't. You aren't my client and I can't give specific advice over the internet without the risk of forming an attorney-client relationship, which comes with a lot of specific duties that I owe to the client and would be unable to carry out in this type of setting. Apologies.\",\n \"qid\": 11088,\n \"docid\": \"523905\",\n \"rank\": 63,\n \"score\": 63682\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: You should ask a CPA or tax lawyer to what extent living in specific housing provided by the employer as a job requirement is exempt from taxation. You might find a nice surprise. Your tax professional can also help you to report the items properly if mis-reported. Much of this is in the article you cite in the question, but perhaps a look at some of the original sources is warranted and will show why some expert advice might be useful. I would argue that an RA who is required to police and counsel undergrads in a college dorm in exchange for a room or a flat is closer to a worker with quarters on a ship or at an oil well than a full professor who receives a rental home in a neighborhood near the university as a benefit. In the first case living at the provided premises is necessary to do the job, but in the second case it is merely a benefit of the job. The IRS Publication 15-B guidance on employer provided housing is not entirely clear, so you might want to get some additional advice: Lodging on Your Business Premises You can exclude the value of lodging you furnish to an employee from the employee's wages if it meets the following tests. It is furnished on your business premises. It is furnished for your convenience. The employee must accept it as a condition of employment. Different tests may apply to lodging furnished by educational institutions. See section 119(d) of the Internal Revenue Code for details. If you allow your employee to choose to receive additional pay instead of lodging, then the lodging, if chosen, isn’t excluded. The exclusion also doesn't apply to cash allowances for lodging. On your business premises. For this exclusion, your business premises is generally your employee's place of work. For example, if you're a household employer, then lodging furnished in your home to a household employee would be considered lodging furnished on your business premises. For special rules that apply to lodging furnished in a camp located in a foreign country, see section 119(c) of the Internal Revenue Code and its regulations. For your convenience. Whether or not you furnish lodging for your convenience as an employer depends on all the facts and circumstances. You furnish the lodging to your employee for your convenience if you do this for a substantial business reason other than to provide the employee with additional pay. This is true even if a law or an employment contract provides that the lodging is furnished as pay. However, a written statement that the lodging is furnished for your convenience isn't sufficient. Condition of employment. Lodging meets this test if you require your employees to accept the lodging because they need to live on your business premises to be able to properly perform their duties. Examples include employees who must be available at all times and employees who couldn't perform their required duties without being furnished the lodging. It doesn't matter whether you must furnish the lodging as pay under the terms of an employment contract or a law fixing the terms of employment. Example of qualifying lodging. You employ Sam at a construction project at a remote job site in Alaska. Due to the inaccessibility of facilities for the employees who are working at the job site to obtain lodging and the prevailing weather conditions, you furnish lodging to your employees at the construction site in order to carry on the construction project. You require that your employees accept the lodging as a condition of their employment. You may exclude the lodging that you provide from Sam's wages. Additionally, since sufficient eating facilities aren’t available near your place of employment, you may also exclude meals you provide to Sam from his wages, as discussed under Meals on Your Business Premises , later in this section. Example of nonqualifying lodging. A hospital gives Joan, an employee of the hospital, the choice of living at the hospital free of charge or living elsewhere and receiving a cash allowance in addition to her regular salary. If Joan chooses to live at the hospital, the hospital can't exclude the value of the lodging from her wages because she isn't required to live at the hospital to properly perform the duties of her employment. One question would be how the conflict with IRC 119(d) is resolved for someone who must live in the dorm to watch over the dorm and its undergrads. Here's 26USC119(d) from LII: (d) Lodging furnished by certain educational institutions to employees (1) In general In the case of an employee of an educational institution, gross income shall not include the value of qualified campus lodging furnished to such employee during the taxable year. (2) Exception in cases of inadequate rent Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the extent of the excess of— (A) the lesser of— (i) 5 percent of the appraised value of the qualified campus lodging, or (ii) the average of the rentals paid by individuals (other than employees or students of the educational institution) during such calendar year for lodging provided by the educational institution which is comparable to the qualified campus lodging provided to the employee, over (B) the rent paid by the employee for the qualified campus lodging during such calendar year. The appraised value under subparagraph (A)(i) shall be determined as of the close of the calendar year in which the taxable year begins, or, in the case of a rental period not greater than 1 year, at any time during the calendar year in which such period begins. (3) Qualified campus lodging For purposes of this subsection, the term “qualified campus lodging” means lodging to which subsection (a) does not apply and which is— (A) located on, or in the proximity of, a campus of the educational institution, and (B) furnished to the employee, his spouse, and any of his dependents by or on behalf of such institution for use as a residence. (4) Educational institution, etc. For purposes of this subsection— (A) In generalThe term “educational institution” means— (i) an institution described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(ii) (or an entity organized under State law and composed of public institutions so described), or (ii) an academic health center. (B) Academic health centerFor purposes of subparagraph (A), the term “academic health center” means an entity— (i) which is described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(iii), (ii) which receives (during the calendar year in which the taxable year of the taxpayer begins) payments under subsection (d)(5)(B) or (h) of section 1886 of the Social Security Act (relating to graduate medical education), and (iii) which has as one of its principal purposes or functions the providing and teaching of basic and clinical medical science and research with the entity’s own faculty.\",\n \"qid\": 11088,\n \"docid\": \"7632\",\n \"rank\": 64,\n \"score\": 63644\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"Also the will stipulated that the house cannot be sold as long as one of my wife's aunts (not the same one who supposedly took the file cabinet) is alive. This is a turkey of a provision, particularly if she is not living in the house. It essentially renders the house, which is mortgaged, valueless. You'd have to put money into it to maintain the mortgage until she dies and you can sell it. The way that I see it, you have four options: Crack that provision in the will. You'd need to hire a lawyer for that. It may not be possible. Abandon the house. It's currently owned by the estate, so leave it in the estate. Distribute any goods and investments, but let the bank foreclose on the house. You don't get any value from the house, but you don't lose anything either. Your father's credit rating will take a posthumous hit that it can afford. You may need to talk to a lawyer here as well, but this is going to be a standard problem. Explore a reverse mortgage. They may be able to accommodate the weird provision with the aunt and manage the property while giving a payout. Or maybe not. It doesn't hurt to ask. Find a property manager in Philadelphia and have them rent out the house for you. Google gave some results on \\\"\\\"find property management company Philadelphia\\\"\\\" and you might be able to do better while in Philadelphia to get rid of his stuff. Again, I'd leave the house on the estate, as you are blocked from selling. A lawyer might need to put it in a trust or something to make that work (if the estate has to be closed in a certain time period). Pay the mortgage out of the rent. If there's extra left over, you can either pay down the mortgage faster or distribute it. Note that the rent may not support the mortgage. If not, then option four is not practical. However, in that case, the house is unlikely to be worth much net of the mortgage anyway. Let the bank have it (option two). If the aunt needs to move into the house, then you can give up the rental income. She can either pay the mortgage (possibly by renting rooms) or allow foreclosure. A reverse mortgage might also help in that situation. It's worth noting that three of the options involve a lawyer. Consulting one to help choose among the options might be constructive. You may be able to find a law firm with offices in both Florida and Pennsylvania. It's currently winter. Someone should check on the house to make sure that the heat is running and the pipes aren't freezing. If you can't do anything with it now, consider winterizing by turning off the water and draining the pipes. Turn the heat down to something reasonable and unplug the refrigerator (throw out the food first). Note that the kind of heat matters. You may need to buy oil or pay a gas bill in addition to electricity.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 11088,\n \"docid\": \"322314\",\n \"rank\": 65,\n \"score\": 63504\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: You need to talk to an accountant who practices tax accounting, preferaby someone who is an Enrolled Agent (EA) with the IRS, and possibly an attorney who specializes in tax law. There are multiple issues here, and the executor of your father's estate might need to be involved here too. Presumably you were a minor in 2007 since the transactions took place in a custodial account, and perhaps you were a dependent of your father in 2007. So, were the transactions reported on your father's 2007 income tax return? or did he file a separate income tax return in your name? You say you have a W2 for 2007. So you were earning some income in 2007? This complicates matters. It is necessary to determine who has the responsibility to file income tax returns for a minor with earned income. Above all, I urge you to not file income tax returns on your own or using a tax return preparation program, or after talking to a tax return preparation service (where you will likely get someone who works on a seasonal basis and is unlikely to be familiar with tax law as of 2007).\",\n \"qid\": 11088,\n \"docid\": \"232716\",\n \"rank\": 66,\n \"score\": 63331\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: As soon as you get some actual legal action you hire a lawyer, and that $23k is gone in a matter of weeks. They clearly let have another business to run - only a fool would bother chasing this. In terms of 'what legal trouble' - we'll as you must know (since you have experience right?) it's legal trouble as soon as someone else decides to spend the time and money making it so. Just because you think there is no issues doesn't stop them attempting to sue (claim copyright in the suit design for example) - they will have a lawyer on their side saying 'sure if course this is illegal let's go get em!'. If and when that happens you are in a bind because turning up to court with no representation is a non starter - so even if you are right you have to expose yourself to the bills to get to that point.\",\n \"qid\": 11088,\n \"docid\": \"356867\",\n \"rank\": 67,\n \"score\": 63306\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: You need a lawyer and a tax accountant for a sale like this. They will be able to tell you if the proceeds are taxed as income (most likely) or capital gains and will help you structure the deal. How you spend the proceeds will not make a difference, although if it's a large amount and you plan to donate some to charity, you may be able to save on your total tax liability by creating a donor advised fund. Keep in mind the broker is mostly interested in his commission and not about making the best deal for you. Get an attorney with experience in business sales.\",\n \"qid\": 11088,\n \"docid\": \"475896\",\n \"rank\": 68,\n \"score\": 63140\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Thank you for the pointers! Did you find it necessary to hire an attorney to set up your llc? Have you found any real down-sides with the llc option? It seems to be great in most circumstances from what I'm reading/hearing, there must be some negatives.\",\n \"qid\": 11088,\n \"docid\": \"450015\",\n \"rank\": 69,\n \"score\": 62777\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: No, it's not all long-term capital gain. Depending on the facts of your situation, it will be either ordinary income or partially short-term capital gain. You should consider consulting a tax lawyer if you have this issue. This is sort of a weird little corner of the tax law. IRC §§1221-1223 don't go into it, nor do the attendant Regs. It also somewhat stumped the people on TaxAlmanac years ago (they mostly punted and just declared it self-employment income, avoiding the holding period issue). But I did manage to find it in BNA Portfolio 562, buried in there. That cited to a court case Comm'r v. Williams, 256 F.2d 152 (5th Cir. 1958) and to Revenue Ruling 75-524 (and to another Rev. Rul.). Rev Rul 75-524 cites Fred Draper, 32 T.C. 545 (1959) for the proposition that assets are acquired progressively as they are built. Note also that land and improvements on it are treated as separate assets for purposes of depreciation (Pub 946). So between Williams (which says something similar but about the shipbuilding industry) and 75-524, as well as some related rulings and cases, you may be looking at an analysis of how long your property has been built and how built it was. You may be able to apportion some of the building as long-term and some as short-term. Whether the apportionment should be as to cost expended before 1 year or value created before 1 year is explicitly left open in Williams. It may be simpler to account for costs, since you'll have expenditure records with dates. However, if this is properly ordinary income because this is really business inventory and not merely investment property, then you have fully ordinary income and holding period is irrelevant. Your quick turnaround sale tends to suggest this may have been done as a business, not as an investment. A proper advisor with access to these materials could help you formulate a tax strategy and return position. This may be complex and law-driven enough that you'd need a tax lawyer rather than a CPA or preparer. They can sort through the precedent and if you have the money may even provide a formal tax opinion. Experienced real estate lawyers may be able to help, if you screen them appropriately (i.e. those who help prepare real estate tax returns or otherwise have strong tax crossover knowledge).\",\n \"qid\": 11088,\n \"docid\": \"153281\",\n \"rank\": 70,\n \"score\": 62601\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"As a general proposition, no, you do not need to report money transfers into the US. If a transaction exceeds $10,000 then the bank must report it anyway. Note that \\\"\\\"structuring\\\"\\\" your transactions to avoid a $10,000 deposit is illegal, so be careful if you are moving lots of money. As a general rule, no, transferring your own individual money from a foreign account to a US account does not incur taxes. Only lawyers are authorized to practice law in the US. They should generally be bar licensed in the state of practice. Certified public accountants can assist you with tax preparation and return positions, though tax lawyers may be necessary for some situations or for formal tax opinions. Be sure to use an experienced advisor to file your tax returns and information reporting.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 11088,\n \"docid\": \"592133\",\n \"rank\": 71,\n \"score\": 62282\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: charles phoenix lawyer Charles Phoenix is a lawyer who helps his clients work to unlock value in their assets, opportunities, and challenges by applying real estate, tax, business, contract, negotiation, litigation, restructuring, accounting, finance, and other strategies to problems in creative ways focused on their business.\",\n \"qid\": 11088,\n \"docid\": \"561749\",\n \"rank\": 72,\n \"score\": 62170\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Get a Bankrupsy lawyer. They'll tell you to stop paying the bills and use the money to pay their fee. Yes... You do need to pay in advance. I can tell you honestly that it was the best thing that ever happened to me. Think about it this way... When you loan someone moneyyou're placing a bet that they'll pay you back. You try to keep the dos in your favor by using credit ratings etc but sometimes you win and sometimes you lose that bet. It's nothing personal. It's business. The casino doesn't feel bad when you lose your bets and your money and you don't expect them to. The person placing the bet knows what they're doing and knows all about the risks, etc. it's a calculated risk. Again... It's just business and it's nothing personal. It's also not nesessairly a failure. Depending on the situation... Bankrupsy is an excellent business decision. Big business do it all the time. Sometimes bankruptcy is a very smart decision and not going bankrupt is the worst decision you can make. My only regret with my own bankruptcy is that I didn't do it sooner. I could have saved the family years of unnecessary hardship and I could have gotten it over with much sooner. Don't be emotional. Be smart and do the smart thing.\",\n \"qid\": 11088,\n \"docid\": \"401093\",\n \"rank\": 73,\n \"score\": 61978\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Lawyers who are paid quite well for it. Who do you think mortgages the future of their firms in some case dedicating themselves to fighting those corporate lawyers for settlements when they've wronged consumers. Unless you want to claim that having a codified legal system is bad I really don't see how thats relevant... It's like saying all people are bad because some were nazis\",\n \"qid\": 11088,\n \"docid\": \"446893\",\n \"rank\": 74,\n \"score\": 61976\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Sorry for your loss. I am not a lawyer and this isn;t legal advice -- which I am not licensed to give. But I've had to deal with some debt situations of my own. I think the worst case scenario is the creditor can get a judgment, but that won't be against you unless you were a co-signor. The collectors are going to prey on your decency to make you feel like you should pay it, but you are under no legal obligation to do so. If they file in court and then win a judgment, they may be able to collect on the assets of the estate. You mention no money but you mention a house. That is an asset with value, and putting it in your name isn't going to do much. You should see a lawyer on this, because it seems logical that they could collect on the value of the house at the time of the death, and even if it was willed to you it can still be attacked to pay the debt. Here is a good write-up on NJ death and debt and whether it can be inherited by the adult children: https://www.atrbklaw.com/bankruptcy-resources/83-articles/103-can-you-inherit-your-dead-parent-s-debts\",\n \"qid\": 11088,\n \"docid\": \"205865\",\n \"rank\": 75,\n \"score\": 61933\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Hiring a CPA comes into play if you're doing something that requires judgement or planning, such as valuation of internal shares in a partnership, valuation of assets in an asset swap, or distribution of the proceeds of a liquidation. That said, I would strongly suggest hiring someone who is also a Tax Attorney over a plain old CPA. In the event you do need representation to clarify positions or assertions, you're probably going to need to hire one anyway. Qualified representation is much cheaper to hire up front than after the fact. If all you need is help filing compliance paperwork (returns), software should be more than adequate.\",\n \"qid\": 11088,\n \"docid\": \"432619\",\n \"rank\": 76,\n \"score\": 61911\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Whether or not you use a real estate agent, at some stage most people use a lawyer to do the actual buying and selling and set up the agreements. If you've never dealt with a lawyer directly before it's probably because your agent has acted as a front-person for the lawyer. If you go to a lawyer and tell them what you want to do they will sort it out, and should tell you in advance how much it will cost. You and your friend will probably need one each.\",\n \"qid\": 11088,\n \"docid\": \"64005\",\n \"rank\": 77,\n \"score\": 61883\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: I would talk to an immigration lawyer. This sounds like the kind of thing that they'd deal with frequently. As I understand it, your concern is mostly about managing the transfer, not the sale. An immigration lawyer is going to see clients with overseas assets frequently. If this isn't something that they do themselves, they can refer you appropriately. In general when I'm looking for a lawyer, I start with the local bar association. The one for San Francisco. If that's the wrong bay area, they are normally at the county level. So you can find them by searching for bar association with the appropriate county or city name. If you explain your problem briefly, they can direct you.\",\n \"qid\": 11088,\n \"docid\": \"256101\",\n \"rank\": 78,\n \"score\": 61817\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"You should hire a lawyer. The fact that they told you your personal information shows that they actually had it, and are not imposters, which is a good thing. The fact that they mislead you means that their intentions are not pure (which is not surprising coming from a collection agency of course). When dealing with collections (or any matter of significance for that matter), don't rely on their recording of the call, because they can always conveniently lose it. Make sure to write down every single detail discussed, including the date and time of the call, and the ID/name of the person on the other side. If possible - make your own recording (notifying them of it of course). It's too late to record the calls now, but do try to reconstruct as much information as possible to provide to your lawyer to deal with it. In the end of the day they will either provide you with the recording (and then you might be surprised to hear that what they said was not in fact what you thought they said, and it was just your wishful thinking, it is very possible to be indeed the case), or claim \\\"\\\"we lost it\\\"\\\" and then it will be a problem to either of you to prove who said what, but they'll have the better hand (having better lawyers) in convincing the court that you're the one trying to avoid paying your debts. That is why proper representation at all stages is important. As to the bankruptcy - it won't help for student loans, student loans is one of the very few types of debts you can't really run away from. You have to solve this, the sooner the better. Get a professional advice. For the future (and for the other readers) - you should have gotten the professional advice before defaulting on these loans, and certainly after the first call.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 11088,\n \"docid\": \"254528\",\n \"rank\": 79,\n \"score\": 61686\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Strange that they're holding you personally legally liable rather than the company. That's normally a big part of the corporate veil. You need a lawyer, not a stackexchange.\",\n \"qid\": 11088,\n \"docid\": \"320777\",\n \"rank\": 80,\n \"score\": 61669\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Paralegal? It varies from country to country (assuming SomeDutchGuy is Dutch), but in the US you just file papers, no lawyer or legal professional needed. That's why there's a limit on small claims court, so that small disputes can be settled without having to pay a lawyer (probably in excess of the disputed amount).\",\n \"qid\": 11088,\n \"docid\": \"238074\",\n \"rank\": 81,\n \"score\": 61625\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Yes. I'm not a coder by trade, but learned on my own as a hobby and then launched a barebones version in 2015 and then a full-fledged version just a few months ago. I'm a lawyer by training and I had been thinking for 12+ years that there needed to be a more efficient way for professionals to get clients and for clients to know the level of expertise of a professional through the power of the Internet. I had tried to hire outside web developers on my own about 10 years ago, but got burned but learned some valuable life lessons - if you are passionate about something, learn to do it yourself - you almost always will be better off. The result today is Hire.Bid and I'm happy to say we are kicking ass. If Reddit has taught me anything, it is to chase your dreams and make shit happen yourself. You'll regret not doing so. Make it happen. If it is a hobby and something you are passionate about first, you'll have a much better chance of success in the long run. Just my $0.02.\",\n \"qid\": 11088,\n \"docid\": \"446708\",\n \"rank\": 82,\n \"score\": 61576\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"I'm not a tax lawyer, but from what I can tell it looks like you'd be eligible to use your contractor income to fund a Solo 401(k). http://www.irafinancialgroup.com/whatissolo401k.php \\\"\\\"To access these benefits an investor must meet two eligibility requirements: The presence of self employment activity. The absence of full-time employees.\\\"\\\" And from the IRS itself (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/forum08_401k.pdf)\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 11088,\n \"docid\": \"367577\",\n \"rank\": 83,\n \"score\": 61548\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: If this is a practical, rather than hypothetical, question, the best advice that we could give would be to see a lawyer. If you think your teenager has done something illegal, get a lawyer. The lawyer will then take care of notifying the relevant parties and manage the accusations. In most cases, it would be sufficient to notify the police directly. They understand the concept of scams, and many of them have teenagers of their own. Most of the time, they will try to work with you rather than against you. But if you are really worried about it, this is what lawyers do. A lawyer can separate the teenager and the police, so the teenager makes no admissions. But the lawyer can get the necessary information to the police so that neither the teenager nor you is subject to an obstruction of justice charge. We can help you by pointing to resources or suggesting ways to document what has happened or is happening. Or just point out that something is a scam. But if you are worrying about prosecution, we can't really help you. You can't confide the relevant details to us. There is no asker/answerer confidentiality. Everything is published on the internet with archives. Without those relevant details, how good will our advice be? Talk to a lawyer. The lawyer can tell you what you can and cannot do. And what you tell the lawyer is privileged. So even if you admit criminality, the lawyer can't then tell anyone. And if you're worried that the lawyer might be restricted by what you've said, you can fire the lawyer and hire another. The first thing to do when you find yourself in a hole is stop digging. Trying to fix things for your teenager is digging. Go to a lawyer and share your concerns. Maybe some of them are groundless. From what you've shared, you could go to the police. But perhaps there is more that we don't know. If so and you are reluctant to share publicly on the internet, that's sensible. Go to a lawyer and share in private. If you are indigent and can't afford an attorney, look into Legal Aid. They may be in the phone book. If not, call the local bar association and ask for a referral for free legal advice for someone low income. Try to have a generic description of the problem, e.g. you're worried that someone scammed your teenager into doing something illegal. And just to say this one more time. As you've described things, it seems like you should be able to just go to the police and the bank and describe the scam. I don't hear anything that they would prosecute. If you've left something out that changes things, then a lawyer is the way to go. Then you can disclose everything to get advice.\",\n \"qid\": 11088,\n \"docid\": \"348377\",\n \"rank\": 84,\n \"score\": 61531\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: You should probably talk to a professional tax adviser. This doesn't seem to be a common situation. From the top of my head, without being a lawyer or a tax professional, I think of it like this: The income is for year 200..., and should have been taxed then. You constructively received it then, and not claimed it. You probably had withholding from this salary that should have been reported to you then on W2 (you can get a copy from the IRS). I'd say you're to amend the return for year 200... with the new income, if it wasn't reported then. Although if more than 3 years passed (6, if its 25% or more of your gross income for that year), its beyond statute. However, as I said, I'm not a lawyer and not a professional tax adviser, so you cannot in any way rely on my opinion for anything that would result in not paying any taxes or penalties you should have. You should talk to a licensed tax professional (EA/CPA/Lawyer licensed in your State).\",\n \"qid\": 11088,\n \"docid\": \"73261\",\n \"rank\": 85,\n \"score\": 61219\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Yep, you need to hire a lawyer and an accountant, honestly. When I was starting my business, I hired one who was BOTH. Not really for cost-savings, though it did save $$$, but it was super convenient and it's nice to have someone knowledgable in both. It totally depends on your area, but don't overthink it or get intimidated. It won't take as much $$$ as you think to hire someone, maybe $500-$1,000 or so upfront, then a small hourly fee probably every month if you need help with sales tax or accounts or whatever... you need to make sure the gov is getting theirs though from day 1 re: taxes, otherwise you're gonna regret it. Much cheaper to get it all in place now.\",\n \"qid\": 11088,\n \"docid\": \"589862\",\n \"rank\": 86,\n \"score\": 61145\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Sarasota Short Sale Lawyer are experts in contract law. If you are experiencing unmanageable debt issues such as Short Sale, Foreclosure, or Real Estate, it is important to realize you are not alone and that there are viable options for getting a new financial lease on life that works in the long run.\",\n \"qid\": 11088,\n \"docid\": \"354968\",\n \"rank\": 87,\n \"score\": 60980\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"I can't vouch for Australian law, but in the US there is actually a recognized mechanism for \\\"\\\"in-family loans\\\"\\\" which ensures that it's all fully documented for tax purposes, including filing it as an official second mortgage. (Just did that recently in my own family, which is why I'm aware of it.) We're required to charge at least some interest (there's a minimum set, currently around 0.3%), and the interest is taxable income, and it is wise to get a lawyer to draw up the paperwork (there are a few services which specialize in this, charging a flat fee of about US$700 if the loan is standard enough that they can handle it as fill-in-the-blank), but outside of that it's pretty painless. This can also be used as a way of shifting gift limits from year to year -- if you issue a loan, and then gift the recipient with the payments each year (including the payments), you've effectively spread the immediate transfer of money over multiple years of taxes. Of course it does cost you the legal paperwork and the tax in the interest (which they're still \\\"\\\"paying\\\"\\\" out of your gift), but it can be a useful tool, and it's one that wasn't well known until recently. Again: This is all US codes, posted only for comparison (and for the benefit of US readers). It may be completely irrelevant. But it may be worth investigating whether Oz has something similar.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 11088,\n \"docid\": \"158732\",\n \"rank\": 88,\n \"score\": 60881\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"They don't actually need to. They accept deposits for historical reasons and because they make money doing so, but there's nothing key to their business that requires them to do so. Here's a decent summary, but I'll explain in great detail below. By making loans, banks create money. This is what we mean when we say the monetary supply is endogenous. (At least if you believe Sir Mervyn King, who used to run England's central bank...) The only real checks on this are regulatory--capitalization requirements and reserve requirements, which impose a sort of tax on a bank's circulating loans. I'll get into that later. Let's start with Why should you believe that story--that loans create deposits? It seems like a bizarre assertion. But it actually matches how banks behave in practice. If you go borrow money from a bank, the loan officer will do many things. She'll want to look at your credit history. She'll want to look at your income and assets. She'll want to look at what kind of collateral or guarantees you're providing that the loan will be repaid. What she will not do is call down to the vaults and make sure that there's enough bills stacked up for them to lend out. Loans are judged based on a profitability function determined by the interest rate and the loan risk. If those add up to \\\"\\\"profitable\\\"\\\", the bank makes the loan. So the limiting factor on the loans a bank makes are the available creditworthy borrowers--not the bank's stock of cash. Further, the story makes sense because loans are how banks make money. If a bank that was short of money suddenly stopped making loans, it'd be screwed: no new loans = no way to make money to pay back depositors and also keep the lights on = no more bank. And the story is believable because of the way banks make so little effort to solicit commercial deposit business. Oh sure, they used to give you a free toaster if you opened an account; but now it's really quite challenging to find a no-fee checking account that doesn't impose a super-high deposit limit. And the interest paid on savings deposits is asymptotically approaching zero. If banks actually needed your deposits, they'd be making a lot more of effort to get them. I mean, they won't turn up their noses; your deposited allowance is a couple basis points cheaper to the bank than borrowing from the Fed; but banks seem to value small-potatoes depositors more as a source of fees and sales opportunities for services and consumer credit than as a source of cash. (It's a bit different if you get north of seven figures, but smaller depositors aren't really worth the hassle just for their cash.) This is where someone will mention the regulatory requirements of fractional reserve banking: banks are obliged by regulators to keep enough cash on hand to pay out a certain percentage of deposits. Note nothing about loans was said in that statement: this requirement does not serve as a check on the bank making bad loans, because the bank is ultimately liable to all its depositors for the full value of their deposits; it's more making sure they have enough liquidity to prevent bank runs, the self-fulfilling prophecy in which an undercapitalized bank could be forced into bankruptcy. As you noted in your question, banks can always borrow from the Fed at the Fed Discount Rate (or from other banks at the interbank overnight rate, which is a little lower) to meet this requirement. They do have to pledge collateral, but loans themselves are collateral, so this doesn't present much of a problem. In terms of paying off depositors if the bank should collapse (and minimizing the amount of FDIC insurance payout from the government), it's really capital requirements that are actually important. I.E. the bank has to have investors who don't have a right to be paid back and whose investment is on the hook if the bank goes belly-up. But that's just a safeguard for the depositors; it doesn't really have anything to do with loans other than that bad loans are the main reason a bank might go under. Banks, like any other private business, have assets (things of value) and liabilities (obligations to other people). But banking assets and liabilities are counterintuitive. The bank's assets are loans, because they are theoretically recoverable (the principal) and also generate a revenue stream (the interest payments). The money the bank holds in deposits is actually a liability, because it has to pay that money out to depositors on demand, and the deposited money will never (by itself) bring the bank any revenue at all. In fact, it's a drain, because the bank needs to pay interest to its depositors. (Well, they used to anyway.) So what happens when a bank makes a loan? From a balance sheet perspective, strangely enough, the answer is nothing at all. If I grant you a loan, the minute we shake hands and you sign the paperwork, a teller types on a keyboard and money appears in your account. Your account with my bank. My bank has simultaneously created an asset (the loan you now have to repay me) and an equal-sized liability (the funds I loaned you, which are now deposited in your account). I'll make money on the deal, because the interest you owe me is a much higher rate than the interest I pay on your deposits, or the rate I'd have to pay if I need to borrow cash to cover your withdrawal. (I might just have the cash on hand anyway from interest and origination fees and whatnot from previous loans.) From an accounting perspective, nothing has happened to my balance sheet, but suddenly you owe me closing costs and a stream of extraneous interest payments. (Nice work if you can get it...) Okay, so I've exhaustively demonstrated that I don't need to take deposits to make loans. But we live in a world where banks do! Here's a few reasons: You can probably think of more, but at the end of the day, a bank should be designed so that if every single (non-borrowing) depositor withdrew their deposits, the bank wouldn't collapse or cease to exist.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 11088,\n \"docid\": \"22268\",\n \"rank\": 89,\n \"score\": 60662\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: I am not a lawyer. I do however own an LLC. It's setup as a partnership with 50/50 ownership. You can do it as a sole proprietorship. In basic terms, if you separate your money and assets from the money and assets of the company then you are personally immune from lawsuit and thus your personal assets are safe. You have to set it up right (fairly cheap) and keep the records right (ie never mix personal and company assets ) but it provides a nice legal buffer and in some cases tax benefits. Do not construe this as legal or accountanting advice. Speak with pros to understand and get it set up right. But it's worth it.\",\n \"qid\": 11088,\n \"docid\": \"76486\",\n \"rank\": 90,\n \"score\": 60626\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: I would strongly encourage you to either find specifically where in your written contract the handling of early/over payments are defined and post it for us to help you, or that you go and visit a licensed real estate attorney. Even at a ridiculously high price of 850 pounds per hour for a top UK law firm (and I suspect you can find a competent lawyer for 10-20% of that amount), it would cost you less than a year of prepayment penalty to get professional advice on what to do with your mortgage. A certified public accountant (CPA) might be able to advise you, as well, if that's any easier for you to find. I have the sneaking suspicion that the company representatives are not being entirely forthcoming with you, thus the need for outside advice. Generally speaking, loans are given an interest rate per period (such as yearly APR), and you pay a percentage (the interest) of the total amount of money you owe (the principle). So if you owe 100,000 at 5% APR, you accrue 5,000 in interest that year. If you pay only the interest each year, you'll pay 50,000 in interest over 10 years - but if you pay everything off in year 8, at a minimum you'd have paid 10,000 less in interest (assuming no prepayment penalties, which you have some of those). So paying off early does not change your APR or your principle amount paid, but it should drastically reduce the interest you pay. Amortization schedules don't change that - they just keep the payments even over the scheduled full life of the loan. Even with prepayment penalties, these are customarily billed at less than 6 months of interest (at the rate you would have payed if you kept the loan), so if you are supposedly on the hook for more than that again I highly suspect something fishy is going on - in which case you'd probably want legal representation to help you put a stop to it. In short, something is definitely and most certainly wrong if paying off a loan years in advance - even after taking into account pre-payment penalties - costs you the same or more than paying the loan off over the full term, on schedule. This is highly abnormal, and frankly even in the US I'd consider it scandalous if it were the case. So please, do look deeper into this - something isn't right!\",\n \"qid\": 11088,\n \"docid\": \"351044\",\n \"rank\": 91,\n \"score\": 60617\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: If you're creating an S-Corp for consulting services that you personally are going to provide, what would it give her to have 50% of the corporation when you're dead? Not to mention that you can just add it to your will that the corporation stock will go to her, and it will be much better (IMHO, talk to a professional) since she'll be getting stepped-up basis. Why aren't you talking to a professional before making decisions? It doesn't sound like a good way to conduct business.\",\n \"qid\": 11088,\n \"docid\": \"79129\",\n \"rank\": 92,\n \"score\": 60514\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: It may clarify your thinking if you look at this as two transactions: I am an Australian so I cannot comment on US tax laws but this is how the Australian Tax Office would view the transaction. By thinking this way you can allocate the risks correctly, Partnership Tenancy Two things should be clear - you will need a good accountant and a good lawyer. I do not agree that there is a conflict of interest in the lawyer acting for both parties - his role should only be for advice and to document what the two of you agree to. If you end up in dispute, then you need two lawyers.\",\n \"qid\": 11088,\n \"docid\": \"104526\",\n \"rank\": 93,\n \"score\": 60487\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Christos Vitsentzatos is a pragmatic and forward thinking lawyer. He represents small and medium sized businesses in the financial services, technology and sports and entertainment sectors. His legal career has seen him represent a diverse array of clients in many different roles. He has been an Assistant Crown Attorney for the Province of Ontario.\",\n \"qid\": 11088,\n \"docid\": \"134573\",\n \"rank\": 94,\n \"score\": 60393\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: The process would look something like: 1. Register your investment company with the SEC 2. Get the ETF approved by the SEC 3. Get a custodian bank (likely requires min assets of a few million) 4. Get listed on an exchange like NYSEARCA by meeting requirements and have an IPO 1 and 2 probably require a lot of time and fees and would be wise to have a lawyer advising, 3 is obviously difficult due to asset requirements and 4 would probably involve an investment bank plus more fees\",\n \"qid\": 11088,\n \"docid\": \"257404\",\n \"rank\": 95,\n \"score\": 60282\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: You don't have to provide your personal home address per se. You can provide a legal address where Companies house can send across paper correspondence to. Companies house legally requires an address because directors are liable to their shareholders(even if you are the only shareholder) and to stop them from disappearing just like that with shareholder's money. Moreover your birth date will also be visible on websites which provide comapnies information. You can ask these websites to stop sharing your personal information. Every company must have a registered office within the UK which is the official legal address of the company. It must be a physical address (i.e. not a PO Box without a physical location) as Companies House will use this address to send correspondence to. To incorporate a private limited company you need at least one director, who has to be over 16 years of age. You may also have a secretary, but this is optional. The information you will need to supply for each officer includes: You may also have officers that are companies or firms, and for these you will need to supply the company or firm name, its registered office address, details of the legal form of the company, where it is registered and if applicable its registration number.\",\n \"qid\": 11088,\n \"docid\": \"503678\",\n \"rank\": 96,\n \"score\": 60253\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Because people with good enough lawyers seem to get away with this. Maybe they will do a trivial amount of time or pay fines less than what they made, but it'll probably be worth it in the long run.\",\n \"qid\": 11088,\n \"docid\": \"512944\",\n \"rank\": 97,\n \"score\": 60191\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: Sarasota Real Estate Lawyer of the firm have litigated real estate, construction and commercial disputes and transacted real estate When you need legal counsel, you deserve experienced attorneys who provide personal attention. The transactional department provides a full range of real estate legal and settlement services throughout Florida, including residential and commercial purchase and sale transactions.\",\n \"qid\": 11088,\n \"docid\": \"470993\",\n \"rank\": 98,\n \"score\": 60087\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"Your reply is an ad hominem, which would be fine if that wasn't all it was. I'm waiting for a refutation of any of the facts I've put forth that paint the system in a critical light. Things that would make this system okay: - Banks being allowed far less money creation power, or none at all, forced to literally lend out only the money they have on deposit, and not create any through a pyramid of leveraging which starts at the Fed, coupled with a currency backed by a basket of diversified goods. - A truly nationalized national banking system, without the inherent conflict of interest inherent especially in the New York Fed, which has as its board members and shareholders the very Wall Street banks it regulates. The NY one is the worst example of this because it is the most powerful. - Banking regulation power removed from the Federal Reserve completely and back to Congress. - Stronger federal oversight of markets and corporate governance, which would help prevent the very malfeasance that produced the panics which justified creation of the country's central banks down through the years (the Fed is the fourth central bank, and the third of this kind of scheme in the nation's history). Dude, I mean, the Federal Reserve was started by a bunch of robber barons, is owned and controlled by the very banks it purports to regulate, and it is the largest factor in the character of the national economy. What's not true in any of what I've said? Seriously, what's not true? I mean, I'm pointing out a conflict of interest in a very serious area, and you're like, \\\"\\\"TINFOIL HAT!\\\"\\\" What a fuck is wrong with you.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 11088,\n \"docid\": \"307596\",\n \"rank\": 99,\n \"score\": 60081\n },\n {\n \"content\": \"Title: Content: \\\"I think the best advice you could get would be to find a lawyer. If that foreign company has any presence in the US, they should be the ones signing off as the successor, otherwise you may find yourself in a limbo that would require some legal assistance. Generally, in most States a Corporation cannot be dissolved without resolving issues like this, which is probably why they told you \\\"\\\"the plan is terminating\\\"\\\". Someone asked them to terminate it. You need to find that someone.\\\"\",\n \"qid\": 11088,\n \"docid\": \"131411\",\n \"rank\": 100,\n \"score\": 60028\n }\n]"}}}],"truncated":false,"partial":false},"paginationData":{"pageIndex":6,"numItemsPerPage":100,"numTotalItems":648,"offset":600,"length":100}},"jwt":"eyJhbGciOiJFZERTQSJ9.eyJyZWFkIjp0cnVlLCJwZXJtaXNzaW9ucyI6eyJyZXBvLmNvbnRlbnQucmVhZCI6dHJ1ZX0sImlhdCI6MTcxNjAzNTA0MCwic3ViIjoiL2RhdGFzZXRzL2phc3Blci14aWFuL3NwbGFkZS1maXFhLXJldHJpZXZhbHMiLCJleHAiOjE3MTYwMzg2NDAsImlzcyI6Imh0dHBzOi8vaHVnZ2luZ2ZhY2UuY28ifQ.5445bF7Lw4OwBSZ-sztosVaiV2CYZKpN1B_taKDjmm2xo5pabWB4xaKVX4XoidCQ_d-xvzwjkKXdVUOVU-lwAA","displayUrls":true},"discussionsStats":{"closed":0,"open":1,"total":1},"fullWidth":true,"hasAccess":true}">
query
stringlengths 16
147
| hits
listlengths 100
100
|
|---|---|
Where can end-of-day data be downloaded for corporate bonds? | [
{
"content": "Title: Content: Here is one from a Bloomberg partnership, it is free. To get the end of day prices, you may need some programming done. PM me if you need help with that. Getting bond quotes and general information about a bond issue is considerably more difficult than researching a stock or a mutual fund. A major reason for this is that there is not a lot of individual investor demand for the information; therefore, most bond information is available only through higher level tools that are not accessible to the average investor. Read more: Where can I get bond market quotes? | Investopedia http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/06/bondquote.asp#ixzz3wXVwv3s5",
"qid": 9824,
"docid": "574777",
"rank": 1,
"score": 109807
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Buy a fund of bonds, there are plenty and are registered on your stockbroker account as 'funds' rather than shares. Otherwise, to the individual investor, they can be considered as the same thing. Funds (of bonds, rather than funds that contain property or shares or other investments) are often high yield, low volatility. You buy the fund, and let the manager work it for you. He buys bonds in accordance to the specification of the fund (ie some funds will say 'European only', or 'global high yield' etc) and he will buy and sell the bonds regularly. You never hold to maturity as this is handled for you - in many cases, the manager will be buying and selling bonds all the time in order to give you a stable fund that returns you a dividend. Private investors can buy bonds directly, but its not common. Should you do it? Up to you. Bonds return, the company issuing a corporate bond will do so at a fixed price with a fixed yield. At the end of the term, they return the principal. So a 20-year bond with a 5% yield will return someone who invests £10k, £500 a year and at the end of the 20 years will return the £10k. The corporate doesn't care who holds the bond, so you can happily sell it to someone else, probably for £10km give or take. People say to invest in bonds because they do not move much in value. In financially difficult times, this means bonds are more attractive to investors as they are a safe place to hold money while stocks drop, but in good times the opposite applies, no-one wants a fund returning 5% when they think they can get 20% growth from a stock.",
"qid": 9824,
"docid": "269550",
"rank": 2,
"score": 93036
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I've used yahoo to perform the exercise you're asking about. It allows you to download price data, month end if you wish, and by manipulating via a spreadsheet to add a column for purchases, you can easily see how your £100/mo would end after so long a time period.",
"qid": 9824,
"docid": "154559",
"rank": 3,
"score": 89834
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: To issue corporate grade bonds the approval process very nearly matches that for issuing corporate equity. You must register with the sec, and then generally there is a initial debt offering similar to an IPO. (I say similar in terms of the process itself, but the actual sale of bonds is nothing like that for equities). It would be rare for a partnership to be that large as to issue debt in the form of bonds (although there are some that are pretty big), but I suppose it is possible as long as they want to file with the sec. Beyond that a business could privately place bonds with a large investor but there is still registration requirements with the sec. All that being said, it is also pretty rare for public bonds to be issued by a company that doesn't already have public equity. And the amounts we are talking about here are huge. The most common trade in corporate debt is a round lot of 100,000. So this isn't something a small corporation would have access to or have a need for. Generally financing for a smaller business comes from a bank.",
"qid": 9824,
"docid": "336005",
"rank": 4,
"score": 87009
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Corporate bonds have gotten very complicated in the last 20 years to the point where individual investors are at significant disadvantages when lending money. Subordinated debentures, covenants, long maturities with short call features, opaque credit analysis, etc. Interest rates are so low now that investors (individual & professionals) are forced further out the risk & maturity spectrum for yield. It's a very crowded and busy street.....stay out of the traffic. Really you are better off owning a low cost bond fund that emulates the Barclays Corp/Gov index, or similar. That said, junk bonds may be useful to you if you can tolerate losing money when companies default....you've got to look in the mirror. Choose a fund that is diverse, Treasuries, agencies, corps both high and low.....and don't go for the highest yield.",
"qid": 9824,
"docid": "570874",
"rank": 5,
"score": 85937
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: There is no single 'market interest rate'; there are myriad interest rates that vary by risk profile & term. Corporate bonds are (typically) riskier than bank deposits, and therefore pay a higher effective rate when the market for that bond is in equilibrium than a bank account does. If you are willing to accept a higher risk in order gain a higher return, you might choose bonds over bank deposits. If you want an even higher return and can accept even higher risk, you might turn to stocks over bonds. If you want still higher return and can bear the still higher risk, derivatives may be more appealing than stocks.",
"qid": 9824,
"docid": "288663",
"rank": 6,
"score": 85086
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Short-term to intermediate-term corporate bond funds are available. The bond fund vehicle helps manage the credit risk, while the short terms help manage inflation and interest rate risk. Corporate bond funds will have fewer Treasuries bonds than a general-purpose short-term bond fund: it sounds like you're interested in things further out along the risk curve than a 0.48% return on a 5-year bond, and thus don't care for the Treasuries. Corporate bonds are generally safer than stocks because, in bankruptcy, all your bondholders have to be paid in full before any equity-holders get a penny. Stocks are much more volatile, since they're essentially worth the value of their profits after paying all their debt, taxes, and other expenses. As far as stocks are concerned, they're not very good for the short term at all. One of the stabler stock funds would be something like the Vanguard Equity Income Fund, and it cautions: This fund is designed to provide investors with an above-average level of current income while offering exposure to the stock market. Since the fund typically invests in companies that are dedicated to consistently paying dividends, it may have a higher yield than other Vanguard stock mutual funds. The fund’s emphasis on slower-growing, higher-yielding companies can also mean that its total return may not be as strong in a significant bull market. This income-focused fund may be appropriate for investors who have a long-term investment goal and a tolerance for stock market volatility. Even the large-cap stable companies can have their value fall dramatically in the short term. Look at its price chart; 2008 was brutal. Avoid stocks if you need to spend your money within a couple of years. Whatever you choose, read the prospectus to understand the risks.",
"qid": 9824,
"docid": "94040",
"rank": 7,
"score": 83728
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Bonds are extremely illiquid and have traditionally traded in bulk. This has changed in recent years, but bonds used to be traded all by humans not too long ago. Currently, price data is all proprietary. Prices are reported to the usual data terminals such as Bloomberg, Reuters, etc, but brokers may also have price gathering tools and of course their own internal trade history. Bonds are so illiquid that comparable bonds are usually referenced for a bond's price history. This can be done because non-junk bonds are typically well-rated and consistent across ratings.",
"qid": 9824,
"docid": "329582",
"rank": 8,
"score": 83603
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Distributions of interest from bonds are taxable as income by the Federal, state and municipal (if applicable) government. End of year fund distributions are subject to capital gains taxes as well. You can minimize taxation by: Note that the only bonds that are guaranteed safe are US Government obligations, as the US government has unlimited taxation powers and the ability to print money. Municipal obligations are generally safe, but there is a risk that municipal governments will default. You can also avoid taxation by not realizing gains. If you buy individual stocks or tax-efficient mutual funds, you will have minimal tax liability until you sell. Also, just wanted to point out that bonds do not equal safety and money markets do not pay sufficient interest to offset inflation, you need a diversified portfolio. Five year treasury notes are only paying 1.3% now, and bond prices drop when interest rates go up. Given the level of Federal spending and the wind-down of the war, its likely that rates will rise.",
"qid": 9824,
"docid": "428913",
"rank": 9,
"score": 81353
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Yahoo! Finance would list it as 3.30 for the 20 year corporate AAA bonds. This is using the criteria from the Wikipedia link you stated in the initial question.",
"qid": 9824,
"docid": "522839",
"rank": 10,
"score": 81263
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The fact that some asset (in this case corporate bonds) has positive correlation with some other asset (equity) doesn't mean buying both isn't a good idea. Unless they are perfectly correlated, the best risk/reward portfolio will include both assets as they will sometimes move in opposite directions and cancel out each other's risk. So yes, you should buy corporate bonds. Short-term government bonds are essentially the risk-free asset. You will want to include that as well if you are very risk averse, otherwise you may not. Long-term government bonds may be default free but they are not risk free. They will make money if interest rates fall and lose if interest rates rise. Because of that risk, they also pay you a premium, albeit a small one, and should be in your portfolio. So yes, a passive portfolio (actually, any reasonable portfolio) should strive to reduce risk by diversifying into all assets that it reasonably can. If you believe the capital asset pricing model, the weights on portfolio assets should correspond to market weights (more money in bonds than stocks). Otherwise you will need to choose your weights. Unfortunately we are not able to estimate the true expected returns of risky assets, so no one can really agree on what the true optimal weights should be. That's why there are so many rules of thumb and so much disagreement on the subject. But there is little or no disagreement on the fact that the optimal portfolio does include risky bonds including long-term treasuries. To answer your follow-up question about an \"\"anchor,\"\" if by that you mean a risk-free asset then the answer is not really. Any risk-free asset is paying approximately zero right now. Some assets with very little risk will earn a very little bit more than short term treasuries, but overall there's nowhere to hide--the time value of money is extremely low at short horizons. You want expected returns, you must take risk.\"",
"qid": 9824,
"docid": "283202",
"rank": 11,
"score": 80444
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Bond information is much tougher to get. Try to find access to a Bloomberg terminal. Maybe you have a broker that can do the research for you, maybe your local university has one in their business school, maybe you know someone that works for a bank/financial institution or some other type of news outlet. Part of the reason for the difference in ease of access to information is that bond markets are dominated by institutional investors. A $100 million bond issues might be 90% owned by 10-20 investors (banks, insurance co's, mutual funds, etc.) that will hold the bonds to maturity and the bonds might trade a few times a month/year. On the other hand a similar equity offering may have several hundred or thousand owners with daily trading, especially if it's included in an active stock index. That being said, you can get some information on Fidelity's website if you have an account, but I think their junk data is limited. Good luck with the hunt.",
"qid": 9824,
"docid": "247759",
"rank": 12,
"score": 80433
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Hey guys I have a quick question about a financial accounting problem although I think it's not really an \"\"accounting\"\" problem but just a bond problem. Here it goes GSB Corporation issued semiannual coupon bonds with a face value of $110,000 several years ago. The annual coupon rate is 8%, with two coupons due each year, six months apart. The historical market interest rate was 10% compounded semiannually when GSB Corporation issued the bonds, equal to an effective interest rate of 10.25% [= (1.05 × 1.05) – 1]. GSB Corporation accounts for these bonds using amortized cost measurement based on the historical market interest rate. The current market interest rate at the beginning of the current year on these bonds was 6% compounded semiannually, for an effective interest rate of 6.09% [= (1.03 × 1.03) – 1]. The market interest rate remained at this level throughout the current year. The bonds had a book value of $100,000 at the beginning of the current year. When the firm made the payment at the end of the first six months of the current year, the accountant debited a liability for the exact amount of cash paid. Compute the amount of interest expense on these bonds for the last six months of the life of the bonds, assuming all bonds remain outstanding until the retirement date. My question is why would they give me the effective interest rate for both the historical and current rate? The problem states that the firm accounts for the bond using historical interest which is 10% semiannual and the coupon payments are 4400 twice per year. I was just wondering if I should just do the (Beginning Balance (which is 100000 in this case) x 1.05)-4400=Ending Balance so on and so forth until I get to the 110000 maturity value. I got an answer of 5474.97 and was wondering if that's the correct approach or not.\"",
"qid": 9824,
"docid": "83381",
"rank": 13,
"score": 79591
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA) publishes these and other relevant data on their Statistics page, in the \"\"Treasury & Agency\"\" section. The volume spreadsheet contains annual and monthly data with bins for varying maturities. These data only go back as far as January 2001 (in most cases). SIFMA also publishes treasury issuances with monthly data for bills, notes, bonds, etc. going back as far as January 1980. Most of this information comes from the Daily Treasury Statements, so that's another source of specific information that you could aggregate yourself. Somewhere I have a parser for the historical data (since the Treasury doesn't provide it directly; it's only available as daily text files). I'll post it if I can find it. It's buried somewhere at home, I think.\"",
"qid": 9824,
"docid": "350680",
"rank": 14,
"score": 77769
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"You can see all the (millions) of trades per day for a US stock only if you purchase that data from the individual exchanges (NYSE, NASDAQ, ARCA, ...), from a commercial market data aggregator (Bloomberg, Axioma, ...), or from the Consolidated Tape Association. In none of that data will you ever find identifying information for the traders. What you are recalling regarding the names of \"\"people from the company\"\" trading company stock is related to SEC regulations stating that people with significant ownership of company stock and/or controlling positions on the company board of directors must publicize (most of) their trades in that stock. That information can usually be found on the company's investor relations website, or through the SEC website.\"",
"qid": 9824,
"docid": "481544",
"rank": 15,
"score": 77319
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: When the laws allow for bonds to be issued for anything other than infrastructure projects, you end up in financial ruin. Politicians can't help themselves, and spend future money, today on day to day expenses. Then future residents, are paying off bonds for items they see no current benefit on. It makes taxes appear high. Look at cities like Chicago as an example.",
"qid": 9824,
"docid": "43060",
"rank": 16,
"score": 76619
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"you want more information on what? The general bond market? This article is getting at something different, but the first several pages are general background info on the corporate bond market. http://home.business.utah.edu/hank.bessembinder/publications/transparencyandbondmarket.pdf If you are trying to relate somehow the issue of federal debt ( a la treasuries) to corporate debt you will find that you are jumping to a lot of conclusions. Debt is not exactly currency, only the promise of repayment at a certain date in the future. The only reason that U.S. treasuries ( and those of certain other highly rated countries ) is interchangeable is because they are both very liquid and have very low risk. There is very little similarity to this in the corporate bond market. Companies are no where near to the risk level of a government (for one they can't print their own money) and when a corporation goes bankrupt it's bondholder are usually s.o.l (recovery rates hover at around 50% of the notional debt amount). This is why investors demand a premium to hold corporate debt. Now consider even the best of companies, (take IBM ) the spread between the interest the government must pay on a treasury bond and that which IBM must pay on a similar bond is still relatively large. But beyond that you run into a liquidity issue. Currency only works because it is highly liquid. If you take the article about Greece you posted above, you can see the problem generated by lack of liquidity. People have to both have currency and be willing to accept currency for trade to occur. Corporate bond are notoriously illiquid because people are unwilling to take on the risk involved with holding the debt (there are other reasons, but I'm abstracting from them). This is the other reason treasuries can be used as \"\"currency\"\" there is always someone willing to take your treasury in trade (for the most part because there is almost zero risk involved). You would always be much more willing to hold a treasury than an equivalent IBM bond. Now take that idea down to a smaller level. Who would want to buy the bonds issued by the mom and pop down the street? Even if someone did buy them who would in turn take these bonds in trade? Practically speaking: no one would. They have no way to identify the riskiness of the bond and have no assurance that there would be anyone willing to trade for it in the future. If you read the whole post by the redditor from your first link this is precisely why government backed currency came about, and why the scenario that I think you are positing is very unlikely.\"",
"qid": 9824,
"docid": "549009",
"rank": 17,
"score": 76486
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Not sure of your locality. In the USA, there are many options. There are many corporate bonds that pay interest monthly. You can invest in a handful of bonds, chosen so at least one of them pays interest each month. (Minimum investment requirements make this an expensive option) Unit Trusts made of bonds (a handful of bonds wrapped into a single fixed investment) usually pay monthly interest. As the bonds begin to mature, the interest payments shrink (but you begin to get principal payments which can be reinvested). Bond mutual funds and ETFs usually provide monthly dividends (that come from the interest and capital gains of the bonds held by the fund). Dividends are usually consistent, but not necessarily fixed. You can produce a monthly income from stocks in the same way as the above mentioned bond methods. Income can be consistent, but not fixed.",
"qid": 9824,
"docid": "33389",
"rank": 18,
"score": 76009
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Bonds by themselves aren't recession proof. No investment is, and when a major crash (c.f. 2008) occurs, all investments will be to some extent at risk. However, bonds add a level of diversification to your investment portfolio that can make it much more stable even during downturns. Bonds do not move identically to the stock market, and so many times investing in bonds will be more profitable when the stock market is slumping. Investing some of your investment funds in bonds is safer, because that diversification allows you to have some earnings from that portion of your investment when the market is going down. It also allows you to do something called rebalancing. This is when you have target allocation proportions for your portfolio; say 60% stock 40% bond. Then, periodically look at your actual portfolio proportions. Say the market is way up - then your actual proportions might be 70% stock 30% bond. You sell 10 percentage points of stocks, and buy 10 percentage points of bonds. This over time will be a successful strategy, because it tends to buy low and sell high. In addition to the value of diversification, some bonds will tend to be more stable (but earn less), in particular blue chip corporate bonds and government bonds from stable countries. If you're willing to only earn a few percent annually on a portion of your portfolio, that part will likely not fall much during downturns - and in fact may grow as money flees to safer investments - which in turn is good for you. If you're particularly worried about your portfolio's value in the short term, such as if you're looking at retiring soon, a decent proportion should be in this kind of safer bond to ensure it doesn't lose too much value. But of course this will slow your earnings, so if you're still far from retirement, you're better off leaving things in growth stocks and accepting the risk; odds are no matter who's in charge, there will be another crash or two of some size before you retire if you're in your 30s now. But when it's not crashing, the market earns you a pretty good return, and so it's worth the risk.",
"qid": 9824,
"docid": "303037",
"rank": 19,
"score": 75041
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"If you are afraid of your government defaulting, then you also have reason to fear that your country's so-called \"\"AAA\"\" corporate bonds might not be a safe investment. When governments default, they often do things like: In these scenarios, it is not predictable whether government bonds will suffer more or less than any particular corporate bonds. You might want to diversify into precious metals, foreign currencies, and/or foreign securities. For the most security, you might want to choose investment vehicles that your government would have a hard time confiscating. Of course, you will face currency fluctuation risks if you do so.\"",
"qid": 9824,
"docid": "593761",
"rank": 20,
"score": 74812
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Where can I download all stock symbols of all companies \"\"currently listed\"\" and \"\"delisted\"\" as of today? That's incredibly similar . You can also do it with a Bloomberg terminal but there's no need to pay to do this because he data changes so slowly.\"",
"qid": 9824,
"docid": "253135",
"rank": 21,
"score": 74750
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Apple is currently the most valuable company in the world by market capitalisation and it has issued bonds for instance. Amazon have also issued bonds in the past as have Google. One of many reasons companies may issue bonds is to reduce their tax bill. If a company is a multinational it may have foreign earnings that would incur a tax bill if they were transferred to the holding company's jurisdiction. The company can however issue bonds backed by the foreign cash pile. It can then use the bond cash to pay dividends to shareholders. Ratings Agencies such as Moody's, Fitch and Standard & Poor's exist to rate companies ability to make repayments on debt they issue. Investors can read their reports to help make a determination as to whether to invest in bond issues. Of course investors also need to determine whether they believe the Ratings Agencies assesments.",
"qid": 9824,
"docid": "241590",
"rank": 22,
"score": 74685
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Is there any instance in which a large company whose corporate bonds are investment grade, find it more attractive to take out a bank loan to raise finance rather than underwrite bonds? To my knowledge (I’m a first year at university so I’m not 100% sure) bonds are comparatively cheaper (lower effective interest rate), does not have the same caveats and regulations involved with usage of the loan (I.e. no need to buy insurance) and allow them to raise far more than most banks would be willing to risk (I know loan syndication exists but it’s still rare to my knowledge). Why would a such a company have ANY bank loan debt whatsoever if issuing bonds are objectively better? The only one I can fathom is if the loan is so incredibly small that It’s more time consuming to underwrite bonds but 1.) I don’t know if that’s the case, 2.) Why would a large company do this if they could simply pay out less dividends and reinvest a slightly larger portion of profits?",
"qid": 9824,
"docid": "143057",
"rank": 23,
"score": 74578
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: It's difficult to compile free information because the large providers are not yet permitted to provide bulk data downloads by their sources. As better advertising revenue arrangements that mimic youtube become more prevalent, this will assuredly change, based upon the trend. The data is available at money.msn.com. Here's an example for ASX:TSE. You can compare that to shares outstanding here. They've been improving the site incrementally over time and have recently added extensive non-US data. Non-US listings weren't available until about 5 years ago. I haven't used their screener for some years because I've built my own custom tools, but I will tell you that with a little PHP knowledge, you can build a custom screener with just a few pages of code; besides, it wouldn't surprise me if their screener has increased in power. It may have the filter you seek already conveniently prepared. Based upon the trend, one day bulk data downloads will be available much like how they are for US equities on finviz.com. To do your part to hasten that wonderful day, I recommend turning off your adblocker on money.msn and clicking on a worthy advertisement. With enough revenue, a data provider may finally be seduced into entering into better arrangements. I'd much rather prefer downloading in bulk unadulterated than maintain a custom screener. money.msn has been my go to site for mult-year financials for more than a decade. They even provide limited 10-year data which also has been expanded slowly over the years.",
"qid": 9824,
"docid": "413423",
"rank": 24,
"score": 74300
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you are in an economy which has a decent liquid debt market (corporate bonds, etc.), then you may look into investing in AA or AA+ rated bonds. They can provide higher returns than bank deposits and are virtually risk-free. (Though in severe economic downturns, you can see defaults in even very high-rated bonds, leading to partial or complete loss of value however, this is statistically quite rare). You can make this investment through a debt mutual fund but please make sure that you read through the offer document carefully to understand the investment style of the mutual fund and their expense ratio (which directly affect your returns). In any case, it is always recommended to reach out to an investment adviser who is good with local tax laws to minimize taxes and maximize returns.",
"qid": 9824,
"docid": "117875",
"rank": 25,
"score": 73962
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Corporate debt isn't an iou. Large corporations sell bonds and make annual or semiannual payments in those bonds. Cash is often held in a country with favorable tax condition, like Ireland.. Depending on the industry, this cash is invested in money market funds, fixed income securities, and maybe stocks or other funds. Because of the low interest rates that have prevailed since the recession, it's most economical to invest most cash and borrow for larger investments. However, the cash that ends up overseas is net of expenses. Internet is paid from operating income. I'm by no means an expert though, so take this with a grain of salt.",
"qid": 9824,
"docid": "159012",
"rank": 26,
"score": 73929
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Write off the entire asset class of corporate bonds? Finance theory says yes, the only two asset classes that you need are stocks and treasury bills (very short-term US government bonds). See the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM).",
"qid": 9824,
"docid": "420316",
"rank": 27,
"score": 73778
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: QE is artificial demand for bonds, but as always when there are more buyers than sellers the price of anything goes up. When QE ends the price of bonds will fall because everyone will know that the biggest buyer in the market is no longer there. So price of bonds will fall. And therefore the interest rate on new bonds must increase to match the total return available to buyers in the secondary market.",
"qid": 9824,
"docid": "107097",
"rank": 28,
"score": 73567
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Multiple overlapping indices exist covering various investment universes. Almost all of the widely followed indices were originally created by Lehman Brothers and are now maintained by Barclays. The broadest U.S. dollar based bond index is known as the Universal. The Aggregate (often abbreviated Agg), which is historically the most popular index, more or less includes all bonds in the Universal rated investment grade. The direct analog to the S&P 500 would be the U.S. Corporate Investment Grade index, which is tracked by the ETF LQD, and contains exactly what it sounds like. Citigroup (formerly Salomon Brothers) also has a competitor index to the Aggregate known as Broad Investment Grade (BIG), and Merrill Lynch (now Bank of America) has the Domestic Master. Multiple other indices also exist covering other bond markets, such as international (non-USD) bonds, tax-exempts (municipal bonds), securitized products, floating rate, etc.",
"qid": 9824,
"docid": "386655",
"rank": 29,
"score": 73026
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The trick is real time. I like to wake up in the morning, turn on my computer and see at a glance the gain or loss data on each of my stock and bond at that moment. Companies like Ameritrde offer them, but you have to enroll and trade stock in them.",
"qid": 9824,
"docid": "274733",
"rank": 30,
"score": 72942
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Crickets here, so I'll respond with what I ended up doing. At the end of each month, I download transaction data from each of Stripe and PayPal. For each, I do the following: So it is just six entries in Wave per month plus a little spreadsheet manipulation to determine revenues and fees. Takes about 10 minutes to do this. I really dislike Wave's \"\"automatic\"\" integration with PayPal. It creates a lot of entries, and it also doesn't seem reliable so it is easy for transactions to get lost.\"",
"qid": 9824,
"docid": "202776",
"rank": 31,
"score": 72571
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Unless you want to be a short term day trader, then it is not foolish to be an end of day trader. If you are looking to be a medium to long term trader/investor then it is quite acceptable to put orders in after market close. Some would say it is even less risky, because you are not watching the price fluctuate up and down and letting your emotions getting the best of you.",
"qid": 9824,
"docid": "424706",
"rank": 32,
"score": 72415
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"A huge amount of money in all financial markets is from institutional investors, such as mutual funds, government pension plans, sovereign wealth funds, etc. For various reasons these funds do all of their trading at the end of the day. They care primarily that their end-of-day balances are in line with their targets and are easy to audit and far less about \"\"timing the market\"\" for the best possible trades. So, if you're looking at a stock that is owned by many institutional investors -- such as a stock (like AAPL) that makes up a significant portion of an index that many funds track -- there will be a huge amount of activity at this time relative to stocks that are less popular among institutions. Even just in its introduction this paper (PDF) gives a fair overview of other reasons why there's a lot of trading at end-of-day in general. (In fact, because of all this closing activity and the reliance on end-of-day prices as signposts for financial calculations, the end-of-day has for decades been the single most fraud-ridden time of the trading day. Electronic trading has done away with a lot of the straight-up thievery that floor traders and brokers used to get away with at the expense of the public, but it still exists. See, for example, any explanation of the term banging the close, or the penalties against 6 banks just last month for manipulating the FX market at the close.)\"",
"qid": 9824,
"docid": "227192",
"rank": 33,
"score": 72276
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: That's always been the case, though. In fact, it might actually be *less* the case now. In the past there was basically no way for small companies to know what was going on in the world, consumer trends, etc. they couldn't afford the data big companies rely on. Now that data is much more accessible. Yes, big companies can burrow down into it more, but small companies have more than they ever did before. At the end of the day, though, big companies are definitely going to be able to trample small ones - but then, they always have. The real difference now is one of control. 50 years ago if you had stores in different states, they had to run almost independently. Now, not only can you directly control everything they do, but you also have your internet store selling everywhere, that you directly control.",
"qid": 9824,
"docid": "401465",
"rank": 34,
"score": 72047
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Try the general stock exchange web page. http://www.aex.nl I did a quick trial myself and was able to download historical data for the AEX index for the last few years. To get to the data, I went to the menu point \"\"Koersen\"\" on the main page and chose \"\"Indices\"\". I then entered into the sub page for the AEX index. There is a price chart window in which you have to choose the tab \"\"view data\"\". Now you can choose the date range you need and then download in a table format such as excel or csv. This should be easy to import into any software. This is the direct link to the sub page: http://www.aex.nl/nl/products/indices/NL0000000107-XAMS/quotes\"",
"qid": 9824,
"docid": "468490",
"rank": 35,
"score": 71932
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"A few points that I would note: Call options - Could the bond be called away by the issuer? This is something to note as some bonds may end up not being as good as one thought because of this option that gets used. Tax considerations - Are you going for corporate, Treasury, or municipals? Different ones may have different tax consequences to note if you aren't holding the bond in a tax-advantaged account,e.g. Roth IRA, IRA or 401k. Convertible or not? - Some bonds are known as \"\"convertibles\"\" since the bond comes with an option on the stock that can be worth considering for some kinds of bonds. Inflation protection - Some bonds like TIPS or series I savings bonds can have inflation protection built into them that can also be worth understanding. In the case of TIPS, there are principal adjustments while the savings bond will have a change in its interest rate. Default risk - Some of the higher yield bonds may have an issuer go under which is another way one may end up with equity in a company rather than getting their money back. On the other side, for some municipals one could have the risk of the bond not quite being as good as one thought like some Detroit bonds that may end up in a different result given their bankruptcy but there are also revenue bonds that may not meet their target for another situation that may arise. Some bonds may be insured though this requires a bit more research to know the credit rating of the insurer. As for the latter question, what if interest rates rise and your bond's value drops considerably? Do you hold it until maturity or do you try to sell it and get something that has a higher yield based on face value?\"",
"qid": 9824,
"docid": "325370",
"rank": 36,
"score": 71577
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"There's actually a lot of smaller questions in your question, so I'll answer just a few here. The standard bond index for high yield corporates is the Barclays Capital High Yield Corporate index, which is the basis for JNK. I am not familiar with the index behind HYG, the \"\"iBoxx $ Liquid High Yield index.\"\" The ETFs are managed quantitatively to try to track the index as closely as possible. AFAIK these ETFs do not attempt to take active positions. New issues are typically purchased with cash which is constantly coming in from interest and principal payments from other bonds. There is rarely a need to sell bonds just to buy new issues. Selling bonds is more common when a fund is experiencing redemptions. These ETFs and the high yield bonds they buy are not derivatives (your question seems to be confused on that point). The US Treasury is not directly involved in any way. They are indirectly involved, as they are indirectly involved in US equities markets or world markets for that matter, although perhaps they have greater influence in the bond world. Moody's has extensive studies of default rates by ratings.\"",
"qid": 9824,
"docid": "575509",
"rank": 37,
"score": 71396
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I guess I didn't fill in all the holes at first, but what I'm implying with this system is that the company bonds would be the currency of the territory, as monetary policy would be decentralized and be replaced by competing money supplies that firms and individuals would be free to choose from and switch between at any time, whether they prefer an easy or tight monetary policy at any given moment. At this point, the bonds would be the most liquid thing around, as you could repay your bonds in the bonds of another, and any one of these bonds could be used to pay taxes. It's a scenario I've been working out because I see the drawbacks of centralized money laid out by F.A. Hayek in Denationalization of Money, but I don't think a gold standard would be sufficient in today's world. (Most of the scenarios I've planned this out in assume the scenario of a perfect competition market, where all firms breakeven with expenses, and the role of researcher and developer is taken up by the government, so life improvements can still occur over time.)",
"qid": 9824,
"docid": "413053",
"rank": 38,
"score": 71122
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: No, they do not. Stock funds and bonds funds collect income dividends in different ways. Stock funds collect dividends (as well as any capital gains that are realized) from the underlying stocks and incorporates these into the funds’ net asset value, or daily share price. That’s why a stock fund’s share price drops when the fund makes a distribution – the distribution comes out of the fund’s total net assets. With bond funds, the internal accounting is different: Dividends accrue daily, and are then paid out to shareholders every month or quarter. Bond funds collect the income from the underlying bonds and keep it in a separate internal “bucket.” A bond fund calculates a daily accrual rate for the shares outstanding, and shareholders only earn income for the days they actually hold the fund. For example, if you buy a bond fund two days before the fund’s month-end distribution, you would only receive two days’ worth of income that month. On the other hand, if you sell a fund part-way through the month, you will still receive a partial distribution at the end of the month, pro-rated for the days you actually held the fund. Source Also via bogleheads: Most Vanguard bond funds accrue interest to the share holders daily. Here is a typical statement from a prospectus: Each Fund distributes to shareholders virtually all of its net income (interest less expenses) as well as any net capital gains realized from the sale of its holdings. The Fund’s income dividends accrue daily and are distributed monthly. The term accrue used in this sense means that the income dividends are credited to your account each day, just like interest in a savings account that accrues daily. Since the money set aside for your dividends is both an asset of the fund and a liability, it does not affect the calculated net asset value. When the fund distributes the income dividends at the end of the month, the net asset value does not change as both the assets and liabilities decrease by exactly the same amount. [Note that if you sell all of your bond fund shares in the middle of the month, you will receive as proceeds the value of your shares (calculated as number of shares times net asset value) plus a separate distribution of the accrued income dividends.]",
"qid": 9824,
"docid": "110856",
"rank": 39,
"score": 71095
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: according to the SEC: Shareholder Reports A mutual fund and a closed-end fund respectively must provide shareholders with annual and semi-annual reports 60 days after the end of the fund’s fiscal year and 60 days after the fund’s fiscal mid-year. These reports contain updated financial information, a list of the fund’s portfolio securities, and other information. The information in the shareholder reports will be current as of the date of the particular report (that is, the last day of the fund’s fiscal year for the annual report, and the last day of the fund’s fiscal mid-year for the semi-annual report). Other Reports A mutual fund and a closed-end fund must file a Form N-Q each quarter and a Form N-PX each year on the SEC’s EDGAR database, although funds are not required to mail these reports to shareholders. Funds disclose portfolio holdings on Form N-Q. Form N-PX identifies specific proposals on which the fund has voted portfolio securities over the past year and discloses how the fund voted on each. This disclosure enables fund shareholders to monitor their funds’ involvement in the governance activities of portfolio companies. which means that sixty days after the end of each quarter they will tell you what they owned 60 days ago. This makes sense; why would they want to tell the world what companies they are buying and selling.",
"qid": 9824,
"docid": "347523",
"rank": 40,
"score": 70946
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Interactive Brokers provides historical intraday data including Bid, Ask, Last Trade and Volume for the majority of stocks. You can chart the data, download it to Excel or use it in your own application through their API. EDIT: Compared to other solutions (like FreeStockCharts.com for instance), Interactive Brokers provides not only historic intraday LAST**** trades **but also historic BID and ASK data, which is very useful information if you want to design your own trading system. I have enclosed a screenshot to the chart parameter window and a link to the API description.",
"qid": 9824,
"docid": "334383",
"rank": 41,
"score": 70851
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: as long as US bonds will keep their status of a safe haven and the dollar will continue to be the world reserve currency the bond rates will stay low. hell, after S&P downgraded the US credit rating, the bond yields actually dropped, indicating an influx on money. the shock will come. sooner or more probably later.. it won't be the end of the world, just another nasty downturn.",
"qid": 9824,
"docid": "180564",
"rank": 42,
"score": 70539
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Okay let's try this a different way. Completely forget about what the bond is with. Here is how a bond works: * You get paid interest for holding the bond (5% interest means a coupon of $50 assuming one coupon a year) * At the end of the bond term (maturity) you get paid $1000. In your scenario, you get paid the $50 as an interest payment and the $1000 final payment. If you only had the bond for one year, your total payment will be $1050. Try drawing a timeline to visualise it a bit better",
"qid": 9824,
"docid": "144557",
"rank": 43,
"score": 70390
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You can look at TIPS (which have some inflation protection built in). Generally short term bonds are better than long if you expect rates to rise soon. Other ways that you can protect yourself are to choose higher yield corporate bonds instead of government bonds, or to use foreign bonds. There are plenty of bond funds like Templeton Global or ETFs that offer such features. Find one that will work for you.",
"qid": 9824,
"docid": "97729",
"rank": 44,
"score": 70354
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: As I'm sure you are reading in Hull's classic, the basic valuation of bonds depends on the chance of entity defaulting on those bonds. Let's start with just looking at the US. The United States has a big advantage over corporations in issuing debt as it also prints the same currency that the debt is denominated in. This makes it much easier not to default on your debt as you can always print more money to pay it. Printing too much currency would cause inflation lowering the value of debt, but this would also lower the value of US corporate debt as well. So you can think of even the highest rated corporate bonds as having the same rate as government debt plus a little extra due to the additional default risk of the corporation. The situation with other AA rated governments is more complicated. Most of those governments have debt denominated in their local currency as well so it may seem like they should all have similar rates. However, some governments have higher and some actually have lower rates than the United States. Now, as above, some of the difference is due to the possible need of printing too much currency to cover the debt in crisis and now that we have more than one country to invest in the extra risk of international money flowing out of the country's bonds. However, the bigger difference between AA governments rates depends more on money flow, central banks and regulation. Bonds are still mostly freely traded instruments that respond to supply and demand, but this supply and demand is heavily influenced by governments. Central banks buy up large portions of the debt raising demand and lowering rates. Regulators force banks to hold a certain amount of treasuries perhaps inflating demand. Finally, to answer your question the United States has some interesting advantages partially just due to its long history of stability, controlled inflation and large economy making treasuries valuable as one of the lowest risk investments. So its rates are generally on the low end, but government manipulation can still mean that it is not necessarily the lowest.",
"qid": 9824,
"docid": "3455",
"rank": 45,
"score": 70077
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: This is in the balance sheet, but the info is not usually that detailed. It is safe to assume that at least some portion of the cash/cash equivalents will be in liquid bonds. You may find more specific details in the company SEC filings (annual reports etc).",
"qid": 9824,
"docid": "419479",
"rank": 46,
"score": 70073
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"As many before me said but will say again for the sake of completeness of an answer: First off provision to have an emergency fund of 6 months living expenses to cover loss of employment, unforeseen medical issues etc. When that is done you re free to start investing. Do remember that putting all your eggs in one basket enable risks, so diversify your portfolio and diversify even within each investment vehicle. Stocks: I would personally stay away from stocks as it's for the most part a bear market right now (and I assume you re not interested day-trading to make any short term return) and most importantly you dont mention any trading experience which means you can get shafted. Mutual Funds: Long story short most of these work; mainly for the benefit for their management and people selling them. Bonds Instead, I would go for corporate bonds where you essentially buy the seller(aka the issuing company) and unlike gambling on stocks of the same company, you dont rely on speculation and stock gains to make a profit. As long as the company is standing when the bond matures you get your payment. This allows you to invest with less effort spent on a daily basis to monitor your investments and much better returns(especially if you find opportunities where you can buy bonds from structurally sound companies that have for reasons you deem irrelevant, purchase prices in the secondary market for cents in the dollar) than your other long term \"\"stable options\"\" like German issued bonds or saving accounts that are low in general and more so like in the current situation for German banks. Cryptocurrency I would also look into cryptocurrency for the long term as that seems to be past its childhood diseases and its also a good period of time to invest in as even the blue chips of that market are down party due to correction from all time highs and partly due to speculation. As Im more knowledgeable on this than German-locale bonds, a few coins I suggest you look into and decide for yourself would be the obvious ETH & BTC, then a slew of newer ones including but not limited to OmiseGO, Tenx(Pay), Augur and IOTA. Beware though, make sure to understand the basics of security and good practices on this field, as there's no central bank in this sector and if you leave funds in an exchange or your wallet's private key is compromised the money are as good as gone.\"",
"qid": 9824,
"docid": "416358",
"rank": 47,
"score": 70009
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Most bond ETFs have switched to monthly dividends paid on the first of each month, in an attempt to standardize across the market. For ETFs (but perhaps not bond mutual funds, as suggested in the above answer) interest does accrue in the NAV, so the price of the fund does drop on ex-date by an amount equal to the dividend paid. A great example of this dynamic can be seen in FLOT, a bond ETF holding floating rate corporate bonds. As you can see in this screenshot, the NAV has followed a sharp up and down pattern, almost like the teeth of a saw. This is explained by interest accruing in the NAV over the course of each month, until it is paid out in a dividend, dropping the NAV sharply in one day. The effect has been particularly pronounced recently because the floating coupon payments have increased significantly (benchmark interest rates are higher) and mark-to-market changes in credit spreads of the constituent bonds have been very muted.",
"qid": 9824,
"docid": "45523",
"rank": 48,
"score": 69747
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"It sounds like you want a place to park some money that's reasonably safe and liquid, but can sustain light to moderate losses. Consider some bond funds or bond ETFs filled with medium-term corporate bonds. It looks like you can get 3-3.5% or so. (I'd skip the municipal bond market right now, but \"\"why\"\" is a matter for its own question). Avoid long-term bonds or CDs if you're worried about inflation; interest rates will rise and the immediate value of the bonds will fall until the final payout value matches those rates.\"",
"qid": 9824,
"docid": "553748",
"rank": 49,
"score": 69219
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You can view certain US economic data with FRED Graph or download the data to play with FRED download. Here is some example tax data:",
"qid": 9824,
"docid": "142878",
"rank": 50,
"score": 69111
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Bond MF/ETF comes in many flavour, one way to look at them is corporate, govt. (gilt/sovreign), money market (short term, overnight lending etc.), govt. backed bonds. The ETF/MFs that invest money in these are also different types. One way to evaluate an ETF/MF is to see where they invest your money. Corporate debts are by the highest coupon paying bonds, however, the chance of default is also greater, if you wish to invest in these, it is preferable to look at the ETF/MF's debt portfolio financial ratings (Moodies etc.). Govt. bonds are more stable and unless the govt. defaults (which happens more often than we would like to think), here also look for higher rating bonds portfolio that the fund/scheme carries. The govt. backed bonds are somewhat similar to sovreign bonds, however, these are issuesd by institutions which are backed by govt. (e.g. national railways, municipal bodies etc.), any fund/scheme that invests in these bonds could also be considered and similarly measured. The last are the short term money market related, which provides the least return but are very liquid. It is very difficult to answer how you should invest large sum on ETF/MFs that are bond oriented. However, from any investment perspective, it is better to spread your money. If I take your hypthetical case of 1M$, I would divide it into 100K$ pieces and invest in 10 different ETF/MF schemes of different flavour: Hope this helps.",
"qid": 9824,
"docid": "75372",
"rank": 51,
"score": 68672
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Starting of 2011, your broker has to keep track of all the transactions and the cost basis, and it will be reported on your 1099-B. Also, some brokers allow downloading the data directly to your tax software or to excel charts (I use E*Trade, and last year TurboTax downloaded all the transaction directly from them).",
"qid": 9824,
"docid": "262291",
"rank": 52,
"score": 68585
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Just look at the filing date of the 10Q and then Yahoo the closing price or Google it. I assume you are looking for market reactions to SEC filings? If you want to look at the closing stock price for the end of the period which the filing covers, it's like on the first page of the filing when the period (either quarterly or yearly) ends. This data is generally less useful, however, because it really is just another day in the market for the company. The actual release of the data to the public is more important.",
"qid": 9824,
"docid": "215416",
"rank": 53,
"score": 68392
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: As well as credit risk there's also interest risk. If a bond has a face value of $100, pays 1% and matures in 20 years' time then you expect to receive a total of $120 from buying it now -- $1 per year for 20 years and $100 at the end. But if you can get a 3% return elsewhere, then if you invest your $80 there instead you will get $2.40 per year for 20 years and then $80 at the end, making a total of $128 (and you also get more of the money sooner). So even $80 for the $100 bond is a bad buy, and you should invest elsewhere.",
"qid": 9824,
"docid": "296980",
"rank": 54,
"score": 68200
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Go to http://finance.google.com, search for the stock you want. When you are seeing the stock information, in the top left corner there's a link that says 'Historical prices'. Click on it. then select the date range, click update (don't forget this) and 'Download to spreadsheet' (on the right, below the chart). For example, this link takes you to the historical data for MSFT for the last 10 years. http://finance.yahoo.com has something similar, like this. In this case the link to download a CSV is at the bottom of the table.",
"qid": 9824,
"docid": "279785",
"rank": 55,
"score": 68047
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Somewhat. The balance sheet will include liabilities which as Michael Kjörling points out would tell you the totals for the debt which would often be loans or bonds depending on one's preferred terminology. However, if the company's loan was shorter than the length of the quarter, then it may not necessarily be reported is something to point out as the data is accurate for a specific point in time only. My suggestion is that if you have a particular company that you want to review that you take a look at the SEC filing in full which would have a better breakdown of everything in terms of assets, liabilities, etc. than the a summary page. http://investor.apple.com/ would be where you could find a link to the 10-Q that has a better breakdown though it does appear that Apple doesn't have any bonds outstanding. There are some companies that may have little debt due to being so profitable in their areas of business.",
"qid": 9824,
"docid": "92072",
"rank": 56,
"score": 67968
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Bonds still definitely have a place in many passive portfolios. While it is true that interest rates have been unusually low, yields on reasonable passive bond exposures are still around 2-4%. This is significantly better than both recent past inflation and expected inflation both of which are near zero. This is reasonable if not great return, but Bonds continue to have other nice properties like relatively low risk and diversification of stock portfolios (the \"\"offset[ing] losses\"\" you mention in the OP). So to say that bonds are \"\"no longer a good idea\"\" is certainly not correct. One could say bonds may no longer be a good idea for some people that have a particularly high risk tolerance and very high return requirements. However, to some extent, that has always been true. It is worth remembering also that there is some compelling evidence that global growth is starting to broadly slow down and many people believe that future stock returns and, in general, returns on all investments will be lower. This is much much harder to estimate than bond returns though. Depending on who you believe, bond returns may actually look relatively better than the have in the past. Edit in response to comment: Corporate bond correlation with stocks is positive but generally not very strong (except for high-yield junk bonds) so while they don't offset stock volatility (negative correlation) they do help diversify a stock portfolio. Government bonds have essentially zero correlation so they don't really offset volatility as much as just not add any. Negative correlation assets are generally called insurance and you tend to have to pay for them. So there is no free lunch here. Assets that reduce risk cost money, assets that add little risk give less return and assets that are more risky tend to give more return in the long run but you can feel the pain. The mix that is right for you depends on a lot of things, but for many people that mix involves some corporate and government bonds.\"",
"qid": 9824,
"docid": "136515",
"rank": 57,
"score": 67734
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Actually, if you don't care about paying a bit more, either hire an accountant and dump the paper on them, or (may be cheaper but a bit more work) spring for tax software. Modern tax programs can often download most of your data directly. If you don't care about claiming deductions you can skip a lot of the rest. I'm perfectly capable of doing my taxes on paper or in a spreadsheet... but I spring for tax software every year because I find it a _LOT more pleasant. Remember that most of the complexity does come from policies intended to reduce your taxes. When you call for simplification, you may not like the result. It's better than it was a decade or two ago. I used to joke that the battle cry of the next revolution would be \"\"No Taxation Without Proper Instructions!\"\"\"",
"qid": 9824,
"docid": "362933",
"rank": 58,
"score": 67555
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I work for an electronics distribution company as part of their Accounting team and I hate it. I love doing month-end/year-end stuff because it actually engages my mind, but I hate doing A/P and A/R data entry stuff for a good majority of the year. At this point, I feel like switching career paths to something more engaging or another career in the accounting field.",
"qid": 9824,
"docid": "486818",
"rank": 59,
"score": 67363
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: it depends on what kind of IT you did, and where you took your econ courses afterward. did you do any coding? do any business cases studies? Can you calculate the book value of a firm from its balance sheet and assess the net present value of its cash flow? What happens to the value of a $1000 10 year bond at 4% when the current market rate drops to 3% 6 months after it was purchased? Do you know what kind of corporate valuation doesn't appear in a financial statement? If you can answer 1/2 of these questions, you will probably do just fine, but you will need to find someone to hire you and you will have to advance or find a new job every so often when you get bored again. another idea is to get an MBA in finance where you are, then jump into the finance arena.",
"qid": 9824,
"docid": "228388",
"rank": 60,
"score": 67076
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Yes, if you want income and are willing to commit to hold a bond to maturity, you can hold the bond, get the scheduled payments, and get your principal returned at the end. US Savings Bonds are non-marketable (you cannot trade them, but can redeem early) bonds designed for this purpose. The value of a marketable bond will vary over its lifetime as interest rates change and the bond matures. If you buy a 30 year US Treasury bond at par value (100) on September 1, 2011, it yielded 3.51%. If rates fall, the value of your bond will increase over 100. If rates rise, the value will decrease below 100. How much the value changes depends on the type of bond and the demand for it. But if your goal is to buy and hold, you don't need to worry about it.",
"qid": 9824,
"docid": "112659",
"rank": 61,
"score": 66970
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you are talking about a corporate entity, weighted average tenor refers to the average maturity of the company's bond portfolio (or all debt) from the issue date. For example, a company issues 2 bonds in 2017, one for $100 with a maturity of 2019 and one for $50 with a maturity of 2020. The weighted average tenor would be 2.33 years. These numbers are not exact, just trying to give you an illustrative example.",
"qid": 9824,
"docid": "334800",
"rank": 62,
"score": 66616
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Yahoo provides dividend data from their Historical Prices section, and selecting Dividends Only, along with the dates you wish to return data for. Here is an example of BHP's dividends dating back to 1998. Further, you can download directly to *.csv format if you wish: http://real-chart.finance.yahoo.com/table.csv?s=BHP.AX&a=00&b=29&c=1988&d=06&e=6&f=2015&g=v&ignore=.csv",
"qid": 9824,
"docid": "437465",
"rank": 63,
"score": 66512
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: There does not appear to be a way to export the customers and invoices nor a way to import them into another data file if you could export them. However, as said in the comments to your question, your question seems predicated upon the notion that it is 'best practice' to create a new data file each year. This is not considered necessary It should be noted that GnuCash reports should be able to provide accurate year-end data for accounting purposes without zeroing transactions, so book-closing may not be necessary. Leaving books unclosed does mean that account balances in the Chart of Accounts will not show Year-To-Date amounts. - Closing Books GnuCash Wiki The above linked wiki page has several methods to 'close the books' if that is what you want to do - but it is not necessary. There is even a description on how to create a new file for the new year which only talks about setting up the new accounts and transactions - nothing about customers, invoices etc. Note that you can 'close the books' without creating a new data file. In summary: you cannot do it; but you don't need to create a new file for the new year so you don't need to do it.",
"qid": 9824,
"docid": "228083",
"rank": 64,
"score": 66488
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The volatility of an index fund should usually be a lot lower than that of an individual stock. However even with a broad index fund you should consider the fact that being down by 10% in the time frame you refer to is quite possible! So is being up by 10% of course. A corporate bond might be a better choice if you can find one you trust.",
"qid": 9824,
"docid": "477092",
"rank": 65,
"score": 66406
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Since you are trying to compare corporate bonds that have a defined coupon over the specified time of the bond. Why not use a simple Net Present Value (NPV) calculation. Refer: Net Present Value (NPV) You could use the discounting factor as the current repo rate of your central bank. As I said, this would be a simple fast measure (not considering risk rating of the bonds, inflation and other considerations). Take a notional 1000 as invetment in each instrument and calculate the NPV, higher it is better the investment. Another method, in terms of percentage return would be Internal rate of Return (IRR). Though the calcualtionis a bit more complicated, it would give you a percentage figure. Note, the above 2 measures are used when the cashflow over the time period is known. It will not work for instruments where the cashflow/value over different time are not known. Like stocks.",
"qid": 9824,
"docid": "130695",
"rank": 66,
"score": 66389
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Trading volumes are higher at the end of the day as many traders close their open positions. In the morning however, traders incorporate various factors like performance of worldwide markets overnight, any corporate or government announcements, global macro events, etc.",
"qid": 9824,
"docid": "348886",
"rank": 67,
"score": 66362
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"All bonds carry a risk of default, which means that it's possible that you can lose your principal investment in addition to potentially not getting the interest payments that you expect. Bonds (in the US anyway) are graded, so you can manage this risk somewhat by taking higher quality bonds, i.e. in companies or governments that are considered more creditworthy. Regular bank savings (again specific to the US) are insured by FDIC, so even if your bank goes bust, the US Government is backing them up to some limit. That makes such accounts less risky. There's generally no insurance on a bond, even if it is issued by a government entity. If you do your homework on the bond rating system and choose bonds in a rating band where you're comfortable, this could be a good option for you. You'll find, however, that the bond market also \"\"knows\"\" that the interest rates are generally low, so be ware that higher interest issues are usually coming from less creditworthy (and therefore more risky) issuers. EDIT Here's some additional information based on the follow-up question in the comment. When you buy a bond you are actually making a loan to the issuer. They will pay you interest over the lifetime of the bond and then return your principal at the end of the term. (Verify this payment schedule - This is typical, but you should be sure that whatever you're buying works like this.) This is not an investment in the value of the issuer itself like you would be making if you bought stock. With stock you are taking an ownership share in the company. This might entitle you to dividends if the company pays them, but otherwise your investment value on a stock will be tied to the performance of the company. With the bond, the company might be in decline but the bond still a good investment so long as the company doesn't decline so much that they cannot pay their debts. Also, bonds can be issued by governments, but governments do not sell stock. (An \"\"ownership share of the government\"\" would not make sense.) This may be the so-called sovereign debt if issued by a sovereign government or it may be local (we call it municipal here in the US) debt issued by a subordinate level of government. Bonds are a little bit like stock in the sense that there's a secondary market for them. That means that if you get partway through the length of the bond and don't want to hold it, you can sell the bond to someone else. Of course, it will be harder to sell a bond later if the company becomes insolvent or if the interest rates go up between when you buy and when you sell. Depending on these market factors, you might end up with a capital gain or capital loss (meaning you get more or less than the principal that you put into the bond) at the time of a sale.\"",
"qid": 9824,
"docid": "185156",
"rank": 68,
"score": 66112
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Many good points have been brought up, and I'll just link to them here, for ease. Source: I work at a credit/debit card transaction processing company on the Database and Processing Software teams. See mhoran_psprep's answer. See Chris' answer. Believe it or not, banks don't expose their primary (or secondary) database to end users. They don't expose their fastest / most robust database to end users. By only storing x days of data in that customer-facing database and limiting the range of any one query, any query run against it is much less likely to cause system-wide slowness. They most definitely have database archives which are kept offline, and most definitely have an employee-facing database which allows employees to query larger ranges of data. What would a bank have to gain by allowing you to query a full year of transactions?",
"qid": 9824,
"docid": "555183",
"rank": 69,
"score": 66112
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Google Docs spreadsheets have a function for filling in stock and fund prices. You can use that data to graph (fund1 / fund2) over some time period. Syntax: =GoogleFinance(\"\"symbol\"\", \"\"attribute\"\", \"\"start_date\"\", \"\"num_days|end_date\"\", \"\"interval\"\") where: This analysis won’t include dividends or distributions. Yahoo provides adjusted data, if you want to include that.\"",
"qid": 9824,
"docid": "475426",
"rank": 70,
"score": 65973
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Let me start by giving you a snippet of a report that will floor you. Beat the market? Investors lag the market by so much that many call the industry a scam. This is the 2015 year end data from a report titled Quantitive Analysis of Investor Behavior by a firm, Dalbar. It boggles the mind that the disparity could be this bad. A mix of stocks and bonds over 30 years should average 8.5% or so. Take out fees, and even 7.5% would be the result I expect. The average investor return was less than half of this. Jack Bogle, founder of Vanguard, and considered the father of the index fund, was ridiculed. A pamphlet I got from Vanguard decades ago quoted fund managers as saying that \"\"indexing is a path to mediocrity.\"\" Fortunately, I was a numbers guy, read all I could that Jack wrote and got most of that 10.35%, less .05, down to .02% over the years. To answer the question: psychology. People are easily scammed as they want to believe they can beat the market. Or that they'll somehow find a fund that does it for them. I'm tempted to say ignorance or some other hint at lack of intelligence, but that would be unfair to the professionals, all of which were scammed by Madoff. Individual funds may not be scams, but investors are partly to blame, buy high, sell low, and you get the results above, I dare say, an investor claiming to use index funds might not fare much better than the 3.66% 30 year return above, if they follow that path, buying high, selling low. Edit - I am adding this line to be clear - My conclusion, if any, is that the huge disparity cannot be attributed to management, a 6.7% lag from the S&P return to what the average investor sees likely comes from bad trading. To the comments by Dave, we have a manager that consistently beats the market over any 2-3 year period. You have been with him 30 years and are clearly smiling about your relationship and investing decision. Yet, he still has flows in and out. People buy at the top when reading how good he is, and selling right after a 30% drop even when he actually beat by dropping just 22%. By getting in and out, he has a set of clients with a 30 year record of 6% returns, while you have just over 11%. This paragraph speaks to the behavior of the investor, not managed vs indexed.\"",
"qid": 9824,
"docid": "464277",
"rank": 71,
"score": 65829
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Hey Forum, I recently had an update to the app where it now allows you to find out your markup percentage. All you have to do is put in your desired profit at the end of the month and then put in how many items you want to sell each month and the entire formula is calculated for you in less than a second. Extremely convenient and extremely time-saving. You can download the Android version here: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.markupmagic.companymarkup&hl=en And the iOS here: https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/markup-magic-profit-calculator/id1183206273?mt=8 We are currently redoing the website so you can look out for that soon enough. :) As always, suggestions and comments are always welcome as we want this to be the best app it can be for users. Take care and have a wonderful time.",
"qid": 9824,
"docid": "315983",
"rank": 72,
"score": 65772
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: weird holdover from the bad old days when you had to do arithmetic by hand I would guess. Stocks used to trade in 1/8ths, so bonds trading in even smaller increments makes sense. Also (and I am unsure if this is still true) U.S. bonds trade on a 360 day year (or used to anyway) for the same reason... 360 divides well into months and quarters (for easier math) whereas 365 is considerably harder. Most of the world now trades in decimals and 365/365 years so I am unsure why the U.S. doesn't. Institutional inertia I would guess.",
"qid": 9824,
"docid": "88398",
"rank": 73,
"score": 65748
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Even front office is boring. Pick up the phone call 10 guys for a price on a bond haggle with them... Build some excel tool to calculate some price relationship that you came up with, test it very fast in R. Calculate 20 things before making a few trades. Find trade confirmations that are not being matched properly, chase down the UBS back office fuckers in INDIA!!!. (I know its back office that needs to ensure their matched, however at the end of the day we are responsible for our trades). You know what's even more fun? When you have an internal AUDIT!!! Prepare 30 pages of documentation on every stupid process/procedure/piece of code you ever wrote, knowing nobody will read it. Prettying up excel spreadsheets because you don't want management to see how ugly your work can be. I've spent days playing with the format painter and even arguing with guys on my team over what FONT looks better, and why every word should be formatted the same as auditors will never look at our code/procedures, but why is bond in ARIAL and yield in COMIC SANS. Read a 200 page bond guide to all the major european corporate bonds by each of the investment banks.... So you're familiar with all the stuff you're trading where 150 of them are so illiquid you need to hold them for about 3 months to collect enough accrued just to break even on the bid-offer spread. I can go on....",
"qid": 9824,
"docid": "285649",
"rank": 74,
"score": 65704
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I am mostly interested in day to day records, and would like the data to contain information such as dividend payouts, and other parameters commonly available, such as on : http://finviz.com/screener.ashx ... but the kind of queries you can do is limited. For instance you can only go back two years.",
"qid": 9824,
"docid": "89591",
"rank": 75,
"score": 65207
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: For stocks, bonds, ETF funds and so on - Taxed only on realised gain and losses are deductible from the gain and not from company's income. Corporate tax is calculated only after all expenses have been deducted. Not the other way around. Real estate expenses can be deducted because of repairs and maintenance. In general all expenses related to the operation of the business can be deducted. But you cannot use expenses as willy nilly, as you assume. You cannot deduct your subscription to Playboy as an expense. Doing it is illegal and if caught, the tours to church will increase exponentially. VAT is only paid if you claim VAT on your invoices. Your situation seems quite complicated. I would suggest, get an accountant pronto. There are nuances in your situation, which an accountant only can understand and help.",
"qid": 9824,
"docid": "202645",
"rank": 76,
"score": 65192
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You dont need to know low-level programming languages. There are armies of people hired/contracted to deal with that stuff. Your job is to use what they build to make smart decisions and look at the data correctly. So focus more on front-end tools that are used widely (e.g. Tableau) and if you insist on learning a language, it's probably better for it to be something like SQL so you can write your own database queries. Knowing Python might help you write some scripts to automate certain tasks, but I seriously doubt it'll be a career-defining feature of your skillset in corporate finance. It'd be useful if you want to one day pivot to some kind of data science work though.",
"qid": 9824,
"docid": "373170",
"rank": 77,
"score": 64738
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"If you're going to be a day trader, you really need to know your stuff. It's risky, to say the least. One of the most important elements to being successful is having access to very fast data streams so that you can make moves quickly as trends stat to develop in the markets. If you're planning on doing this using consumer-grade sites like eTrade, that's not a good idea. The web systems of many of the retail brokerage firms are not good enough to give you data fast enough for you to make good, timely decisions or to be able to execute trades way that day traders do in order to make their money. Many of those guys are living on very thin margins, sometimes just a few cents of movement one way or the other, so they make up for it with a large volume of trades. One of the reasons you were told you need a big chunk of money to day trade is that some firms will rent you out a \"\"desk\"\" and computer access to day trade through their systems if you're really serious about it. They will require you to put up at least a minimum amount of money for this privilege, and $25k may not be too far out of the ballpark. If you've never done day trading before, be careful. It doesn't take much to get caught looking the wrong way on a trade that you can't get out of without losing your shirt unless you're willing to hold on to the stock, which could be longer than a day. Day trading sounds very simple and easy, but it isn't. You need to learn about how it works (a good book to read to understand this market is \"\"Flash Boys\"\" by Michael Lewis, besides being very entertaining), because it is a space filled with very sophisticated, well-funded firms and individuals who spend huge sums of money to gain miniscule advantages in the markets. Be careful, whatever you do. And don't play in day trading with your retirement money or any other money you can't afford to walk away from. I hope this helps. Good luck!\"",
"qid": 9824,
"docid": "259625",
"rank": 78,
"score": 64613
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I couldn't find historical data either, so I contacted Vanguard Canada and Barclays; Vanguard replied that This index was developed for Vanguard, and thus historical information is available as of the inception of the fund. Unfortunately, that means that the only existing data on historical returns are in the link in your question. Vanguard also sent me a link to the methodology Barclay's uses when constructing this index, which you might find interesting as well. I haven't heard from Barclays, but I presume the story is the same; even if they've been collecting data on Canadian bonds since before the inception of this index, they probably didn't aggregate it into an index before their contract with Vanguard (and if they did, it might be proprietary and not available free of charge).",
"qid": 9824,
"docid": "286335",
"rank": 79,
"score": 64527
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: There is one edge case that may be of value to you. If you declare a bonus (probably to yourself given a very small company) you can deduct it from your year and then have up to 6 months to actually write the cheque and give it to the person. Say your year end for the corporation is July 31st. You could declare the bonus July 30th and deduct it from that year, lowering your corporate tax. You could then wait until January 30th to actually write the bonus cheque. The person would then have that taxable income in a later calendar year, deferring paying the tax. Depending on the size of the bonus, this would possibly matter, although if you did large bonuses every year it would only matter the first time. The other issue is the availability of your bookkeeper or accountant. They are sometimes very busy during personal income tax season. They often like a vacation immediately after that. They may go away in the summer when their kids are out of school. The nice thing about a July 31st year end is that you can probably count on a quick turnaround from your accountant in September. The possible downside is that you won't enjoy reconciling your credit card statements and the like in August as part of getting your year end stuff together. You can avoid that by keeping your books in a decent shape all the time.",
"qid": 9824,
"docid": "89211",
"rank": 80,
"score": 64464
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You'd have to buy that information. Quoting from this page, Commercial Historical Data Higher resolution and more complete datasets are generally not available for free. Below is a list of vendors which have passed our quality screening (in total, we screened over a dozen vendors). To qualify, the vendor must aggregate data from all US national/regional exchanges as only complete datasets are suitable for research use. The last point is especially important as there are many vendors who just get data from a couple sources and is missing important information such as dark pool trades. They offer some alternatives for free data: Daily Resolution Data 1) Yahoo! Finance– Daily resolution data, with split/dividend adjustments can be downloaded from here. The download procedure can be automated using this tool. Note, Yahoo quite frequently has errors in its database and does not contain data for delisted symbols. 2) QuantQuote Free Data– QuantQuote offers free daily resolution data for the S&P500 at this web page under the Free Data tab. The data accounts for symbol changes, splits, and dividends, and is largely free of the errors found in the Yahoo data. Note, only 500 symbols are available unlike Yahoo which provides all listed symbols. And they list recommendations about who to buy the data from.",
"qid": 9824,
"docid": "466255",
"rank": 81,
"score": 64460
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Huh? I don't see how this effects inflation in practice.... (only in theory) Basically, I sell short end bonds and buy longer end bonds pocketing the difference in yield and increasing my duration. GLD and mining are hedges against inflation, markets are stupidly short term looking and care only about current expectations, if the current macro situation deteoriates we see prices fall.",
"qid": 9824,
"docid": "174302",
"rank": 82,
"score": 64407
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: stocks represent ownership in a company. their price can go up or down depending on how much profit the company makes (or is expected to make). stocks owners are sometimes paid money by the company if the company has extra cash. these payments are called dividends. bonds represent a debt that a company owes. when you buy a bond, then the company owes that debt to you. typically, the company will pay a small amount of money on a regular basis to the bond owner, then a large lump some at some point in the future. assuming the company does not file bankrupcy, and you keep the bond until it becomes worthless, then you know exactly how much money you will get from buying a bond. because bonds have a fixed payout (assuming no bankrupcy), they tend to have lower average returns. on the other hand, while stocks have a higher average return, some stocks never return any money. in the usa, stocks and bonds can be purchased through a brokerage account. examples are etrade, tradeking, or robinhood.com. before purchasing stocks or bonds, you should probably learn a great deal more about other investment concepts such as: diversification, volatility, interest rates, inflation risk, capital gains taxes, (in the usa: ira's, 401k's, the mortgage interest deduction). at the very least, you will need to decide if you want to buy stocks inside an ira or in a regular brokerage account. you will also probably want to buy a low-expense ration etf (e.g. an index fund etf) unless you feel confident in some other choice.",
"qid": 9824,
"docid": "461018",
"rank": 83,
"score": 64325
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I understand your point, but at the end of the day the CEO does know why businesses like his aren't doing well and yet they are still unable to be competitive. That is one of the cornerstones of capitalism, so as entitled as it sounds (I personally don't think it's entitlement) they actually do need to change their entire business model or die and start over. That's a sad fact, but you can't be upset that people generally have less money to spend these days.",
"qid": 9824,
"docid": "494023",
"rank": 84,
"score": 64127
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Edited to incorporate the comments elsewhere of @Atkins Assuming, (apparently incorrectly) that duration is time to maturity: First, note that the question does not mention the coupon rate, the size of the regular payments that the bond holder will get each year. So let's calculate that. Consider the cash flow described. You pay out 1015 at the start of Year #1, to buy the bond. At the end of Years #1 to #5, you receive a coupon payment of X. Also at the end of Year #5, you receive the face value of the bond, 1000. And you are told that the pay out equals the money received, using a time value of money of 4.69% So, if we use the date of maturity of the bond as our valuation date, we have the equation: Maturity + Future Value of coupons = Future value of Bond Purchase price 1000 + X *( (1 + .0469)^5-1)/0.0469 = 1015 * 1.0469^5 Solving this for X, we obtain 50.33; the coupon rate is 5.033%. You will receive 50.33 at the end of each of the five years. Now, we can take this fixed schedule of payments, and apply the new yield rate to the same formula above; only now, the unknown is the price paid for the bond, Y. 1000 + 50.33 * ((1 + 0.0487)^5 - 1) / .0487 = Y * 1.0487^5 Solving this equation for Y, we obtain: Y = 1007.08",
"qid": 9824,
"docid": "290562",
"rank": 85,
"score": 64092
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The cause of incomplete/inaccurate financial data's appearing on free sites is that it is both complicated and expensive to obtain and parse these data. Even within a single country, different pieces of financial data are handled by different authorities. In the US, for example, there is one generally recognized authority for stock prices and volumes (CQS), but a completely different authority for corporate earnings data (SEC). For futures and options data the only authority is each individual exchange. Each of these sources might have a vastly different interface to their data; some may have websites, others may have FTPs, others may have TCP datastreams to which you must subscribe, etc. Now throw in the rest of the world and all their exchanges and regulatory agencies, and you can see how it's a difficult job to gather all this information, parse it on a daily (or more frequent) basis, and check it all for errors. There are some companies (e.g. Bloomberg) whose entire business model is to do the above. They spend tens of millions of dollars per year to support the infrastructure and manpower required to keep such a complex system working, and they charge their consumers a pretty penny in return. Do Google/Yahoo pay for Bloomberg data access just to display information that we then consume for free? Maybe. Maybe they pay for some less expensive reduced data set. Or a data set that is less rigorously checked for errors. Even if they pay for the best data available, there's no guarantee that a company's last earnings report didn't have a glitch in it, or that Bloomberg's latest download from the Canadian Agency for Corporate Dividends and Moose Census-Taking didn't get cut off in the middle, or that the folks at Yahoo built a robust system that can handle a particular file's not arriving on time. Bloomberg has dozens or even hundreds of employees focused on just this one task; Yahoo probably has 5. Moral: If you really need the best available data you must go to the source(s), or you must pay a provider to whom you can then complain when something is wrong. With free data you get what you pay for.",
"qid": 9824,
"docid": "156816",
"rank": 86,
"score": 64053
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The (assets - liabilities)/#shares of a company is its book value, and that number is included in their reports. It's easy for a fund to release the net asset value on a daily basis because all of its assets (stocks, bonds, and cash) are given values every day by the market. It's also necessary to have a real time value for a fund as it will be bought and sold every day. A company can't really do the same thing as it will have much more diverse assets - real estate, cars, inventory, goodwill, etc. The real time value of those assets doesn't have the same meaning as a fund; those assets are used to earn cash, while a fund's business is only to maximize its net asset value.",
"qid": 9824,
"docid": "574696",
"rank": 87,
"score": 64004
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The muni bond business . Are you really too dumb to understand that's how he's referencing it in the article? He's not talking about a specific company or companies numbnuts he's talking about \"\"The business of muni bonds...i.e the total outstanding municipal bond market.\"\". Try some reading comprehension on for size. To walk you through it there are multiple uses of the word 'business'. Among them are the two you're having a real problem with in your reading comprehension. 1. Business = Company: I run a dry cleaning business. 2. Business = Industry: I am in the dry cleaning business. What he is (clearly) referring to when he says \"\"a business worth $3.7 trillion\"\" is \"\"business = industry\"\" in the second manner listed above. You're interpreting it as if he's claiming the first manner. That's incorrect. Factually and grammatically incorrect. Yours is the type of ignorance that morons on Reddit rely on to make their arguments work. I'm done here with you since you don't seem to be able to parse out rudimentary information from an article.\"",
"qid": 9824,
"docid": "584232",
"rank": 88,
"score": 63997
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The reason there should really be no bad feelings for the bond-holders is that they knew full well that these were defaulted bonds, but bought them because they saw a loophole they could use to try and force Argentina's hand. It was basically a setup to enable them to try and blackmail the government into 'undefaylting' on those bonds. I recon what will happen in the end is that the other creditors, the ones who had accepted the haircut, will end up buying those bonds at close to full price, just to ensure they are paid at least part of their money back. Because around 95% of bond holders agreed to the haircut, the diluted costs would be small. What is infuriating is the precedent these guys are setting. In the end, all bond will have class-action clauses in which a majority agreeing to a restructure will apply to all bond holders.",
"qid": 9824,
"docid": "552677",
"rank": 89,
"score": 63917
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"We're in much the same boat as you. We do make use of the transaction download feature of our software, but we don't let it auto-enter the amounts. We use the downloaded transactions to make entering our receipts easier. We each take responsibility for entering our own transactions, and then I go through and download bills, reconcile statements and such. I'm the numbers person in our house, so it's easier for me to take care of this stuff. We have all of our bills on auto-pay so that we don't have to worry about payments not getting made if we don't have time to get to our banking tasks on time. I try to set aside time on Saturday afternoon while my kids have their \"\"screen time\"\", or I'll do it in the evening after the kids are in bed. This year, my wife has been much busier and hasn't had as much time to keep up with her data entry, so we've been doing less well at keeping up with things. Something we're considering (and this might work for you as well) is to use the envelope system for the categories where we're most in danger of over-spending. This way. we would have an easy way to see if we'd overspent a category even if we were behind on our data entry. If you're not familiar with the envelope system, respond here and I'll explain it further.\"",
"qid": 9824,
"docid": "349998",
"rank": 90,
"score": 63874
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Mutual funds are only traded once per day, while other securities can be traded any time during the day. Mutual funds are actually a collection of other things that have value, such as stocks. The price of a mutual fund is calculated at the end of the day after the market closes by looking at how much the collection of things changed in value during the day.",
"qid": 9824,
"docid": "216581",
"rank": 91,
"score": 63642
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If i am not wrong, any business activities such should be declared on Year End Tax filing. If your friend is going to own that website either it is commercial or nonprofit, he has to declare in the year end taxation.",
"qid": 9824,
"docid": "427202",
"rank": 92,
"score": 63409
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Yes this would be the same as when a corporation sells bonds. If it is the same as you describe. A product page would make it possible to give you a definitive answer. Also I strongly advice against taking out this type of loan if not for investment",
"qid": 9824,
"docid": "69753",
"rank": 93,
"score": 63344
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: December, 7, 2011 ( 01:40 pm) :- Reliance industries buy which is chain by Mr. Mukesh Ambani, company planes to offer 4 G services as a low Cost by which they help the growth of Indians. Company plans to launch their tab around Rs 3500 & with data download or uploading facility for 10 Rs of every 1 GB. If company able to provided all there technology, Reliance will be the next year favorite stock for many investors. But now, Reliance have strong resistance at Rs XXX & support at Rs XXX above this trend bullish side.",
"qid": 9824,
"docid": "258291",
"rank": 94,
"score": 63337
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"First, a clarification. No assets are immune to inflation, apart from inflation-indexed securities like TIPS or inflation-indexed gilts (well, if held to maturity, these are at least close). Inflation causes a decline in the future purchasing power of a given dollar1 amount, and it certainly doesn't just affect government bonds, either. Regardless of whether you hold equity, bonds, derivatives, etc., the real value of those assets is declining because of inflation, all else being equal. For example, if I invest $100 in an asset that pays a 10% rate of return over the next year, and I sell my entire position at the end of the year, I have $110 in nominal terms. Inflation affects the real value of this asset regardless of its asset class because those $110 aren't worth as much in a year as they are today, assuming inflation is positive. An easy way to incorporate inflation into your calculations of rate of return is to simply subtract the rate of inflation from your rate of return. Using the previous example with inflation of 3%, you could estimate that although the nominal value of your investment at the end of one year is $110, the real value is $100*(1 + 10% - 3%) = $107. In other words, you only gained $7 of purchasing power, even though you gained $10 in nominal terms. This back-of-the-envelope calculation works for securities that don't pay fixed returns as well. Consider an example retirement portfolio. Say I make a one-time investment of $50,000 today in a portfolio that pays, on average, 8% annually. I plan to retire in 30 years, without making any further contributions (yes, this is an over-simplified example). I calculate that my portfolio will have a value of 50000 * (1 + 0.08)^30, or $503,132. That looks like a nice amount, but how much is it really worth? I don't care how many dollars I have; I care about what I can buy with those dollars. If I use the same rough estimate of the effect of inflation and use a 8% - 3% = 5% rate of return instead, I get an estimate of what I'll have at retirement, in today's dollars. That allows me to make an easy comparison to my current standard of living, and see if my portfolio is up to scratch. Repeating the calculation with 5% instead of 8% yields 50000 * (1 + 0.05)^30, or $21,6097. As you can see, the amount is significantly different. If I'm accustomed to living off $50,000 a year now, my calculation that doesn't take inflation into account tells me that I'll have over 10 years of living expenses at retirement. The new calculation tells me I'll only have a little over 4 years. Now that I've clarified the basics of inflation, I'll respond to the rest of the answer. I want to know if I need to be making sure my investments span multiple currencies to protect against a single country's currency failing. As others have pointed out, currency doesn't inflate; prices denominated in that currency inflate. Also, a currency failing is significantly different from a prices denominated in a currency inflating. If you're worried about prices inflating and decreasing the purchasing power of your dollars (which usually occurs in modern economies) then it's a good idea to look for investments and asset allocations that, over time, have outpaced the rate of inflation and that even with the effects of inflation, still give you a high enough rate of return to meet your investment goals in real, inflation-adjusted terms. If you have legitimate reason to worry about your currency failing, perhaps because your country doesn't maintain stable monetary or fiscal policies, there are a few things you can do. First, define what you mean by \"\"failing.\"\" Do you mean ceasing to exist, or simply falling in unit purchasing power because of inflation? If it's the latter, see the previous paragraph. If the former, investing in other currencies abroad may be a good idea. Questions about currencies actually failing are quite general, however, and (in my opinion) require significant economic analysis before deciding on a course of action/hedging. I would ask the same question about my home's value against an inflated currency as well. Would it keep the same real value. Your home may or may not keep the same real value over time. In some time periods, average home prices have risen at rates significantly higher than the rate of inflation, in which case on paper, their real value has increased. However, if you need to make substantial investments in your home to keep its price rising at the same rate as inflation, you may actually be losing money because your total investment is higher than what you paid for the house initially. Of course, if you own your home and don't have plans to move, you may not be concerned if its value isn't keeping up with inflation at all times. You're deriving additional satisfaction/utility from it, mainly because it's a place for you to live, and you spend money maintaining it in order to maintain your physical standard of living, not just its price at some future sale date. 1) I use dollars as an example. This applies to all currencies.\"",
"qid": 9824,
"docid": "189006",
"rank": 95,
"score": 63235
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If the period is consistent for company X, but occurs in a different month as Company Y, it might be linked to the release of their annual report, or the payment of their annual dividend. Companies don't have to end their fiscal year near the end of the Calendar year, therefore these end of year events could occur in any month. The annual report could cause investors to react to the hard numbers of the report compared to what wall street experts have been predicting. The payment of an annual dividend will also cause a direct drop in the price of the stock when the payment is made. There will also be some movement in prices as the payment date approaches.",
"qid": 9824,
"docid": "389562",
"rank": 96,
"score": 63057
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I've come around on that, as many in IT grow beyond their formal degree. Also, at least from my experience with DataSec in a corporate environment, it's usually making sure everyone is either performing required remediations or documenting why said remediation can't be performed (business risk). The hard work is performed by the application and infrastructure technology owners who have to review the fix and plan how to patch it in as gentle / not disruptive way as possible. The higher up exert the enforcement of the policies and making sure the underlings stay on top of the reported findings.",
"qid": 9824,
"docid": "219586",
"rank": 97,
"score": 62808
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The SEC 30-Day Yield you're seeing is a standardized yield calculation set out by the Securities & Exchange Commission. It can be useful for comparing bond funds, but it doesn't guarantee what you'll actually earn from a fund. IMPORTANT: The SEC 30-day yield represents a bond fund's returns from the previous 30 days expressed as an annual percentage of the current fund price — yes, an annual percentage. In other words, don't expect 1.81% return on your money every 30 days! Such a return is too-good-to-be-true return in today's low rate environment. 1.81% per year? More reasonable. Even then, the 1.81% you see is merely an estimate, one based on assumptions, of what you might expect to earn if you keep your money in place for the next year. The estimate is based on the assumptions that: These aren't reliable assumptions. BIV's price does fluctuate. You are not promised to get your principal back with a bond fund. Only an individual bond promises your principal back, and only at maturity. So, earning $181 on $10,000 invested for a full year while taking on interest-rate and other risks might not be worth the trouble of putting your money in a brokerage account. You'll need to transfer the money in and out, and there are potential trading fees to take into account. (How much to buy/sell units?) An FDIC-insured high interest savings account makes more sense.",
"qid": 9824,
"docid": "573239",
"rank": 98,
"score": 62788
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The United States Federal Reserve has decided that interest rates should be low. (They think it may help the economy. The details matter little here though.) It will enforce this low rate by buying Treasury bonds at this very low interest rate. (Bonds are future money, so this means they pay a lot of money up front, for very little interest in the future. The Fed will pay more than anyone who offers less money up front, so they can set the price as long as they're willing to buy.) At the end of the day, Treasury bonds pay nearly no interest. Since there's little money to be made with Treasuries, people who want better-than-zero returns will bid up the current-price of any other bonds or similar loan-like instruments to get what whatever rate of return that they can. There's really no more than one price for money; you can think of the price of those bonds as basically (Treasury rate + some modifier based on the risk) percent. I realize thinking about bond prices is weird and different than other prices (you're measuring future-money using present-money and it's easy to be confused) and assure you it ultimately makes sense :) Anyway. Your savings account money has to compete with everyone else willing to lend money to banks. Everyone-else lends money for peanuts, so you get peanuts on your savings account too. Your banking is probably worth more to your bank on account of your check-card payment processing fees (collected from the merchant) than from the money they make lending out your savings (notice how many places have promotional rates if you make your direct deposits or use your check card to make a purchase N times a month). In Europe, it's similar, except you've got a different central bank. If Europe's bank operated radically differently for an extended period of time, you'd expect to see a difference in the exchange rates which would ultimately make the returns from investing in those currencies pretty similar as well. Such a change may show up domestically as inflation in the country with the loose-money policy, and internationally as weakness against other currencies. There's really only one price for money around the entire world. Any difference boils down to a difference in (perceived) risk.",
"qid": 9824,
"docid": "185104",
"rank": 99,
"score": 62767
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"You are correct that a share of stock in a company has zero intrinsic value. Even if the company typically pays dividends, there's no guarantee that it will continue to do so. A share's only worth comes from: So that's one step better than a Ponzi scheme, because in a Ponzi scheme there's not actually any value present behind the scenes, making option (2) literally impossible. In this way company stock is similar to paper money. It's only worth something because people believe it's worth something. Slightly better than company stock is company bonds. Since a bond is a contract between you and the company, if the company should go out of business then bondholders at least get to stand near the front of the line when the company's assets are liquidated. I work in finance, and the vast majority of my colleagues agree that the secondary stock market (what the average citizen simply calls \"\"the stock market\"\") is a giant confidence game. And yet it's so profitable to believe in the value of equities the way everyone else does, that we all happily pretend these ones and zeroes we move around have actual value.\"",
"qid": 9824,
"docid": "62653",
"rank": 100,
"score": 62679
}
] |
What should I do with the 50k I have sitting in a European bank? | [
{
"content": "Title: Content: There is a fundemental misunderstanding: the business and the owner are not the same entity. You said: I give the business $25,000 and take 50% of the business. No you can give the owner of the business 25K, and now he has 25K and 50% of a 50K business. That 25K sits in Mr. Smith's bank account, not Acme Widget's account. A more simple example is when you buy a car. The money goes to the car dealership, it does not get put into the car's glove box. You may be thinking of an investor in a business. He could pump $$ into the business as operating capital for a share of the business. In that case, it would be a bit unfair to get 50% of the business for a 25K. However, the owner may be interested in doing such a deal because value of the investor can add more than just $$ to the business. Having a celebrity investor might do more good for the business than the actual dollars. Another situation is that the owner might be desperate. Without a influx of cash the whole business might end. There are guidelines to business evaluation, but valuing them is not an easy thing.",
"qid": 9871,
"docid": "454526",
"rank": 1,
"score": 117829
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Probably not. A debit of 50K in your Bank statement does not mean that its invested into tax saving instrument. This question is best answered by the finance department of your company. Practise vary from organization to organization.",
"qid": 9871,
"docid": "294297",
"rank": 2,
"score": 110718
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The best way to invest 50k Indian rupees is in a 5 Year NSC(National Saving Certificate which can be obtained at the Post Office) yielding interest 8.1% p.a. (at present), which is more than the effective FDR interest rate offered by any bank in India. Investment in an NSC also permits a deduction u/s 80C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. So, investing in an NSC will save tax and get a higher return/benefit for your investment.",
"qid": 9871,
"docid": "175139",
"rank": 3,
"score": 107149
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Tackling your last point, all banks in the EU should be covered to around €100,000. The exact figure varies slightly between countries, and generally only private deposits are covered. In the UK it's the FSCS that covers private deposits, to a value of £85,000, see this for more information on what's covered. In France (for a euro denominated example), there's coverage up to €100,000 provided by Fonds de Garantie des Dépôts, see this (in French) for full details. There's a fairly good Wikipedia Article that covers all this too. I'll let someone else chime in on the mechanics of opening something covered by the schemes though!",
"qid": 9871,
"docid": "56342",
"rank": 4,
"score": 105845
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: 50 (dollars, Euros?) is a very small amount to invest. The first time I ever bought stock I picked a winner. It went up by about 40% in the first few months. I sold it and lost money. How? I only bought 10 shares at $7.50 each. The profit was less than the two commissions for buying and selling (about $17 a piece). If you are thinking of buying individual stocks, You simply need to save up more money before it will be practical. If you are not trying to beat the market, which is probably not something an amateur like you or I should attempt, then you should consider low cost index funds. I have money in mutual funds, some of which, have as low as a $100 minimum investment. I have moved entirely away from picking stocks. It was a good experience and I could afford to lose the money, but as a long term strategy, it just was not working for me. Note: This is coming from an American. If this somehow does not apply in Europe...",
"qid": 9871,
"docid": "208165",
"rank": 5,
"score": 102611
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Your best shot in terms of credit card \"\"compatibility\"\" would probably be a very large private European Bank, like Deutsche Bank, HSCB or the like issueing a MasterCard. In England it is quite difficult to get an account without being a resident, but I think HSBC offers a so called \"\"Passport\"\" account to non-residents with all the usual cards and benefits, even overdraft, but it's probably expensive. I think you underestimate how heterogeneous the banking world in Europe is. There are plenty of different local systems in each country. France has it's custom CB system and Germany has a system called GiroPay and a cashless system called GeldKarte (which no one really uses). Even if you have a Mastercard or Visa with pin from a European bank, there is no guarantee that it'll work everywhere reliably. I remember my German housemate having loads of trouble with his amazon.de Mastercard in England. In addition, you will most likely be charged for paying with your CC and ATM/Cashpoint withdrawals in any other country. Fees can range up to 3% for a transaction. So ideally you profile which European country you travel to the most and set up the account there. You should also look for cooperations between certain European banks. I remember Barclays and Deutsche Bank cooperating. On a side note: I'm still amazed by how backwards some banking systems are, e.g. the English. I've been using secure (pin/tan) online-banking in Germany for over 10 years. Transfers are quick, international transfers are free, as long as they are in Euro etc. Everything runs pretty smooth. Not so in England, you need to confirm online transactions over the phone (wtf?) and your only security is a pin and memorable information. Inter-bank transfers, if not set up online, cost up to 30 pounds, even though I could just go to the other bank, draw the cash there and pay it in to the account for free. International transfers start at 20 quid etc. I could hardly imagine, living in a cheque reliant system like the states anymore.\"",
"qid": 9871,
"docid": "365804",
"rank": 6,
"score": 102421
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You can calculate your exposure intuitively, by calculating your 'fx sensitivity'. Take your total USD assets, let's assume $50k. Convert to EUR at the current rate, let's assume 1 EUR : 1.1 USD, resulting in 45.5k EUR . If the USD strengthens by 1%, this moves to a rate of ~1.09, resulting in 46k EUR value for the same 50k of USD investments. From this you can see that for every 1% the USD strengthens, you gain 500 EUR. For every 1% the USD weakens, you lose 500 EUR. The simplest way to reduce your exchange rate risk exposure, is to simply eliminate your foreign currency investments. ie: if you do not want to be exposed to fluctuations in the USD, invest in EUR only. This will align your assets with the currency of your future expenses [assuming you intend to continue living in Europe].This is not possible of course, if you would like to maintain investments in US assets. One relatively simple method available to invest in the US, without gaining an exposure to the USD, is to invest in USD assets only with money borrowed in USD. ie: if you borrow $50k USD, and invest $50k in the US stock market, then your new investments will be in the same currency as your debt. Therefore if the USD strengthens, your assets increase in relative EUR value, and your debt becomes more expensive. These two impacts wash out, leaving you with no net exposure to the value of the USD. There is a risk to this option - you are investing with a higher 'financial leverage' ratio. Using borrowed money to invest increases your risk; if your investments fall in value, you still need to make the periodic interest payments. Many people view this increased risk as a reason to never invest with borrowed money. You are compensated for that risk, by increased returns [because you have the ability to earn investment income without contributing any additional money of your own]. Whether the risk is worth it to you will depend on many factors - you should search this site and others on the topic to learn more about what those risks mean.",
"qid": 9871,
"docid": "382505",
"rank": 7,
"score": 101558
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: For a young person with good income, 50k sitting in a savings account earning nothing is really bad. You're losing money because of inflation, and losing on the growth potential of investing. Please rethink your aversion to retirement accounts. You will make more money in the long run through lower taxes by taking advantage of these accounts. At a minimum, make a Roth IRA contribution every year and max it out ($5500/yr right now). Time is of the essence! You have until April 15th to make your 2014 contribution! Equities (stocks) do very well in the long run. If you don't want to actively manage your portfolio, there is nothing wrong (and you could do a lot worse) than simply investing in a low-fee S&P 500 index fund.",
"qid": 9871,
"docid": "293179",
"rank": 8,
"score": 101454
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Bank lending, insurance and derivatives: all dependent on Europe. Metals and shipping: tiny niche industries that have relatively few tax payers actually sitting in London. Sorry buddy, but without Europe London is just a regional financial centre that mostly services the UK economy with a few niche international areas that don't bring in that much business.",
"qid": 9871,
"docid": "76790",
"rank": 9,
"score": 101195
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"My advice would be to invest that 50k in 25% batches across 4 different money markets. Batch 1: Lend using a peer-to-peer account - 12.5k The interest rates offered by banks aren't that appealing to investors anymore, at least in the UK. Peer to peer lending brokers such as ZOPA provide 5% to 6% annual returns if you're willing to hold on to your investment for a couple of years. Despite your pre-conceptions, these investments are relatively safe (although not guaranteed - I must stress this). Zopa state on their website that they haven't lost any money provided from their investors since the company's inception 10 years ago, and have a Safeguard trust that will be used to pay out investors if a large number of borrowers defaulted. I'm not sure if this service is available in Australia but aim for an interest rate of 5-6% with a trusted peer-to-peer lender that has a strong track record. Batch 2: The stock market - 12.5k An obvious choice. This is by far the most exciting way to grow your money. The next question arising from this will likely be \"\"how do I pick stocks?\"\". This 12.5k needs to be further divided into 5 or so different stocks. My strategy for picking stock at the current time will be to have 20% of your holdings in blue-chip companies with a strong track record of performance, and ideally, a dividend that is paid bi-anually/quarterly. Another type of stock that you should invest in should be companies that are relatively newly listed on the stock market, but have monopolistic qualities - that is - that they are the biggest, best, and only provider of their new and unique service. Examples of this would be Tesla, Worldpay, and Just-eat. Moreover, I'd advise another type of stock you should purchase be a 'sin stock' to hedge against bad economic times (if they arise). A sin stock is one associated with sin, i.e. cigarette manufacturers, alcohol suppliers, providers of gambling products. These often perform good while the economy is doing well, but even better when the economy experiences a 2007-2008, and 2001-dotcom type of meltdown. Finally, another category I'd advise would be large-cap energy provider companies such as Exxon Mobil, BP, Duke Energy - primarily because these are currently cheaper than they were a few months ago - and the demand for energy is likely to grow with the population (which is definitely growing rapidly). Batch 3: Funds - 12.5k Having some of your money in Funds is really a no-brainer. A managed fund is traditionally a collection of stocks that have been selected within a particular market. At this time, I'd advise at least 20% of the 12.5k in Emerging market funds (as the prices are ridiculously low having fallen about 60% - unless China/Brazil/India just self destruct or get nuked they will slowly grow again within the next 5 years - I imagine quite high returns can be had in this type of funds). The rest of your funds should be high dividend payers - but I'll let you do your own research. Batch 4: Property - 12.5k The property market is too good to not get into, but let's be honest you're not going to be able to buy a flat/house/apartment for 12.5k. The idea therefore would be to find a crowd-funding platform that allows you to own a part of a property (alongside other owners). The UK has platforms such as Property Partner that are great for this and I'm sure Australia also has some such platforms. Invest in the capital city in areas as close to the city's center as possible, as that's unlikely to change - barring some kind of economic collapse or an asteroid strike. I think the above methods of investing provide the following: 1) Diversified portfolio of investments 2) Hedging against difficult economic times should they occur And the only way you'll lose out with diversification such as this is if the whole economic system collapses or all-out nuclear war (although I think your investments will be the least of your worries in a nuclear war). Anyway, this is the method of investing I've chosen for myself and you can see my reasoning above. Feel free to ask me if you have any questions.\"",
"qid": 9871,
"docid": "465819",
"rank": 10,
"score": 99540
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Unfortunately I do not have much experience with European banks. However, I do know of ways to earn interest on bank accounts. CDs (Certificates of Deposit) are a good way to earn interest. Its basically a savings account that you cannot touch for a fixed rate of time. You can set it from an average of 6 months to 12 months. You can pull the money out early if there is an emergency as well. I would also look into different types of bank accounts. If you go with an account other than a free one, the interest rate will be higher and as long as you have the minimum amount required you should not be charged. Hope I was able to help!",
"qid": 9871,
"docid": "76562",
"rank": 11,
"score": 98309
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: theoretically this concept makes sense. However as recent numbers have shown ( I do not have the source handy but one can simply obtain this information via the ECB's website) banks have tapped this LTRO, something in the likes of 500 billion or so, and instead of buying Sovereign debt, they instead prefer to park this money with the ECB, paying something like 25 bps on deposits. so instead of using this LTRO money to buy Sovereigns or perhaps lend to other banks, easing the strain on LIBOR, banks have just parked this money back with the ECB, as the ECB has seen its deposits once again reach record amounts (again, see the ECB website for proof). Just this speaks volumes about the LTRO carry trade and how it is evidently not going to achieve its long term goal of bringing spreads down in Europe. Perhaps in the short run yes, but if you look at the fundamentals (EURUSD, the EUR Basis Swap and the OIS-LIBOR Spread) they show how the situation in Europe is far from over, and the LTRO is nothing close to a long term and stable solution",
"qid": 9871,
"docid": "228116",
"rank": 12,
"score": 97214
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: 75k is short of the 'highly compensated' category. Most US citizens in that pay range would consider paying someone to do their taxes as an unnecessary expense. Tax shelters usually don't come into play for this level of income. However, there are certain things which provide deductions. Some things that make it better to pay someone: Use the free online tax forms to sandbox your returns. If all you're concerned about is ensuring you pay your taxes correctly, this is the most cost efficient route. If you want to minimize your tax burden, consult with a CPA. Be sure to get one who is familiar with resident aliens from your country and the relevant tax treaties. The estimate you're looking at may be the withholding, of which you may be eligible for a refund for some part of that withholding. Tax treaties likely make sure that you get credit on each side for the money paid in the other. For example, as a US citizen, if I go to Europe and work and pay taxes there, I can deduct the taxes paid in Europe from my tax burden in the US. If I've already paid more to the EU than I would have paid on the same amount earned in the US, then my tax burden in the US is zero. By the same token, if I have not paid up to my US burden, then I owe the balance to the US. But this is way better than paying taxes to your home country and to the host country where you earned the money.",
"qid": 9871,
"docid": "442110",
"rank": 13,
"score": 96936
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Opening account in foreign bank is possible, but you must have strong proofs you use it for legitimate purposes. More chances to get an account if you visit Europe and able to stay, for example, for a week, to visit bank in person and wait for all the checks and approvals. Also keep in mind that there will be deposit/withdraw limits and fees applicable, that are significantly stricter and larger for non-EU citizen. In my opinion, if your amounts are not large, it might not worth it. If amounts are large, you might consider business account rather than personal, as is the example of strong proof I meant.",
"qid": 9871,
"docid": "484535",
"rank": 14,
"score": 96182
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you plan to stay in Europe for some time, then you should match your income currency with your liability currency, and so should use the Euro loan to pay off the INR loan, thereby eliminating the currency risk that you currently bear every time you convert Euro into INR to pay down the loan. Plus, you have a much lower interest rate. So, do it !",
"qid": 9871,
"docid": "40161",
"rank": 15,
"score": 94558
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: eChecks (and ACH) are a (desperate?) try of the US banking system to get into the 21st century. All EU countries (and some others) have direct deposits and transfers as the standard way of transferring money since about 20 years, and since about 5 years it is cost-free and one-day across all the EU. The rest of the world runs mostly country specific system, as there is not that large a demand for cross country shifting, and exchange rates are also an issue in any such transaction. Because they have different ways that work fine since decades, other countries will consider the eCheck idea as a step backwards and will probably ignore it, so your answer is 'none'. International companies work with banks in a different relationship than retail customers, so they can do things you and me cannot do - depending on size and volume. Some large companies get a banking license and then handle their own stuff; medium sized companies make favorable contracts with banks (they are golden goose customers - never an issue, no brick and mortar presence needed, banks love them), or they simply suck up the transfer cost (if you move millions, who cares about a 40 $ fee). Small businesses whine and live with what they get...",
"qid": 9871,
"docid": "259890",
"rank": 16,
"score": 93554
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: To transfer US$30,000 from the USA to Europe, ask your European banker for the SWIFT transfer instructions. Typically in the USA the sending bank needs a SWIFT code and an account number, the name and address of the recipient, and the amount to transfer. A change of currency can be made as part of the transfer. The typical fee to do this is under US$100 and the time, under 2 days. But you should ask (or have the sender ask) the bank in the USA about the fees. In addition to the fee the bank may try to make a profit on the change of currency. This might be 1-2%. If you were going to do this many times, one way to go about it is to open an account at Interactive Brokers, which does business in various countries. They have a foreign exchange facility whereby you can deposit various currencies into your account, and they stay in that currency. You can then trade the currencies at market rates when you wish. They are also a stock broker and you can also trade on the various exchanges in different countries. I would say, though, they they mostly want customers already experienced with trading. I do not know if they will allow someone other than you to pay money into your account. Trading companies based in the USA do not like to be in the position of collecting on cheques owed to you, that is more the business of banks. Large banks in the USA with physical locations charge monthly fees of $10/mo or more that might be waived if you leave money on deposit. Online banks have significantly lower fees. All US banks are required to follow US anti-terrorist and anti-crime regulations and will tend to expect a USA address and identity documents to open an account with normal customers. A good international bank in Europe can also do many of these same sorts of things for you. I've had an account with Fortis. They were ok, there were no monthly fees but there were fees for transactions. In some countries I understand the post even runs a bank. Paypal can be a possibility, but fees can be high ~3% for transfers, and even higher commissions for currency change. On the other hand, it is probably one of the easiest and fastest ways to move amounts of $1000 or less, provided both people have paypal accounts.",
"qid": 9871,
"docid": "305907",
"rank": 17,
"score": 93459
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"My grandma left a 50K inheritance You don't make clear where in the inheritance process you are. I actually know of one case where the executor (a family member, not a professional) distributed the inheritance before paying the estate taxes. Long story short, the heirs had to pay back part of the inheritance. So the first thing that I would do is verify that the estate is closed and all the taxes paid. If the executor is a professional, just call and ask. If a family member, you may want to approach it more obliquely. Or not. The important thing is not to start spending that money until you're sure that you have it. One good thing is that my husband is in grad school and will be done in 2019 and will then make about 75K/yr with his degree profession. Be a bit careful about relying on this. Outside the student loans, you should build other expenses around the assumption that he won't find a job immediately after grad school. For example, we could be in a recession in 2019. We'll be about due by then. Paying off the $5k \"\"other debt\"\" is probably a no brainer. Chances are that you're paying double-digit interest. Just kill it. Unless the car loan is zero-interest, you probably want to get rid of that loan too. I would tend to agree that the car seems expensive for your income, but I'm not sure that the amount that you could recover by selling it justifies the loss of value. Hopefully it's in good shape and will last for years without significant maintenance. Consider putting $2k (your monthly income) in your checking account. Instead of paying for things paycheck-to-paycheck, this should allow you to buy things on schedule, without having to wait for the money to appear in your account. Put the remainder into an emergency account. Set aside $12k (50% of your annual income/expenses) for real emergencies like a medical emergency or job loss. The other $16k you can use the same way you use the $5k other debt borrowing now, for small emergencies. E.g. a car repair. Make a budget and stick to it. The elimination of the car loan should free up enough monthly income to support a reasonable budget. If it seems like it isn't, then you are spending too much money for your income. Don't forget to explicitly budget for entertainment and vacations. It's easy to overspend there. If you don't make a budget, you'll just find yourself back to your paycheck-to-paycheck existence. That sounds like it is frustrating for you. Budget so that you know how much money you really need to live.\"",
"qid": 9871,
"docid": "452837",
"rank": 18,
"score": 93066
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: US banks are often helpless with international checks, so I would recommend to do a wire transfer instead. Otherwise you might end up being in the US with no money and a worthless piece of paper in your hand. First, set up your european account to allow wire transfers to the US, if that needs any action. Speak to someone in the bank in person, to make sure you can later initiate such a transfer remotely/online. After travelling, set up your US account, and then remote trigger a wire transfer. Costs are relatively small, for example with Postbank you pay less than 30 $, and get the bank currency exchange ratio (which is much better than the exchange ratio for paper money). The wire transfer cost is partly proportional to the amount, and partly constant, so don't split it in many pieces - make one larger transfer.",
"qid": 9871,
"docid": "263174",
"rank": 19,
"score": 92955
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"What EU wanted to force Cyprus to do is to break the insurance contract the government has with the bank depositors. The parliament rightfully refused, and it didn't pass. In the EU, and Cyprus as part of it, all bank deposits are insured up to 100,000EUR by the government. This is similar to the US FDIC insurance. Thus, requiring the \"\"small\"\" (up to 100K) depositors to participate in the bank reorganization means that the government breaks its word to people, and effectively defaults. That is exactly what the Cyprus government wanted to avoid, the default, so I can't understand why the idea even came up. Depositors of more than 100k are not guaranteed against bank failures, and indeed - in Cyprus these depositors will get \"\"haircuts\"\". But before them, first come shareholders and bondholders who would be completely wiped out. Thus, first and foremost, those who failed (the bank owners) will be the first to pay the price. However, governments can default. This happened in many places, for example in Russia in the 90's, in Argentina in 2000's (and in fact numerous times during the last century), the US in the 1930's, and many other examples - you can see a list in Wikipedia. When government defaults on its debts, it will not pay some or all of them, and its currency may also be devaluated. For example, in Russia in 1998 the currency lost 70% of its value against the USD within months, and much of the cash at hands of the public became worthless overnight. In the US in 1933 the President issued an executive order forbidding private citizens keeping gold and silver bullions and coins, which resulted in dollar devaluation by about 30% and investors in precious metals losing large amounts of money. The executive order requiring surrender of the Treasury gold certificates is in fact the government's failure to pay on these obligations. While the US or Russia control their own currency, European countries don't and cannot devaluate the currency as they wish in order to ease their debts. Thus in Euro-zone the devaluation solutions taken by Russia and the US are not possible. Cyprus cannot devaluate its currency, and even if it could - its external debt would not likely to be denominated in it (actually, Russian debt isn't denominated in Rubles, that's why they forced restructuring of their own debt, but devaluating the currency helped raising the money from the citizens similarly to the US seizing the gold in 1930's). Thus, in case of Cyprus or other Euro-zone countries, direct taxes is the only way to raise money from the citizens. So if you're in a country that controls its own currency (such as the US, Russia, Argentina, etc) and especially if the debt is denominated in that currency (mainly the US) - you should be worried more of inflation than taxes. But if you're in the Euro-zone and your country is in troubles (which is almost any country in the zone) - you can expect taxes. How to avoid that? Deal with your elected officials and have them fix your economy, but know that you can't just \"\"erase\"\" the debt through inflation as the Americans can (and will), someone will have to pay.\"",
"qid": 9871,
"docid": "218045",
"rank": 20,
"score": 92802
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: This is called him trying to screw your friend. 50k isn't a lot either, I'd hit up friends, family, try to get a government grant or even a bank loan first. Also hit up some more reputable VCs, or even just raise the money himself.",
"qid": 9871,
"docid": "527373",
"rank": 21,
"score": 92595
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: It can be done, but I believe it would be impractical for most people - i.e., it would likely be cheaper to fly to Europe from other side of the world to handle it in person if you can. It also depends on where you live. You should take a look if there are any branches or subsidiaries of foreign banks in your country - the large multinational banks most likely can open you an account in their sister-bank in another country for, say, a couple hundred euro in fees.",
"qid": 9871,
"docid": "574711",
"rank": 22,
"score": 92466
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Yes this is a huge security loophole and many banks will do nothing to refund if you are scammed. For example for business accounts some Wells Fargo branches say you must notify within 24 hours of any check withdrawal or the loss is yours. Basically banks don't care - they are a monopoly system and you are stuck with them. When the losses and complaints get too great they will eventually implement the European system of electronic transfers - but the banks don't want to be bothered with that expense yet. Sure you can use paypal - another overpriced monopoly - or much better try Dwolla or bitcoin.",
"qid": 9871,
"docid": "584258",
"rank": 23,
"score": 92398
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Weren't these fuckers just given 120 billion euros? At this point they should probably stop fueling this shit and just let them burn. European tax payers aren't the only ones dealing with this. The American Federal Reserve is lending money to the banks and the ECB to help with this. I don't want to pay for ailing banks in my own goddamn country, let alone those on the other side of the world in a country I may never visit.",
"qid": 9871,
"docid": "538328",
"rank": 24,
"score": 92379
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: By paying off 50K in debts now, you'll have 50K less to invest in your new house. That means that you'll have a mortgage that's 50K higher. So, it's trading one debt for another. This means you should be comparing the T&Cs for the two. The most obvious is the interest rate. That's slightly tricky for your future mortgage, as 20% money down may affect the mortgage interest rate. The easiest way is to calculate the raw $ interests you'd pay in both cases. Besides interest, there are more conditions. Some debts may include life insurance, which has a definite value in your case. It would be hard to compare those here, you'd have to do so yourself",
"qid": 9871,
"docid": "516578",
"rank": 25,
"score": 92169
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: A lot depends on how much is in the account, and whether you expect to be returning (or having any sort of financial dealings) in Europe in the future. My own experience (about 10 years out of date, and with Switzerland) is that the easiest way to transfer reasonable amounts (a few thousand dollars) was simply to get it in $100 bills from the European bank. I also kept the account open for a number of years while living in the US (doing contracting that was paid into the European bank), and could withdraw money from American ATMs. I eventually had to close the account due to issues between the bank and the IRS. I think it was only that particular bank (UBS) that was the problem, though.",
"qid": 9871,
"docid": "73741",
"rank": 26,
"score": 91360
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Shorting the Euro is the same as staying long the dollar, so if you're in the US you don't need to do anything. If you want to make some serious money you would want to either short specific European bank stocks, or buy puts on some of the European indices.",
"qid": 9871,
"docid": "455856",
"rank": 27,
"score": 90564
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: There is (at least) one service that allows you to convert USD, GBP and EUR at the interbank spot rate, and make purchases using a prepaid MasterCard in many more currencies (also at the interbank rate). They currently don't charge any fees (as of September 2015). You could use your US prepaid card to fund your account with Revolut and then spend them in your local currency (HRK?) without fees (you can check the current USD/HRK rate with their currency calculator); you can also withdraw to non-EUR SEPA-enabled bank accounts, but then your bank would charge you for the necessary currency conversion (both by fees and their exchange rate). If you have a bank account in EUR, you could alternatively convert your USD balance to EUR and then withdraw that to your EUR bank account. If your US prepaid card has a corresponding bank account which can be used for ACH direct debit or domestic wire transfers (ask the issuer if you are unsure), TransferWise or a similar service might also be an option; they allow you to fund a transaction using one of those methods and then credit an account in",
"qid": 9871,
"docid": "373223",
"rank": 28,
"score": 90520
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: There is a service TransferWise through which you can send money from UK banks to EUR bank accounts in the EU for a 1 GBP fee (much cheaper then about 25 GBP for a SWIFT transfer). You send them a UK national GBP transfer to their UK HSBC account, and they send the equivalent amount in EUR from their Irish EUR bank account to your EUR account - for example in Germany. What is best, is that they use bare mid-market ForEx exchange rates, without any markup on the GBP to EUR exchange rate, which is usually in the range of 2% to 5% in banks, so you don't lose anything on the exchange rate.",
"qid": 9871,
"docid": "404541",
"rank": 29,
"score": 90459
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: My experience (from European countries, but not Portugal specifically) is that it's better to change in the European country, as many banks will give you US $ as a matter of course, while in the US (insular place that it is), it can be rather difficult to find a place to exchange money outside an international airport. In fact, I have a few hundred Euros left from my last trip, several years ago. Expected to make another trip which didn't come off, and haven't found a place to exchange them. PS: Just for information's sake, at the time I was working in Europe, and found that by far the easiest way to transfer part of my salary back home was to get $100 bills from my European bank. Another way was to withdraw money from an ATM, as the US & European banks were on the same network. Unfortunately the IRS put a stop to that, though I don't know if it was all banks, or just the particular one I was using. Might be worth checking, though.",
"qid": 9871,
"docid": "362035",
"rank": 30,
"score": 90372
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Our banking system is pretty archaic compared to Europe's. I never realized it until I started managing bank accounts overseas for work. I manage many in the U.K., with their banking system you can send money to any person or company using a sort code & account (similar to our routing # and account) - and it's free, simple, and reaches the other account within 2 hours. You can include invoice #s, etc. It's the same banks that we have over here (HSBC, Citi, etc), I imagine the only reason why they haven't rolled it out over here is because they make a lot of $$$ off of wires in the US (similar concept but we pay $30-60 per each domestic transfer and it can take days). When my boss moved over here from UK and opened a personal bank account he was horrified to find out that the bill pay function in online banking sent paper checks and that you couldn't just send money to people/companies easily and immediately. The infrastructure and technology is already in place at the big banks, but the banks make big fees off offering us archaic features and too few Americans realize it can be so much easier; until we legislate that banks offer us the better services that already exist elsewhere I doubt we'll get them.",
"qid": 9871,
"docid": "50571",
"rank": 31,
"score": 90147
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: This. Why not convert the 50k euro to dollars and AUD, and invest in a basket of companies that trade on American/Australian exchanges instead. You could hold a bit of gold, but I would definitely not put everything into gold.",
"qid": 9871,
"docid": "367207",
"rank": 32,
"score": 89644
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: It looks like a coin toss. What you have isn't bad at all. If you have enough free time with your $50k job to do extra stuff on the side, you can use that time to build a business. You're obviously a go-getter type, so this might suit you. Which job is closer to your calling? All other things being equal, the more fulfilling job should win, no?",
"qid": 9871,
"docid": "361890",
"rank": 33,
"score": 89169
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I have been on the same boat as you are right now. So basically, it depends on your goals, risk tolerance, upcoming life events! You want a plan not just for this particular 50K, but for your household assets and future earnings to come! My suggestion: Get a flat fee, online financial advisor to do the work for you. You don’t have to figure this out by yourself. Personally, I would invest in a portfolio that: Offers dynamic asset allocation plans that evolves over time based on changing market conditions. Offers a healthy mix of beta and alpha strategies along with the liquidity and ability to monitor activity online. Has structural risk management in place. Risk management is as much about increasing risk as it is about cutting risk. Therefore, you want a plan for de-allocating and re-allocating risk Hope this helps.",
"qid": 9871,
"docid": "356552",
"rank": 34,
"score": 88218
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: It's in your interest to pay down these loans (just like any debt) at an accelerated rate, so long as you prioritize it appropriately and don't jeopardize your financial situation. What are your plans for the $50k? Is it a downpayment on a house? Are you already saving for retirement? At what rate are you saving each year? These are all important questions. There is nothing wrong with using some of the $50k to make a dent in your loans, but overpaying a debt at 6% should not be your first priority. Save for retirement, pay off credit cards, make sure you have an emergency fund of between 6-12 months living expenses (depending on your comfort level as well as how stable you think your job is, and how much you could downsize if need be). Then, tackle extra loan payments. Unfortunately 6% is about what you would expect to get in the market these days, so you can't necessarily make more money investing your remaining cash on hand as compared to putting it towards your loans. And you could always make less. Personally, I would divide the $50k as follows. Insert your own numbers/circumstances :) Of the ~$30k that remains...",
"qid": 9871,
"docid": "578699",
"rank": 35,
"score": 88004
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: This was at least in part payback for VW. But to be fair, the US has imposed huge fines on European banks for doing unethical stuff that's a lot more tolerated in Europe than the US. The EU fined Google for doing anti-competitive stuff that's a lot more tolerated in the US.",
"qid": 9871,
"docid": "311668",
"rank": 36,
"score": 87972
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You can play with the numbers all you like (and that's good), however, here is a different way to look at it. The debt you have is risk. It limits your choices and eats your cash flow. Without the debt, you can invest at a much greater rate. It frees up you cash flow for all the things you might want to do, or decide in the future you might want to do. Right now is the easiest time for you to focus on debt repayment. It sounds like you are not married and have no children. It is much easier now to cut back your lifestyle and concentrate on paying off this $50k of student debt. This will get harder as your responsibility increases. Build up a small amount of cash for emergencies and put the rest at the debt. You can keep contributing to your 401k to the match if you want. This will give you 2 benefits: Patience. When you actually DO start investing, you will have a new appreciation for the money you are using. If you sacrifice to pay off $50k now, you wont look at money the same for the rest of your life. Drive. If you see the debt as a barrier to achieving your goals, you will work harder to get out of debt. These are all things I would tell my 23 year-old self if i could go back in time. Good luck!",
"qid": 9871,
"docid": "52136",
"rank": 37,
"score": 87848
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Yes there are huge number of parts in the chain. Entire careers can be made out of handling clearing and settlement (back office) work for banks, exchanges, and trading houses. Even more so in the old days when this had to be done by hand, but obviously now everything is electronic. I can provide some insight into your questions, at least on the trading side. Brokers in many cases have their own brokers or their own trading operations. They will have their own order entry and risk control systems, so that is all proprietary, but it usually doesn't involve more than send buy/sell Y shares of name X to venue Z at price P with extra instructions A,B,C,D,E. Eventually an order will make its way to a direct market participant who sends an electronic order directly to an exchange. Note that when you say market, you should be referring to such \"\"exchanges\"\". In the US these are the NYSE, NASDAQ, and so on. When you are talking about futures there is the CME, CBOT, and so on. In Europe there is the EUREX and so on. The \"\"market\"\" refers to all these exchanges together which all have their own order mechanisms and matching engines. In many cases exchanges will route orders to other exchanges depending on the specific country's trading rules. Exchanges compete with each other by fee and liquidity offerings, which are shouldered directly by market participants. Another detail is that each market participant has its own clearing firm, which has prior credit lines established with the market participant and a central clearing house. Like you said as soon as an order is matched, the exchange where the order takes place hands the trade over to the clearing house where the trade is then settled between the clearing firms representing either side of the trade. Clearing disputes happen at this step.\"",
"qid": 9871,
"docid": "147573",
"rank": 38,
"score": 87786
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Many European countires allow you to an account for non-residents. You have to appear in the bank personally to open it, some of them even to get your own tax number for non-residents from the local government. I'm not sure if you get a Visa (Electron) chip card immediatelly or you have to wait for like 3 months before being issued one. I've heard that getting a tax number for non-residents and opening a bank account is easily done in one day in Brezice, Republic of Slovenia. They seem to have agile local bureaucracy and banks, since many pople from neighbouring (non-EU) countries (used to) come there to open an EU bank account. Funds can be transfered via Internet banking - US banks have that, do they? SWIFT and IBAN codes are used for international money transfer. But it takes some time (days!) for it to arrive to destination. Tansfers below $20000 per month or per transaction are considered normal, but for amouts above that the destination bank might ask you to explain the purpose, to prove it is not illegal. Some of them accept the explanaiton in writing (they forward it to the regulator that tracks such large transfers), some of them ask you to appear there in person for an interview and to sign a statement. Can't believe US banks are still issuing paing magnet stripe cards like it's still 1980s. I'd expect Europe to be 10 years behind USA in technology, but this seems to be a weird reverse. I've beed using Internet banking with one-time passwd tokens and TAN lists for almost 10 years, and chip cards exclusivley for over 5y. Can't remeber the last time I've seen mag stripe card only. American Express (event the regular green one) got the chip at least 5 years ago. And it is accepted regularly in Europe. Alegedly it's more popular in Europe (although Mastercard is a definite #1, with Visa close to that) that in USA.",
"qid": 9871,
"docid": "417455",
"rank": 39,
"score": 87742
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I ended up just trying. I gave A the IBAN of B's account, which I calculated online based on the bank code and account number (because B claimed IBAN won't work, so didn't give it to me), and B's name. A was able to transfer the money apparently without extra difficulties, and it appeared on B's account on the same day. Contrary to some other posts here, IBAN has nothing to do with the Euro zone, nor is it a European system. It started in Europe, but it has been adopted as an ISO standard (link). As usual of course some countries don't see the urgency to follow an international standard :) XE.com has a list of all IBAN countries; quite a few are non-European. Here is even the list formatted specially for the European-or-not discussion: link.",
"qid": 9871,
"docid": "237564",
"rank": 40,
"score": 87624
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you are looking for a European financials ETF to short, you could take a look at the iShares EURO STOXX Banks, which is traded on a a few German stock exchanges (Frankfurt etc.): iShares Euro Stoxx Banks Website You find its current holdings here: holdings.",
"qid": 9871,
"docid": "192299",
"rank": 41,
"score": 87564
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Yes, if all my savings were in Euro, I would absolutely be converting everything to US dollars, and possibly some gold. You probably don't want to sit around with lots of Euros while watching the shit hit fan. Talk to your bank, possibly they can open a US dollar bank account in your own country for you. Definitely any bank that has an international presence, like HSBC, should be able to do this for you. And if not US dollars, British Pounds would also be another option.",
"qid": 9871,
"docid": "292714",
"rank": 42,
"score": 86868
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Are there banks where you can open a bank account without being a citizen of that country without having to visit the bank in person? I've done it the other way around, opened a bank account in the UK so I have a way to store GBP. Given that Britain is still in the EU you can basically open an account anywhere. German online banks for instance allow you to administrate anything online, should there be cards issued you would need an address in the country. And for opening an account a passport is sufficient, you can identify yourself in a video chat. Now what's the downside? French banks' online services are in French, German banks' services are in German. If that doesn't put you off, I would name such banks in the comments if asked. Are there any online services for investing money that aren't tied to any particular country? Can you clarify that? You should at least be able to buy into any European or American stock through your broker. That should give you an ease of mind being FCA-regulated. However, those are usually GDRs (global depository receipts) and denominated in GBp (pence) so you'd be visually exposed to currency rates, by which I mean that if the stock goes up 1% but the GBP goes up 1% in the same period then your GDR would show a 0% profit on that day; also, and more annoyingly, dividends are distributed in the foreign currency, then exchanged by the issuer of the GDR on that day and booked into your account, so if you want to be in full control of the cashflows you should get a trading account denominated in the currency (and maybe situated in the country) you're planning to invest in. If you're really serious about it, some brokers/banks offer multi-currency trading accounts (again I will name them if asked) where you can trade a wide range of instruments natively (i.e. on the primary exchanges) and you get to manage everything in one interface. Those accounts typically include access to the foreign exchange markets so you can move cash between your accounts freely (well for a surcharge). Also, typically each subaccount is issued its own IBAN.",
"qid": 9871,
"docid": "92462",
"rank": 43,
"score": 86562
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I regularly transfer money from the US to Europe, and have found a simple US check a pretty useful way (if you are not in a hurry): you write a US dollar based check to yourself, and deposit it to a bank in your new location (which implies you open an account in France, yes). It takes some days (somedays 7 days), and then the money will be deposited. The local bank will convert it (so you can walk around and pick a bank that has a rate concept that pleases you, before you open the account), and there will be no fees on the US side (which means you can get every last dollar out of the account). Also, you have the control over how much you pull when - you can write yourself as many checks as you like (assuming you took your checkbook). This was the best rate I could get, considering that wire transfers cost significant fees. There are probably other options. If you are talking serious money (like 100 k$ or more), there will better ways, but most banks will be eager to help you with that. Note that as long as you make interest income in the US, you are required to file taxes in the US; your visa status and location don't matter.",
"qid": 9871,
"docid": "287896",
"rank": 44,
"score": 86346
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Yeah history shows us lower taxes of stock helped the economy soooooo much. Just ask bush and his surplus he turned to a deficit when he lowered taxes, including the taxes capital gains. Bitch, when I cash my paycheck it's going into the bank, who will take my 50k i got from taxing Donald trump more because now I'm a federal employee, removing 50k from the stock market into the economy. You act like it would be some disastrous effect to tax the stock market more. Then maybe people wouldn't be pricing companies 10 years out because they have so much money they don't know what to do with it.",
"qid": 9871,
"docid": "371441",
"rank": 45,
"score": 86017
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: That is kind of the point, one of the hopes is that it incentivizes banks to stop storing money and start injecting it into the economy themselves. Compared to the European Central Bank investing directly into the economy the way the US central bank has been doing. (The Federal Reserve buying mortgage backed securities) On a country level, individual European countries have tried this before in recent times with no noticeable effect.",
"qid": 9871,
"docid": "354553",
"rank": 46,
"score": 86003
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Some countries in European Union are starting to implement credit history sharing, for example now history from polish bureau BIK and German Schufa are mutually available. Similar agreements are planned between polish BIK and bureaus in the Netherlands and United Kingdom.",
"qid": 9871,
"docid": "50080",
"rank": 47,
"score": 85818
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: In today's market being paid 1% for risk and free access money is pretty darn good. If 50k is what you feel comfortable with an emergency fund, then you are doing a fine enough job. To me that is a lot to keep in an emergency fund, however several factors play into this: We both drive older cars, so I also keep enough money around to replace one of them. Considering all that I keep a specific amount in savings that for me earns .89%. Some of that is kept in our checking accounts which earns nothing. You have to go through some analysis of your own situation and keep that amount where it is. If that amount is less than 50K, you have some money to play with. Here are some options:",
"qid": 9871,
"docid": "164908",
"rank": 48,
"score": 85744
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The best answer to this question will depend on you and your wife. What is 'fair' for some may not be 'fair' for others. Some couples split expenses 50:50. Some split proportionately based on income. Some pool everything together. What works best for you will depend on your relative incomes, your financial goals, living standards, and most importantly, your personal beliefs. Here is a great question with various viewpoints: How to organize bank accounts with wife. It doesn't touch heavily on home ownership / pre-nuptial agreements, but might be a good starting point to getting you to think about your options. Consider providing another loan to your wife for additional investments in the home. It seems you are both comfortable with the realities of the pre-nuptial agreement; one of those realities seems to be that in the event of divorce you would lose access to the house. Loaning money has the benefit of allowing for the improvements to be done immediately, while clearly delineating what you have spent on the home from what she has spent on the home. However, this may not be 'fair', depending on how you both define the term. Have you discussed how expenses and savings would be split between you? Since there is no mortgage on the house, she has effectively contributed her pre-marital assets towards paying substantially all of your housing costs. It may be 'fair' for you to contribute to housing costs by at least splitting maintenance 50:50, or it may not be. Hopefully you talked about finances before you got married, and if not, now would be the best time to start. I personally would hate to have an 'uneasy' feeling about a relationship because I failed to openly communicate about finances.",
"qid": 9871,
"docid": "570964",
"rank": 49,
"score": 85699
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"First thing is that your English is pretty damn good. You should be proud. There are certainly adult native speakers, here in the US, that cannot write as well. I like your ambition, that you are looking to save money and improve yourself. I like that you want to move your funds into a more stable currency. What is really tough with your plan and situation is your salary. Here in the US banks will typically have minimum deposits that are high for you. I imagine the same is true in the EU. You may have to save up before you can deposit into an EU bank. To answer your question: Yes it is very wise to save money in different containers. My wife and I have one household savings account. Yet that is broken down by different categories (using a spreadsheet). A certain amount might be dedicated to vacation, emergency fund, or the purchase of a luxury item. We also have business and accounts and personal accounts. It goes even further. For spending we use the \"\"envelope system\"\". After our pay check is deposited, one of us goes to the bank and withdraws cash. Some goes into the grocery envelope, some in the entertainment envelope, and so on. So yes I think you have a good plan and I would really like to see a plan on how you can increase your income.\"",
"qid": 9871,
"docid": "104492",
"rank": 50,
"score": 85663
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The 1.09% is per year, not per month, so you will be getting about 1K per year just for sitting around on your backside. Some important things. It is almost certain that you can earn a better interest rate elsewhere, if you are prepared to leave your 100K untouched. For example, even in Natwest you can earn 3.2% over the next year if you buy a fixed rate bond. For 100K that is certainly worth looking at. Or maybe put 90K in a fixed rate bond and leave 10K in an instant access account. Taxes should not be a problem since you can earn around 7K before you start paying taxes. However be aware that in the UK most bank accounts deduct tax at source. That means they send the tax they think you should have paid to the government, and you then have to claim it back from them. Accounts for young people may work differently. Ask your bank.",
"qid": 9871,
"docid": "524615",
"rank": 51,
"score": 85627
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Suppose you're a European Company, selling say a software product to a US company. As much as you might want the US company to pay you in Euros they might insist (or you'll lose the contract) that you agree pricing in USD. The software is licensed on a yearly recurring amount, say 100K USD per year payable on the 1st January every year. In this example, you know that on the 1st Jan that 100K USD will arrive in your USD bank account. You will want to convert that to Euros and to remove uncertainty from your business you might take out an FX Forward today to remove your currency risk. If in the next 9 months the dollar strengthens against the Euro then notionally you'll have lost out by taking out the forward. Similarly, you've notionally gained if the USD weakens against the EURO. The forward gives you the certainty you need to plan your business.",
"qid": 9871,
"docid": "344004",
"rank": 52,
"score": 85616
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you are planning this as a tax avoidance scheme, well it is not. The gains will be taxable in your hands and not in the Banks hands. Banks simply don't cash out the stock at the same price, there will be quite a bit of both Lawyers and others ... so in the end you will end up paying more. The link indicates that one would pay back the loan via one's own earnings. So if you have a stock worth USD 100, you can pledge this to a Bank and get a max loan of USD 50 [there are regulations that govern the max you can get against 100]. You want to buy something worth USD 50. Option1: Sell half the stock, get USD 50, pay the captial gains tax on USD 50. Option2: Pledge the USD 100 stock to bank, get a loan of USD 50. As you have not sold anything, there is no tax. Over a period pay the USD 50 loan via your own earnings. A high valued customer may be able to get away with a very low rate of intrest and very long repayment period. The tax implication to your legal hier would be from the time the stock come to his/her hands to the time she sold. So if the price increase to 150 by the time Mark dies, and its sold at 160 later, the gain is only of USD 10. So rather than paying 30% or whatever the applicable tax rate, it would be wise to pay an interest of few percentages.",
"qid": 9871,
"docid": "323731",
"rank": 53,
"score": 85519
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: A stock, bond or ETF is basically a commodity. Where you bought it does not really matter, and it has a value in USD only inasmuch as there is a current market price quoted at an American exchange. But nothing prevents you from turning around and selling it on a European exchange where it is also listed for an equivalent amount of EUR (arbitrage activities of investment banks ensure that the price will be equivalent in regard to the current exchange rate). In fact, this can be used as a cheap form of currency conversion. For blue chips at least this is trivial; exotic securities might not be listed in Europe. All you need is a broker who allows you to trade on European exchanges and hold an account denominated in EUR. If necessary, transfer your securities to a broker who does, which should not cost more than a nominal fee. Mutual funds are a different beast though; it might be possible to sell shares on an exchange anyway, or sell them back to the issuer for EUR. It depends. In any case, however, transferring 7 figure sums internationally can trigger all kinds of tax events and money laundering investigations. You really need to hire a financial advisor who has international investment experience for this kind of thing, not ask a web forum!",
"qid": 9871,
"docid": "369266",
"rank": 54,
"score": 85246
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"> it emerged in Parliament that the European Commission, in return for allowing the nationalisation of the Rock, had placed a limit on how long the bank could stay in state ownership. EU acts as though it's doing a favor by \"\"allowing\"\" Britain to nationalize its own bank? Shouldn't they be thrilled? Isn't the British Taxpayer the one footing the bill? And look at what a festering dung hole the eurozone has become. One can only guess what backroom deals have been hatched by wealthy investors to \"\"allow\"\" the breaking of EU rules by their counterparts in other countries.\"",
"qid": 9871,
"docid": "81344",
"rank": 55,
"score": 84873
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I am assuming you mean derivatives such as speeders, sprinters, turbo's or factors when you say \"\"derivatives\"\". These derivatives are rather popular in European markets. In such derivatives, a bank borrows the leverage to you, and depending on the leverage factor you may own between 50% to +-3% of the underlying value. The main catch with such derivatives from stocks as opposed to owning the stock itself are: Counterpart risk: The bank could go bankrupt in which case the derivatives will lose all their value even if the underlying stock is sound. Or the bank could decide to phase out the certificate forcing you to sell in an undesirable situation. Spread costs: The bank will sell and buy the certificate at a spread price to ensure it always makes a profit. The spread can be 1, 5, or even 10 pips, which can translate to a the bank taking up to 10% of your profits on the spread. Price complexity: The bank buys and sells the (long) certificate at a price that is proportional to the price of the underlying value, but it usually does so in a rather complex way. If the share rises by €1, the (long) certificate will also rise, but not by €1, often not even by leverage * €1. The factors that go into determining the price are are normally documented in the prospectus of the certificate but that may be hard to find on the internet. Furthermore the bank often makes the calculation complex on purpose to dissimulate commissions or other kickbacks to itself in it's certificate prices. Double Commissions: You will have to pay your broker the commission costs for buying the certificate. However, the bank that issues the derivative certificate normally makes you pay the commission costs they incur by hiding them in the price of the certificate by reducing your effective leverage. In effect you pay commissions twice, once directly for buying the derivative, and once to the bank to allow it to buy the stock. So as Havoc P says, there is no free lunch. The bank makes you pay for the convenience of providing you the leverage in several ways. As an alternative, futures can also give you leverage, but they have different downsides such as margin requirements. However, even with all the all the drawbacks of such derivative certificates, I think that they have enough benefits to be useful for short term investments or speculation.\"",
"qid": 9871,
"docid": "511587",
"rank": 56,
"score": 84723
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you own 100% of the shares of a company, then you own those shares personally. They are not owned by the company. If you sell 50% of you shares to a third party, then you receive the proceeds of the sale, not the company. In this case, the company's net equity is unchanged but you have exchanged 50% of your equity for cash. If you wish the company to receive the proceeds of the sale of shares, then you would have the company issue new shares in the company. In this case, your company's net equity would increase by the cash amount received and your personal equity would change accordingly. EDIT In order to fairly sell 50% of equity by issuing new shares it would be necessary for the new investor to invest 50K. This is because the new equity would be the original 50K of equity plus the cash received for new shares. Thus : cost of 50% of equity = 50% of (50K + cash recieved) = cash received. Solving for cash received gives 50K, so that is the correct amount to charge the new investor.",
"qid": 9871,
"docid": "572760",
"rank": 57,
"score": 84526
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Just a regular bank transfer. Call your US bank and ask for wire transfer instructions. I've transferred money like that from US to Europe and back a few times. Usually fees were in low two digits ($15-$30), but depending on your bank account a sending and receiving side may charge a fee.",
"qid": 9871,
"docid": "299963",
"rank": 58,
"score": 84522
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"There will not be enough money to fill the holes that are caused by banks' easy money policies combined with the trillions in derivative \"\"hedges\"\" that the banks have off-balance sheet. The idea is that the chain reaction collapse of the European banking system can be avoided by plugging the holes in the dam in Spain, Italy, Greece, Portugal and Ireland. But it is a crazy idea. Next comes France, and then what? At some point there is not enough money to plug the holes and the entire facade collapses anyways. Adults would dismantle the Eurozone now and let each country see to itself. Let the banks collapse. Capital (in the form of dollars, gold, etc) will reappear and means will evolve rapidly to connect capital with people who need loans for business. Consumer loans are going the way of the dodo bird.\"",
"qid": 9871,
"docid": "394585",
"rank": 59,
"score": 84494
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you are restricting yourself to Scotiabank (Both retail banking and iTrade), your choices are pretty limited. If you are exchanging more than CAD$25,000 to EUR without margin, you can call Scotiabank and ask for a quote with much lower spread than the published snapshots. The closest ETF that you are talking about is RWE.B on TSX, which is First Asset MSCI Europe Low Risk Weighted ETF (Unhedged). You will be exposed to huge equity market risk and you should do it only if you intend to hold it for 3-5 years. Another way of exchanging cash is without opening an account is through a currency exchange broker (search “toronto currency exchange” for relevant companies). First you send an email asking for a quote for the amount you wanted, then you send the CAD to them via cheque, and they would convert to EUR and deposit it to your EUR account at Scotiabank (retail banking). This method costs around 0.7% compared to 2.5% charged by Scotiabank. An example of these brokers is Interchange Currency Exchange in Toronto. If you are hedging more than 125000 EUR, the proper method is to open an account that supports trading Currency Futures on Globex (US CME group). You can long Euro/Canadian Dollar Futures on margin. The last method is to open an account at Interactive Brokers, put CAD in it, then borrow more CAD to buy EUR. This method costs a few dollars upon trading and the spread is negligible. You need to pay 2.25% per year margin interest through.",
"qid": 9871,
"docid": "269043",
"rank": 60,
"score": 84335
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Trying to make money on something going down is inherently more complicated, risky and speculative than making money on it going up. Selling short allows for unlimited losses. Put options expire and have to be rebought if you want to keep playing that game. If you are that confident that the European market will completely crash (I'm not, but then again, I tend to be fairly contrarian) I'd recommend just sitting it out in cash (possibly something other than the Euro) and waiting until it gets so ridiculously cheap due to panic selling that it defies all common sense. For example, when companies that aren't completely falling apart are selling for less than book value and/or less than five times prior peak earnings that's a good sign. Another indicator is when you hear absolutely nothing other than doom-and-gloom and people swearing they'll never buy another stock as long as they live. Then buy at these depressed prices and when all the panic sellers realize that the world didn't end, it will go back up.",
"qid": 9871,
"docid": "137073",
"rank": 61,
"score": 83703
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The UK has Islamic banks. I don't know whether Germany has the same or not (with a quick search I can find articles stating intentions to establish one, but not the results). Even if there's none in Germany, I assume that with some difficulty you could use banks elsewhere in the EU and even non-Euro-denominated. I can't recommend a specific provider or product (never used them and probably wouldn't offer recommendations on this site anyway), but they advertise savings accounts. I've found one using a web search that offers an \"\"expected profit rate\"\" of 1.9% for a 12 month fix, which is roughly comparable with \"\"typical\"\" cash savings products in pounds sterling. Typical to me I mean, not to you ;-) Naturally you'd want to look into the risk as well. Their definition of Halal might not precisely match yours, but I'm sure you can satisfy yourself by looking into the details. I've noticed for example a statement that the bank doesn't invest your money in tobacco or alcohol, which you don't give as a requirement but I'm going to guess wouldn't object to!\"",
"qid": 9871,
"docid": "503362",
"rank": 62,
"score": 83684
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I won't make any assumptions about the source of the money. Typically however, this can be an emotional time and the most important thing to do is not act rashly. If this is an amount of money you have never seen before, getting advice from a fee only financial adviser would be my second step. The first step is to breathe and promise yourself you will NOT make any decisions about this money in the short term. Better to have $100K in the bank earning nearly zero interest than to spend it in the wrong way. If you have to receive the money before you can meet with an adviser, then just open a new savings account at your bank (or credit union) and put the money in there. It will be safe and sound. Visit http://www.napfa.org/ and interview at least three advisers. With their guidance, think about what your goals are. Do you want to invest and grow the money? Pay off debt? Own a home or new large purchase? These are personal decisions, but the adviser might help you think of goals you didn't imagine Create a plan and execute it.",
"qid": 9871,
"docid": "113885",
"rank": 63,
"score": 83660
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Cryptocurrency investments. Got lucky and turned 1k into 50k in a month. 25k given to me from family members and 25k saved from working. I have a college degree btw. I just can't use it because i have deeprooted anxiety issues keeping me underemployed. Anyway 100k isn't a lot. I can't even buy a house and can barely even get a downpayment where i live and i wouldn't come close to being able to pay my mortgage.",
"qid": 9871,
"docid": "41627",
"rank": 64,
"score": 83566
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Yes, there is indeed a great alternative for all European residents: getting a Revolut account. Revolut is a fully-online bank who's main benefits include the lack of fees (with some limits) and a great exchange rate for all currency operations (better than what you would get at any brick and mortar bank in Europe). In your particular scenario it would work as following: This is what I personally use to handle a salary in EUR while living in Czech Republic. Things might change in the future once they run out of investor money, but for now it's the only solution I know for converting currencies without a loss.",
"qid": 9871,
"docid": "212464",
"rank": 65,
"score": 83310
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: There are two parts to this. Firstly, if you are also living in the property you have bought, then you should not consider it to be an investment. You need it to provide shelter, and the market value is irrelevant unless/until you decide to move. Of course, if your move is forced at a time not of your choosing then if the market value has dropped, you might lose out. No-one can accurately predict the housing market any more than they can predict interest rates on normal savings accounts, the movement of the stock market, etc. Secondly, if you just have a lump sum and you want to invest it safely, the bank is one of the safest places to keep it. It is protected / underwritten by EU law (assuming you are in the EU) up to €100,000. See for example here which is about the UK and Brexit in particular but mentions the EU blanket protection. The other things you could do with it - buy property, gold, art works, stocks and shares, whatever thing you think will be least likely to lose value over time - would not be protected in the same way.",
"qid": 9871,
"docid": "121017",
"rank": 66,
"score": 83145
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Look for EU banks that have US branches. Open an account there and look for the SWIFT code of your bank in US. Withdraw money using SWIFT US code.",
"qid": 9871,
"docid": "97988",
"rank": 67,
"score": 82808
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-banks-deposits-idUSKBN1AD1RS) reduced by 85%. (I'm a bot) ***** > BRUSSELS - European Union states are considering measures which would allow them to temporarily stop people withdrawing money from their accounts to prevent bank runs, an EU document reviewed by Reuters revealed. > &quot;The desire is to prevent a bank run, so that when a bank is in a critical situation it is not pushed over the edge,&quot; a person familiar with German government&#039;s thinking said. > Existing EU rules allow a two-day suspension of some payouts by failing banks, but the moratorium does not include deposits. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6qliud/surely_the_banks_need_even_more_programs_in_their/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~179489 tl;drs so far.\"\") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") | *Top* *keywords*: **bank**^#1 **moratorium**^#2 **run**^#3 **lender**^#4 **fail**^#5\"",
"qid": 9871,
"docid": "95207",
"rank": 68,
"score": 82697
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Best way to invest around 50k Indian rupees and save Tax There is nothing \"\"Best\"\". There are multiple options that are available under 80C and you need to select one that suites you best. There are market linked options like ELSS, or assured returns like 6 years FD, or PPF or Term Insurance or other such options.\"",
"qid": 9871,
"docid": "452760",
"rank": 69,
"score": 82640
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you have more than 50% of a US bill, it carries the full value and your bank should accept it. (Stores, or banks you do not have an account with, may not.) If you have less than 50% of the bill, it is worth nothing.",
"qid": 9871,
"docid": "374588",
"rank": 70,
"score": 82613
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"In Europe in most of the countries there is also a thing called ACH. In UK there is a thing called BACS and in other countires there are other things. Essentially every country has what is called a \"\"Low value Net Settlement System\"\" that is used to transfer funds between accounts of different banks. In US there is rounting number, in UK there is a Sort Code, in Indonesia there is a sort code. Essentially a Bank Identifier that is issued by the Governing body within respective countires. Certian identifiers like SWIFT BIC [Bank Identification Code] are Unique across world.\"",
"qid": 9871,
"docid": "554518",
"rank": 71,
"score": 82369
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Many of my friends said I should invest my money on stocks or something else, instead of put them in the bank forever. I do not know anything about finance, so my questions are: First let me say that your friends may have the best intentions, but don't trust them. It has been my experience that friends tell you what they would do if they had your money, and not what they would actually do with their money. Now, I don't mean that they would be malicious, or that they are out to get you. What I do mean, is why would you take advise from someone about what they would do with 100k when they don't have 100k. I am in your financial situation (more or less), and I have friends that make more then I do, and have no savings. Or that will tell you to get an IRA -so-and-so but don't have the means (discipline) to do so. Do not listen to your friends on matters of money. That's just good all around advise. Is my financial status OK? If not, how can I improve it? Any financial situation with no or really low debt is OK. I would say 5% of annual income in unsecured debt, or 2-3 years in annual income in secured debt is a good place to be. That is a really hard mark to hit (it seems). You have hit it. So your good, right now. You may want to \"\"plan for the future\"\". Immediate goals that I always tell people, are 6 months of income stuck in a liquid savings account, then start building a solid investment situation, and a decent retirement plan. This protects you from short term situations like loss of job, while doing something for the future. Is now a right time for me to see a financial advisor? Is it worthy? How would she/he help me? Rather it's worth it or not to use a financial adviser is going to be totally opinion based. Personally I think they are worth it. Others do not. I see it like this. Unless you want to spend all your time looking up money stuff, the adviser is going to have a better grasp of \"\"money stuff\"\" then you, because they do spend all their time doing it. That being said there is one really important thing to consider. That is going to be how you pay the adviser. The following are my observations. You will need to make up your own mind. Free Avoid like the plague. These advisers are usually provided by the bank and make their money off commission or kickbacks. That means they will advise you of the product that makes them the most money. Not you. Flat Rate These are not a bad option, but they don't have any real incentive to make you money. Usually, they do a decent job of making you money, but again, it's usually better for them to advise you on products that make them money. Per Hour These are my favorite. They charge per hour. Usually they are a small shop, and will walk you through all the advise. They advise what's best for you, because they have to sit there and explain their choices. They can be hard to find, but are generally the best option in my opinion. % of Money These are like the flat rate advisers to me. They get a percentage of the money you give them to \"\"manage\"\". Because they already have your money they are more likely to recommend products that are in their interest. That said, there not all bad. % or Profit These are the best (see notes later). They get a percentage of the money they make for you. They have the most interest in making you money. They only get part of what you get, so there going to make sure you get the biggest pie, so they can get a bigger slice. Notes In the real world, all advisers are likely to get kickbacks on products they recommend. Make sure to keep an eye for that. Also most advisers will use 2-3 of the methods listed above for billing. Something like z% of profit +$x per hour is what I like to see. You will have to look around and see what is available. Just remember that you are paying someone to make you money (or to advise you on how to make money) so long as what they take leaves you with some profit your in a better situation then your are now. And that's the real goal.\"",
"qid": 9871,
"docid": "473949",
"rank": 72,
"score": 82318
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: There are a few different ways to organize this, but mostly I think you need to talk to a lawyer. The 50/50 split thing should be in writing along with a bunch of other issues. You could have one of you doing a sole proprietorship where the other person is a contractor that receives half of all revenues/profits. The person that owns the sole proprietorship may be entitled to deduct certain costs of running the entity. The other person would then be 1099'd his share of revenues. You could set up a partnership, again legal paperwork is necessary. You could also setup an S-Corp, where each of you is a 50% owner. You could also setup an LLC that is organized as any of the above. I would only do this if you can self fund some additional tax preparation costs. Figure about $600/year at a minimum. There are a lot of options with a sole proprietorship being the easiest. Your first step on the new venture would be to apply for an EIN (free), and then opening a business bank account. Good luck.",
"qid": 9871,
"docid": "243949",
"rank": 73,
"score": 82317
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Agreed my friend, and the UK is the country that is the furthest away from the European reality. You have schools charging 1 to 8k for a full years tuition. I know a case of someone having to sell his home to afford a top MBA in Europe (obviously it paid off), which goes to show how hard for europeans it is to afford US prices for education, meanwhile in the US they just hand it over to you. The problem comes when the Navients of the world come knocking on your door and you can't even save a penny",
"qid": 9871,
"docid": "191469",
"rank": 74,
"score": 82204
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: My 0,02€ - I probably live in the same country as you. Stop worrying. The Euro zone has a 100.000€ guaranty deposit. So if any bank should fail, that's the amount you'll receive back. This applies to all bank accounts and deposits. Not to any investments. You should not have more than 100.000€ in any bank. So, lucky you, if you have more than that money, divide between a number of banks. As for the Euro, there might be an inflation, but at this moment the USA and China are in a currency battle that 'benefits' the Euro. Meaning you should not invest in dollars or yuan at this time. Look for undervalued currency to invest in as they should rise against the Euro.",
"qid": 9871,
"docid": "231521",
"rank": 75,
"score": 82138
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The $50k is subject to the appropriate income taxes, which may include FICA taxes including the employer share if you are self employed. The after tax money can then be invested with the amount invested being the cost basis (I.e., if you invest $40k you will have a cost basis of $40k). In future years you will have taxes due if any of those investments pay dividends (or capital gain distributions). Once you sell you will have a capital gain or loss that you will pay taxes on (or take a deduction if a loss). Now you can improve this picture if you are able to put some of your money into a retirement account (either a tax deductible or a ROTH). With retirement accounts you do not pay tax on the capital gains or dividends. If you use a tax deferred account your tax is higher but that is because you were also investing Uncle Sam's portion of your pay check.",
"qid": 9871,
"docid": "106501",
"rank": 76,
"score": 82124
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I don't know how fast are wire transfers between bank accounts in the US, but here in Europe we can have them in under an hour usually for an extra fee (during bank working hours) - so you could take a laptop with Internet connection to the transaction, make a wire transfer and wait that hour drinking coffee for the transfer to arrive before handing the keys and papers and the buyer driving away.",
"qid": 9871,
"docid": "37346",
"rank": 77,
"score": 82012
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Before going into specific investments, I think it would be a good idea to assess how \"\"free\"\" is that $5000. How much do you have to rely on it in emergency? You always want to buy low and sell high. However, if you need to make unplanned withdraw from an investment, you risk unfavorable market conditions at the time when you need the money, and lose money that way. One common suggestion is to keep 3-6 months living expense in checking/saving/very, very liquid/short term investments. After that, you can invest the rest in more profitable ventures. Assuming that you are all set in that regard, next consideration is whether you have any goal for the money besides generating the maximum return. Is this for retirement, buying a house/apartment a few year down the road, graduate school, emergency cash store for the time between graduation and getting a job, or traveling a year in Europe after graduation? There are myriad of other possible goals. Knowing that you get a better idea of the time frame involved in the investment, and what you need to do with your money. If this is for retirement, you just need to generate the highest possible return for 40-50 years, while minimize taxes when you have to withdraw that money (there are more nuanced concerns, but large idea-wise that's what you need to do). If you want it for a trip to an exotic location in 2 year, then your primary goal will be to preserve the value of your capital, while assessing whether you need to manage foreign-exchange risk. The time frame also rule in or rule out certain types of investments. If you are planning to use the money to purchase a house in 5 years, IRAs probably would not be what you are looking for. If you are planning to retirement, short term CD would not be the most effective way. After figuring out a bit of what you are trying to do with the money, I think how you want to invest it will be much more clear to you. In case of retirement, people seem to generally recommend no load index funds, and mid-cap growth funds. Nothing is really off the table, since your investment time frame is so long, and you can tolerate risk. You might also be interested to check out https://www.wealthfront.com/ (I have no relation with them). A friend recommended it to me, and I think their pitch make sense. In other cases, it really is case dependent, and there might have more than one solution to any case. There is just one more potential investment venture that people you might not immediately thinking of, and that might be of interest to you. That is to use the $5000 as your own budget to build/maintain connections with people and network. Use it to take professors out to a meal to pick their brain, travel to keep in touch with old friends, network with potential future employers and peers to improve job prospect, or get opportunities to meet interesting people. I hope this helps.\"",
"qid": 9871,
"docid": "537711",
"rank": 78,
"score": 81693
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Deutsche Bank states here (couldn't find it in english) that SEPA transfers (all transfers in EUR to EU states that have EUR) are free. So you could just transfer the money. Your custom daily transfer limit (by default 1000€ for online banking transfers) applies. You can change the limit online or by going to one of their branches. You would then transfer your money over the course of several days. You need the SWIFT and BIC code of your new account.",
"qid": 9871,
"docid": "547449",
"rank": 79,
"score": 81427
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"You are in your mid 30's and have 250,000 to put aside for investments- that is a fantastic position to be in. First, let's evaluate all the options you listed. Option 1 I could buy two studio apartments in the center of a European capital city and rent out one apartment on short-term rental and live in the other. Occasionally I could Airbnb the apartment I live in to allow me to travel more (one of my life goals). To say \"\"European capital city\"\" is such a massive generalization, I would disregard this point based on that alone. Athens is a European capital city and so is Berlin but they have very different economies at this point. Let's put that aside for now. You have to beware of the following costs when using property as an investment (this list is non-exhaustive): The positive: you have someone paying the mortgage or allowing you to recoup what you paid for the apartment. But can you guarantee an ROI of 10-15% ? Far from it. If investing in real estate yielded guaranteed results, everyone would do it. This is where we go back to my initial point about \"\"European capital city\"\" being a massive generalization. Option 2 Take a loan at very low interest rate (probably 2-2.5% fixed for 15 years) and buy something a little nicer and bigger. This would be incase I decide to have a family in say, 5 years time. I would need to service the loan at up to EUR 800 / USD 1100 per month. If your life plan is taking you down the path of having a family and needed the larger space for your family, then you need the space to live in and you shouldn't be looking at it as an investment that will give you at least 10% returns. Buying property you intend to live in is as much a life choice as it is an investment. You will treat the property much different from the way something you rent out gets treated. It means you'll be in a better position when you decide to sell but don't go in to this because you think a return is guaranteed. Do it if you think it is what you need to achieve your life goals. Option 3 Buy bonds and shares. But I haven't the faintest idea about how to do that and/or manage a portfolio. If I was to go down that route how do I proceed with some confidence I won't lose all the money? Let's say you are 35 years old. The general rule is that 100 minus your age is what you should put in to equities and the rest in something more conservative. Consider this: This strategy is long term and the finer details are beyond the scope of an answer like this. You have quite some money to invest so you would get preferential treatment at many financial institutions. I want to address your point of having a goal of 10-15% return. Since you mentioned Europe, take a look at this chart for FTSE 100 (one of the more prominent indexes in Europe). You can do the math- the return is no where close to your goals. My objective in mentioning this: your goals might warrant going to much riskier markets (emerging markets). Again, it is beyond the scope of this answer.\"",
"qid": 9871,
"docid": "72578",
"rank": 80,
"score": 81334
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I don't believe they're right. For international wire transfers you'd need either IBAN or SWIFT codes. I don't think any US bank participates in the IBAN network (mostly Europe and the Far East), so SWIFT is they way to go with the US. Credit unions frequently don't know what and how to do with international transactions because they don't have them that often. Some don't even have SWIFT codes of their own (many, in fact) and use intermediaries to receive money.",
"qid": 9871,
"docid": "118396",
"rank": 81,
"score": 81080
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"If you tried to live a 50's lifestyle (a lot more home cooking, much less electronics, a smaller house, a single car etc.) I think you would be able to afford it. Also, I know of several people where the husband works and the wife stays at home - its do-able, its just hard to \"\"keep up with the Jone's\"\" bacuase you have half the money\"",
"qid": 9871,
"docid": "216997",
"rank": 82,
"score": 80997
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You could go further and do a carry trade by borrowing EUR at 2% and depositing INR at 10%. All the notes above apply, and see the link there.",
"qid": 9871,
"docid": "125976",
"rank": 83,
"score": 80961
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Thank you! I will read up on that. Makes me wonder whether there is a niche market in european countries with a growing muslim population, or the majority of muslims do not care if their banking is sharia conform.",
"qid": 9871,
"docid": "543580",
"rank": 84,
"score": 80914
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Most merchants (also in Europe) are reasonable, and typically are willing to work with you. credit card companies ask if you tried to work with the merchant first, so although they do not enforce it, it should be the first try. I recommend to give it a try and contact them first. If it doesn't work, you can always go to the credit card company and have the charge reversed. None of this has any effect on your credit score (except if you do nothing and then don't pay your credit card bill). For the future: when a transaction supposedly 'doesn't go through', have them write this on the receipt and give it to you. Only then pay cash. I am travelling 100+ days a year in Europe, using my US credit cards all the time, and there were never any issues - this is not a common problem.",
"qid": 9871,
"docid": "46433",
"rank": 85,
"score": 80886
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Everything that I'm saying presumes that you're young, and won't need your money back for 20+ years, and that you're going to invest additional money in the future. Your first investments should never be individual stocks. That is far too risky until you have a LOT more experience in the market. (Once you absolutely can't resist, keep it to under 5% of your total investments. That lets you experiment without damaging your returns too much.) Instead you would want to invest in one or more mutual funds of some sort, which spreads out your investment across MANY companies. With only $50, avoiding a trading commission is paramount. If you were in the US, I would recommend opening a free online brokerage account and then purchasing a no-load commission-free mutual fund. TD Ameritrade, for example, publishes a list of the funds that you can purchase without commission. The lists generally include the type of fund (index, growth, value, etc.) and its record of return. I don't know if Europe has the same kind of discount brokerages / mutual funds the US has, but I'd be a little surprised if it didn't. You may or may not be able to invest until you first scrape together a $500 minimum, but the brokerages often have special programs/accounts for people just starting out. It should be possible to ask. One more thing on picking a fund: most charge about a 1% annual expense ratio. (That means that a $100 investment that had a 100% gain after one year would net you $198 instead of $200, because 1% of the value of your asset ($200) is $2. The math is much more complicated, and depends on the value of your investment at every given point during the year, but that's the basic idea.) HOWEVER, there are index funds that track \"\"the market\"\" automatically, and they can have MUCH lower expense fees (0.05%, vs 1%) for the same quality of performance. Over 40 years, the expense ratio can have a surprisingly large impact on your net return, even 20% or more! You'll want to google separately about the right way to pick a low-expense index fund. Your online brokerage may also be able to help. Finally, ask friends or family what mutual funds they've invested in, how they chose those funds, and what their experience has been. The point is not to have them tell you what to do, but for you to learn from the mistakes and successes of other experienced investors with whom you can follow up.\"",
"qid": 9871,
"docid": "312821",
"rank": 86,
"score": 80821
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I think your underestimating what a 50k single influx of workers can do for an area long term. More people to a well developed city is good for the city. Detroit for example is structured to handled 1.5 million, even though it only has 750k now. 50k employees means 400k new local jobs supporting those main ones. 400k new people would finally allow the city to once again be a proper city and metro area. Aka wealth concentration in the city, less concentration on the exterior. In the detroit metro area it gets wealthier as you go further from the city. I dont see how this is in line with Brazil's corrupt class structure at all. Some of these cities need a golden ticket to fix the suburban flight that happened post ww2 and especially after the interstate system.",
"qid": 9871,
"docid": "240645",
"rank": 87,
"score": 80774
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: > The seven banks that founded Bankia be left out of the shareholders of the entity and the State will be made with one hundred percent of the group's parent Are you fucking kidding me? Europe is highly socialist, and Spain is one of the most socialist of all. The **state** controls the bank now. Did you even read the fucking article? Spew more bullshit about the evils of capitalism on an article about nationalization, you're one sharp tool in the box aren't you.",
"qid": 9871,
"docid": "245470",
"rank": 88,
"score": 80766
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I wouldn't say you should have any particular limit, but it can't hurt to have a higher limit. I'd always accept the increase when offered, and feel free to request it sometimes, just make sure you find out if it will be a hard or soft inquiry, and pass on the hard inquires. From my own experience, there doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to the increases. I believe each bank acts differently based on the customer's credit, income, and even the bank's personal quotas or goals for that period. Here is some anecdotal evidence of this: I got my first credit card when I was 18 years old and a freshman in college. It had a limit of $500 at the time. I never asked for a credit line increase, but always accepted when offered one, and sometimes they didn't even ask, and in the last 20 years it worked it's way up to $25K. Another card with the same bank went from $5K to $15K in about 10 years. About 6 years ago I added two cards, one with a $5K limit and one with a $3K limit. I didn't ask for increases on those either, and today the 5K is up to $22K, and the 3K is still at $3K. An even larger disparity exists on the business side. Years ago I had two business credit cards with different banks. At one point in time both were maxed out for about 6 months and only minimums were being paid. Bank 1 started lowering my credit limit as I started to pay off the card, eventually prompting me to cancel the card when it was paid in full. At the same time Bank 2 kept raising my limit to give me more breathing room in case I needed it. Obviously Bank 1 didn't want my business, and Bank 2 did. Less than a year later both cards were paid off in full, and you can guess which bank I chose to do all of my business with after that.",
"qid": 9871,
"docid": "348313",
"rank": 89,
"score": 80653
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Gold is a good investment when central bank money printers can’t take their thumbs off the print button. Over the last 3 years the US Federal Reserve printed a ton of dollars to bail out banks and to purchase US federal debt. Maybe I should exchange my dollars for euros? The European Central Bank (ECB) is following the FED plan and printing money to buy Greek, Italian, and now Spanish bonds. This, indirectly, is a bailout of French and German banks. Maybe I should exchange my euros for yen? The Bank Of Japan (Japan’s central bank) is determined not to let the yen rise against other currencies so they too are printing money to keep the yen weak. Maybe I should exchange my yen for swiss francs? The Swiss National Bank (Switzerland’s central bank) is also determined not to let the franc rise against other currencies so they too are printing money. You quickly begin to realize that your options are dwindling for places to put your money where the government central bank isn’t working hard to dilute your savings. Physical gold is also a good investment for several other situations: What situations would lead to a drop in gold prices? What are the alternatives? Silver has traditionally been used more as money than gold. Silver is usually used for day-to-day purchases while gold is used for savings.",
"qid": 9871,
"docid": "501456",
"rank": 90,
"score": 80557
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Another explanation is that they keep your money three days to make money with it, because they can. The other reasons might have been valid 100 years ago, and no bank would voluntarily cut that down until forced by law. Example: In Europe, bank to bank transfers used to take three days, until a law forced them to give next day, and suddenly it was possible.",
"qid": 9871,
"docid": "506374",
"rank": 91,
"score": 80412
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You could pay off a portion of the debt and your minimum payments should also go down proportionately. Your investment managers may be able to continue making returns in the markets in a sideways and a bear market. So you have 24k contributing to your net worth, and ~50k giving you a negative net worth. At best, you can bring this down to a negative 25k net worth, or you can start and keep using some of the gains from your investment account to supplement your credit payments (along with your income). This is based on chance that your investment managers can continue making gains, compared to paying down 24k and having possibly zero liquid savings now, but having more of your salary to start saving and make the lowered minimum payments, assuming you don't borrow more. Those are the options I've thought of, I don't see either option being necessarily quicker than the other.",
"qid": 9871,
"docid": "278290",
"rank": 92,
"score": 80376
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Personal loans are typically more expensive (have higher interest) than mortgages, because they are not backed by an immovable asset. So you should reconsider the decision to not want a mortgage; it would be cheaper. Aside from that, once you get a personal loan, you are free to do with it whatever you want; this includes sending it to your parents, buying something, gambling it away in Vegas, or take out cash and burn it. So, yes, you can. Sending money from the UK to other EU countries should be easy and simple, once it is in your account, your bank can help you to make the transfer. I assume you understand that if your parents walk away with the money, you are left holding the bag. You are taking the full risk, and you will have to pay it back.",
"qid": 9871,
"docid": "567577",
"rank": 93,
"score": 80347
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Another European financial ETF that you could sell short is the iShares MSCI Europe Financials Sector Index Fund (EUFN). It's traded on American exchanges, so it should be easier to access if you're in the United States. It is a relatively low-volume issue, however, so it may be difficult to locate shares to short, and the bid/ask spread could be a significant factor.",
"qid": 9871,
"docid": "281338",
"rank": 94,
"score": 80319
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I think the answer depends very much on where you are. I believe the other answer covers north america. On contrast, in (continental) Europe, giving the account and bank number (IBAN and BIC) is a (the most) common way to enable someone to send money to you. E.g. in Germany, you need much more than account number and bank number to withdraw money: To \"\"push\"\" money to another account (wire transfer from your account to someone who gave you the other account + bank numbers), you either have to hand-sign a certain form, or (online) certain credentials (e.g. login & password / PIN + TAN) are needed. I.e. for defrauding you, the other would need to get your online credentials (for mTAN also your mobile phone, for chipTAN a TAN generator of your bank [easy] and your bank card, for (i)TAN your TAN list) or fake your signature. There are also ways to allow someone to pull money from your account, see e.g. direct debit For that you sign that the other side is allowed to withdraw specified amounts of money (at specified dates). This is either between you and the other (i.e. your bank cannot check and doesn't reject withdrawals that are not authorized). However, the other side needs to have signed a contract with their bank that they'll only try to withdraw money they're entitled to. or you sign such a thing with your bank (then they do know whether the other side is allowed to withdraw money, and you can tell the bank that you won't accept any further withdrawals from XYZ). In the first case, the withdrawal technically still needs your approval. In order not to create a huge risk of fraud, the rejecting here is really easy: If you tell your bank that you reject the payment, The practical rule is that the payment is approved if you didn't reject within the first 6 weeks after the bank sent the account statement. In other words, until 4 1/2 months after the withdrawal (in case you have a bank that does only quarterly account statements), the one to get the money cannot be really sure that he actually has the money. I think (but I'm not completely sure, maybe someone else can comment/edit) that these two possibilities are also what is used with debit card payments (EC/Maestro card - these are much more common here than real credit card payments). -- end of Germany specific example --\"",
"qid": 9871,
"docid": "89457",
"rank": 95,
"score": 80317
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: One way of looking at this (just expanding on my comment on Dheer's answer): If the funds were in EUR in Germany already and not in the UK, would you be choosing to move them to the UK (or a GBP denominated bank account) and engage in currency speculation, betting that the pound will improve? If you would... great, that's effectively exactly what you're doing: leave the money in GBP and hope the gamble pays off. But if you wouldn't do that, well you probably shouldn't be leaving the funds in GBP just because they originated there; bring them back to Germany and do whatever you'd do with them there.",
"qid": 9871,
"docid": "293152",
"rank": 96,
"score": 80119
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: My experience is from travelling in Central Europe and Germany, so I've dealt with much smaller amounts of money, but the general principles are the same. Many Visa-brand ATM cards allow you to withdraw money from European ATMs for a 1% fee (plus any fees the bank may charge, my bank charged zero fee) in local currency. Even if the bank charges a 2-3% fee, the combined max 4% fee is going to be a lot smaller than most currency exchange places will offer. There are a lot of exchange offices that are built to scam tourists out of their money. We had no choice but to use one that ended up taking around 10% of the exchanged money (luckily we were only exchanging a small amount of currency). Call your bank and ask what their fees are, and if they are large, find a bank with small or zero fees and move your accounts there. Be sure to notify your bank that you are going to be travelling for an extended time in a foreign country. Literally any ATM (Geldautomat) accepted our card (thank you VISA). We literally walked off the plane with some USD and no foreign currency, and were able to stop at an ATM right outside our hotel (the taxi had a card reader, as most in Munich did). If you have a source of income secured within the country (which I am hoping you do if you will be living there) you could live off of your income, and use your USD to pay off things like credit card bills. Get a Travel Rewards Credit Card (or similar card that offers no foreign transaction fees or free currency transfers). Use this card for anything and everything you can, and pay it with a transfer from your US bank account. Under this method you'll probably have to convert some currency, but you can do so from an ATM easily enough.",
"qid": 9871,
"docid": "539734",
"rank": 97,
"score": 79974
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: While in the UK and travelling to Europe, I heard of the FairFX euro card from the website Money Supermarket (affiliate link which waives the sign-up fee). The link also includes many other alternative prepaid euro cards which may be better suited for your uses. The FairFX card is available in both GBP and EUR, and both products come with chip and pin. They also charge relatively little as compared to most bank cards (no currency conversion on use, $2~ withdrawal charges from ATM). I generally had a good experience with this card, and was able to purchase items both in person as well as online using it.",
"qid": 9871,
"docid": "310521",
"rank": 98,
"score": 79866
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I understand how it works very well - as Europes financial centre. I understand that without UKs EU membership those days are gone. I understand that rents in Frankfurt are skyrocketing because banks are fleeing a sinking ship. Without financial passporting rights to the worlds second largest economy London as a financial centre is finished. New York does well because it's part of Americas economy, Hong Kong does well because it's part of China's economy.",
"qid": 9871,
"docid": "556373",
"rank": 99,
"score": 79862
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You need to be clear about who gets your money: If you pay the existing owner $25K and (s)he gives you half the business, then you now own half of a $50K business an the original owner has an extra $25K in spending cash. The value of the business has not changed. If you contribute $25 to the company, new equity shares are created. Shares should be priced correctly, meaning you now own $25K worth of shares in a company worth $75k, so you should have 1/3 of the outstanding shares (counting both old and new shares). If you get more or less than this, then the transaction has happened in an unfair way. If this is a public company, that would most likely be illegal and the SEC may throw you in jail. If it was a private company and your friend created enough shares that you own half the company, then (s)he has given you a gift. If you are contributing to the company at a fair price, you would need to contribute $50K in order to end up with half the equity of the new and now more valuable firm. In that case the firm would be worth $100K after your contribution. Bottom line, this is a common and not complex transaction and should end up with a completely fair outcome. Any unfair situation you can imagine is probably based on false assumptions or a situation where a non-arms-length transaction is transferring wealth contrary to normal rules and procedures.",
"qid": 9871,
"docid": "329637",
"rank": 100,
"score": 79692
}
] |
Money-market or cash-type ETFs for foreigners with U.S brokerage account | [
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"As user quid states in his answer, all you need to do is open an account with a stock broker in order to gain access to the world's stock markets. If you are currently banking with one of the six big bank, then they will offer stockbroking services. You can shop around for the best commission rates. If you wish to manage your own investments, then you will open a \"\"self-directed\"\" account. You can shelter your investments from all taxation by opening a TFSA account with your stock broker. Currently, you can add $5,500 per year to your TFSA. Unused allowances from previous years can still be used. Thus, if you have not yet made any TFSA contributions, you can add upto $46,500 to your TFSA and enjoy the benefits of tax free investing. Investing in what you are calling \"\"unmanaged index funds\"\" means investing in ETFs (Exchange Traded Funds). Once you have opened your account you can invest in any ETFs traded on the stock markets accessible through your stock broker. Buying shares on foreign markets may carry higher commission rates, but for the US markets commissions are generally the same as they are for Canadian markets. However, in the case of buying foreign shares you will carry the extra cost and risk of selling Canadian dollars and buying foreign currency. There are also issues to do with foreign withholding taxes when you trade foreign shares directly. In the case of the US, you will also need to register with the US tax authorities. Foreign withholding taxes payable are generally treated as a tax credit with respect to Canadian taxation, so you will not be double taxed. In today's market, for most investors there is generally no need to invest directly in foreign market indices since you can do so indirectly on the Toronto stock market. The large Canadian ETF providers offer a wide range of US, European, Asian, and Global ETFs as well as Canadian ETFs. For example, you can track all of the major US indices by trading in Toronto in Canadian dollars. The S&P500, the Dow Jones, and the NASDAQ100 are offered in both \"\"currency hedged\"\" and \"\"unhedged\"\" forms. In addition, there are ETFs on the total US Market, US Small Caps, US sectors such as banks, and more exotic ETFs such as those offering \"\"covered call\"\" strategies and \"\"put write\"\" strategies. Here is a link to the BMO ETF website. Here is a link to the iShares (Canada) ETF website.\"",
"qid": 9882,
"docid": "535340",
"rank": 1,
"score": 143558
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"You need a brokerage account to invest in ETFs (there are many different kinds of ETFs, not just one) and that usually means having some amount already deposited with them into the \"\"cash account\"\" in your name. Once the brokerage account is established, you can send whatever money from each paycheck to the brokerage and tell them to invest it in the ETF of your choice. There are no restrictions as to how much money you can send if you send them a check. If you want the money to be withheld from your paycheck, then of course, the limit is the amount of the take-home pay, and whether your employer offers such a service will affect the issue. If you are wanting to invest in ETFs through your employer's 401(k) plan (or 403(b) plan), there are lots of other considerations.\"",
"qid": 9882,
"docid": "391876",
"rank": 2,
"score": 141324
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Assuming this will be a taxable account (since you want to pull income off of it, although this will lower wealth growth), you could open a brokerage account at some place like Vanguard (free on their ETFs) and look at tax efficient index fund ETFs (such as total stock market or their 500 fund), including some international (foreign tax credit is nice in taxable) and muni funds for the (tax advantaged) income, although CDs are likely better for the income at this point.",
"qid": 9882,
"docid": "216441",
"rank": 3,
"score": 137302
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"An Exchange-Traded Fund (ETF) is a special type of mutual fund that is traded on the stock exchange like a stock. To invest, you buy it through a stock broker, just as you would if you were buying an individual stock. When looking at a mutual fund based in the U.S., the easiest way to tell whether or not it is an ETF is by looking at the ticker symbol. Traditional mutual funds have ticker symbols that end in \"\"X\"\", and ETFs have ticker symbols that do not end in \"\"X\"\". The JPMorgan Emerging Markets Equity Fund, with ticker symbol JFAMX, is a traditional mutual fund, not an ETF. JPMorgan does have ETFs; the JPMorgan Diversified Return Emerging Markets Equity ETF, with ticker symbol JPEM, is an example. This ETF invests in similar stocks as JFAMX; however, because it is an index-based fund instead of an actively managed fund, it has lower fees. If you aren't sure about the ticker symbol, the advertising/prospectus of any ETF should clearly state that it is an ETF. (In the example of JPEM above, they put \"\"ETF\"\" right in the fund name.) If you don't see ETF mentioned, it is most likely a traditional mutual fund. Another way to tell is by looking at the \"\"investment minimums\"\" of the fund. JFAMX has a minimum initial investment of $1000. ETFs, however, do not have an investment minimum listed; because it is traded like a stock, you simply buy whole shares at whatever the current share price is. So if you look at the \"\"Fees and Investment Minimums\"\" section of the JPEM page, you'll see the fees listed, but not any investment minimums.\"",
"qid": 9882,
"docid": "472663",
"rank": 4,
"score": 134240
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: A stock, bond or ETF is basically a commodity. Where you bought it does not really matter, and it has a value in USD only inasmuch as there is a current market price quoted at an American exchange. But nothing prevents you from turning around and selling it on a European exchange where it is also listed for an equivalent amount of EUR (arbitrage activities of investment banks ensure that the price will be equivalent in regard to the current exchange rate). In fact, this can be used as a cheap form of currency conversion. For blue chips at least this is trivial; exotic securities might not be listed in Europe. All you need is a broker who allows you to trade on European exchanges and hold an account denominated in EUR. If necessary, transfer your securities to a broker who does, which should not cost more than a nominal fee. Mutual funds are a different beast though; it might be possible to sell shares on an exchange anyway, or sell them back to the issuer for EUR. It depends. In any case, however, transferring 7 figure sums internationally can trigger all kinds of tax events and money laundering investigations. You really need to hire a financial advisor who has international investment experience for this kind of thing, not ask a web forum!",
"qid": 9882,
"docid": "369266",
"rank": 5,
"score": 133805
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I'm not a professional, but my understanding is that US funds are not considered PFICs regardless of the fact that they are held in a foreign brokerage account. In addition, be aware that foreign stocks are not considered PFICs (although foreign ETFs may be).",
"qid": 9882,
"docid": "389581",
"rank": 6,
"score": 133386
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Your broker, Ameritrade, offers a variety of Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs) that you can buy and sell with zero commission. An ETF is like a mutual fund, but you buy and sell shares the same way you buy and sell shares of stocks. From your point of view, the relevance of this is that you can buy and sell as many or as few shares as you like, even down to a single share. Note that to get the commission-free trades on the available ETFs you have to sign up for it in your account profile. Be sure to do that before you enter any buy orders. You'll want to start by looking at the Ameritrade's list of commission-free ETFs. Notice that they are divided into different categories: stocks, bonds, international, and commodities. Which categories you pick from will depend on your personal investing goals, time horizon, risk tolerance, and so on. There are lots of questions and answers on this site that talk about asset allocation. You should read them, as it is the most important decision you will make with your portfolio. The other thing you want to be aware of is the expense ratio for each fund. These expenses reduce the fund's return (they are included in the calculation of the net asset value of the shares), so lower is definitely better. Personally, I wouldn't even consider paying more than about 0.10% (commonly read \"\"10 basis points\"\" or \"\"10 bp\"\") for a broad-based domestic stock fund. For a sectoral fund you might put up with as much as 20 bp in expenses. Bond funds tend to be a little more expensive, so maybe allow as much as 25 bp, and likewise for international funds. I've never invested in commodity funds, so I'll let someone else opine on appropriate expense ratios for those. Once you've decided what funds you want (and have signed up for commission-free trades), all you have to do is enter the trade orders. The website where you manage your account has tutorials on how to do that. After that you should be all set. Good luck with your investing!\"",
"qid": 9882,
"docid": "84800",
"rank": 7,
"score": 130317
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you don't want to hassle with opening an account (and don't mind going without insurance) there are currency ETF's that basically invest in euro money market accounts. Here's an example of one Not sure if the return would be as much as you'd get if you opened your own account and went for longer term instruments like a 12 month CD (I think the Euro MM rate is around 1.1% compared to 0.1% for the US). But since it trades like a stock you can do it without having to establish an account with an overseas bank.",
"qid": 9882,
"docid": "586151",
"rank": 8,
"score": 128605
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Some of the ETFs you have specified have been delisted and are no longer trading. If you want to invest in those specific ETFs, you need to find a broker that will let you buy European equities such as those ETFs. Since you mentioned Merrill Edge, a discount broking platform, you could also consider Interactive Brokers since they do offer trading on the London Stock Exchange. There are plenty more though. Beware that you are now introducing a foreign exchange risk into your investment too and that taxation of capital returns/dividends may be quite different from a standard US-listed ETF. In the US, there are no Islamic or Shariah focussed ETFs or ETNs listed. There was an ETF (JVS) that traded from 2009-2010 but this had such little volume and interest, the fees probably didn't cover the listing expenses. It's just not a popular theme for North American listings.",
"qid": 9882,
"docid": "29642",
"rank": 9,
"score": 127610
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: There are a few ETFs that fall into the money market category: SHV, BIL, PVI and MINT. What normally looks like an insignificant expense ratio looks pretty big when compared to the small yields offered by these funds. The same holds for the spread and transaction fees. For that reason, I'm not sure if the fund route is worth it.",
"qid": 9882,
"docid": "466845",
"rank": 10,
"score": 127381
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You weren't really clear about where you are in the world, what currency you are using and what you want your eventual asset allocation to be. If you're in the US, I'd recommend splitting your international investment between a Global ex-US fund like VEU (as Chris suggested in his comment) and an emerging markets ETF like VWO. If you're not in the US, you need to think about how much you would like to invest in US equities and what approach you would like to take to do so. Also, with international funds, particularly emerging markets, low expense ratios aren't necessarily the best value. Active management may help you to avoid some of the risks associated with investing in foreign companies, particularly in emerging markets. If you still want low expenses at all cost, understand the underlying index that the ETF is pegged to.",
"qid": 9882,
"docid": "273861",
"rank": 11,
"score": 127257
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Any large stockbroker will offer trading in US securities. As a foreign national you will be required to register with the US tax authorities (IRS) by completing and filing a W-8BEN form and pay US withholding taxes on any dividend income you receive. US dividends are paid net of withholding taxes, so you do not need to file a US tax return. Capital gains are not subject to US taxes. Also, each year you are holding US securities, you will receive a form from the IRS which you are required to complete and return. You will also be required to complete and file forms for each of the exchanges you wish to received market price data from. Trading will be restricted to US trading hours, which I believe is 6 hours ahead of Denmark for the New York markets. You will simply submit an order to the desired market using your broker's online trading software or your broker's telephone dealing service. You can expect to pay significantly higher commissions for trading US securities when compared to domestic securities. You will also face potentially large foreign exchange fees when exchaning your funds from EUR to USD. All in all, you will probably be better off using your local market to trade US index or sector ETFs.",
"qid": 9882,
"docid": "551809",
"rank": 12,
"score": 125835
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"One possibility you may consider is to keep all of your funds in the stocks and shares ISA while investing that proportion you wish to keep in cash into a tradeable \"\"Money Market\"\" ETF. A Money Market ETF will give you rates comparable to interest rates on cash and at the same time it will give you \"\"instant access\"\" subject to normal 3 day settlement of equities. This is not exactly a perfect solution. Most Money Market ETFs will pay monthly dividends, so depending on your timing, you may have to give up some interest. In the worst case, if you were to sell the day before going ex-dividend, then you would be giving up a months interest. In the best case, if you were to sell on the day of going ex-dividend, you would be giving up no interest.\"",
"qid": 9882,
"docid": "89216",
"rank": 13,
"score": 125438
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"This page from the CRA website details the types of investments you can hold in a TFSA. You can hold individual shares, including ETFs, traded on any \"\"designated stock exchange\"\" in addition to the other types of investment you have listed. Here is a list of designated stock exchanges provided by the Department of Finance. As you can see, it includes pretty well every major stock exchange in the developed world. If your bank's TFSA only offers \"\"mutual funds, GICs and saving deposits\"\" then you need to open a TFSA with a different bank or a stock broking company with an execution only service that offers TFSA accounts. Almost all of the big banks will do this. I use Scotia iTrade, HSBC Invest Direct, and TD, though my TFSA's are all with HSBC currently. You will simply provide them with details of your bank account in order to facilitate money transfers/TFSA contributions. Since purchasing foreign shares involves changing your Canadian dollars into a foreign currency, one thing to watch out for when purchasing foreign shares is the potential for high foreign exchange spreads. They can be excessive in proportion to the investment being made. My experience is that HSBC offers by far the best spreads on FX, but you need to exchange a minimum of $10,000 in order to obtain a decent spread (typically between 0.25% and 0.5%). You may also wish to note that you can buy unhedged ETFs for the US and European markets on the Toronto exchange. This means you are paying next to nothing on the spread, though you obviously are still carrying the currency risk. For example, an unhedged S&P500 trades under the code ZSP (BMO unhedged) or XUS (iShares unhedged). In addition, it is important to consider that commissions for trades on foreign markets may be much higher than those on a Canadian exchange. This is not always the case. HSBC charge me a flat rate of $6.88 for both Toronto and New York trades, but for London they would charge up to 0.5% depending on the size of the trade. Some foreign exchanges carry additional trading costs. For example, London has a 0.5% stamp duty on purchases. EDIT One final thing worth mentioning is that, in my experience, holding US securities means that you will be required to register with the US tax authorities and with those US exchanges upon which you are trading. This just means fill out a number of different forms which will be provided by your stock broker. Exchange registrations can be done electronically, however US tax authority registration must be submitted in writing. Dividends you receive will be net of US withholding taxes. I am not aware of any capital gains reporting requirements to US authorities.\"",
"qid": 9882,
"docid": "458635",
"rank": 14,
"score": 125006
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Most ETFs are index funds, meaning you get built in diversification so that any one stock going down won't hurt the overall performance much. You can also get essentially the same index funds by directly purchasing them from the mutual fund company. To buy an ETF you need a brokerage account and have to pay a transaction fee. Buying only $1000 at a time the broker transaction fee will eat too much of your money. You want to keep such fees way down below 0.1%. Pay attention to transaction fees and fund expense ratios. Or buy an equivalent index fund directly from the mutual fund company. This generally costs nothing in transaction fees if you have at least the minimum account value built up. If you buy every month or two you are dollar cost averaging, no matter what kind of account you are using. Keep doing that, even if the market values are going down. (Especially if the market values are going down!) If you can keep doing this then forget about certificates of deposit. At current rates you cannot build wealth with CDs.",
"qid": 9882,
"docid": "97836",
"rank": 15,
"score": 124640
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If S&P crashes, these currencies will appreciate. Note that the above is speculation, not fact. There is definitely no guarantee that, say, the CHF/CAD currency pair is inversely linked to the performance of the US stock market when measured in USD, let alone to the performance of the US stock market as measured in CAD. How can a Canadian get exposure to a safe haven currency like CHF and JPY? I don't want a U.S. dollar denominated ETF. Three simple options come to mind, if you still want to pursue that: Have money in your bank account. Go to your bank, tell them that you want to buy some Swiss francs or Japanese yen. Walk out with a physical wad of cash. Put said wad of cash somewhere safe until needed. It is possible that the bank will tell you to come back later as they might not have the physical cash available at the branch office, but this isn't anything really unusual; it is often highly recommended for people who travel abroad to have some local cash on hand. Contact your bank and tell them that you want to open an account denominated in the foreign currency of your choice. They might ask some questions about why, there might be additional fees associated with it, and you'll probably have to pay an exchange fee when transferring money between it and your local-currency-denominated accounts, but lots of banks offer this service as a service for those of their customers that have lots of foreign currency transactions. If yours doesn't, then shop around. Shop around for money market funds that focus heavily or exclusively on the currency area you are interested in. Look for funds that have a native currency value appreciation as close as possible to 0%. Any value change that you see will then be tied directly to the exchange rate development of the relevant currency pair (for example, CHF/CAD). #1 and #3 are accessible to virtually anyone, no large sums of money needed (in principle). Fees involved in #2 may or may not make it a practical option for someone handling small amounts of money, but I can see no reason why it shouldn't be a possibility again in principle.",
"qid": 9882,
"docid": "179527",
"rank": 16,
"score": 123340
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Usually, you can buy ETFs through brokerages. I looked at London to see if there's any familiar brokerage names, and it appears that the address below is to Fidelity Investments Worldwide and their site indicates that you can buy securities. Any brokerage, in theory, should allow you to invest in securities. You could always call and ask if they allow you to invest in ETFs. Some brokerages may also allow you to purchase securities in other countries; for instance, some of the firms in the U.S. allow investors to invest in the ETF HK:2801, which is not a U.S. ETF. Many countries have ETF securities available to local and foreign investors. This site appears to help point people to brokers in London. Also, see this answer on this site (a UK investor who's invested in the U.S. through Barclays).",
"qid": 9882,
"docid": "94477",
"rank": 17,
"score": 123072
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Bond ETFs are just another way to buy a bond mutual fund. An ETF lets you trade mutual fund shares the way you trade stocks, in small share-size increments. The content of this answer applies equally to both stock and bond funds. If you are intending to buy and hold these securities, your main concerns should be purchase fees and expense ratios. Different brokerages will charge you different amounts to purchase these securities. Some brokerages have their own mutual funds for which they charge no trading fees, but they charge trading fees for ETFs. Brokerage A will let you buy Brokerage A's mutual funds for no trading fee but will charge a fee if you purchase Brokerage B's mutual fund in your Brokerage A account. Some brokerages have multiple classes of the same mutual fund. For example, Vanguard for many of its mutual funds has an Investor class (minimum $3,000 initial investment), Admiral class (minimum $10,000 initial investment), and an ETF (share price as initial investment). Investor class has the highest expense ratio (ER). Admiral class and the ETF generally have much lower ER, usually the same number. For example, Vanguard's Total Bond Market Index mutual fund has Investor class (symbol VBMFX) with 0.16% ER, Admiral (symbol VBTLX) with 0.06% ER, and ETF (symbol BND) with 0.06% ER (same as Admiral). See Vanguard ETF/mutual fund comparison page. Note that you can initially buy Investor class shares with Vanguard and Vanguard will automatically convert them to the lower-ER Admiral class shares when your investment has grown to the Admiral threshold. Choosing your broker and your funds may end up being more important than choosing the form of mutual fund versus ETF. Some brokers charge very high purchase/redemption fees for mutual funds. Many brokers have no ETFs that they will trade for free. Between funds, index funds are passively managed and are just designed to track a certain index; they have lower ERs. Actively managed funds are run by managers who try to beat the market; they have higher ERs and tend to actually fall below the performance of index funds, a double whammy. See also Vanguard's explanation of mutual funds vs. ETFs at Vanguard. See also Investopedia's explanation of mutual funds vs. ETFs in general.",
"qid": 9882,
"docid": "138383",
"rank": 18,
"score": 122592
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you want to convert more than a few thousand dollars, one somewhat complex method is to have two investment accounts at a discount broker that operations both in Canada and the USA, then buy securities for USD on a US exchange, have your broker move them to the Canadian account, then sell them on a Canadian exchange for CAD. This will, of course, incur trading fees, but they should be lower than most currency conversion fees if you convert more than a few thousand dollars, because trading fees typically have a very small percentage component. Using a currency ETF as the security to buy/sell can eliminate the market risk. In any case, it may take up to a week for the trades and transfer to settle.",
"qid": 9882,
"docid": "210678",
"rank": 19,
"score": 122462
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I don't know where your trade figures are from. ETrade, TD Ameritrade, Fidelity, etc all have trading costs under 10 USD per share, so I'm not sure where your costs are coming from. I doubt currency conversion or anything like that will double the cost. As for your question, the answer is: It depends How much trading will you do? In what types of investments? For example, Schwab charges no commission on ETF purchases, but this is not an advantage if you wont buy ETFs. Consider minimums. Different brokers have different minimum cash balance/deposit requirements, so make sure you can meet those. It's true that you can get real time quotes anywhere, but consider the other services. For example, TD Ameritrade pools research reports for many publicly traded companies which are nice to read about what analysts have to say. Different brokers given different research tools, so read about offerings and see what's most useful to you. You can open different brokerage accounts, but it's much more convenient to have a one-stop place where you can do all you trading. Pick a broker which is low cost and offers a variety of investments as well as good customer support and a straightforward system.",
"qid": 9882,
"docid": "110608",
"rank": 20,
"score": 122092
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"(Note: out of my depth here, but in case this helps...) While not a direct answer to your question, I'll point out that in the inverse situation - a U.S. investor who wants to buy individual stocks of companies headquartered outside US - you would buy ADRs, which are $-denominated \"\"wrapper\"\" stocks. They can be listed with one or multiple brokerages. One alternative I'd offer the person in my example would be, \"\"Are you really sure you want to directly buy individual stocks?\"\" One less targeted approach available in the US is to buy ETFs targeted for a given country (or region). Maybe there's something similar there in Asia that would eliminate the (somewhat) higher fees associated with trading foreign stocks.\"",
"qid": 9882,
"docid": "18349",
"rank": 21,
"score": 121870
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The recommendations you read were, very probably, talking about US listed funds in US dollars. The mexican Bolsa de Valores says that they list over 600 mutual funds so \"\"Yes\"\" you can invest in Mexico using Pesos if that is what you want. You need a Corredor de Bolsa or mexico broker. Here they are. Most international investors use exchange traded funds ETF because theirs fees are cheaper than mutual funds. The ETF are mostly listed and traded in us stock exchange. Here they are. US mutual funds are in dollars and, because you are living in Mexico, you will have a currency risk and probably taxes. Mexico mutual funds in Pesos do not carry any currency exposure unless the companies involved do business in the United States. You have to think about your currency exposure. B. Veo\"",
"qid": 9882,
"docid": "529638",
"rank": 22,
"score": 120942
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I'd personally use a standard brokerage account and invest in a mix of mutual funds, ETFs and individual stocks. Follow the municipal bond markets and be prepared to move into muni funds or ETFs when opportunities present themselves. If you buy on weakness, you can pull some great returns with reasonably safe investment.",
"qid": 9882,
"docid": "388585",
"rank": 23,
"score": 120834
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Given those assumptions (which I happen to think are reasonable) it seems to me the obvious place is to buy non-Australian assets, such as the Vanguard VTS (total US share market) and VEU (world ex-US) ETFs, and perhaps also some international fixed-interest ETFs. I think keeping a certain amount of cash would be prudent anyhow. If you felt very sure this was going to happen, you could borrow in Australia and buy foreign assets, expecting that as the AUD falls, the relative cost of the borrowing will also fall. This is obviously fairly risky, not least because Australian interest rates are already high and may go much higher, and while the rates go up the exchange rate will also likely go up. As I mentioned on another answer, I think buying gold or other commodity instruments is a poor choice here because the Australian economy and the AUD is so tied to those prices already.",
"qid": 9882,
"docid": "195100",
"rank": 24,
"score": 119759
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: What is the best form of investment? It only depends on your goals... The perfect amount of money depends also on your particular situation. The first thing you should start getting familiar with is the notion of portfolio and diversification. Managing risk is also fundamental especially with the current market funkiness... Start looking at index based ETFs -Exchange Traded Funds- and Balanced Mutual Funds to begin with. Many discounted online brokerage companies in the USA offer good training and knowledge centers. Some of them will also let you practice with a demo account that let you invest virtual money to make you feel comfortable with the interface and also with investing in general.",
"qid": 9882,
"docid": "172913",
"rank": 25,
"score": 118914
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Use an exchange traded fund ETF, namely SPDR MSCI Japan EUR Hdg Ucits ETF. It is hedged and can be bought in the UK by this broker State Street Global Advisors on the London Stock Exchange LSE. Link here. Article on JAPAN ETF hedged in Sterling Pound here.",
"qid": 9882,
"docid": "152695",
"rank": 26,
"score": 117210
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Go to fidelity.com and open a free brokerage account. Deposit money from your bank account into your fidelity account. (expect a minimum of $2500, FBIDX requires more I believe) Buy free to trade ETF Funds of your liking. I tend to prefer US Bonds to stocks, FBIDX is a decent intermediate US Bond etf, but the euro zone has added a little more volatile lately than I'd like. If you do really want to trade stocks, you may want to go with a large cap fund like FLCSX, but it is more risky especially in this economy. (but buy low sell high right?) I've put my savings into FBIDX and FGMNX (basically the same thing, intermediate bond ETF funds) and made $700 in interest and capitol gains last year. (started with zero initially, have 30k in there now)",
"qid": 9882,
"docid": "592636",
"rank": 27,
"score": 116868
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Couple of clarifications to start off: Index funds and ETF's are essentially the same investments. ETF's allow you to trade during the day but also make you reinvest your dividends manually instead of doing it for you. Compare VTI and VTSAX, for example. Basically the same returns with very slight differences in how they are run. Because they are so similar it doesn't matter which you choose. Either index funds and ETF's can be purchased through a regular taxable brokerage account or through an IRA or Roth IRA. The decision of what fund to use and whether to use a brokerage or IRA are separate. Whole market index funds will get you exposure to US equity but consider also diversifying into international equity, bonds, real estate (REITS), and emerging markets. Any broker can give you advice on that score or you can get free advice from, for example, Future Advisor. Now the advice: For most people in your situation, you current tax rate is currently very low. This makes a Roth IRA a very reasonable idea. You can contribute $5,500 for 2015 if you do it before April 15 and you can contribute $5,500 for 2016. Repeat each year. You won't be able to get all your money into a Roth, but anything you can do now will save you money on taxes in the long run. You put after-tax money in a Roth IRA and then you don't pay taxes on it or the gains when you take it out. You can use Roth IRA funds for college, for a first home, or for retirement. A traditional IRA is not recommended in your case. That would save you money on taxes this year, when presumably your taxes are already low. Since you won't be able to put all your money in the IRA, you can put the rest in a regular taxable brokerage account (if you don't just want to put it in a savings account). You can buy the same types of things as you have in your IRA. Note that if your stocks (in your regular brokerage account) go up over the course of a year and your income is low enough to be in the 10 or 15% tax bracket and you have held the stock for at least a year, you should sell before the end of the year to lock in your gains and pay taxes on them at the capital gains rate of 0%. This will prevent you from paying a higher rate on those gains later. Conversely, if you lose money in a year, don't sell. You can sell and lock in losses during years when your taxes are high (presumably, after college) to reduce your tax burden in those years (this is called \"\"tax loss harvesting\"\"). Sounds like crazy contortions but the name of the game is (legally) avoiding taxes. This is at least as important to your overall wealth as the decision of which funds to buy. Ok now the financial advisor. It's up to you. You can make your own financial decisions and save the money but it requires you putting in the effort to be educated. For many of us, this education is fun. Also consider that if you use a regular broker, like Fidelity, you can call up and they have people who (for free) will give you advice very similar to what you will get from the advisor you referred to. High priced financial advisors make more sense when you have a lot of money and complicated finances. Based on your question, you don't strike me as having those. To me, 1% sounds like a lot to pay for a simple situation like yours.\"",
"qid": 9882,
"docid": "159076",
"rank": 28,
"score": 116728
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Taxes are triggered when you sell the individual stock. The IRS doesn't care which of your accounts the money is in. They view all your bank and brokerage accounts as if they are one big account mashed together. That kind of lumping is standard accounting practice for businesses. P/L, balance sheets, cash flow statements etc. will clump cash accounts as \"\"cash\"\". Taxes are also triggered when they pay you a dividend. That's why ETFs are preferable to mutual funds; ETFs automatically fold the dividends back into the ETF's value, so it doesn't cause a taxable event. Less paperwork. None of the above applies to retirement accounts. They are special. You don't report activity inside retirement accounts, because it would be very hard for regular folk to do that reporting, so that would discourage them from taking IRAs. Taxes are paid at withdrawal time (or in Roth's, never.)\"",
"qid": 9882,
"docid": "492053",
"rank": 29,
"score": 115372
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Securities and ETFs are also subjected to Estate Tax. Some ways: Draft a \"\"Transfer on Death\"\" instruction to the broker, that triggers a transfer to an account in the beneficiary's name, in most cases avoiding probate. If the broker does not support it, find another broker. Give your brokerage and bank password/token to your beneficiary. Have him transfer out holdings within hours of death. Create a Trust, that survives even after death of an individual. P.S. ETF is treated as Stock (a company that owns other companies), regardless of the nature of the holdings. P.S.2 Above suggestions are only applicable to nonresident alien of the US.\"",
"qid": 9882,
"docid": "65702",
"rank": 30,
"score": 114629
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Questrade is a Canada based broker offering US stock exchange transactions as well. It says this right on their homepage. ETFs are traded like stocks, so the answer is yes. Why did you think they only offered funds?",
"qid": 9882,
"docid": "94689",
"rank": 31,
"score": 114606
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: OptionsXpress includes India in the list of countries where is possible to open an international account to invest in the US Stock Market. They just merged with Charles Schwab and they have a nice online trading platform. Stocks and ETFs are little bit pricey.. Get in touch with them to get more information.",
"qid": 9882,
"docid": "113644",
"rank": 32,
"score": 114573
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: There are times when investing in an ETF is more convenient than a mutual fund. When you invest in a mutual fund, you often have an account directly with the mutual fund company, or you have an account with a mutual fund broker. Mutual funds often have either a front end or back end load, which essentially gives you a penalty for jumping in and out of funds. ETFs are traded exactly like stocks, so there is inherently no load when buying or selling. If you have a brokerage account and you want to move funds from a stock to a mutual fund, an ETF might be more convenient. With some accounts, an ETF allows you to invest in a fund that you would not be able to invest in otherwise. For example, you might have a 401k account through your employer. You might want to invest in a Vanguard mutual fund, but Vanguard funds are not available with your 401k. If you have access to a brokerage account inside your 401k, you can invest in the Vanguard fund through the associated ETF. Another reason that you might choose an ETF over a mutual fund is if you want to try to short the fund.",
"qid": 9882,
"docid": "539263",
"rank": 33,
"score": 113718
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"This has been answered countless times before: One example you may want to look at is DGRO. It is an iShares ETF that many discount brokers trade for free. This ETF: offers \"\"exposure to U.S. stocks focused on dividend growth\"\".\"",
"qid": 9882,
"docid": "243931",
"rank": 34,
"score": 113640
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"You definitely do want to avoid losing money on repeated currency conversions. Remember they are making a profit every time you change your currency. A money market fund is basically like a 'savings account' mutual fund. They are open like mutual funds, in that you can buy or sell at any time. There don't tend to be fees of any kind (directly) as all management is paid for out of the interest/returns that the fund generates. So using a money market fund to hold the \"\"cash\"\" portion of your TFSA or any other account for that matter would be a normal (and \"\"free\"\") thing to do. Good Luck\"",
"qid": 9882,
"docid": "363378",
"rank": 35,
"score": 113545
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: There are ETFs listed on the Brazilian stock market. Specifically there is one for S&P500 - SPXI11, which might fulfill your requirements, though as one commenter has observed, it doesn't answer your original question.",
"qid": 9882,
"docid": "228044",
"rank": 36,
"score": 113260
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: It depends what you want to do with them. If you are just simply going to drip-feed into pre-identified shares or ETFs every few months at the market price, you don't need fancy features: just go with whoever is cheaper. You can always open another account later if you need something more exotic. Some brokerages are associated with banks and that may give you a benefit if you already deal with that bank: faster transfers (anz-etrade), or zero brokerage (westpac brokerage on westpac structured products.) There's normally no account fee so you can shop around.",
"qid": 9882,
"docid": "31703",
"rank": 37,
"score": 113014
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You can look into specific market targeted mutual funds or ETF's. For Norway, for example, look at NORW. If you want to purchase specific stocks, then you'd better be ready to trade on local stock exchanges in local currency. ETrade allows trading on some of the international stock exchanges (in Asia they have Hong Kong and Japan, in Europe they have the UK, Germany and France, and in the Americas they have the US and Canada). Some of the companies you're interested in might be trading there.",
"qid": 9882,
"docid": "531180",
"rank": 38,
"score": 112535
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Bond MF/ETF comes in many flavour, one way to look at them is corporate, govt. (gilt/sovreign), money market (short term, overnight lending etc.), govt. backed bonds. The ETF/MFs that invest money in these are also different types. One way to evaluate an ETF/MF is to see where they invest your money. Corporate debts are by the highest coupon paying bonds, however, the chance of default is also greater, if you wish to invest in these, it is preferable to look at the ETF/MF's debt portfolio financial ratings (Moodies etc.). Govt. bonds are more stable and unless the govt. defaults (which happens more often than we would like to think), here also look for higher rating bonds portfolio that the fund/scheme carries. The govt. backed bonds are somewhat similar to sovreign bonds, however, these are issuesd by institutions which are backed by govt. (e.g. national railways, municipal bodies etc.), any fund/scheme that invests in these bonds could also be considered and similarly measured. The last are the short term money market related, which provides the least return but are very liquid. It is very difficult to answer how you should invest large sum on ETF/MFs that are bond oriented. However, from any investment perspective, it is better to spread your money. If I take your hypthetical case of 1M$, I would divide it into 100K$ pieces and invest in 10 different ETF/MF schemes of different flavour: Hope this helps.",
"qid": 9882,
"docid": "75372",
"rank": 39,
"score": 112401
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: ETFs are legally required to publicly disclose their positions at every point in time. The reason for this is that for an ETF to issue shares of ETF they do NOT take cash in exchange but underlying securities - this is called a creation unit. So people need to know which shares to deliver to the fund to get a share of ETF in exchange. This is never done by retail clients, however, but by nominated market makers. Retail persons will normally trade shares only in the secondary market (ie. on a stock exchange), which does not require new shares of the ETF to be issued. However, they do not normally make it easy to find this information in a digestible way, and each ETF does it their own way. So typically services that offer this information are payable (as somebody has to scrape the information from a variety of sources or incentivise ETF providers to send it to them). If you have access to a Bloomberg terminal, this information is available from there. Otherwise there are paid for services that offer it. Searching on Google for ETF constituent data, I found two companies that offer it: See if you can find what you need there. Good luck. (etfdb even has a stock exposure tool freely available that allows you to see which ETFs have large exposure to a stock of your choosing, see here: http://etfdb.com/tool/etf-stock-exposure-tool/). Since this data is in a table format you could easily download it automatically using table parsing tools for your chosen programming language. PS: Don't bother with underlying index constituents, they are NOT required to be made public and index providers will normally charge handsomely for this so normally only institutional investors will have this information.",
"qid": 9882,
"docid": "295993",
"rank": 40,
"score": 112239
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Your \"\"money market\"\" is cash or a \"\"sweep account\"\" that your broker is holding for you and on which the broker is paying you interest. The mutual fund is paying you dividends, not interest, even if it is a money-market mutual fund (often bearing a name such as Prime Reserve Fund) or bond mutual fund that is collecting interest on its investments and passing them on to you.\"",
"qid": 9882,
"docid": "110744",
"rank": 41,
"score": 112035
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: ETFs trade on specific exchanges. If your broker deals with those exchanges, you should have access to the ETF. If your broker does not deal with that exchange, then you will not have access through that broker. This is different than, say, mutual funds, which don't trade on the exchanges are proprietary to certain brokerages or financial institutions.",
"qid": 9882,
"docid": "130188",
"rank": 42,
"score": 111950
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"When you hold units of the DLR/DLR.U (TSX) ETF, you are indirectly holding U.S. dollars cash or cash equivalents. The ETF can be thought of as a container. The container gives you the convenience of holding USD in, say, CAD-denominated accounts that don't normally provide for USD cash balances. The ETF price ($12.33 and $12.12, in your example) simply reflects the CAD price of those USD, and the change is because the currencies moved with respect to each other. And so, necessarily, given how the ETF is made up, when the value of the U.S. dollar declines vs. the Canadian dollar, it follows that the value of your units of DLR declines as quoted in Canadian dollar terms. Currencies move all the time. Similarly, if you held the same amount of value in U.S. dollars, directly, instead of using the ETF, you would still experience a loss when quoted in Canadian dollar terms. In other words, whether or not your U.S. dollars are tied up either in DLR/DLR.U or else sitting in a U.S. dollar cash balance in your brokerage account, there's not much of a difference: You \"\"lose\"\" Canadian dollar equivalent when the value of USD declines with respect to CAD. Selling, more quickly, your DLR.U units in a USD-denominated account to yield U.S. dollars that you then directly hold does not insulate you from the same currency risk. What it does is reduce your exposure to other cost/risk factors inherent with ETFs: liquidity, spreads, and fees. However, I doubt that any of those played a significant part in the change of value from $12.33 to $12.12 that you described.\"",
"qid": 9882,
"docid": "241661",
"rank": 43,
"score": 111943
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Another European financial ETF that you could sell short is the iShares MSCI Europe Financials Sector Index Fund (EUFN). It's traded on American exchanges, so it should be easier to access if you're in the United States. It is a relatively low-volume issue, however, so it may be difficult to locate shares to short, and the bid/ask spread could be a significant factor.",
"qid": 9882,
"docid": "281338",
"rank": 44,
"score": 111943
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Losses at a brokerage firm due to fraud are insured up to $500,000 per account for securities by the SIPC (Securities Investors' Protection Corporation), which is the stock market version of the FDIC (that insures deposits). The protection amount for cash is $250,000. That's small comfort to \"\"big\"\" players in MF Global. But it does protect \"\"small\"\" investors like you.\"",
"qid": 9882,
"docid": "288219",
"rank": 45,
"score": 111598
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Most important: Any gains you make from risking this sum of money over the next few years will not be life changing, but if you can't afford to lose it, then losses can be. Rhetorical question: How can you trust what I say you should do with your money? Answer: You can't. I'm happy to hear you're reading about the stock market, so please allow me to encourage you to keep learning. And broaden your target to investing, or even further, to financial planning. You may decide to pay down debt first. You may decide to hold cash since you need it within a couple years. Least important: I suggest a Roth IRA at any online discount brokerage whose fees to open an account plus 1 transaction fee are the lowest to get you into a broad-market index ETF or mutual fund.",
"qid": 9882,
"docid": "241433",
"rank": 46,
"score": 110978
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"First, it's an exaggeration to say \"\"every\"\" dollar. Traditional mutual funds, including money-market funds, keep a small fraction of their assets in cash for day-to-day transactions, maybe 1%. If you invest $1, they put that in the cash bucket and issue you a share. If you and 999 other people invest $100 each, not offset by people redeeming, they take the aggregated $100,000 and buy a bond or two. Conversely, if you redeem one share it comes out of cash, but if lots of people redeem they sell some bond(s) to cover those redemptions -- which works as long as the bond(s) can in fact be sold for close enough to their recorded value. And this doesn't mean they \"\"can't fail\"\". Even though they are (almost totally) invested in securities that are thought to be among the safest and most liquid available, in sufficiently extreme circumstances those investments can fall in market value, or they can become illiquid and unavailable to cover \"\"withdrawals\"\" (redemptions). ETFs are also fully invested, but the process is less direct. You don't just send money to the fund company. Instead: Thus as long as the underlyings for your ETF hold their value, which for a money market they are designed to, and the markets are open and the market maker firms are operating, your ETF shares are well backed. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exchange-traded_fund for more.\"",
"qid": 9882,
"docid": "359201",
"rank": 47,
"score": 110612
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You are diversified within a particular type of security. Notably the stock market. A truly diversified portfolio not only has multiple types of holdings within a single type of security (what your broad market fund does) but between different types. You have partially succeeded in doing this with the international fund - that way your risk is spread between domestic and international stocks. But there are other holdings. Cash, bonds, commodities, real estate, etc. There are broad index funds/ETFs for those as well, which may reduce your risk when the stock market as a whole tanks - which it does on occasion.",
"qid": 9882,
"docid": "102620",
"rank": 48,
"score": 110498
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You could buy shares of an Exchange-Traded Fund (ETF) based on the price of gold, like GLD, IAU, or SGOL. You can invest in this fund through almost any brokerage firm, e.g. Fidelity, Etrade, Scotttrade, TD Ameritrade, Charles Schwab, ShareBuilder, etc. Keep in mind that you'll still have to pay a commission and fees when purchasing an ETF, but it will almost certainly be less than paying the markup or storage fees of buying the physical commodity directly. An ETF trades exactly like a stock, on an exchange, with a ticker symbol as noted above. The commission will apply the same as any stock trade, and the price will reflect some fraction of an ounce of gold, for the GLD, it started as .1oz, but fees have been applied over the years, so it's a bit less. You could also invest in PHYS, which is a closed-end mutual fund that allows investors to trade their shares for 400-ounce gold bars. However, because the fund is closed-end, it may trade at a significant premium or discount compared to the actual price of gold for supply and demand reasons. Also, keep in mind that investing in gold will never be the same as depositing your money in the bank. In the United States, money stored in a bank is FDIC-insured up to $250,000, and there are several banks or financial institutions that deposit money in multiple banks to double or triple the effective insurance limit (Fidelity has an account like this, for example). If you invest in gold and the price plunges, you're left with the fair market value of that gold, not your original deposit. Yes, you're hoping the price of your gold investment will increase to at least match inflation, but you're hoping, i.e. speculating, which isn't the same as depositing your money in an insured bank account. If you want to speculate and invest in something with the hope of outpacing inflation, you're likely better off investing in a low-cost index fund of inflation-protected securities (or the S&P500, over the long term) rather than gold. Just to be clear, I'm using the laymen's definition of a speculator, which is someone who engages in risky financial transactions in an attempt to profit from short or medium term fluctuations This is similar to the definition used in some markets, e.g. futures, but in many cases, economists and places like the CFTC define speculators as anyone who doesn't have a position in the underlying security. For example, a farmer selling corn futures is a hedger, while the trading firm purchasing the contracts is a speculator. The trading firm doesn't necessarily have to be actively trading the contract in the short-run; they merely have no position in the underlying commodity.",
"qid": 9882,
"docid": "13885",
"rank": 49,
"score": 110332
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Open an account with a US discount online broker, or with a European broker with access to the US market. I think ETRADE allow non-resident accounts, for instance, amongst others. The brokerage will be about $10, and there is no annual fee. (So you're ~1% down out of the gate, but that's not so much.) Brokers may have a minimum transaction value but very few exchanges care about the number of shares anymore, and there is no per-share fee. As lecrank notes, putting all your savings into a single company is not prudent, but having a flutter with fun money on Apple is harmless. Paul is correct that dividend cheques may be a slight problem for non-residents. Apple don't pay dividends so there's no problem in this specific case. More generally your broker will give you a cash account into which the dividends can go. You may have to deal with US tax which is more of an annoyance than a cost.",
"qid": 9882,
"docid": "451729",
"rank": 50,
"score": 110282
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Behind the scenes, mutual funds and ETFs are very similar. Both can vary widely in purpose and policies, which is why understanding the prospectus before investing is so important. Since both mutual funds and ETFs cover a wide range of choices, any discussion of management, assets, or expenses when discussing the differences between the two is inaccurate. Mutual funds and ETFs can both be either managed or index-based, high expense or low expense, stock or commodity backed. Method of investing When you invest in a mutual fund, you typically set up an account with the mutual fund company and send your money directly to them. There is often a minimum initial investment required to open your mutual fund account. Mutual funds sometimes, but not always, have a load, which is a fee that you pay either when you put money in or take money out. An ETF is a mutual fund that is traded like a stock. To invest, you need a brokerage account that can buy and sell stocks. When you invest, you pay a transaction fee, just as you would if you purchase a stock. There isn't really a minimum investment required as there is with a traditional mutual fund, but you usually need to purchase whole shares of the ETF. There is inherently no load with ETFs. Tax treatment Mutual funds and ETFs are usually taxed the same. However, capital gain distributions, which are taxable events that occur while you are holding the investment, are more common with mutual funds than they are with ETFs, due to the way that ETFs are structured. (See Fidelity: ETF versus mutual funds: Tax efficiency for more details.) That having been said, in an index fund, capital gain distributions are rare anyway, due to the low turnover of the fund. Conclusion When comparing a mutual fund and ETF with similar objectives and expenses and deciding which to choose, it more often comes down to convenience. If you already have a brokerage account and you are planning on making a one-time investment, an ETF could be more convenient. If, on the other hand, you have more than the minimum initial investment required and you also plan on making additional regular monthly investments, a traditional no-load mutual fund account could be more convenient and less expensive.",
"qid": 9882,
"docid": "370244",
"rank": 51,
"score": 110235
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I recommend avoiding trading directly in commodities futures and options. If you're not prepared to learn a lot about how futures markets and trading works, it will be an experience fraught with pitfalls and lost money – and I am speaking from experience. Looking at stock-exchange listed products is a reasonable approach for an individual investor desiring added diversification for their portfolio. Still, exercise caution and know what you're buying. It's easy to access many commodity-based exchange-traded funds (ETFs) on North American stock exchanges. If you already have low-cost access to U.S. markets, consider this option – but be mindful of currency conversion costs, etc. Yet, there is also a European-based company, ETF Securities, headquartered in Jersey, Channel Islands, which offers many exchange-traded funds on European exchanges such as London and Frankfurt. ETF Securities started in 2003 by first offering a gold commodity exchange-traded fund. I also found the following: London Stock Exchange: Frequently Asked Questions about ETCs. The LSE ETC FAQ specifically mentions \"\"ETF Securities\"\" by name, and addresses questions such as how/where they are regulated, what happens to investments if \"\"ETF Securities\"\" were to go bankrupt, etc. I hope this helps, but please, do your own due diligence.\"",
"qid": 9882,
"docid": "332924",
"rank": 52,
"score": 110102
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The only fee you incur when buying an ETF is the commission. If you have a brokerage account at Schwab/Fidelity/E-TRADE/Vanguard or any number of banks you won't pay more than $10 per transaction (regardless of the size of the transaction). I use Schwab which charges $5 per trade, but you can open a Robinhood account (it's a discount brokerage) for free, $0 commission trades. It lacks features that paying platforms have, but it's great for beginners. You'll get a dividend each quarter (every 3 months) for most ETFs.",
"qid": 9882,
"docid": "558544",
"rank": 53,
"score": 110057
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: There are also currency hedged ETFs. These operate similarly to what gengren mentioned. For example, a currency hedged Japan equities ETF has an inherent short yen/usd position on it in addition to the equity position, so the effects of a falling yen are negated. Note that it will still be denominated in dollars, however. AED is pegged to the dollar though, isnt it? If your broker is charging you a crazy price maybe try again a different day, or get a new broker. http://www.ishares.com/us/strategies/hedge-currency-impact",
"qid": 9882,
"docid": "197918",
"rank": 54,
"score": 109994
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: There are some ETF's on the Indian market that invest in broad indexes in other countries Here's an article discussing this Be aware that such investments carry an additional risk you do not have when investing in your local market, which is 'currency risk' If for example you invest in a ETF that represents the US S&P500 index, and the US dollar weakens relative to the indian rupee, you could see the value if your investment in the US market go down, even if the index itself is 'up' (but not as much as the change in currency values). A lot of investment advisors recommend that you have at least 75% of your investments in things which are denominated in your local currency (well technically, the same currency as your liabilities), and no more than 25% invested internationally. In large part the reason for this advice is to reduce your exposure to currency risk.",
"qid": 9882,
"docid": "98461",
"rank": 55,
"score": 109496
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You could use a stock-only ISA and invest in Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs). ETFs are managed mutual funds that trade on open exchanges in the same manner as stocks. This changes the specific fund options you have open to you, but there are so many ETFs at this point that any sector you want to invest in is almost certainly represented.",
"qid": 9882,
"docid": "129070",
"rank": 56,
"score": 109393
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You haven't looked very far if you didn't find index tracking exchange-traded funds (ETFs) on the Toronto Stock Exchange. There are at least a half dozen major exchange-traded fund families that I'm aware of, including Canadian-listed offerings from some of the larger ETF providers from the U.S. The Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX) maintains a list of ETF providers that have products listed on the TSX.",
"qid": 9882,
"docid": "276983",
"rank": 57,
"score": 108773
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you are confident that the US Dollar will recover compared to the Australian Dollar then you could use your Australian dollars (assuming you have some) to buy an ETF that tracks the value of the USD. Then after the USD makes its run (or after the Australian dollar falls) you can cash out and claim victory. If that's not quite your situation, or if you want to learn more Investopedia has a great article that talks more about investing in currency ETFs and mentions a couple other options out there.",
"qid": 9882,
"docid": "356637",
"rank": 58,
"score": 108524
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I was in a similar situation with my now 6 year old. So I'll share what I chose. Like you, I was already funding a 529. So I opened a custodial brokerage account with Fidelity and chose to invest in very low expense index fund ETFs which are sponsored by Fidelity, so there are no commissions. The index funds have a low turnover as well, so they tend to be minimal on capital gains. As mentioned in the other answer, CDs aren't paying anything right now. And given your long time to grow, investing in the stock market is a decent bet. However, I would steer clear of any insurance products. They tend to be heavy on fees and low on returns. Insurance is for insuring something not for investing.",
"qid": 9882,
"docid": "493034",
"rank": 59,
"score": 108436
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Loads of financial advisors advise holding index funds they may advise other things as well, but low fee index funds are a staple portfolio item. I can't speak to the particulars of Canada, but in the US you would just open a brokerage account (or IRA or SEP IRA in the case of a small business owner) and buy a low cost S&P index ETF or low/no fee/commission S&P index mutual fund. There's no magic to it. Some examples in no particular order are, Vanguard's VOO, Schwab's SWPPX, and iShares' IVV. There are also Canadian index equities like Vanguard's VCN and iShare's XIC.",
"qid": 9882,
"docid": "524525",
"rank": 60,
"score": 107941
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You are young, and therefore have a very long time horizon for investing. Absolutely nothing you do should involve paying any attention to your investments more than once a year (if that). First off, you can only deposit money in an IRA (of whatever kind) if you have taxable income. If you don't, you can still invest, just without the tax benefits of a Roth. My suggestion would be to open an account with a discount brokerage (Schwab, Fidelity, eTrade, etc). The advantage of a brokerage IRA is that you can invest in whatever you want within the account. Then, either buy an S&P 500 or total market index fund within the account, or buy an index-based ETF (like a mutual fund, but trades like a stock). The latter might be better, since many mutual funds have minimum limits, which ETFs do not. Set the account up to reinvest the dividends automatically--S&P 500 yields will far outstrip current savings account yields--and sit back and do nothing for the next 40 or 50 years. Well, except for continuing to make annual contributions to the account, which you should continue to invest in pretty much the same thing until you have enough money (and experience and knowledge) to diversify into bond funds/international funds/individual stocks, etc. Disclaimer: I am not a financial planner. I just manage my own money, and this strategy has mostly kept me from stressing too badly over the last few years of market turmoil.",
"qid": 9882,
"docid": "347651",
"rank": 61,
"score": 107916
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I believe the answer to your question boils down to a discussion of tax strategies and personal situation, both now and in the future. As a result, it's pretty hard to give a concrete example to the question as asked right now. For example, if your tax rate now is likely to be higher than your tax rate at retirement (it is for most people), than putting the higher growth ETF in a retirement fund makes some sense. But even then, there are other considerations. However, if the opposite is true (which could happen if your income is growing so fast that your retirement income looks like it will be higher than your current income), than you might want the flexibility of holding all your ETFs in your non-tax advantaged brokerage account so that IF you do incur capital gains they are paid at prevailing, presumably lower tax rates. (I assume you meant a brokerage account rather than a savings account since you usually can't hold ETFs in a savings account.) I also want to mention that a holding in a corp account isn't necessarily taxed twice. It depends on the corporation type and the type of distribution. For example, S corps pay no federal income tax themselves. Instead the owners pay taxes when money is distributed to them as personal income. Which means you could trickle out the earnings from an holdings there such that it keeps you under any given federal tax bracket (assuming it's your only personal income.) This might come in handy when retired for example. Also, distribution of the holdings as dividends would incur cap gains tax rates rather than personal income tax rates. One thing I would definitely say: any holdings in a Roth account (IRA, 401k) will have no future taxes on earnings or distributions (unless the gov't changes its mind.) Thus, putting your highest total return ETF there would always be the right move.",
"qid": 9882,
"docid": "506448",
"rank": 62,
"score": 107845
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I am not aware of a single instrument that encapsulates what you are after; but the components do exist. At least in Canada, there are many Options traded on the Montreal Exchange that are based on Toronto ETFs. All the standard TSX ETFs are represented, as well as some of the more exotic. With a regular investment account approved for Options you should be able to do what you want. In a parallel vein, there are also double down and up ETFs. One such example are the Horizons BetaPro series of ETFs. They are designed to return double the market up or down on a daily basis and reset daily. They do need to be watched closely, however. Good Luck",
"qid": 9882,
"docid": "272325",
"rank": 63,
"score": 107836
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"There are several brokerages which have lower minimum deposits (often $500) and allow purchase of index ETFs. I won't name them to avoid advertising. The best way to find out is to go to your bank, and ask to see a financial advisor. Then explain your difficulty to the advisor (who should caution you about the issues with investing such a small amount) and ask for advice on where to find a suitable broker. Also, sometimes banks offer services where you can buy shares of a fund through your bank account. This is probably not \"\"as good\"\" as the brokerage (performance may be not as good, fees may come out higher), but especially for small amounts and for convenience, this may be easier. Again, you should inquire at your institution.\"",
"qid": 9882,
"docid": "313525",
"rank": 64,
"score": 107576
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: @BlackJack does a good answer of addressing the gains and when you are taxed on them and at what kind of rate. Money held in a brokerage account will usually be in a money-market fund, so you would own taxes on the interest it earned. There is one important consideration that must be understood for capitol Losses. This is called the Wash Sale Rule. This rule comes into affect if you sell a stock at a LOSS, and buy shares of the same stock within 30 days (before or after) the sale. A common tactic used to minimize taxes paid is to 'capture losses' when they occur, since these can be used to offset gains and lower your taxes. This is normally done by selling a stock in which you have a LOSS, and then either buying another similar stock, or waiting and buying back the stock you sold. However, if you are intending to buy back the same stock, you must not 'trigger' the Wash Sale Rule or you are forbidden to take the loss. Examples. Lets presume you own 1000 shares of a stock and it's trading 25% below where you bought it, and you want to capture the loss to use on your taxes. This can be a very important consideration if trading index ETF's if you have a loss in something like a S&P500 ETF, you would likely incur a wash sale if you sold it and bought a different S&P500 ETF from another company since they are effectively the same thing. OTOH, if you sold an S&P500 ETF and bought something like a 'viper''total stock market' ETF it should be different enough to not trigger the wash sale rule. If you are trying to minimize the taxes you pay on stocks, there are basically two rules to follow. 1) When a gain is involved, hold things at least a year before selling, if at all possible. 2) Capture losses when they occur and use to offset gains, but be sure not to trigger the wash sale rule when doing so.",
"qid": 9882,
"docid": "195767",
"rank": 65,
"score": 107456
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I have been careful here to cover both shares in companies and in ETFs (Exchange Traded Funds). Some information such as around corporate actions and AGMs is only applicable for company shares and not ETFs. The shares that you own are registered to you through the broker that you bought them via but are verified by independent fund administrators and brokerage reconciliation processes. This means that there is independent verification that the broker has those shares and that they are ring fenced as being yours. The important point in this is that the broker cannot sell them for their own profit or otherwise use them for their own benefit, such as for collateral against margin etc.. 1) Since the broker is keeping the shares for you they are still acting as an intermediary. In order to prove that you own the shares and have the right to sell them you need to transfer the registration to another broker in order to sell them through that broker. This typically, but not always, involves some kind of fee and the broker that you transfer to will need to be able to hold and deal in those shares. Not all brokers have access to all markets. 2) You can sell your shares through a different broker to the one you bought them through but you will need to transfer your ownership to the other broker and that broker will need to have access to that market. 3) You will normally, depending on your broker, get an email or other message on settlement which can be around two days after your purchase. You should also be able to see them in your online account UI before settlement. You usually don't get any messages from the issuing entity for the instrument until AGM time when you may get invited to the AGM if you hold enough stock. All other corporate actions should be handled for you by your broker. It is rare that settlement does not go through on well regulated markets, such as European, Hong Kong, Japanese, and US markets but this is more common on other markets. In particular I have seen quite a lot of trades reversed on the Istanbul market (XIST) recently. That is not to say that XIST is unsafe its just that I happen to have seen a few trades reversed recently.",
"qid": 9882,
"docid": "313437",
"rank": 66,
"score": 107322
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Okay. An ETF is an \"\"Exchange Traded Fund\"\". It trades like a stock, on the stock market. Basically by buying one ETF, you can have ownership in the underlying companies that make up the ETF. So, if you buy QCLN, a green energy ETF, you own Tesla, First Solar Inc, SunPower Corporation, Vivint Solar, Advanced energy industries and a bunch of other companies that are involved in clean energy. It allows you to gain exposure to a sector without having to buy individual companies. There are ETFs for lots of different things. Technology ETFs, Healthcare ETFs, Consumer Staples ETFs, Utilities ETFs, etc. REITS are essentially the same thing, except they own real estate.\"",
"qid": 9882,
"docid": "407571",
"rank": 67,
"score": 107283
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"IMHO It is definitively not too early to start learning and thinking about personal finances and also about investing. If you like to try stock market games, make sure to use one that includes a realistic fee structure simulation as well - otherwise there'll be a very unpleasant awakening when switching to reality... I'd like to stress the need for low fees with the brokerage account! Sit down and calculate how much fees different brokers take for a \"\"portfolio\"\" of say, 1 ETF, 1 bond, 1 share of about $500 or $1000 each (e.g. order fee, annual fee, fee for paying out interest/dividend). In my experience, it is good if you can manage to make the first small investing steps before starting your career. Real jobs tend to need lots of time (particularly at the beginning), so time to learn investing is extremely scarce right at the time when you for the first time in your life earn money that could/should be invested. I'm talking of very slowly starting with a single purchase of say an ETF, a single bond next time you have saved up a suitable amount of toy money, then maybe a single share (and essentially not doing anything with them in order to avoid further fees). While such a \"\"portfolio\"\" is terrible with respect to diversification and relative fees*, this gives you the possibility to learn the procedures, to see how the fees cut in, what to do wrt taxes etc. This is why I speak about toy money and why I consider this money an investment in education. * An order fee of, say, $10 on a $500 position are terrible 4% (2 x $10) for buying + selling - depending on your local taxes, that would be several years of dividend yield for say some arbitrary Dow Jones ETF. Nevertheless, purchase + sale together are less than 3 cinema tickets.\"",
"qid": 9882,
"docid": "488015",
"rank": 68,
"score": 107038
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Where are you planning on buying this ETF? I'm guessing it's directly through Vanguard? If so, that's likely your first reason - the majority of brokerage accounts charge a commission per trade for ETFs (and equities) but not for mutual funds. Another reason is that people who work in the financial industry (brokerages, mutual fund companies, etc) have to request permission for every trade before placing an order. This applies to equities and ETFs but does not apply to mutual funds. It's common for a request to be denied (if the brokerage has inside information due to other business lines they'll block trading, if a mutual fund company is trading the same security they'll block trading, etc) without an explanation. This can happen for months. For these folks it's typically easier to use mutual funds. So, if someone can open an account with Vanguard and doesn't work in the financial industry then I agree with your premise. The Vanguard Admiral shares have a much lower expense, typically very close to their ETFs. Source: worked for a brokerage and mutual fund company",
"qid": 9882,
"docid": "536120",
"rank": 69,
"score": 106681
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Other than the possibility of minimal entry price being prohibitively high, there's no reason why you couldn't participate in any global trading whatsoever. Most ETFs, and indeed, stockbrokers allows both accounts opening, and trading via the Internet, without regard to physical location. With that said, I'd strongly advice you to do a proper research, and reality check both on your risk/reward profile, and on the vehicles to invest in. As Fools write, money you'll need in the next 6 months have no place on the stockmarket. Be prepared, that you can indeed loose all of your investment, regardless of the chosen vehicle.",
"qid": 9882,
"docid": "480638",
"rank": 70,
"score": 106560
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Index funds: Some of the funds listed by US SIF are index funds. ETFs: ETFdb has a list, though it's pretty short at the moment.",
"qid": 9882,
"docid": "391215",
"rank": 71,
"score": 106550
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Pretty sure the major retail brokerage firms require 25k to daytrade. Read the top comment. You will get crushed by commissions. There are commission free ETFs, but that's not the kind of investing you seem to want to learn about.",
"qid": 9882,
"docid": "54471",
"rank": 72,
"score": 106447
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Forex trading contracts are generally fairly short dated as you mention. Months to weeks. Professional forex traders often extend the length of their bet by rolling monthly or quarterly contracts. Closing a contract out a few days before it would expire and reopening a new contract for the next quarter/month. This process can be rather expensive and time consuming for a retail investor however. A more practical (but also not great) method would be to look into currency ETFs. The ETFs generally do the above process for you and are significantly more convenient. However, depending on the broker these may not be available and when available can be illiquid and/or expensive even in major currency pairs. It's worth a bunch of research before you buy. Note, in both cases you are in a practical sense doubling your NOK exposure as your home currency is NOK as well. This may be riskier than many people would care to be with their retirement money. An adverse move would, at the same time you would lose money, make it much to buy foreign goods, which frankly is most goods in a small open country like Norway. The most simple solution would be to overweight local NOK stocks or if you believe stocks are overvalued as you mention NOK denominated bonds. With this you keep your NOK exposure (a currency you believe will appreciate) without doubling it as well as add expected returns above inflation from the stock growth/dividends or bond real interest rates.",
"qid": 9882,
"docid": "347556",
"rank": 73,
"score": 106234
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Bit hesitant to put this in an answer as I don't know if specific investment advice is appropriate, but this has grown way too long for a comment. The typical answer given for people who don't have the time, experience, knowledge or inclination to pick specific stocks to hold should instead invest in ETFs (exchange-traded index funds.) What these basically do is attempt to simulate a particular market or stock exchange. An S&P 500 index fund will (generally) attempt to hold shares in the stocks that make up that index. They only have to follow an index, not try to beat it so are called \"\"passively\"\" managed. They have very low expense ratios (far below 1%) and are considered a good choice for investors who want to hold stock without significant effort or expense and who's main goal is time in the market. It's a contentious topic but on average an index (and therefore an index fund) will go even with or outperform most actively managed funds. With a sufficiently long investment horizon, which you have, these may be ideal for you. Trading in ETFs is also typically cheap because they are traded like stock. There are plenty of low-fee online brokers and virtually all will allow trading in ETFs. My broker even has a list of several hundred popular ETFs that can be traded for free. The golden rule in investing is that you should never buy into something you don't understand. Don't buy individual stock with little information: it's often little more than gambling. The same goes for trading platforms like Loyal3. Don't use them unless you know their business model and what they stand to gain from your custom. As mentioned I can trade certain funds for free with my broker, but I know why they can offer that and how they're still making money.\"",
"qid": 9882,
"docid": "311192",
"rank": 74,
"score": 106132
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The advice to invest in yourself is good advice. But the stock market can be very rewarding over the long pull. You have about 45 years to retirement now and that is plenty long enough that each dollar put into the market now will be many dollars then. A simple way to do this might be to open a brokerage account at a reputable broker and put a grand into a very broad based all market ETF and then doing nothing with it. The price of the ETF will go up and down with the usual market gyrations, but over the decades it will grow nicely. Make sure the ETF has low fees so that you aren't being overcharged. It's good that you are thinking about investing at a young age. A rational and consistent investment strategy will lead to wealth over the long pull.",
"qid": 9882,
"docid": "339332",
"rank": 75,
"score": 105820
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Theoretically there is always a time value of money. You'll need to keep your cash in a Money Market Fund to realize its potential (I'm not saying MMFs are the best investment strategy, they are the best kind of account for liquid cash). Choose an accounts that's flexible with regard to its minimum required so you can always keep this extra money in it and remove it when you need to make a payment.",
"qid": 9882,
"docid": "387250",
"rank": 76,
"score": 105800
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"A TFSA is a tax free savings account. It is a type of account where you can buy various investments like stocks, bonds, or funds (mutual, exchange traded, and money market). There are some other options but it's best to see what your bank or broker will allow. You probably specified the type of investment when you opened the account. You can look at your statements or maybe online to see what you're invested in. My guess is some kind of HISA (high interest savings account). This is kind of the default option for banks. The government created these accounts for a variety of reasons. The main stated reason was to encourage people to save. Obviously they also do things to get votes. There was an outcry after the change to a type of investment called \"\"investment trusts\"\". This could be seen as a consolation prize. These can be valuable to seniors for many reasons and they tend to vote more often. There was also an election promise to eliminate capital gains taxes in some fashion. It's not profitable for the government, in fact it supposedly cost the federal government $410 million in 2013. Banks make money by investing your deposit or by charging fees. You can see what every tax break 'costs' the government in lost revenue here http://www.fin.gc.ca/taxexp-depfisc/2013/taxexp1301-eng.asp#toc7\"",
"qid": 9882,
"docid": "392852",
"rank": 77,
"score": 105728
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Many brokers offer a selection of ETFs with no transaction costs. TD Ameritrade and Schwab both have good offerings. Going this route will maximize diversification while minimizing friction.",
"qid": 9882,
"docid": "231972",
"rank": 78,
"score": 105622
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Vanguard has just recently started listing its funds in London but it doesn't look like the High Dividend Yield ETF is available yet. You'll need to either get a broker who can trade on the U.S. markets (there might be tax and exchange rate complications), or wait until Vanguard lists this stock on the London exchange.",
"qid": 9882,
"docid": "168841",
"rank": 79,
"score": 105609
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Ask your trading site for their definition of \"\"ETF\"\". The term itself is overloaded/ambiguous. Consider: If \"\"ETF\"\" is interpreted liberally, then any fund that trades on a [stock] exchange is an exchange-traded fund. i.e. the most literal meaning implied by the acronym itself. Whereas, if \"\"ETF\"\" is interpreted more narrowly and in the sense that most market participants might use it, then \"\"ETF\"\" refers to those exchange-traded funds that specifically have a mechanism in place to ensure the fund's current price remains close to its net asset value. This is not the case with closed-end funds (CEFs), which often trade at either a premium or a discount to their underlying net asset value.\"",
"qid": 9882,
"docid": "489103",
"rank": 80,
"score": 105220
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"You said your strategy was to put it into a index fund. But then you asked about setting stock limits. I'm confused. Funds usually trade at their price at the end of the day, so you shouldn't try to time this at all. Just place your order. If you are buying ETFs, there is going to be so much volume on the market that your small trade is going to have no impact on the price. You should just place a market order. A market order is an order to buy or sell a stock at the current market price. A limit order is an order to buy or sell a security at a specific price. In the US, when you place a trade with any broker, you can either place a limit order or a market order. A market order just fills your order with the next best sellers in line. If you place an order for 100 shares, the sellers willing to sell 100 shares at the lowest price will be matched with your order (sometimes you may get 50 shares at one price and 50 shares at a slightly different price). If your stock has a lot of volatility and you place a market order for a small amount of shares, you will get the best price. If you place a limit order, you specify the price at which you want to buy shares. Your order will then only be filled with sellers willing to sell at that price or lower (i.e. they must be at least as good as you specified). This means you could place an order at a limit that does not get filled (the stock could move in a direction away from your limit price). If you really want to own the stock, you shouldn't use a limit order. You shouldn't only use a limit order if you want to tell your broker \"\"I will only buy this stock at this price or better.\"\" p.s. Every day that passes is NOT a waste. It's just a day that you've decided investing in cash is safer than investing in the market.\"",
"qid": 9882,
"docid": "266785",
"rank": 81,
"score": 105174
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You are asking about what happens when an ETF/mutual fund company goes bankrupt. If you were asking about a bank account you would be asking about FDIC coverage. Investment funds are different, the closest thing to FDIC protection is provided by Securities Investors Protection Corporation (SIPC) SIPC was created under the Securities Investor Protection Act as a non-profit membership corporation. SIPC oversees the liquidation of member broker-dealers that close when the broker-dealer is bankrupt or in financial trouble, and customer assets are missing. In a liquidation under the Securities Investor Protection Act, SIPC and the court-appointed Trustee work to return customers’ securities and cash as quickly as possible. Within limits, SIPC expedites the return of missing customer property by protecting each customer up to $500,000 for securities and cash (including a $250,000 limit for cash only). SIPC is an important part of the overall system of investor protection in the United States. While a number of federal and state securities agencies and self-regulatory organizations deal with cases of investment fraud, SIPC's focus is both different and narrow: restoring customer cash and securities left in the hands of bankrupt or otherwise financially troubled brokerage firms. SIPC was not chartered by Congress to combat fraud. Although created under a federal law, SIPC is not an agency or establishment of the United States Government, and it has no authority to investigate or regulate its member broker-dealers. It is important to understand that SIPC is not the securities world equivalent of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), which insures depositors of insured banks.",
"qid": 9882,
"docid": "304851",
"rank": 82,
"score": 104926
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I think your best bet would be commission-free ETFs, which have no minimum and many have a share price under $100. Most online brokerages have these now, e.g. Vanguard, Fidelity, etc. Just have to watch out for any non-trading fees brokerages may charge with a low balance.",
"qid": 9882,
"docid": "597699",
"rank": 83,
"score": 104795
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I used to work on the software in the front office (and a bit of the middle office) of a brokerage firm. This page describes the process pretty well. Basically there are three parts: So to your question: how does an order get executed? ETFs work the same since they are effectively shares of a mutual fund's assets. True mutual fund shares work differently since they don't get traded in the market. They get traded at the end of the market as just a bookkeeping exercise.",
"qid": 9882,
"docid": "192125",
"rank": 84,
"score": 104386
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you are restricting yourself to Scotiabank (Both retail banking and iTrade), your choices are pretty limited. If you are exchanging more than CAD$25,000 to EUR without margin, you can call Scotiabank and ask for a quote with much lower spread than the published snapshots. The closest ETF that you are talking about is RWE.B on TSX, which is First Asset MSCI Europe Low Risk Weighted ETF (Unhedged). You will be exposed to huge equity market risk and you should do it only if you intend to hold it for 3-5 years. Another way of exchanging cash is without opening an account is through a currency exchange broker (search “toronto currency exchange” for relevant companies). First you send an email asking for a quote for the amount you wanted, then you send the CAD to them via cheque, and they would convert to EUR and deposit it to your EUR account at Scotiabank (retail banking). This method costs around 0.7% compared to 2.5% charged by Scotiabank. An example of these brokers is Interchange Currency Exchange in Toronto. If you are hedging more than 125000 EUR, the proper method is to open an account that supports trading Currency Futures on Globex (US CME group). You can long Euro/Canadian Dollar Futures on margin. The last method is to open an account at Interactive Brokers, put CAD in it, then borrow more CAD to buy EUR. This method costs a few dollars upon trading and the spread is negligible. You need to pay 2.25% per year margin interest through.",
"qid": 9882,
"docid": "269043",
"rank": 85,
"score": 104361
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I'm almost in the same situation as you. Here is what I'm doing. Buy ETFs each time you have above 3000€ saved up. I buy these: HSBC S+P 500 C.S.-MSCI PACIFIC UBS-ETF-MSCI EMERGING MARKETS ISH.STOX.EUROPE 600 They are taxable under Abgeltungssteuer, so no hassle with that, are cheap and cover almost the entire world economy. Don't worry what everyone else is doing. My friends all started buying stuff when they started earning real money. Now everyone has shitloads of stuff piled up somewhere, which never gets used.",
"qid": 9882,
"docid": "100882",
"rank": 86,
"score": 104335
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Starting with small amount of money is definitely a good idea, as it is a fact that majority of the online traders lose their initial investment. No wonder that for example in the UK, FCA decided to make steps to raise the chances of clients staying in business by limiting leverage to 1:50 and 1:25. http://www.financemagnates.com/forex/bloggers/new-fca-regulations-going-affect-retail-brokers/ Trading leveraged products is risky and you will lose some, or all your money with very high chance. But that doesn't mean necessarily it is a \"\"bad investment\"\" to trade on your own. Imagine you have a $1000 account, and you trade max 0,1 lot fx position at once maximum (=$10.000 position size, that is 1:10 leverage max). Beginner steps are very challenging and exiting, but turning back to your initial question: is there a better way to invest with a small amount of money Obviously you could purchase a cheap ETF that follows a broad market index or an already existing successful portfolio.\"",
"qid": 9882,
"docid": "282947",
"rank": 87,
"score": 104320
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I have a similar situation -- five different accounts between me and my wife. Just as you and @Alex B describe, I maintain my asset allocation across the combination of all accounts. I also maintain a spreadsheet to track the targets, deviations from the targets, amounts required to get back in balance, and overall performance. I (mostly) don't use mutual funds. I have selected, for each category, 1 or 2 ETFs. Choosing index ETFs with low expense ratios and a brokerage with cheap or free trades keeps expenses low. (My broker offers free ETF trades if you buy off their list as long as you aren't short-term trading; this is great for rebalancing for free 2 or 3 times a year.) Using ETFs also solves the minimum balance problem -- but watch out for commissions. If you pay $10 to buy $500 worth of an ETF, that's an immediate 2% loss; trade a couple of times a year and that ETF has to gain 5% just to break even. One issue that comes up is managing cash and avoiding transaction fees. Say your IRA has all the growth stock funds and your Roth has the bonds. Stocks do well and bonds do poorly, so you sell off some stocks, which creates a bunch of cash in your IRA. Now you want to buy some bonds but you don't have enough cash in your Roth, so you buy the bonds in your IRA. Not a problem at first but if you don't manage it you can end up with small amounts of various funds spread across all of your accounts. If you're not careful you can end up paying two commissions (in two different accounts) to sell off / purchase enough of a category to get back to your targets. Another problem I had is that only one account (401k) is receiving deposits on a regular basis, and that's all going into an S&P 500 index fund. This makes it so that my allocation is off by a fair amount every quarter or so -- too much in large cap equities, not enough of everything else. My solution to this going forward is to \"\"over-rebalance\"\" a couple of times a year: sell enough SPY from my other accounts so that I'm under-allocated in large caps by the amount I expect to add to my 401k over the next 3 months. (So that in six months at my next rebalancing I'm only 3 months over-allocated to large caps -- plus or minus whatever gains/losses there are.)\"",
"qid": 9882,
"docid": "198572",
"rank": 88,
"score": 104288
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: On the US markets, most index options are European style. Most stock and ETF options are, as you noted, American style.",
"qid": 9882,
"docid": "362049",
"rank": 89,
"score": 104256
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: SPY does not reinvest dividends. From the SPY prospectus: No Dividend Reinvestment Service No dividend reinvestment service is provided by the Trust. Broker-dealers, at their own discretion, may offer a dividend reinvestment service under which additional Units are purchased in the secondary market at current market prices. SPY pays out quarterly the dividends it receives (after deducting fees and expenses). This is typical of ETFs. The SPY prospectus goes on to say: Distributions in cash that are reinvested in additional Units through a dividend reinvestment service, if offered by an investor’s broker-dealer, will be taxable dividends to the same extent as if such dividends had been received in cash.",
"qid": 9882,
"docid": "384607",
"rank": 90,
"score": 104245
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The number one difference is that bank savings accounts, or money market accounts (MMAs allow limited checking--six non-ATM withdrawals per month, max, else possible fees) have FDIC insurance up to $250,000. However don't put that much in--allow some room for interest, so you never go over the $250,000. Money Market Mutual Funds do not enjoy FDIC insurance. There may be some SPIC insurance--generally against brokerage failure though, but its coverage is questionable--search out those details, and if they apply to anything besides actual cash held at the brokerage. If the money market mutual fund is strictly invested in US Treasury securities (like T-Bills, or other short-term US Treasury instruments), it enjoys the full faith and credit of the US government, FWIW--but many MMMFs invest in corporate instruments. If the fund has any pricing issues, there might be a delay in getting paid off. (Extremely unlikely.) Number two, and more importantly, bank savings accounts (or MMAs) pay way more! You can get a bit over 1% APY now--many paying 0.90% APY, or higher. No money market mutual funds are close to that, generally yielding a small fraction of that, almost zero for US Treasury MMM funds. Sure 1.05% ain't too exciting, but you may as well get the most you can if holding \"\"cash,\"\" and fully insured to boot.\"",
"qid": 9882,
"docid": "400845",
"rank": 91,
"score": 104013
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Yes many people operate accounts in usa from outside usa. You need a brokerage account opened in the name of your sister and then her username and password. Remember that brokerages may check the location of login and may ask security questions before login. So when your sister opens her account , please get the security questions. Also note that usa markets open ( 7.00 pm or 8.00 pm IST depending on daylight savings in usa). So this means when they close at 4:00 pm ET, it will be 1:30 or 2:30 am in India. This means it will affect your sleeping hours if you intend to day trade. Also understand that there are some day trading restrictions and balances associate. Normally brokerages need 25,000 $ for you to be a day trader. Finally CFA is not a qualification to be a trader and desire to become a trader doesn't make one a trader. TO give an analogy , just because you want to be a cricketer doesn't make you one. It needs a lot of practice and discipline.Also since in bangladesh , you will always convert the usa amount to bangladeshi currency and think of profits and losses in those terms. This might actually be bad.",
"qid": 9882,
"docid": "461821",
"rank": 92,
"score": 103920
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Invest in an etf called SPXS and hope for a market correction in the next month. Or if you know a lot about markets and trends, select from this list of leveraged etfs available from Direxion.",
"qid": 9882,
"docid": "421285",
"rank": 93,
"score": 103917
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I disagree with the IRA suggestion. Why IRA? You're a student, so probably won't get much tax benefits, so why locking the money for 40 years? You can do the same investments through any broker account as in IRA, but be able to cash out in need. 5 years is long enough term to put in a mutual fund or ETF and expect reasonable (>1.25%) gains. You can use the online \"\"analyst\"\" tools that brokers like ETrade or Sharebuilder provide to decide on how to spread your portfolio, 15K is enough for diversifying over several areas. If you want to keep it as cash - check the on-line savings accounts (like Capitol One, for example, or Ally, ING Direct that will merge with Capitol One and others) for better rates, brick and mortar banks can not possible compete with what you can get online.\"",
"qid": 9882,
"docid": "195587",
"rank": 94,
"score": 103810
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: ETF's are great products for investing in GOLD. Depending on where you are there are also leveraged products such as CFD's (Contracts For Difference) which may be more suitable for your budget. I would stick with the big CFD providers as they offer very liquid products with tight spreads. Some CFD providers are MarketMakers whilst others provide DMA products. Futures contracts are great leveraged products but can be very volatile and like any leveraged product (such as some ETF's and most CFD's), you must be aware of the risks involved in controlling such a large position for such a small outlay. There also ETN's (Exchange Traded Notes) which are debt products issued by banks (or an underwriter), but these are subject to fees when the note matures. You will also find pooled (unallocated to physical bullion) certificates sold through many gold institutions although you will often pay a small premium for their services (some are very attractive, others have a markup worse than the example of your gold coin). (Note from JoeT - CFDs are not authorized for trading in the US)",
"qid": 9882,
"docid": "165659",
"rank": 95,
"score": 103712
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Index Funds & ETFs, if they are tracking the same index, will be the same in an ideal world. The difference would be because of the following factors: Expense ratio: i.e. the expense the funds charge. This varies and hence it would lead to a difference in performance. Tracking error: this means that there is a small percentage of error between the actual index composition and the fund composition. This is due to various reasons. Effectively this would result in the difference between values. Demand / Supply: with ETFs, the fund is traded on stock exchanges like a stock. If the general feeling is that the index is rising, it could lead to an increase in the price of the ETF. Index funds on the other hand would remain the same for the day and are less liquid. This results in a price increase / decrease depending on the market. The above explains the reason for the difference. Regarding which one to buy, one would need to consider other factors like: a) How easy is it to buy ETFs? Do you already hold Demat A/C & access to brokers to help you conduct the transaction or do you need to open an additional account at some cost. b) Normally funds do not need any account, but are you OK with less liquidity as it would take more time to redeem funds.",
"qid": 9882,
"docid": "408524",
"rank": 96,
"score": 103659
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"You seem to be assuming that ETFs must all work like the more traditional closed-end funds, where the market price per share tends—based on supply and demand—to significantly deviate from the underlying net asset value per share. The assumption is simplistic. What are traditionally referred to as closed-end funds (CEFs), where unit creation and redemption are very tightly controlled, have been around for a long time, and yes, they do often trade at a premium or discount to NAV because the quantity is inflexible. Yet, what is generally meant when the label \"\"ETF\"\" is used (despite CEFs also being both \"\"exchange-traded\"\" and \"\"funds\"\") are those securities which are not just exchange-traded, and funds, but also typically have two specific characteristics: (a) that they are based on some published index, and (b) that a mechanism exists for shares to be created or redeemed by large market participants. These characteristics facilitate efficient pricing through arbitrage. Essentially, when large market participants notice the price of an ETF diverging from the value of the shares held by the fund, new units of the ETF can get created or redeemed in bulk. The divergence quickly narrows as these participants buy or sell ETF units to capture the difference. So, the persistent premium (sometimes dear) or discount (sometimes deep) one can easily witness in the CEF universe tend not to occur with the typical ETF. Much of the time, prices for ETFs will tend to be very close to their net asset value. However, it isn't always the case, so proceed with some caution anyway. Both CEF and ETF providers generally publish information about their funds online. You will want to find out what is the underlying Net Asset Value (NAV) per share, and then you can determine if the market price trades at a premium or a discount to NAV. Assuming little difference in an ETF's price vs. its NAV, the more interesting question to ask about an ETF then becomes whether the NAV itself is a bargain, or not. That means you'll need to be more concerned with what stocks are in the index the fund tracks, and whether those stocks are a bargain, or not, at their current prices. i.e. The ETF is a basket, so look at each thing in the basket. Of course, most people buy ETFs because they don't want to do this kind of analysis and are happy with market average returns. Even so, sector-based ETFs are often used by traders to buy (or sell) entire sectors that may be undervalued (or overvalued).\"",
"qid": 9882,
"docid": "119819",
"rank": 97,
"score": 103653
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Bond ETFs are traded like normal stock. It just so happens to be that the underlying fund (for which you own shares) is invested in bonds. Such funds will typically own many bonds and have them laddered so that they are constantly maturing. Such funds may also trade bonds on the OTC market. Note that with bond ETFs you're able to lose money as well as gain depending on the situation with the bond market. The issuer of the bond does not need to default in order for this to happen. The value of a bond (and thus the value of the bond fund which holds the bonds) is, much like a stock, determined based on factors like supply/demand, interest rates, credit ratings, news, etc.",
"qid": 9882,
"docid": "137299",
"rank": 98,
"score": 103488
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You have left out the most important piece of information: are you an American citizen? If you are, then PFIC rules mean you need to be very careful not to invest in any foreign index funds/ETFs. That means it will probably be easiest for you to just leave the money in the US and continue to invest it there. If you do not have US citizenship, and have never had a green card, then you will qualify for non-resident alien status after you've been gone for 3 years. Once that happens, you won't owe US capital gains tax (though you will owe it in AUS). You will owe 30% tax on dividends, though. Much more at Investopedia.",
"qid": 9882,
"docid": "565296",
"rank": 99,
"score": 103441
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"It is difficult to find investment banks that offer both low fees and low minimum investments. If you google around for \"\"no-fee low-minimum mutual funds\"\" you can find various articles with recommendations, such as this one. One fund they mention that looks promising is the Schwab Total Stock Market Index Fund, which apparently has a minimum investment of only $100 and an expense ratio of 0.09%. (I've never heard of this fund before, so I'm just repeating the info from the site. Be sure to look into it more thoroughly to see if there are any hidden costs here. I'm not recommending this fund, just mentioning it as an example of what you may be able to find.) Another possibility is to make use of funds in an existing brokerage account that you use for yourself. This could allow you to make use of Craig W.'s suggestion about ETFs. For instance, if you already have a brokerage account at Vanguard or another firm, you could add $100 to the account and buy some particular fund, mentally earmarking it as your daughter's.\"",
"qid": 9882,
"docid": "443951",
"rank": 100,
"score": 103219
}
] |
What does Chapter 11 Bankruptcy mean to an investor holding shares of a Chapter 11 Company? | [
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you've got shares in a company that's filed for U.S. Chapter 11 bankruptcy, that sucks, it really does. I've been there before and you may lose your entire investment. If there's still a market for your shares and you can sell them, you may want to just accept the loss and get out with what you can. However, shares of bankrupt companies are often delisted once bankrupt, since the company no longer meets minimum exchange listing requirements. If you're stuck holding shares with no market, you could lose everything – but that's not always the case: Chapter 11 isn't total and final bankruptcy where the company ceases to exist after liquidation of its assets to pay off its debts. Rather, Chapter 11 is a section of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code that permits a company to attempt to reorganize (or renegotiate) its debt obligations. During Chapter 11 reorganization, a company can negotiate with its creditors for a better arrangement. They typically need to demonstrate to creditors that without the burden of the heavy debt, they could achieve profitability. Such reorganization often involves creditors taking complete or majority ownership of the company when it emerges from Chapter 11 through a debt-for-equity swap. That's why you, as an investor before the bankruptcy, are very likely to get nothing or just pennies on the dollar. Any equity you may be left holding will be considerably diluted in value. It's rare that shareholders before a Chapter 11 bankruptcy still retain any equity after the company emerges from Chapter 11, but it is possible. But it varies from bankruptcy to bankruptcy and it can be complex as montyloree pointed out. Investopedia has a great article: An Overview of Corporate Bankruptcy. Here's an excerpt: If a company you've got a stake in files for bankruptcy, chances are you'll get back pennies to the dollar. Different bankruptcy proceedings or filings generally give some idea as to whether the average investor will get back all or a portion of his investment, but even that is determined on a case-by-case basis. There is also a pecking order of creditors and investors of who get paid back first, second and last. In this article, we'll explain what happens when a public company files for protection under U.S. bankruptcy laws and how it affects investors. [...] How It Affects Investors [...] When your company goes bankrupt, there is a very good chance you will not get back the full value of your investment. In fact, there is a chance you won't get anything back. [...] Wikipedia has a good article on Chapter 11 bankruptcy at Chapter 11, Title 11, United States Code.",
"qid": 9925,
"docid": "374309",
"rank": 1,
"score": 150649
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Generally \"\"default\"\" means that the company cannot pay off their debts, and since debt holders get paid before equity holders, their equity would be effectively worthless. That said, companies can emerge from Chapter 11 bankruptcy (reorganization) and retain equity value, but it is rare. Most times, stocks are de-listed or frozen on stock exchanges, and company's reorganization plan will cancel all existing equity shares, instead focusing all of their attention on paying back as much debt as possible. If the company issues new equity after reorganizing, it might provide a way for holders of the original equity to exchange their shares for the new equity, but it is rare, and the value is usually significantly less that the value of the original equity.\"",
"qid": 9925,
"docid": "541219",
"rank": 2,
"score": 137846
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"No. If the share price drops to $0, it's likely that the company is in bankruptcy. Usually, debt holders (especially holders of senior debt) are paid first, and you're entitled to whatever the bankruptcy proceedings decide to give holders of equity after the debt holders are paid off. More often than not, equity holders probably won't get much. To give an example, corporate bankruptcy usually involves one of two options: liquidation or reorganization. In the US, these are called Chapter 7 and Chapter 11 bankruptcy, respectively. Canada and the United Kingdom also have similar procedures for corporations, although in the UK, reorganization is often referred to as administration. Many countries have similar procedures in place. I'll use the US as an example because it's what I'm most familiar with. In Chapter 7 bankruptcy, the company is liquidated to pay its debts. Investopedia's article about bankruptcy states: During Chapter 7 bankruptcy, investors are considered especially low on the ladder. Usually, the stock of a company undergoing Chapter 7 proceedings is usually worthless, and investors lose the money they invested. If you hold a bond, you might receive a fraction of its face value. What you receive depends on the amount of assets available for distribution and where your investment ranks on the priority list on the first page. In Chapter 11 bankruptcy, the company is turned over to a trustee that guides it through a reorganization. The Investopedia article quotes the SEC to describe what happens to stockholders when this happens: \"\"During Chapter 11 bankruptcy, bondholders stop receiving interest and principal payments, and stockholders stop receiving dividends. If you are a bondholder, you may receive new stock in exchange for your bonds, new bonds or a combination of stock and bonds. If you are a stockholder, the trustee may ask you to send back your stock in exchange for shares in the reorganized company. The new shares may be fewer in number and worth less. The reorganization plan spells out your rights as an investor and what you can expect to receive, if anything, from the company.\"\" The exact details will depend on the reorganization plan that's worked out, local laws, court agreements, etc.. For example, in the case of General Motor's bankruptcy, stockholders in the company before reorganization were left with worthless shares and were not granted shares in the new company.\"",
"qid": 9925,
"docid": "280111",
"rank": 3,
"score": 127384
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I held shares in BIND Therapeutics, a small biotechnology company on the NASDAQ that was liquidated on the chapter 11 auction block in 2016. There were sufficient proceeds to pay the debts and return some cash to shareholders, with payments in 2016 and 2017. (Some payments have yet to occur.) The whole process is counter-intuitive and full of landmines, both for tax preparation & planning and receiving payments: Landmine 0: Some shareholders will sell in a panic as soon as the chapter 11 is announced. This would have been a huge mistake in the case of BIND, because the eventual liquidation payments were worth 3 or so times as much as the share price after chapter 11. The amount of the liquidation payments wasn't immediately calculable, because the company's intellectual property had to be auctioned. Landmine 1: The large brokerages (Vanguard, Fidelity, TDA, and others) mischaracterized the distributions to shareholders on form 1099, distributed to both shareholders and the IRS. The bankruptcy trustee considered this to be their responsibility. According to the tax code and to the IRS website, the liquidation is taxed like a sale of stock, rather than a dividend. \"\"On the shareholder level, a complete liquidation can be thought of as a sale of all outstanding corporate stock held by the shareholders in exchange for all of the assets in that corporation. Like any sale of stock, the shareholder receives capital gain treatment on the difference between the amount received by the shareholder in the distribution and the cost or other basis of the stock.\"\" Mischaracterizing the distributions as dividends makes them wrongly ineligible to be wiped out by the enormous capital loss on the stock. Vanguard's error appeared on my own 1099, and the others were mentioned in an investor discussion on stocktwits. However, Geoffrey L Berman, the bankruptcy trustee stated on twitter that while the payments are NOT dividends, the 1099s were the brokers' responsibility. Landmine 2: Many shareholders will wrongly attempt to claim the capital loss for tax year 2016, or they may have failed to understand the law in time for proper tax planning for tax year 2016. It does not matter that the company's BINDQ shares were cancelled in 2016. According to the IRS website \"\"When a shareholder receives a series of distributions in liquidation, gain is recognized once all of the shareholder's stock basis is recovered. A loss, however, will not be recognized until the final distribution is received.\"\" In particular, shareholders who receive the 2017 payment will not be able to take a capital loss for tax year 2016 because the liquidation wasn't complete. Late discovery of this timing issue no doubt resulted in an end-of-year underestimation of 2016 overall capital gains for many, causing a failure to preemptively realize available capital losses elsewhere. I'm not going to carefully consider the following issues, which may or may not have some effect on the timing of the capital loss: Landmine 3: Surprisingly, it appears that some shareholders who sold their shares in 2016 still may not claim the capital loss for tax year 2016, because they will receive a liquidation distribution in 2017. Taken at face value, the IRS website's statement \"\"A loss, however, will not be recognized until the final distribution is received\"\" appears to apply to shareholders of record of August 30, 2016, who receive the payouts, even if they sold the shares after the record date. However, to know for sure it might be worth carefully parsing the relevant tax code and treasury regs. Landmine 4: Some shareholders are completely cut out of the bankruptcy distribution. The bankruptcy plan only provides distributions for shareholders of record Aug 30, 2016. Those who bought shares of BINDQ afterwards are out of luck. Landmine 5: According to the discussion on stocktwits, many shareholders have yet to receive or even learn of the existence of a form [more secure link showing brokers served here] required to accept 2017 payments. To add to confusion there is apparently ongoing legal wrangling over whether the trustee is able to require this form. Worse, shareholders report difficulty getting brokers' required cooperation in submitting this form. Landmine 6: Hopefully there are no more landmines. Boom. DISCLAIMER: I am not a tax professional. Consult the tax code/treasury regulations/IRS publications when preparing your taxes. They are more trustworthy than accountants, or at least more trustworthy than good ones.\"",
"qid": 9925,
"docid": "289120",
"rank": 4,
"score": 125103
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: There are two common filings under the bankruptcy code. Chapter 11 provides for the company to be reorganized and prevents the creditors from suing for their debts for a period. Hopefully the company becomes profitable and can pay the creditors later, possibly negotiating a reduction in debt, or an exchange of stock for debt. Chapter 7 is liquidation, in which the company is sold with the proceeds going to the creditors. (I may have some of this wrong, as I am just writing this off the top of my head.)",
"qid": 9925,
"docid": "144521",
"rank": 5,
"score": 124688
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You should double-check what it means to be in [Chapter 11](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapter_11,_Title_11,_United_States_Code) Yes, by filing for bankruptcy, the company gets some protection from creditors and some of their investment dries up, but it's the owners who take it on the nose first. Also, individuals can file for Chapter 11, too. It's not just corporations.",
"qid": 9925,
"docid": "303489",
"rank": 6,
"score": 114954
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"With debts exceeding assets by a billion dollars, this activity likely comes from penny stock speculators and \"\"pump and dump\"\" schemers. There is no rational expectation that the stock is even worth multiple pennies when the company is that far upside-down on its debts. Even if the debts could be restructured in a chapter 11, the equity shares would likely lose all of their value in the bankruptcy proceedings. Shareholders are at the bottom of the totem-pole when debts are being adjusted by the courts.\"",
"qid": 9925,
"docid": "291220",
"rank": 7,
"score": 112624
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Here is a good example of why our bankruptcy laws need some tweeking: >This horror story begins with the Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing made by AMR Corp. (the holding company that owns American Airlines) last November. Bankruptcy, conventionally speaking, is about restructuring debts owed to banks and bondholders. But most of American’s debt was backed by hard assets like airplanes. What’s more, AMR actually had some cash on hand at the time of the filing. The debts American really wanted to restructure were the implicit debts to employees. As S&P analyst Philip Baggaley put it at the time, the goal was to “reorganize in Chapter 11 and emerge as a somewhat smaller airline with more competitive labor costs and a lighter debt load.” In other words, American went into bankruptcy primarily so it could pay people less.",
"qid": 9925,
"docid": "319129",
"rank": 8,
"score": 109837
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"From the Times A Reader Q.&A. on G.M.’s Bankruptcy Q. I own G.M. preferred shares. Should I be looking to sell them, or hold on? I bought them at $25 a share when they were issued in late 2001. — Karen, Manhattan A. When a company files for bankruptcy, its various stock and bondholders essentially get in line. The first investors to be repaid are secured debt holders, then senior bond investors, followed by subordinated debt holders. Preferred shareholders are next, and lastly, holders of common stock. In a bankruptcy, preferred shares are usually worthless, much like shares of common stock. But in the case of G.M., there may be some good — or at least somewhat better — news. Most of G.M.’s preferred shares are actually senior notes or “quarterly interest bonds,” which means you will be treated as a bondholder, according to Marilyn Cohen, president of Envision Capital Management. So you will be able to exchange your preferreds for G.M. stock (bondholders will receive 10 percent of the new company’s stock). It’s not the best deal, but it beats the empty bag true preferred shareholders would have been left holding. Of course this is just one example, and you were hoping to get some larger picture. The article stated \"\"In a bankruptcy, preferred shares are usually worthless, much like shares of common stock\"\" which at least is a bit closer to that, if you accept usually as a statistic.\"",
"qid": 9925,
"docid": "414215",
"rank": 9,
"score": 109001
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: From my limited experience, having taken a class on Bankruptcy in order to become a paralegal, Chapter 11 is the portion of the Bankruptcy Code that allows certain corporate entities to reorganize. Basically, the entity files for bankruptcy protection to halt credit collections or any number of reasons, and then work with the courts to get out. If the entity can put together a reasonable sounding restructuring plan, the court may allow them to do it. A restructuring plan essentially is a plan of who to pay back, when, and by what means (this is seriously a simple explanation, it's much more complex than this). So if the Court approves the plan, the entity will attempt to carry it out and come out of bankruptcy several years down the road in a more solvent position. If the Court rejects the plan or the plan fails, then the entity has to then engage in Chapter 7 proceedings (selling assets to pay off debts).",
"qid": 9925,
"docid": "135128",
"rank": 10,
"score": 108447
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You are, somewhat hysterically, a creditor. Babies R Us owes you. As such, you have *some* sort of claim. Now, Toys R Us is undergoing Chapter 11 bankruptcy, which means the company *isn't* going away into the dust from whence it came. At least not yet. You should be able to either utilize the credit still at stores. Converting to cash may depend on how you hold the credit. Is it on account with the store, or is it through gift cards or something? You can certainly sell the gift cards. You may sell at face value or, possibly, at a discount. If you don't have gift cards, you can use the credit to purchase merchandise and then sell that to others. That will translate into inventory risk.",
"qid": 9925,
"docid": "10967",
"rank": 11,
"score": 101743
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: All investors of equal standing get the same proportion of the net assets on bankruptcy but not all shareholders are of equal standing. In general, once all liabilities are covered, bond holders are paid first as that type of investment is company debt, then preferred stock holders are paid out and then common shareholders. This is the reason why preferred stock is usually cheaper - it is less risky as it has a higher claim to assets and therefore commands a lower risk premium. The exact payout schedule is very corporation dependent so needs research on a per firm basis.",
"qid": 9925,
"docid": "142835",
"rank": 12,
"score": 98282
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: 1st question: If I bought 1 percent share of company X, but unfortunately it closed down because of some reason as it was 1 million in debt. Since I had 1 percent of it shares, does it mean I also have to pay the 1 percent of it's debt? Stock holders are not liable for anything more than their current holdings. In cases of Ch11 bankruptcy stock holders usually get nothing. In Ch7 the holdings will be severely hit but one may get 10% of pre-bk prices. I would strongly recommend against investing in bankrupt companies. A seasoned trader can make plenty off short term trades. The payoff structure is usually: 2nd question: Is there an age requirements to enter the stock market? I am 15 years old this year. Yes it is generally 18, but some firms offer a joint option that your parents can open.",
"qid": 9925,
"docid": "175879",
"rank": 13,
"score": 96738
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"If a company is doing well, it seems less likely to go bankrupt. If a company is doing poorly, it seems more likely to go bankrupt. The problem is, where is the inflection point between \"\"well\"\" and \"\"poorly\"\"? When does a company start to head into oblivion? Sometimes it is hard to know. But if you don't call that right and hold onto your shares when a company is tanking, others, who call it before you do, will sell off, devalue the share price, and now you've missed your chance to get out at a good profit. If you hang on too long, the company may just go bankrupt and you've lost your investment entirely. A healthy profitability of the company therefore has to bolster investor confidence in avoiding this very unpleasant scenario. Therefore, the more profitable a company is, the more shareholder confidence it inspires, and the more willing to pay for it in the form of increased share price. And, this then has a \"\"meta\"\" effect, in that each shareholder thinks, \"\"all other investors think this way, too,\"\" and so each feels good about holding the stock, since he knows he can likely easily liquidate it for good cash if he needs to, either now or in the next year or sometime hence.\"",
"qid": 9925,
"docid": "251735",
"rank": 14,
"score": 93527
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If the company went bankrupt, the issued public shares that were outstanding at the time most likely were voided, in which case your shares are most definitely gone. The company might have done a new stock issuance coming out of bankruptcy with a different symbol, and while it could be substantially the same company, it doesn't mean much for you. It's unfortunate this may be the case, but it is one of the risks of investing.",
"qid": 9925,
"docid": "20675",
"rank": 15,
"score": 91293
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \">As a legal matter, shareholders who purchase shares of stock in a corporation own nothing more than that—shares of stock. Similarly, bondholders own only bonds, and executives with employment contracts own their contracts. None of these types of ownership give shareholders, bondholders or executives the right to control the firm. The right to control the firm’s assets and actions rests in the hands of its board of directors, and only when they act as a body and follow proper board procedures. All this says is \"\"decisions are made by the board.\"\" This is not news, and it doesn't mean that shareholders do not own the company. Shareholders elect the board, by the way. >An important consequence of this governance structure is that shareholders not only have no legal right to control the firm, they also have no legal right to help themselves to the corporation’s assets. Well, that's wrong. >In fact, the only time shareholders receive any funds directly from the corporation’s coffers is when they receive a dividend or the corporation repurchases their shares. Or, you know, in the case of bankruptcy. >This only happens when the directors vote to declare a dividend or a corporate repurchase. The same directors who were appointed by shareholders. >At law, a principal has a right to control her agent. But shareholders can’t exercise direct control over corporate directors. I suppose this is true in the sense that shareholders cannot practice slavery. But shareholders can, again, vote on issues relating to the governance of the company. >It is thus wildly misleading to describe shareholders as the sole residual claimants in companies that aren’t actually in bankruptcy. This is only true if you're retarded and don't know what \"\"residual\"\" means. >This idea is supported by modern options theory. In effect, bondholders own the right to access cash flow but have sold a call to shareholders, while shareholders own the right to access the cash flow but have sold a put to bondholders. Neither shareholders nor bondholders can claim an exclusive right to “own” the company’s cash flow, much less the company. This is a made up explanation that doesn't mean anything. The real options model of corporate assets is that corporate debt is a risk-free bond with a short put option and equity is a call option. There is no \"\"deal,\"\" in actuality or in spirit, between debt and equity owners. You can dismiss the article as \"\"shit.\"\"\"",
"qid": 9925,
"docid": "71614",
"rank": 16,
"score": 89070
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The toy retailer Toys R Us may be on the brink of filing for bankruptcy. It's one of several options the chain is considering to pay down $5 billion in debt it owes as a result of a leveraged buyout in 2005, according to The Wall Street Journal. And a filing could come as soon as this week, according to a new report from CNBC's Lauren Hirsch. The chain's trio of owners — the private-equity firms Kohlberg Kravis Roberts and Bain Capital Partners and the real-estate investment trust Vornado Realty Trust — bought the company in a deal worth $6.6 billion, taking it private. CNBC previously reported that the chain had hired the law firm Kirkland & Ellis LLP, and that it was exploring options to take care of its debt and working with its creditors to stave off filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. Chapter 11 protection would allow the company to restructure $400 million in debt due in 2018 then renegotiate the rest, according to CNBC. The debt crisis looms at a critical time for the toy seller. Toys R Us last year made 40% of its sales in the fourth quarter, thanks to holiday shopping. Vendors are feeling increasingly anxious about the chain's ability to pay down its debts, according to the reports, which could lead to a shortage of toys to stock its shelves and further exacerbate the issue. Toys R Us has also struggled as it increasingly competes with online retailers in its two main businesses: baby goods and toys. A Toys R Us representative did not immediately respond to a request for comment.",
"qid": 9925,
"docid": "532181",
"rank": 17,
"score": 88537
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You are asking about what happens when an ETF/mutual fund company goes bankrupt. If you were asking about a bank account you would be asking about FDIC coverage. Investment funds are different, the closest thing to FDIC protection is provided by Securities Investors Protection Corporation (SIPC) SIPC was created under the Securities Investor Protection Act as a non-profit membership corporation. SIPC oversees the liquidation of member broker-dealers that close when the broker-dealer is bankrupt or in financial trouble, and customer assets are missing. In a liquidation under the Securities Investor Protection Act, SIPC and the court-appointed Trustee work to return customers’ securities and cash as quickly as possible. Within limits, SIPC expedites the return of missing customer property by protecting each customer up to $500,000 for securities and cash (including a $250,000 limit for cash only). SIPC is an important part of the overall system of investor protection in the United States. While a number of federal and state securities agencies and self-regulatory organizations deal with cases of investment fraud, SIPC's focus is both different and narrow: restoring customer cash and securities left in the hands of bankrupt or otherwise financially troubled brokerage firms. SIPC was not chartered by Congress to combat fraud. Although created under a federal law, SIPC is not an agency or establishment of the United States Government, and it has no authority to investigate or regulate its member broker-dealers. It is important to understand that SIPC is not the securities world equivalent of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), which insures depositors of insured banks.",
"qid": 9925,
"docid": "304851",
"rank": 18,
"score": 87666
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: In most cases , preferential sharesholders are paid dividends first before common shareholders are paid . In the event of a company bankruptcy , preferential shareholders have the right to be paid first before common shareholders. In exchange for these benefits , preferential shareholders do not have any voting rights. The issuing of preferential shares has no impact on share prices or issuing of bonuses , it is a mere coincidence that the stock price went up",
"qid": 9925,
"docid": "186643",
"rank": 19,
"score": 85578
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Technically, of course. Almost any company can go bankrupt. One small note: a company goes bankrupt, not its stock. Its stock may become worthless in bankruptcy, but a stock disappearing or being delisted doesn't necessarily mean the company went bankrupt. Bankruptcy has implications for a company's debt as well, so it applies to more than just its stock. I don't know of any historical instances where this has happened, but presumably, the warning signs of bankruptcy would be evident enough that a few things could happen. Another company, e.g. another exchange, holding firm, etc. could buy out the exchange that's facing financial difficulty, and the companies traded on it would transfer to the new company that's formed. If another exchange bought out the struggling exchange, the shares of the latter could transfer to the former. This is an attractive option because exchanges possess a great deal of infrastructure already in place. Depending on the country, this could face regulatory scrutiny however. Other firms or governments could bail out the exchange if no one presented a buyout offer. The likelihood of this occurring depends on several factors, e.g. political will, the government(s) in question, etc. For a smaller exchange, the exchange could close all open positions at a set price. This is exactly what happened with the Hong Kong Mercantile Exchange (HKMex) that MSalters mentioned. When the exchange collapsed in May 2013, it closed all open positions for their price on the Thursday before the shutdown date. I don't know if a stock exchange would simply close all open positions at a set price, since equity technically exists in perpetuity regardless of the shutdown of an exchange, while many derivatives have an expiration date. Furthermore, this might not be a feasible option for a large exchange. For example, the Chicago Mercantile Exchange lists thousands of products and manages hundreds of millions of transactions, so closing all open positions could be a significant undertaking. If none of the above options were available, I presume companies listed on the exchange would actively move to other, more financially stable exchanges. These companies wouldn't simply go bankrupt. Contracts can always be listed on other exchanges as well. Considering the high level of mergers and acquisitions, both unsuccessful and successful, in the market for exchanges in recent years, I would assume that option 1 would be the most likely (see the NYSE Euronext/Deutsche Börse merger talks and the NYSE Euronext/ICE merger that's currently in progress), but for smaller exchanges, there is the recent historical precedent of the HKMex that speaks to #3. Also, the above answer really only applies to publicly traded stock exchanges, and not all stock exchanges are publicly-held entities. For example, the Shanghai Stock Exchange is a quasi-governmental organization, so I presume option 2 would apply because it already receives government backing. Its bankruptcy would mean something occurred for the government to withdraw its backing or that it became public, and a discussion of those events occurring in the future is pure speculation.",
"qid": 9925,
"docid": "127578",
"rank": 20,
"score": 84934
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: True blue preferred shares are considered loose hybrids of credit and equity. They are more senior than common equity in bankruptcy liquidation but pay out a dividend which is not mandatory. Financial institutions issue the bulk of genuine preferred shares because of their need for more flexibility than a bond but not so much that they can afford the cost to shareholders by diluting common equity. Since it is a credit-like security that receives none of the income from operations but merely pays out a potentially unpredictable yet fixed amount of income, it will perform much more like a bond, rising when interest rates fall and vice versa, and since interest rates do not move to the extent of common equity valuations, preferreds' price variances will correspond much more to bonds than common equities. If the company stops paying the preferred dividend or looks to become in financial trouble, the price of the preferred share should be expected to fall. There are more modern preferred however. It has now become popular to fund intermediate startups with convertible preferred shares. Because these are derivatives based upon the common equity, they can be expected to be much more variant.",
"qid": 9925,
"docid": "385020",
"rank": 21,
"score": 83189
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: ETFs are legally separate from their issuer, so the money invested should (the lines can get blurry in a massive crisis) be inaccessible to any bankruptcy claims. The funds assets (its shares in S&P500 companies) are held by a custodian who also keeps these assets separate from their own book. That said, if no other institution takes over the SPY funds the custodian will probably liquidate the fund and distribute the proceeds to the ETF holders, this is likely a less than ideal situation for the holders as the S&P500 would probably not be at its highest levels if State Street is going bankrupt (not to mention the potential taxation).",
"qid": 9925,
"docid": "7998",
"rank": 22,
"score": 81698
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"What drives the stock of bankrupt companies? Such stock is typically considered \"\"distressed assets\"\". Technically, what drives it is what drives every stock - supply and demand. A more interesting question is of course, why would there be demand? First, who exerts the buying pressure on the stock? Typically, three types of entities: The largest ones are financial institutions specializing in distressed assets (frequently, alternatives specialists - hedge funds, private equity firms etc...). Usually, they invest in distressed debt or distressed preferred equity; but sometimes distressed equity as well. Why? We will discuss their motivations separately in this answer. Second one are existing equity holders. Why? Short answer, behavioral psychology and behavioral economics. Many investors - especially non-professionals - insist on holding distressed stocks due to variety of investment fallacies (sunk cost etc...); usually constructing elaborate theories of why and how the company and the stock will recover Sometimes, people who buy into penny stock scams, pump and dump schemes etc... Why? \"\"There's a sucker born every minute.\"\" - P.T. Barnum Let's find out why an investment professional would invest in distressed equity? First, the general process is always the same. Company's assets are used to pay off its liabilities; in accordance with applicable law. There are two ways this can be done - either through selling the company; OR through bankruptcy process. The liabilities are paid according to seniority. The seniority priorities rules are covered by 11 U.S. Code § 507 - Priorities A company in bankruptcy can have one of 2 outcomes: Buyout. Some buyer might decide that the company's assets are worth something to them as a whole; and buy the whole enterprise; rather than risk it being destroyed piecemeal in bankruptcy proceedings. In that case, the proceeds from the sale will be used to fund the liabilities as discussed above. This option is one of the possible reasons people might consider investing in distressed equity. For example, if the company is in bankruptcy because it can't get enough financing right now, but is likely to have good profits in the future. The chances are, some buyer will buy it for a premium that includes those future profits; and that sale amount might possibly exceed the liabilities. Bankruptcy. The assets are sold and liabilities are covered according to priorities. In that case, the investors in distressed equity might be hoping that there are un-obvious assets whose value would also put the total assets above claimed liabilities. Additional possible beneficial factor is that unsecured debtors must file with the court in order to be paid; and the claim must be validated. Some might fail on either count; so total amount of liabilities might lessen once the bankruptcy process goes through. Assets Now, here's where things get interesting. Of course, companies have usual assets. Real estate, inventory, plants, cash, etc... These are all able to be sold to cover liabilities, and at first glance are possibly not enough to cover liabilities, leaving equity holders with nothing (and even that's not a certainty - bankruptcy is simply inability to service debt payments; and while it correlates to assetsliquid assets, not full asset valuation). But some assets are less sure, and are thus rarely included in such calculations. These may include: Chances of winning appeals if specific existing liabilities are results of litigation, e.g. tax appeals, court judgement appeals etc... Clawbacks and lawsuits against former executives, especially in cases where the company's financial distress resulted from executive malfeasance. I was personally involved in one such case as an equity holder, where the company assets were valued at $X; had liabilities of $X*2; but had a real possibility of winning about $X*3 in a lawsuit against former CEO accused of various malfeasance including fraud and insider trading. As such, the best case scenario was literally 100% profit on holding that distressed equity.\"",
"qid": 9925,
"docid": "476859",
"rank": 23,
"score": 81249
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Yes and no. There are different classes of shares - Some have voting rights, some *don't*. Some take precedence over others in a bankruptcy. Some get larger dividends. \"\"Common\"\" isn't really a useful description of your stake in the company. You *do* have a \"\"stake\"\" in the company, but not all shares are equal.\"",
"qid": 9925,
"docid": "433197",
"rank": 24,
"score": 80600
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I once bought both preferred and common shares in a bankrupt company. It is true that those preferred shares had less potential for appreciation than the common shares. The reason is because the preferred shares were trading around $50 and had a face value of $1000. This means that if the bankruptcy proceedings ended up finding enough assets to make the preferred shares whole, then the preferred shareholders would be paid $1000 per share and no more than that. So if you bought the preferred shares at $50 and received $1000 per share for them, then you made a 1900% gain. But if the bankruptcy proceedings found enough assets to pay not just the preferred shareholders but also the common shareholders, then the common shareholders had the potential for a greater gain than the preferred shareholders. The common stock was trading around 20 cents at the time, and if enough assets were found to pay $10 per share to the common shareholders, then that would have been a 4900% gain. The preferred shares were capped by their face value, but the common shares had no limit on how high they could go.",
"qid": 9925,
"docid": "580512",
"rank": 25,
"score": 80070
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"When they entered Bankruptcy they changed their stock symbol from AAMR to AAMRQ. The Q tells investors that the company i in Bankruptcy. This i what the SEC says about the Q: \"\"Q\"\" Added To Stock Ticker Symbol When a company is involved in bankruptcy proceedings, the letter \"\"Q\"\" is added to the end of the company's stock ticker symbol. In most cases, when a company emerges from bankruptcy, the reorganization plan will cancel the existing equity stock and the old shares will be worthless. Given that risk, before purchasing stock in a bankrupt company, investors should read the company's proposed plan of reorganization. For more information about the impact of bankruptcy proceedings on securities, please read our online publication, Corporate Bankruptcy. The risks are they never recover, or that the old shares have nothing to do with new company. Many investors don't understand this. Recently some uninformed investors(?) tried to get a jump on the Twitter IPO by purchasing share of what they thought was Twitter but was instead the bankrupt company Tweeter Home Entertainment. Shares of Tweeter Home Entertainment, a Boston-based consumer electronics chain that filed for bankruptcy in 2007, soared Friday in a case of mistaken identity on Wall Street. Apparently, some investors confused Tweeter, which trades under the symbol TWTRQ, with Twitter and piled into the penny stock. Tweeter, which trades over the counter, opened at 2 cents a share and jumped as much as 15 cents — or 1,800 percent — before regulators halted trading. Almost 15 million shares had changed hands at that point, while the average daily volume is closer to 150,000. Sometimes it does happen that the new company does give some value to the old investors, but more often then not the old investors are completely wiped out.\"",
"qid": 9925,
"docid": "341293",
"rank": 26,
"score": 79382
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Just to be clear, it is Chapter 11. They are only restructuring their debt, not closing down. Every store is still open and will continue to be for a while. Things are not necessarily clear skies for them, but they definitely aren't going under yet",
"qid": 9925,
"docid": "440647",
"rank": 27,
"score": 79012
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The only thing that makes a stock worthless is when the company goes out of business. Note that bankruptcy, by itself, does not mean the company is closing. It could successfully restructure its affairs and come out of bankruptcy with a better outlook. Being a small or unprofitable business may cause a company's to trade in the \"\"penny stock\"\" range, but there is still some value there. Since most dying companies will pass through the penny stock phase, you may be able to track down what you're looking for by finding companies who have been (or are about to be) delisted. Delisting is not death, it's just the point at which the company's shares no longer meet the qualifications to be traded on a particular exchange. If you find old stock certificates in your grandmother's sock drawer, they may be a treasure, or they may be worthless pieces of paper if the company changed its ownership and Grandma didn't know about it.\"",
"qid": 9925,
"docid": "231677",
"rank": 28,
"score": 78790
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Presumably you mean to ask what happens if State Street files chapter 7 bankruptcy, since not all bankruptcy proceedings end in liquidation. SPY is a well known ticker, I can't imagine that there wouldn't be an eager bank willing to pay to pick up that ticker and immediately acquire all the assets related to it. The most likely scenario is that another bank would assume control of the ticker and assets, and the shares would continue trading as they always have. A less likely scenario is that no other financial institution wanted to acquire SPY, and the shares would be liquidated and the proceeds would go to the owners of shares of the ETF. Since the underlying assets are in companies that have actual value, the shares shouldn't trade at much of a discount prior to liquidation. Additionally, if there is a black swan event, there will probably be losses on the underlying assets, so it might even be helpful if the SPY fund was tied up in legal proceedings while everyone gets their heads straight in the market.",
"qid": 9925,
"docid": "47276",
"rank": 29,
"score": 78446
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: P/E is the number of years it would take for the company to earn its share price. You take share price divided by annual earnings per share. You can take the current reported quarterly earnings per share times 4, you can take the sum of the past four actual quarters earnings per share or you can take some projected earnings per share. It has little to do with a company's actual finances apart from the earnings per share. It doesn't say much about the health of a company's balance sheet, and is definitely not an indicator for bankruptcy. It's mostly a measure of the market's assumptions of the company's ability to grow earnings or maintain it's current earnings growth. A share price of $40 trading for a P/E ratio of 10 means it will take the company 10 years to earn $40 per share, it means there's current annual earnings per share of $4. A different company may also be earning $4 per share but trade at 100 times earnings for a share price of $400. By this measure alone neither company is more or less healthy than the other. One just commands more faith in the future growth from the market. To circle back to your question regarding a negative P/E, a negative P/E ratio means the company is reporting negative earnings (running at a loss). Again, this may or may not indicate an imminent bankruptcy. Increasing balance sheet debt with decreasing revenue and or earnings and or balance sheet assets will be a better way to assess bankruptcy risk.",
"qid": 9925,
"docid": "4290",
"rank": 30,
"score": 78271
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Some stocks do fall to zero. I don't have statistics handy, but I'd guess that a majority of all the companies ever started are now bankrupt and worth zero. Even if a company does not go bankrupt, there is no guarantee that it's value will increase forever, even in a general, overall sense. You might buy a stock when it is at or near its peak, and then it loses value and never regains it. Even if a stock will go back up, you can't know for certain that it will. Suppose you bought a stock for $10 and it's now at $5. If you sell, you lose half your money. But if you hold on, it MIGHT go back up and you make a profit. Or it might continue going down and you lose even more, perhaps your entire investment. A rational person might decide to sell now and cut his losses. Of course, I'm sure many investors have had the experience of selling a stock at a loss, and then seeing the price skyrocket. But there have also been plenty of investors who decided to hold on, only to lose more money. (Just a couple of weeks ago a stock I bought for $1.50 was selling for $14. I could have sold for like 900% profit. Instead I decided to hold on and see if it went yet higher. It's now at $2.50. Fortunately I only invested something like $800. If it goes to zero it will be annoying but not ruin me.) On a bigger scale, if you invest in a variety of stocks and hold on to them for a long period of time, the chance that you will lose money is small. The stock market as a whole has consistently gone up in the long term. But the chance is not zero. And a key phrase is \"\"in the long term\"\". If you need the money today, the fact that the market will probably go back up within a few months or a year or so may not help.\"",
"qid": 9925,
"docid": "289801",
"rank": 31,
"score": 78209
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I seem not to be able to comment on the first answer due to reputation, so I'll aim to enhanced the first answer which is generally good but with these caveats: 1) Dividends are not \"\"guaranteed\"\" to preferred shareholders. Rather, preferred shareholders are normally in line ahead (i.e. in preference to or \"\"preferred\"\") of common shareholders in terms of dividend payment. This is an extremely important distinction, because unlike investments that we generally consider \"\"guaranteed\"\" such as CDs (known as GICs in Canada), a company's board can suspend the dividend at anytime for long periods of time without significant repercussions -- whereas a missed payment to a bank or secured bondholder can often push a company into bankruptcy very quickly. 2) Due to point 1), it is extremely important to know the \"\"convenants\"\" or rules sorrounding both the preferred shares you are buying and the other more senior creditors of that issuing company (i.e. taxes (almost always come first), banks loans, leases, bonds etc.). It is also important to know if a particular preferred share has \"\"cumulative\"\" dividends. You generally only want to buy preferred's that have \"\"cumulative\"\" dividends, since that means that anytime the company misses a payment, they must pay those dividends first before any other dividends at the same or lower priority in the future. 3) Unlike a common stock, your upside on a preferred stock is relatively fixed: you get a fixed share of the company's profit and that's it, whereas a common shareholder gets everything that's left over after interest and preferred dividends are paid. So if the company does really well you will theoretically do much better with common stock over time. For the above reasons, it is generally advisable to think of preferred shares as being more similar to really risky bonds in the same company, rather than similar to common stock. Of course, if you are an advanced investor there are a lot more variables in play such as tax considerations and whether the preferred have special options attached to them such conversion into common shares.\"",
"qid": 9925,
"docid": "405791",
"rank": 32,
"score": 77613
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: What drives the stock of bankrupt companies? The company's potential residual assets. When a company goes bankrupt it is required to sell its assets to pay off its debts. The funds raised from selling assets go to the following entities: The usual order of debt repayment, in terms of the lender, will be the government, financial institutions, other creditors (i.e. suppliers and utility companies), bondholders, preferred shareholders and, finally, common shareholders. Depending on the amount of debt and the value of a company's assets, the common shareholders may receive some left over from liquidated assets. This would drive the stock price of a bankrupt company.",
"qid": 9925,
"docid": "442324",
"rank": 33,
"score": 77495
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"If you mean, If I invest, say, $1000 in a stock that is growing at 5% per year, versus investing $1000 in an account that pays compound interest of 5% per year, how does the amount I have after 5 years compare? Then the answer is, They would be exactly the same. As Kent Anderson says, \"\"compound interest\"\" simply means that as you accumulate interest, that for the next interest cycle, the amount that they pay interest on is based on the previous cycle balance PLUS the interest. For example, suppose you invest $1000 at 5% interest compounded annually. After one year you get 5% of $1000, or $50. You now have $1050. At the end of the second year, you get 5% of $1050 -- not 5% of the original $1000 -- or $52.50, so you now have $1102.50. Etc. Stocks tend to grow in the same way. But here's the big difference: If you get an interest-bearing account, the bank or investment company guarantees the interest rate. Unless they go bankrupt, you WILL get that percentage interest. But there is absolutely no guarantee when you buy stock. It may go up 5% this year, up 4% next year, and down 3% the year after. The company makes no promises about how much growth the stock will show. It may show a loss. It all depends on how well the company does.\"",
"qid": 9925,
"docid": "96121",
"rank": 34,
"score": 77365
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: > If you can't grasp why bankruptcy has different implications, and thus is handled differently, for incorporated businesses, then (facepalm) you don't get it. Care to explain? AA screwed over their creditors by filing Chapter 11 - and will likely screw them over with more bankruptcy filings. A homeowner walking away from an upside-down mortgage screws over his creditor - the bank. Why is one action more moral than the other? On a side note, house price collapses hurt individuals a lot in this country given that the home represents the majority of most people's wealth. If your house falls 50%, you are hurt for life. You might have thought after you paid it off you could live it in the rest of your life with the aid of a reverse mortgage. Not as easy with such a pricing collapse.",
"qid": 9925,
"docid": "212011",
"rank": 35,
"score": 77284
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"That is a great distinction you bring up: Has the Don filed for personal BK or Corp bk? In April of 2011, The Wall Street journal [asked him](http://blogs.wsj.cccom/washwire/2011/04/11/trump-will-probably-run-as-independent-if-he-doesnt-win-gop-nomination/): Should someone who filed for bankruptcy multiple times be running national finances at a time when we have a big debt problem? His Answer? \"\"I've never filed for bankruptcy.\"\" ...um... to say the LEAST this is semantics, I would classify it as an outright lie. I say that because he slaps the name on EVERYTHING, he is the President, CEO, Chairman of the Board - he is responsible (until things go south) then the investors and debtors are left with an empty shell. Here are some examples: * Trump Plaza Hotel bankruptcy – On Nov 2, 1992, Trump's Plaza Hotel was forced to file Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection after being unable to make its debt payments. Under the plan, Trump agreed to give up a 49% stake in this luxury hotel to Citibank and five other lenders. * Trump Shuttle closure – The Trump Shuttle became no more when it merged with Shuttle Inc, operating as USAir Shuttle in 1992. * Donald Trump personal bankruptcy – By 1994, Trump slashed a large portion of his $900 million personal debt and washed away $3.5 billion in his portfolio's business debt. * Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts' bankruptcy – On November 21, 2004 Trump's company filed for bankruptcy. Trump said the filing was \"\"really just a technical thing\"\" as the best way to implement a restructuring plan. * Donald Trump personal bankruptcy (again) – Once again, Trump filed for personal bankruptcy protection and restructured his debt in 2004. * Taj Mahal bankruptcy – On November 22, 2006 Donald J. Trump’s casino empire filed for bankruptcy protection after months of negotiations with bondholders over restructuring a crushing debt. * GoTrump.com – Donald Trump's online travel search engine was launched in 2006. Just a year later it folded. * Trump 29 Casino – Now known as Spotlight 29 Casino because Donald Trump's ownership/management involvement ended in 2006). * Donald Trump Ocean Resort Baja – This Mexican resort was never built and investor's deposits (up to $500,000.00) have not been returned. Trump claims these buyers are “lucky” because they would have lost more money in a tanking market had the projects been actually built. * Trump Towers Tampa – Trump is being sued right now in Tampa, Florida for taking deposits on a 52-story condo tower that he never built. None of the buyers got their $45,000 deposits back. And in an ironic twist, initial sales of this condo were so successful that all deposits were returned to charge a higher price. * Trump International Hotel and Tower Chicago – Trump built the second tallest building in Chicago… he also defaulted on a $40 million loan. Rather than having to pay the bank loan, Trump demanded the same bank should pay him $3 billion for \"\"undermining the project and damaging his reputation.\"\" * Trump Magazine – Trump's private-labeled publication (which was aimed at affluent readers in major US markets) suffered from sagging ad sales. It folded on May 19, 2009. This was Trump's third failed attempt at offering a magazine bearing his name. * Trump International Hotel & Tower New Orleans – If constructed, this Trump Tower would become the tallest building in the city of New Orleans and the state of Louisiana at 70 stories high. But the project was put on hold in February of 2009. * Trump Entertainment Resort Holdings bankruptcy – On February 17, 2009 casino operator Trump Entertainment Resorts Inc filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection (with a debt ratio of $50 million in assets to his $500 million in debt). * Donald Trump SoHo Hotel Condominium – Donald Trump was sued for fraud over his New York SoHo condo offering in 2010. The lawsuit by 15 plaintiffs alleged that during the first 18 months of marketing, Trump advertised that the building was \"\"30, 40, 50, 60 percent or more sold\"\" when in fact just 16% of the units were sold. * Trump Ocean Resort Baja Mexico – Instead of a 525-unit luxury vacation home complex with pools and tennis courts, this project is shaping up to be a legal battle with a big hole in the ground. Dozens of angry buyers sued Trump for failing to complete the project. Trump claims he only lent his name to the project (and it was the developers who allowed the project to fail). * Trump International Hotel & Tower Fort Lauderdale – Construction was to be completed by the end of 2009 featuring 298 hotel condominium units. Having defaulted on a $139 million loan, Donald Trump announced in November of 2010 he was no longer affiliated with the project. * Trump International Hotel & Tower Las Vegas – Through the end of February 2010, the 1,282-unit condominium hotel had only closed on 302 units. That equates to a 23.6% vacancy rate. It was forced into renting out the building as apartments. * Trump International Hotel & Tower in Dubai – This 62-story mixed-used building on the Palm Jumeirah’s Golden Mile was first announced in 2005. Construction was never started and the $2.9 billion project had been canceled and replaced with a shopping mall. So, back to your distinction - has he filed for personal BK? No. Has he filed for personal BK protection while he reorganized debt - YES. Does he manipulate the Corporate BK laws by playing a Corp shell game and filing for BK protection - Yes. Is it smart business? Or a scam? TL:DR - Magnets Bitch! *Edit for formatting\"",
"qid": 9925,
"docid": "7925",
"rank": 36,
"score": 76456
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Every company has \"\"capital\"\". Even if you have a one man company, you probably stated something like \"\"100 shares of $1 each\"\", which means you had to take that $100 out of your own private pocket and pay it into the company. When the company loses money and runs out of cash, they have the possibilities of (1) borrowing some money from the bank, or from a loan shark, (2) borrowing some money from the company owners, or (3) increase the share capital, for example by increasing the number of shares to 10,000 and each share holder pays his part of the $9,900. That's the case that you have here. However, it is only a \"\"liability\"\" in the sense that it isn't money the company earned, it is money that the owners paid in. They have no right to get the money back; the paid-in capital is actually what the owners lose if a limited company goes bankrupt.\"",
"qid": 9925,
"docid": "380429",
"rank": 37,
"score": 76386
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: When I play Railroad Tycoon III, I often send my company deep into debt to get cash on hand to buy back shares, effectively increasing my ownership of the company as an absolute percentage. Then I issue massive dividends until my company goes bankrupt, and start a new company. It's a way to shuttle money borrowed against a company's assets into my personal bank account at no risk to me. In the MSFT case, maybe they think there will be inflation and this is a hedge against holding so many dollars in cash already. If they can borrow a couple billion in 2010 dollars and pay it back in 2015 dollars, they're probably going to end up ahead if all they do is buy back shares. Paying dividends with the money seems stupid vs. buying back shares - they're just driving up income taxes for investors.",
"qid": 9925,
"docid": "552562",
"rank": 38,
"score": 76081
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: A company can issue different kinds of shares. For example, some kinds of shares may get preference in dividends or payment in event of (company) bankruptcy. Preferred shares are an example of this. A company might have several kinds of preferred shares and a 'common stock'. Here is a good explanation. See too the Wikipedia article about preferred stock. Toronto-Dominion Bank (TD) is an example of a company that has fourteen different preferred share issues, each with its own listing on the Toronto Stock Exchange (TSE) and symbol. TD has one kind of common stock, which is also listed on the TSE. However, TD common equity trades much more actively than the preferred shares. Remember that preferred stock is a different security type than common stock e.g. common has voting rights, preferred does not.",
"qid": 9925,
"docid": "251713",
"rank": 39,
"score": 76044
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The answer depends on whether the company involved has 'limited liability'. Most, but not all public and listed companies and corporations have this, but not all so it is worth checking and understanding what you are getting involved with. The expression 'limited liability' means that the owners (shareholders) of a company have a liability up to the amount of the face value of the shares they hold which they have not yet paid for. The difference is usually minor but basically it means that if you buy $10 of shares you have no liability, but if the company gives you $10 of shares, and you pay them (in cash or kind) $5, then you still have a liability of $5. If the company fails, the debtors can come after you for that liability. An 'unlimited liability' company is a different animal altogether. Lloyds insurance is probably the most famous example. Lloyds worked by putting together consortiums to underwrite risk. If the risk doesn't happen, the consortium keeps the premiums, if it does, they cover the loss. Most of the time they are very profitable but not always. For example, the consortiums which covered asbestos caused the bankruptcies of a great many very wealthy people.",
"qid": 9925,
"docid": "348735",
"rank": 40,
"score": 75898
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: This depends on the jurisdiction, but such companies are typically subject to regulations (and audits) that require them to keep the customers' accumulated premiums very strictly separated from the company's own assets, liabilities and expenses. Additionally, they are typically only allowed to invest the capital in very safe things like government bonds. So, unless something truly catastrophic happens (like the US government defaulting on its bonds) or people in the company break the regulations (which would invovle all kinds of serious crimes and require complicity or complete failure of the auditors), your premiums and the contractual obligation to you would still be there, and would be absorbed by a different insurance company that takes over the defunct company's business. Realistically, what all this means is that insurance companies never go bankrupt; if they do badly, they are typically bought up by a competitor long before things get that bad.",
"qid": 9925,
"docid": "34302",
"rank": 41,
"score": 75658
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You can avoid companies that might go bankrupt by not buying the stock of companies with debt. Every quarter, a public company must file financials with the EDGAR system called a 10-Q. This filing includes unaudited financial statements and provides a continuing view of the company's financial position during the year. Any debt the company has acquired will appear on this filing and their annual report. If servicing the debt is costing the company a substantial fraction of their income, then the company is a bankruptcy risk.",
"qid": 9925,
"docid": "251303",
"rank": 42,
"score": 75265
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You cannot just decide to declare bankruptcy and make the debts go away. Bankruptcy proceedings under chapter 7 include accounting of all of your assets and income, and all of your debts, and dividing all your assets and income (except for amounts left for your own support) between the debtors. So if you can (i.e.: capable) pay the debts off - there's nothing magical in bankruptcy that will make it any better for you. You will still pay the debts off, except that now you will also have the huge (and much heavier) stain of bankruptcy. For chapter 7, the length it stays on the credit report is 10 years, not 7. Under chapter 13, the procedure is less drastic (doesn't include complete liquidation of all of your assets), but the result is equally not as good - you still pay all your debts but they may be reorganized (interest rates change, durations change, some things can still be charged off - but not likely if you actually have the capability to pay). Chapter 13 stays on your credit report for 7 years.",
"qid": 9925,
"docid": "560713",
"rank": 43,
"score": 75159
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: This would be governed by bankruptcy law... there is no reason a healthy company would take such action. This would be a long drawn process generally amongst debtor the taxes have higher claim, then Sunday debtors (payable), then bank loans... This is followed by loan raised by company deposits then debentures... even among share holders there can be special shares... More often most shares are equal and the balance is distributed to all.",
"qid": 9925,
"docid": "326029",
"rank": 44,
"score": 74804
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: In the United States, the Securities Investor Protection Corporation protects the first $500,000 you have at a brokerage including up to $250,000 in cash. This means that if the firm holding your securities fails financially, you have some coverage. That insurance does not prevent your investment itself from losing money. Even traditionally save money market funds can potentially lose value in a situation called Breaking the buck. This means that the Net Asset Value of the fund falls below $1/share. Alas, during periods of market calamity, even traditionally safe stores of value are subject to increased risk.",
"qid": 9925,
"docid": "136212",
"rank": 45,
"score": 73250
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: My answer is not specific, or even maybe applicable, to Microsoft. Companies don't want to cut dividends. So they have a fixed expense, but the cashflow that funds it might be quite lumpy, or cyclical, depending on the industry. Another, more general, issue is that taking on debt to retire shares is a capital allocation decision. A company needs capital to operate. This is why they went public in the first place, to raise capital. Debt is a cheaper form of capital than equity. Equity holders are last in line in a bankruptcy. Bondholders are at the front of the line. To compensate for this, equity holders require a larger return -- often called a hurdle rate. So why doesn't a company just use cheaper equity, and no debt? Some do. But consider that equity holders participate in the earnings, where bondholders just get the interest, nothing more. And because lenders don't participate in the potential upside, they introduce conditions (debt covenants) to help control their downside exposure. For a company, it's a balance, very much the same as personal finances. A reasonable amount of debt provides low-cost capital, which can be used to produce greater returns. But too much debt, and the covenants are breached, the debt is called due immediately, there's no cash to cover, and wham! bankruptcy. A useful measure, if a bit difficult to calculate, is a company's cost of capital, and the return on that capital. Cost of capital is a blended number taking both equity and debt into account. Good companies earn a return that is greater than their cost of capital. Seems obvious, but many companies don't succeed at this. In cases where this is persistent, the best move for shareholders would be for the company to dissolve and return all the capital. Unfortunately, as in the Railroad Tycoon example above, managers' incentives aren't always well aligned with shareholders, and they allocate capital in ways advantageous to themselves, and not the company.",
"qid": 9925,
"docid": "574319",
"rank": 46,
"score": 73245
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: In a nutshell...in order to file for Chapter 9 bankruptcy, the city or county first has to actually be insolvent, the state has to give authorization for the city or county to file, and the city or county must have made an attempt to negotiate with creditors (bondholders, pensioners etc). Once those conditions are met, and they must be specifically met, the city or county files the bankruptcy petition and the automatic stay typically goes into effect shortly after. This stay basically allows the municipality to stop making payments on some of their obligations throughout the course of the bankruptcy case. Chapter 9 bankruptcies are usually very protracted, and very expensive. So fast forward a year or two, the creditors that are owed money have all been assigned to different classes by the bankruptcy court, with each class getting a specific recovery based on the type of creditor. The city or county has the sole right to propose a plan of reorganization. Some debts, such as a bond backed specifically by revenues generated by a sales tax, are usually considered special revenues and secured...those bondholders will have first priority on those revenues pledged to them throughout the bankruptcy process and are usually unimpaired. Other creditors, such as general obligation bondholders or employee pension plans, are usually considered unsecured and will not receive their contractually obligated payments during the bankruptcy process, and will likely have to take a haircut on the principal amount they are owed by the city or county. The municipality must be solvent in order to advance the plan of reorganization and exit the bankruptcy process, so quite often employee contracts are adjusted, services will be reduced, pension and OPEB promises to retired workers will be curtailed, and bonded debt is reduced to a manageable level. It's not pretty, and it is very expensive.",
"qid": 9925,
"docid": "44474",
"rank": 47,
"score": 73160
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"That depends on how you're investing in them. Trading bonds is (arguably) riskier than trading stocks (because it has a lot of the same risks associated with stocks plus interest rate and inflation risk). That's true whether it's a recession or not. Holding bonds to maturity may or may not be recession-proof (or, perhaps more accurately, \"\"low risk\"\" as argued by @DepressedDaniel), depending on what kind of bonds they are. If you own bonds in stable governments (e.g. U.S. or German bonds or bonds in certain states or municipalities) or highly stable corporations, there's a very low risk of default even in a recession. (You didn't see companies like Microsoft, Google, or Apple going under during the 2008 crash). That's absolutely not the case for all kinds of bonds, though, especially if you're concerned about systemic risk. Just because a bond looks risk-free doesn't mean that it actually is - look how many AAA-rated securities went under during the 2008 recession. And many companies (CIT, Lehman Brothers) went bankrupt outright. To assess your exposure to risk, you have to look at a lot of factors, such as the credit-worthiness of the business, how \"\"recession-proof\"\" their product is, what kind of security or insurance you're being offered, etc. You can't even assume that bond insurance is an absolute guarantee against systemic risk - that's what got AIG into trouble, in fact. They were writing Credit Default Swaps (CDS), which are analogous to insurance on loans - basically, the seller of the CDS \"\"insures\"\" the debt (promises some kind of payment if a particular borrower defaults). When the entire credit market seized up, people naturally started asking AIG to make good on their agreement and compensate them for the loans that went bad; unfortunately, AIG didn't have the money and couldn't borrow it themselves (hence the government bailout). To address the whole issue of a company going bankrupt: it's not necessarily the case that your bonds would be completely worthless (so I disagree with the people who implied that this would be the case). They'd probably be worth a lot less than you paid for them originally, though (possibly as bad as pennies on the dollar depending on how much under water the company was). Also, depending on how long it takes to work out a deal that everyone could agree to, my understanding is that it could take a long time before you see any of your money. I think it's also possible that you'll get some of the money as equity (rather than cash) - in fact, that's how the U.S. government ended up owning a lot of Chrysler (they were Chrysler's largest lender when they went bankrupt, so the government ended up getting a lot of equity in the business as part of the settlement). Incidentally, there is a market for securities in bankrupt companies for people that don't have time to wait for the bankruptcy settlement. Naturally, people who buy securities that are in that much trouble generally expect a steep discount. To summarize:\"",
"qid": 9925,
"docid": "269064",
"rank": 48,
"score": 73056
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: according to the Options Industry council ( http://www.optionseducation.org/tools/faq/splits_mergers_spinoffs_bankruptcies.html ) put options the shares (and therefore the options) may continue trading OTC but if the shares completely stop trading then: if the courts cancel the shares, whereby common shareholders receive nothing, calls will become worthless and an investor who exercises a put would receive 100 times the strike price and deliver nothing. The reason for this is that it is not the company whose shares you have the option on that you have a contract with but the counterparty who wrote the option. If the counterparty goes bankrupt then you may not get paid out (depending on assets available at liquidation - this is counterparty risk) but, unless the two are the same, if the company whose shares you have a put option on declares bankruptcy then you will get paid",
"qid": 9925,
"docid": "520079",
"rank": 49,
"score": 72922
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"An answer can be found in my book, \"\"A Modern Approach to Graham and Dodd Investing,\"\" p. 89 http://www.amazon.com/Modern-Approach-Graham-Investing-Finance/dp/0471584150/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1321628992&sr=1-1 \"\"If a company has no sustained cash flow over time, it has no value...If a company has positive cash flow but economic earnings are zero or less, it has a value less than book value and is a wasting asset. There is enough cash to pay interim dividends, bu the net present value of the dividend stream is less than book value.\"\" A company with a stock trading below book value is believed to be \"\"impaired,\"\" perhaps because assets are overstated. Depending on the situation, it may or may not be a bankruptcy candidate.\"",
"qid": 9925,
"docid": "7170",
"rank": 50,
"score": 72570
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \">So perhaps what people mean when they say \"\"bankrupt\"\" is that, if the government were any other group of citizens, it would be bankrupt. Unlike treasury securities, no one is owed any debt from social security. All you have is empty promises from politicians.\"",
"qid": 9925,
"docid": "453717",
"rank": 51,
"score": 72474
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: When you invest in stocks, there are two possible ways to make money: Many people speculate just on the stock price, which would result in a gain (or loss), but only once you have resold the shares. Others don't really care about the stock price. They get dividends every so often, and hopefully, the return will be better than other types of investments. If you're in there for the long run, you do not really care what the price of the stock is. It is often highly volatile, and often completely disconnected from anything, so it's not because today you have a theoretical gain (because the current stock price is higher than your buying price) that you will effectively realise that gain when you sell (need I enumerate the numerous crashes that prevented this from happening?). Returns will often be more spectacular on share resale than on dividends, but it goes both ways (you can lose a lot if you resell at the wrong time). Dividends tend to be a bit more stable, and unless the company goes bankrupt (or a few other unfortunate events), you still hold shares in the company even if the price goes down, and you could still get dividends. And you can still resell the stock on top of that! Of course, not all companies distribute dividends. In that case, you only have the hope of reselling at a higher price (or that the company will distribute dividends in the future). Welcome to the next bubble...",
"qid": 9925,
"docid": "576136",
"rank": 52,
"score": 72413
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: In the US, and I suspect in most of the developed world, one major point of a corporation is limited liability. The stockholders are not on the hook for liabilities beyond their investment. If the company does something terrible, or fails economically, it goes bankrupt. Usually the stockholders have their investment wiped out, but they are guaranteed that they do not have to pay more in to any settlement.",
"qid": 9925,
"docid": "564197",
"rank": 53,
"score": 72331
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: As Mhoran said, the risks of buying a bankrupt company are huge, and even successful bankruptcy turnarounds don't involve keeping the same stock. For instance, the GM bankruptcy was resolved by the company more or less selling all its valuable assets (brands, factories, inventory) to a new version of itself, using that money to pay off what liabilities it could, and then dissolving. The new company then issued new stock, and you had to buy the new stock to see it rise; the old stock became worthless. AA could have gone the same way; Delta could have bought it out of bankruptcy and consumed it outright, with any remaining shareholders being paid off at market value. That's probably the best the market was hoping for. Instead, the deal is a much more equal merger; AMR brings a very large airport network and aircraft fleet to the table, and Delta brings its cash, an also-considerable fleet and network, and a management team that's kept that airline solvent. The stockholders, therefore, expect to be paid off at a much higher per-share price, either in a new combined stock, in Delta stock, or in cash.",
"qid": 9925,
"docid": "235910",
"rank": 54,
"score": 72299
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Preferred stocks are, err... Preferred. The whole point of preferred stocks is that they have some preference over other classes of stocks (there may be more than 2, by the way). It can be more voting rights, more dividends or priority on dividends' distribution (common with VC investments), or priority on liquidations (in bankruptcy, preferred stock holders are ranked higher than common). Many times initial or critical investments are made on preferred terms, and the stocks are converted to common when certain thresholds are met. Obviously all these benefits require a premium on the price.",
"qid": 9925,
"docid": "272784",
"rank": 55,
"score": 72083
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Regardless of whether a stock is owned by a retail investor or an institutional investor, it is subject to the same rules. For example, say that as part of the buyout, 1 share of Company B is equivalent to 0.75 shares of Company A and any fractional shares will be paid out in cash. This rule will apply to both the retail investor who holds 500 shares of Company B, as well as the asset manager or hedge fund holding 5,000,000 shares of Company B.",
"qid": 9925,
"docid": "342652",
"rank": 56,
"score": 72082
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Bankruptcy is a way to the fiat currency system to regulate itself. The current system assume that there will always be more debts than money available. Since money is created with debt already attached to it, the difference between \"\"real\"\" money, and \"\"on paper\"\" money build up over time. When this disparity become to big, bankruptcies need to occur to bring those two number closer to each other. It's like earthquakes if you like, the tectonic plates build up tension that need to be released in many small shocks, or a few big shocks. The everyday bankruptcies represent the small quakes, and big recession represent too much build up that need to be released in one big shocks. It's a very high level explanation and it doesn't go into details, but it's roughly why it happens. EDIT: I wasn't saying that it was bad or not, I was simply explaining bankruptcy and why it's bound to happen. If you don't like the analogy, it's no reason for downvote. I know it may not be clear for everyone, but if you do not agree, please explain yourself.\"",
"qid": 9925,
"docid": "155960",
"rank": 57,
"score": 72000
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Corporate bankruptcy is yet another program that can benefit the wealthy at the expense of the little guy. A few years ago I had a trading account with a large company known as Refco. They filled for bankruptcy and I was shocked to learn that my personal funds in my trading account were seized and used to pay of \"\"secured creditors\"\" which were companies like Bank of America. I was lucky to get back 3 cents on the dollar. TL:DR - large companies use bankruptcy to screw over the little guys\"",
"qid": 9925,
"docid": "397763",
"rank": 58,
"score": 71749
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"A company doesn't offer up 100% of its shares to the market. There's a float amount of varying significance, maybe 30% of the shares are put up for public offer. Generally some amount of current shareholders will pledge some or all of their shares for offer to the public. This may be how the venture capital, private equity or other current investors cash out their initial investment. The company may issue new shares in order to raise money for some initiative. It may be a combination of existing shares and new. Additionally, a company may hold some \"\"treasury shares\"\" on its balance sheet. In this instance fluctuations in the share price directly affect the health of the balance sheet. As far as incentive goes, stock options to management and C-Suite employees keep everyone interested in an increasing stock price.\"",
"qid": 9925,
"docid": "100546",
"rank": 59,
"score": 71529
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: A stock represents your share of ownership in a corporation. All of these shares indicate towards your part of ownership in a corporation a shareholder, stockholder or a shareowner in a company. In order to get a stock, be sure to secure the assistance of a licensed stockbroker to buy securities on your behalf. Yes, anyone having substantial amount of money to invest can buy/own/use stocks. Holding a stock for less than a year makes it a subject to tax on your regular income for short-term gains. Most of the people find it higher than the capital gains. In addition, your annual income also comes into play.",
"qid": 9925,
"docid": "286296",
"rank": 60,
"score": 71475
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I think you've got basics, but you may have the order / emphasis a bit wrong. I've changed the order of the things you've learned in to what I think is the most important to understand: Owning a stock is like owning a tiny chunk of the business Owning stock is owning a tiny chunk of the business, it's not just \"\"like\"\" it. The \"\"tiny chunks\"\" are called shares, because that is literally what they are, a share of the business. Sometimes shares are also called stocks. The words stock and share are mostly interchangeable, but a single stock normally means your holding of many shares in a business, so if you have 100 shares in 1 company, that's a stock in that company, if you then buy 100 shares in another company, you now own 2 stocks. An investor seeks to buy stocks at a low price, and sell when the price is high. Not necessarily. An investor will buy shares in a company that they believe will make them a profit. In general, a company will make a profit and distribute some or all of it to shareholders in the form of dividends. They will also keep back a portion of the profit to invest in growing the company. If the company does grow, it will grow in value and your shares will get more valuable. Price (of a stock) is affected by supply/demand, volume, and possibly company profits The price of a share that you see on a stock ticker is the price that people on the market have exchanged the share for recently, not the price you or I can buy a share for, although usually if people on the market are buying and selling at that price, someone will buy or sell from you at a similar sort of price. In theory, the price will be the companies total value, if you were to own the whole thing (it's market capitalisation) divided by the total number of shares that exist in that company. The problem is that it's very difficult to work out the total value of a company. You can start by counting the different things that it owns (including things like intellectual property and the knowledge and experience of people who work there), subtract all the money it owes in loans etc., and then make an allowance for how much profit you expect the company to make in the future. The problem is that these numbers are all going to be estimates, and different peoples estimates will disagree. Some people don't bother to estimate at all. The market makers will just follow supply and demand. They will hold a few shares in each of many companies that they are interested in. They will advertise a lower price that they are willing to buy at and a higher price that they will sell at all the time. When they hold a lot of a share, they will price it lower so that people buy it from them. When they start to run out, they will price it higher. You will never need to spend more than the market makers price to buy a share, or get less than the market makers price when you come to sell it (unless you want to buy or sell more shares than they are willing to). This is why stock price depends on supply and demand. The other category of people who don't care about the companies they are trading are the high speed traders. They just look at information like the past price, the volume (total amount of shares being exchanged on the market) and many other statistics both from the market and elsewhere and look for patterns. You cannot compete with these people - they do things like physically locate their servers nearer to the stock exchanges buildings to get a few milliseconds time advantage over their competitors to buy shares quicker than them.\"",
"qid": 9925,
"docid": "307008",
"rank": 61,
"score": 71264
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Without reading the source, from your description it seems that the author believes that this particular company was undervalued in the marketplace. It seems that investors were blinded by a small dividend, without considering the actual value of the company they were owners of. Remember that a shareholder has the right to their proportion of the company's net value, and that amount will be distributed both (a) in the form of dividends and (b) on liquidation of the company. Theoretically, EPS is an indication of how much value an investor's single share has increased by in the year [of course this is not accurate, because accounting income does not directly correlate with company value increase, but it is a good indicator]. This means in this example that each share had a return of $10, of which the investors only received $1. The remainder sat in the company for further investment. Considering that liquidation may never happen, particularly within the time-frame that a particular investor wants to hold a share, some investors may undervalue share return that does not come in the form of a dividend. This may or may not be legitimate, because if the company reinvests its profits in poorer performing projects, the investors would have been better off getting the dividend immediately. However some value does need to be given to the non-dividend ownership of the company. It seems the author believes that investors failing to consider value of the non-dividend part of the corporation's shares in question led to an undervaluation of the company's shares in the market.",
"qid": 9925,
"docid": "266672",
"rank": 62,
"score": 71157
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Actually, share holder value is is better maximised by borrowing, and paying dividends is fairly irrelevant but a natural phase on a mature and stable company. Company finance is generally a balance between borrowing, and money raised from shares. It should be self evident with a little thought that if not now, then in the future, a company should be able to create earnings in excess of the cost of borrowing, or it's not a very valuable company to invest in! In fact what's the point of borrowing if the cost of the interest is greater than whatever wealth is being generated? The important thing about this is that money raised from shares is more expensive than borrowing. If a company doesn't pay dividends, and its share price goes up because of the increasing value of the business, and in your example the company is not borrowing more because of this, then the proportion of the value of the company that is based on the borrowing goes down. So, this means a higher and higher proportion of the finance of a company is provided by the more expensive share holders than the less expensive borrowing, and thus the company is actually providing LESS value to share holders than it might. Of course, if a company doesn't pay a dividend AND borrows more, this is not true, but that's not the scenario in your question, and generally mature companies with mature earnings may as well pay dividends as they aren't on a massive expansion drive in the same way. Now, this relative expense of share holders and borrowing is MORE true for a mature company with stable earnings, as they are less of a risk and can borrow at more favourable rates, AND such a company is LIKELY to be expanding less rapidly than a small new innovative company, so for both these reasons returning money to share holders and borrowing (or maintaining existing lending facilities) maintains a relatively more efficient financing ratio. Of course all this means that in theory, a company should be more efficient if it has no share holders at all and borrows ALL of the money it needs. Yes. In practise though, lenders aren't so keen on that scenario, they would rather have shareholders sharing the risk, and lending a less than 100% proportion of the total of a companies finance means they are much more likely to get their money back if things go horribly wrong. To take a small start up company by comparison, lenders will be leary of lending at all, and will certainly impose high rates if they do, or ask for guarantors, or demand security (and security is only available if there is other investment besides the loan). So this is why a small start up is likely to be much more heavily or exclusively funded by share holders. Also the start up is likely not to pay a dividend, because for a start it's probably not making any profit, but even if it is and could pay a dividend, in this situation borrowing is unavailable or very expensive and this is a rapidly growing business that wants to keep its hands on all the cash it can to accelerate itself. Once it starts making money of course a start up is on its way to making the transition, it becomes able to borrow money at sensible rates, it becomes bigger and more valuable on the back of the borrowing. Another important point is that dividend income is more stable, at least for the mature companies with stable earnings of your scenario, and investors like stability. If all the income from a portfolio has to be generated by sales, what happens when there is a market crash? Suddenly the investor has to pay, where as with dividends, the company pays, at least for a while. If a company's earnings are hit by market conditions of course it's likely the dividend will eventually be cut, but short term volatility should be largely eliminated.",
"qid": 9925,
"docid": "401753",
"rank": 63,
"score": 70994
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: When he says shitty, he means less likely to actually pay back the money. If I have a company that's not doing well enough, and I have already issued $100,000 in bonds onto this market, and I want to pay back all my bond-holders, maybe I convince a near-bankrupt company to give me $100,000 of bonds in their company for $50,000 in goods. I then repay my bondholders with the $100,000 in shitty bonds. Or maybe I give them $300,000 in goods and they give me $600,000 in their shitty bonds (since thier company is about to fall apart and they know I'll give them a kickback down the line). Then I pay back my 100k bonds with the new shitty bonds, and I go buy $500k worth of raw material for my company and pay for them using almost-bankrupt-company's shitty bonds . Then I have no debt, $500k worth of raw material, the people I used to owe money to (AND my suppliers) now hold a total of $600k in shitty bonds, and then my friend's almost-bankrupt-company DOES go bankrupt.... and my suppliers and old lenders realize the paper I just gave them is worthless.",
"qid": 9925,
"docid": "190931",
"rank": 64,
"score": 70924
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Shares in a company represent a portion of a company. If that company takes in money and doesn't pay it out as a dividend (e.g. Apple), the company is still more valuable because it has cold hard cash as an asset. Theoretically, it's all the same whether your share of the money is inside the company or outside the company; the only immediate difference is tax treatment. Of course, for large bank accounts that means that an investment in the company is a mix of investment in the bank account and investment in the business-value of the company, which may stymie investors who aren't particularly interested in buying larve amounts of bank accounts (known for low returns) and would prefer to receive their share of the cash to invest elsewhere (or in the business portion of the company.) Companies like Apple have in fact taken criticism for this. Your company could also use that cash to invest in itself (growing the value of its profits) or buy other companies that are worth money, essentially doing the job for you. Of course, they can do the job well or they can do it poorly... A company could also be acquired by a larger company, or taken private, in exchange for cash or the stock of another company. This is another way that the company's value could be returned to its shareholders.",
"qid": 9925,
"docid": "95397",
"rank": 65,
"score": 70621
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"DJIA is a price weighted index (as in the amount of each component company is weighted by its price) and the constituents change occasionally (51 times so far). With these two effects you would not get anything like the same return by equally weighting your holdings and would have to rebalance every so often. Note that your premise was most obviously flawed thinking the number of near bankruptcies there have been in that time. More details of the differing make-ups of the index are available on Wikipedia. When you ask about the \"\"average investment\"\" you would have to be a lot more specific; is it limited just to US shares, to shares, to shares and fixed income securities, should I include all commodities, etc. see also What's the justification for the DJIA being share-price weighted?\"",
"qid": 9925,
"docid": "197970",
"rank": 66,
"score": 70453
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Doesnt mean that equity or even debt holders wouldn't lose their investment. Those money and banking texts are presently useless post GFC given the incredible moral hazard and how all of the traditional bankruptcy rules were ignored.",
"qid": 9925,
"docid": "478833",
"rank": 67,
"score": 70317
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If that company issues another 100 shares, shouldn't 10 of those new 100 shares be mine? Those 100 shares are an asset of the company, and you own 10% of them. When investors buy those new shares, you again own a share of the proceeds, just as you own a share of all the company's assets. A company only issues new share to raise money - it is a borrowing from investors, and in that way can be seen as an alternative to taking on loans. Both share issuing and a loan bring new capital and debt into a company. The difference is that shares don't need to be repaid.",
"qid": 9925,
"docid": "307095",
"rank": 68,
"score": 70148
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"SIPC is a corporation - a legal entity separate from its owners. In the case of SIPC, it is funded through the fees paid by its members. All the US brokers are required to be members and to contribute to SIPC funds. Can it go bankrupt? Of course. Any legal entity can go bankrupt. A person can go bankrupt. A country can go bankrupt. And so can anything in between. However, looking at the history of things, there are certain assumptions that can be made. These are mere guesses, as there's no law about any of these things (to the best of my knowledge), but seeing how things were - we can try and guess that they will also be like this in the future. I would guess, that in case of a problem for the SIPC to meet its obligation, any of the following would happen (or combinations): Too big to fail - large insurance companies had been bailed out before by the governments since it was considered that their failure would be more destructive to the economy than the bailout. AIG as an example in the US. SIPC is in essence is an insurance company. So is Lloyd's of London. Breach of trust of the individual investors that can lead to a significant market crash. That's what happened in the US to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They're now \"\"officially\"\" backed by the US government. If SIPC is incapable of meeting its obligation, I would definitely expect the US government to step in, even though there's no such obligation. Raising funds through charging other members. If the actuary calculations were incorrect, the insurance companies adjust them and raise premiums. That is what should happen in this case as well. While may not necessarily solve a cashflow issue, in the long term it will allow SIPC to balance, so that bridge loans (from the US government/Feds/public bonds) could be used in between. Not meeting obligations, i.e.: bankruptcy. That is an option, and insurance companies have gone bankrupt before. Not unheard of, but from the past experience - again, I'd expect the US government to step in. In general, I don't see any significant difference between SIPC in the US and a \"\"generic\"\" insurance coverage elsewhere. Except that in the US SIPC is mandatory, well regulated, and the coverage is uniform across brokerages, which is a benefit to the consumer.\"",
"qid": 9925,
"docid": "415915",
"rank": 69,
"score": 69849
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The core issue is to understand what 'selling a share' means. There is no special person or company that takes the share from you; you are selling on the open market. So your question is effectively 'can I find a guy on the street that buys a 10$-bill for 11$ ?' - Well, maybe someone is dumb enough, but chances are slim.",
"qid": 9925,
"docid": "130303",
"rank": 70,
"score": 69560
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Generally, yes. Rather than ask, \"\"why are these guys so cheap?\"\", you should be asking why the big names are so expensive. :) Marketing spend plays a big role there. Getting babies to shill for your company during the super bowl requires a heck of a lot of commissions. Due to the difficulties involved in setting up a brokerage, it's unlikely that you'll see a scam. A brokerage might go bankrupt for random reasons, but that's what investor insurance is for. \"\"Safeness\"\" is mostly the likelihood that you'll be able to get access to your funds on deposit with the broker. Investment funds are insured by SIPC for up to $500,000, with a lower limit on cash. The specific limits vary by broker, with some offering greater protection paid for on their own dime. Check with the broker -- it's usually on their web pages under \"\"Security\"\". Funds in \"\"cash\"\" might be swept into an interest-earning investment vehicle for which insurance is different, and that depends on the broker, too. A few Forex brokers went bankrupt last year, although that's a new market with fewer regulatory protections for traders. I heard that one bankruptcy in the space resulted in a 7% loss for traders with accounts there, and that there was a Ponzi-ish scam company as well. Luckily, the more stringent regulation of stock brokerages makes that space much safer for investors. If you want to assess the reliability of an online broker, I suggest the following: It's tempting to look at when the brokerage was founded. Fly-by-night scams, by definition, won't be around very long -- and usually that means under a few months. Any company with a significant online interface will have to have been around long enough to develop that client interface, their backend databases, and the interface with the markets and their clearing house. The two brokerages you mentioned have been around for 7+ years, so that lends strength to the supposition of a strong business model. That said, there could well be a new company that offers services or prices that fit your investment need, and in that case definitely look into their registrations and third-party reviews. Finally, note that the smaller, independent brokerages will probably have stiffer margin rules. If you're playing a complex, novel, and/or high-risk strategy that can't handle the volatility of a market crash, even a short excursion such as the 2010 flash crash, stiff margin rules might have consequences that a novice investor would rather pretend didn't exist.\"",
"qid": 9925,
"docid": "586649",
"rank": 71,
"score": 69505
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: A stock exchange is a marketplace where people can bring their goods [shares] to be traded. There are certain rules. Stock Exchange does not own any shares of the companies that are trading in. The list of who owns with stock is with the registrar of each company. The electronic shares are held by a Financial Institution [Securities Depository]. So even if the exchange itself goes down, you still hold the same shares as you had before it went down. One would now have to find ways to trade these shares ... possibly via other stock exchange. This leaves the question of inflight transactions, which again would be recorded and available. Think of it similar to eBay. What happens when eBay goes bankrupt? Nothing much, all the seller still have their goods with them. All the buyers who had purchased good before have it when them ... so the question remains on inflight goods where the buyer has paid the seller and not yet received shipments ...",
"qid": 9925,
"docid": "434212",
"rank": 72,
"score": 69348
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Bonds provide protections against stock market crashes, diversity and returns as the other posters have said but the primary reason to invest in bonds is to receive relatively guaranteed income. By that I mean you receive regular payments as long as the debtor doesn't go bankrupt and stop paying. Even when this happens, bondholders are the first in line to get paid from the sale of the business's assets. This also makes them less risky. Stocks don't guarantee income and shareholders are last in line to get paid. When a stock goes to zero, you lose everything, where as a bondholder will get some face value redemption to the notes issue price and still keep all the previous income payments. In addition, you can use your bond income to buy more shares of stock and increase your gains there.",
"qid": 9925,
"docid": "122581",
"rank": 73,
"score": 69287
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"This answer relies on why you are holding shares of a company in the first place. So let's address that: So does this mean you would like to vote with your shares on the directions the company takes? If so, your reasons for selling would be different from the next speculator who only is interested in share price volatility. Regardless of your participation in potential voting rights associated with your share ownership, a different reason to sell is based on if your fundamental reasons for investing in the company have changed. Enhancements on this topic include: Trade management, how to deal with position sizes. Buying and selling partial positions based on price action while keeping a core long term position, but this is not something \"\"long term investors\"\" generally put too much effort in. Price targets, start your long term investment with a price target in mind, derived from a future market cap based on your initial fundamental analysis of the company's prospects. And finally, there are a lot of things you can do with a profitable investment in shares.\"",
"qid": 9925,
"docid": "557877",
"rank": 74,
"score": 69262
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"when the index is altered to include new players/exclude old ones, the fund also adjusts The largest and (I would say) most important index funds are whole-market funds, like \"\"all-world-ex-US\"\", or VT \"\"Total World Stock\"\", or \"\"All Japan\"\". (And similarly for bonds, REITS, etc.) So companies don't leave or enter these indexes very often, and when they do (by an initial offering or bankruptcy) it is often at a pretty small value. Some older indices like the DJIA are a bit more arbitrary but these are generally not things that index funds would try to match. More narrow sector or country indices can have more of this effect, and I believe some investors have made a living from index arbitrage. However well run index funds don't need to just blindly play along with this. You need to remember that an index fund doesn't need to hold precisely every company in the index, they just need to sample such that they will perform very similarly to the index. The 500th-largest company in the S&P 500 is not likely to have all that much of an effect on the overall performance of the index, and it's likely to be fairly correlated to other companies in similar sectors, which are also covered by the index. So if there is a bit of churn around the bottom of the index, it doesn't necessarily mean the fund needs to be buying and selling on each transition. If I recall correctly it's been shown that holding about 250 stocks gives you a very good match with the entire US stock market.\"",
"qid": 9925,
"docid": "322070",
"rank": 75,
"score": 68927
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Investors are typically a part of the board of directors of the company. Because of their ownership in the company, they have a vested interest in its stock price. The same is true for management also in cases where they hold a certain percentage of equity in the company. Their incentives also get aligned to the stock price.",
"qid": 9925,
"docid": "101046",
"rank": 76,
"score": 68703
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You can look at the company separately from the ownership. The company needs money that it doesn't have, therefore it needs to borrow money from somewhere or go bankrupt. And if they can't get money from their bank, then they can of course ask people related to the company, like the two shareholders, for a loan. It's a loan, like every other loan, that needs to be repaid. How big the loan is doesn't depend on the ownership, but on how much money each one is willing and capable of giving. The loan doesn't give them any rights in the company, except the right to get their money back with interest in the future. Alternatively, such a company might have 200 shares, and might have given 75 to one owner and 25 to the other owner, keeping 100 shares back. In that case, the shareholders can decide to sell some of these 100 shares. I might buy 10 shares for $1,000 each, so the company has now $10,000 cash, and I have some ownership of the company (about 9.09%, and the 75% and 25% shares have gone down, because now they own 75 out of 110 or 25 out of 110 shares). I won't get the $10,000 back, ever; it's not a loan but the purchase of part of the company.",
"qid": 9925,
"docid": "77503",
"rank": 77,
"score": 68615
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Hmm, this site says If you use Quicken, you enter a new transaction of type \"\"Corporate Acquisition (stock for stock).\"\" You put investor shares as the \"\"Company acquired\"\", Admiral shares as the \"\"Acquiring company\"\", and the conversion ratio 0.7997754 as the \"\"New shares issued per held share\"\" number. Seems crazy, but maybe that's the way. Edit: This sucks. In the comments, you can see that people have to manually correct the share price for every transaction because of rounding problems.\"",
"qid": 9925,
"docid": "486696",
"rank": 78,
"score": 68563
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Stock basically implies your ownership in the company. If you own 1% ownership in a company, the value of your stake becomes equal to 1% of the valuation of the entire company. Dividends are basically disbursal of company's profits to its shareholders. By holding stocks of a company, you become eligible to receiving dividends proportional to your ownership in the company. Dividends though are not guaranteed, as the company may incur losses or the management may decide to use the cash for future growth instead of disbursing it to the shareholders. For example, let's say a company called ABC Inc, is listed on NYSE and has a total of 1 million shares issued. Let's say if you purchase 100 stocks of ABC, your ownership in ABC will become Let's say that the share price at the time of purchase was $10 each. Total Investment = Stock Price * Number of Stocks Purchased = $10 * 100 = $1,000 Now, let's say that the company declares a dividend of $1 per share. Then, Dividend Yield = Dividend/Stock Price = $1/$10 = 10% If one has to draw analogy with other banking products, one can think of stock and dividend as Fixed Deposits (analogous to stock) and the interest earned on the Fixed Deposit (analogous to dividend).",
"qid": 9925,
"docid": "113623",
"rank": 79,
"score": 68367
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Companies normally do not give you X% of shares, but in effect give you a fixed \"\"N\"\" number of shares. The \"\"N\"\" may translate initially to X%, but this can go down. If say we began with 100 shares, A holding 50 shares and B holding 50 shares. As the startup grows, there is need for more money. Create 50 more shares and sell it at an arranged price to investor C. Now the percentage of each investor is 33.33%. The money that comes in will go to the company and not to A & B. From here on, A & C together can decide to slowly cut out B by, for example: After any of the above the % of shares held by B would definitely go down.\"",
"qid": 9925,
"docid": "285041",
"rank": 80,
"score": 68261
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: More shares mean less volatility because it takes a larger number of trades, a larger number of shares per trade, or a combination of both to raise or lower the stock price. Institutional investors (mutual funds, pensions, hedge funds, other investment firms, etc) are the sorts of organizations with the large amounts of money needed to move a stock price one way or the other. But the more floating shares there are in a company, the harder it is for one or two firms to move a stock price. A company with fewer floating shares wouldn't require as many trades (or as many shares per trade) to see wider swings in price. When it comes to stock price, insider trading isn't the same as manipulation. In the (surprisingly few) cases of insider trading that are prosecuted, it tends to be an individual (or small group) with early access to information that the broader market doesn't have being able to buy or sell ahead of the broader market. Their individual sales are seldom if ever enough to noticeably move a stock price. They're locking in profit or limiting a loss. Manipulation might (but doesn't always) precede insider trading, if misinformation (or truth) is released for the purpose of creating a situation that can be profited from via a trade or trades.",
"qid": 9925,
"docid": "23108",
"rank": 81,
"score": 68100
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Nothing. Stockbrokers set up nominee accounts, in which they hold shares on behalf of individual investors. Investors are still the legal owners of the shares but their names do not appear on the company’s share register. Nominee accounts are ring-fenced from brokers’ other activities so they are financially secure.",
"qid": 9925,
"docid": "370212",
"rank": 82,
"score": 68048
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: It appears your company is offering roughly a 25% discount on its shares. I start there as a basis to give you a perspective on what the 30% matching offer means to you in terms of value. Since you are asking for things to consider not whether to do it, below are a few considerations (there may be others) in general you should think about your sources of income. if this company is your only source of income, it is more prudent to make your investment in their shares a smaller portion of your overall investment/savings strategy. what is the holding period for the shares you purchase. some companies institute a holding period or hold duration which restricts when you can sell the shares. Generally, the shorter the duration period the less risk there is for you. So if you can buy the shares and immediately sell the shares that represents the least amount of relative risk. what are the tax implications for shares offered at such a discount. this may be something you will need to consult a tax adviser to get a better understanding. your company should also be able to provide a reasonable interpretation of the tax consequences for the offering as well. is the stock you are buying liquid. liquid, in this case, is just a fancy term for asking how many shares trade in a public market daily. if it is a very liquid stock you can have some confidence that you may be able to sell out of your shares when you need. personally, i would review the company's financial statements and public statements to investors to get a better understanding of their competitive positioning, market size and prospects for profitability and growth. given you are a novice at this it may be good idea to solicit the opinion of your colleagues at work and others who have insight on the financial performance of the company. you should consider other investment options as well. since this seems to be your first foray into investing you should consider diversifying your savings into a few investments areas (such as big market indices which typically should be less volatile). last, there is always the chance that your company could fail. Companies like Enron, Lehman Brothers and many others that were much smaller than those two examples have failed in the past. only you can gauge your tolerance for risk. As a young investor, the best place to start is to use index funds which track a broader universe of stocks or bonds as the first step in building an investment portfolio. once you own a good set of index funds you can diversify with smaller investments.",
"qid": 9925,
"docid": "67625",
"rank": 83,
"score": 67987
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Stock issuing and dilution is legal because there must be some mechanism for small companies to grow into big companies. A company sees a great investment opportunity. It would be a perfect extension of their activities ... but they cannot afford it. To get the necessary money they can either take out a loan or issue shares. Taking a loan basically means that this is temporary, but the company will go back to being small when the loan is paid back. Issuing new shares basically means that the Board means that this growth is permanent and the company will be big for the foreseeable future. It is utterly necessary that companies have this option for raising cash, and therefore it is legal. As detailed in the other answers, you end up with a smaller percentage of a larger company, usually ending up with more or less the same value.",
"qid": 9925,
"docid": "419505",
"rank": 84,
"score": 67780
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: There are those who would suggest that due to the Efficient Market Hypothesis, stocks are always fairly valued. Consider, if non-professional posters on SE (here) had a method that worked beyond random chance, everyone seeking such a method would soon know it. If everyone used that method, it would lose its advantage. In theory, this is how stocks' values remain rational. That said, Williams %R is one such indicator. It can be seen in action on Yahoo finance - In the end, I find such indicators far less useful than the news itself. BP oil spill - Did anyone believe that such a huge oil company wouldn't recover from that disaster? It recovered by nearly doubling from its bottom after that news. A chart of NFLX (Netflix) offers a similar news disaster, and recovery. Both of these examples are not quantifiable, in my opinion, just gut reactions. A quick look at the company and answer to one question - Do I feel this company will recover? To be candid - in the 08/09 crash, I felt that way about Ford and GM. Ford returned 10X from the bottom, GM went through bankruptcy. That observation suggests another question, i.e. where is the line drawn between 'investing' and 'gambling'? My answer is that buying one stock hoping for its recovery is gambling. Being able to do this for 5-10 stocks, or one every few months, is investing.",
"qid": 9925,
"docid": "306189",
"rank": 85,
"score": 67710
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"What is a stock? A share of stock represents ownership of a portion of a corporation. In olden times, you would get a physical stock certificate (looking something like this) with your name and the number of shares on it. That certificate was the document demonstrating your ownership. Today, physical stock certificates are quite uncommon (to the point that a number of companies don't issue them anymore). While a one-share certificate can be a neat memento, certificates are a pain for investors, as they have to be stored safely and you'd have to go through a whole annoying process to redeem them when you wanted to sell your investment. Now, you'll usually hold stock through a brokerage account, and your holdings will just be records in a database somewhere. You'll pick a broker (more on that in the next question), instruct them to buy something, and they'll keep track of it in your account. Where do I get a stock? You'll generally choose a broker and open an account. You can read reviews to compare different brokerages in your country, as they'll have different fees and pricing. You can also make sure the brokerage firm you choose is in good standing with the financial regulators in your country, though one from a major national bank won't be unsafe. You will be required to provide personal information, as you are opening a financial account. The information should be similar to that required to open a bank account. You'll also need to get your money in and out of the account, so you'll likely set up a bank transfer. It may be possible to request a paper stock certificate, but don't be surprised if you're told this is unavailable. If you do get a paper certificate, you'll have to deal with considerably more hassle and delay if you want to sell later. Brokers charge a commission, which is a fee per trade. Let's say the commission is $10/trade. If you buy 5 shares of Google at $739/share, you'd pay $739 * 5 + $10 = $3705 and wind up with $3695 worth of stock in your account. You'd pay the same commission when you sell the stock. Can anyone buy/own/use a stock? Pretty much. A brokerage is going to require that you be a legal adult to maintain an account with them. There are generally ways in which a parent can open an account on behalf of an underage child though. There can be different types of restrictions when it comes to investing in companies that are not publicly held, but that's not something you need to worry about. Stocks available on the public stock market are available to, well, the public. How are stocks taxed? Taxes differ from country to country, but as a general rule, you do have to provide the tax authorities with sufficient information to determine what you owe. This means figuring out how much you purchased the stock for and comparing that with how much you sold it for to determine your gain or loss. In the US (and I suspect in many other countries), your brokerage will produce an annual report with at least some of this information and send it to the tax authorities and you. You or someone you hire to do your taxes will use that report to compute the amount of tax owed. Your brokerage will generally keep track of your \"\"cost basis\"\" (how much you bought it for) for you, though it's a good idea to keep records. If you refuse to tell the government your cost basis, they can always assume it's $0, and then you'll pay more tax than you owe. Finding the cost basis for old investments can be difficult many years later if the records are lost. If you can determine when the stock was purchased, even approximately, it's possible to look back at historical price data to determine the cost. If your stock pays a dividend (a certain amount of money per-share that a company may pay out of its profits to its investors), you'll generally need to pay tax on that income. In the US, the tax rate on dividends may be the same or less than the tax rate on normal wage income depending on how long you've held the investment and other rules.\"",
"qid": 9925,
"docid": "173088",
"rank": 86,
"score": 67655
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The answer to your question is \"\"no\"\". Unless you specifically ask to receive paper share certificates, then brokers will hold your shares with a custodian company in the broker's own nominee account. If you are able to receive paper certificates, then the registrar of the company whose shares you own will have a record of your name, however this is exceptionally rare these days. Using a stockbroker means that your shares will be held in the broker's nominee account. A nominee company is a custodian charged with the safekeeping of investors’ securities. It should be a separate entity from the broker itself. In essence, the nominee is the legal owner of the securities, while you retain actual ownership as the beneficiary. Your broker can move and sell the securities on your behalf – and gets to handle all the lovely paperwork – but the assets still belong to you. They can’t be claimed by the broker’s creditors if things get messy. The main reason for this kind of set-up is cost, and this is why brokers are able to offer relatively low dealing costs to their clients. You can, if you wish, ask your broker for an account that deals with paper share certificates. However, few brokers will offer such an account and it will mean that you incur much higher dealing costs and may mean that you cannot sell you shares without first submitting the paper certificates back to your stock broker. Note that the stock exchange plays no role in recording ownership. Nor does your broker's account with the clearing house.\"",
"qid": 9925,
"docid": "564870",
"rank": 87,
"score": 67411
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: +1 to YosefWeiner. Let me add: Legally, technically, or at least theoretically, when you buy stock through a broker, you own the stock, not the broker. The broker is just holding it for you. If the broker goes bankrupt, that has nothing to do with the value of your stock. That said, if the broker fails to transfer your shares to another broker before ceasing operation, it could be difficult to get your assets. Suppose you take your shoes to a shoe repair shop. Before you can pick them up, the shop goes bankrupt. The shoes are still rightfully yours. If the shop owner was a nice guy he would have called you and told you to pick up your shoes before he closed the shop. But if he didn't, you may have to go through legal gyrations to get your shoes back. If as his business failed the shop owner quit caring and got sloppy about his records, you might have to prove that those shoes are yours and not someone else's, etc.",
"qid": 9925,
"docid": "354815",
"rank": 88,
"score": 67406
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: In this type of strategy profit is made when the shares go down as your main position is the short trade of the common stock. The convertible instruments will tend to move in about the same direction as the underlying (what it can be converted to) but less violently as they are traded less (lower volatility and lower volume in the market on both sides), however, they are not being used to make a profit so much as to hedge against the stock going up. Since both the bonds and the preference shares are higher on the list to be repaid if the company declares bankruptcy and the bonds pay out a fixed amount of interest as well, both also help protect against problems that may occur with a long position in the common stock. Essentially the plan with this strategy is to earn fixed income on the bonds whilst the stock price drops and then to sell both the bonds and buy the stock back on the market to cover the short position. If the prediction that the stock will fall is wrong then you are still earning fixed income on the debt and are able to convert it into stock at the higher price to cover the short sale eliminating, or reducing, the loss made on the short sale. Effectively the profit here is made on the spread between the price of the bond, accounting for the conversion price, and the price of the stock and that fixed income is less volatile (except usually in the junk market) than stock.",
"qid": 9925,
"docid": "581514",
"rank": 89,
"score": 67375
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: A share of stock is an asset not much different than any other asset. If the share is being held in a joint account, it's being jointly owned. If the share is being held by a company with multiple owners then the share is owned by the various owners. If you're married and in a community property state, then it's technically owned by both parties.",
"qid": 9925,
"docid": "579919",
"rank": 90,
"score": 67306
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"There are a couple of misconceptions I think are present here: Firstly, when people say \"\"interest\"\", usually that implies a lower-risk investment, like a government bond or a money market fund. Some interest-earning investments can be higher risk (like junk bonds offered by near-bankrupt companies), but for the most part, stocks are higher risk. With higher risk comes higher reward, but obviously also the chance for a bad year. A \"\"bad year\"\" can mean your fund actually goes down in value, because the companies you are invested in do poorly. So calling all value increases \"\"interest\"\" is not the correct way to think about things. Secondly, remember that \"\"Roth IRA fund\"\" doesn't really tell you what's \"\"inside\"\" it. You could set up your fund to include only low-risk interest earning investments, or higher risk foreign stocks. From what you've said, your fund is a \"\"target retirement date\"\"-type fund. This typically means that it is a mix of stocks and bonds, weighted higher to bonds if you are older (on the theory of minimizing risk near retirement), and higher to stocks if you are younger (on the theory of accepting risk for higher average returns when you have time to overcome losses). What this means is that assuming you're young and the fund you have is typical, you probably have ~50%+ of your money invested in stocks. Stocks don't pay interest, they give you value in two ways: they pay you dividends, and the companies that they are a share of increase in value (remember that a stock is literally a small % ownership of the company). So the value increase you see as the increase due to the increase in the mutual fund's share price, is part of the total \"\"interest\"\" amount you were expecting. Finally, if you are reading about \"\"standard growth\"\" of an account using a given amount of contributions, someone somewhere is making an assumption about how much \"\"growth\"\" actually happens. Either you entered a number in the calculator (\"\"How much do you expect growth to be per year?\"\") or it made an assumption by default (probably something like 7% growth per year - I haven't checked the math on your number to see what the growth rate they used was). These types of assumptions can be helpful for general retirement planning, but they are not \"\"rules\"\" that your investments are required by law to follow. If you invest in something with risk, your return may be less than expected.\"",
"qid": 9925,
"docid": "118485",
"rank": 91,
"score": 67236
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The term you're looking for is yield (though it's defined the other way around from your \"\"payout efficiency\"\", as dividend / share price, which makes no substantive difference). You're simply saying that you want to buy high-yield shares, which is a common investment strategy. But you have to consider that often a high-yielding share has a reason for the high yield. You probably don't want to buy shares in a company whose current yield is 10% but will go into liquidation next year.\"",
"qid": 9925,
"docid": "496420",
"rank": 92,
"score": 67150
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I'm afraid you're not going to get any good news here. The US government infused billions of dollars in capital as part of the bankruptcy deal. The old shares have all been cancelled and the only value they might have to you are as losses to offset other gains. I would definitely contact a tax professional to look at your current and previous returns to create a plan that best takes advantage of an awful situation. It breaks my heart to even think about it.",
"qid": 9925,
"docid": "114022",
"rank": 93,
"score": 66757
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Equity can be diluted by future investors, royalties get paid on each sale, companies can continue selling things even when operating at negative profit, back royalties due can be negotiated and at least partially paid in a bankruptcy. From the standpoint of the investor: If it doesn't look like the company will likely have commercial success with a second product, it may be wise to simply take a portion of the product that is actually selling rather than risk your capital on the company's future successes (or failures). From the standpoint of the business owner/entreprenuer, if you believe you have a second product close to the end of the development pipeline it would be wise not to give up equity in the entire enterprise simply to gain required financing to ramp up production and marketing on an existing product. Paying a royalty may be advantageous compared to paying interest on a loan as well (royalty payments are contingent on the occurrence of a sale while interest is due regardless).",
"qid": 9925,
"docid": "59697",
"rank": 94,
"score": 66731
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: There is certainly an obligation in some cases of a company to distribute profit, either as dividend or a stock buy back. Activist investors frequently push for one or the other when a company is doing well - sometimes to the detriment of future growth, in some eyes - and can even file shareholder lawsuits (saying the company is not doing its duty to its shareholders by simply holding onto cash). Apple famously held out from doing either for years under Steve Jobs, and only in the last few years started doing both - a large dividend and a share buy-back which increases the value of remaining shares (as EPS then goes up with fewer shares out there). Carl Icahn for example is one of those investors in Apple's case [and in many cases!] who put significant pressure, particularly when they were sitting on hundreds of billions of dollars. Ultimately, a (for-profit) corporation's board is tasked with maximizing its shareholder's wealth; as such, it can buy back shares, pay dividends, sell the company, liquidate the company, or expand the company, at its discretion, so long as it can justify to its shareholders that it is still attempting to maximize the value of their holdings. Companies in their growth phase often don't return any money and simply reinvest - but the long-term hope is to either return money in the form of dividends on profits, or the sale of the company.",
"qid": 9925,
"docid": "496681",
"rank": 95,
"score": 66587
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: >any good investment takes time Yea first you have to borrow millions of dollars, stash it away/buy recurring income assets, and wait long enough to declare bankruptcy so that you don't go to jail for fraud. He specifically calls bankruptcy a tool in the book, and he obviously used it after spending borrowed money on income-earning assets. You can say that's smart. I say it's illegal.",
"qid": 9925,
"docid": "146061",
"rank": 96,
"score": 66521
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"P/E is a useful tool for evaluating the price of a company, but only in comparison to companies in similar industries, especially for industries with well-defined cash flows. For example, if you compared Consolidated Edison (NYSE:ED) to Hawaiian Electric (NYSE:HE), you'll notice that HE has a significantly higher PE. All things being equal, that means that HE may be overpriced in comparison to ED. As an investor, you need to investigate further to determine whether that is true. HE is unique in that it is a utility that also operates a bank, so you need to take that into account. You need to think about what your goal is when you say that you are a \"\"conservative\"\" investor and look at the big picture, not a magic number. If conservative to you means capital preservation, you need to ensure that you are in investments that are diversified and appropriate. Given the interest rate situation in 2011, that means your bonds holding need to be in short-duration, high-quality securities. Equities should be weighted towards large cap, with smaller holdings of international or commodity-associated funds. Consider a target-date or blended fund like one of the Vanguard \"\"Life Strategy\"\" funds.\"",
"qid": 9925,
"docid": "132097",
"rank": 97,
"score": 66439
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Such data is typically only available from paid sources due to the amount of research involved in determining the identity of delisted securities, surviving entities in merger scenarios, company name changes, symbol changes, listing venue changes, research of all capital events such as splits, and to ensure that the data coverage is complete. Many stocks that are delisted from a major exchange due to financial difficulties are still publicly tradeable companies with their continuing to trade as \"\"OTC\"\" shares. Some large companies even have periods where they traded for a period of their history as OTC. This happened to NYSE:NAV (Navistar) from Feb 2007 to July 2008, where they were delisted due to accounting statement inaccuracies and auditor difficulties. In the case of Macromedia, it was listed on NASDAQ 13 Dec 1993 and had its final day of trading on 2 Dec 2005. It had one stock split (2:1) with ex-date of 16 Oct 1995 and no dividends were ever paid. Other companies are harder to find. For example, the bankrupt General Motors (was NYSE:GM) became Motoros Liquidation Corp (OTC:MTLQQ) and traded that way for almost 21 months before finally delisting. In mergers, there are in two (or more) entities - one surviving entity and one (or more) delisted entity. In demergers/spinoffs there are two (or more) entities - one that continues the capital structure of the original company and the other newly formed spun-off entity. Just using the names of the companies is no indication of its history. For example, due to monopoly considerations, AT&T were forced to spinoff multiple companies in 1984 and effectively became 75% smaller. One of the companies they spunoff was Southwestern Bell Corporation, which became SBC Communications in 1995. In 2005 SBC took over its former parent company and immediately changed its name to AT&T. So now we have two AT&Ts - one that was delisted in 2005 and another that exists to this day. Disclosure: I am a co-owner of Norgate Data (Premium Data), a data vendor in this area.\"",
"qid": 9925,
"docid": "592484",
"rank": 98,
"score": 66400
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"During GM's Chapter 11 reorganization in 2009, a new company was formed, with new stock. The old General Motors Corporation was renamed to \"\"Motors Liquidation Company,\"\" and the new company was named \"\"General Motors Company.\"\" The new company purchased some of the assets from the old company, and the old company was left to sell off the remaining assets and settle the debts. None of the stock transferred from the old company to the new one; if you were a GM stockholder of the old company and didn't sell, it is now worthless. When the new company formed, the stock was not traded publicly. The company was primarily owned by the United States and Canadian governments; together, they owned 72.5%. In 2010, GM had an IPO, and the US government sold most of their stake. By the end of 2013, the US government sold the remaining stake; the government no longer has any ownership in GM. When we talk about voting rights for stockholders, we are mainly talking about voting for the members of the board of directors. And yes, the government did indeed have a hand in selecting the board of the new company. The Treasury Department selected 10 members of the board, and the Canadian government selected 1 member. There were 19 board members total. (Source) Unlike some companies, there are not \"\"voting\"\" and \"\"non-voting\"\" classes of GM stock. All the shares sold by the US government are voting shares. Additional Sources:\"",
"qid": 9925,
"docid": "438121",
"rank": 99,
"score": 66319
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You seem to think that stock exchanges are much more than they actually are. But it's right there in the name: stock exchange. It's a place where people exchange (i.e. trade) stocks, no more and no less. All it does is enable the trading (and thereby price finding). Supposedly they went into mysterious bankruptcy then what will happen to the listed companies Absolutely nothing. They may have to use a different exchange if they're planning an IPO or stock buyback, that's all. and to the shareholder's stock who invested in companies that were listed in these markets ? Absolutley nothing. It still belongs to them. Trades that were in progress at the moment the exchange went down might be problematic, but usually the shutdown would happen in a manner that takes care of it, and ultimately the trade either went through or it didn't (and you still have the money). It might take some time to establish this. Let's suppose I am an investor and I bought stocks from a listed company in NYSE and NYSE went into bankruptcy, even though NYSE is a unique business, meaning it doesn't have to do anything with that firm which I invested in. How would I know the stock price of that firm Look at a different stock exchange. There are dozens even within the USA, hundreds internationally. and will I lose my purchased stocks ? Of course not, they will still be listed as yours at your broker. In general, what will happen after that ? People will use different stock exchanges, and some of them migth get overloaded from the additional volume. Expect some inconveniences but no huge problems.",
"qid": 9925,
"docid": "3463",
"rank": 100,
"score": 66210
}
] |
Investing in commodities, pros and cons? | [
{
"content": "Title: Content: This depends on what your definition of the word is is. Strictly speaking, you are only investing in a company when you buy stock from them somehow. This is usually done during an IPO or a secondary offering. Or, if you are someone like Warren Buffet or an institutional investor, you strike a deal with the company to buy shares directly from them. Otherwise, your money goes to someone else. Merriam-Webster defines speculate as 1b: to review something idly or casually and often inconclusively However, it also defines it as: 2: to assume a business risk in hope of gain; especially : to buy or sell in expectation of profiting from market fluctuations The typical use of the term stock speculation vs stock investing involves definition 1b. This alludes to the idea that little to no research was done about the stock. This may be due to a lack of time, interest, knowledge, etc., or it may be due to a lack of information. The former usually has a negative connotation. The latter may have a negative connotation, though usually the connotation is one of greater risk. Strictly speaking, definition 2 includes investing as you define it along with investing in securities/commodities.",
"qid": 9929,
"docid": "395409",
"rank": 1,
"score": 126082
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The pros and cons of investing in a closed end fund both stem from the fact that the price per share is likely to differ from the net asset value (NAV) of the underlying assets. That could work to your advantage if the fund is selling for LESS than NAV, or at a discount. Then you get the \"\"benefit of the bargain\"\" and hope to sell the shares in the future for \"\"par\"\" or even a premium (MORE than NAV). On the other hand, if you buy such a fund at a premium, you stand to have a RELATIVE loss if the value of the fund goes back to par (or a discount) compared to NAV. That's because a closed end fund has a FIXED number of shares, with the assets continually being reinvested. In essence, you are \"\"buying out\"\" an existing shareholder of the fund at a price determined by supply and demand. This differs from an OPEN end fund, in which your contribution creates NEW shares (all other things being equal). Then the fund, has to invest YOUR money (and charges you a fee for the service) on exactly a pro rata basis with other investors in the fund, meaning that you will enter and exit such a fund at \"\"par.\"\" In either case, your return depends mainly on the performance of the underlying assets. But there are premium/discount issues for investing in a closed end fund.\"",
"qid": 9929,
"docid": "66453",
"rank": 2,
"score": 121195
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I'll take a stab at this question and offer a disclosure: I recently got in RING (5.1), NEM (16.4), ASX:RIO (46.3), and FCX (8.2). While I won't add to my positions at current prices, I may add other positions, or more to them if they fall further. This is called catching a falling dagger and it's a high risk move. Cons (let's scare everyone away) Pros The ECB didn't engage in as much QE as the market hoped and look at how it reacted, especially commodities. Consider that the ECB's actions were \"\"tighter\"\" than expected and the Fed plans to raise rates, or claims so. Commodities should be falling off a cliff on that news. While most American/Western attention is on the latest news or entertainment, China has been seizing commodities around the globe like crazy, and the media have failed to mention that even with its market failing, China is still seizing commodities. If China was truly panicked about its market, it would stop investing in other countries and commodities and just bail out its own country. Yet, it's not doing that. The whole \"\"China crisis\"\" is completely oversold in the West; China is saying one thing (\"\"oh no\"\"), but doing another (using its money to snap up cheap commodities). Capitalism works because hard times strengthen good companies. You know how many bailouts ExxonMobil has received compared to Goldman Sachs? You know who owns more real wealth? Oil doesn't get bailed out, banks do, and banks can't innovate to save their lives, while oil innovates. Hard times strengthen good companies. This means that this harsh bust in commodities will separate the winners from the losers and history shows the winners do very well in the long run. Related to the above point: how many bailouts from tax payers do you think mining companies will get? Zero. At least you're investing in companies that don't steal your money through government confiscation. If you're like me, you can probably find at least 9 people out of 10 who think \"\"investing in miners is a VERY BAD idea.\"\" What do they think is a good idea? \"\"Duh, Snapchat and Twitter, bruh!\"\" Then there's the old saying, \"\"Be greedy when everyone's fearful and fearful when everyone's greedy.\"\" Finally, miners own hard assets. Benjamin Graham used to point this out with the \"\"dead company\"\" strategy like finding a used cigarette with one more smoke. You're getting assets cheap, while other investors are overpaying for stocks, hoping that the Fed unleashes moar QE! Think strategy here: seize cheap assets, begin limiting the supply of these assets (if you're the saver and not borrowing), then watch as the price begins to rise for them because of low supply. Remember, investors are part owners in companies - take more control to limit the supply. Using Graham's analogy, stock pile those one-puff cigarettes for a day when there's a low supply of cigarettes. Many miners are in trouble now because they've borrowed too much and must sell at a low profit, or in some cases, must lose. When you own assets debt free, you can cut the supply. This will also help the Federal Reserve, who's been desperately trying to figure out how to raise inflation. The new patriotic thing to do is stimulate the economy by sending inflation up, and limiting the supply here is key.\"",
"qid": 9929,
"docid": "209349",
"rank": 3,
"score": 113663
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Pro: - Faces less redemption pressure and hence the Fund Manager can focus more on long term gains rather than immediate gains. - Works well in emerging markets. - Less churn out in case the market falls sharply, there by making more money in long run. Cons: - No additional money to invest/take advantage of market situation. - Less liquid for investor as he is locked in for a period.",
"qid": 9929,
"docid": "445198",
"rank": 4,
"score": 111927
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Our company does a lot of research on the self-directed IRA industry. We also provide financial advice in this area. In short, we have seen a lot in this industry. You mentioned custodian fees. This can be a sore spot for many investors. However, not all custodians are expensive, you should do your research before choosing the best one. Here is a list of custodians to help with your research Here are some of the more common pros and cons that we see. Pros: 1) You can invest in virtually anything that is considered an investment. This is great if your expertise is in an area that cannot be easily invested in with traditional securities, such as horses, private company stock, tax liens and more. 2) Control- you have greater control over your investments. If you invest in GE, it is likely that you will not have much say in the running of their business. However, if you invest in a rental property, you will have a lot of control over how the investment should operate. 3) Invest in what you know. Peter lynch was fond of saying this phrase. Not everyone wants to invest in the stock market. Many people won't touch it because they are not familiar with it. Self-directed IRAs allow you to invest in assets like real estate that you know well. Cons: 1) many alternative investments are illiquid. This can present a problem if you need to access your capital for withdrawals. 2) Prohibited transactions- This is a new area for many investors who are unfamiliar with how self-directed IRAs work 3) Higher fees- in many cases, the fees associated with self-directed IRA custodians and administrators can be higher. 4) questionable investment sponsors tend to target self-directed IRA owners for fraudulent investments. The SEC put out a good PDF about the risks of fraud with self-directed IRAs. Self Directed IRAs are not the right solution for everyone, but they can help certain investors focus on the areas they know well.",
"qid": 9929,
"docid": "429106",
"rank": 5,
"score": 110300
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Excel Pros: Cons:",
"qid": 9929,
"docid": "324273",
"rank": 6,
"score": 106245
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Two types of people: (1) Suckers (2) People who feel that investment advisors/brokers make too little money and want to help out by paying insane commissions. Think I'm kidding. Check out this article: \"\"Variable Annuity Pros and Cons\"\" Seriously, for 99% of us, they are a raw deal for everyone except the person selling them.\"",
"qid": 9929,
"docid": "83238",
"rank": 7,
"score": 105243
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Something you invest in has the ability to grow in value. So examples of investments would be buying stocks, bonds, currencies, commodities. Buying your house or a piece of real estate can be considered an investment because the house/property will hopefully be worth more as time passes. So the act of paying down a mortgage really isn't an investment.",
"qid": 9929,
"docid": "521589",
"rank": 8,
"score": 104115
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: There are a number of ways trading stocks is easier than commodities: But the main and most important reason is that over long periods stocks in general will tend to outperform inflation as you are investing money in enterprises that generally try to become more productive over time. Whereas commodities in the long term tend to rise only at the pace of inflation (this is kind of the definition of inflation actually). So even uninformed investors that pick stocks at random will generally do better than someone doing the same in commodities even before the higher commodities trading fees are taken into account. Also your orange example may be harder than you think. Once the news that a drought is an issue the price of oranges will almost immediately change well before the oranges come to market! So unless you can predict the drought before anyone else can you won't be able to make money this way.",
"qid": 9929,
"docid": "85349",
"rank": 9,
"score": 102550
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: PROS: Price stability, confidence in the market, manipulation of money supply for direct monetary policy transmission, not having politicians conduct short sighted policy so they can get reelected, etc. CONS: No checks/balances, few people control of the largest economy in the world, not democratic",
"qid": 9929,
"docid": "212162",
"rank": 10,
"score": 101825
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"As Dilip has pointed out in the comment, investing in commodities is to either delivery or Buy. Lets say you entered into buying \"\"X\"\" quantities of Soybeans in November, contract is entered into May. In November, if the price is higher than what you purchased for, you can easily sell this, and make money. If in November, the price is lower than your contract price, you have an option to sell it at loss. If you don't want to sell it at loss, you are supposed to take the physical shipment [arrange for your own transport] and store it in warehouse. Although there are companies that will allow you to lease their warehouse, it very soon becomes more loss making proposition. By doing this you can HOLD onto as long as you want [or as long as the good survive and don't rot] It makes sense for a large wholesaler to enter into Buy contracts as he would be like to get known prices for at least half the stock he needs. Similarly large farmers / co-operative societies need to enter into Sell contracts so that they are safeguarded against price fluctuations.\"",
"qid": 9929,
"docid": "591757",
"rank": 11,
"score": 99175
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"TL;DR: Because stocks represent added value from corporate profits, and not the price the goods themselves are sold at. This is actually a very complicated subject. But here's the simplest answer I can come up with. Stocks are a commodity, just like milk, eggs, and bread. The government only tracks certain commodities (consumables) as part of the Consumer Price Index (CPI). These are generally commodities that the typical person will consume on a daily or weekly basis, or need to survive (food, rent, etc.). These are present values. Stock prices, on the other hand, represent an educated guess (or bet) on a company's future performance. If Apple has historically performed well, and analysts expect it to continue to perform, then investors will pay more for a stock that they feel will continue pay good dividends in the future. Compound this with the fact that there is usually limited a supply of stock for a particular company (unless they issue more stock). If we go back to Apple as an example, they can raise their price they charge on an iPhone from $400 to $450 over the course of say a couple years. Some of this may be due to higher wage costs, but efficiencies in the marketplace actually tend to drive down costs to produce goods, so they will probably actually turn a higher profit by raising their price, even if they have to pay higher wages (or possibly even if they don't raise their price!). This, in economics, is termed value added. Finally, @Hart is absolutely correct in his comment about the stocks in the S&P 500 not being static. Additionally, the S&P 500 is a hand picked set of \"\"winners\"\", if you will. These are not run-of-the-mill penny stocks for companies that will be out of business in a week. These are companies that Standard & Poor's Financial Services LLC thinks will perform well.\"",
"qid": 9929,
"docid": "541145",
"rank": 12,
"score": 97750
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I think I have a better answer for this since I have been an investor in the stock markets since a decade and most of my money is either made through investing or trading the financial markets. Yes you can start investing with as low as 50 GBP or even less. If you are talking about stocks there is no restriction on the amount of shares you can purchase the price of which can be as low as a penny. I stared investing in stocks when I was 18. With the money saved from my pocket money which was not much. But I made investments on a regular period no matter how less I could but I would make regular investments on a long term. Remember one thing, never trade stock markets always invest in it on a long term. The stock markets will give you the best return on a long term as shown on the graph below and will also save you money on commission the broker charge on every transaction. The brokers to make money for themselves will ask you to trade stocks on short term but stock market were always made to invest on a long term as Warren Buffet rightly says. And if you want to trade try commodities or forex. Forex brokers will offer you accounts with as low as 25 USD with no commissions. The commission here are all inclusive in spreads. Is this true? Can the average Joe become involved? Yes anyone who wants has an interest in the financial markets can get involved. Knowledge is the key not money. Is it worth investing £50 here and there? Or is that a laughable idea? 50 GBP is a lot. I started with a few Indian Rupees. If people laugh let them laugh. Only morons who don't understand the true concept of financial markets laugh. There are fees/rules involved, is it worth the effort if you just want to see? The problem with today's generation of people is that they fear a lot. Unless you crawl you dont walk. Unless you try something you dont learn. The only difference between a successful person and a not successful person is his ability to try, fail/fall, get back on feet, again try untill he succeeds. I know its not instant money, but I'd like to get a few shares here and there, to follow the news and see how companies do. I hear that BRIC (brasil, russia, india and china) is a good share to invest in Brazil India the good thing is share prices are relatively low even the commissions. Mostly ROI (return on investment) on a long term would almost be the same. Can anyone share their experiences? (maybe best for community wiki?) Always up for sharing. Please ask questions no matter how stupid they are. I love people who ask for when I started I asked and people were generous enough to answer and so would I be.",
"qid": 9929,
"docid": "551627",
"rank": 13,
"score": 96120
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: In my opinion the difference is semantic. A professional, or someone wanting to present an air of competence, is more likely to talk about investing in shares, as the word investment carries with it connotations of effort, energy and a worthwhile result. Whereas, the word speculation implies the hope of gain but with the risk of loss.",
"qid": 9929,
"docid": "106864",
"rank": 14,
"score": 96059
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: A terrific resource is this article. To summarize the points given: PROS: CONS: There is no generic yes or no answer as to whether you ought to max out your 401(k)s. If you are a sophisticated investor, then saving the income for investing could be a better alternative. Long term capital gains are taxed at 15% in the US, so if you buy and hold on to good companies that reinvest their earnings, then the share price keeps going up and you'll save a lot of money that would go in taxes. If you're not a very good investor, however, then 401(k)s make a lot of sense. If you're going to end up setting up some asset allocation and buying ETFs and rebalancing or having a manager rebalance for you every year or so, then you might as well take the 401(k) option and lower your taxable income. Point #1 is simply wrong, because companies that reinvest earnings and growing for a long time are essentially creating tax-free gains for you, which is even better than tax-deferred gains. Nonetheless, most people have neither the time nor the interest to research companies and for them, the 401(k) makes more sense.",
"qid": 9929,
"docid": "309200",
"rank": 15,
"score": 95974
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Oil as a commodity or investing in oil companies as a stock? As a commodity, I'd recommend none. The article Commodities – They Have (Almost) No Place in Your Portfolio and The Case Against Commodities explain why commodities are not good investments.",
"qid": 9929,
"docid": "379140",
"rank": 16,
"score": 95771
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I would strongly recommend investing in assets and commodities. I personally believe fiat money is losing its value because of a rising inflation and the price of oil. The collapse of the euro should considerably affect the US currency and shake up other regions of the world in forex markets. In my opinion, safest investment these days are hard assets and commodities. Real estate, land, gold, silver(my favorite) and food could provide some lucrative benefits. GL mate!",
"qid": 9929,
"docid": "465430",
"rank": 17,
"score": 95592
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: this is not necessarily true. sometimes it makes sense for a public company to go private. usually a private equity firm will buy up the shares. the private equity firm would usually be financed by a bank and the cash flow from the company will help pay off the financing. there are pros and cons to both private and public companies. a pro for a private company is the reduced regulation and there is no need to follow sarbanes-oxley act.",
"qid": 9929,
"docid": "349684",
"rank": 18,
"score": 94237
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The major pros tend to be: The major cons tend to be: Being in California, you've got state income tax to worry about as well. It might be worth using some of that extra cash to hire someone who knows what they're doing to handle your taxes the first year, at least. I've always maxed mine out, because it's always seemed like a solid way to make a few extra dollars. If you can live without the money in your regular paycheck, it's always seemed that the rewards outweighed the risks. I've also always immediately sold the stock, since I usually feel like being employed at the company is enough \"\"eggs in that basket\"\" without holding investments in the same company. (NB: I've participated in several of these ESPP programs at large international US-based software companies, so this is from my personal experience. You should carefully review the terms of your ESPP before signing up, and I'm a software engineer and not a financial advisor.)\"",
"qid": 9929,
"docid": "521095",
"rank": 19,
"score": 94131
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Without commenting on your view of the TV market: Let's have a look at the main ways to get negative exposure: 1.Short the stocks Pros: Relatively Easy Cons: Interest rate, costs of shorting, linear bet 2.Options a. Write Calls b. Buy puts Pros: Convexity, leveraged, relatively cheap Cons: Zero Sum bet that expires with time, theta 3.Short Stock, Buy Puts, Write Calls Short X Units of each stock, Write calls on them , use call premiums to finance puts. Pros: 3x the power!, high kickout Cons: Unlimited pain",
"qid": 9929,
"docid": "268802",
"rank": 20,
"score": 92989
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Investing in commodities is iffy in the best of times. Potash already has expectations priced in, so I prefer to play CNI, the railroad doing most of the hauling. Uranium? No. Uranium has been touted for a decade or more without results. Thorium is the preferable future nuclear fuel, and there is lots of it.",
"qid": 9929,
"docid": "105790",
"rank": 21,
"score": 92326
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: This very informative link gives a clear and comprehensive comparison (pros and cons) of various popular brokers: https://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/investing/best-online-brokers-for-stock-trading/ (Best Online Brokers for Stock Trading 2016) There are indeed some significant cons for the super-low commission fee. Just for a quick example, the Interactive Broker requires a minimum of 10k account balance, as well as the frequent trading activity even on monthly basis (or the minimum $10 commission would be charged).",
"qid": 9929,
"docid": "192910",
"rank": 22,
"score": 91636
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If I were in your shoes, I would invest conservatively fully aware that for the next few years the stock market is going to be depressed, but then again, don't take that as advice. Every situation is different, weigh the pros and cons carefully and if required, consult a qualified professional.",
"qid": 9929,
"docid": "222444",
"rank": 23,
"score": 91530
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Money Manager Ex PROS: CONS",
"qid": 9929,
"docid": "488037",
"rank": 24,
"score": 90916
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"1) link? 2) It doesn't matter if they can or do, what matters is if they are *investing* (not trading) in it *more* than banks are investing in businesses. If that is the case (it is) then businesses as a whole will see the inflation first, and commodities will be playing catchup the entire time, but mostly when the investments hit recession. I will invest in the market again after they lose their mal-invested value, In historical terms the best time was to invest in them was 1980, 1938 and 1900, and the best time to get out was 1929 1960's and 2000. But to bet against them right now, with the dollar, is meaningless because the FED is deflating the currency as they go down, so it's like running on a treadmill. By holding silver I am essentially short the market, only difference is instead of holding a devaluing currency (cash) I'm holding a real money which is increasing in value. There's nothing simpler than \"\"investing\"\" in commodities for the long-term, people lose when they are making monthly/daily trades in them. Anyone who bought and held on to gold in 2000 did it for $300, and they've made infinitely more than the majority of people investing in blue chips (because they've lost value) and much more than those who invested in bonds. And that trend isn't going to stop unless the government lets the dollar deflate in which case the dollar will come to gold instead of the other way around. Until they are in equilibrium again. Historically the dow has an average of being 2 ounces of gold, peaking at 50 and trophing at .5. If it hits .5 again like it has everytime this occurs in the past. Then either gold will be $20000 or the dow will be 4000. You pick.\"",
"qid": 9929,
"docid": "464078",
"rank": 25,
"score": 90724
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The problem with commodities is that they don't produce income. With a stock or bond, even if you never sold it to anyone or it wasn't publicly traded, you know you can collect the money the company makes or collect interest. That's a quantifiable income from the security. By computing the present value of that income (cf. http://blog.ometer.com/2007/08/26/money-math/) you can have at least a rough sense of the value of the stock or bond investment. Commodities, on the other hand, eat income (insurance and storage). Their value comes from their practical uses e.g. in manufacturing (which eventually results in income for someone); and from psychological factors. The psychological factors are inherently unpredictable. Demand due to practical uses should keep up with inflation, since in principle the prices on whatever products you make from the commodity would keep up with inflation. But even here there's a danger, because it may be that over time some popular uses for a given commodity become obsolete. For example this commodity used to be a bigger deal than now, I guess: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankincense. The reverse is also possible, that new uses for a commodity drive up demand and prices. To the extent that metals such as silver and gold bounce around wildly (much more so than inflation), I find it hard to believe the bouncing is mostly due to changes in uses of the metals. It seems far more likely that it's due to psychological factors and momentum traders. To me this makes metals a speculative investment, and identifying a bubble in metals is even harder than identifying one in income-producing assets that can more easily be valued. To identify a bubble you have to figure out what will go on in the minds of a horde of other people, and when. It seems safest for individual investors to just assume commodities are always in a bubble and stay away. The one arguable reason to own commodities is to treat them as a random bouncing number, which may enhance returns (as long as you rebalance) even if on average commodities don't make money over inflation. This is what people are saying when they suggest owning a small slice of commodities as part of an asset allocation. If you do this you have to be careful not to expect to make money on the commodities themselves, i.e. they are just something to sell some of (rebalance out of) whenever they've happened to go up a lot.",
"qid": 9929,
"docid": "363899",
"rank": 26,
"score": 90551
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The main advantage of commodities to a largely stock and bond portfolio is diversification and the main disadvantages are investment complexity and low long-term returns. Let's start with the advantage. Major commodities indices and the single commodities tend to be uncorrelated to stocks and bonds and will in general be diversifying especially over short periods. This relationship can be complex though as Supply can be even more complicated (think weather) so diversification may or may not work in your favor over long periods. However, trading in commodities can be very complex and expensive. Futures need to be rolled forward to keep an investment going. You really, really don't want to accidentally take delivery of 40000 pounds of cattle. Also, you need to properly take into account roll premiums (carry) when choosing the closing date for a future. This can be made easier by using commodities index ETFs but they can also have issues with rolling and generally have higher fees than stock index ETFs. Most importantly, it is worth understanding that the long-term return from commodities should be by definition (roughly) the inflation rate. With stocks and bonds you expect to make more than inflation over the long term. This is why many large institutions talk about commodities in their portfolio they often actually mean either short term tactical/algorithmic trading or long term investments in stocks closely tied to commodities production or processing. The two disadvantages above are why commodities are not recommended for most individual investors.",
"qid": 9929,
"docid": "266323",
"rank": 27,
"score": 90293
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Over on Quantitative Finance Stack Exchange, I asked and answered a more technical and broader version of this question, Should the average investor hold commodities as part of a broadly diversified portfolio? In short, I believe the answer to your question is that gold is neither an investment nor a hedge against inflation. Although many studies claim that commodities (such as gold) do offer some diversification benefit, the most credible academic study I have seen to date, Should Investors Include Commodities in Their Portfolios After All? New Evidence, shows that a mean-variance investor would not want to allocate any of their portfolio to commodities (this would include gold, presumably). Nevertheless, many asset managers, such as PIMCO, offer funds that are marketed as \"\"real return\"\" or \"\"inflation-managed\"\" and include commodities (including gold) in their portfolios. PIMCO has also commissioned some research, Strategic Asset Allocation and Commodities, claiming that holding some commodities offers both diversification and inflation hedging benefits.\"",
"qid": 9929,
"docid": "556936",
"rank": 28,
"score": 90176
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: As with everything else, it's a question of trade-offs. Pros For Buying In Bulk Cons For Buying In Bulk Inventory cost. You need to purchase more shelving/cupboards to stock the goods. This is a real cost. The psychological effect of having more means you are more likely to use more, thus costing you more. Deflation of the cost of the item should occur over time in a well-functioning market economy. A $10 item today might be $9.50 in one year in real terms. There is a real opportunity cost associated with overbuying. Granted, an extra $100 in your bank account won't be earning too much if you have to spend it one month later, but it does mean you have less financial independence for that month. Risk of spoilage. There is a nonzero risk that your goods could be ruined by flood/fire/toddler/klutz damage. You need to decide which of these pros and cons are more important to you. Financially, you should only buy what you need between shopping trips. In reality the convenience of holding goods in storage for when you need them may outweigh the costs.",
"qid": 9929,
"docid": "56027",
"rank": 29,
"score": 89440
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Leverage is when you borrow in order to invest. Mind you, most people aren't going to just give you money to gamble on the stock market completely unsecured; rather, you deposit (say) $10,000 and buy a stock... and then you have $10k in assets which you can borrow against, so you can buy another $10,000 of that stock. Now if the stock goes up you'll make twice the gain (2x leverage). However, if it goes down, you'll lose twice as much as well. If the value of your stock falls, your line of credit will be reduced as well; in this case, since you used all your credit and are now over your limit, your broker will issue a margin call (they will demand a deposit of additional funds, or they will sell some of your stock at their discretion). This protects you from owing more than you invested, but it's still sometimes possible (for instance, if a company spontaneously goes bankrupt and becomes worthless, and your stock becomes worthless). There are also things like leveraged index funds and commodity funds which aim to return some multiple of the market's earnings. These are designed for intraday trading, though, and usually end up underperforming significantly over the long term. [edit] Mose people who accept borrowed funds should generally accept real cash as well. However, if you're trying to short sell, i.e. borrow shares and sell them (in the hopes you can get them back cheaper later after the stock falls) you will need a margin line of credit to do so as well. [edit 2] clarified margin calls",
"qid": 9929,
"docid": "419138",
"rank": 30,
"score": 87329
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: KMyMoney Pros: Cons:",
"qid": 9929,
"docid": "301609",
"rank": 31,
"score": 87136
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: A stock, bond or ETF is basically a commodity. Where you bought it does not really matter, and it has a value in USD only inasmuch as there is a current market price quoted at an American exchange. But nothing prevents you from turning around and selling it on a European exchange where it is also listed for an equivalent amount of EUR (arbitrage activities of investment banks ensure that the price will be equivalent in regard to the current exchange rate). In fact, this can be used as a cheap form of currency conversion. For blue chips at least this is trivial; exotic securities might not be listed in Europe. All you need is a broker who allows you to trade on European exchanges and hold an account denominated in EUR. If necessary, transfer your securities to a broker who does, which should not cost more than a nominal fee. Mutual funds are a different beast though; it might be possible to sell shares on an exchange anyway, or sell them back to the issuer for EUR. It depends. In any case, however, transferring 7 figure sums internationally can trigger all kinds of tax events and money laundering investigations. You really need to hire a financial advisor who has international investment experience for this kind of thing, not ask a web forum!",
"qid": 9929,
"docid": "369266",
"rank": 32,
"score": 86420
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Those are some very broad questions and I don't think I can answer them completely, but I will add what I can. Barron's Finance and Investment Handbook is the best reference book I have found. It provides a basic description/definition for every type of investment available. It covers stocks, preferred stocks, various forms of bonds as well as mortgage pools and other exotic instruments. It has a comprehensive dictionary of finance terms as well. I would definitely recommend getting it. The question about how people invest today is a huge one. There are people who simply put a monthly amount into a mutual fund and simply do that until retirement on one side and professional day traders who move in and out of stocks or commodities on a daily basis on the other.",
"qid": 9929,
"docid": "283971",
"rank": 33,
"score": 85994
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Currency, like gold and other commodities, isn't really much of an investment at all. It doesn't actually generate any return. Its value might fluctuate at a different rate than that of the US dollar or Euro, but that's about it. It might have a place as a very small slice of a basket of global currencies, but most US / European households don't actually need that sort of basket; it's really more of a risk-management strategy than an investment strategy and it doesn't really reflect the risks faced by an ordinary family in the US (or Europe or similar). Investments shouldn't generally be particularly \"\"exciting\"\". Generally, \"\"exciting\"\" opportunities mean that you're speculating on the market, not really investing in it. If you have a few thousand dollars you don't need and don't mind losing, you can make some good money speculating some of the time, but you can also just lose it all too. (Maybe there's a little room for excitement if you find amazing deals on ordinary investments at the very bottom of a stock market crash when decent, solid companies are on sale much cheaper than they ordinarily are.)\"",
"qid": 9929,
"docid": "465597",
"rank": 34,
"score": 85773
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I don't think there is a recession proof investment.Every investment is bound to their ups and downs. If you buy land, a change in law can change the whole situation it may become worthless, same applies for home as well. Gold - dependent on world economy. Stock - dependent on world economy Best way is to stay ever vigilant of world around you and keep shuffling from one investment to another balance out your portfolio. \"\"The most valuable commodity I know of is information.\"\" - Wall Street -movie\"",
"qid": 9929,
"docid": "70575",
"rank": 35,
"score": 85743
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: comments discuss investing in potato futures. Learn / ready about commodity trading or commodity futures. An investopedia article How To Invest In Commodities is a good start. There are quite a few commodities offered for normal trade or as futures. Potatos may not be offered on quite a few exchanges. Found some here Investing in commodities is fraught with quite a bit of risk, some like you have already pointed out. Of course you can't eat all and have to sell.",
"qid": 9929,
"docid": "94408",
"rank": 36,
"score": 85612
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I was wondering what relations are between brokerage companies and exchanges? Are brokers representing investors to trade on exchanges? Yes...but a broker may also buy and sell stocks for his own account. This is called broker-delaer firm. For individual investors, what are some cons and pros of trading on the exchanges directly versus indirectly via brokers? Doesn't the former save the investors any costs/expenses paid to the brokers? Yes, but to trade directly on an exchange, you need to register with them. That costs money and only a limited number of people can register I believe. Note that some (or all?) exchanges have their websites where I think trading can be done electronically, such as NASDAQ and BATS? Can almost all stocks be found and traded on almost every exchange? In other words, is it possible that a popular stock can only be found and traded on one exchange, but not found on the other exchange? If needed to be more specific, I am particularly interested in the U.S. case,and for example, Apple's stock. Yes, it is very much possible with smaller companies. Big companies are usually on multiple exchanges. What are your advices for choosing exchange and choosing brokerage companies? What exchanges and brokerage companies do you recommend? For brokerage companies, a beginner can go with discount broker. For sophisticated investors can opt for full service brokers. Usually your bank will have a brokerage firm. For exchanges, it depends...if you are in US, you should send to the US exchanges. IF you wish to send to other exchanges in other countries, you should check with the broker about that.",
"qid": 9929,
"docid": "404339",
"rank": 37,
"score": 85368
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Sorry, I didn't mean to knock your post. I do think you have valid points. I think it's great to see discussions on the pros and cons on the VC/Start-up world. My previous work experience was at a start-up that made it big (sold 90% to News Corp at $400mm valuation), but was funded by angel investors, so it was a different situation. I'm currently getting my MBA now so am looking at the space from both the VC perspective and the Start-up perspective. VCs can provide real value to start-ups, and they can also harm them. However, no one is forcing the start-ups to take VC money; most do because it provides a higher probability for a faster path to success. The investment doesn't come free obviously, as you pointed out. The hours are horrible and you lose significant control. In many situations founders are taken away from the main leadership role. That doesn't seem fair. However, if someone sold the voting shares of their company, they are opting in for that risk. The truth of the matter is that a lot of the people who are amazing at the ideas that birth the start-ups are horrible at the day-to-day management. Sometimes VCs step in and make the necessary changes to ensure the best chance at company profitability. Is it fair? Yes. Does it suck for the person ousted, absolutely. It's an oversimplification to say this is all bad or all good. It all depends on the situation. However, yes, there are VCs who are predatory and use their superior knowledge of how business, financing, and whatever else work to extract as much as they can from their portfolio companies. Yet there are also some who honestly love the industry and want to help companies grow. Your article's stance is good because it prompts a discussion. However, as I originally felt, it does not do it as effectively as it could in my opinion. That's awesome you got a ton of re-tweets, but as you say on your blog, it's about substance, not the glitter and rainbows. Edit: Voting brigades don't count as glitter and rainbows?",
"qid": 9929,
"docid": "144292",
"rank": 38,
"score": 84842
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Very interesting. I would like to expand beyond just precious metals and stocks, but I am not ready just to jump in just yet (I am a relatively young investor, but have been playing around with stocks for 4 years on and off). The problem I often find is that the stock market is often too overvalued to play Ben Graham type strategy/ PE/B, so I would like to expand my knowledge of investing so I can invest in any market and still find value. After reading Jim Rogers, I was really interested in commodities as an alternative to stocks, but I like to play really conservative (generally). Thank you for your insight. If you don't mind, I would like to add you as a friend, since you seem quite above average in the strategy department.",
"qid": 9929,
"docid": "545859",
"rank": 39,
"score": 84697
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Answers: 1. Is this a good idea? Is it really risky? What are the pros and cons? Yes, it is a bad idea. I think, with all the talk about employer matches and tax rates at retirement vs. now, that you miss the forest for the trees. It's the taxes on those retirement investments over the course of 40 years that really matter. Example: Imagine $833 per month ($10k per year) invested in XYZ fund, for 40 years (when you retire). The fund happens to make 10% per year over that time, and you're taxed at 28%. How much would you have at retirement? 2. Is it a bad idea to hold both long term savings and retirement in the same investment vehicle, especially one pegged to the US stock market? Yes. Keep your retirement separate, and untouchable. It's supposed to be there for when you're old and unable to work. Co-mingling it with other funds will induce you to spend it (\"\"I really need it for that house! I can always pay more into it later!\"\"). It also can create a false sense of security (\"\"look at how much I've got! I got that new car covered...\"\"). So, send 10% into whatever retirement account you've got, and forget about it. Save for other goals separately. 3. Is buying SPY a \"\"set it and forget it\"\" sort of deal, or would I need to rebalance, selling some of SPY and reinvesting in a safer vehicle like bonds over time? For a retirement account, yes, you would. That's the advantage of target date retirement funds like the one in your 401k. They handle that, and you don't have to worry about it. Think about it: do you know how to \"\"age\"\" your account, and what to age it into, and by how much every year? No offense, but your next question is what an ETF is! 4. I don't know ANYTHING about ETFs. Things to consider/know/read? Start here: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/etf.asp 5. My company plan is \"\"retirement goal\"\" focused, which, according to Fidelity, means that the asset allocation becomes more conservative over time and switches to an \"\"income fund\"\" after the retirement target date (2050). Would I need to rebalance over time if holding SPY? Answered in #3. 6. I'm pretty sure that contributing pretax to 401k is a good idea because I won't be in the 28% tax bracket when I retire. How are the benefits of investing in SPY outweigh paying taxes up front, or do they not? Partially answered in #1. Note that it's that 4 decades of tax-free growth that's the big dog for winning your retirement. Company matches (if you get one) are just a bonus, and the fact that contributions are tax free is a cherry on top. 7. Please comment on anything else you think I am missing I think what you're missing is that winning at personal finance is easy, and winning at personal finance is hard\"",
"qid": 9929,
"docid": "290385",
"rank": 40,
"score": 84696
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"During Graham's career, gold and currency were the same thing because of the gold standard. Graham did not advise investing in currencies, only in bonds and stocks, the latter only for intelligent speculation. Graham died a couple of years after Nixon closed the gold window, ending the gold standard. Gold may be thought of as a currency even today, as endowments and other investors use it as a store of value or for diversification of risks. However, currency or commodities investing does not seem Graham-like. How could you reliably estimate intrinsic value of a currency or commodity, so that you can have a Graham-like margin of safety after subtracting the intrinsic value from the market value? Saying that gold is \"\"clearly underpriced in today's market\"\" is just hand-waving. A Graham analysis such as \"\"net net\"\" (valuing stocks by their current tangible assets net of all liabilities) is a quantitative analysis of accounting numbers audited by CPAs and offers a true margin of safety.\"",
"qid": 9929,
"docid": "1642",
"rank": 41,
"score": 83094
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: This is what is called a Structured Product. The linked page gives an overview of the relative pros and cons. They tend to hold the bulk of funds in bonds and then used equity index futures and other derivatives to match returns on the S&P, or other indices tracked. All combine to provide the downside protection. Note that your mother did not receive the dividends paid by the constituent companies. She only received the capital return. Here is a link to Citigroup (Europe) current structured product offerings. Here is a link to Fidelity's current offerings of structured products. Here is Investopedia's article detailing the pitfalls. The popularity of these products appears to be on the wane, having been heavily promoted and sold by the providers at the time your mother invested. Most of these products only provide 100% protection of capital if the market does not fall by a specified amount, either in successive reporting periods or over the life of the product. There are almost as many terms and conditions imposed on the protection as there are structured products available. I have no personal experience buying this type of product, preferring to have the option to trade and receive dividend income.",
"qid": 9929,
"docid": "453524",
"rank": 42,
"score": 82451
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The good debt/bad debt paradigm only applies if you are considering this as a pure investment situation and not factoring in: A house is something you live in and a car is something you use for transportation. These are not substitutes for each other! While you can live in your car in a pinch, you can't take your house to the shops. Looking at the car, I will simplify it to 3 options: You can now make a list of pros and cons for each one and decide the value you place on each of them. E.g. public transport will add 5h travel time per week @ $X per hour (how much you value your leisure time), an expensive car will make me feel good and I value that at $Y. For each option, put all the benefits together - this is the value of that option to you. Then put all of the costs together - this is what the option costs you. Then make a decision on which is the best value for you. Once you have decided which option is best for you then you can consider how you will fund it.",
"qid": 9929,
"docid": "256362",
"rank": 43,
"score": 82447
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Here are the pros and cons and an analytical framework for making a decision. Pros of walking away: Cons: Here's the framework: compare the value of first and second sections for you [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/30/business/30serviceside.html?_r=0 [2] http://www.mortgagecalculator.org/",
"qid": 9929,
"docid": "315847",
"rank": 44,
"score": 82171
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: What is the difficulty is making the connection Investors go to /r/investing where discussions are related to particular stocks and commodities and news related to that and people who fancy them selves as investors and traders r/Economy is for things and event that effect economy, that means over a long time . .in the long run in a manner that is not obvious . .like a retarded bufoon who thinks he is going to fix taxes by not taxing the rich. Perhaps if you spent less time peeking at other peoples opinions and formed your own you would not feel left out of a conversation that doesn't base its quality on the number of lemmings that up or down vote it. I bet you are the kind of guy who always sneaks a peek in public urinals as well because he is so insecure . . . seriously dude . .move on, get a life more meaningful than hanging around public places peeking",
"qid": 9929,
"docid": "284060",
"rank": 45,
"score": 82145
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Forex. I will employ my skill for \"\"suspension of disbelief\"\" and answer with no visceral reaction to Bitcoin itself. The Euro is not an 'investment.' It's a currency. People trade currencies in order to capture relative movements between pairs of currencies. Unlike stocks, that have an underlying business and potential for growth (or failure, of course) a currency trade is a zero sum game, two people on opposite sides of a bet. Bitcoin has no underlying asset either, no stock, no commodity. It trades, de facto, like a currency, and for purposes of objective classification, it would be considered a currency, and held similar to any Forex position.\"",
"qid": 9929,
"docid": "594655",
"rank": 46,
"score": 81894
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Not so much a stock as it is a commodity. Ether is actually a consumable. That is part of what gives it its value. And to answer your question, it is still early in the valuation phase of ETH. Large companies just started getting behind it this year with the formation of the EEA which caused some of the price run-up. If they can manage to implement blockchain solutions that are practical and alter the way transactions are traditionally done between mediums then the potential upside is massive.",
"qid": 9929,
"docid": "588242",
"rank": 47,
"score": 81737
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Investing is when you seek to make money from owning things. Making money from owning things is economic rent. > Investing is a valid practice that helps new businesses and, by extension, society as a whole. Investing has good and bad effects. The good is that useful capital is created. The bad is that rent is created. Corporate tax cuts are a disaster. It's increasing the bad part of investment with a net negative effect on the good part.",
"qid": 9929,
"docid": "73854",
"rank": 48,
"score": 81700
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"These are meaningless statistics on multiple levels: 1. These value rises are as of 2016. This does not indicate any sort of significant trend in the rise in value of these bags over time. Did they lose 30% in 2015? Will value stagnate in 2018? 2. Even if a trend were established (it is not), it doesn't suggest any sort of future movements whatsoever, as past price movements don't ensure future movements. 3. The fundamental idea of \"\"investing\"\" in an accessory is questionable at best. While collectors will buy things like cars and art, and some will sit on them as stores of value, the economics of generating future returns on these items is not so logically sound as with stocks or bonds. These collectors items do not generate future value in a way that produces cash flows. An individual has to purely hope that somebody is willing to pay more for it in the future; the item does not fundamentally necessitate higher payment. This is the fundamental problem also with \"\"investing\"\" in commodities, and why a fundamentalist like Buffet would never do it. You bet on a commodity move (hopefully with information that you believe the market to be incorrectly synthesizing); you don't really \"\"invest\"\" in one. What makes a stock or bond (a company) different is that a company can be thought of as a black box that prints more money than it is fed. We feed money into a company as investors; the company uses that money to buy assets (e.g. Machines, inventory) at book value; the assets are made to work in tandem to produce goods/services that have more value than the sum of their parts; those goods/services are sold at the now higher value for a profit, and cash flows are returned to investors for an annual return on your investment (sometimes dividends aren't paid, but are reinvested with the expectation that reinvestment will lead to far larger dividends in the future). As such, the money investors feed into a company is turned into more money at the other end, and thus the company has produced more value than it's inputs alone. It has done so through the combination of resources (assets) in a way that makes their value greater than the sum of their parts. A company fundamentally is a logical investment (barring doubts about management's ability to create this value). It is like a black box that prints more money over time than you feed it. Purses do not; gold does not; oil does not. Don't invest in purses. Collect then if you love them, but don't bank on a payday.\"",
"qid": 9929,
"docid": "449941",
"rank": 49,
"score": 81698
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Trading and investing are very, very different activities. Investing is (very generally) done for the longer haul, by people looking for a reasonable return, determined largely by the long term prospects of the business in which they invest, accepting some moderate risk, usually around the prospects of that business. Trading is (very generally) done shorter term (seconds to days/weeks), and can involve significantly higher risk, usually focused around market conditions and players at the time of the trade. To reiterate, these are gross generalizations, but if you are just starting out: (a) you probably want to be investing, rather than trading; and (b) you may be best served by understanding as well as you can the difference between the two. Once you understand that difference, that will lead you to learning resources on each.",
"qid": 9929,
"docid": "398900",
"rank": 50,
"score": 81475
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Well, Taking a short position directly in real estate is impossible because it's not a fungible asset, so the only way to do it is to trade in its derivatives - Investment Fund Stock, indexes and commodities correlated to the real estate market (for example, materials related to construction). It's hard to find those because real estate funds usually don't issue securities and rely on investment made directly with them. Another factor should be that those who actually do have issued securities aren't usually popular enough for dealers and Market Makers to invest in it, who make it possible to take a short position in exchange for some spread. So what you can do is, you can go through all the existing real estate funds and find out if any of them has a broker that let's you short it, in other words which one of them has securities in the financial market you can buy or sell. One other option is looking for real estate/property derivatives, like this particular example. Personally, I would try to computationally find other securities that may in some way correlate with the real estate market, even if they look a bit far fetched to be related like commodities and stock from companies in construction and real estate management, etc. and trade those because these have in most of the cases more liquidity. Hope this answers your question!",
"qid": 9929,
"docid": "387141",
"rank": 51,
"score": 81255
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Yes when I place an order with my broker they send it out to the exchange. - For individual investors, what are some cons and pros of trading on the exchanges directly versus indirectly via brokers? I may be mistaken(I highly doubt it), but from my understanding you cannot trade directly through an exchange as a retail investor. BATS allows membership but it is only for Your firm must be a registered broker-dealer, registered with a Self Regulatory Organization (SRO) and connected with a clearing firm. No apple (aapl) is listed on the NASDAQ so trades go through the NASDAQ for aapl. Caterpillar Inc (CAT) is listed on the NYSE so trades go through the NYSE. The exchange you trade on is dependent on the security, if it is listed on the NYSE then you trade on the NYSE. As a regular investor you will be going through a broker. When looking to purchase a security it is more important to know about the company and less important to know what exchange it is listed on. Since there are rules a company must comply with for it to be listed on certain exchanges, it does make a difference but that is more the case when speaking about a stock listed Over the Counter(OTC) or NYSE. It is not important when asking NYSE or NASDAQ? Selecting a broker is something that's dependent on your needs. You should ask your self, \"\"whats important to me?\"\", \"\"Do I want apps(IE: iPhone, android)?\"\" \"\"Do I need fancy trading tools?\"\". Generally all the brokers you listed will most likely do the trick for you. Some review sites: Brokerage Review Online Broker Review 2012 Barron's 2012 Online Broker Review\"",
"qid": 9929,
"docid": "272008",
"rank": 52,
"score": 81246
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I would not argue if its more difficult, its different, and it much depends what kind of stocks you refer to, i take large caps as example. The players are different. Companies and even govts may hedge in the commodities (futures) market while in big caps this and other entities mainly invest. (Of course there’s HFT in large caps too). Futures often come with way higher leverage, lower spread and less commissions than stocks attracting retail and institutional speculators/HFT. Another big difference is that commodity prices react to all kind of news events (Stocks do too, but not that much and frequent), this kind of reactions big caps only do on earnings or on news directly affecting the company. Commodities are much more volatile on geo economic / political news events. This combined with higher leverage & HFT produces astounding moves. To sum it up, the players are different and act different than in large stocks, liquidity may be another thing.",
"qid": 9929,
"docid": "409777",
"rank": 53,
"score": 81126
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Pros for WHOM? Cons for WHOM? Whether the Federal Reserve is good or not really depends on WHO you are (i.e. where in the \"\"inflate/debase the money supply\"\" you are positioned, and how that affects your position in the debt/asset game). Because the impacts of just about everything the Fed (or any central bank or government/cartel manipulated \"\"fiat\"\" money supply) does... affect you significantly different depending on where you are in regards to those things.\"",
"qid": 9929,
"docid": "500769",
"rank": 54,
"score": 81063
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: 1.) The majority of credit and loans do not go to publicly traded companies. 2.) Companies can and do trade commodities with paper. 3.) Can't keep up with all the crazy you are spouting. Smart people lose their shirt in commodities all the time, it's not a fun place to play. If you really believe the majority of publicly traded companies are going to lose their value, then invest in them when they do. Money always has to go somewhere. Insurance, pensions, governments, businesses, don't like to just have cash sit there because nothing happens (you can point to Apple, etc but they're making acquisitions) anyways, they need to buy and sell and will always have to do it. My last piece of advice, look up the Hunt brothers.",
"qid": 9929,
"docid": "394471",
"rank": 55,
"score": 80850
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: 10% is way high unless you really dedicate time to managing your investments. Commodities should be a part of the speculative/aggressive portion of your portfolio, and you should be prepared to lose most or all of that portion of your portfolio. Metals aren't unique enough to justify a specific allocation -- they tend to perform well in a bad economic climate, and should be evaluated periodically. The fallacy in the arguments of gold/silver advocates is that metals have some sort of intrinsic value that protects you. I'm 32, and remember when silver was $3/oz, so I don't know how valid that assertion is. (Also recall the 25% price drop when the CBOE changed silver's margin requirements.)",
"qid": 9929,
"docid": "463451",
"rank": 56,
"score": 80829
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Intuit Quicken. Pros: Cons:",
"qid": 9929,
"docid": "171253",
"rank": 57,
"score": 80800
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Sending your money off to do the heavy lifting is just a stylish way to say \"\"investing\"\". He is saying hold back 6 months of living expenses and don't invest it. Keep it in cash or some cash-like investment (genuinely safe and liquid). It's good basic solid advice you'll also get from Dave Ramsey, Suze Orman and any financial advisor worth a darn. While this is good advice, that does not mean all of his advice is good. A classic con-man trick is to tell you three things you know are true, mixed with a lie they want you to believe. They want you to think \"\"I know 3/4 are true so the fourth probably is too.\"\"\"",
"qid": 9929,
"docid": "445693",
"rank": 58,
"score": 80492
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Probably but not necessarily. Your question could also be posed regarding cash & carry for commodities in contango: If I can take delivery on the gold now, short the gold next year and make delivery then, paying the storage fees, is this an arbitrage opportunity? It is in the sense that you know your delivery and the money you will make, but it's not in the sense that until delivery (or execution in the options case) you are still on the hook for the margins due from price fluctuations. Additionally you need to consider what ROI you will make from the trade. Even though it's \"\"guaranteed\"\" it may be less than what you can earn from other \"\"zero risk\"\" opportunities.\"",
"qid": 9929,
"docid": "236366",
"rank": 59,
"score": 80465
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I would respectfully disagree. They have chosen to invest in commodities that provide no return (Gold, Rare Earth Metals) over derivatives that lose money. I believe the following explains some of their logic. http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-10-05/jpmorgan-loss-proves-system-too-complex-china-s-gao-says They take issue with the basis of the Western financial system, and while Gao claims he is speaking about his personal beliefs, his observations are quite accurate. Most of the transactions in the financial system add very little value, while commissions and fees are taken from every transaction. This is one of the core issues that isn't talked about, but is a very real cause of trade disputes between the US and China. (And arguably all of the BRICS nations) A simple example of what I mean is when BoA slapped monthly debit fees on everyone's account. Thanks, but what did that really do for their customers? Another attempt to 'pick' the customers pocket.",
"qid": 9929,
"docid": "75212",
"rank": 60,
"score": 80396
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Another disadvantage is the inability to value commodities in an accounting sense. In contrast with stocks, bonds and real estate, commodities don't generate cash flows and so any valuation methodology is by definition speculative. But as rhaskett notes, there are diversification advantages. The returns for gold, for instance, tend to exhibit low/negative correlation with the performance of stocks. The question is whether the diversification advantage, which is the primary reason to hold commodities in a multi-asset class portfolio through time, overcomes the disadvantages? The answer... maybe.",
"qid": 9929,
"docid": "568006",
"rank": 61,
"score": 80288
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Buying back shares is an indication that the company does not believe that there is justification to invest in production, employee training, or technology. In the end, what it mostly does is pump up the share price, which very directly pumps up the value of share-based compensation that the CEO has. On mergers and acquisitions, I don't have the time to look for the source right now, but I've read a few reports that showed that the vast majority of mergers and acquisitions actually erodes the value when compared to the two separate companies. They cite reasons like overblown expectations, clash in company cultures, and manipulations up top as a reason to do this. On paper, they all sound great, but these are very dificult things to operationalise which only the very best management teams manage to work out. The above parties are part of the real economy as long as they are companies that produce goods or services, which is often the case. It contrasts with the paper economy which is the world of bonds, hedge funds, share markets, and commodity markets. The money moving around in this world seldom makes a diference to anybody but the directly involved. The share market is a classic example of this. Although the value of stocks may be high, most people who own the stocks don't actually have more money to spend, unless, obviously they sell the shares. The value is on paper until it is transacted, and can collapse like a house of cards. The real economy is much more stable and resiliant, and has a large impact on the majority of the population. It won't vary hugely from one month to the next like the stock market can. I don't have any educaton in economics other than curiosity on how these things work. I read Krugman's blog and generally google any term or concept that tickles my fancy. I also partake in quite a few discussions here on reddit that frequently prompt me to go investiage some more. I don't proport to be some sort of expert, but I do have concise ideas of how things work, and have a very strong bias of looking at evidence and fact-based postulations rather than ideology.",
"qid": 9929,
"docid": "277190",
"rank": 62,
"score": 79940
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: That is a decision you need to make, but some of the pros and cons you could consider to help your decision making include: Pros: If bought at the right time in the property cycle and in a good growth area, it can help you grow your net worth much quicker than having money in the bank earning near zero interest. You would be replacing rent payments with mortgage payments and if your mortage payments are less than your current rent you will have additional money to pay for any expenses on the property and have a similar cashflow as you do now. You will be able to deduct your interest payments on the mortgage against your income if you are in the USA, thus reducing the tax you pay. You will have the security of your own house and not have to worry about moving if the landlord wants you out after your lease expires. Cons: If bought in a bad area and at the top of the property cycle you may never make any capital gains on the property and in fact may lose money on it long term. If the mortgage payments are more than your current rent you may be paying more especially at the start of your mortgage. If you buy a house you are generally stuck in one spot, it will be harder to move to different areas or states as it can cost a lot of money and time to sell and buy elsewhere, if renting you can generally just give notice and find a new place to rent. Property maintenance costs and taxes could be a drain on your finances, especially if the mortgage repayments are more than your current rent. If your mortgage payments and property expenses are way more than your current rent, it may reduce what you could be investing in other areas to help increase your net worth.",
"qid": 9929,
"docid": "28060",
"rank": 63,
"score": 79923
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Your attitude is great, but be careful to temper your (awesome) ambition with a dose of reality. Saving is investing is great, the earlier the better, and seeing retirement at a young age with smooth lots of life's troubles; saving is smart and we all know it. But as a college junior, be honest with yourself. Don't you want to screw around and play with some of that money? Your first time with real income, don't you want to blow it on a big TV, vacation, or computer? Budget out those items with realistic costs. See the pros and cons of spending that money keeping in mind the opportunity cost. For example, when I was in college, getting a new laptop for $2000 (!) was easily more important to me than retirement. I don't regret that. I do regret buying my new truck too soon and borrowing money to do it. These are judgment calls. Here is the classic recipe: Adjust the numbers or businesses to your personal preferences. I threw out suggestions so you can research them and get an idea of what to compare. And most importantly of all. DO NOT GET INTO CREDIT CARD DEBT. Use credit if you wish, but do not carry a balance.",
"qid": 9929,
"docid": "480402",
"rank": 64,
"score": 79526
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Those who say a person should invest in riskier assets when young are those who equate higher returns with higher risk. I would argue that any investment you do not understand is risky and allows you to lose money at a more rapid rate than someone who understands the investment. The way to reduce risk is to learn about what you want to invest in before you invest in it. Learning afterward can be a very expensive proposition, possibly costing you your retirement. Warren Buffet told the story on Bloomberg Radio in late 2013 of how he read everything in his local library on investing as a teenager and when his family moved to Washington he realized he had the entire Library of Congress at his disposal. One of Mr. Buffett's famous quotes when asked why he doesn't invest in the tech sector was: \"\"I don't invest in what I do not understand.\"\". There are several major asset classes: Paper (stocks, bonds, mutual funds, currency), Commodities (silver, gold, oil), Businesses (creation, purchase or partnership as opposed to common stock ownership) and Real Estate (rental properties, flips, land development). Pick one that interests you and learn everything about it that you can before investing. This will allow you to minimize and mitigate risks while increasing the rewards.\"",
"qid": 9929,
"docid": "501395",
"rank": 65,
"score": 79442
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: As I understand it (please correct me if i'm wrong, i've looked at this before and i've been a sole trader briefly but I've never formed a LTD company) there are pros and cons to forming a limited company. Pros Cons",
"qid": 9929,
"docid": "471686",
"rank": 66,
"score": 79236
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Older folk might wish to let the dividends and cap gains be paid in cash, and use that cash towards their RMDs (required distributions). If you are investing in mutual funds and wish to keep adding to the funds you've selected, the reinvestment is a simple way to avoid having to visit the account and make a new purchase. In other words, you invest $5500, buy the fund, and X years from now, you simply have more shares of the fund but no cash o worry about. The pro is as mentioned, and the con is really for the 70-1/2+ people who will need to take their RMDs. (Although even they can take the RMD in kind, as fund shares)",
"qid": 9929,
"docid": "484825",
"rank": 67,
"score": 78971
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I am not preparing for a sudden, major, catastrophic collapse in the US dollar. I am, however, preparing for a significant but gradual erosion of its value through inflation over the space of several years to a decade. To that end, I've invested most of my assets in the stock market (roughly 80%) through major world index funds, and limited my bond exposure (maintaining a small stake in commodity ETFs: gold, silver, platinum and palladium) due to both inflation risk and the inevitability of rising interest rates. I don't think most companies mind overmuch if the dollar falls gradually, as the bulk of their value is in their continuing income stream, not in a dollar-denominated bank account. I also try to keep what I can in tax-deferred accounts: If, after several years, your stocks were up 100% but inflation reduced the dollar's value by 50%, you're still stuck paying taxes on the entire gain, even though it was meaningless. I'm also anticipating tax hikes at some point (though not as a result of the dollar falling). It helps that I'm young and can stand a lot of investment risk.",
"qid": 9929,
"docid": "487399",
"rank": 68,
"score": 78649
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I agree with you, but both are bad. What happens with fractional reserve banking is inflation, but this inflation isn't distributed evenly across all the markets, those who the banks lend to are who see the inflation first I.e. the Dow. But nobody gets a loan to buy commodities, so these lag in the inflation. When a recession hits the banks slow their loaning while the commodities play catch-up. During this period it makes more sense to \"\"invest\"\" in commodities than in the majority of businesses. So in an effort to make capital \"\"available\"\" you've created an entire community of investors investing in an unproductive sector for just as long as you had them hyper-investing in productive sectors. Net zero gain, with a decade of time lost. I wont ever believe we need frac reserve lending to have a bank, especially when the bank collapses the currency every 30-50 years. If someone's to loan money they should do it with their own money, with approval, or somehow prevent 2-3-10 people from racing to the same reserve.\"",
"qid": 9929,
"docid": "155245",
"rank": 69,
"score": 78520
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I would recommend that go through some forums where commodities topics be discussed so that if you have some issues related any point in commodities investment you will easily get your question sort out.",
"qid": 9929,
"docid": "160030",
"rank": 70,
"score": 78359
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: They wont let it collapse, they will devalue it over time to some effect via bailouts and borrowing. Invest in commodities so your cash retains its value, physical gold is always strong. Other currencies are an option but this is more of a gamble.",
"qid": 9929,
"docid": "506780",
"rank": 71,
"score": 78002
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Basically, they all do. The relationship is much more dynamic with stocks but corporate financing costs increase, return requirements increase (risk free rate goes up). Same with real estate. Commodity demand is correlated with economic activity, which is correlated with interest rates, although not perfectly. The most important factor is, a higher risk free rate increases the discount rate, which reduces asset values",
"qid": 9929,
"docid": "257716",
"rank": 72,
"score": 77998
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Don't go for the 'fast buck'. There's no such thing. There are two types of people that make money on the stock market: Investors and Speculators. Investors are people that pick a stock that's relatively low, relatively secure, and buy the stock for the long run, 5, 10 years or more. Warren Buffet said his ideal period for investing is forever. Basically, a well run company should always be a good investment. Speculators go for the fluctuations in stock prices. Day traders, Options, etc. It's risky business and you'll be able to lose a lot of money in a short term. There's always a risk when you invest your money, so go with MrChrister's advise to start with a simulator. Have fun.",
"qid": 9929,
"docid": "91032",
"rank": 73,
"score": 77780
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I've mostly seen this term peddled by those with large portfolios in gold/commodities. The incentive for these guys, who for example may have a large portfolio in gold, is to drive demand for gold up - which in turn drives the value of the gold they're holding up and makes their assets more valuable. The easiest way to get a large amount of people to invest in gold is to scare them into thinking the whole market is going to fall apart and that gold is their best/only option. I personally think that the path we're on is not particularly sustainable and that we're heading for a large correction/recession anyways - but for other reasons. **Example:** [Peter Shiff YouTube Channel called \"\"The Economist\"\" with conspiracy videos](https://www.youtube.com/user/PeterSchiffChannel/videos) [Actual \"\"The Economist\"\" magazine researching the market](https://www.youtube.com/user/EconomistMagazine/videos) (edit: formatting)\"",
"qid": 9929,
"docid": "149988",
"rank": 74,
"score": 77533
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: GnuCash—Great for the meticulous who want to know every detail of their finances. Pros: Cons:",
"qid": 9929,
"docid": "380474",
"rank": 75,
"score": 77431
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: High risk, high reward doesn't really mean anything. The reason that investments are risky is that the investor is clueless. As you gain more information and experience, you reduce the risk. To answer your question, you can consider BRIC ETF's (Brazil, Russia, India and China). They are correlated to the U.S. economy. However, over the long term (say, 40 years), they may make sense. It depends on your outlook. Do you think India and China will have bigger economies in than the U.S. in 40 years? Many people do. Do you think that countries that are rich in commodity resources like oil will do well in the next 5 years? If so, then those countries may do better than the U.S. It's not a clear answer to your question, but maybe it can help lead to a good solution for you.",
"qid": 9929,
"docid": "370171",
"rank": 76,
"score": 77351
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: One possibility is to lock in gains by selling, where a selling price can attempt to be optimized by initiating a trailing stop loss order. You'll have to look at the pros and cons of that kind of order to see if it is right for you. Another possibility is to begin hedging with options contracts, if that security is optionable. Puts with the appropriate delta will cost over time against future gains in the stock's price, but will protect your wealth if the stock price falls from this high point. These possibilities depend on what your investment goals are. For instance, if you are buying no matter what price because you like the forward guidance of the company, then it changes your capital growth and preservation decisions.",
"qid": 9929,
"docid": "417457",
"rank": 77,
"score": 77278
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Most people carry a diversity of stock, bond, and commodities in their portfolio. The ratio and types of these investments should be based on your goals and risk tolerance. I personally choose to manage mine through mutual funds which combine the three, but ETFs are also becoming popular. As for where you keep your portfolio, it depends on what you're investing for. If you're investing for retirement you are definitely best to keep as much of your investment as possible in 401k or IRAs (preferably Roth IRAs). Many advisers suggest contributing as much to your 401k as your company matches, then the rest to IRA, and if you over contribute for the IRA back to the 401k. You may choose to skip the 401k if you are not comfortable with the choices your company offers in it (such as only investing in company stock). If you are investing for a point closer than retirement and you still want the risk (and reward potential) of stock I would suggest investing in low tax mutual funds, or eating the tax and investing in regular mutual funds. If you are going to take money out before retirement the penalties of a 401k or IRA make it not worth doing. Technically a savings account isn't investing, but rather a place to store money.",
"qid": 9929,
"docid": "280530",
"rank": 78,
"score": 76630
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I'll concede that you're probably speaking in good faith- I genuinely believe that you're original statement was one that meant to point out that the ruling class seek to squeeze all the value they can out of being the ruling class, which includes maximizing the size of the rest of the population to drive down wages and get the most labor out of payrolls as possible to maximize profit. I can concede that completely and never suspected that you felt otherwise. That said, \"\"reasonable\"\" people are often unequipped to deal with extreme or academic scenarios using reason alone. My entire point of digression came from the use of the term \"\"commodity,\"\" as it refers to things of value who's value arises from their ability to be traded at a profit. Your statement regarding people fitting this definition was true in the time of feudalism- pushing that definition back to the idea that the labor of people was tradable (but people owned themselves) was a major improvement in human rights (happening for different people at different points in history). I drew a point of contention because it's an *important* and *historical* point of contention that should never slip backwards ever, without being pointed out.\"",
"qid": 9929,
"docid": "366284",
"rank": 79,
"score": 76521
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The estimated approach puts more burden on you to get it right. Depending on when in the year you make the sale, it may or may not have advantages to you in addition. Other than the responsibility of ensuring that you make the payment on time, the pros and cons seem to be: Either strategy is legitimate. It depends on when in the year you have the sale, how sure you are of the sale, and just your personal preference on how to get this done. Your total tax due for the year will not be different (as long as you pay in such as way that you don't incur late penalties in any quarter).",
"qid": 9929,
"docid": "133152",
"rank": 80,
"score": 76443
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Heh, not surprised. Stock investing is very much like gambling to most people I've known, whether they admit it or not. They invest by hunches on what will go up or down, or tips from their gardener, etc.",
"qid": 9929,
"docid": "358985",
"rank": 81,
"score": 76399
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Invest in productive assets and by that I mean companies. Edit: I'll elaborate on \"\"productive assets\"\": any asset that produces something; whether it produces cash or a commodity, you'll automatically accumulate more of its byproduct in the future. The rest is self explanatory\"",
"qid": 9929,
"docid": "550252",
"rank": 82,
"score": 76266
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Situated in Indore, we are a renowned firm involved in rendering highly effective consultancy services for Commodity Trading and Equity Investments. In addition, Our wide spectrum of services , Commodity (MCX,NCDEX), Equity Investments, Free Trail MCX Bullion tips, commodity tips, free MCX tips, bullion tips, online commodity tips, free MCX calls, MCX Energy tips, Online Trading tips, Wealth earn tips and stock market. Complying with advanced rules and guidelines of the finance industry, these services are appreciated for accuracy in documentation, optimum profit returns, long term benefits and minimum risk.",
"qid": 9929,
"docid": "243837",
"rank": 83,
"score": 76122
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: No, if you are taking a loss solely and purely to reduce the tax you have to pay, then it is not a good strategy, in fact it is a very bad strategy, no matter what country you are in. No investment choice should be made solely due to your tax consequeses. If you are paying tax that means you made a profit, if you made a loss just to save some tax then you are loosing money. The whole point of investing is to make money not lose it.",
"qid": 9929,
"docid": "550468",
"rank": 84,
"score": 75865
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Investing $100k into physical gold (bars or coins) is the most prudent option; given the state of economic turmoil worldwide. Take a look at the long term charts; they're pretty self explanatory. Gold has an upward trend for 100+ years. http://www.goldbuyguide.com/price/ A more high risk/high reward investment would be to buy $100k of physical silver. Silver has a similar track record and inherent benefits of gold. Yet, with a combination of factors that could make it even more bull than gold (ie- better liquidity, industrial demand). Beyond that, you may want to look at other commodities such as oil and agriculture. The point is, this is troubled times for worldwide economies. Times like this you want to invest in REAL things like commodities or companies that are actually producing essential materials.",
"qid": 9929,
"docid": "487817",
"rank": 85,
"score": 75852
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Another important commodity necessary to life is money, which is why when vast sums of it go missing or get locked into long-term investments into which one was grossly misled, it's very upsetting. One such long-term investment is Zurich Vista, which the OP is intimately familiar with. Another type of fund into which money can strangely disappear, is the now ubiquitous \"\"off-shore fund\"\". One should also be very wary of land-banking schemes that boast of high rates of return (15%-20%) and short maturation dates (4-5 years).\"",
"qid": 9929,
"docid": "568518",
"rank": 86,
"score": 75830
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"That's great that you have saved up money. You are ahead of your peers. I would advise against investing in an index fund. The attraction of the idea is that you will get the same return as the base item. For example, an index fund of gold would supposedly give you the same return as if you bought gold. In reality this is not true. The return of an index fund is always significantly below the return of the underlying commodity. Your best strategy is to invest in something you know and understand. There are two books that can help you learn how to do this: \"\"One Up on Wall Street\"\" by Peter Lynch and \"\"The Intelligent Investor\"\" by Benjamin Graham. Buying, reading and following the guidance in these two books is your best investment of time and money.\"",
"qid": 9929,
"docid": "14748",
"rank": 87,
"score": 75802
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Far and away the most valuable skill in investing, in my opinion, is emotional fortitude. You need to have the emotional stability and confidence to trust your decision making and research to hold on down days.",
"qid": 9929,
"docid": "403899",
"rank": 88,
"score": 75712
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I consider speculation to be a security purchase where the point is to sell it to someone for a higher price. Day-trading is completely speculative. I consider Investment to be a purchase you make for its underlying value. You are buying it at that price because you believe the present value of the future payments is higher than the price you are paying. I may sell an investment if a higher price is offered than I think it's worth, or if the business situation changes, but I don't plan on it. Hedging is a third type of security purchase, where you are decreasing your overall risk. If you are a hog farmer, selling hog futures on the CME is hedging, because it locks in the amount you get per hog, regardless of what the price of hogs does. Commodities markets only have hedgers and speculators. Investors don't make sense, it doesn't have an underlying value.",
"qid": 9929,
"docid": "233821",
"rank": 89,
"score": 75478
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Money is a commodity like any other, and loans are a way to \"\"buy\"\" money. Like any other financial decision, you need to weigh the costs against the benefits. To me, I'm happy to take advantage of a 0% for six months or a modest 5-6% rate to make \"\"capital\"\" purchases of stuff, especially for major purchases. For example, I took out a 5.5% loan to put a roof on my home a few years ago, although I had the money to make the purchase. Why did I borrow? Selling assets to buy the roof would require me to sell investments, pay taxes and spend a bunch of time computing them. I don't believe in borrowing money to invest, as I don't have enough borrowing capacity for it to me worth the risk. Feels too much like gambling vs. investing from my point of view.\"",
"qid": 9929,
"docid": "206544",
"rank": 90,
"score": 75420
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Canada would most likely not convert any time in the near future. The challenge for Canada converting to the US Dollar or the fictional \"\"Amero\"\" mentioned by JohnFX is that : Some of the benefits would be: The challenge right now for any government would be to sell the pros over the cons and from that viewpoint the cons would appear to have more negative impact to voters. Considering that Canada currently has a minority government with no expected change to that status for some time the risk would be very high. For more details see Pros and Cons of Canadian Monetary Union and to see the Mexican impact see North American Currency Union It is interesting to note that currency union was first proposed in 1999 when the Canadian Dollar fluctuated between $0.64 to $0.69 US. The Canadian Dollar is closer to par with the US Dollar currently (in fact it rose to $1.10 US in Nov. 2007). Look-up historical rates at the Bank of Canada\"",
"qid": 9929,
"docid": "123835",
"rank": 91,
"score": 75411
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Gold is a commodity. It has a tracked price and can be bought and sold as such. In its physical form it represents something real of signifigant value that can be traded for currency or barted. A single pound of gold is worth about 27000 dollars. It is very valuable and it is easily transported as opposed to a car which loses value while you transport it. There are other metals that also hold value (Platinum, Silver, Copper, etc) as well as other commodities. Platinum has a higher Value to weight ratio than gold but there is less of a global quantity and the demand is not as high. A gold mine is an investement where you hope to take out more in gold than it cost to get it out. Just like any other business. High gold prices simply lower your break even point. TIPS protects you from inflation but does not protect you from devaluation. It also only pays the inflation rate recoginized by the Treasury. There are experts who believe that the fed has understated inflation. If these are correct then TIPS is not protecting its investors from inflation as promised. You can also think of treasury bonds as an investment in your government. Your return will be effectively determined by how they run their business of governing. If you believe that the government is doing the right things to help promote the economy then investing in their bonds will help them to be able to continue to do so. And if consumers buy the bonds then the treasury does not have to buy any more of its own.",
"qid": 9929,
"docid": "174002",
"rank": 92,
"score": 75382
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: As observed above, 1.5% for 3 years is not attractive, and since due to the risk profile the stock market also needs to be excluded, there seems about 2 primary ways, viz: fixed income bonds and commodity(e,g, gold). However, since local bonds (gilt or corporate) are sensitive and follow the central bank interest rates, you could look out investing in overseas bonds (usually through a overseas gilt based mutual fund). I am specifically mentioning gilt here as they are government backed (of the overseas location) and have very low risk. Best would be to scout out for strong fund houses that have mutual funds that invest in overseas gilts, preferably of the emerging markets (as the interest is higher). The good fund houses manage the currency volatility and can generate decent returns at fairly low risk.",
"qid": 9929,
"docid": "576688",
"rank": 93,
"score": 75312
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: EDIT: I think it's a fairly straightforward cause & effect. You tax the transactions, it lowers the incentive to do frequent trading. So yes, I do think it would limit it effectively. I'm under no illusion that speculating will end. But I think we need to dial it back a bit so that investment is the primary driver in the market, not gambling. I'm not anti speed, but the markets serve a real purpose: They allow for liquidity & for useful capital allocation. And liquidity is nothing if all the machines are set to sell, sell, sell. This is what caused some of the crashes. Also, we had liquidity prior to all this High Frequency trading. I'm unsure that the added liquidity makes up for the cons of turning an investment engine into a gambling engine. You dont' even have to believe me. There are a few big time investors that say they are out of the market because it is no longer governed by reason.",
"qid": 9929,
"docid": "150496",
"rank": 94,
"score": 75133
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: One reason why you may have gotten this advice is that stocks have an expected real return over time, while commodities do not. Therefore, when gambling on individual stocks, odds are in your favor that they will ultimately go up over time. You may do better or worse than the market as a whole, but they will likely go up as the whole market, on average, rises over time. Commodities, on the other hand, have no expected real return. It is more zero-sum. In fact, after costs, a real loss should be expected on average, making gambling in here more risky.",
"qid": 9929,
"docid": "72930",
"rank": 95,
"score": 74753
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I think most financial planners or advisors would allocate zero to a gold-only fund. That's probably the mainstream view. Metals investments have a lot of issues, more elaboration here: What would be the signs of a bubble in silver? Also consider that metals (and commodities, despite a recent drop) are on a big run-up and lots of random people are saying they're the thing to get in on. Usually this is a sign that you might want to wait a bit or at least buy gradually. The more mainstream way to go might be a commodities fund or all-asset fund. Some funds you could look at (just examples, not recommendations) might include several PIMCO funds including their commodity real return and all-asset; Hussman Strategic Total Return; diversified commodities index ETFs; stuff like that has a lot of the theoretical benefits of gold but isn't as dependent on gold specifically. Another idea for you might be international bonds (or stocks), if you feel US currency in particular is at risk. Oh, and REITs often come up as an inflation-resistant asset class. I personally use diversified funds rather than gold specifically, fwiw, mostly for the same reason I'd buy a fund instead of individual stocks. 10%-ish is probably about right to put into this kind of stuff, depending on your overall portfolio and goals. Pure commodities should probably be less than funds with some bonds, stocks, or REITs, because in principle commodities only track inflation over time, they don't make money. The only way you make money on them is rebalancing out of them some when there's a run up and back in when they're down. So a portfolio with mostly commodities would suck long term. Some people feel gold's virtue is tangibility rather than being a piece of paper, in an apocalypse-ish scenario, but if making that argument I think you need physical gold in your basement, not an ETF. Plus I'd argue for guns, ammo, and food over gold in that scenario. :-)",
"qid": 9929,
"docid": "190772",
"rank": 96,
"score": 74585
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I've been budgeting with MS Money since 2004 and was pretty disappointed to hear it's being discontinued. Budgeting is actually a stress-relieving hobby for me, and I can be a bit of a control-freak when it comes to finances, so I decided to start early looking for a replacement rather than waiting until MS Money can no longer download transactions. Here are the pros and cons of the ones I've tried (updated 10/2010): You Need A Budget Pro (YNAB) - Based on the old envelopes system, YNAB has you allot money from each paycheck to a specific budget category (envelope). It encourages you to live on last money's income, and if you have trouble with overspending, that can be a great plan. Personally, I'm a big believer in the envelope concept, so that's the biggest pro I found. Also, it's a downloaded software, so once I've bought it (for about $50) it's mine, without forced upgrades as far as I've seen. The big con for me was that it does not automatically download transactions. I would have to sign on to each institution's website and manually download to the program. Also, coming from Money, I'm used to having features that YNAB doesn't offer, like the ability to store information about my accounts. Overall, it's forward-thinking and a good budgeting system, but will take some extra time to download transactions and isn't really a comprehensive management tool for all my financial needs. You can try it out with their free trial. Mint - This is a free online program. The free part was a major pro. It also looks pretty, if that's important to you. Updating is automatic, once you've got it all set up, so that's a pro. Mint's budgeting tools are so-so. Basically, you choose a category and tell it your limit. It yells at you (by text or email) when you cross the line, but doesn't seem to offer any other incentive to stay on budget. When I first looked at Mint, it did not connect with my credit union, but it currently connects to all my banks and all but one of my student loan institutions. Another recent improvement is that Mint now allows you to manually add transactions, including pending checks and cash transactions. The cons for me are that it does not give me a good end-of-the-month report, doesn't allow me to enter details of my paychecks, and doesn't give me any cash-flow forecasting. Overall, Mint is a good casual, retrospective, free online tool, but doesn't allow for much planning ahead. Mvelopes - Here's another online option, but this one is subscription-based. Again, we find the old envelopes system, which I think is smart, so that's a pro for me. It's online, so it downloads transactions automatically, but also allows you to manually add transactions, so another pro. The big con on this one is the cost. Depending on how you far ahead you choose to pay (quarterly, yearly or biannually), you're paying $7.60 to $12 per month. They do offer a free trial for 14 days (plus another 14 days offered when you try to cancel). Another con is that they don't provide meaningful reports. Overall, a good concept, but not worth the cost for me. Quicken - I hadn't tried Quicken earlier because they don't offer a free trial, but after the last few fell short, I landed with Quicken 2009. Pro for Quicken, as an MS Money user is that it is remarkably similar in format and options. The registers and reports are nearly identical. One frustration I'd had with Money was that it was ridiculously slow at start-up, and after a year or so of entering data, Quicken is dragging. Con for Quicken, again as an MS Money user, is that it's budgeting is not as detailed as I would like. Also, it does not download transactions smoothly now that my banks all ask security questions as part of sign-in. I have to sign in to my bank's website and manually download. Quicken 2011 is out now, but I haven't tried it yet. Hopefully they've solved the problem of security questions. Quicken 2011 promises an improved cash-flow forecast, which sounds promising, and was a feature of MS Money that I have very much missed. Haven't decided yet if it's worth the $50 to upgrade to 2011.",
"qid": 9929,
"docid": "457667",
"rank": 97,
"score": 74564
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: From my experience you don't need knowledge of accounting to pick good stocks. The type of investing you are referring to is fundamental. This is finding out about the company, this websites should help you start off: http://en.tradehero.mobi/how-to-choose-a-stock-fundamental-analysis/ Investopedia will also be a useful website in techniques. A bit of knowledge in economics will be helpful in understanding how current affairs will affect a market, which will affect stock prices. However you need neither economics or accounting knowledge if you were to learn technical analysis, many doubt the workings of this technique, but in my experience it is easier to learn and practise. For example looking at charts from previous years it shows the last time there was a huge recession the dollar did well and commodities didn't. In this recession we are entering you can see the same thing happening. Read about the different techniques before limiting yourself to just looking at financial statements you may find a better technique suited to you, like these technical analysts: http://etfhq.com/blog/2013/03/02/top-technical-analysts/ Hope this helps.",
"qid": 9929,
"docid": "305117",
"rank": 98,
"score": 74553
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: It's not so much pros and cons as much as it is what are your savings goals? While it's best to start early to save money for retirement, you may have numerous short- to medium-term savings goals (school, down payment, etc). Here's a template you can consider. I would suggest that you open up an RRSP mutual fund or brokerage account and invest a certain amount that you feel free locking up for the next few decades and investing it in some sort of growth product (perhaps look at portfolios using the Couch Potato strategy). Then, also open up a TFSA mutual fund or brokerage account and use it to invest for medium-term goals (i.e. 5-10 years). Invest in products that will allow for some growth but with low chance of losing principle in that time frame. What I wouldn't do is open up a TFSA savings account and use it for day-to-day savings. The tax you save is negligible and you would need to keep track of deposits and withdrawals to ensure that you don't overcontribute for the tax year. Similarly, an RRSP savings account or GIC is far too conservative at your age, IMHO. Think of RRSP and TFSA as investment vehicles rather than accounts per se. Either type allows for you to invest in a vast array of products, including mutual funds, equities, some derivatives, gold, bonds, GICs, etc. To conclude, my view is to use RRSP to invest for conventional retirement goals, and use the TFSA to invest for medium-term and early retirement goals.",
"qid": 9929,
"docid": "315741",
"rank": 99,
"score": 74546
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: So my Question is this, in reality is investment in equities like the stock market even remotely resemble the type of growth one would expect if investing the same money in an account with compounding interest? Generally no as there is a great deal of volatility when it comes to investing in stocks that isn't well represented by simply taking the compounded annual growth rate and assuming things always went up and never went down. This is adding in the swings that the market will take that at times may be a bit of a rude surprise to some people. Are all these prognosticators vastly underestimating how much savers need to be socking away by overstating what is realistic in terms of growth in investment markets? Possibly but not probably. Until we know definitively what the returns are from various asset classes, I'm not sure I'd want to claim that people need to save a ton more. I'll agree that the model misses how wide the swings are, not necessarily that the averages are too low or overstated.",
"qid": 9929,
"docid": "581776",
"rank": 100,
"score": 74484
}
] |
Employer rollover from 403b to 401k? | [
{
"content": "Title: Content: From your first link: IRS.gov: IRA One-Rollover-Per-Year-Rule IRA One-Rollover-Per-Year Rule Beginning in 2015, you can make only one rollover from an IRA to another (or the same) IRA in any 12-month period, regardless of the number of IRAs you own (Announcement 2014-15 and Announcement 2014-32). The limit will apply by aggregating all of an individual’s IRAs, including SEP and SIMPLE IRAs as well as traditional and Roth IRAs, effectively treating them as one IRA for purposes of the limit. They are limiting your ability to roll over money from an IRA to an IRA. You are looking to go from a 401K to an IRA. That is fine. The idea was that some people were taking all money from their IRA, using it for almost 60 days, then putting it back into an IRA. Thus getting a sort of short term loan. They could do this multiple times in a year. The direct trustee-to-trustee transfer are exempt from the once per year rule because the money is never in your possession. Moving money from a 401K/403b/TSP plan from your former employer to an IRA or Roth IRA is fine, and isn't limited to once per year.",
"qid": 9961,
"docid": "528522",
"rank": 1,
"score": 168600
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Once upon a time, money rolled over from a 401k or 403b plan into an IRA could not be rolled into another 401k or 403b unless the IRA account was properly titled as a Rollover IRA (instead of Traditional IRA - Roth IRAs were still in the future) and the money kept separate (not commingled) with contributions to Traditional IRAs. Much of that has fallen by the way side as the rules have become more relaxed. Also the desire to roll over money into a 401k plan at one's new job has decreased too -- far too many employer-sponsored retirement plans have large management fees and the investments are rarely the best available: one can generally do better keeping ex-401k money outside a new 401k, though of course new contributions from salary earned at the new employer perforce must be put into the employer's 401k. While consolidating one's IRA accounts at one brokerage or one fund family certainly saves on the paperwork, it is worth keeping in mind that putting all one's eggs in one basket might not be the best idea, especially for those concerned that an employee might, like Matilda, take me money and run Venezuela. Another issue is that while one may have diversified investments at the brokerage or fund family, the entire IRA must have the same set of beneficiaries: one cannot leave the money invested in GM stock (or Fund A) to one person and the money invested in Ford stock (or Fund B) to another if one so desires. Thinking far ahead into the future, if one is interested in making charitable bequests, it is the best strategy tax-wise to make these bequests from tax-deferred monies rather than from post-tax money. Since IRAs pass outside the will, one can keep separate IRA accounts with different companies, with, say, the Vanguard IRA having primary beneficiary United Way and the Fidelity IRA having primary beneficiary the American Cancer Society, etc. to achieve the appropriate charitable bequests.",
"qid": 9961,
"docid": "439402",
"rank": 2,
"score": 164245
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"You can move money from a 403b to a 401k plan, but the question you should ask yourself is whether it is a wise decision. Unless there are specific reasons for wanting to invest in your new employer's 401k (e.g. you can buy your employer's stock at discounted rates within the 401k, and this is a good investment according to your friends, neighbors, and brothers-in-law), you would be much better off moving the 403b money into an IRA, where you have many more choices for investment and usually can manage to find investments with lower investment costs (e.g. mutual fund fees) than in a typical employer's 401k plan. On the other hand, 401k assets are better protected than IRA assets in case you are sued and a court finds you to be liable for damages; the plaintiff cannot come after the 401k assets if you cannot pay. To answer the question of \"\"how?\"\", you need to talk to the HR people at your current employer to make sure that they are willing to accept a roll-over from another tax-deferred plan (not all plans are agreeable to do this) and get any paperwork from them, especially making sure that you find out where the check is to be sent, and to whom it should be payable. Then, talk to your previous employer's HR people and tell them that you want to roll over your 403b money into the 401k plan of your new employer, fill out the paperwork, make sure they know to whom to cut the check to, and where it is to be sent etc. In my personal experience, I was sent the check payable to the custodian of my new (IRA) account, and I had to send it on to the custodian; my 403b people refused to send the check directly to the new custodian. The following January, you will receive a 1099-R form from your 403b plan showing the amount transferred to the new custodian, with hopefully the correct code letter indicating that the money was rolled over into another tax-deferred account.\"",
"qid": 9961,
"docid": "104134",
"rank": 3,
"score": 164022
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"A long time ago, in a galaxy far far away, Rollover IRAs were used for funds that came from (were rolled over from) a 401(k) account or a 403(b) account. All that money (including any earnings in the interim) could be rolled over into a 401(k) plan with a new employer etc. One could make a regular contribution to a Rollover IRA but once such a commingling of money occurred, none of the money in the Rollover IRA could be rolled over into a 401(k) account etc. In those good old days when contributions to IRAs were made by paper check and \"\"deposit slip\"\", one had to write a letter to the Rollover IRA custodian certifying that the IRA owner understood that the contribution would destroy forever the possibility of rolling over the money into another 401(k) etc. All this went by the wayside a few years ago when the law changed and the distinction between Rollover IRAs and ordinary Traditional IRAs was eliminated. Commingling of IRA contributions and Rollover money from 401(k)s are permitted, and the entire IRA balance could be rolled over into a new 401(k) plan (provided the new plan accepted rollovers). However the adjectives still persist; like chili555, I too have IRAs that are still called Rollover IRA, they all have commingled funds, and if the law ever changes back, none of those IRA accounts would be eligible for rolling over into a new 401(k).\"",
"qid": 9961,
"docid": "208263",
"rank": 4,
"score": 159346
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Everything here is yours and can be rolled into your new plan or IRA. You can generally move your 403(b) assets into your traditional IRA or into your new employer's plans, assuming your new employer's plan allowing incoming roll overs. You can probably roll your pension out as well. Actually, the right person to ask about this is the company with whom you have your IRA. The easiest and best way to get assets from one tax-sheltered account to another is by contacting the company you want to roll INTO and having them take care of everything for you.",
"qid": 9961,
"docid": "529845",
"rank": 5,
"score": 148341
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Rolling an old 401k into a new 401k is generally only for ease of management. For example, how many bank accounts do you really want? As long as the funds are reasonably allocated I've found it can be a useful \"\"mind game\"\" to leave it separate. Sometimes it's desirable to ignore an account and let it grow, and it is a nice surprise when finally adding all the account balances together. In other words, I keep thinking I've got X (the amount of my biggest or current 401k), which affects/helps my habits and desire to save. When I add them all together I'm shocked to find out I've got Y (the total of all accounts). Personally, I've had big paperwork problems transferring an old 403b (same type process as 401k) even when I had an adviser helping me move it. In the end it was worth moving it, because I'm having the adviser manage it. I'm actually writing this answer specifically because I recently moved a big 401k into a Traditional IRA. A rep from the brokerage, representing my previous employer, kept calling me to find out how they could help (I didn't brush him off). I found that using an IRA provided me with the opportunity to do self-guided investments in funds or even individual stocks, well beyond the limited selection of the old company's 401k. It was useful/interesting to me to invest in low-fee vehicles such as index funds (ie: the Buffett recommendation), and I'll find some stocks as well. Oh and when the old company 401k has certain funds being discontinued, I didn't want to notice the mandated changes years later. So, I'd suggest you consider management and flexibility of the 401k or equivalent, and any of your special personal circumstances/goals. If you end up with a few retirement accounts, I suggest you use an account aggregating website to see or follow your net worth. I know many who, based on various concerns and their portfolio, find an acceptable website to use.\"",
"qid": 9961,
"docid": "291578",
"rank": 6,
"score": 143452
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The instructions do specifically mention them, but not as exclusive plans. Pension and annuity payments include distributions from 401(k), 403(b), and governmental 457(b) plans. The instructions also mention this: An eligible retirement plan is a governmental plan that is a qualified trust or a section 403(a), 403(b), or 457(b) plan. 414(h) plans are \"\"qualified\"\" plans. Employee contribution to a 414(h) plan is qualified under 403(b). Report it there and mark it as \"\"Rollover\"\". Talk to a licensed (EA/CPA licensed in your state) professional when in doubt.\"",
"qid": 9961,
"docid": "254280",
"rank": 7,
"score": 140820
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Your assumptions are flawed or miss crucial details. An employer sponsored 401k typically limits the choices of investments, whereas an IRA typically gives you self directed investment choices at a brokerage house or through a bank account. You are correct in noticing that you are limited in making your own pre-tax contributions to a traditional IRA in many circumstances when you also have an employer sponsored 401k, but you miss the massive benefit you have: You can rollover unlimited amounts from a traditional 401k to a traditional IRA. This is a benefit that far exceeds the capabilities of someone without a traditional 401k who is subject to the IRA contribution limits. Your rollover capabilities completely gets around any statutory contribution limit. You can contribution, at time of writing, $18,000 annually to a 401k from salary deferrals and an additional $35,000 from employer contributions for a maximum of $53,000 annually and roll that same $53,000 into an IRA if you so desired. That is a factor. This should be counterweighed with the borrowing capabilities of a 401k, which vastly exceeds an IRA again. The main rebuttal to your assumptions is that you are not necessarily paying taxes to fund an IRA.",
"qid": 9961,
"docid": "81148",
"rank": 8,
"score": 137372
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I would create a \"\"Rollover IRA\"\". These IRAs are designed to take funds from a 401k and allow you to invest them without incurring a cash out penalty nor a tax due. You will have more choices than if you leave it at your old 401k. If you cash out the 401k, you'll have much less to invest ($1500 - penalty - taxes) vs. doing a rollover 401k where you'll still have $1500 to invest. Then, once the money is inside the new Rollover IRA you can invest in whatever you please. If you want to invest in Vanguard funds, I recommend opening the Rollover IRA at Vanguard. Here is Vanguard's information page about rollovers from 401ks: https://investor.vanguard.com/what-we-offer/401k-rollovers/401k-403b-to-ira-rollover-benefits When you next change jobs and have another 401k with funds in it, you can roll it into the same Rollover IRA.\"",
"qid": 9961,
"docid": "550083",
"rank": 9,
"score": 137219
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Rather than rolling the 401(k) to a new employer's plan, you should roll it into a traditional IRA. You get more options for the money, there's no limit on how much you can roll over, and you have more control over the money. If you do a direct rollover, there's no taxes or penalties involved. I'd recommend against taking any money out of the 401(k). With the numbers you give above, it's like borrowing money at 31.5% interest, which is pretty high, and you're sacrificing your future retirement. If you leave that money alone to grow with compounding, you'll have a lot more when you retire. If you're not familiar with the concept of compound interest, it's worth reading up on - the numbers will blow you away. At the very least, if you desperately need to get $3000 out of it, take out just enough to net $3000 after taxes and penalties (not quite $4400 using the numbers you give) and do a rollover with the rest. At least that way, you're keeping more in the IRA (just over $8600, vs the $5000 in your proposed scenario). Overall, I really recommend you find a way to accomplish your goals without touching your retirement savings.",
"qid": 9961,
"docid": "526271",
"rank": 10,
"score": 137174
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The simplest way to consolidate the funds your old 401(k) plans is by doing what's called a Direct Rollover (whereby the funds go directly into the new plan and skips you completely) from each of the old plans into either an IRA that you establish with a provider of your choice or even into your current employer's 401(k) plan if that is available. That way, the funds are in one central account and available to invest. Plus it eliminates the mandatory 20% withholding if the rollover is indirect and is sent to you first before the deposit into the new plan. It is important to bear in mind that you have 60 calendar days from the date of distribution to get the full amount into the new plan and a rollover is considered a tax reportable, but not necessarily a taxable event provided you deposit the funds within the time frame allotted.",
"qid": 9961,
"docid": "42537",
"rank": 11,
"score": 136385
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I would always suggest rolling over 401(k) plans to traditional IRAs when possible. Particularly, assuming there is enough money in them that you can get a fee-free account at somewhere like Fidelity or Vanguard. This is for a couple of reasons. First off, it opens up your investment choices significantly and can allow you significantly reduced expenses related to the account. You may be able to find a superior offering from Vanguard or Fidelity to what your employer's 401(k) plan allows; typically they only allow a small selection of funds to choose from. You also may be able to reduce the overhead fees, as many 401(k) plans charge you an administrative fee for being in the plan separate from the funds' costs. Second, it allows you to condense 401(k)s over time; each time you change employers, you can rollover your 401(k) to your regular IRA and not have to deal with a bunch of different accounts with different passwords and such. Even if they're all at the same provider, odds are you will have to use separate accounts. Third, it avoids issues if your employer goes out of business. While 401(k) plans are generally fully funded (particularly for former employers who you don't have match or vesting concerns with), it can be a pain sometimes when the plan is terminated to access your funds - they may be locked for months while the bankruptcy court works things out. Finally, employers sometimes make it expensive for you to stay in - particularly if you do have a very small amount. Don't assume you're allowed to stay in the former employer's 401(k) plan fee-free; the plan will have specific instructions for what to do if you change employers, and it may include being required to leave the plan - or more often, it could increase the fees associated with the plan if you stay in. Getting out sometimes will save you significantly, even with a low-cost plan.",
"qid": 9961,
"docid": "335991",
"rank": 12,
"score": 136110
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You are right; Rollover is a process, and not an account type; the result is a Traditional IRA. There is no such thing as a 'Rollover IRA Account'. Rolling a 401(k) over to a Traditional IRA makes sense if a) you have to, because you leave the employer the 401(k) is with; b) because you Traditional IRA is cheaper or more flexible or in other ways 'better' for you, or c) if your next step is a backdoor rollover to a Roth IRA. Most of the time, it doesn't make sense, because employer 401(k) are often better and cheaper. Of course, for the investment company where you roll it too, it makes a lot of sense, because they get your money, so they recommend it. But that's only good for them, not for you. Of course you can roll into an existing account, if you want to roll. Making a new account has no advantage. I cannot imagine any IRA custodian wouldn't take rollovers; they would shoot themselves in the foot by that. What can happen - and you should consider this - that your IRA only accepts cash, and does not allow to transfer the shares you have in the 401(k). That means you have to sell and then re-buy, and you might lose a lot in fees there.",
"qid": 9961,
"docid": "329497",
"rank": 13,
"score": 135288
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: 401(k)'s can be rolled over into IRAs. You can roll all of your former company 401(k)'s into a single IRA, managed by whatever company you like. Many employers will not let you transfer money out of your 401(k) while you're still a current employee, though, so you may be stuck with the 401(k) used by your current company until you leave. You'll have to check with your 401(k) administrator to be sure. You won't incur any taxes as long as you execute the rollovers properly. The best way to do it is to coordinate the transfer directly between your old 401(k) and your new IRA, so the check is never sent directly to you.",
"qid": 9961,
"docid": "551545",
"rank": 14,
"score": 134143
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"There are certain allowable reasons to withdraw money from a 401K. The desire to free your money from a \"\"bad\"\" plan is not one of them. A rollover is a special type of withdrawal that is only available after one leaves their current employer. So as long as you stay with your current company, you cannot rollover. [Exception: if you are over age 59.5] One option is to talk to HR, see if they can get a expansion of offerings. You might have some suggestions for mutual funds that you would like to see. The smaller the company the more likely you will have success here. That being said, there is some research to support having few choices. Too many choices intimidates people. It's quite popular to have \"\"target funds\"\" That is funds that target a certain retirement year. Being that I will be 50 in 2016, I should invest in either a 2030 or 2035 fund. These are a collection of funds that rebalances the investment as they age. The closer one gets to retirement the more goes into bonds and less into stocks. However, I think such rebalancing is not as smart as the experts say. IMHO is almost always better off heavily invested in equity funds. So this becomes a second option. Invest in a Target fund that is meant for younger people. In my case I would put into a 2060 or even 2065 target. As JoeTaxpayer pointed out, even in a plan that has high fees and poor choices one is often better off contributing up to the match. Then one would go outside and contribute to an individual ROTH or IRA (income restrictions may apply), then back into the 401K until the desired amount is invested. You could always move on to a different employer and ask some really good questions about their 401K. Which leads me back to talking with HR. With the current technology shortage, making a few tweaks to the 401K, is a very cheap way to make their employees happy. If you can score a 1099 contracting gig, you can do a SEP which allows up to a whopping 53K per year. No match but with typically higher pay, sometimes overtime, and a high contribution limit you can easily make up for it.\"",
"qid": 9961,
"docid": "554739",
"rank": 15,
"score": 133945
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You cannot roll over your 401k money in an employer's 401k plan into an IRA (of any kind) while you are still employed by that employer. The only way you can start on the conversion before you retire (as Craig W suggests) is to change employers and start rolling over money in the previous employer's 401k into your Roth IRA while possibly contributing to the 401k plan of your new employer. Since the amount rolled over is extra taxable income (that is, in addition to your wages from your new job), you may end up paying more tax (or at higher rates) than you expect.",
"qid": 9961,
"docid": "63532",
"rank": 16,
"score": 133733
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Once you roll the money from the 401K into a rollover IRA don't mix it with new funds. The money from the 401K will be treated differently depending on if the funds are pre-tax, post-tax, Roth, or matching. (Yes, Post-tax and Roth are not the same thing). In the future an employer may allow you to roll IRA or 401K money into their program. They don't have to allow it, and they can put restrictions on the types of money they will accept.",
"qid": 9961,
"docid": "183856",
"rank": 17,
"score": 133663
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You need to check with your employer. It is called an in-service rollover and it is up to your employer on whether or not it is allowed. There are a lot of articles on it but I would still talk to a professional before making the decision. And there are some new laws in place that put at least some responsibility on your employer to provide a 401k with reasonable options and fees. http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-court-edison-401k-fees-20150519-story.html We'll see if it has legs.",
"qid": 9961,
"docid": "387876",
"rank": 18,
"score": 132257
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Companies usually have a minimum account balance required to keep a 401k for former employees. You will have to check whether $10k is sufficient to keep your funds in your former employer's 401k. If you are below their threshold, you will have to move your money. One option is to rollover into the new employer's 401k. You can rollover a 401k into a traditional IRA account that is independent of your employer. A traditional IRA has the same tax benefits as a 401k; it grows tax-free until you withdraw money from the account. Companies that offer IRAs include Vanguard, Fidelity, TIAA. Many companies have significant overhead costs in the their 401k management. It may be better for you to rollover your money into an IRA to save on these costs. I am not knowledgeable about loaning from retirement accounts, so I cannot help with that.",
"qid": 9961,
"docid": "168890",
"rank": 19,
"score": 131732
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I agree with harmanjd – best to roll it over to an IRA. Not only does that afford you better control of your money as pointed out already, but: If you choose your IRA provider wisely, you can get an account that provides you with a much wider array of investing choices, including funds and ETFs that charge much lower fees than what you would have had access to in an employer 401(k) plan. But here's one thing to consider first: Do you hold any of your previous employer's stock in your old 401(k)? There are special rules you might want to be aware of. See this article at Marketwatch: If your 401(k) includes your company's stock, a rollover may be a bad move. Additional Resource:",
"qid": 9961,
"docid": "74583",
"rank": 20,
"score": 131134
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: For the rollover, you should probably talk to the recipient manager. This would be your broker or whomever (your new employer if rolling into another 401k). They should be able to update you on progress and let you know if you need to do anything. In a comment, you say I could be putting in money but instead im lossing. There is no requirement that an IRA have 401k money in it. Just put the money in without the existing money. Eventually the rollover will complete and add that money to whatever you contribute to the IRA. The rollover should not affect your future contributions in any way.",
"qid": 9961,
"docid": "24404",
"rank": 21,
"score": 130834
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I've changed jobs several times and I chose to rollover my 401k from the previous employer into an IRA instead of the new employer's 401k plan. The biggest reason not to rollover the 401k into the new employer's 401k plan was due to the limited investments offered by 401k plans. I found it better to roll the 401k into an IRA where I can invest in any stock or fund.",
"qid": 9961,
"docid": "13275",
"rank": 22,
"score": 130195
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The biggest reason why one might want to leave 401k money invested in an ex-employer's plan is that the plan offers some superior investment opportunities that are not available elsewhere, e.g. some mutual funds that are not open to individual investors such as S&P index funds for institutional investors (these have expense ratios even smaller than the already low expense ratios of good S&P index funds) or \"\"hot\"\" funds that are (usually temporarily) closed to new investors, etc. The biggest reason to roll over 401k money from an ex-employer's plan to the 401k plan of a new employer is essentially the same: the new employer's plan offers superior investment opportunities that are not available elsewhere. Of course, the new employer's 401k plan must accept such roll overs. I do not believe that it is a requirement that a 401k plan must accept rollovers, but rather an option that a plan can be set up to allow for or not. Another reason to roll over 401k money from one plan to another (rather than into an IRA) is to keep it safe from creditors. If you are sued and found liable for damages in a court proceeding, the plaintiff can come after IRA assets but not after 401k money. Also, you can take a loan from the 401k money (subject to various rules about how much can be borrowed, payment requirements etc) which you cannot from an IRA. That being said, the benefits of keeping 401k money as 401k money must be weighed against the usually higher administrative costs and usually poorer and more limited choices of investment opportunities available in most 401k plans as Muro has said already.\"",
"qid": 9961,
"docid": "226547",
"rank": 23,
"score": 129958
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"403b plans are used by school districts, colleges and universities, nonprofit hospitals, charitable foundations and the like for their employees while 401k plans are used by most everybody else. I would suspect that a school district etc can use a 401k plan instead of a 403b plan if it chooses to do so, but the reverse direction is most likely forbidden: a (for-profit) company cannot use a 403b plan. One difference between a 403b plan and a 401k plan is that the employer can choose to offer, and the employee can choose to purchase, stock in the company inside the 401k plan. This option obviously is not available to charities etc. which don't issue stock. Your comment that the 403b plan invests solely in (variable) annuities suggests that the plan administrator is an insurance company and that the employer is moving to more \"\"modern\"\" version that allows investments in mutual funds and the like. Forty years ago, my 403b plan was like that; the only investment choice was an annuity, but some time in the 1980s, the investment choices were broadened to include mutual funds (possibly because the 1986 Tax Reform Act changed the rules governing 403b plans). So, are you sure that your employer is changing from a 403b plan to a 401k plan, or is it just a change of 403b plan administrator from the insurance company to another administrator who offers investment choices other than an annuity? Note, of course, that insurance companies have changed their options too. For example, TIAA (the Teachers' Insurance and Annuity Association) which was the 403b plan administrator for many schools and colleges became TIAA/CREF (College Retirement Equities Fund) where the CREF mutual funds actually were pretty good investments.\"",
"qid": 9961,
"docid": "21311",
"rank": 24,
"score": 129224
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You can't roll it over to a Roth IRA without tax penalties. The best thing to do is roll it to an IRA that isn't tied to work at all. Second best is to roll it into your new employer's 401k. The reason that an IRA makes sense is that it gives you the same tax savings as a 401k, but it allows you to remain in control of the money regardless of your employment status.",
"qid": 9961,
"docid": "192627",
"rank": 25,
"score": 128708
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I would check to see what the fee schedule is on your previous employer's 401k. Depending on how it was setup, the quarterly/annual maintenance fee may be lower/higher than your current employer. Another reason to rollover/not-rollover is that selection of funds available is better than the other plan. And of course always consider rolling over your old plan into a standard custodial rollover IRA where the management company gives you a selection of investment options. At least look at the fees and expense ratios of your prior employer's plan and see if anything reaches a threshold of what you consider actionable and worth your time. Note: removed reference to self directed IRA as vehicle is more complicated account type allowing for more than just stocks, bonds, and mutual funds. Not for your typical retail investor.",
"qid": 9961,
"docid": "518379",
"rank": 26,
"score": 128619
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You can't get a loan from an IRA. You cannot get a loan from your 401(k) plan with your previous employer; 401(k) plans do not give loans to ex-employees, only current employees. Thus, if you want to have the flexibility of getting a loan from the money in the 401(k) plan with your ex-employer, your only option is to roll it over into the 401(k) plan of your current employer. But be aware of the negatives in doing so, some of which are discussed in the answers to Why would you not want to rollover a previous employer's 401(k) when changing jobs?.",
"qid": 9961,
"docid": "577837",
"rank": 27,
"score": 127999
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"You're confusing between \"\"individual\"\" 401k (they're called \"\"Solo-401k\"\" and are intended for self-employed), and Individual Retirement Account (IRA). You can't open a solo-401k without being self employed. You can open an IRA and roll over money from your old 401k to it. You cannot get a loan from IRA. You can ask the 401k plan manager to reissue the checks to the new trust, shouldn't be a problem. Make sure the checks are issued to the trust, not to you, to avoid withholding and tax complications. This is what is called a \"\"direct\"\" rollover. You might be able to roll the money over to the 401k of your new employer, it is not always allowed and you should check. You can probably then take a loan from that 401k. However, it diminishes the value of your retirement savings and you should only do it if you have no other choice (being evicted from your home, your children are starving, can't pay for your chemo, etc... this kind of disasters). Otherwise, I'd suggest rolling over to IRA, investing in funds with significantly lower fees (Vanguard target retirements funds for example, or index funds/ETF's), and reassessing your spending and budgeting habits so that you won't need loans from your 401k. Re companies - ETrade is nice, consider also Scottrade, TDAmeriTrade, Vanguard, Fidelity, Sharebuilder, and may be others. These are all discount brokers with relatively low fees, but each has its own set of \"\"no-fee\"\" funds.\"",
"qid": 9961,
"docid": "456526",
"rank": 28,
"score": 127245
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The time horizon for your 401K/IRA is essentially the same, and it doesn't stop at the day you retire. On the day you do the rollover you will be transferring your funds into similar investments. S&P500 index to S&P 500 index; 20xx retirement date to 20xx retirement date; small cap to small cap... If your vested portion is worth X $'s when the funds are sold, that is the amount that will be transferred to the IRA custodian or the custodian for the new employer. Use the transfer to make any rebalancing adjustments that you want to make. But with as much as a year before you leave the company if you need to rebalance now, then do that irrespective of your leaving. Cash is what is transferred, not the individual stock or mutual fund shares. Only move your funds into a money market account with your current 401K if that makes the most sense for your retirement plan. Also keep in mind unless the amount in the 401K is very small you don't have to do this on your last day of work. Even if you are putting the funds in a IRA wait until you have started with the new company and so can define all your buckets based on the options in the new company.",
"qid": 9961,
"docid": "483268",
"rank": 29,
"score": 127139
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Does the 457(b) plan allow for the rollover of other retirement funds into it? And do you have very specific reasons for wanting to roll over your SEP-IRA into the 457(b) plan instead of into some other IRA plan with a different custodian? For example, if you already have a Traditional IRA, is there any reason why your SEP-IRA should not be rolled over into the Traditional IRA? With regard to the question about separate accounts, once upon a time, rolling over money from an employment retirement plan (e.g. 401k) into a Traditional IRA required establishing a separate account called a Rollover Traditional IRA so that the rolled-over money (and the earnings thereon) were not commingled with standard traditional IRA money resulting from personal contributions). This was so that the account owner had the option of rolling over the separately kept money into a new employer's retirement plan (if such a rollover was permitted by the new 401k plan). If one did not want to ever roll over money into a new employer plan, one had to write a letter to the custodian telling them that commingling was OK; you never wanted to put that money into another 401k plan. The law changed some time later and the concept of Rollover IRAs holding non-commingled funds has disappeared. With that as prologue, my answer to your question is that perhaps the law did not change with respect to 457(b) plans, and so the money that you want to rollover into the 457(b) plan needs to be kept separate and not commingled with your contributions via payroll deduction to the 457(b) plan (in case you want to ever roll over the SEP-IRA money into another SEP-IRA). Hence, separate accounts are needed: one to hold your SEP-IRA money and one to hold your contributions via payroll deductions.",
"qid": 9961,
"docid": "111603",
"rank": 30,
"score": 126507
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Your retirement PLAN is a lifelong plan and shouldn't be tied to your employer status. Max out your 401(k) contribution to the maximum that your employer matches (that's a 100% ROI!) and as much as you can afford. When you leave the work force rollover your 401(k) to an IRA account (e.g.: you can create an IRA account with any of the online brokerage firms Schwab, E-Trade, Sharebuilder, or go with a brick-and-mortar firm like JP Morgan, Stifel Nicolaus, etc.). You should have a plan: How much money do you need/month for your expenses? Accounting for inflation, how much is that going to be at retirement (whatever age you plan to retire)? How much money do you need to have so that 4.5% of that money will provide for your annual living expenses? That's your target retirement amount of savings. Now figure out how to get to that target. Rule #1 Invest early and invest often! The more money you can sock away early in your career the more time that money has to grow. If you aren't comfortable allocating your investments yourself then you could go with a Targeted Retirement Fund. These funds have a general \"\"date\"\" for retirement and the assets are allocated as appropriate for the amount of risk appropriate for the time to retirement.\"",
"qid": 9961,
"docid": "449828",
"rank": 31,
"score": 125808
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: See Started new job. Rollover previous employer 401k to new 401k, IRA or Roth IRA? for a start. Kevin, the discussion is far more complex than you might think. Say your account grows by X, (pretend it's 10 if you wish) and your tax rate is Y (25%?). If you take the initial sum, tax it at Y, but then grow it X, the result is identical to doing it in the reverse order. So $1000 to start can grow to $10,000, then after tax, $7500. Or $1000 taxed to $750, then grow to $7500. For pretax deposits, the key is that you deposit those contributions at your marginal rate, i.e. the rate you'd pay on the last $X taxed. But withdrawals start at zero. In the perfect scenario, you will save 25-28% tax on deposits, but at retirement, enjoy taxation at 0%,10%,15% for a large portion or all of the withdrawals. (Note, others can suggest rates will rise, and they may be right. My answer is based on the current tax structure.) A new earner, at 10 or 15% may be better off starting with Roth, and as they earn their way to 25% or higher slide over to pre-tax deposits. My 14 year old baby sits, and makes enough to fund a Roth, but pays no tax as she earns less than her own standard deduction for what that's worth.",
"qid": 9961,
"docid": "374803",
"rank": 32,
"score": 124867
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: What is my best bet with the 401K? I know very little about retirement plans and don't plan to ever touch this money until I retire but could this money be of better use somewhere else? You can roll over a 401k into an IRA. This lets you invest in other funds and stocks that were not available with your 401k plan. Fidelity and Vanguard are 2 huge companies that offer a number of investment opportunities. When I left an employer that had the 401k plan with Fidelity, I was able to rollover the investments and leave them in the existing mutual funds (several of the funds have been closed to new investors for years). Usually, when leaving an employer, I have the funds transferred directly to the place my IRA is at - this avoids tax penalties and potential pitfalls. The student loans.... pay them off in one shot? If the interest is higher than you could earn in a savings account, then it is smarter to pay them off at once. My student loans are 1.8%, so I can earn more money in my mutual funds. I'm suspicious and think something hinky is going to happen with the fiscal cliff negotiations, so I'm going to be paying off my student loans in early 2013. Disclaimer: I have IRA accounts with both Fidelity and Vanguard. My current 401k plan is with Vanguard.",
"qid": 9961,
"docid": "105011",
"rank": 33,
"score": 123954
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You can also roll money from prior 401ks into current 401ks. Call the administrator of the 401k you prefer (i.e., Fidelity/Schwab, whoever the financial institution is). Explain you don't work there anymore and ask if you can roll money into it. Some plans allow this and some don't. So either, 1) You can roll all your prior 401ks into your current 401k. 2) You might be able to roll all prior 401ks into the prior 401k of your choice if they will accept contributions after you've left. You can't move the amount in your current employer's 401k until you separate or hit a certain age. 3) Like mentioned above, you can roll all prior 401ks into an IRA at any financial institution that will let you set up an IRA. Process: -Call the financial institutions you want to move the money from. Tell them you want a direct rollover. Have them write the check to the financial institution you are rolling into with your name mentioned but not the beneficiary (i.e., check written to Schwab FBO: John Doe account #12345) Tax implications: -If you are rolling from a pre-tax 401k to a pre-tax 401k or IRA, and the money goes directly from institution to institution, you are not liable for taxes. You can also roll from a Roth type (already taxed) account into another Roth type account with no tax implications. If they write a check to YOU and you don't put the money in an IRA or 401k within 60 days you will pay ~20% tax and a 10% early withdrawal penalty. That's why it's best to transfer from institution to institution. 401k vs IRA: -This is a personal decision. You could move all your prior 401ks into an IRA you set up for yourself. Generally the limitations of a 401k are the lack of funds to invest in that fit your retirement strategy, or high expense ratios. Be sure to investigate the fees you would pay for trades in an IRA (401k are almost always free) and the expense ratio for funds in your 401k vs funds you might invest in at a broker for your IRA. Best of both: -You can roll all your 401ks into a single 401k and still set up an IRA or Roth IRA (if your income qualifies) that you can contribute to separately. This could give you flexibility in fund choices if your 401k fees tend to be cheaper while keeping the bulk of your nest egg in low cost mutual funds through an employer account. Last advice: Even if you don't like the options in your current 401k, make sure you are contributing at least enough to get any employer match.",
"qid": 9961,
"docid": "64459",
"rank": 34,
"score": 123609
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Does your current employer offer a 401(k)? Can you roll your IRA into that? You can borrow from a 401(k). If you leave your job, get fired etc., you have to pay back the loan but you can avoid the early withdrawal penalty at least; there may also be less of a tax issue since it is a loan and may not be considered income unless you don't pay it back. The terms for taking a loan are set by the 401(k) plan documents. If you explore this route make sure you see the plan document itself. Don't rely on what someone tells you.",
"qid": 9961,
"docid": "446763",
"rank": 35,
"score": 123162
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: AFAIK, individual 401k accounts are supposed to be funded from self-employment earnings, not from rollovers from 401k plans of previous employers. So, check with your accountant before making opening an individual 401k account and getting your previous 401k plan to re-issue the checks to be payable to your individual 401k account. You might also want to ask about whether loans are permitted from individual 401k accounts (my guess is they are not because the possibility of abuse of the privilege is too high since the employer and employee are the same individual). In any case, loans against 401k plans are generally not a good idea, and many people on this forum have blogged about this matter.",
"qid": 9961,
"docid": "195366",
"rank": 36,
"score": 122871
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"You have a few options: Option #1 - Leave the money where it is If your balance is over $5k - you should be able to leave the money in your former-employer's 401(k). The money will stay there and continue to be invested in the funds that you elect to invest in. You should at the very least be receiving quarterly statements for the account. Even better - you should have access to some type of an online account where you can transfer your investments, rebalance your account, conform to target, etc. If you do not have online account access than I'm sure you can still transfer investments and make trades via a paper form. Just reach out to the 401(k) TPA or Recordkeeper that administers your plan. Their contact info is on the quarterly statements you should be receiving. Option #2 - Rollover the money into your current employer's 401(k) plan. This is the option that I tend to recommend the most. Roll the money over into your current employer's 401(k) plan - this way all the money is in the same place and is invested in the funds that you elect. Let's say you wanted to transfer your investments to a new fund lineup. Right now - you have to fill out the paperwork or go through the online process twice (for both accounts). Moving the money to your current-employer's plan and having all the money in the same place eliminates this redundancy, and allows you to make one simple transfer of all your assets. Option #3 - Roll the money from your former-employer's plan into an IRA. This is a cool option, because now you have a new IRA with a new set of dollar limits. You can roll the money into a separate IRA - and contribute an additional $5,500 (or $6,500 if you are 50+ years of age). So this is cool because it gives you a chance to save even more for retirement. Many IRA companies give you a \"\"sign on bonus\"\" where if you rollover your former-employers 401(k)...they will give you a bonus (typically a few hundred bucks - but hey its free money!). Other things to note: Take a look at your plan document from your former-employer's 401(k) plan. Take a look at the fees. Compare the fees to your current-employer's plan. There could be a chance that the fees from your former-employer's plan are much higher than your current-employer. So this would just be yet another reason to move the money to your current-employer's plan. Don't forget you most likely have a financial advisor that oversees your current-employer's 401(k) plan. This financial advisor also probably takes fees from your account. So use his services! You are probably already paying for it! Talk to your HR at your employer and ask who the investment advisor is. Call the advisor and set up an appointment to talk about your retirement and financial goals. Ask him for his advice - its always nice talking to someone with experience face to face. Good luck with everything!\"",
"qid": 9961,
"docid": "591168",
"rank": 37,
"score": 122374
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Another option you might consider is rolling over some of that 401K balance into a self-directed IRA or Solo 401K, specifically one with \"\"checkbook privileges\"\". That would permit you to invest directly in a property via your IRA/401K money without it being a loan, and preserving the tax benefits. (You may not be able to roll over from your current employer's 401K while still employed.) That said, regarding your argument that your loan is \"\"paying interest to yourself\"\", while that is technically true, that neglects the opportunity cost -- that money could potentially be earning a much higher (and tax-free) return if it remains in the 401K account than if you take it out and slowly repay it at a modest interest rate. Real Estate can be a great way to diversify, build wealth, and generate income, but a company match and tax-free growth via an employee sponsored retirement account can be a pretty sweet deal too (I actually recently wrote about comparing returns from having a tenant pay your mortgage on a rental property vs. saving in a retirement account on my blog -- in short, tax-free stock-market level returns are pretty compelling, even when someone else is paying your mortage). Before taking rather big steps like borrowing from a 401K or buying a rental property, you might also explore other ways to gain some experience with real estate investing, such as the new crop of REITs open to all investors under SEC Reg A+, some with minimums of $500 or less. In my own experience, there are two main camps of real estate investors: (1) those that love the diversification and income, but have zero interest in active management, and (2) those that really enjoy real estate as a lifestyle and avocation, happy to deal with tenant screening and contractors, etc. You'll want to be careful to be sure which camp you're in before signing on to active investment in a specific property.\"",
"qid": 9961,
"docid": "353415",
"rank": 38,
"score": 122253
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I'd argue that you should be focusing on avoiding taxation and maximizing employer matching funds as your first objective. Over a longer period, quality of investment options and fees will both drive your account value. A personal IRA account is usually a better value over time -- so contribute as much as possible to your IRA, and rollover 401k accounts whenever you have an opportunity to do so.",
"qid": 9961,
"docid": "88550",
"rank": 39,
"score": 122168
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: No, the situation is not different, the roll-over rules are the same. It won't be taxable (as opposed to traditional to Roth roll-over), but other than that it's the same. Whether the 401k allows rolling over or not while you're still employed - you have to check with the plan administrator (ask your payroll/HR for details). Usually, the deferred compensation cannot be rolled over out of the 401k while you're still employed.",
"qid": 9961,
"docid": "72402",
"rank": 40,
"score": 121616
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I'd hazard that Jim is mostly worried that people are getting ripped off by high employer 401(k) fund fees. A lot of employers offer funds with fees over 1% a year. This sounds low-ish if you don't realize that the real (inflation-adjusted) return for the fund will probably average out to about 4%, so it's really something like a quarter of your earnings gone. With an IRA, you don't have to do that. You can get an IRA provider which offers good, cheap index funds and the like (cough Vanguard cough). Fund fees will probably be closer to 0.1%-ish. HOWEVER. The maximum IRA contribution in 2013 will be $5,500. The maximum for a 401(k) contribution will be $17,500. That extra capacity is enough to recommend a 401(k) over an IRA for many people. These people may be best served by putting money into the 401(k) and then rolling it over into a rollover IRA when they change jobs. Also, certain people have retirement plans which offer them good cheap index funds. These people probably don't need to worry quite as much. Finally, having two accounts is more complicated. Please contact someone who knows more about taxes than I am to figure out what limitations apply for contributing to both IRAs and 401(k)s in the same year.",
"qid": 9961,
"docid": "231012",
"rank": 41,
"score": 120939
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The fact that you are planning to move abroad does not affect the decision to contribute to a 401(k). The reason for this is that after you leave your employer, you can roll all the money over from your 401(k) into a self-directed traditional IRA. That money can stay invested until retirement, and it doesn't matter where you are living before or after retirement age. So, when deciding whether or not to use a 401(k), you need to look at the details of your employer's plan: Does your employer offer a match? If so, you should definitely take advantage of it. Are there good investments available inside the 401(k)? Some plans offer very limited options. If you can't find anything good to invest in, you don't want to contribute anything beyond the match; instead, contribute to an IRA, where you can invest in a fund that you like. The other reason to use a 401(k) is that the contribution limits can be higher. If you want to invest more than you are allowed to in an IRA, the 401(k) might allow that. In your case, since there is no match, it is up to you whether you want to participate or not. An IRA will allow more flexibility in investing options. If you need to invest more than your IRA limit, the 401(k) might allow that. When you leave your employer, you should probably roll any 401(k) money into an IRA.",
"qid": 9961,
"docid": "422979",
"rank": 42,
"score": 120929
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You'll want to roll the 401k over to a specifically designated rollover IRA. Rollover IRAs differ from an ordinary IRA account because they have NO contribution limit per year. Also Rolling over a 401k to a Roth IRA has consequences. There won't be a penalty but you will have to pay taxes on the amount being rolled over. The choice of Roth or Traditional IRA depends on your current tax situation as well as your expected taxes at retirement. Typically if you are in a low tax bracket and expect to be in a higher tax bracket at retirement a Roth IRA is suggested as withdrawals are tax free. With a rollover conversion you will have to evaluate whether paying taxes now outweighs the potential benefits of tax free withdrawals when you retire.",
"qid": 9961,
"docid": "217310",
"rank": 43,
"score": 120804
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The presence of the 401K option means that your ability to contribute to an IRA will be limited, it doesn't matter if you contribute to the 401K or not. Unless your company allows you to roll over 401K money into an IRA while you are still an employee, your money in the 401K will remain there. Many 401K programs offer not just stock mutual funds, but bond mutual funds, and international funds. Many also have target date funds. You will have to look at the paperwork for the funds to determine if any of them meet your definition of low expense. Because any money you have in those 401K funds is going to remain in the 401K, you still need to look at your options and make the best choice. Very few companies allow employees to invest in individual stocks, but some do. You can ask your employer to research other options for the 401K. The are contracting with a investment company to make the plan. They may be able to switch to a different package from the same company or may need to switch companies. How much it will cost them is unknown. You will have to understand when their current contract is up for renewal. If you feel their current plan is poor, it may be making hiring new employees difficult, or ti may lead to some employees to leave in search of better options. It may also be a factor in the number of employees contributing and how much they contribute.",
"qid": 9961,
"docid": "79375",
"rank": 44,
"score": 120678
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: My answer would be yes. In addition, I'm not sure that anything requires you to roll your current 401(k) into a new one if you don't like the investment options. Keeping existing funds in your current 401(k) if you like their investment options might make sense for you (though they obviously wouldn't be adding funds once you're no longer an employee). As for the terms of the potential new 401(k), the matching percentage and vesting schedule match what I've seen at past employers. My current employer offers the same terms, but there's no vesting schedule.",
"qid": 9961,
"docid": "224434",
"rank": 45,
"score": 118353
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Should I convert the 401K of my old company to Traditional IRA and start investing in that instead of investing in the new employer 401K plan with high fees? Regarding the 401K funds from the previous employer, you can: Future investments: Roll overs don't have limits, but new investments do.",
"qid": 9961,
"docid": "388028",
"rank": 46,
"score": 118108
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Are you obligated to do what they ask? Probably not, with one big caveat discussed below. Your employer sent your money and their money after every paycheck to the 401K management company. Then after a while the 401K management company followed your instructions to roll it over into an IRA. Now the IRA management company has it. Pulling it out of the IRA would be very hard, and the IRA company would be required to report it to the IRS as a withdraw. Here is the caveat. If the extra funds you put in allowed you to exceed the annual contribution amount set by the law, or if it allowed you to put more than 100% of your income into the fund, then this would be an excess contribution, and you and your employer would have to resolve or face the excess contribution penalties. Though if the 401K company and HR allowed you to exceed the annual limit they have a much more complex problem with their payroll system. The bigger concern is why they want you to pull out your $27.50 and their $27.50. Unless you were hitting the maximum limit, your $27.50 could have been invested by adjusting the percentage taken out of each check. You could have picked a percentage to reach a goal. That money is yours because you contributed it and unless you exceed the IRS set limits it is still pre-tax retirement money. The return of matching funds may be harder to calculate. The returns for 2013 were very good. Each $1.06 of matching funds each paycheck purchased a fraction of some investment. That investment went up and down, ok mostly up, if it was invested in the broad market. I guess you should be glad they aren't asking for more due to the increase in value. It would be very hard to calculate what happened if you have moved it around since then. Which of course you did when you moved it into an IRA. If the average employee was also given a $55 gift last year, then the suggestion to the employer is that the tax complexity you and your fellow employees face would exceed the cost of the extra funds. They should chalk it up to an expensive lesson and move on.",
"qid": 9961,
"docid": "140349",
"rank": 47,
"score": 118010
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Almost all companies in the US have changed from formal pension programs to 401k plans, and most companies that still have pension programs don't allow new employees to enroll in the new program; only the previous participants who are vested in the pension plan will get benefits while new employees get enrolled in the 401k plan. If this is the case with your prospective employer, then demanding that you be allowed to enroll in the pension plan is likely to be futile; in fact, the likely response may well be \"\"Here is our offer. Take it or leave it\"\" or \"\"We are withdrawing the offer we made\"\" especially if you are in a field where there are plenty of other people who could do the job instead of you. So be sure that you understand what your worth is to the company and how much leverage you have before starting to make counter-offers. With regard to money that you might have vested in your current employer's pension plan, your options are to leave it there until you retire and start getting a pension (generally not advisable in these parlous times when the company might not even exist by then), roll it over into an IRA or into your new employer's 401k plan. This last is the only matter that concerns your prospective employer and where you might need to ask; the new employer's 401k plan might not be structured to accept rollovers. If the money in your current employer's retirement plan is in a pension plan, what is paid out for rolling over might be different (and smaller) than what has been credited to you thus far. For example, my (State Government) pension plan credited 8% interest per annum on the amounts I contributed but this was fake money because had I resigned and withdrawn the pension contributions (for the purpose of rolling over into an IRA or even just taking it as cash), I would have received only my contributions plus only 4.5% interest per annum. The 8% interest credited is available only for the purpose of the purchase of an immediate annuity upon retirement; it is not something that is portable to a new plan, and if I want a lump-sum payout upon retirement instead of a pension in the form of an annuity, it would be the 4.5% rate again...\"",
"qid": 9961,
"docid": "119883",
"rank": 48,
"score": 117701
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Open an investment account on your own and have them roll the old 401K accounts into either a ROTH or traditional IRA. Do not leave them in old 401k accounts and definitely don't roll them into your new employer's 401K. Why? Well, as great as 401K accounts are, there is one thing that employers rarely mention and the 401K companies actively try to hide: Most 401K plans are loaded with HUGE fees. You won't see them on your statements, they are often hidden very cleverly with accounting tricks. For example, in several plans I have participated in, the mutual fund symbols may LOOK like the ones you see on the stock tickers, but if you read the fine print they only \"\"approximate\"\" the underlying mutual fund they are named for. That is, if you multiply the number of shares by the market price you will arrive at a number higher than the one printed on your statement. The \"\"spread\"\" between those numbers is the fee charged by the 401K management company, and since employees don't pick that company and can't easily fire them, they aren't very competitive unless your company is really large and has a tough negotiator in HR. If you work for a small company, you are probably getting slammed by these fees. Also, they often charge fees for the \"\"automatic rebalancing\"\" service they offer to do annually to your account to keep your allocation in line with your current contribution allocations. I have no idea why it is legal for them not to disclose these fees on the statements, but they don't. I had to do some serious digging to find this out on my own and when I did it was downright scary. In one case they were siphoning off over 3% annually from the account using this standard practice. HOWEVER, that is not to say that you shouldn't participate in these plans, especially if there is an employer match. There are fees with any investment account and the \"\"free money\"\" your employer is kicking in almost always offsets these fees. My point here is just that you shouldn't keep the money in the 401K after you leave the company when you have an option to move it to an account with much cheaper fees.\"",
"qid": 9961,
"docid": "323934",
"rank": 49,
"score": 117568
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"You can rollover money from a 401(k) to Traditional IRA and back to a 401(k). There are likely account closure fees associated with this, so it's not completely free. As long as you're rolling from one tax deferred account to another there are no penalties. The IRS has a handy chart showing what accounts can roll where. Note, starting next year, you can only do one IRA rollover per year. The IRS has additional general information on retirement account rollovers. One additional comment - on the concept of your money being \"\"locked\"\" into an IRA. Generally you have far more options with an IRA than a 401(k). If you go with a large, low cost provider like Vanguard you're likely to be much better off than in a small company 401(k) that only offers costly funds that are likely selected primarily to benefit the administrator of the plan. Choose your IRA provider and the investments with them wisely, and leave that money there for a very long time.\"",
"qid": 9961,
"docid": "424766",
"rank": 50,
"score": 117234
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I currently do not have an IRA (other than a rollover IRA from my 401k from a previous employer) The source is irrelevant. You have an IRA. The reason to keep contributing is that at some point, you might transfer the pretax dollars into a 401(k) and the post tax dollars can be converted to Roth. Other than the above, investing in a standard brokerage account (a non-retirement account) has its positives. Gains can see long term cap gain treatment, and the assets see a step-up in basis when you die.",
"qid": 9961,
"docid": "505362",
"rank": 51,
"score": 117023
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You might want to bring this fancy new IRS rule to your employer's attention. If your employer sets it up, an After-Tax 401(k) Plan allows employees to contribute after-tax money above the $18k/year limit into a special 401(k) that allows deferral of tax on all earnings until withdrawal in retirement. Now, if you think about it, that's not all that special on its own. Since you've already paid tax on the contribution, you could imitate the above plan all by yourself by simply investing in things that generate no income until the day you sell them and then just waiting to sell them until retirement. So basically you're locking up money until retirement and getting zero benefit. But here's the cool part: the new IRS rule says you can roll over these contributions into a Roth 401(k) or Roth IRA with no extra taxes or penalties! And a Roth plan is much better, because you don't have to pay tax ever on the earnings. So you can contribute to this After-Tax plan and then immediately roll over into a Roth plan and start earning tax-free forever. Now, the article I linked above gets some important things slightly wrong. It seems to suggest that your company is not allowed to create a brand new 401(k) bucket for these special After-Tax contributions. And that means that you would have to mingle pre-tax and post-tax dollars in your existing Traditional 401(k), which would just completely destroy the usefulness of the rollover to Roth. That would make this whole thing worthless. However, I know from personal experience that this is not true. Your company can most definitely set up a separate After-Tax plan to receive all of these new contributions. Then there's no mingling of pre-tax and post-tax dollars, and you can do the rollover to Roth with the click of a button, no taxes or penalties owed. Now, this new plan still sits under the overall umbrella of your company's total retirement plan offerings. So the total amount of money that you can put into a Traditional 401(k), a Roth 401(k), and this new After-Tax 401(k) -- both your personal contributions and your company's match (if any) -- is still limited to $53k per year and still must satisfy all the non-discrimination rules for HCEs, etc. So it's not trivial to set up, and your company will almost certainly not be able to go all the way to $53k, but they could get a lot closer than they currently do.",
"qid": 9961,
"docid": "417257",
"rank": 52,
"score": 116361
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Does your employer offer a 401(k) match? If so, contribute enough to maximize that--it's free money. After that, contribute to an IRA where you can invest in funds with low expenses. After you max that out, if you still have money left over, max out your 401(k) despite the high expenses for the tax advantages. Remember when you leave the company you can roll over the balance into an IRA and switch to lower-cost investments. Of course this is general advice without knowing your situation. If you're looking to buy a home soon, for example, you might want to keep extra money in a taxable account for a downpayment rather than maxing out your 401(k).",
"qid": 9961,
"docid": "140917",
"rank": 53,
"score": 116197
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I assume that with both companies you can buy stock mutual funds, bonds mutual funds, ETFs and money market accounts. They should both offer all of these as IRAs, Roth IRAs, and non-retirement accounts. You need to make sure they offer the types of investments you want. Most 401K or 403b plans only offer a handful of options, but for non-company sponsored plans you want to have many more choices. To look at the costs see how much they charge you when you buy or sell shares. Also look at the annual expenses for those funds. Each company website should show you all the fees for each fund. Take a few funds that you are likely to invest in, and have a match in the other fund family, and compare. The benefit of the retirement accounts is that if you make a less than perfect choice now, it is easy to move the money within the family of funds or even to another family of funds later. The roll over or transfer doesn't involve taxes.",
"qid": 9961,
"docid": "434734",
"rank": 54,
"score": 116077
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: When you pick a company for your IRA, they should have information about rolling over funds from another IRA or a 401K. They will be able to walk you through the process. There shouldn't be a fee for doing this. They want your money to be invested in their funds. Once your money is in their hands they are able to generate their profits. You will want to do a direct transfer. Some employers will work with the investment companies and send the funds directly to the IRA. Others will insist on sending a check to you. The company that will have your IRA should give you exact specifications for the check so that you won't have to cash it. The check will be payable to you or the IRA account. The IRA company will have all the details. Decide if you will be converting non-Roth to Roth, before doing the rollover.",
"qid": 9961,
"docid": "361037",
"rank": 55,
"score": 115954
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: All the answers that show the equivalency of 401(k) pre-tax and Roth 401(k) post-tax using equivalent contributions are correct assuming equivalent tax rates upon withdrawal. There is some potential gain if your tax rate upon retirement is higher than your working tax rate, but often people calculate a smaller percentage of their working income for their retirement income, which may offset a higher tax-rate anyway. In my mind, the primary advantage of a Roth 401(k) is that it effectively allows you to contribute more for retirement if you are currently maxing out your contributions in a regular 401(k) and IRA and want to contribute more. Doing so can be a big advantage when you are young and can benefit from those additional dollars being put into your retirement account early. This is effectively what is illustrated by the Fidelity calculation, and is something to consider if you are of the mind to aggressively save early for retirement. The reason Roth allows you to contribute more is because traditional IRA contributions are capped. Suppose the cap is $5500. Suppose also you immediately rollover your traditional IRA to a Roth IRA. This is a post-tax contribution, and growth on that is tax-free. If you maxed out your employer pre-tax 401(k) to $17500 and maxed out your IRA, you have maxed out your retirement contributions to $23000. Suppose two doublings, then the 401(k) has grown to $70000, and the IRA has grown to $22000. However, the withdrawal from the 401(k) is taxed, so assuming 25%, the total is $74500 after tax. Now, suppose instead you maxed out your employer Roth 401(k) post-tax instead, so you have put in $17500 post tax. And now, also max out your IRA. Now, all of your $23000 grows tax-free. So upon two doublings, you walk away with $92000. This is because you maxed out your contribution post-tax, meaning it was as if you were allowed to contribute $23333 to your pre-tax 401(k). So if you intend to max out your retirement account contributions, and are looking to contribute even more to retirement accounts, one way is two change over to contributing into the employer Roth 401(k).",
"qid": 9961,
"docid": "396257",
"rank": 56,
"score": 115753
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Assuming you are below retirement age, you typically cannot roll money from a Roth IRA into a 401k nor transfer money out of a 401k until you leave the company. Your best bet is to leave your exising roth ira separate from your 401k. A good strategy for retirement accounts is whenever able (typically when you switch jobs) roll your 401k into a \"\"rollover IRA\"\" (not a roth). Then you can manage your investments with more options than the 5-20 funds provided in the 401k. I would recommend against rolling funds into a 401k because of the lack of options in most 401k plans. Also, 401k is pre-tax and Roth is post-tax. Pre and post tax investments don't mix before withdrawal unless you do a conversion of some kind.\"",
"qid": 9961,
"docid": "262322",
"rank": 57,
"score": 115724
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: There are several disadvantages: You cannot generally withdraw from a 401(k) while you're still employed at the same employer. When you do withdraw, then unless you roll it over, you pay tax on the whole amount based on the marginal tax rate you have that year. If it comes on top of your regular salary, the whole withdrawal will be taxed at the higher marginal rates. You will also pay extra 10% penalty for the withdrawal. For home purchase you can take out up to $10K without the penalty, I doubt that would be enough for downpayment. There are probably more, but these are the major ones I can spot. The same goes to the 457(k), except that those don't have the 10% penalty.",
"qid": 9961,
"docid": "435929",
"rank": 58,
"score": 114647
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Kudos to you on having money in a retirement account as early as after college. Many people don't start investing towards retirement until far to late and compound interest makes a major difference in those early years. Ideally, neither withdraw nor borrow from these accounts. Withdrawing from your 403b will incur a 10% penalty unless you are over the minimum age on top of the normal tax on that income. With a 401K loan you're putting yourself at risk if you run into a situation where you can't pay the loan back of incurring the same penalties as an early withdrawal. This article covers the concerns well. In general, you want to view your retirement money as untouchable until the distributions need to start coming in retirement. It's your future in there. Of course, this doesn't help the short term cash need. Do you have money in an emergency fund somewhere? Could a relative loan you money? Can you move to a less expensive place in advance and squirrel away some of what would have been your rent cash? Can you cut back to bare necessities and do the same? Do you have some nice stuff sitting around that you could sell to make up that needed cash? Will your current employer pay out unused vacation or are you getting any severance from this situation? Will you qualify for unemployment? I other words, think about what you would do to get the money if your retirement accounts weren't there. Then do that - as long as it's legal and doesn't involve running up debt on high interest lines of credit - instead of borrowing against your future.",
"qid": 9961,
"docid": "39376",
"rank": 59,
"score": 114623
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The simple answer is that with the defined contribution plan: 401k, 403b, 457 and the US government TSP; the employer doesn't hold on to the funds. When they take your money from your paycheck there is a period of a few days or at the most a few weeks before they must turn the money over to the trustee running the program. If they are matching your contributions they must do the same with those funds. The risk is in that window of time between payday and deposit day. If the business folds, or enters bankruptcy protection, or decides to slash what they will contribute to the match in the future anything already sent to the trustee is out of their clutches. In the other hand a defined a benefit plan or pension plan: where you get X percent of your highest salary times the number of years you worked; is not protected from the company. These plans work by the company putting aide money each year based on a formula. The formula is complex because they know from history some employees never stick around long enough to get the pension. The money in a pension is invested outside the company but it is not out of the control of the company. Generally with a well run company they invest wisely but safely because if the value goes up due to interest or a rising stock market, the next year their required contribution is smaller. The formula also expects that they will not go out of business. The problems occur when they don't have the money to afford to make the contribution. Even governments have looked for relief in this area by skipping a deposit or delaying a deposit. There is some good news in this area because a pension program has to pay an annual insurance premium to The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation a quai-government agency of the federal government. If the business folds the PBGC steps in to protect the rights of the employees. They don't get all they were promised, but they do get a lot of it. None of those pension issues relate to the 401K like program. Once the money is transferred to the trustee the company has no control over the funds.",
"qid": 9961,
"docid": "98018",
"rank": 60,
"score": 114154
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You generally cant roll funds from a 401k with a company you're still employed with. Some companies allow it depending on the custodial agreement but it's rare. Generally you need to wait until retirement or separation to roll funds out of a 401k.",
"qid": 9961,
"docid": "217557",
"rank": 61,
"score": 113929
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Rolling a 401(k) to an IRA should be your default best option. Rolling a 401(k) to another 401(k) is rarely the best option, but that does happen. I've done it once when I started a job at a company that had a great 401(k) with a good selection of low-cost mutual funds. I rolled the 401(k) from one previous job in to this 401(k) to take advantage of it. In all other cases, I rolled 401(k)s from previous jobs to my Rollover IRA, which gave me the most freedom of investment options. Finally, with 401(k)-to-Roth IRA rollovers, it's important to decouple two concepts so you can analyze it as a sum of two transactions:",
"qid": 9961,
"docid": "344526",
"rank": 62,
"score": 113663
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you leave your job with money that you contributed to the 401K, the company will have a policy about whether you can leave the money in the 401K or whether you must take it with you. I have normally seen that if it is a small amount, then it must be taken and if it is over a certain amount (maybe $10K) then you have the option of leaving it in the account or taking it out. If you take it out, then you should contact a brokerage first and get instructions from them for how to have it transferred into a rollover account to avoid having to pay tax. If the company makes the check out to you or transfers money into a non-retirement account, then they will very easily cause a taxable event and they will likely withhold tax from the payment. If you leave the money in the 401K after you leave, you will generally have fewer investment choices, higher fees, and you may have higher risks. Occasionally companies in hard times fraudulently raid their 401K accounts and when this happens it can be very difficult to get it back. (For examples see the Dept Of Labor page at http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/newsroom/criminal/main.html and look for 401k or retirement in titles). As far as having the money invested for several years, that time can be your friend if you get a reasonable rate of return. Over 30 years your money should be able to double multiple times. (At 8% return it will take less than 10 years to double the money. [see http://buyupside.com/calculators/doublemoneyfeb08.htm])",
"qid": 9961,
"docid": "411354",
"rank": 63,
"score": 113068
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Yes. Two years after your first contribution to the SIMPLE IRA, you can roll it to a traditional IRA. You can still contribute \"\"pre-tax\"\", but the mechanism will be slightly different, since with an employer plan the contribution was automatically deducted from your paycheck. With an individual plan, you make the contributions yourself and then get a tax deduction when you file. Since contributions to traditional and Roth IRAs combined are capped at $5,500 if you're under 50, some sort of employer-sponsored plan might be better from a contribution standpoint. If your institution offers some sort of plan other than a 401(k), you might still want to roll to a traditional IRA, since you will have much more flexibility in the investments you choose. On the flip side, if that thought is overwhelming, having a smaller set of options might be better for your peace of mind.\"",
"qid": 9961,
"docid": "244084",
"rank": 64,
"score": 112984
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You will be rolling over the proceeds, since you can only deposit cash into an IRA. However, this should probably not affect your considerations much since the pre-rollover sale is non-taxable within the 401k and the period of roll-over itself (when the cash is uninvested) is relatively short. So, whatever investments you choose in your 401k, you'll just sell them and then buy them (or similar investments) back after the rollover to the IRA. If you're worrying about a flash crash right on the day when you want to cash out - that can definitely happen, but it is not really something you can prepare for. You can consider moving to money market several weeks before the potential date of your withdrawal, if you think it will make you feel safer, otherwise I don't think it really matters.",
"qid": 9961,
"docid": "222485",
"rank": 65,
"score": 112647
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Nobody here really answered your question. The custodian of the 401k determines what funds and investment options are available within that 401k. So if they're eliminating company stock as an option then they can absolutely make you sell out of it. You may be able to do an in service rollover and transfer your funds to an individual ira but that's not particularly common among 401k administrators. Aside from that I'd ask why do you want to hold company stock anyway? Generally I'd advise against this as its imposing a ton of risk on your financial future. If your company tanks you're out of a job, which sucks. But it sucks even more if your company tanks and your 401k loses a ton of value at the same time. Edit: I see you asked who benefits as well. It may just be a situation of no benefit at all. Perhaps the plan didn't have enough people investing in company stock to make the option cost effective. Maybe the administrator decided that allowing people to take on that amount of risk was not in their best interest(it's not). Could be a ton of reasons but it's unlikely the company did so out of greed. There isn't a lot of financial benefit for them there.",
"qid": 9961,
"docid": "338519",
"rank": 66,
"score": 112543
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You can do this with no problem. What you want is a direct transfer style of rollover. This is simply where the money is transferred from your 401(k) custodian directly to your new IRA custodian. This will ensure there are no taxes or penalties on the balance. The key is that the money is moving directly to the new account without you having direct access to the balance. This keeps the money out of your hands in the eyes of the IRS. The process should look something like this: A few notes:",
"qid": 9961,
"docid": "323464",
"rank": 67,
"score": 112419
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I don't think there's a rule -- (I can't comment) but Brick cited IRS rules...but IMO Brick missed one thing -- @ashur668 is not looking for a distribution, but is looking for a rollover. My best guess: that this part of the ruleset is not well defined, and your (and my) employer have chosen to interpret any withdrawl as a \"\"distribution\"\", even if better characterized a rollover. A few months ago, I went so far as to explore if I could use a loophole -- my company had just gone through a merger; I was hoping I could rollover some or maybe all of my 401k to my IRA (I remember now, it would have been everything before starting roth 401k contributions). My company asserted this was not permitted, and further asserted that the rumors I had heard were mistaken that when we went through a company spin-off a few years before, that nobody under 59 1/2 was permitted to roll over. I did a quick search and found IRS topic 413 As far as I can tell, this topic is silent on the matter at hand. Topic 413 referred me to IRS Publication 575, where I started looking at the section on rollovers. I read some of it then got bored. Note that we're one step removed -- we are reading IRS publications and interpretations of IRS rules. I don't know that anybody here has read the actual tax law. There may be something in there that prevents companies from rolling over before 59 1/2 that is not well codified in IRS publications.\"",
"qid": 9961,
"docid": "482121",
"rank": 68,
"score": 112245
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: It depends how you do it. If you roll it from your 401k directly to a Roth then you will have to pay the taxes. The contributions to the 401k are tax deferred. Meaning you do not owe taxes on the money until you collect it. Roth contributions are post tax but the gains are not taxed so long as they are disbursed under acceptable conditions according to the regulations. If you roll it directly from the 401k to a regular tax deferred IRA you should be able to do that with out penalties or taxes. You will still have to pay the taxes at disbursement. If you have the money disbursed to you directly then you will have to pay the penalties, fees, and taxes. Your contributions to an IRA will then be subject to limitations based on the IRA. It will literally be exactly like you are taking money from your pocket to invest in the IRA. Your company should give you the option of a rollover check. This check will be made out to you but it will not be able to be deposited in a regular account or cashed. It will only be redeemable for deposit into a retirement account that meets the regulatory requirements of the 401k rollover criteria. I believe the check I received a few years ago was only good for 60 days. I recall that after 60 days that check was void and I would receive a standard disbursement and would be subject to fees and penalties. I am not sure if that was the policy of T.Rowe Price or if that is part of the regulation.",
"qid": 9961,
"docid": "308380",
"rank": 69,
"score": 112244
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You should try to take out other loans sufficient to pay off your 401(k) loan if you can. Maybe you can take out a home equity loan? You can also ask your bank about unsecured loans. You should also check the rules for your new employer's 401(k), if you're rolling over your 401(k). There's a small possibility that you could take out another loan right now and apply it to the previous loan balance. Or if you need to wait, you could use it to help pay off any temporary loans that were needed to avoid the distribution penalty.",
"qid": 9961,
"docid": "149004",
"rank": 70,
"score": 112087
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: It is really hard to tell where you should withdraw money from. So instead, I'll give you some pointers to make it easier for you to make the decision for yourself, while keeping the answer useful to others as well. I have 3 401ks, ... and some has post tax, non Roth money Why keeping 3 401ks? You can roll them over into an IRA or the one 401k which is still active (I assume here you're not currently employed with 3 different employers). This will also help you avoiding fees for too low balances on your IRAs. However, for the 401k with after tax (not Roth) balance - read the next part carefully. Post tax amounts are your basis. Generally, it is not a good idea to keep post-tax amounts in 401k/IRA, you usually do post-tax contributions to convert them to Roth ASAP. Withdrawing from 401k with basis may become a mess since you'll have to account for the basis portion of each withdrawal. Especially if you pool it with IRAs, so that one - don't rollover, keep it separately to make that accounting easier. I also have several smaller IRAs and Roth IRAs, Keep in mind the RMD requirements. Roth IRAs don't have those, and are non-taxable income, so you would probably want to keep them as long as possible. This is relevant for 401k as well. Again, consolidating will help you with the fees. I'm concerned about having easily accessible cash for emergencies. I suggest keeping Roth amounts for this purpose as they're easily accessible and bear no taxable consequence. Other than emergencies don't touch them for as long as you can. I do have some other money in taxable investments For those, consider re-balancing to a more conservative style, but beware of the capital gains taxes if you have a lot of gains accumulated. You may want consider loss-harvesting (selling the positions in the red) to liquidate investments without adverse tax consequences while getting some of your cash back into the checking account. In any case, depending on your tax bracket, capital gains taxes are generally lower (down to 0%) than ordinary income taxes (which is what you pay for IRA/401k withdrawals), so you would probably want to start with these, after careful planning and taking the RMD and the Social Security (if you're getting any) into account.",
"qid": 9961,
"docid": "59600",
"rank": 71,
"score": 111972
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Your employment status is not 100% clear from the question. Normally, consultants are sole-proprietors or LLC's and are paid with 1099's. They take care of their own taxes, often with schedule C, and they sometimes can but generally do not use \"\"employer\"\" company 401(k). If this is your situation, you can contact any provider you want and set up your own solo 401(k), which will have great investment options and no fees. I do this, through Fidelity. If you are paid with a W2, you are not a consultant. You are an employee and must use your employer's 401(k). Figure out what you are. If you are a consultant, open a solo 401(k) at the provider of your choice. Make sure beforehand that they allow incoming rollovers. Roll all of your previous 401(k)s and IRA's into it. When you have moved your 401(k) to a better provider, you won't be paying any extra fees, but you will not recoup any fees your original provider charged. I'm not sure why you mention a Roth IRA. If you try to roll your 401(k) into a Roth instead of a traditional IRA or 401(k), be aware that you will be taxed on everything you roll. ---- Edit: a little info about IRA's in response to your comment ---- Tax advantaged retirement accounts come in two flavors: one is managed by your company and the money is taken out of your paycheck. This is usually a 401(k) or 403(b). You can contribute up to $18K per year and your company can also contribute to it. The other flavor is an IRA. You can contribute $5,500 per year to this for you and $5,500 for your spouse. These are outside of your company and you make the deposits yourself. You choose your own provider, so competition has driven prices way down. You can have both a 401(k) and an IRA and contribute the max to both (though at high incomes you lose the ability to deduct IRA contributions). These accounts are tax advantaged because you only pay taxes once. With a regular brokerage account, you pay income tax in the year in which you earn money, then you pay tax every year on dividends and any capital gains that have been realized by selling. There are two types of tax-advantaged accounts: Traditional IRA or Traditional 401(k). You do not pay income tax on this money in the year you earn it, nor do you pay capital gains tax. Instead you pay tax only in the year in which you take the money out (in retirement). Roth IRA or Roth 401(k). You do pay income tax on money on this money in the year in which you earn it. But then you don't pay tax on any gains or withdrawals ever again. When you leave your job (and sometimes at other times) you can move your money out of a 401(k) into your IRA, where you can do a better job managing it. You can also move money from your IRA into a 401(k) if your 401(k) provider will allow you to. Whether traditional or Roth is better depends on your tax rate now and your tax rate at retirement. However, if you choose to move money from a traditional account into a Roth account, you must pay tax on it in that year as if it was income because traditional and Roth accounts are taxed at different times. For that reason, if you are just trying to move money out of your 401(k) to save on fees, the logical place to put it is in a traditional IRA. Moving money from a traditional to a Roth may make sense, for example, if your tax rate is temporarily low this year, but that would be a separate decision from the one you are looking at. You can always roll your traditional IRA into a Roth later if that does become the case. Otherwise, there's no reason to think your traditional 401(k) should be rolled into a Roth IRA according to what you have described.\"",
"qid": 9961,
"docid": "127664",
"rank": 72,
"score": 111611
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You can't rollover a 401k directly into a Roth IRA. What you can do is rollover a 401k into a traditional IRA, and then convert some or all of the money to a Roth IRA. This is independent of any contributions made to a traditional or Roth IRA.",
"qid": 9961,
"docid": "125973",
"rank": 73,
"score": 111484
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I assume you get your information from somewhere where they don't report the truth. I'm sorry if mentioning Fox News offended you, it was not my intention. But the way the question is phrased suggests that you know nothing about what \"\"pension\"\" means. So let me explain. 403(b) is not a pension account. Pension account is generally a \"\"defined benefit\"\" account, whereas 403(b)/401(k) and similar - are \"\"defined contribution\"\" accounts. The difference is significant: for pensions, the employer committed on certain amount to be paid out at retirement (the defined benefit) regardless of how much the employee/employer contributed or how well the account performed. This makes such an arrangement a liability. An obligation to pay. In other words - debt. Defined contribution on the other hand doesn't create such a liability, since the employer is only committed for the match, which is paid currently. What happens to your account after the employer deposited the defined contribution (the match) - is your problem. You manage it to the best of your abilities and whatever you have there when you retire - is yours, the employer doesn't owe you anything. Here's the problem with pensions: many employers promised the defined benefit, but didn't do anything about actually having money to pay. As mentioned, such a pension is essentially a debt, and the retiree is a debt holder. What happens when employer cannot pay its debts? Employer goes bankrupt. And when bankrupt - debtors are paid only part of what they were owed, and that includes the retirees. There's no-one raiding pensions. No-one goes to the bank with a gun and demands \"\"give me the pension money\"\". What happened was that the employers just didn't fund the pensions. They promised to pay - but didn't set aside any money, or set aside not enough. Instead, they spent it on something else, and when the time came that the retirees wanted their money - they didn't have any. That's what happened in Detroit, and in many other places. 403(b) is in fact the solution to this problem. Instead of defined benefit - the employers commit on defined contribution, and after that - it's your problem, not theirs, to have enough when you're retired.\"",
"qid": 9961,
"docid": "301194",
"rank": 74,
"score": 111357
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: As to the rollover question. Only rollover to a ROTH if you have other funds you can use to pay the taxes you will be hit with if you do that. DO NOT pay the taxes out of the funds in the 401k. If you don't have a way to pay the taxes, then roll it to a traditional IRA. You never want to pay the government any taxes 'early' and you don't want to reduce the balance. beyond that, A lot depends on how long you figure you will be with that company. If it's only a few years, or if you and other employees can make enough of a fuss that they move the fund to someplace decent (any of the big no-load companies such as Vanguard would be a better custodian), then I'd go ahead and max it out. If you figure to be there for a long while, and it looks like someone is in bed with the custodian and there's no way it will be changed, then maybe look to max out a Roth IRA instead.",
"qid": 9961,
"docid": "505943",
"rank": 75,
"score": 111287
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Yes. Not doing so would be like turning down a raise. The best advice in almost every situation is to at least contribute up to the amount that the company will match so you get the full benefit. One thing to clarify that you might not be understanding. The vesting period is only for the money the company matches, not your own investment. Even if you leave the company before the account is vested or fully vested, you can transfer to a 401k at your new employer, or roll over into an IRA, or take as taxable income (and pay a penalty if it is an early withdrawal), all your contributions together with any investment gains or losses that have occurred. Ditto whatever part of your employer match that has vested by the time you leave. Often, the employer matching contributions are invested in the same funds in the same proportions that you have chosen for your own contributions and thus will have incurred the same gains or losses as your own contributions, but what you are entitled to take with you is the part that has vested. Also, you mention that it is unlikely that you will stay the entire 5 years. However, if you plan to at least stay a couple of years it makes sense to get the 20%, 40%, etc. of the match that you vest during your stay. Again, it's free money.",
"qid": 9961,
"docid": "135724",
"rank": 76,
"score": 111013
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Yes you can rollover as many different 401ks into a single IRA account. I have done it personally and it really cuts down on the overhead of keeping up with lots of different accounts. Your brokerage or mutual fund company should be able to help you with it. If you are using a company that just gives you forms and those forms don't mention an easy way to combine. Then I suggest rolling over one 401k first then once that's finished you can rollover the other 401k into that same account.",
"qid": 9961,
"docid": "426189",
"rank": 77,
"score": 110818
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I suggest rolling it over to the 401(k) with your new employer. Particularly if they match any percentage of your contribution, it would be in your interest to take as much of that money as possible. When it comes to borrowing money from your 401(k), it looks like the issues AbraCadaver mentioned only apply if you don't pay back the money (http://www.kiplinger.com/article/real-estate/T010-C000-S002-borrowing-from-your-retirement-plan-to-buy-a-home.html). The reasonable argument against taking money out of your 401(k) to buy a home is that it leaves a dent in your retirement nest egg (and its earning power) during key earning years. On the plus side for borrowing from your 401(k), it's very low interest--and it's interest you're paying back to yourself over a 5-year period. At its current value, the most you could borrow from your 401(k) is $35K. If you're fortunate in where you live, that could be most or all of the downpayment. In my own experience, my wife borrowed against her 401(k) balance for the earnest money when we purchased a new home. Fortunately for us, an investor snapped up my previous home within 4 days of us listing it, so she was able to pay back her loan in full right away.",
"qid": 9961,
"docid": "436331",
"rank": 78,
"score": 110702
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The first question is essentially asking for specific investment advice which is off-topic per the FAQ, but I'll take a stab at #2 and #3 (2) If my 401k doesn't change before I leave my job (not planned in the near future), I should roll it over into my Roth IRA after I leave due to these high expense ratios, correct? My advice is that you should roll over a 401K into an IRA the first chance you get (usually when you leave the job). 401K plans are NOTORIOUS for high expense ratios and why leave your money in a plan where you have a limited choice of investments anyway versus a self-directed IRA where you can invest in anything you want? (3) Should I still max contribute with these horrible expense ratios? If they are providing a match, yes. Even with the expense ratios it is hard to beat the immediate return of an employer match. If they aren't matching, the answer is still probably yes for a few reasons: You already are maxing out your ability to contribute to sheltered accounts, so assuming you still want to sock away that money for retirement, the tax benefits are still valuable and probably offset the expense ratios. Although you seem to be an exception, it is hard for most people to be disciplined enough to put money in a retirement account after they have it in their hands (versus auto-deduction from paychecks).",
"qid": 9961,
"docid": "389202",
"rank": 79,
"score": 110388
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"You should call your plan administrator and ask. Few plans allow people to take a \"\"hardship withdraw\"\" after leaving because their is no way to pay the funds back since you are no longer working there. The repayment process is done via payroll deduction usually. Also you will most likely be required to withhold 20% for taxes from the 401k. There is no way to defer the taxation unless you take it next calendar year. You may want to consider doing a rollover into an IRA and taking the w/d and you can do a 60 day rollover. You only get 1 per rolling 12 months now (rather than account do to a change in the rule.) IRA's (not 401k) do give you flexible withholding so you don't have to pay taxes today though they would still be in the tax year based on the calendar date taken out, so if you take it out in 2015 your going to be paying them at the end of this year when you file in April of 2016. Your question seems to be mixing characteristics of both 401k and IRA and while they are similar they do operate very differently.\"",
"qid": 9961,
"docid": "411000",
"rank": 80,
"score": 110375
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You weren't eligible for a 401K in 2010, but you were eligible for an individual IRA. If you had known by April 18th that you had this extra money, you could have deposited (not rolled over) the money, up to the maximum ($5,000 or so, I think), into an IRA account You could do that because you didn't participate (legally) in an employer retirement program. But you didn't learn until early May, so you missed that deadline. I doubt that the IRS has any provisions for waiving that April 18th deadline, but I could be wrong: see the IRS publications. In any case, to answer the question directly - no, you can't roll over the money you're getting back, because it was mistakenly in the 401K plan. It will now become part of your 2011 income, and so you'll owe taxes on it when you file your tax return for the tax year 2011, in early 2012.",
"qid": 9961,
"docid": "433256",
"rank": 81,
"score": 110365
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I would suggest you rollover your Roth 401k to a Roth IRA. Then pay off your debt before investing anymore money. In the long run you will be better off to have all your debt paid off. But I would not withdraw from the Roth 401k to pay down your debt. The penality is too steep.",
"qid": 9961,
"docid": "401450",
"rank": 82,
"score": 109777
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: 401(k) plans, 403(b) plans, IRAs etc all require more paperwork than a non-tax-advantaged investment. As a result, most such plans (with Vanguard as well as with other management companies) offer only a small set of investment options, and so it costs the plan sponsor (you wearing your Employer hat) money if you want to add more investment options for your Solo 401(k) plan). Note that with employer-sponsored retirement plans, investments in each mutual fund might be coming in small amounts from various employees, much less than the usual minimum investment in each fund, and possibly less than the minimum per-investment transaction requirement (often $50) of the fund group. Taking care of all that is expensive, and it is reasonable that Vanguard wants to charge you (the Employer) a fee for the extra work it is doing for you. When I was young and IRAs had just been invented (and the annual contribution limit was $2000 for IRAs), I remember being charged a $20 annual fee per Vanguard fund that I wanted to invest in within my IRA but this fee was waived once my total IRA assets with Vanguard had increased above $10K.",
"qid": 9961,
"docid": "218696",
"rank": 83,
"score": 109759
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The expense fees are high, and unfortunate. I would stop short of calling it criminal, however. What you are paying for with your expenses is the management of the holdings in the fund. The managers of the fund are actively, continuously watching the performance of the holdings, buying and selling inside the fund in an attempt to beat the stock market indexes. Whether or not this is worth the expenses is debatable, but it is indeed possible for a managed fund to beat an index. Despite the relatively high expenses of these funds, the 401K is still likely your best investment vehicle for retirement. The money you put in is tax deductible immediately, your account grows tax deferred, and anything that your employer kicks in is free money. Since, in the short term, you have little choice, don't lose a lot of sleep over it. Just pick the best option you have, and occasionally suggest to your employer that you would appreciate different options in the future. If things don't change, and you have the option in the future to rollover into a cheaper IRA, feel free to take it.",
"qid": 9961,
"docid": "30159",
"rank": 84,
"score": 109515
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You cannot contribute directly to that 401k account if you no longer work at the sponsoring company - you have to be on their payroll. You can, however, roll the 401k over into an IRA, and contribute to the IRA. Note that in both cases, you are only allowed to contribute from earned income (which includes all the taxable income and wages you get from working or from running your own business). As long as you are employed (and have made more than $5k this year) you should have no problem. I am not certain whether contributing your $5k to a roth IRA would help you achieve your tax goals, someone else here certainly can advise.",
"qid": 9961,
"docid": "372014",
"rank": 85,
"score": 109411
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: There are a few incorrect assumptions in your question but the TL;DR version is: All, or most, of the withdrawal is taxable income that is reported on Lines 15a (total distribution) and 15b (taxable amount) of Form 1040. None of the distribution is given special treatment as Qualified Dividends or Capital Gains regardless of what happened inside the IRA, and none of the distribution is subject to the 3.8% Net Investment Income Tax that some high-income people need to compute on Form 8960. If the withdrawal is not a Qualified Distribution, it will be subject to a 10% excise tax (tax penalty on premature withdrawal). Not all contributions to Traditional IRAs are deductible from income for the year for which the contribution was made. People with high income and/or coverage by a workplace retirement plan (pension plan, 401(k) plan, 403(b) plan, etc) cannot deduct any contributions that they choose to make to a Traditional IRA. Such people can always make a contribution (subject to them having compensation (earned income such as salary or wages, self-employment income, commissions on sales, etc), but they don't get a tax deduction for it (just as contributions to Roth IRAs are not deductible). Whether it is wise to make such nondeductible contributions to a Traditional IRA is a question on which reasonable people can hold different opinions. Be that as it may, nondeductible contributions to a Traditional IRA create (or add to) what is called the basis of an IRA. They are reported to the IRS on Form 8606 which is attached to the Federal Form 1040. Note that the IRA custodian or trustee is not told that the contributions are not deductible. Earnings on the basis accumulate tax-deferred within the IRA just as do the earnings on the deductible contributions. Now, when you make a withdrawal from your Traditional IRA, no matter which of your various IRA accounts you take the money from, part of the money is deemed to be taken from the basis (and is not subject to income tax) while the rest is pure taxable income. That is, none of the rest is eligible for the reduced taxation rates for Qualified Dividends or Capital Gains and since it does not count as investment income, it is not subject to the 3.8% Net Investment Tax of Form 8960 either. Computation of how much of your withdrawal is nontaxable basis and how much is taxable income is done on Form 8606. Note that you don't get to withdraw your entire basis until such time as when you close all your Traditional IRA accounts. How is all this reported? Well, your IRA custodian(s) will send you Form 1099-R reporting the total amount of the withdrawal, what income tax, if any, was withheld, etc. The custodian(s) don't know what your basis is, and so Box 2b will say that the taxable amount is not determined. You need to fill out Form 8606 to figure out what the taxable amount is, and then report the taxable amount on Line 15b of Form 1040. (The total withdrawal is reported on Line 15a which is not included in the AGI computations). Note that as far as the IRS is concerned, you have only one Traditional IRA. The A in IRA stands for Arrangement, not Account as most everybody thinks, and your Traditional IRA can invest in many different things, stocks, bonds, mutual funds, etc with different custodians if you choose, but your basis is in the IRA, not the specific investment that you made with your nondeductible contribution. That's why the total IRA contribution is limited, not the per-account contribution, and why you need to look that the total value of your IRA in determining the taxable portion, not the specific account(s) from which you withdrew the money. So, how much basis did you withdraw? Well, if you withdrew $W during 2016 and the total value of all your Traditional IRA accounts was $X at the end of 2016 and your total basis in your Traditional IRA is $B, then (assuming that you did not indulge in any Traditional-to-Roth rollovers for 2016), multiply W by B/(W+X) to get the amount of nontaxable basis in the withdrawal. B thus gets reduced for 2017 by amount of basis withdrawal. What if you never made a nondeductible contribution to your Traditional IRA, or you made some nondeductible contributions many years ago and have forgotten about them? Well, you could still fill out Form 8606 reporting a zero basis, but it will just tell you that your basis continues $0. Or, you could just enter the total amount of your withdrawal in Lines 15a and 15b, effectively saying that all of the withdrawal is taxable income to you. The IRS does not care if you choose to pay taxes on nontaxable income.",
"qid": 9961,
"docid": "482768",
"rank": 86,
"score": 109158
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"As other responders said, you can certainly roll over multiple 401(k) into a single account. An added benefit of such rollover (besides the ease of tracking) is that you can shop around for your Rollover IRA provider and find the one that gives you the specific mutual funds that you want to invest in, the lowest expenses, etc. - in short, find the best fit to your priorities. There are also \"\"lemon\"\" 401(k) plans and if you are in one of them, get out! And rollover is the way out. There is also one possibility to keep an eye on as it happens rarely, but it does happen - rolling a 401(k) over into another 401(k). I've done it once when I started a job at a company that had a great 401(k) with a good selection of low-cost mutual funds. I rolled the 401(k) from one previous job in to this 401(k) to take advantage of it. At the same time I kept a Rollover IRA, combining the 401(k) from all other jobs; it had more investment options and provided some flexibility.\"",
"qid": 9961,
"docid": "4181",
"rank": 87,
"score": 108982
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You could check with the new 401k provider to see if they allow rollover-in contributions. You can likely take the exact amount of the rollover check that was put in the IRA and put it in the new 401k and then take a loan. Loan amount is calculated as 1/2 vested balance less any outstanding loans or $50k, whichever is less. Hopefully this helps...",
"qid": 9961,
"docid": "195687",
"rank": 88,
"score": 108916
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you roll your funds from a 401k to an individual Vanguard account it will be in an IRA. Some people talk about IRA loans, but what is happening is that you are given a check for the value of the IRA and you have 60 days to deposit that full amount in another qualified account before being assessed a distribution penalty. The IRS also has rules to prohibit you from making several back-to-back rollovers to try to float the money for longer than 60 days.",
"qid": 9961,
"docid": "348090",
"rank": 89,
"score": 108478
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: For reporting purposes, most IRA firms prefer that you roll the 401(k) funds into a Rollover or Traditional IRA and then convert to the ROTH from there. The mid-air conversions (401(k) directly into a ROTH) can get tricky when you go to do your taxes the following year if the 1099 form from the releasing custodian and the 5498 form from the accepting custodian have different numbers due to the conversion amount and taxes withheld if any.",
"qid": 9961,
"docid": "272789",
"rank": 90,
"score": 108336
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"This question had better be asked of the 401k plan administrator rather than here. The plan document that you received when you began participating undoubtedly has a page or more of definitions of the terms used in the contract, and especially so if the meanings are nonstandard. For example, one would expect that a Final Distribution leaves a balance of $0 in the 401k account and so a \"\"per distribution\"\" fee is meaningless in the context of Final Distribution. As the post by mbhunter indicates, withdrawal and distribution seem to be used interchangeably in IRS documents, and so there probably is a nonstandard meaning assigned to these terms in the 401k document. Three possible nonstandard meanings of these two words come to mind. Withdrawal = at the request of the participant, and Distribution = as required by law, e.g. required minimum distribution Withdrawal = anything before age 59.5 or before termination of employment and Distribution = anything after age 59.5 or after termination of employment Withdrawal = anything on which the 10% excise tax for premature distributions must be paid, or anything that is not eligible for rollover into another tax-deferred account and Distribution = anything on which the 10% excise tax does not need to be paid. But all the above is just idle speculation, and what matters is the plan document's definitions of these terms, and that can be determined only if you read your 401k plan document yourself. Reliance on the answers given by the employer's HR department, or the plan administrator, as to what the plan document says might or might not be advisable: even the IRS has been known to give out incorrect information. In general, money cannot be withdrawn from a 401k plan and rolled over (or transferred via a trustee-to-trustee transfer) into another tax-deferred plan while the participant is still employed by the sponsor of the 401k plan. Since most 401k plans have poor investment choices and excessive administrator fees, reflect that absent this prohibition, most people would with roll over money from their 401ks into their IRAs as often as feasible. You can withdraw money from a 401k account without paying the 10% excise tax for several reasons (including financial needs of various specified kinds), but you cannot then change your mind and put that money into your IRA, telling the IRA custodian that it is a rollover from the 401k. To do so will not just trigger the 10% excise tax on premature distributions from a 401k account, but you will also need to pay penalties for excess contributions to your IRA.\"",
"qid": 9961,
"docid": "174335",
"rank": 91,
"score": 108323
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: For such a small amount, I really don't think it's worth the time and effort to withdraw it. Why not roll it over into a traditional IRA or a new 401k / 403b?",
"qid": 9961,
"docid": "510874",
"rank": 92,
"score": 107917
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The 60 day pay back rule of a distribution your are referring to is a reportable IRS rule so you won't be able to circumvent that by opening your own company with its own 401K and borrowing the funds from there. Failure to accurately report to the IRS leads to fines and possible jail time. It's not advisable to withdraw from a retirement account but if you really need the money then you can move the funds to a Rollover IRA at the new broker/dealer, or custodian etc. Once you withdraw funds, the plan sponsor has to abide by a mandatory 20% tax withholding on the distribution, you'll be hit with a 10% tax penalty for early withdraw and you'll have to report the distribution as income when you file your personal income taxes. The move from a 401K to a Rollover however is legal and has no tax implications or penalties (besides possible closing fees at the old account) - that is until you decide to withdraw from it assuming you are under age 59 1/2. Regarding your last point, 401Ks are administered by 3rd parties. You wouldn't be opening up any accounts directly with them necessarily. Best advice? Get a Financial Advisor in your area. I recommend going with an advisor who is backed by independent broker-dealer. Independent broker dealers don't offer their own investment products therefore don't push their advisors to sell you their 'in-house' products like big banks. Here's a good article on using Rollover funds to start a venture: http://www.ehow.com/how_6789743_rollover-directed-ira-start-business.html Here is a resource guide direct from the IRS (you can CTRL+F for any specific topics) http://www.irs.gov/Retirement-Plans/Plan-Participant,-Employee/401%28k%29-Resource-Guide---Plan-Participants---General-Distribution-Rules",
"qid": 9961,
"docid": "260998",
"rank": 93,
"score": 107899
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Don't steal from the 401k. If you take the money out, you'll pay 28% in taxes and 10% in penalties -- only getting $12,960 out. Before you do anything, consult an online refi calculator to make sure you'll be in the house beyond the break-even point. With the numbers you've given and some reasonable guesses I made, it looks like you'll break even within a year. If your new employer's plan allows for loans, roll it into the new plan. Based on what you say you're putting in, you should be able to take a loan out of about $15-20k, which would get you to your LTV goal. Before you do this, calculate: and make sure you will comfortably be able to handle all of the payments. Make sure you're aware of the loan terms on your 401k loan. Understand the penalties associated with failing to make timely payments. Finally, beware of sinking all of your liquid cash into this -- how will you handle an emergency that comes up soon after closing on the new loan before you have a chance to rebuild your emergency fund?",
"qid": 9961,
"docid": "421586",
"rank": 94,
"score": 107896
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Which strategy makes more sense: Check your new Fidelity 401k plan. Make sure it has a good group of funds available at very low fees. If it does, roll over your Principal 401k to your new 401k. Call Principal and have them transfer the funds directly to Fidelity. Do not have them send you a check. If the new plan doesn't have a good fund lineup, or has high fees, create a rollover IRA and roll your old 401k plan into it. Again, have Principal transfer the funds directly. Consider using Vanguard or other very-low-cost funds in your IRA. Taking the money out of your old 401k to pay toward your mortgage has several disadvantages. You will pay taxes and a penalty. Your mortgage rate is very good, and since you are probably in a high tax bracket and perhaps itemize deductions, the effective rate is even less. And you lose liquidity that might come in handy down the road. You can always change your mind later, but for now don't pay down your mortgage using your 401k money. As a result of being under 20%, I am paying mortgage insurance of about $300/mo. This is wasted money. Save aggressively and get your mortgage down to 80% so that you can get rid of that PMI. If you are earning a high salary, you should be able to get there in reasonably short order. If you are maxing out your 401k ($18,000 per year), you might be better off putting it on pause and instead using that money to get rid of the PMI. I have no 'retirement' plans because I enjoy working and have plans to start a company, and essentially will be happy working until I die You are young. Your life will change over time. Everyone young seems to choose one of two extremes: In the end, very few choose either of these paths. For now, just plan on retiring somewhere close to normal retirement age. You can always change your plans later.",
"qid": 9961,
"docid": "367355",
"rank": 95,
"score": 107812
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You should be able to take a loan out on the 401(k). You can't do a roll-over unless you leave your job. If your 401(k) is that bad, you should consider maxing out your IRA contributions first and putting the rest into your 401(k) - so if you're putting away about 7k a year, lower your withholding to 1500 and put 5500 into an IRA.",
"qid": 9961,
"docid": "468841",
"rank": 96,
"score": 107527
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Why not do both? The object is to \"\"squirrel\"\" away as much money as possible. The 401k has the advantage of being a payroll deduction. The IRA, if you can save the money, gives you more control. When you change jobs, you can \"\"roll over\"\" your first 401k into either your IRA or your second job's 401k. Note: There are legal limits on total contributions to IRA and 401ks. I've forgotten what they are, so find out for yourself. There may also be income limits, but ones that don't apply to most 23-year olds, unless they own their own company or work for say, Goldman Sachs.\"",
"qid": 9961,
"docid": "472882",
"rank": 97,
"score": 107505
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: rollover funds only mean the funds one was foolish enough to first roll into this 401(k). With no matching, and need for cash, I'd stop depositing to that account. But, from details you gave, you can't withdraw that money.",
"qid": 9961,
"docid": "67220",
"rank": 98,
"score": 107448
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Former pension/retirement/401(k) administrator here. 1. If you don't want to bother with maintaining your own investments, you can 'roll-over' your existing 401(k) into *your new company's 401(k) plan*. Then you will choose your investments in the new plan, you will be 100% vested in 'rollover account'. 2. If you want control over your own investments (recommended!) you can roll over your existing 401(k) into an IRA (Individual Retirement Account). Then *your entire account* will go into your new IRA. 3. You can take part, or all, of your existing account as cash, paid directly to you. Note that this will trigger *20% mandatory Federal Withholding* on whatever goes straight to you. So some of your money is going to the IRS.",
"qid": 9961,
"docid": "92941",
"rank": 99,
"score": 107375
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"It is difficult to become a millionaire in the short term (a few years) working at a 9-to-5 job, unless you get lucky (win the lottery, inheritance, gambling at a casino, etc). However, if you max out your employer's Retirement Plan (401k, 403b) for the next 30 years, and you average a 5% rate of return on your investment, you will reach millionaire status. Many people would consider this \"\"easy\"\" and \"\"automatic\"\". Of course, this assumes you are able to max our your retirement savings at the start of your career, and keep it going. The idea is that if you get in the habit of saving early in your career and live modestly, it becomes an automatic thing. Unfortunately, the value of $1 million after 30 years of inflation will be eroded somewhat. (Sorry.) If you don't want to wait 30 years, then you need to look at a different strategy. Work harder or take risks. Some options:\"",
"qid": 9961,
"docid": "434869",
"rank": 100,
"score": 107335
}
] |
What is the best way to invest in gold as a hedge against inflation without having to hold physical gold? | [
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Investing in gold without having physical gold is not really a hedge against inflation. GLD is really more for speculation, not protection against serious inflation. If there is any kind of inflation worth really protecting yourself against then one thing you will notice at its onset is a divergence in the price of physical and GLD; with GLD offering very little protection if any against inflation. Ultimately holders of GLD will demand physical metal and the physical price will rise and the paper price will fall. I would advise you to study physical gold before you purchase GLD for that reason. EDIT: Just adding this to my answer - I don't know why I didn't put it in before, and I hasten to add that I'm not an expert though a little investigation will show you that this is at least one option for owning gold. If you think of having the physical gold yourself at one end of the spectrum and buying GLD at the other; so that you don't need to take physical delivery, there is another scenario which I understand is in between (and sorry I don't actually know what it's referred to as) but it's where you buy the physical gold but instead of taking delivery the bars are stored for you in a vault - these bars are numbered and you actually own what you have paid for and theoretically you could go and visit your gold and actually remove it because it's your gold - as opposed to having paper GLD which in my understanding is a \"\"right to take physical delivery\"\" of gold - and this is slightly different - of course unlike GLD you actually have to pay a storage fee and of course unlike having the physical gold buried in your garden or something you are not entirely secure against say a robbery of the vault, and you are also depending on the company not to sell the same bar to more than one person - but that's the only think that their reputation is built on, and a company like that would live or die by the reputation - ( and of course you might lose the proverbial gold buried in the garden either, so nothing's 100% secure anyway really )\"",
"qid": 9979,
"docid": "35369",
"rank": 1,
"score": 198848
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \">They will want to step away for a few years. Then will quickly realize, or already knew, holding cash is just as bad of an investment. They will then turn to hedges against inflation, real assets, further devaluing the dollar. They will turn to commodities and energy the only things in the past decade besides entrepreneurial investments which have increased in value. This is where you differ from the Fed. Not saying either one of you is wrong, but the Fed wants inflation in order to force individuals and, more importantly, businesses to invest their capital in CapEx, equities or other \"\"risky\"\" assets in order to combat inflation. You bring up a good point that if they chose to invest solely in inflation hedges, it may compound the problem. What happens when supply and demand are forced back towards equilibrium though? Gold is a different animal, but for other metals with industrial uses, would demand through inflation hedging be able to fend off decreased industrial and actual demand for the physical material?\"",
"qid": 9979,
"docid": "579328",
"rank": 2,
"score": 165277
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Diversify, diversify, diversify. Gold, USD, Swiss Franc and one thing that hasn't really been mentioned yet: equities. Yes, they may go down if the recession gets worse but at the end of the day you have a claim to a company. That's a physical asset. It's also a hedge against inflation/devaluation just like foreign currencies and precious metals. Make sure that you invest in companies that actually produce something that will always be needed though. I.e. Siemens, Novartis, Caterpillar etc. NOT the Zyngas and Facebooks of the world!",
"qid": 9979,
"docid": "595349",
"rank": 3,
"score": 160259
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Over on Quantitative Finance Stack Exchange, I asked and answered a more technical and broader version of this question, Should the average investor hold commodities as part of a broadly diversified portfolio? In short, I believe the answer to your question is that gold is neither an investment nor a hedge against inflation. Although many studies claim that commodities (such as gold) do offer some diversification benefit, the most credible academic study I have seen to date, Should Investors Include Commodities in Their Portfolios After All? New Evidence, shows that a mean-variance investor would not want to allocate any of their portfolio to commodities (this would include gold, presumably). Nevertheless, many asset managers, such as PIMCO, offer funds that are marketed as \"\"real return\"\" or \"\"inflation-managed\"\" and include commodities (including gold) in their portfolios. PIMCO has also commissioned some research, Strategic Asset Allocation and Commodities, claiming that holding some commodities offers both diversification and inflation hedging benefits.\"",
"qid": 9979,
"docid": "556936",
"rank": 4,
"score": 158416
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Gold since the ancient time ( at least when it was founded) has kept its value. for example the french franc currency was considered valuable in the years 1400~ but in 1641 lost its value. However who owned Gold back then still got value. The advantage of having gold is you can convert it to cash easily in the world. it hedges against inflation: it is value rise when inflation happend. Gold has no income,no earnings. its not like a stock or a bond. its an alternative way to store value the Disadvantages of investing in Gold Gold doesnt return income , needs physical storage and insurance, Capital gains tax rates are higher on most gold investments. the best way to invest gold when there is inflation is expected. source",
"qid": 9979,
"docid": "483734",
"rank": 5,
"score": 155995
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Over time, gold has mainly a hedge against inflation, based on its scarcity value. That is, unless finds some \"\"killer app\"\" for it that would also make it a good investment. The \"\"usual\"\" ones, metallurgical, electronic, medicine, dental, don't really do the trick. It should be noted that gold performs its inflation hedge function over a long period of time, say $50-$100 years. Over shorter periods of time, it will spike for other reasons. The latest classic example was in 1979-80, and the main reason, in my opinion, was the Iranian hostage crisis (inflation was secondary.) This was a POLITICAL risk situation, but one that was not unwarranted. An attack on 52 U.S. hostages (diplomats, no less), was potenially an attack on the U.S. dollar. But gold got so pricey that it lost its \"\"inflation hedge\"\" function for some two decades (until about 2000). Inflation has not been a notable factor in 2011. But Mideastern political risk has been. Witness Egypt, Libya, and potentially Syria and other countries. Put another way, gold is less of an investment that a \"\"hedge.\"\" And not just against inflation.\"",
"qid": 9979,
"docid": "96351",
"rank": 6,
"score": 146716
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I do not know anything about retail investing in India, since I am in the US. However, there are a couple of general things to keep in mind about gold that should be largely independent of country. First, gold is not an investment. Aside from a few industrial uses, it has no productive value. It is, at best, a hedge against inflation, since many people feel more comfortable with what they consider \"\"real\"\" money that is not subject to what seems to be arbitrary creation by central banks. Second, buying tiny amounts of gold as coin or bullion from a retail dealer will always involve a fairly significant spread from the commodity spot price. The spot price only applies to large transactions. Retail dealers have costs of doing business that necessitate these fees in order for them to make a profit. You must also consider the costs of storing your gold in a way that mitigates the risk of theft. (The comment by NL7 is on this point. It appeared while I was typing this answer.) You might find this Planet Money piece instructive on the process, costs, and risks of buying gold bullion (in the US). If you feel that you must own gold as an inflation hedge, and it is possible for residents of India, you would be best off with some kind of gold fund that tracks the price of bullion.\"",
"qid": 9979,
"docid": "327271",
"rank": 7,
"score": 145892
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: What you are seeing is the effects of inflation. As money becomes less valuable it takes more of it to buy physical things, be they commodities, shares in a company's stock, and peoples time (salaries). Just about the only thing that doesn't track inflation to some degree is cash itself or money in an account since that is itself what is being devalued. So the point of all this is, buying anything (a house, gold, stocks) that doesn't depreciate (a car) is something of a hedge against inflation. However, don't be tricked (as many are) into thinking that house just made you a tidy sum just because it went up in value so much over x years. Remember 1) All the other houses and things you'd spend the money on are a lot more expensive now too; and 2) You put a lot more money into a house than the mortgage payment (taxes, insurance, maintenance, etc.) I'm with the others though. Don't get caught up in the gold bubble. Doing so now is just speculation and has a lot of risk associated with it.",
"qid": 9979,
"docid": "31004",
"rank": 8,
"score": 143862
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Gold is not an investment. Gold is a form of money. It and silver have been used as money much longer than paper. Paper money is a relatively recent invention (less than 350 years old) with a horrible track record of preserving wealth. When I exchange my paper US dollars for gold I'm exchanging one form of money for another. US dollars, or US Federal Reserve Notes to be more precise, can be printed ad nauseam by one bank that is totally private and is never audited. Keeping all of your savings in US dollars is ignoring history, it is believing the US Federal Reserve has your best interest in mind, it is hoping that somehow things will be different this time, it is believing that the US dollar will somehow magically be the first fiat currency to last a person's lifetime. TIPS may seem like a good hedge against inflation. However, the government offering TIPS is also the same government that is calculating the inflation rate used to adjust TIPS. What a great deal. If you do some research you discover that the method for calculating the consumer price index is always \"\"modified\"\" since it is always found to over estimate inflation. It is never found to under estimate inflation. Imagine that. Here is a chart showing the inflation rate as if it were calculated the same way as it was calculated in 1980. Buying any government debt is also a way to guarantee you or your children will be taxed in the future since the government will have to obtain the money from someone to pay back bonds. It's like voting for future taxes.\"",
"qid": 9979,
"docid": "399751",
"rank": 9,
"score": 140571
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you want a concrete investment tip, precious metals (e.g. gold, silver) are on a pretty good run these days, personally I still think they have ways to go as there are just too many problems with modern monetary policy of an almost existential nature, and gold and silver are better stores of value than fiat money. Silver is particularly hot right now, but keep in mind that the increased volatility means increased risk. If the Fed keeps its foot on the pedals of the dollar printing press and we get QE3 this summer, that will most likely mean more people piling into the PMs to hedge against inflation. If the Fed starts to tighten it's policy then that's probably bad news for both equities and bonds and so PMs could be seen as a safe haven investment. These are the main reasons why PMs take up a good portion of my portfolio and will continue to do so untill I see how the global economy plays out over the next couple of years.",
"qid": 9979,
"docid": "502203",
"rank": 10,
"score": 135293
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The difference is in the interrelation between the varied investments you make. Hedging is about specifically offsetting a possible loss in an investment by making another related investment that will increase in value for the same reasons that the original investment would lose value. Gold, for instance, is often regarded as the ultimate hedge. Its value is typically inversely correlated to the rest of the market as a whole, because its status as a material, durable store of value makes it a preferred \"\"safe haven\"\" to move money into in times of economic downturn, when stock prices, bond yields and similar investments are losing value. That specific behavior makes investing in gold alongside stocks and bonds a \"\"hedge\"\"; the increase in value of gold as stock prices and bond yields fall limits losses in those other areas. Investment of cash in gold is also specifically a hedge against currency inflation; paper money, account balances, and even debt instruments like bonds and CDs can lose real value over time in a \"\"hot\"\" economy where there's more money than things to buy with it. By keeping a store of value in something other than currency, the price of that good will rise as the currencies used to buy it decrease in real value, maintaining your level of real wealth. Other hedges are more localized. One might, for example, trade oil futures as a hedge on a position in transportation stocks; when oil prices rise, trucking and airline companies suffer in the short term as their margins get squeezed due to fuel costs. Currency futures are another popular hedge; a company in international business will often trade options on the currencies of the companies it does business in, to limit the \"\"jitters\"\" seen in the FOREX spot market caused by speculation and other transient changes in market demand. Diversification, by contrast, is about choosing multiple unrelated investments, the idea being to limit losses due to a localized change in the market. Companies' stocks gain and lose value every day, and those companies can also go out of business without bringing the entire economy to its knees. By spreading your wealth among investments in multiple industries and companies of various sizes and global locations, you insulate yourself against the risk that any one of them will fail. If, tomorrow, Kroger grocery stores went bankrupt and shuttered all its stores, people in the regions it serves might be inconvenienced, but the market as a whole will move on. You, however, would have lost everything if you'd bet your retirement on that one stock. Nobody does that in the real world; instead, you put some of your money in Kroger, some in Microsoft, some in Home Depot, some in ALCOA, some in PG&E, etc etc. By investing in stocks that would be more or less unaffected by a downturn in another, if Kroger went bankrupt tomorrow you would still have, say, 95% of your investment next egg still alive, well and continuing to pay you dividends. The flip side is that if tomorrow, Kroger announced an exclusive deal with the Girl Scouts to sell their cookies, making them the only place in the country you can get them, you would miss out on the full possible amount of gains you'd get from the price spike if you had bet everything on Kroger. Hindsight's always 20/20; I could have spent some beer money to buy Bitcoins when they were changing hands for pennies apiece, and I'd be a multi-millionaire right now. You can't think that way when investing, because it's \"\"survivor bias\"\"; you see the successes topping the index charts, not the failures. You could just as easily have invested in any of the hundreds of Internet startups that don't last a year.\"",
"qid": 9979,
"docid": "314085",
"rank": 11,
"score": 135243
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Nothing necessarily has to \"\"benefit.\"\" Right now, what primarily drives demand for gold is its perceived use as a hedge against the inflation of fiat currency. I.e. when inflation strikes, the price of gold goes up rapidly. Thus, for a given currency, gold decreasing in price is almost always a signal that the currency is increasing in value. However, it may be that at some point in time people everywhere just decide that gold is no longer worth using as an inflation hedge, and thus the price collapses simply because demand collapsed. No corresponding \"\"benefit\"\".\"",
"qid": 9979,
"docid": "329023",
"rank": 12,
"score": 133699
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You mean in response to OP? Investors should buy physical gold and silver, and wait out the storm. The US Bond market is negative when you factor in inflation, that's a bubble that's going to burst eventually. Riding the gold horse will keep you high and dry. But if you mean in response to Fearan? I would say that the way to reduce income inequality is to stop all the market distortions and malinvestment due to regulations. The countries with the most income disparity are the ones with the most regulations.",
"qid": 9979,
"docid": "443397",
"rank": 13,
"score": 130988
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Gold is a risky and volatile investment. If you want an investment that's inflation-proof, you should buy index-linked government bonds in the currency that you plan to be spending the money in, assuming that government controls its own currency and has a good credit rating.",
"qid": 9979,
"docid": "10578",
"rank": 14,
"score": 130723
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"1) link? 2) It doesn't matter if they can or do, what matters is if they are *investing* (not trading) in it *more* than banks are investing in businesses. If that is the case (it is) then businesses as a whole will see the inflation first, and commodities will be playing catchup the entire time, but mostly when the investments hit recession. I will invest in the market again after they lose their mal-invested value, In historical terms the best time was to invest in them was 1980, 1938 and 1900, and the best time to get out was 1929 1960's and 2000. But to bet against them right now, with the dollar, is meaningless because the FED is deflating the currency as they go down, so it's like running on a treadmill. By holding silver I am essentially short the market, only difference is instead of holding a devaluing currency (cash) I'm holding a real money which is increasing in value. There's nothing simpler than \"\"investing\"\" in commodities for the long-term, people lose when they are making monthly/daily trades in them. Anyone who bought and held on to gold in 2000 did it for $300, and they've made infinitely more than the majority of people investing in blue chips (because they've lost value) and much more than those who invested in bonds. And that trend isn't going to stop unless the government lets the dollar deflate in which case the dollar will come to gold instead of the other way around. Until they are in equilibrium again. Historically the dow has an average of being 2 ounces of gold, peaking at 50 and trophing at .5. If it hits .5 again like it has everytime this occurs in the past. Then either gold will be $20000 or the dow will be 4000. You pick.\"",
"qid": 9979,
"docid": "464078",
"rank": 15,
"score": 129333
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"GLD, IAU, and SGOL are three different ETF's that you can invest in if you want to invest in gold without physically owning gold. Purchasing an ETF is just like purchasing a stock, so you're fine on that front. Another alternative is to buy shares of companies that mine gold. An example of a single company is Randgold Resources (GOLD), and an ETF of mining companies is GDX. There are also some more complex alternatives like Exchange traded notes and futures contracts, but I wouldn't classify those for the \"\"regular person.\"\" Hope it helps!\"",
"qid": 9979,
"docid": "538237",
"rank": 16,
"score": 128787
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The optimal down payment is 100%. The only way you would do anything else when you have the cash to buy it outright is to invest the remaining money to get a better return. When you compare investments, you need to take risk into account as well. When you make loan payments, you are getting a risk free return. You can't find a risk-free investment that pays as much as your car loan will be. If you think you can \"\"game the system\"\" by taking a 0% loan, then you will end up paying more for the car, since the financing is baked into the sales [price in those cases (there is no such thing as free money). If you pay cash, you have much more bargaining power. Buy the car outright (negotiating as hard as you can), start saving what you would have been making as a car payment as an emergency fund, and you'll be ahead of the game. For the inflation hedge - you need to find investments that act as an inflation hedge - taking a loan does not \"\"hedge\"\" against inflation since you'll still be paying interest regardless of the inflation rate. The fact that you'll be paying slightly less interest (in \"\"real\"\" terms) does not make it a hedge. To answer the actual question, if your \"\"reinvestment rate\"\" (the return you can get from investing the \"\"borrowed\"\" cash) is less than the interest rate, then the more you put down, the greater your present value (PV). If your reinvestment rate is less than the interest rate, then the less you put down the better (not including risk). When you incorporate risk, though, the additional return is probably not worth the risk. So there is no \"\"optimal\"\" down payment in between those mathematically - it will depend on how much liquid cash you need (knowing that every dollar that you borrow is costing you interest).\"",
"qid": 9979,
"docid": "470587",
"rank": 17,
"score": 125936
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Another answer to this question occurred to me as I started learning more about historical uses for gold etc. Perhaps it's a crackpot idea, but I'm going to float it anyway to see what you folks think. Investing in Gold is an indirect investment in the Economy and GDP of the nation of India. To that extent is it only a hedge against inflation, so long as the indian economy grows at a more rapid rate than your local inflation rate. Fact, India currently consumes more than 1/3 of gold production, predominantly in the form of Jewelry. And their demand has been growing rapidly, up 69% just between 2009 and 2010 alone. I can't find too many historial consumption numbers for India, but when you look at past articles on this subject, you see phrases like 'one forth' and '20%' being used only a few years go to describe India's consumption levels. Fact, India has virtually no domestic sources of gold. India’s handful of gold mines produce about 2.5 tonnes of the metal each year, a fraction of the country’s annual consumption of about 800 tonnes. Fact. Indian Culture places high value on gold as a visible demonstration of wealth. Particularly in situations such In Indian weddings where the bride brings in gold to show her family's status and wealth and it forms part of the dowry given to bride. It is believed that a bride wearing 24k gold on their wedding to bring luck and happiness throughout the married life. Fact, the recent trends in outsourcing, Indian citizens working abroad sending money home, etc have all lead to a influx of foreign cash to the Indian economy and explosive GDP growth. See the following chart and compare the period of 2000-current with a chart showing the price of gold in other answer here. Notice how the curves parallel each other to a large degree Potentially unfounded conclusion drawn from above numbers. The rapid growth of the Indian economy, coupled with a rich cultural tradition that values gold as a symbol of wealth, along with a sudden rise in 'wealthy' people due to the economy and influx of foreign cash, has resulted in skyrocketing demand for gold from India, and this large 'consumption' demand is the most likely explanation for the sudden rise in the price of gold over the last several years. Investors then jump on the 'rising price bandwagon' as especially does anyone that can make a profit from selling gold to those seeking to get on said bandwagon. As such, as long as indian cultural tradition remains unchanged, and their economy remains strong, the resulting increasing demand for gold will sustain current and perhaps increased prices. Should there be any sudden collapse in the Indian GDP, gold will likely tumble in parallel. disclaimer: not an expert, just observations based off the data I've seen, there may be other parts to the picture of 'gold demand' that I've not considered.",
"qid": 9979,
"docid": "565782",
"rank": 18,
"score": 125652
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I've mostly seen this term peddled by those with large portfolios in gold/commodities. The incentive for these guys, who for example may have a large portfolio in gold, is to drive demand for gold up - which in turn drives the value of the gold they're holding up and makes their assets more valuable. The easiest way to get a large amount of people to invest in gold is to scare them into thinking the whole market is going to fall apart and that gold is their best/only option. I personally think that the path we're on is not particularly sustainable and that we're heading for a large correction/recession anyways - but for other reasons. **Example:** [Peter Shiff YouTube Channel called \"\"The Economist\"\" with conspiracy videos](https://www.youtube.com/user/PeterSchiffChannel/videos) [Actual \"\"The Economist\"\" magazine researching the market](https://www.youtube.com/user/EconomistMagazine/videos) (edit: formatting)\"",
"qid": 9979,
"docid": "149988",
"rank": 19,
"score": 124645
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: He's made a profit on gold the same way you make money on any commodity, because demand (largely as an inflation hedge) has outpaced supply. It has nothing to do with using gold as a currency (which no one is doing.) I'm not saying gold can't have value as money, but that's not where we're at right now. Dollars are accepted to settle transactions all over the world, and inflation is negligible. A lot of speculators buying gold that sits in vaults is not the same thing as a return to specie based currency.",
"qid": 9979,
"docid": "151867",
"rank": 20,
"score": 124602
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Gold is a commodity. It has a tracked price and can be bought and sold as such. In its physical form it represents something real of signifigant value that can be traded for currency or barted. A single pound of gold is worth about 27000 dollars. It is very valuable and it is easily transported as opposed to a car which loses value while you transport it. There are other metals that also hold value (Platinum, Silver, Copper, etc) as well as other commodities. Platinum has a higher Value to weight ratio than gold but there is less of a global quantity and the demand is not as high. A gold mine is an investement where you hope to take out more in gold than it cost to get it out. Just like any other business. High gold prices simply lower your break even point. TIPS protects you from inflation but does not protect you from devaluation. It also only pays the inflation rate recoginized by the Treasury. There are experts who believe that the fed has understated inflation. If these are correct then TIPS is not protecting its investors from inflation as promised. You can also think of treasury bonds as an investment in your government. Your return will be effectively determined by how they run their business of governing. If you believe that the government is doing the right things to help promote the economy then investing in their bonds will help them to be able to continue to do so. And if consumers buy the bonds then the treasury does not have to buy any more of its own.",
"qid": 9979,
"docid": "174002",
"rank": 21,
"score": 122349
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: From Wikipedia: Investment has different meanings in finance and economics. In Finance investment is putting money into something with the expectation of gain, that upon thorough analysis, has a high degree of security for the principal amount, as well as security of return, within an expected period of time. In contrast putting money into something with an expectation of gain without thorough analysis, without security of principal, and without security of return is speculation or gambling. The second part of the question can be addressed by analyzing the change in gold price vs inflation year by year over the long term. As Chuck mentioned, there are periods in which it didn't exceed inflation. More important, over any sufficiently long length of time the US stock market will outperform. Those who bought at the '87 peak aren't doing too bad, yet those who bought in the last gold bubble haven't kept up with inflation. $850 put into gold at the '80 top would inflate today to $2220 per the inflation calculator. You can find with a bit of charting some periods where gold outpaced inflation, and some where it missed. Back to the definition of investment. I think gold fits speculation far better than it does investment. I've heard the word used in ways I'd disagree with, spend what you will on the shoes, but no, they aren't an investment, I tell my wife. The treadmill purchase may improve my health, and people may use the word colloquially, but it's not an investment.",
"qid": 9979,
"docid": "156672",
"rank": 22,
"score": 120779
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Okay - but that's about gold as an investment in today's world, and during an extremely unstable financial situation. Many other types of investments could be used similarly. Those who advocate gold as a hedge don't advocate buying it during a crisis, they advocate keeping some as part of an investment strategy... but again, that's gold as gold, not gold as currency. Leveraging your investments based on current financial situations is what investing is about. Gold as a medium for currency is a totally different thing. What you just described would be called \"\"arbitrage\"\" - in moving markets (or other situations I guess) looking for no-lose situations where you can trade things around and increase your net value doing it. it helps stabilize markets - as people take advantage of this situation it counters the effect and self-corrects... think about it ;)\"",
"qid": 9979,
"docid": "572670",
"rank": 23,
"score": 118672
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"A good time to invest in gold WAS about ten years ago, when it had reached a 20-year bottom around $300 an ounce. That's when I was buying (gold stocks, not physical gold). Since then, it's gone up 5-6 times in ten years. It might continue to go up of course, but it also has long way down to go, because it has come up \"\"too far, too fast.\"\" I have since sold my gold stocks. Alternatives to gold include other metals such as silver and copper (which actually belong in the same chemical family) as well as platinum and palladium. But they, too, have run up a lot in price over the past ten years.\"",
"qid": 9979,
"docid": "380061",
"rank": 24,
"score": 118510
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: They wont let it collapse, they will devalue it over time to some effect via bailouts and borrowing. Invest in commodities so your cash retains its value, physical gold is always strong. Other currencies are an option but this is more of a gamble.",
"qid": 9979,
"docid": "506780",
"rank": 25,
"score": 117297
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Currency hedge means that you are somewhat protected from movements in currency as your investment is in gold not currency. So this then becomes less speculative and concentrates more on your intended investment. EDIT The purpose of the GBSE ETF is aimed for investors living in Europe wanting to invest in USD Gold and not be effected by movements in the EUR/USD. The GBSE ETF aims to hedge against the effects of the currency movements in the EUR/USD and more closely track the USD Gold price. The 3 charts below demonstrate this over the past 5 years. So as is demonstrated the performance of the GBSE ETF closely matches the performance of the USD Gold price rather than the EUR Gold price, meaning someone in Europe can invest in the fund and get the appropriate similar performance as investing directly into the USD Gold without being affected by currency exchange when changing back to EUR. This is by no way speculative as the OP suggests but is in fact serving the purpose as per the ETF details.",
"qid": 9979,
"docid": "111451",
"rank": 26,
"score": 116438
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The difficulty with investing in mining and gold company stocks is that they are subject to the same market forces as any other stocks, although they may whether those forces better in a crisis than other stocks do because they are related to gold, which has always been a \"\"flight to safety\"\" move for investors. Some investors buy physical gold, although you don't have to take actual delivery of the metal itself. You can leave it with the broker-dealer you buy it from, much the way you don't have your broker send you stock certificates. That way, if you leave the gold with the broker-dealer (someone reputable, of course, like APMEX or Monex) then you can sell it quickly if you choose, just like when you want to sell a stock. If you take delivery of a security (share certificate) or commodity (gold, oil, etc.) then before you can sell it, you have to return it to broker, which takes time. The decision has much to do with your investing objectives and willingness to absorb risk. The reason people choose mutual funds is because their money gets spread around a basket of stocks, so if one company in the fund takes a hit it doesn't wipe out their entire investment. If you buy gold, you run the risk (low, in my opinion) of seeing big losses if, for some reason, gold prices plummet. You're \"\"all in\"\" on one thing, which can be risky. It's a judgment call on your part, but that's my two cents' worth.\"",
"qid": 9979,
"docid": "427890",
"rank": 27,
"score": 116300
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Investing $100k into physical gold (bars or coins) is the most prudent option; given the state of economic turmoil worldwide. Take a look at the long term charts; they're pretty self explanatory. Gold has an upward trend for 100+ years. http://www.goldbuyguide.com/price/ A more high risk/high reward investment would be to buy $100k of physical silver. Silver has a similar track record and inherent benefits of gold. Yet, with a combination of factors that could make it even more bull than gold (ie- better liquidity, industrial demand). Beyond that, you may want to look at other commodities such as oil and agriculture. The point is, this is troubled times for worldwide economies. Times like this you want to invest in REAL things like commodities or companies that are actually producing essential materials.",
"qid": 9979,
"docid": "487817",
"rank": 28,
"score": 115598
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Trying to engage in arbitrage with the metal in nickels (which was actually worth more than a nickel already, last I checked) is cute but illegal, and would be more effective at an industrial scale anyway (I don't think you could make it cost-effective at an individual level). There are more effective inflation hedges than nickels and booze. Some of them even earn you interest. You could at least consider a more traditional commodities play - it's certainly a popular strategy these days. A lot of people shoot for gold, as it's a traditional hedge in a crisis, but there are concerns that particular market is overheated, so you might consider alternatives to that. Normal equities (i.e. the stock market) usually work out okay in an inflationary environment, and can earn you a return as they're doing so.... and it's not like commodities aren't volatile and subject to the whims of the world economy too. TIPs (inflation-indexed Treasury bonds) are another option with less risk, but also a weaker return (and still have interest rate risks involved, since those aren't directly tied to inflation either).",
"qid": 9979,
"docid": "488326",
"rank": 29,
"score": 115579
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Without getting into whether you should invest in Gold or Not ... 1.Where do I go and make this purchase. I would like to get the best possible price. If you are talking about Physical Gold then Banks, Leading Jewelry store in your city. Other options are buying Gold Mutual Fund or ETF from leading fund houses. 2.How do I assure myself of quality. Is there some certificate of quality/purity? This is mostly on trust. Generally Banks and leading Jewelry stores will not sell of inferior purity. There are certain branded stores that give you certificate of authenticity 3.When I do choose to sell this commodity, when and where will I get the best cost? If you are talking about selling physical gold, Jewelry store is the only place. Banks do not buy back the gold they sold you. Jewelry stores will buy back any gold, however note there is a buy price and sell price. So if you buy 10 g and sell it back immediately you will not get the same price. If you have purchased Mutual Funds / ETF you can sell in the market.",
"qid": 9979,
"docid": "212157",
"rank": 30,
"score": 115054
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You have currency risk either way. The only question is deal with it now or later. No one can tell you which action is better until we look at it in hindsight. You could hedge and move some now, some later. Invest your USD in US equities and move some to EUR and invest that in EUR companies. I'd suggest having your money in the same currency as where you are living, since for the most part, you'll be in the same boat as your peers and neighbors. If you have high inflation, so will your friends and neighbors and you won't feel so bad. And if your currency gets stronger, then so will the currency of the people you are hanging out with. It's similar to betting on Don't Pass in craps. If you bet against the rest of the table, you could win when they lose, but then all your friends will be sad and you'll be happy. And vice versa, when your friends are high-fiving, you'll be in the dumps. I'd say it's better to be in the same boat as your peers since that's usually how we judge our happiness when we compare our situation to others.",
"qid": 9979,
"docid": "146142",
"rank": 31,
"score": 113824
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Article summation: You may have enjoyed that 30% last year and 6% first half this year, but inflation is almost at 2% and we expect inflationary hedges and non-US-dollar investments to outperform. My response: Hahaha, what? Is he even looking at his own numbers? Since when did 2% inflation \"\"trump\"\" 6, 12, or 30% growth? He can't seriously be implying that people should run to gold...\"",
"qid": 9979,
"docid": "525193",
"rank": 32,
"score": 112864
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I think most financial planners or advisors would allocate zero to a gold-only fund. That's probably the mainstream view. Metals investments have a lot of issues, more elaboration here: What would be the signs of a bubble in silver? Also consider that metals (and commodities, despite a recent drop) are on a big run-up and lots of random people are saying they're the thing to get in on. Usually this is a sign that you might want to wait a bit or at least buy gradually. The more mainstream way to go might be a commodities fund or all-asset fund. Some funds you could look at (just examples, not recommendations) might include several PIMCO funds including their commodity real return and all-asset; Hussman Strategic Total Return; diversified commodities index ETFs; stuff like that has a lot of the theoretical benefits of gold but isn't as dependent on gold specifically. Another idea for you might be international bonds (or stocks), if you feel US currency in particular is at risk. Oh, and REITs often come up as an inflation-resistant asset class. I personally use diversified funds rather than gold specifically, fwiw, mostly for the same reason I'd buy a fund instead of individual stocks. 10%-ish is probably about right to put into this kind of stuff, depending on your overall portfolio and goals. Pure commodities should probably be less than funds with some bonds, stocks, or REITs, because in principle commodities only track inflation over time, they don't make money. The only way you make money on them is rebalancing out of them some when there's a run up and back in when they're down. So a portfolio with mostly commodities would suck long term. Some people feel gold's virtue is tangibility rather than being a piece of paper, in an apocalypse-ish scenario, but if making that argument I think you need physical gold in your basement, not an ETF. Plus I'd argue for guns, ammo, and food over gold in that scenario. :-)",
"qid": 9979,
"docid": "190772",
"rank": 33,
"score": 112573
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You might want to just keep it in cash. For one step further you could do an even split of USD, EUR and silver. USD hedges against loss of value in the euro, precious metal hedges against a global financial problem. Silver over gold because of high gold:silver ratio is high. You could lose money this way. There are some bad things that can happen that will make your portfolio fall, but there are also many bad things that can happen that would result in no change or gain. With careful trades in stocks and even more aggressive assets, you could conceivably see large returns. But since you're novice, you won't be able to make these trades, and you'll just lose your investment. Ordinarily, novices can buy an S&P ETF and enjoy decent return (7-8% annual on average) at reasonable risk, but that only works if you stay invested for many years. In the short term, S&P can crash pretty badly, and stay low for a year or more. If you can just wait it out, great (it has always recovered eventually), but if some emergency forces you to take the money out you'd have to do so at a big loss. Lately, the index has shown signs of being overvalued. If you buy it now, you could luck out and be 10-15% up in a year, but you could also end up 30% down - not a very favorable risk/reward rate. Which is why I would hold on to my cash until it does crash (or failing that, starts looking more robust again) and then think about investing.",
"qid": 9979,
"docid": "170594",
"rank": 34,
"score": 112413
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I will just try to come up with a totally made up example, that should explain the dynamics of the hedge. Consider this (completely made up) relationship between USD, EUR and Gold: Now lets say you are a european wanting to by 20 grams of Gold with EUR. Equally lets say some american by 20 grams of Gold with USD. Their investment will have the following values: See how the europeans return is -15.0% while the american only has a -9.4% return? Now lets consider that the european are aware that his currency may be against him with this investment, so he decides to hedge his currency. He now enters a currency-swap contract with another person who has the opposite view, locking in his EUR/USD at t2 to be the same as at t0. He now goes ahead and buys gold in USD, knowing that he needs to convert it to EUR in the end - but he has fixed his interestrate, so that doesn't worry him. Now let's take a look at the investment: See how the european now suddenly has the same return as the American of -9.4% instead of -15.0% ? It is hard in real life to create a perfect hedge, therefore you will most often see that the are not totally the same, as per Victors answer - but they do come rather close.",
"qid": 9979,
"docid": "145816",
"rank": 35,
"score": 112275
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"There are gold index funds. I'm not sure what you mean by \"\"real gold\"\". If you mean you want to buy physical gold, you don't need to. The gold index funds will track the price of gold and will keep you from filling your basement up with gold bars. Gold index funds will buy gold and then issue shares for the gold they hold. You can then buy and sell these just like you would buy and sell any share. GLD and IAU are the ticker symbols of some of these funds. I think it is also worth pointing out that historically gold has a been a poor investment.\"",
"qid": 9979,
"docid": "326858",
"rank": 36,
"score": 111650
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Stocks are regarded as an inflation hedge because when your money is worth less, everything else is worth more. i.e. Stocks are more expensive (go up) simply because your money is worth less, but not because of better earnings across individual companies. So that general idea can effect sentiment, whereby if everyone believes it then more people buy stocks if they think there will be a lot of inflation. But it doesn't explain actual behavior (whether \"\"more\"\" people buy, hold or sell.) It's worth noting that individual companies and stocks also may be adversely affected by inflation, since their own assets or accounting may already be outside of the currency and/or they may already be engaging in their own hedging.\"",
"qid": 9979,
"docid": "336532",
"rank": 37,
"score": 111602
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I think the primary reason it is so pricey now is that it is an inflation hedge, and considering how shaky the economies and out of control the spending is in many countries right now, people are running to it as a safe harbor. The increased demand raises the price as it does with any asset. This brings us to the titular question. Why does gold have value? The same reason anything has value. There is someone out there who wants it enough to trade something else of value to get it. It is in the news so much because it is so high right now, which unfortunately is going to cause a lot of people to foolishly invest in it at likely the worst possible time.",
"qid": 9979,
"docid": "548676",
"rank": 38,
"score": 110856
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Best thing to do is convert your money into something that will retain value. Currency is a symbol of wealth, and can be significantly devalued with inflation. Something such as Gold or Silver might not allow you to see huge benefit, but its perhaps the safest bet (gold in particular, as silver is more volatile), as mentioned above, yes you do pay a little above spot price and receive a little below spot when and if you sell, but current projections for both gold and silver suggest that you won't lose money at least. Safe bet. Suggesting it is a bad idea at this time is just silly, and goes against the majority of advisers out there.",
"qid": 9979,
"docid": "235322",
"rank": 39,
"score": 110213
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Huh? I don't see how this effects inflation in practice.... (only in theory) Basically, I sell short end bonds and buy longer end bonds pocketing the difference in yield and increasing my duration. GLD and mining are hedges against inflation, markets are stupidly short term looking and care only about current expectations, if the current macro situation deteoriates we see prices fall.",
"qid": 9979,
"docid": "174302",
"rank": 40,
"score": 109608
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I don't think there is a recession proof investment.Every investment is bound to their ups and downs. If you buy land, a change in law can change the whole situation it may become worthless, same applies for home as well. Gold - dependent on world economy. Stock - dependent on world economy Best way is to stay ever vigilant of world around you and keep shuffling from one investment to another balance out your portfolio. \"\"The most valuable commodity I know of is information.\"\" - Wall Street -movie\"",
"qid": 9979,
"docid": "70575",
"rank": 41,
"score": 108970
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"And you have hit the nail on the head of holding gold as an alternative to liquid currency. There is simply no way to reliably buy and sell physical gold at the spot price unless you have millions of dollars. Exhibit A) The stock symbol GLD is an ETF backed by gold. Its shares are redeemable for gold if you have more than 100,000 shares then you can be assisted by an \"\"Authorized Participant\"\". Read the fund's details. Less than 100,000 shares? no physical gold for you. With GLD's share price being $155.55 this would mean you need to have over 15 million dollars, and be financially solvent enough to be willing to exchange the liquidity of shares and dollars for illiquid gold, that you wouldn't be able to sell at a fair price in smaller denominations. The ETF trades at a different price than the gold spot market, so you technically are dealing with a spread here too. Exhibit B) The futures market. Accepting delivery of a gold futures contract also requires that you get 1000 units of the underlying asset. This means 1000 gold bars which are currently $1,610.70 each. This means you would need $1,610,700 that you would be comfortable with exchanging for gold bars, which: In contrast, securitized gold (gold in an ETF, for instance) can be hedged very easily, and one can sell covered calls to negate transaction fees, hedge, and collect dividends from the fund. quickly recuperating any \"\"spread tax\"\" that you encounter from opening the position. Also, leverage: no bank would grant you a loan to buy 4 to 20 times more gold than you can actually afford, but in the stock market 4 - 20 times your account value on margin is possible and in the futures market 20 times is pretty normal (\"\"initial margin and maintenance margin\"\"), effectively bringing your access to the spot market for physical gold more so within reach. caveat emptor.\"",
"qid": 9979,
"docid": "48691",
"rank": 42,
"score": 108839
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"There's a few layers to the Momentum Theory discussed in that book. But speaking in general terms I can answer the following: Kind of. Assuming you understand that historically the Nasdaq has seen a little more volatility than the S&P. And, more importantly, that it tends to track the tech sector more than the general economy. Thus the pitfall is that it is heavily weighted towards (and often tracks) the performance of a few stocks including: Apple, Google (Alphabet), Microsoft, Amazon, Intel and Amgen. It could be argued this is counter intuitive to the general strategy you are trying to employ. This could be tougher to justify. The reason it is potentially not a great idea has less to do with the fact that gold has factors other than just risk on/off and inflation that affect its price (even though it does!); but more to do with the fact that it is harder to own gold and move in and out of positions efficiently than it is a bond index fund. For example, consider buying physical gold. To do so you have to spend some time evaluating the purchase, you are usually paying a slight premium above the spot price to purchase it, and you should usually also have some form of security or insurance for it. So, it has additional costs. Possibly worth it as part of a long-term investment strategy; if you believe gold will appreciate over a decade. But not so much if you are holding it for as little as a few weeks and constantly moving in and out of the position over the year. The same is true to some extent of investing in gold in the form of an ETF. At least a portion of \"\"their gold\"\" comes from paper or futures contracts which must be rolled every month. This creates a slight inefficiency. While possibly not a deal breaker, it would not be as attractive to someone trading on momentum versus fundamentals in my opinion. In the end though, I think all strategies are adaptable. And if you feel gold will be the big mover this year, and want to use it as your risk hedge, who am I or anyone else to tell you that you shouldn't.\"",
"qid": 9979,
"docid": "474129",
"rank": 43,
"score": 108819
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I listen to the JRE frequently (also Schiff's podcast). Peter Schiff is a gold bug so he's going to have some biases there and against crypto. He does have some very interesting things to say and I like the guy (I'm very familiar with him), but at the end of the day, he's a salesman. BTW, I'm diversified into physical metals myself, hold as a hedge against the dollar. Crypto/cashless is where things are going, but I think that's still a ways off. It's way too volatile right now to be used as money, it's filled with speculators hoping to make some easy money. Governments will want to track every transaction so they can tax it. Plus, if you can't take your money out (i.e., cash), they can easily take rates negative, and negative rates are already a reality abroad.",
"qid": 9979,
"docid": "153884",
"rank": 44,
"score": 108502
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"First of all, bear in mind that there's no such thing as a risk-free investment. If you keep your money in the bank, you'll struggle to get a return that keeps up with inflation. The same is true for other \"\"safe\"\" investments like government bonds. Gold and silver are essentially completely speculative investments; over the years their price tends to vary quite wildly, so unless you really understand how those markets work you should steer well clear. They're certainly not low risk. Repeatedly buying a property to sell in a couple of years time is almost certainly a bad idea; you'll end up paying substantial transaction fees each time that would wipe out a lot of the possible profit, and of course there's always the risk that prices would go down not up. Buying a property to keep - and preferably live in - might be a decent option once you have a good deposit saved up. It's very hard to say where prices will go in future, on the one hand London prices are very high by historical standards, but on the other hand supply is likely to remain severely constrained for years to come. I tend to think of a house as something that I need one of for the rest of my life, and so in one sense not owning a house to live in is a gamble that house prices and rents won't go up substantially. If you own a house, you're insulated from changes in rent etc and even if prices crash at least you still have somewhere to live. However that argument only works really well if you expect to keep living in the same area under most circumstances - house prices might crash in your area but not elsewhere.\"",
"qid": 9979,
"docid": "258048",
"rank": 45,
"score": 105070
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"In my opinion, you're in a precious metals \"\"bubble\"\" when rising prices are driven by the people's desire the own the commodity without a reason other than \"\"the market is going up\"\". Usually \"\"bubble\"\" markets are fueled by lots of debt. IMO, this isn't a bubble. I don't think that silver and gold values are shooting up like a rocket due to some orgy of speculation. In my opinion, citizens are losing faith in the government and in the value of money itself. If you have money to save, most banks pay less than 1%. The government claims that inflation is nonexistant -- the inflation rate on a US Series I Savings Bond was 0.37% in November 2010. Yet most people are noticing escalations in price in things that dominate their budget -- fuel, healthcare, local taxes and food. I bought a pound of store-brand butter for $3.99 yesterday... that was $0.99 4-5 years ago. People are seeing precious metals as a way to hedge against that. They're rational about it -- trying to protect assets is different than speculation. I think the question to ask is: \"\"Is the US Dollar's value a bubble?\"\"\"",
"qid": 9979,
"docid": "84414",
"rank": 46,
"score": 104715
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Platinum use is pretty heavily overweight in industrial areas; according to the linked Wikipedia article, 239 tonnes of platinum was sold in 2006, of which 130 tonnes went to vehicles emissions control devices and another 13.3 tonnes to electronics. Gold sees substantial use as an investment as well as to hedge against economical decline and inflation, with comparatively little industrial (\"\"real world\"\", as some put it) use. That is their principal difference from an investment point of view. According to Wikipedia's article on platinum, ... during periods of economic uncertainty, the price of platinum tends to decrease due to reduced industrial demand, falling below the price of gold. Gold prices are more stable in slow economic times, as gold is considered a safe haven and gold demand is not driven by industrial uses. If your investment scenario is a tanking world economy, for reason of its large industrial usage, I for one would not count on platinum to not fall in price. Of course gold may fall in price as well, but since it is not primarily an industrial use commodity, I would personally expect gold to do better in such a scenario.\"",
"qid": 9979,
"docid": "394791",
"rank": 47,
"score": 104682
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The point of what you heard is likely that gold is thought by some to hold its value well, when the money market would provide negative interest rates. These negative interest rates are a sign of deflation, where cash money is worth more in the future than it is today. Normally, under inflation, cash money is worth less in the future than it is today. Under 'normal' circumstances where inflation exists, interest paid by the bank on money held there generally keeps up with inflation + a little bit extra. Now, we are seeing many banks offering interest rates in the negatives, which is an acknowledgement of the fact that money will be worth more in the future than it is today. So in that sense, holding physical gold 'fights' deflation [or, negative interest rates], in the same way that holding physical cash does [because if you hold onto a $10k bundle of bills, in 10 years you can walk into a bank and it will be worth $10k in future dollars - which in a deflationary market would be more than it is worth today]. Some view gold as being better at doing this than just holding cash, but that discussion gets into an analysis of the value of paper money as a currency, which is outside the scope of this answer. Suffice to say, I do not personally like the idea of buying gold as an investment, but some do, and partly for this reason.",
"qid": 9979,
"docid": "30584",
"rank": 48,
"score": 103547
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"What is the best way that I can invest money so that I can always get returns? Would it be to set up an FD in a bank, to buy land, to buy a rental house, to buy a field, or maybe to purchase gold? Forever is a long time. Of the options you listed, the only one guaranteed to generate returns is a bank account. The returns may well be very small, but (absent an economy-wide financial failure) you will get the stated return. Land doesn't always retain its value, nor do rental houses or fields. Gold clearly fluctuates. But you would be better served to think about goals and how you can attain them. What do you want to do with the \"\"returns\"\"? If you are trying to set yourself up for purchasing a home, paying for college, or retirement, then the small returns on a bank account may be insufficient. And in that case you might be better served by worrying more about the size of the returns you need than the certainty of them. There may be many \"\"better investments\"\" if you more clearly define what you expect to achieve by your investment.\"",
"qid": 9979,
"docid": "2981",
"rank": 49,
"score": 103073
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Your plan already answers your own question in the best possible way: If you want to be able to make the most possible profit from a large downward move in a stock (in this case, a stock that tracks gold), with a limited, defined risk if there is an upward move, the optimal strategy is to buy a put option. There are a few Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs) that track the price of gold. think of them as stocks that behave like gold, essentially. Two good examples that have options are GLD and IAU. (When you talk about gold, you'll hear a lot about futures. Forget them, for now. They do the same essential thing for your purposes, but introduce more complexity than you need.) The way to profit from a downward move without protection against an upward move is by shorting the stock. Shorting stock is like the opposite of buying it. You make the amount of money the stock goes down by, or lose the amount it goes up by. But, since stocks can go up by an infinite amount, your possible loss is unlimited. If you want to profit on a large downward move without an unlimited loss if you're wrong and it goes up, you need something that makes money as the stock drops, but can only lose so much if it goes up. (If you want to be guaranteed to lose nothing, your best investment option is buying US Treasuries, and you're technically still exposed to the risk that US defaults on its debt, although if you're a US resident, you'll likely have bigger problems than your portfolio in that situation.) Buying a put option has the exact asymmetrical exposure you want. You pay a limited premium to buy it, and at expiration you essentially make the full amount that the stock has declined below the strike price, less what you paid for the option. That last part is important - because you pay a premium for the option, if it's down just a little, you might still lose some or all of what you paid for it, which is what you give up in exchange for it limiting your maximum loss. But wait, you might say. When I buy an option, I can lose all of my money, cant I? Yes, you can. Here's the key to understanding the way options limit risk as compared to the corresponding way to get \"\"normal\"\" exposure through getting long, or in your case, short, the stock: If you use the number of options that represent the number of shares you would have bought, you will have much, much less total money at risk. If you spend the same \"\"bag 'o cash\"\" on options as you would have spent on stock, you will have exposure to way more shares, and have the same amount of money at risk as if you bought the stock, but will be much more likely to lose it. The first way limits the total money at risk for a similar level of exposure; the second way gets you exposure to a much larger amount of the stock for the same money, increasing your risk. So the best answer to your described need is already in the question: Buy a put. I'd probably look at GLD to buy it on, simply because it's generally a little more liquid than IAU. And if you're new to options, consider the following: \"\"Paper trade\"\" first. Either just keep track of fake buys and sells on a spreadsheet, or use one of the many online services where you can track investments - they don't know or care if they're real or not. Check out www.888options.com. They are an excellent learning resource that isn't trying to sell you anything - their only reason to exist is to promote options education. If you do put on a trade, don't forget that the most frustrating pitfall with buying options is this: You can be basically right, and still lose some or all of what you invest. This happens two ways, so think about them both before you trade: If the stock goes in the direction you think, but not enough to make back your premium, you can still lose. So you need to make sure you know how far down the stock has to be to make back your premium. At expiration, it's simple: You need it to be below the strike price by more than what you paid for the option. With options, timing is everything. If the stock goes down a ton, or even to zero - free gold! - but only after your option expires, you were essentially right, but lose all your money. So, while you don't want to buy an option that's longer than you need, since the premium is higher, if you're not sure if an expiration is long enough out, it isn't - you need the next one. EDIT to address update: (I'm not sure \"\"not long enough\"\" was the problem here, but...) If the question is just how to ensure there is a limited, defined amount you can lose (even if you want the possible loss to be much less than you can potentially make, the put strategy described already does that - if the stock you use is at $100, and you buy a put with a 100 strike for $5, you can make up to $95. (This occurs if the stock goes to zero, meaning you could buy it for nothing, and sell it for $100, netting $95 after the $5 you paid). But you can only lose $5. So the put strategy covers you. If the goal is to have no real risk of loss, there's no way to have any real gain above what's sometimes called the \"\"risk-free-rate\"\". For simplicity's sake, think of that as what you'd get from US treasuries, as mentioned above. If the goal is to make money whether the stock (or gold) goes either up or down, that's possible, but note that you still have (a fairly high) risk of loss, which occurs if it fails to move either up or down by enough. That strategy, in its most common form, is called a straddle, which basically means you buy a call and a put with the same strike price. Using the same $100 example, you could buy the 100-strike calls for $5, and the 100-strike puts for $5. Now you've spent $10 total, and you make money if the stock is up or down by more than $10 at expiration (over 110, or under 90). But if it's between 90 and 100, you lose money, as one of your options will be worthless, and the other is worth less than the $10 total you paid for them both.\"",
"qid": 9979,
"docid": "69395",
"rank": 50,
"score": 102603
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"That's great that you have saved up money. You are ahead of your peers. I would advise against investing in an index fund. The attraction of the idea is that you will get the same return as the base item. For example, an index fund of gold would supposedly give you the same return as if you bought gold. In reality this is not true. The return of an index fund is always significantly below the return of the underlying commodity. Your best strategy is to invest in something you know and understand. There are two books that can help you learn how to do this: \"\"One Up on Wall Street\"\" by Peter Lynch and \"\"The Intelligent Investor\"\" by Benjamin Graham. Buying, reading and following the guidance in these two books is your best investment of time and money.\"",
"qid": 9979,
"docid": "14748",
"rank": 51,
"score": 102423
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Becoming a landlord is a pretty roundabout way to hedge against inflation. Why don't you research TIPs (Treasury Inflation Protected Securities (?)) Over the very long term, a house will just about match inflation, but no more. I observe that it (median home price) has remarkably tight correlation to the mortgage one can buy with a week's worth of median income based on the 30 year rate. In other words, strip out inflation, wage gains, and the effect of the 30 year rate peaking at 18%, then dropping to 4%, and home prices have flatlined for a century. I agree with mhoran. My answer is for the median, theoretical home. As they say, YMMV, your mileage may vary. As in, you can't have one.",
"qid": 9979,
"docid": "572061",
"rank": 52,
"score": 102371
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"There's too much here for one question. So no answer can possibly be comprehensive. I think little of gold for the long term. I go to MoneyChimp and see what inflation did from 1974 till now. $1 to $4.74. So $200 inflates to $950 or so. Gold bested that, but hardly stayed ahead in a real way. The stock market blew that number away. And buying gold anytime around the 1980 runup would still leave you behind inflation. As far as housing goes, I have a theory. Take median income, 25% of a month's pay each month. Input it as the payment at the going 30yr fixed rate mortgage. Income rises a bit faster than inflation over time, so that line is nicely curved slightly upward (give or take) but as interest rates vary, that same payment buys you far more or less mortgage. When you graph this, you find the bubble in User210's graph almost non-existent. At 12% (the rate in '85 or so) $1000/mo buys you $97K in mortgage, but at 5%, $186K. So over the 20 years from '85 to 2005, there's a gain created simply by the fact that money was cheaper. No mania, no bubble (not at the median, anyway) just the interest rate effect. Over the same period, inflation totaled 87%. So the same guy just keeping up with inflation in his pay could then afford a house that was 3.5X the price 20 years prior. I'm no rocket scientist, but I see few articles ever discussing housing from this angle. To close my post here, consider that homes have grown in size, 1.5%/yr on average. So the median new home quoted is actually 1/3 greater in size in 2005 than in '85. These factors all need to be normalized out of that crazy Schiller-type* graph. In the end, I believe the median home will always tightly correlate to the \"\"one week income as payment.\"\" *I refer here to the work of professor Robert Schiller partner of the Case-Schiller index of home prices which bears his name.\"",
"qid": 9979,
"docid": "463230",
"rank": 53,
"score": 102127
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: When I play Railroad Tycoon III, I often send my company deep into debt to get cash on hand to buy back shares, effectively increasing my ownership of the company as an absolute percentage. Then I issue massive dividends until my company goes bankrupt, and start a new company. It's a way to shuttle money borrowed against a company's assets into my personal bank account at no risk to me. In the MSFT case, maybe they think there will be inflation and this is a hedge against holding so many dollars in cash already. If they can borrow a couple billion in 2010 dollars and pay it back in 2015 dollars, they're probably going to end up ahead if all they do is buy back shares. Paying dividends with the money seems stupid vs. buying back shares - they're just driving up income taxes for investors.",
"qid": 9979,
"docid": "552562",
"rank": 54,
"score": 101647
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The only way to hedge a position is to take on a countervailing position with a higher multiplier as any counter position such as a 1:1 inverse ETF will merely cancel out the ETF it is meant to hedge yielding a negative return roughly in the amount of fees & slippage. For true risk-aversion, continually selling the shortest term available covered calls is the only free lunch. A suboptimal version, the CBOE BuyWrite Index, has outperformed its underlying with lower volatility. The second best way is to continually hedge positions with long puts, but this can become very tax-complicated since the hedged positions need to be rebalanced continually and expensive depending on option liquidity. The ideal, assuming no taxes and infinite liquidity, is to sell covered calls when implied volatility is high and buy puts when implied volatility is low.",
"qid": 9979,
"docid": "346389",
"rank": 55,
"score": 101619
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: There are several ways to protect against (or even profit from) a market correction. Hedge funds do this by hedging, that is, buying a stock that they think is strong and selling short a paired stock that is weak. If you hold, say, a strong retail company in your portfolio, you might sell short an equal weight of a weak retail company. These are like buying insurance on your portfolio. If you own 300 shares of XYZ, currently trading at $68, you buy puts at a level at a strike price that lets you sleep at night. For example, you might buy 3 XYZ 6-month puts with a strike price of $60. A disadvantage is that the puts are wasting assets, that is, their time premium (which you paid for at the outset) becomes zero at expiration. (This is why it is like insurance. You wouldn't complain that your insurance premium was lost when you purchase insurance on your house and the house doesn't burn down, would you? Of course not. The purpose of the insurance is to protect your investment.) Note that as these puts are married, they only protect your portfolio. Instead of profiting from a correction, you would merely protect your portfolio during a correction. (No small feat!) If your portfolio is similar to the market, you can buy S&P index puts. If your market reflects a lot of technology, you can buy technology sector puts. Say you have a portfolio of $80K that reflects the market. You could buy out-of-the-market puts (again reflecting your tolerance for loss). Any losses in your portfolio after the puts go in-the-money would be (more or less) offset by gains in the puts. An advantage is that the bid/ask spread is smaller for the S&P. You would pay less for the protection. Also, the S&P puts are cash settled (meaning you get money put in your account on the business day after expiration day). A disadvantage is that the puts do not linearly go up as the market drops. (Delta hedging is a big deal in and of itself.) Another disadvantage is that they are wasting assets (see the Married puts section, previous). While the S&P puts can be used to maintain your market portfolio in the midst of a correction, you could purchase more puts than needed. If you had correctly timed the market, then your portfolio with puts would increase. (Your mileage may vary; some have predicted an imminent market crash way too often.) Collars involve selling out-of-the-money calls and using the premiums to buy out-of-the-money puts. There are many varieties of collars, but the most straightforward is to sell 1 call and buy 1 put for every 100 shares. (This can also be done for index puts and calls.) This has the effect of simultaneously: You get your insurance for almost free. But again, it is protecting your portfolio. As the name implies, you make money when the market goes bearish. Bear put spreads involve buying puts at a close strike price and selling an equal number of puts at a lower strike price than the first. You have a defined maximum loss (the premium you paid for the higher put minus the premium you received for the lower put). You have a defined maximum gain (the difference between strikes minus the defined maximum loss). Buy S&P 500 index puts. If you buy deep out-of-the-money puts, it won't cost much, but you have little probability of it paying off. But if they go in-the-money, there could be a sizable payoff. This is similar to putting one chip on red 18 on the roulette wheel. But rather than paying off 35:1, it is a variable payoff. If you're $1 in the money, you just get $100. If you're $12 in the money, you have a $1200 payoff. If you buy at-the-money puts, it will cost a lot, and your probability will be about 1 in 2 that you will pay off. In our roulette analogy, this is like putting 30 chips on the Even bet of the roulette wheel. The variable payoff is as in the previous paragraph. But you're more likely to get a payoff. And you will lose it all of the roulette ball lands on an Odd number, 0, or 00. (That is, the underlying of your put goes up or stays the same.) If your research shows you what good stocks to buy, it may also tell you which stocks are ripe for a fall. You could short-sell these stocks or buy puts on them. Similar to short-selling stocks or buying puts, you could sell short overpriced sectors or buy puts on them. There are ETFs that will allow you benefit from falling prices without needing to have a margin agreement or options agreement in place. Sorry to have a lengthy answer. Many other answers emphasize that one shouldn't try to time the market. But that is not the OP's question. Provided here are both:",
"qid": 9979,
"docid": "230666",
"rank": 56,
"score": 101482
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The simplest way is to invest in a few ETFs, depending on your tolerance for risk; assuming you're very short-term risk tolerant you can invest almost all in a stock ETF like VOO or VTI. Stock market ETFs return close to 10% (unadjusted) over long periods of time, which will out-earn almost any other option and are very easy for a non-finance person to invest in (You don't trade actively - you leave the money there for years). If you want to hedge some of your risk, you can also invest in Bond funds, which tend to move up in stock market downturns - but if you're looking for the long term, you don't need to put much there. Otherwise, try to make sure you take advantage of tax breaks when you can - IRAs, 401Ks, etc.; most of those will have ETFs (whether Vanguard or similar) available to invest in. Look for funds that have low expense ratios and are fairly diversified (ie, don't just invest in one small sector of the economy); as long as the economy continues to grow, the ETFs will grow.",
"qid": 9979,
"docid": "566069",
"rank": 57,
"score": 101482
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If it gets bad enough that banks start failing, you probably will have a hard time accessing overseas accounts. That's real SHTF stuff. If so, lighters and toilet paper are probably the best investment you can make besides canned and dried food. Update: Complete breakdown of society is far more likely than the paranoid fantasy of Trump establishing an authoritarian government. The general population would rise up and you would find the civil unrest portion to be important. As for lighters and toilet paper, think about it for a minute. If you've got a case of food in cans but no way to heat them, would you trade a can for a lighter? Two cans? And toilet paper would be worth its weight in gold after about 2 months. If you really want to be a prepper, seeds, medicine, are all good things, but the really important thing to have is skills. Know how to hunt, clean an animal, tend a garden, clean and dress a wound. Having gold and diamonds would be a decent hedge for a fraction of your investments.",
"qid": 9979,
"docid": "289175",
"rank": 58,
"score": 101307
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I think this is a good question with no single right answer. For a conservative investor, possible responses to low rates would be: Probably the best response is somewhere in the middle: consider riskier investments for a part of your portfolio, but still hold on to some cash, and in any case do not expect great results in a bad economy. For a more detailed analysis, let's consider the three main asset classes of cash, bonds, and stocks, and how they might preform in a low-interest-rate environment. (By \"\"stocks\"\" I really mean mutual funds that invest in a diversified mixture of stocks, rather than individual stocks, which would be even riskier. You can use mutual funds for bonds too, although diversification is not important for government bonds.) Cash. Advantages: Safe in the short term. Available on short notice for emergencies. Disadvantages: Low returns, and possibly inflation (although you retain the flexibility to move to other investments if inflation increases.) Bonds. Advantages: Somewhat higher returns than cash. Disadvantages: Returns are still rather low, and more vulnerable to inflation. Also the market price will drop temporarily if rates rise. Stocks. Advantages: Better at preserving your purchasing power against inflation in the long term (20 years or more, say.) Returns are likely to be higher than stocks or bonds on average. Disadvantages: Price can fluctuate a lot in the short-to-medium term. Also, expected returns are still less than they would be in better economic times. Although the low rates may change the question a little, the most important thing for an investor is still to be familiar with these basic asset classes. Note that the best risk-adjusted reward might be attained by some mixture of the three.\"",
"qid": 9979,
"docid": "127689",
"rank": 59,
"score": 101166
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: As far as trading is concerned, these forward curves are the price at which you can speculate on the future value of the commodity. Basically, if you want to speculate on gold, you can either buy the physical and store it somewhere (which may have significant costs) or you can buy futures (ETFs typically hold futures or hold physical and store it for you). If you buy futures, you will have to roll your position every month, meaning you sell the current month's futures and buy the next month's. However, these may not be trading at the same price, so each time you roll your position, you face a risk. If you know you want to hold gold for exactly 1 year, then you can buy a 1-year future, which in this case according to your graph will cost you about $10 more than buying the front month. The forward curve (or sometimes called the futures term structure) represents the prices at which gold can be bought or sold at various points in the future.",
"qid": 9979,
"docid": "394886",
"rank": 60,
"score": 100378
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Nobody can give you a definitive answer. To those who suggest it's expensive at these prices, [I'd point to this chart](http://treo.typepad.com/.a/6a0120a6002285970c014e8c39f2c3970d-850wi) showing the price of gold versus the global money supply over the past decade or so. It's not conclusive, but it's evidence that gold tracks the money supply relatively well. There might be a bit of risk premium baked in that it would shed in a stable economy, but that premium is unknowable. It's also (imo) probably worth the protection it provides. In an inflationary scenario (Euro devaluation) gold will hold its buying power very well. It also fares well in a deflationary environment, just not quite as well as holding physical currency. Note that in such an environment, bank defaults are a big danger: that 50k might only be safe under your mattress (rather than in a fractionally reserved bank account). If you're buying gold, certificates aren't exactly a bad option, although there still exists the counterparty risk of the agent storing your gold, as well as political risk of the nation where it's being held. Buying physical bullion ameliorates these risks, but then you face the problem of protecting it. Safe deposit boxes, a home safe, or burying it in your backyard are all possible options. The merits of each, I'll leave as an exerice to the reader. Foreign currency might be a little bit better than the Euro, but as we've seen in the past year or so, the Swiss Franc has been devalued to match the Euro in the proverbial \"\"race to the bottom\"\". It's probably not much better than another fiat currency. I don't know anything about Norway. Edit: Depending on your time horizon, my personal opinion would be to put no less than 5-10% of your savings in a hard store of value (e.g. gold, silver, platinum). Depending on your risk appetite, you could probably stand to put a lot more into it, especially given the Eurozone turmoil. Of course, as with anything else, your mileage may vary, past performance does not guarantee future results, this is not investment advice, seek professional medical help if you experience an erection lasting longer than four hours.\"",
"qid": 9979,
"docid": "475539",
"rank": 61,
"score": 99553
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Since GLD is priced as 1/10 oz of gold, I'd call it the preferred way to buy if that's your desire. I believe gold is entering classic bubble territory. Caveat emptor. A comment brought me back to this question. My answer still applies, the ETF the best way to buy gold at the lowest transaction cost. The day I posted and expressed my 'bubble' concern, gold was $1746. Today, nearly 5 years later, it's $1350, a drop of 23%, plus an additional 2% of accumulated expenses. Note, GLD has a .4% annual expense. On the other hand, the S&P is up 80% from that time. In other words, $10K invested that day would be worth less than $7,700 had it been invested in gold, and $18,000 in stock. It would take a market crash, gold soaring or some combination of the two for gold to have been the right choice then. No one can predict short term movement of either the market or metals, my answer here wasn't prescient, just lucky.",
"qid": 9979,
"docid": "35633",
"rank": 62,
"score": 99519
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The issue with holding gold or silver is the liquidity of the asset. How are you going to unload on thousands of dollars of silver when you want to buy something? I dont think there will be hyperinflation period. It will be slow and solved politically eventually. If the dollar collapsed we would be in deep trouble. Investing in guns would likely be more profitable than silver and gold and in the anarchy you'd better believe someone will try to take your stash.",
"qid": 9979,
"docid": "291862",
"rank": 63,
"score": 99478
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"No, investing in gold is a bad idea. Gold at these prices is completely useless. There are many other precious metals that are far more useful. It seems highly unlikely you will make a large return and the downside is huge. If the world economy is stabilised gold will halve very quickly, perhaps more. A great piece of advice I have had while investing is \"\"if the shoe shine boy tells you to buy; sell\"\", i.e. when the general public think it is a good idea to invest in a certain product you have already missed the boat. You have missed the gold boat. Unfortunately most safe heavens are exhausted: chf, jpy, gold, etc. At the moment there aren't any safe places. NOK is probably your best bet but beware of intervention (see EURCHF around sep last year).\"",
"qid": 9979,
"docid": "573404",
"rank": 64,
"score": 99471
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Gold may have some \"\"intrinsic value\"\" but it cannot be accurately determined by investors by any known valuation techniques. In fact, if you were to apply the dividend discount model of John Burr Williams - a variation of which is the basis of Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) analysis and the basis of most valuation techniques - gold would have zero intrinsic value because it produces no cash flow. Legendary focus investor Warren Buffett argues that investing in gold is pure speculation because of the reason mentioned above. As others have mentioned, gold prices are affected by supply and demand, but the bigger influence on the price of gold is how the economy is. Gold is seen as a store of value because, according to some, it does not \"\"lose value\"\" unlike paper currency during inflation. In inflationary times, demand increases so gold prices do go up, which is why gold behaves similar to a commodity but has far less uses. It is difficult to argue whether or not gold gains or loses value because we can't determine the intrinsic value of gold, and anyone who attempts to justify any given price is pulling blinders over your eyes. It is indisputable that, over history, gold represents wealth and that in the past century and the last decade, gold prices rise in inflationary conditions as people dump dollars for gold, and it has fallen when the purchasing power of currency increases. Many investors have talked about a \"\"gold bubble\"\" by arguing that gold prices are inflated because of inflation and the Fed's money policy and that once interest rates rise, the money supply will contract and gold will fall, but again, nobody can say with any reasonable accuracy what the fair value of gold at any given point is. This article on seeking alpha: http://seekingalpha.com/article/112794-the-intrinsic-value-of-gold gives a quick overview, but it is also vague because gold can't be accurately priced. I wouldn't say that gold has zero intrinsic value because gold is not a business so traditional models are inappropriate, but I would say that gold *certainly * doesn't have a value of $1,500 and it's propped so high only because of investor expectation. In conclusion, I do not believe you can accurately state whether gold is undervalued or overvalued - you must make judgments based on what you think about the future of the market and of monetary policy, but there are too many variables to be accurate consistently.\"",
"qid": 9979,
"docid": "240894",
"rank": 65,
"score": 99372
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: It seems that you're interested in an asset which you can hold that would go up when the gold price went down. It seems like a good place to start would be an index fund, which invests in the general stock market. When the gold market falls, this would mainly affect gold mining companies. These do not make up a sizable portion of any index fund, which is invested broadly in the market. Unfortunately, in order to act on this, you would also have to believe that the stock market was a good investment. To test this theory, I looked at an ETF index fund which tracks the S&P 500, and compared it to an ETF which invests in gold. I found that the daily price movements of the stock market were positively correlated with the price of gold. This result was statistically significant. The weekly price movements of the stock market were also correlated with the price of gold. This result was also statistically significant. When the holding period was stretched to one month, there was still a positive relationship between the stock market's price moves and the price of gold. This result was not statistically significant. When the holding period was stretched to one year, there was a negative relationship between the price changes in the stock market and the price of gold. This result was not statistically significant, either.",
"qid": 9979,
"docid": "584633",
"rank": 66,
"score": 99288
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: In 2008, 10 year treasuries were up 20.1%, to gold's 4.96%. Respectfully, if I were certain if a market drop, I'd just short the market, easily done by shorting SPY or other index ETFs. If you wish to buy gold, the easiest and least expensive way is to buy an ETF, GLD to be specific. It trades like a stock, for what that's worth. There are those who would suggest this is not like buying gold, it's just 'paper'. I believe otherwise. It's a non leveraged, fully backed ETF. I try not to question other's political or religious beliefs or as it pertains to this ETF, their conspiracy theories.",
"qid": 9979,
"docid": "351362",
"rank": 67,
"score": 98990
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I assume you've looked into gold as an asset class (which is considered to be a good diversifier in your portfolio at about 5% of investments) because there are a lot of opinions around about that. But in terms of physical vs paper gold investment, my experience has been that they'll absolutely kill you on fees if you're not careful. I had a broker try and charge me $80/oz. They do it in the margins though, so they'll just sell at say $1,350 but buy at $1,200. Just make sure you either know the market price when you walk in and stick to your guns or lock in a price ahead of time.",
"qid": 9979,
"docid": "282501",
"rank": 68,
"score": 98910
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: People normally hold precious metals as a protection against the whole system going down: massive inflation, lawlessness, etc. If our whole government and financial system broke completely and we returned to a barter economy, then holding silver would likely turn out to be a good thing. However, precious metals are not very good hedges against individual calamity, like losing your job. They are costly and inconvenient to sell and the price of these metals fluctuates wildly, so you could end up wanting to sell just when the metal isn't worth much. I'd say having some precious metal isn't unreasonable, but it should not make up a major portion of one's total net worth. If you want protection against normal problems, especially as a person of limited means, start with an emergency savings account and paying down debt. That way fixed costs will be less likely to turn an unfortunate turn of events into a personal catastrophe.",
"qid": 9979,
"docid": "473965",
"rank": 69,
"score": 98891
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Unless you are buying a significant value of your goods in USD then the relative strength of USD versus your local currency will have little to no effect on what the value of your investments is worth to you. In fact only (de|in)flation will effect your purchasing power. If your investments are in your local currency and your future expenses (usage of the returns on the investments) will be in your local currency FX has no effect. To answer your question, however, since all investments involve flows of money there can be no investment (other than perhaps gold which is really a form of currency) that isn't bound to at least one currency. In general investments are expected to be valued against the investor's home currency (I tend to call it \"\"fund currency\"\" as I work with hedge funds) as the return on the investment will be paid out in the fund currency and returns will be compared on the same basis. If investments are to be made internationally then it is necessary to reduce, or \"\"hedge\"\" the exchange rate risk. This is normally done using FX swaps or futures that allow an exchange rate in the future to be locked in today. Far from being unbound from FX moves these derivatives are closely bound to any moves but crucially are bound in the opposite direction to the hoped for FX move. an example of this would be if I'm investing 100GBP (my local currency) in a US company XYZ corp which I expect to do well. Suppose I get 200USD for my 100GBP and so buy 1 * 200USD shares in XYZ. No matter what happens to XYZ stock any move in GBP/USD will affect my P&L so I buy a future that allows me to exchange 200USD for 100GBP in 6 month's time. If GBP rises I can sell the future and make money on both the higher exchange rate and the increase in XYZ corp. If GBP falls I can keep the future until maturity and exchange the 200USD from XYZ corp for 100GBP so I only take the foreign exchange hit on any profits. If I expect my profits to be 10USD I can even buy futures such that I can lock in the exchange rate for 110USD in 6 months so that I will lose even less of my profit from the exchange rate move.\"",
"qid": 9979,
"docid": "518721",
"rank": 70,
"score": 98889
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Even if the price of your home did match inflation or better — and that's a question I'll let the other answers address — I propose that owning a home, by itself, is not a sufficient hedge against inflation. Consider: Inflation will inflate your living expenses. If you're lucky, they'll inflate at the average. If you're unlucky, a change in your spending patterns (perhaps age-related) could result in your expenses rising faster than inflation. (Look at the sub-indexes of the CPI.) Without income also rising with inflation (or better), how will you cope with rising living expenses? Each passing year, advancing living expenses risk eclipsing a static income. Your home is an illiquid asset. Generally speaking, it neither generates income for you, nor can you sell only a portion. At best, owning your principal residence helps you avoid a rent expense and inflation in rents — but rent is only one of many living expenses. Some consider a reverse-mortgage an option to tap home equity, but it has a high cost. In other words: If you don't want to be forced to liquidate [sell] your home, you'll also need to look at ways to ensure your income sources rise with inflation. i.e. look at your cash flow, not just your net worth. Hence: investing in housing, as in your own principal residence, is not an adequate hedge against inflation. If you owned additional properties to generate rental income, and you retained pricing power so you could increase the rent charged at least in line with inflation, your situation would be somewhat improved — except you would, perhaps, be adopting another problem: Too high a concentration in a single asset class. Consequently, I would look at ways other than housing to hedge against inflation. Consider other kinds of investments. \"\"Safe as houses\"\" may be a cliché, but it is no guarantee.\"",
"qid": 9979,
"docid": "67816",
"rank": 71,
"score": 98774
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You could buy shares of an Exchange-Traded Fund (ETF) based on the price of gold, like GLD, IAU, or SGOL. You can invest in this fund through almost any brokerage firm, e.g. Fidelity, Etrade, Scotttrade, TD Ameritrade, Charles Schwab, ShareBuilder, etc. Keep in mind that you'll still have to pay a commission and fees when purchasing an ETF, but it will almost certainly be less than paying the markup or storage fees of buying the physical commodity directly. An ETF trades exactly like a stock, on an exchange, with a ticker symbol as noted above. The commission will apply the same as any stock trade, and the price will reflect some fraction of an ounce of gold, for the GLD, it started as .1oz, but fees have been applied over the years, so it's a bit less. You could also invest in PHYS, which is a closed-end mutual fund that allows investors to trade their shares for 400-ounce gold bars. However, because the fund is closed-end, it may trade at a significant premium or discount compared to the actual price of gold for supply and demand reasons. Also, keep in mind that investing in gold will never be the same as depositing your money in the bank. In the United States, money stored in a bank is FDIC-insured up to $250,000, and there are several banks or financial institutions that deposit money in multiple banks to double or triple the effective insurance limit (Fidelity has an account like this, for example). If you invest in gold and the price plunges, you're left with the fair market value of that gold, not your original deposit. Yes, you're hoping the price of your gold investment will increase to at least match inflation, but you're hoping, i.e. speculating, which isn't the same as depositing your money in an insured bank account. If you want to speculate and invest in something with the hope of outpacing inflation, you're likely better off investing in a low-cost index fund of inflation-protected securities (or the S&P500, over the long term) rather than gold. Just to be clear, I'm using the laymen's definition of a speculator, which is someone who engages in risky financial transactions in an attempt to profit from short or medium term fluctuations This is similar to the definition used in some markets, e.g. futures, but in many cases, economists and places like the CFTC define speculators as anyone who doesn't have a position in the underlying security. For example, a farmer selling corn futures is a hedger, while the trading firm purchasing the contracts is a speculator. The trading firm doesn't necessarily have to be actively trading the contract in the short-run; they merely have no position in the underlying commodity.",
"qid": 9979,
"docid": "13885",
"rank": 72,
"score": 98501
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: One option is buying physical gold. I don't know about Irish law -- but from an economic standpoint, putting funds in foreign currencies would also be an option. You could look into buying shares in an ETF tracking foreign currency as an alternative to direct money exchange.",
"qid": 9979,
"docid": "76907",
"rank": 73,
"score": 98497
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Devaluation is a relative term, so if you want to protect yourself against devaluation of your currency against dollars - just buy dollars. Inflation is something you cannot protect yourself against because it is something that describes the purchasing power of the money. You will still need to purchase, and usually with money. A side effect of inflation is usually devaluation against other currencies. So one of the ways to deal with inflation is not to keep the money in your currency over time, and only convert from a more stable currency when you need to make purchases. Another way is to invest in something tangible that can easily be sold (for example, jewelery and precious metals, but it has other risks). Re whats legal and illegal in your country - we don't really know because you didn't tell what country that is to begin with, but the usual channels like travelers' checks or bank transfer should work. Carrying large amounts of cash are usually either illegal or strictly regulated.",
"qid": 9979,
"docid": "525056",
"rank": 74,
"score": 98328
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I saw that an answer hasn't been accepted for this yet: Being bearish is a good hedging strategy. But being hedged is a better hedging strategy. The point being that not everything in investments is so binary (up, and down). A lot of effective hedges can have many more variables than simply \"\"stock go up, stock go down\"\" As such, there are many ways to be bearish and profit from a decline in market values without subjecting yourself to the unlimited risk of short selling. Buying puts against your long equity position is one example. Being long an ETF that is based on short positions is another example.\"",
"qid": 9979,
"docid": "358586",
"rank": 75,
"score": 98293
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: My personal gold/metals target is 5.0% of my retirement portfolio. Right now I'm underweight because of the run up in gold/metals prices. (I haven't been selling, but as I add to retirement accounts, I haven't been buying gold so it is going below the 5% mark.) I arrived at this number after reading a lot of different sample portfolio allocations, and some books. Some people recommend what I consider crazy allocations: 25-50% in gold. From what I could figure out in terms of modern portfolio theory, holding some metal reduces your overall risk because it generally has a low correlation to equity markets. The problem with gold is that it is a lousy investment. It doesn't produce any income, and only has costs (storage, insurance, commissions to buy/sell, management of ETF if that's what you're using, etc). The only thing going for it is that it can be a hedge during tough times. In this case, when you rebalance, your gold will be high, you'll sell it, and buy the stocks that are down. (In theory -- assuming you stick to disciplined rebalancing.) So for me, 5% seemed to be enough to shave off a little overall risk without wasting too much expense on a hedge. (I don't go over this, and like I said, now I'm underweighted.)",
"qid": 9979,
"docid": "371390",
"rank": 76,
"score": 98085
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The general argument put forward by gold lovers isn't that you get the same gold per dollar (or dollars per ounce of gold), but that you get the same consumable product per ounce of gold. In other words the claim is that the inflation-adjusted price of gold is more-or-less constant. See zerohedge.com link for a chart of gold in 2010 GBP all the way from 1265. (\"\"In 2010 GBP\"\" means its an inflation adjusted chart.) As you can see there is plenty of fluctuation in there, but it just so happens that gold is worth about the same now as it was in 1265. See caseyresearch.com link for a series of anecdotes of the buying power of gold and silver going back some 3000 years. What this means to you: If you think the stock market is volatile and want to de-risk your holdings for the next 2 years, gold is just as risky If you want to invest some wealth such that it will be worth more (in real terms) when you take it out in 40 years time than today, the stock market has historically given better returns than gold If you want to put money aside, and it to not lose value, for a few hundred years, then gold might be a sensible place to store your wealth (as per comment from @Michael Kjörling) It might be possible to use gold as a partial hedge against the stock market, as the two supposedly have very low correlation\"",
"qid": 9979,
"docid": "257881",
"rank": 77,
"score": 98074
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Gold is a good investment when central bank money printers can’t take their thumbs off the print button. Over the last 3 years the US Federal Reserve printed a ton of dollars to bail out banks and to purchase US federal debt. Maybe I should exchange my dollars for euros? The European Central Bank (ECB) is following the FED plan and printing money to buy Greek, Italian, and now Spanish bonds. This, indirectly, is a bailout of French and German banks. Maybe I should exchange my euros for yen? The Bank Of Japan (Japan’s central bank) is determined not to let the yen rise against other currencies so they too are printing money to keep the yen weak. Maybe I should exchange my yen for swiss francs? The Swiss National Bank (Switzerland’s central bank) is also determined not to let the franc rise against other currencies so they too are printing money. You quickly begin to realize that your options are dwindling for places to put your money where the government central bank isn’t working hard to dilute your savings. Physical gold is also a good investment for several other situations: What situations would lead to a drop in gold prices? What are the alternatives? Silver has traditionally been used more as money than gold. Silver is usually used for day-to-day purchases while gold is used for savings.",
"qid": 9979,
"docid": "501456",
"rank": 78,
"score": 97852
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Overall, since gold has value in any currency (and is sort of the ultimate reserve currency), why would anyone want to currency hedge it? Because gold is (mostly) priced in USD. You currency hedge it to avoid currency risk and be exposed to only the price risk of Gold in USD. Hedging it doesn't mean \"\"less speculative\"\". It just means you won't take currency risk. EDIT: Responding to OP's questions in comment what happens if the USD drops in value versus other major currencies? Do you think that the gold price in USD would not be affected by this drop in dollar value? Use the ETF $GLD as a proxy of gold price in USD, the correlation between weekly returns of $GLD and US dollar index (measured by major world currencies) since the ETF's inception is around -47%. What this says is that gold may or may not be affected by USD movement. It's certainly not a one-way movement. There are times where both USD and gold rise and fall simultaneously. Isn't a drop in dollar value fundamentally currency risk? Per Investopedia, currency risk arises from the change in price of one currency in relation to another. In this context, it's referring to the EUR/USD movement. The bottom line is that, if gold price in dollar goes up 2%, this ETF gives the European investor a way to bring home that 2% (or as close to that as possible).\"",
"qid": 9979,
"docid": "259440",
"rank": 79,
"score": 97752
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Regarding investing in gold vs. stocks, I don't think I could say it better than Warren Buffett: You could take all the gold that's ever been mined, and it would fill a cube 67 feet in each direction. For what that's worth at current gold prices, you could buy all -- not some -- all of the farmland in the United States. Plus, you could buy 10 Exxon Mobils, plus have $1 trillion of walking-around money. Or you could have a big cube of metal. Which would you take? Which is going to produce more value?",
"qid": 9979,
"docid": "415616",
"rank": 80,
"score": 97242
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Don't put all your eggs in one basket and don't assume that you know more than the market does. The probability of gold prices rising again in the near future is already \"\"priced in\"\" as it were. Unless you are privy to some reliable information that no one else knows (given that you are asking here, I'm guessing not), stay away. Invest in a globally diversified low cost portfolio of primarily stocks and bonds and don't try to predict the future. Also I would kill for a 4.5% interest rate on my savings. In the USA, 1% is on the high side of what you can get right now. What is inflation like over there?\"",
"qid": 9979,
"docid": "477939",
"rank": 81,
"score": 97240
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I don't even think that much is true, in a downturned market we see deflation. Things go on sale, prices drop, that's deflation. But the elephant in the room is that the gov't can't let deflation happen or their debt becomes harder to pay off. So after/during a downturn the government goes into hyperinflation mode. To me, gold/silver aren't a hedge against the dollar they are a hedge against the inevitable decline of the dollar which isn't going to stop until we change monetary policy. Graph the dollar's value in the past 100 years, it's the biggest crash in history. Now ask yourself if the dollar was a stock, would you want to own it with that record? 100 years of declination. Sell your dollars, find a real currency.",
"qid": 9979,
"docid": "57907",
"rank": 82,
"score": 97165
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Like Jeremy T said above, silver is a value store and is to be used as a hedge against sovereign currency revaluations. Since every single currency in the world right now is a free-floating fiat currency, you need silver (or some other firm, easily store-able, protect-able, transportable asset class; e.g. gold, platinum, ... whatever...) in order to protect yourself against government currency devaluations, since the metal will hold its value regardless of the valuation of the currency which you are denominating it in (Euro, in your case). Since the ECB has been hesitant to \"\"print\"\" large amounts of currency (which causes other problems unrelated to precious metals), the necessity of hedging against a plummeting currency exchange rate is less important and should accordingly take a lower percentage in your diversification strategy. However, if you were in.. say... Argentina, for example, you would want to have a much larger percentage of your assets in precious metals. The EU has a lot of issues, and depreciation of hard assets courtesy of a lack of fluid currency/capital (and overspending on a lot of EU governments' parts in the past), in my opinion, lessens the preservative value of holding precious metals. You want to diversify more heavily into precious metals just prior to government sovereign currency devaluations, whether by \"\"printing\"\" (by the ECB in your case) or by hot capital flows into/out of your country. Since Eurozone is not an emerging market, and the current trend seems to be capital flowing back into the developed economies, I think that diversifying away from silver (at least in overall % of your portfolio) is the order of the day. That said, do I have silver/gold in my retirement portfolio? Absolutely. Is it a huge percentage of my portfolio? Not right now. However, if the U.S. government fails to resolve the next budget crisis and forces the Federal Reserve to \"\"print\"\" money to creatively fund their expenses, then I will be trading out of soft assets classes and into precious metals in order to preserve the \"\"real value\"\" of my portfolio in the face of a depreciating USD. As for what to diversify into? Like the folks above say: ETFs(NOT precious metal ETFs and read all of the fine print, since a number of ETFs cheat), Indexes, Dividend-paying stocks (a favorite of mine, assuming they maintain the dividend), or bonds (after they raise the interest rates). Once you have your diversification percentages decided, then you just adjust that based on macro-economic trends, in order to avoid pitfalls. If you want to know more, look through: http://www.mauldineconomics.com/ < Austrian-type economist/investor http://pragcap.com/ < Neo-Keynsian economist/investor with huge focus on fiat currency effects\"",
"qid": 9979,
"docid": "104741",
"rank": 83,
"score": 96791
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Gold's valuation is so stratospheric right now that I wonder if negative numbers (as in, you should short it) are acceptable in the short run. In the long run I'd say the answer is zero. The problem with gold is that its only major fundamental value is for making jewelry and the vast majority is just being hoarded in ways that can only be justified by the Greater Fool Theory. In the long run gold shouldn't return more than inflation because a pile of gold creates no new wealth like the capital that stocks are a claim on and doesn't allow others to create new wealth like money lent via bonds. It's also not an important and increasingly scarce resource for wealth creation in the global economy like oil and other more useful commodities are. I've halfway-thought about taking a short position in gold, though I haven't taken any position, short or long, in gold for the following reasons: Straight up short-selling of a gold ETF is too risky for me, given its potential for unlimited losses. Some other short strategy like an inverse ETF or put options is also risky, though less so, and ties up a lot of capital. While I strongly believe such an investment would be profitable, I think the things that will likely rise when the flight-to-safety is over and gold comes back to Earth (mainly stocks, especially in the more beaten-down sectors of the economy) will be equally profitable with less risk than taking one of these positions in gold.",
"qid": 9979,
"docid": "326599",
"rank": 84,
"score": 96754
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Advantages of Gold IRA (regardless of where you're holding it): Disadvantages of Gold IRA: Instead, you can invest in trust funds like SLV (The ETF for silver) or GLD in your regular brokerage IRA. These funds negotiate their prices of storage, are relatively liquid, and shield you from the dangers of owning physical metal while providing opportunity to invest in it at market prices.",
"qid": 9979,
"docid": "315286",
"rank": 85,
"score": 96596
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: 1) How does owning a home fit into my financial portfolio? Most seem to agree that at best it is a hedge against rent or dollar inflation, and at worst it should be viewed as a liability, and has no place alongside other real investments. Periods of high inflation are generally accompanied with high(er) interest rates. Any home is a liability, as has been pointed out in other answers; it costs money to live in, it costs money to keep in good shape, and it offers you no return unless you sell it for more than you have paid for it in total (in fact, as long as you have an outstanding mortgage, it actually costs you money to own, even when not considering things like property taxes, utilities etc.). The only way to make a home an investment is to rent it out for more than it costs you in total to own, but then you can't live in it instead. 2) How should one view payments on a home mortgage? How are they similar or different to investing in low-risk low-reward investments? Like JoeTaxpayer said in a comment, paying off your mortgage should be considered the same as putting money into a certificate of deposit with a term and return equivalent to your mortgage interest cost (adjusting for tax effects). What is important to remember about paying off a mortgage, besides the simple and not so unimportant fact that it lowers your financial risk over time, is that over time it improves your cash flow. If interest rates don't change (unlikely), then as long as you keep paying the interest vigilantly but don't pay down the principal (assuming that the bank is happy with such an arrangement), your monthly cost remains the same and will do so in perpetuity. You currently have a cash flow that enables you to pay down the principal on the loan, and are putting some fairly significant amount of money towards that end. Now, suppose that you were to lose your job, which means a significant cut in the household income. If this cut means that you can't afford paying down the mortgage at the same rate as before, you can always call the bank and tell them to stop the extra payments until you get your ducks back in the proverbial row. It's also possible, with a long history of paying on time and a loan significantly smaller than what the house would bring in in a sale, that you could renegotiate the loan with an extended term, which depending on the exact terms may lower your monthly cost further. If the size of the loan is largely the same as or perhaps even exceeds the market value of the house, the bank would be a lot more unlikely to cooperate in such a scenario. It's also a good idea to at the very least aim to be free of debt by the time you retire. Even if one assumes that the pension systems will be the same by then as they are now (some don't, but that's a completely different question), you are likely to see a significant cut in cash flow on retirement day. Any fixed expenses which cannot easily be cut if needed are going to become a lot more of a liability when you are actually at least in part living off your savings rather than contributing to them. The earlier you get the mortgage paid off, the earlier you will have the freedom to put into other forms of savings the money which is now going not just to principal but to interest as well. What is important to consider is that paying off a mortgage is a very illiquid form of savings; on the other hand, money in stocks, bonds, various mutual funds, and savings accounts, tends to be highly liquid. It is always a good idea to have some savings in easily accessible form, some of it in very low-risk investments such as a simple interest-bearing savings account or government bonds (despite their low rate of return) before you start to aggressively pay down loans, because (particularly when you own a home) you never know when something might come up that ends up costing a fair chunk of money.",
"qid": 9979,
"docid": "64456",
"rank": 86,
"score": 96314
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: As the other answer already states, whether you should or shouldn't currency-hedge your equity investments depends on a lot of factors. If you decide to do so, depending on your investment vehicles, there might be a more cost-efficient way than arranging a separate futures contract with a bank: If you are open to (or are already investing in) ETFs, there are currency-hedged versions of some popular ETFs. These are hedged against the currency risk for a specific currency; for example, if you are buying in (and expecting to sell for) USD, you would buy an ETF hedged to USD. Of course they have a higher expense ratio than non-hedged ETFs since the costs of the necessary contracts are included in the expenses.",
"qid": 9979,
"docid": "81483",
"rank": 87,
"score": 96227
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"You might find some of the answers here helpful; the question is different, but has some similar concerns, such as a changing economic environment. What approach should I take to best protect my wealth against currency devaluation & poor growth prospects. I want to avoid selling off any more of my local index funds in a panic as I want to hold long term. Does my portfolio balance make sense? Good question; I can't even get US banks to answer questions like this, such as \"\"What happens if they try to nationalize all bank accounts like in the Soviet Union?\"\" Response: it'll never happen. The question was what if! I think that your portfolio carries a lot of risk, but also offsets what you're worried about. Outside of government confiscation of foreign accounts (if your foreign investments are held through a local brokerage), you should be good. What to do about government confiscation? Even the US government (in 1933) confiscated physical gold (and they made it illegal to own) - so even physical resources can be confiscated during hard times. Quite a large portion of my foreign investments have been bought at an expensive time when our currency is already around historic lows, which does concern me in the event that it strengthens in future. What strategy should I take in the future if/when my local currency starts the strengthen...do I hold my foreign investments through it and just trust in cost averaging long term, or try sell them off to avoid the devaluation? Are these foreign investments a hedge? If so, then you shouldn't worry if your currency does strengthen; they serve the purpose of hedging the local environment. If these investments are not a hedge, then timing will matter and you'll want to sell and buy your currency before it does strengthen. The risk on this latter point is that your timing will be wrong.\"",
"qid": 9979,
"docid": "407259",
"rank": 88,
"score": 96220
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: By mentioning GLD, I presume therefore you are referring to the SPRD Gold Exchange Traded Fund that is intended to mirror the price of gold without you having to personally hold bullion, or even gold certificates. While how much is a distinctly personal choice, there are seemingly (at least) three camps of people in the investment world. First would be traditional bond/fixed income and equity people. Gold would play no direct role in their portfolio, other than perhaps holding gold company shares in some other vehicle, but they would not hold much gold directly. Secondly, at the mid-range would be someone like yourself, that believes that is in and of itself a worthy investment and makes it a non-trivial, but not-overriding part of their portfolio. Your 5-10% range seems to fit in well here. Lastly, and to my taste, over-the-top, are the gold-gold-gold investors, that seem to believe it is the panacea for all market woes. I always suspect that investment gurus that are pushing this, however, have large positions that they are trying to run up so they can unload. Given all this, I am not aware of any general rule about gold, but anything less than 10% would seem like at least a not over-concentration in the one area. Once any one holding gets much beyond that, you should really examine why you believe that it should represent such a large part of your holdings. Good Luck",
"qid": 9979,
"docid": "61329",
"rank": 89,
"score": 95814
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Reddit doesn't have a ton of resources to offer you as you learn about where to invest, you want to start reading up on actual investing sites. You might start with Motley Fool, StockTwits, Seeking Alpha, Marketwatch, etc. I agree with hipster's take, if all countries are going to keep printing money and expanding their debts and craziness, gold has a bright future. Land, petroleum, commodities, and precious metals have an intrinsic worth that will still be there regardless of what currencies are doing, versus bonds which are merely promises to pay, which will be paid off in devalued money, or stocks which are just promises of future earnings. Think about spreading your risk in a few different places, one chunk here, one chunk there. Some people in the US now are big on dividend paying stocks in lieu of bonds which only pay a percent, which is negative return after inflation. Some people buy 'royalty trust' units, which throw off income from oil leases as dividends. You might want to park a portion in a different currency, but dollar funds aren't going to pay interest and Switzerland plans to keep devaluing its currency as people keep bidding the price up. I don't know if you are allowed to buy CEF, a bullion-backed fund out of Canada in your country, but that's one way to own gold & silver. But with the instability out there, you might prefer a bit of the real thing stashed in a safe place. Or if you have a bit of family land, maybe just be sure you can pay the taxes to keep it; or pursue any other way to own 'real stuff' that will still be worth something after all hell breaks loose.",
"qid": 9979,
"docid": "240628",
"rank": 90,
"score": 95734
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The one thing we know for certain is that holding large amounts of cash isn't ideal - inflation will eat away at your wealth. It's understandable that you're hesitant to put all your wealth in common stock. The S&P 500's price/earnings is 18.7 right now - a little high by historical standards. But consider that the S&P 500 has given a CAGR of approximately 10% (not inflation-adjusted) since 1970. If you don't time the market correctly, you could miss out on considerable gains. So it's probably best to invest at least a portion of your wealth in common stocks, and just accept the risk of short-term losses. You'll likely come out ahead in the long run, compared to an investor who tries to time the market and ends up holding cash positions for too long. If you really think US stocks are overpriced, you could look at other markets, but you'll find similar P/Es in Europe and Japan. You could try an emerging market fund like VEMAX if you have the risk tolerance. Let's say you're not convinced, and don't want to invest heavily in stocks right now. In the current market, safe cash alternatives like Treasury bills offer very low yields - not enough to offset inflation tax. So I would invest in a diversified portfolio of long-term bonds, real estate, maybe precious metals, and whatever amount of stock you're comfortable with.",
"qid": 9979,
"docid": "53244",
"rank": 91,
"score": 95117
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I'd say neither. Index Funds mimic whatever index. Some stocks that are in the index are good investment opportunities, others not so much. I'm guessing the Bond Index Funds do the same. As for Gold... did you notice how much gold has risen lately? Do you think it will keep on rising like that? For which period? (Hint: if your timespan is less than 10 years, you really shouldn't invest). Investing is about buying low, and selling high. Gold is high, don't touch it. If you want to invest in funds, look at 4 or 5 star Morningstar rated funds. My advisors suggest Threadneedle (Lux) US Equities DU - LU0096364046 with a 4 star rating as the best American fund at this time. However, they are not favoring American stocks at this moment... so maybe you should stay away from the US for now. Have you looked at the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, China) countries?",
"qid": 9979,
"docid": "403977",
"rank": 92,
"score": 95076
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"You could do nothing for a while longer. Foreign exchange simply means your services are cheaper and imports and more expensive, local transactions are otherwise unaffected. Your main worry is whether the government's attempts to revert these issues will create inflation within Russia. Local clients will likely not care to pay you in Euros, Dollars, or Pounds (as it will cost them significantly more, they'd have to acquire the currency to pay you with) but does it matter if they pay in Roubles? The financial crisis in more an international thing, not a local one. Now it is possible there will be inflation setting in but I doubt the powers that be will allow that to happen... If you are concerned about it, buying non-liquid assets are the thing to do - a house will still be worth \"\"1 house\"\" no matter what a 1-million rouble note will buy you in a year's time. Similarly, you can invest in 'blue-chip' stocks that should be a good hedge against any further inflation (the rich don't tend to turn poor in difficult times!) In the meantime, get some international clients - as the Rouble is so low, relatively speaking, your services are very competitive. The rest of the time, is to wait it out a little - nobody knows what will happen, but in my knowledge of history interest rates like this drop back to something much closer to normal quite quickly.\"",
"qid": 9979,
"docid": "305128",
"rank": 93,
"score": 95033
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: In general, the higher the return (such as interest), the higher the risk. If there were a high-return no-risk investment, enough people would buy it to drive the price up and make it a low-return no-risk investment. Interest rates are low now, but so is inflation. They generally go up and down together. So, as a low risk (almost no-risk) investment, the savings account is not at all useless. There are relatively safe investments that will get a better return, but they will have a little more risk. One common way to spread the risk is to diversify. For example, put some of your money in a savings account, some in a bond mutual fund, and some in a stock index fund. A stock index fund such as SPY has the benefit of very low overhead, in addition to spreading the risk among 500 large companies. Mutual funds with a purchase or sale fee, or with a higher management fee do NOT perform any better, on average, and should generally be avoided. If you put a little money in different places regularly, you'll be fairly safe and are likely get a better return. (If you trade back and forth frequently, trying to outguess the market, you're likely to be worse off than the savings account.)",
"qid": 9979,
"docid": "323228",
"rank": 94,
"score": 94943
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Not sure if you mean that your SO stands to inherit $18 million or has inherited it already. I would hope that her family already has a team of financial advisors at that point. The name of the game at that asset level is protection. You have enough money so you want to keep up with inflation and generate some income. Most of my firm's clients at that size have at least 50% in tax-free municipal bonds the other half is about 10% in aggressive investments (private equity, aggressive stock managers), and 25% in conservative stock investments, 5% in international investments, and 10% in alternative investments (long/short, GTAA, hedged equity) . They also tend to have quite a bit of income producing real estate. Make sure you meet with a financial advisory firm the specializes in high net worth clients. I work for an independent RIA so I may be biased towards independent and fee-only firms but it seems like the best arrangement. You pay a percentage of assets under management and get objective investment advice with no commissions. For $18 mil anything over .50% as an advisory fee is a ripoff. You all in investment cost should be less than 0.90%. Also you should look into a high net worth insurance broker. You current insurance salesman will be in way over his head. Feel free to PM me with specific questions. Also, if you want to hire my firm that would be great haha!",
"qid": 9979,
"docid": "266481",
"rank": 95,
"score": 94885
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The easiest way to deal with risks for individual stocks is to diversify. I do most of my investing in broad market index funds, particularly the S&P 500. I don't generally hold individual stocks long, but I do buy options when I think there are price moves that aren't supported by the fundamentals of a stock. All of this riskier short-term investing is done in my Roth IRA, because I want to maximize the profits in the account that won't ever be taxed. I wouldn't want a particularly fruitful investing year to bite me with short term capital gains on my income tax. I usually beat the market in that account, but not by much. It would be pretty easy to wipe out those gains on a particularly bad year if I was investing in the actual stocks and not just using options. Many people who deal in individual stocks hedge with put options, but this is only cost effective at strike prices that represent losses of 20% or more and it eats away the gains. Other people or try to add to their gains by selling covered call options figuring that they're happy to sell with a large upward move, but if that upward move doesn't happen you still get the gains from the options you've sold.",
"qid": 9979,
"docid": "257835",
"rank": 96,
"score": 94867
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: What are the risks pertaining to timing on long term index investments? The risks are countless for any investment strategy. If you invest in US stocks, and prices revert to the long term cyclically adjusted average, you will lose a lot of money. If you invest in cash, inflation may outpace interest rates and you will lose money. If you invest in gold, the price might go down and you will lose money. It's best to study history and make a reasonable decision (i.e. invest in stocks). Here are long term returns by asset class, computed by Jeremy Siegel: $1 invested in equities in 1801 equals $15.22 today if was not invested and $8.8 million if it was invested in stocks. This is the 'magic of compound interest' and cash / bonds have not been nearly as magical as stocks historically. 2) How large are these risks? The following chart shows the largest drawdowns (decreases in the value of an asset) since 1970 (source): Asset prices decrease in value frequently. Financial assets are volatile, but historically, they have increased over time, enabling investors to earn compounded returns (exponential growth of money is how to get rich). I personally view drawdowns as an excellent time to buy - it's like going on a shopping spree when everything in the store is discounted. 3) In case I feel not prepared to take these risks, how can I avoid them? The optimal asset allocation depends on the ability to take risk and your tolerance for risk. You are young and have a long investment horizon, so if stocks go down, you will have plenty of time to wait for them to go back up (if you're smart, you'll buy more stocks when they go down because they're cheap), so your ability to bear risk is high. From your description, it seems like you have a low risk tolerance (despite a high ability to be exposed to risk). Here's the return of various asset classes and how the average investor has fared over the last 20 years (source): Get educated (read Common Sense on Mutual Funds, A Random Walk Down Wall Street, etc.) and don't be average! Closing words: Investing in a globally diversified portfolio with a dollar cost averaging strategy is the best strategy for most investors. For investors that are unable to stay rational when markets are volatile (i.e. the investor uncontrollably sells their stocks when stocks decrease 20%), a more conservative asset allocation is recommended. Due to the nature of compounded interest, a conservative portfolio is likely to have a much lower future value.",
"qid": 9979,
"docid": "204866",
"rank": 97,
"score": 94729
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Precious metals also tend to do well during times of panic. You could invest in gold miners, a gold or silver ETF or in physical bullion itself.",
"qid": 9979,
"docid": "356259",
"rank": 98,
"score": 94602
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You can buy real gold, or you can buy shares of a gold ETF, or invest in gold futures contracts. There's a number of ways, but the goal is to be exposed to the price fluctuations of gold. I actually have a bank account through www.goldmoney.com. It works just like PayPal or a bank account. You send money and buy gold and then they send you a debit card linked to that account. When you swipe it, you're spending your gold. They also cater to business customers as well..you can send invoices to get paid, do payroll, and everything in between.",
"qid": 9979,
"docid": "89311",
"rank": 99,
"score": 93860
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I recommend investing in precious metals like gold, considering the economic cycle we're in now. Government bonds are subject to possible default and government money historically tends to crumble in value, whereas gold and the metals tend to rise in value with the commodies. Stocks tend to do well, but right now most of them are a bit overvalued and they're very closely tied to overvalued currencies and unstable governments with lots of debt. I would stick to gold right now, if you're planning on investing for more than a month or so.",
"qid": 9979,
"docid": "337341",
"rank": 100,
"score": 93738
}
] |
Tax implications of holding EWU (or other such UK ETFs) as a US citizen? | [
{
"content": "Title: Content: My understanding is that EWU (and EWUS) are both traded on US stock markets (NYSE & BATS), and as such these are not classified as PFIC. However, they do contain PFICs, so iShares takes the responsibility of handling the PFICs they contain and make adjustments in December. This contains the information about the adjustments made in 2016. https://www.ishares.com/us/literature/tax-information/pfic-2016.pdf On page 106 of the statement of the summary information they describe how they handle paying the necessary tax as an expense of the fund. https://www.ishares.com/us/library/stream-document?stream=reg&product=WEBXGBP&shareClass=NA&documentId=925898~926077~926112~1180071~1242912&iframeUrlOverride=%2Fus%2Fliterature%2Fsai%2Fsai-ishares-trust-8-31.pdf (I'm not a tax professional)",
"qid": 10034,
"docid": "181942",
"rank": 1,
"score": 107689
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You have left out the most important piece of information: are you an American citizen? If you are, then PFIC rules mean you need to be very careful not to invest in any foreign index funds/ETFs. That means it will probably be easiest for you to just leave the money in the US and continue to invest it there. If you do not have US citizenship, and have never had a green card, then you will qualify for non-resident alien status after you've been gone for 3 years. Once that happens, you won't owe US capital gains tax (though you will owe it in AUS). You will owe 30% tax on dividends, though. Much more at Investopedia.",
"qid": 10034,
"docid": "565296",
"rank": 2,
"score": 104403
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you are a US citizen, you need to very carefully research the US tax implications of investing in foreign stocks before you do so. The US tax rules have been set up in general to make this very unattractive.",
"qid": 10034,
"docid": "197478",
"rank": 3,
"score": 99098
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Any large stockbroker will offer trading in US securities. As a foreign national you will be required to register with the US tax authorities (IRS) by completing and filing a W-8BEN form and pay US withholding taxes on any dividend income you receive. US dividends are paid net of withholding taxes, so you do not need to file a US tax return. Capital gains are not subject to US taxes. Also, each year you are holding US securities, you will receive a form from the IRS which you are required to complete and return. You will also be required to complete and file forms for each of the exchanges you wish to received market price data from. Trading will be restricted to US trading hours, which I believe is 6 hours ahead of Denmark for the New York markets. You will simply submit an order to the desired market using your broker's online trading software or your broker's telephone dealing service. You can expect to pay significantly higher commissions for trading US securities when compared to domestic securities. You will also face potentially large foreign exchange fees when exchaning your funds from EUR to USD. All in all, you will probably be better off using your local market to trade US index or sector ETFs.",
"qid": 10034,
"docid": "551809",
"rank": 4,
"score": 98984
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The ETF is likely better in this case. The ETF will generally generate less capital gains taxes along the way. In order to pay off investors who leave a mutual fund, the manager will have to sell the fund's assets. This creates a capital gain, which must be distributed to shareholders at the end of the year. The mutual fund holder is essentially taxed on this turnover. The ETF does not have to sell any stock when an investor sells his shares because the investor sells the shares himself on the open market. This will result in a capital gain for the specific person exiting his position, but it does not create a taxable event for anyone else holding the ETF shares.",
"qid": 10034,
"docid": "153112",
"rank": 5,
"score": 98759
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The dividend tax credit is not applicable to foreign dividend income, so you would be taxed fully on every dollar of that income. When you sell a stock, there will be a capital gain or capital loss depending on if it gained or lost value, after accounting for the Adjusted Cost Base. You only pay income tax on half of the amount earned through capital gains, and if you have losses, you can use them to offset other investments that had capital gains (or carry forward to offset gains in the future). The dividends from US stocks are subject to a 15% withholding tax that gets paid to the IRS automatically when the dividends are issued. If the stocks are held in an RRSP, they are exempt from the withholding tax. If held in a non-registered account, you can be reimbursed for the tax by claiming the foreign tax credit that you linked to. If held in a TFSA or RESP, the withholding tax cannot be recovered. Also, if you are not directly holding the stocks, and instead buy a mutual fund or ETF that directly holds the stocks, then the RRSP exemption no longer applies, but the foreign tax credit is still claimable for a non-registered account. If the mutual fund or ETF does not directly hold stocks, and instead holds one or more ETFs, there is no way to recover the withholding tax in any type of account.",
"qid": 10034,
"docid": "437907",
"rank": 6,
"score": 94811
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You pay taxes on any gains you make after selling, so if you buy and hold you won't pay taxes (and you should hold for more than a year so that it gets taxed at the long-term rate, not the short-term rate). I like ETFs, there are some good ones Vanguard offers that are fairly broad, or you can use something like www.Betterment.com which invests in a diversified portfolio of ETFs (and includes things like automatic re-balancing and tax-loss harvesting).",
"qid": 10034,
"docid": "29502",
"rank": 7,
"score": 94369
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Generally, ETFs and mutual funds don't pay taxes (although there are some cases where they do, and some countries where it is a common case). What happens is, the fund reports the portion of the gain attributed to each investor, and the investor pays the tax. In the US, this is reported to you on 1099-DIV as capital gains distribution, and can be either short term (as in the scenario you described), long term, or a mix of both. It doesn't mean you actually get a distribution, though, but if you don't - it reduces your basis.",
"qid": 10034,
"docid": "350317",
"rank": 8,
"score": 93492
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Transferring money you own from one place to another pretty much never has tax implications. It might have other implications, including requirement to report it. Being a US citizen has tax implications, including the requirement to file US tax forms for the rest of eternity.",
"qid": 10034,
"docid": "44955",
"rank": 9,
"score": 93085
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Here're some findings upon researches: Two main things to watch out for: Estate tax and the 30% tax withholding. These 2 could be get around by investing in Luxembourg or Ireland domiciled ETF. For instance there's no tax withholding on Ireland domiciled ETF dividend, and the estate tax is not as high. (source: BogleHead forums) Some Vanguard ETF offered in UK stock market: https://www.vanguard.co.uk/uk/mvc/investments/etf#docstab. Do note that the returns of S&P 500 ETF (VUSA) are adjusted after the 30% tax withholding! Due to VUSA's higher TER (0.09%), VOO should remain a superior choice. The FTSE Emerging Markets and All-World ETFs though, are better than their US-counterparts, for non-US residents. Non-US residents are able to claim back partials of the withhold tax, by filing the US tax form 1040NR. In 2013, non-US resident can claim back at least $3,900. Kindly correct me if anything is inaccurate.",
"qid": 10034,
"docid": "528880",
"rank": 10,
"score": 92209
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: My understanding is that the only tax implication is that any interest income earned on foreign accounts is still taxable in the US if held by a US citizen. If the total across foreign accounts totals more than $10,000 you'll have to report those accounts to the Treasury via FinCEN Form 114, this doesn't create any additional tax obligations, it's just a regulatory measure to stop people from hiding money overseas and not paying tax on those earnings. If the US account is only in your husband's name, and the Australian account is only in your name, there may not be any reporting requirement to the Treasury. Money transferred between spouses is not subjected to gift-tax.",
"qid": 10034,
"docid": "111274",
"rank": 11,
"score": 91902
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Very interesting question. While searching i also found that some precious metal ETFs (including IAU) gains are taxed at 28% because IRS considers it \"\"collectible\"\", rather than the usual long term 15% for stocks and stock holding ETFs. As for capital gain tax you have to pay now my guess it's because of the following statement in the IAU prospectus (page 34): When the trust sells gold, for example to pay expenses, a Shareholder will recognize gain or loss ....\"",
"qid": 10034,
"docid": "545267",
"rank": 12,
"score": 90511
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I can only answer about the U.S. For question 2, I believe the answer is no. If you are a non-resident alien for tax purposes, then only income connected to the U.S. is reported as income on the tax return. Unless there were any non-deductible contributions to your pre-tax IRAs, when you convert to Roth IRA, the entire amount of the conversion is added to your income. So the tax consequence is the same as if you had that much additional U.S. income. If you are a non-resident alien with no other income in the U.S., then the income you have to report on your U.S. tax return will basically consist of the conversion. Non-resident aliens do not have a standard deduction. However, all people have a personal exemption. If we take 2013 as an example, the exemption is $3900 per person. We will assume that you will file as single or married filing separately (non-resident aliens cannot file as married filing jointly). The first $3900 of income is covered by the exemption, and is not counted in taxable income. For single and MFS, the next $8925 of income is taxed at 10%, then next $27325 of income is taxed at 15%, and so on. So if you convert less than the personal exemption amount every year ($3900 in 2013), then in theory you do not pay any taxes. If you convert a little bit more, then some of the conversion will be taxed at 10%, etc.",
"qid": 10034,
"docid": "367562",
"rank": 13,
"score": 89802
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I believe the answer to your question boils down to a discussion of tax strategies and personal situation, both now and in the future. As a result, it's pretty hard to give a concrete example to the question as asked right now. For example, if your tax rate now is likely to be higher than your tax rate at retirement (it is for most people), than putting the higher growth ETF in a retirement fund makes some sense. But even then, there are other considerations. However, if the opposite is true (which could happen if your income is growing so fast that your retirement income looks like it will be higher than your current income), than you might want the flexibility of holding all your ETFs in your non-tax advantaged brokerage account so that IF you do incur capital gains they are paid at prevailing, presumably lower tax rates. (I assume you meant a brokerage account rather than a savings account since you usually can't hold ETFs in a savings account.) I also want to mention that a holding in a corp account isn't necessarily taxed twice. It depends on the corporation type and the type of distribution. For example, S corps pay no federal income tax themselves. Instead the owners pay taxes when money is distributed to them as personal income. Which means you could trickle out the earnings from an holdings there such that it keeps you under any given federal tax bracket (assuming it's your only personal income.) This might come in handy when retired for example. Also, distribution of the holdings as dividends would incur cap gains tax rates rather than personal income tax rates. One thing I would definitely say: any holdings in a Roth account (IRA, 401k) will have no future taxes on earnings or distributions (unless the gov't changes its mind.) Thus, putting your highest total return ETF there would always be the right move.",
"qid": 10034,
"docid": "506448",
"rank": 14,
"score": 89506
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Your tax efficient reasoning is solid for where you want to distribute your assets. ETFs are often more tax efficient than their equivalent mutual funds but the exact differences would depend on the comparison between the fund and ETF you were considering. The one exception to this rule is Vanguard funds and ETFs which have the exact same tax-efficiency because ETFs are a share class of the corresponding mutual fund.",
"qid": 10034,
"docid": "161019",
"rank": 15,
"score": 88136
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Securities and ETFs are also subjected to Estate Tax. Some ways: Draft a \"\"Transfer on Death\"\" instruction to the broker, that triggers a transfer to an account in the beneficiary's name, in most cases avoiding probate. If the broker does not support it, find another broker. Give your brokerage and bank password/token to your beneficiary. Have him transfer out holdings within hours of death. Create a Trust, that survives even after death of an individual. P.S. ETF is treated as Stock (a company that owns other companies), regardless of the nature of the holdings. P.S.2 Above suggestions are only applicable to nonresident alien of the US.\"",
"qid": 10034,
"docid": "65702",
"rank": 16,
"score": 87570
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: ETFs are legally separate from their issuer, so the money invested should (the lines can get blurry in a massive crisis) be inaccessible to any bankruptcy claims. The funds assets (its shares in S&P500 companies) are held by a custodian who also keeps these assets separate from their own book. That said, if no other institution takes over the SPY funds the custodian will probably liquidate the fund and distribute the proceeds to the ETF holders, this is likely a less than ideal situation for the holders as the S&P500 would probably not be at its highest levels if State Street is going bankrupt (not to mention the potential taxation).",
"qid": 10034,
"docid": "7998",
"rank": 17,
"score": 87440
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Some of the ETFs you have specified have been delisted and are no longer trading. If you want to invest in those specific ETFs, you need to find a broker that will let you buy European equities such as those ETFs. Since you mentioned Merrill Edge, a discount broking platform, you could also consider Interactive Brokers since they do offer trading on the London Stock Exchange. There are plenty more though. Beware that you are now introducing a foreign exchange risk into your investment too and that taxation of capital returns/dividends may be quite different from a standard US-listed ETF. In the US, there are no Islamic or Shariah focussed ETFs or ETNs listed. There was an ETF (JVS) that traded from 2009-2010 but this had such little volume and interest, the fees probably didn't cover the listing expenses. It's just not a popular theme for North American listings.",
"qid": 10034,
"docid": "29642",
"rank": 18,
"score": 86358
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The money that you put into the ETF is not tax-exempt in the usual sense of the word. It is your money and you don't owe any taxes on it any more unless Congress (or the state that you reside in) imposes a wealth tax at some time in the future. What you will owe taxes on are any dividends or capital gains that the ETF distributes to you each year (even if you have opted to automatically re-invest those amounts into the ETF), and the capital gains when you sell shares of the ETF.",
"qid": 10034,
"docid": "586010",
"rank": 19,
"score": 85737
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: As long as the relative in the UK is not a US citizen and isn't considered domiciled in the US, there will be no estate taxes imposed by the US. You can see a much lengthier explanation on this subject here. The summary is that as a US citizen or resident, you can't circumvent estate taxes by moving yourself or your money abroad, but a relative who genuinely doesn't have US ties (other than inheritors located in the US) will be covered through applicable tax treaties (the UK does have an applicable tax treaty and applicable estate taxes as Ganesh points out).",
"qid": 10034,
"docid": "180146",
"rank": 20,
"score": 85719
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The US withholding tax applies to stocks/ETFs purchased on the NYSE and other US-based exchanges. If you buy Cenovus on the TSE then you will not be charged this tax. Your last sentence seems like you might be misunderstanding this tax though. If the tax applied, it would not cost you 15% on all your profits, it only applies to dividend yields. So if it pays you a 5% dividend, the tax costs you 0.75%. However, if you buy at $21.19 and sell at $26, then your capital gain is not subject to withholding taxes. It is however, subject to Canadian income tax (at 50% of the gain amount) when it's not sheltered in a TFSA or other registered account. The tax on the gains could easily amount to 16% of your profits, which is a much more significant cost. Therefore, having to pay a 0.75% withholding cost certainly does not \"\"defeat the purpose of the TFSA\"\" which is to shelter from Canadian income tax!\"",
"qid": 10034,
"docid": "343708",
"rank": 21,
"score": 84657
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: non-resident aliens to the US do not pay capital gains on US products. You pay tax in your home country if you have done a taxable event in your country. http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/06/nonusresidenttax.asp#axzz1mQDut9Ru but if you hold dividends, you are subject to US dividend tax. The UK-US treaty should touch on that though.",
"qid": 10034,
"docid": "392313",
"rank": 22,
"score": 84558
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: One of the main tax loopholes more readily available to the wealthy in the U.S. is the fact that long-term capital gains are taxed at a much lower rate. Certainly, people making less than $250,000/year can take advantage of this as well, but the fact is that people making, say, $60,000/year likely have a much smaller proportion of their income available to invest in, say, indexed mutual funds or ETFs. You may wish to read Wikipedia's article on capital gains tax in the United States. You can certainly make the argument that the preferential tax rate on capital gains is appropriate, and the Wikipedia article points out a number of these. Nevertheless, this is one of the main mechanisms whereby people with higher wealth in the U.S. typically leverage the tax code to their advantage.",
"qid": 10034,
"docid": "18790",
"rank": 23,
"score": 84400
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: ETFs offer the flexibility of stocks while retaining many of the benefits of mutual funds. Since an ETF is an actual fund, it has the diversification of its potentially many underlying securities. You can find ETFs with stocks at various market caps and style categories. You can have bond or mixed ETFs. You can even get ETFs with equal or fundamental weighting. In short, all the variety benefits of mutual funds. ETFs are typically much less expensive than mutual funds both in terms of management fees (expense ratio) and taxable gains. Most of them are not actively managed; instead they follow an index and therefore have a low turnover. A mutual fund may actively trade and, if not balanced with a loss, will generate capital gains that you pay taxes on. An ETF will produce gains only when shifting to keep inline with the index or you yourself sell. As a reminder: while expense ratio always matters, capital gains and dividends don't matter if the ETF or mutual fund is in a tax-advantaged account. ETFs have no load fees. Instead, because you trade it like a stock, you will pay a commission. Commissions are straight, up-front and perfectly clear. Much easier to understand than the various ways funds might charge you. There are no account minimums to entry with ETFs, but you will need to buy complete shares. Only a few places allow partial shares. It is generally harder to dollar-cost average into an ETF with regular automated investments. Also, like trading stocks, you can do those fancy things like selling short, buying on margin, options, etc. And you can pay attention to the price fluctuations throughout the day if you really want to. Things to make you pause: if you buy (no-load) mutual funds through the parent company, you'll get them at no commission. Many brokerages have No Transaction Fee (NTF) agreements with companies so that you can buy many funds for free. Still look out for that expense ratio though (which is probably paying for that NTF advantage). As sort of a middle ground: index funds can have very low expense ratios, track the same index as an ETF, can be tax-efficient or tax-managed, free to purchase, easy to dollar-cost average and easier to automate/understand. Further reading:",
"qid": 10034,
"docid": "473658",
"rank": 24,
"score": 84044
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I know of no way to answer your question without 'spamming' a particular investment. First off, if you are a USA citizen, max out your 401-K. Whatever your employer matches will be an immediate boost to your investment. Secondly, you want your our gains to be tax deferred. A 401-K is tax deferred as well as a traditional IRA. Thirdly, you probably want the safety of diversification. You achieve this by buying an ETF (or mutual fund) that then buys individual stocks. Now for the recommendation that may be called spamming by others : As REITs pass the tax liability on to you, and as an IRA is tax deferred, you can get stellar returns by buying a mREIT ETF. To get you started here are five: mREITs Lastly, avoid commissions by having your dividends automatically reinvested by using that feature at Scottrade. You will have to pay commissions on new purchases but your purchases from your dividend Reinvestment will be commission free. Edit: Taking my own advice I just entered orders to liquidate some positions so I would have the $ on hand to buy into MORL and get some of that sweet 29% dividend return.",
"qid": 10034,
"docid": "350082",
"rank": 25,
"score": 83879
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The tax consequence is that if you wait until January of 2011 to invest, you won't have the option to sell as a long-term capital gain in 2011. However, this is not a huge point in practice: If your income this year was very low, but will go up in 2011, you might want to convert some or all of it into a roth ira this year. This would let you pay the tax on it at your low tax rate for this year, rather than at the likely higher rate when you retire. An investment consequence is the fact that your money is sitting there, earning a lower expected rate of return than it could be. Not knowing your situation, I can't say how aggressive your holdings will be. Taking a fairly aggressive portfolio, 9% expected yearly return, and not investing for a month, you lose about .75% on average. Not huge, but something to consider. Remember that any decision you make here isn't permanent. If your previous allocation in the 401(k) was 100% in stock funds, you could put it in something like VTI, Vanguard's total US stock market ETF.",
"qid": 10034,
"docid": "351896",
"rank": 26,
"score": 82914
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Appreciation of a Capital Asset is a Capital Gain. In the United States, Capital Gains get favorable tax treatment after being held for 12 months. From the IRS newsroom: Capital gains and losses are classified as long-term or short-term, depending on how long you hold the property before you sell it. If you hold it more than one year, your capital gain or loss is long-term. If you hold it one year or less, your capital gain or loss is short-term. The tax rates that apply to net capital gain are generally lower than the tax rates that apply to other income. For 2009, the maximum capital gains rate for most people is15%. For lower-income individuals, the rate may be 0% on some or all of the net capital gain. Special types of net capital gain can be taxed at 25% or 28%. The IRS defines a Capital Asset as \"\"most property you own\"\" with a list of exclusions found in Schedule D Instructions. None of the exclusions listed relate to Bond ETFs.\"",
"qid": 10034,
"docid": "149305",
"rank": 27,
"score": 82051
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: mhoran answered the headline question, but you asked - Could someone shed some light on and differentiate between a retirement account and alternative savings plans? Retirement accounts can contain nearly anything that one would consider an investment. (yes, there are exception, not the topic for today). So when one says they have an S&P fund or ETF, and some company issued Bonds, etc, these may or may not be held in a retirement account. In the US, when we say 'retirement account,' it means a bit more than just an account earmarked for that goal. It's an account, 401(k), 403(b), IRA, etc, that has a special tax status. Money can go in pre-tax, and be withdrawn at retirement when you are in a lower tax bracket. The Roth flavor of 401(k) or IRA lets you deposit post-tax money, and 'never' pay tax on it again, if withdrawn under specific conditions. In 2013, a single earner pays 25% federal tax on taxable earnings over $36K. But a retiree with exactly $46K in gross income (who then has $10K in standard deduction plus exemption) has a tax of $4950, less than 11% average rate on that withdrawal. This is the effect of the deductions, 10% and 15% brackets. As with your other question, there's a lot to be said about this topic, no one can answer in one post. That said, the second benefit of the retirement account is the mental partitioning. I have retirement money, not to be touched, emergency money used for the broken down car or appliance replacement, and other funds it doesn't feel bad to tap for spending, vacations, etc. Nothing a good spreadsheet can't handle, but a good way to keep things physically separate as well. (I answered as if you are in US, but the answer works if you rename the retirement accounts, eg, Canada has similar tax structure to the US.)",
"qid": 10034,
"docid": "484149",
"rank": 28,
"score": 81735
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The short answer is that there is no US tax due if all you are doing is moving assets held abroad to the US. Whether you are a \"\"returning\"\" US citizen (or will continue your residence in the Philippines) is not relevant to this. The long answer is that you may be liable for a lot of other fines and taxes if you have not been doing any of several things correctly. As a US citizen, you are required to declare your worldwide income on your US income tax returns. Have you been filing US income tax returns during your time abroad? and have you been declaring the income that you have received from non-US sources each year? This includes wages, interest, dividends, capital gains, rental income from real estate, gambling income, lottery winnings, Nobel prizes, everything. If you have been paying income tax to other countries on this income, then it is generally possible to get a deduction for this tax payment from the income that will be taxed by the US (or a credit for the tax payment against your US Federal income tax liability) depending on the existence of tax treaties or (when the US Senate refuses to approve a tax treaty) a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between the US and other countries. In some cases, foreign earned income up to a certain limit is not taxed by the US at all. Even if you have been filing US income tax returns correctly, and can thus account for the $45,000 in your savings account, or you received that money as a gift or inheritance and can account for it on that basis, have you been filing reports with the US Treasury since the year when the total value of all your foreign bank accounts and other financial assets (stocks and bonds etc but not real estate) first exceeded $10,000? In prior years, this was a matter of filling out and submitting Form TD F 90-22.1 but more recently (since 2010?), you need to fill out and submit FinCEN Form 114. Have you been submitting the required documentation all along? Note that there are severe penalties for failure to fine FinCEN Form 114, and these penalties do not get waived by tax treaties. In summary, you might (or you might not) have several other tax or legal issues to worry about than just taxes on the transfer of your money from the Philippines to the US.\"",
"qid": 10034,
"docid": "561695",
"rank": 29,
"score": 81634
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: In the US, dividends have special tax treatment similar to, but not the same as Capital Gains. No easy way to transform one to the other, the very fact that you invested your money in a company that has returned part of your capital as income means it is just that, income. Also in the US, you could invest in Master Limited Partnerships. These are companies that make distributions that are treated as a return of capital, instead of dividends. Throughout the life of the investment you receive tax forms that assign part of the operating expense/loss of the company to you as a tax payer. Then at the end of the investment life you are required to recapture those losses as Capital Gains on sale of the stock. In some ways, these investments do exactly what you are asking about. They transform periodic income into later capital gains, basically deferring tax on the income until the sale of the security. Here is an article I found about MLPs coming to the UK through an ETF: Master Limited Partnerships in the UK",
"qid": 10034,
"docid": "110983",
"rank": 30,
"score": 81590
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: A terrific resource is this article. To summarize the points given: PROS: CONS: There is no generic yes or no answer as to whether you ought to max out your 401(k)s. If you are a sophisticated investor, then saving the income for investing could be a better alternative. Long term capital gains are taxed at 15% in the US, so if you buy and hold on to good companies that reinvest their earnings, then the share price keeps going up and you'll save a lot of money that would go in taxes. If you're not a very good investor, however, then 401(k)s make a lot of sense. If you're going to end up setting up some asset allocation and buying ETFs and rebalancing or having a manager rebalance for you every year or so, then you might as well take the 401(k) option and lower your taxable income. Point #1 is simply wrong, because companies that reinvest earnings and growing for a long time are essentially creating tax-free gains for you, which is even better than tax-deferred gains. Nonetheless, most people have neither the time nor the interest to research companies and for them, the 401(k) makes more sense.",
"qid": 10034,
"docid": "309200",
"rank": 31,
"score": 81343
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: ETFs are just like any other mutual fund; they hold a mix of assets described by their prospectus. If that mix fits your needs for diversification and the costs of buying/selling/holding are low, it's as worth considering as a traditional fund with the same mix. A bond fund will hold a mixture of bonds. Whether that mix is sufficiently diversified for you, or whether you want a different fund or a mix of funds, is a judgement call. I want my money to take care of itself for the most part, so most of the bond portion is in a low-fee Total Bond Market Index fund (which tries to match the performance of bonds in general). That could as easily be an ETF, but happens not to be.",
"qid": 10034,
"docid": "387277",
"rank": 32,
"score": 81150
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Taxes are triggered when you sell the individual stock. The IRS doesn't care which of your accounts the money is in. They view all your bank and brokerage accounts as if they are one big account mashed together. That kind of lumping is standard accounting practice for businesses. P/L, balance sheets, cash flow statements etc. will clump cash accounts as \"\"cash\"\". Taxes are also triggered when they pay you a dividend. That's why ETFs are preferable to mutual funds; ETFs automatically fold the dividends back into the ETF's value, so it doesn't cause a taxable event. Less paperwork. None of the above applies to retirement accounts. They are special. You don't report activity inside retirement accounts, because it would be very hard for regular folk to do that reporting, so that would discourage them from taking IRAs. Taxes are paid at withdrawal time (or in Roth's, never.)\"",
"qid": 10034,
"docid": "492053",
"rank": 33,
"score": 80759
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: @BlackJack does a good answer of addressing the gains and when you are taxed on them and at what kind of rate. Money held in a brokerage account will usually be in a money-market fund, so you would own taxes on the interest it earned. There is one important consideration that must be understood for capitol Losses. This is called the Wash Sale Rule. This rule comes into affect if you sell a stock at a LOSS, and buy shares of the same stock within 30 days (before or after) the sale. A common tactic used to minimize taxes paid is to 'capture losses' when they occur, since these can be used to offset gains and lower your taxes. This is normally done by selling a stock in which you have a LOSS, and then either buying another similar stock, or waiting and buying back the stock you sold. However, if you are intending to buy back the same stock, you must not 'trigger' the Wash Sale Rule or you are forbidden to take the loss. Examples. Lets presume you own 1000 shares of a stock and it's trading 25% below where you bought it, and you want to capture the loss to use on your taxes. This can be a very important consideration if trading index ETF's if you have a loss in something like a S&P500 ETF, you would likely incur a wash sale if you sold it and bought a different S&P500 ETF from another company since they are effectively the same thing. OTOH, if you sold an S&P500 ETF and bought something like a 'viper''total stock market' ETF it should be different enough to not trigger the wash sale rule. If you are trying to minimize the taxes you pay on stocks, there are basically two rules to follow. 1) When a gain is involved, hold things at least a year before selling, if at all possible. 2) Capture losses when they occur and use to offset gains, but be sure not to trigger the wash sale rule when doing so.",
"qid": 10034,
"docid": "195767",
"rank": 34,
"score": 80629
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Good time to mention the US is also the only country (besides Eritrea) to tax citizens on their worldwide income *regardless of their residency.* And yes, this is very strongly enforced against Average Joes who happen to have dual citizenship but have lived in Canada or UK or what not for the past 30 years. Through FATCA they've coerced global banks to hand them account data on all US citizens. Who knew a country borne out of a tax protest against an empire would become the most imperialist tax regime in the world?",
"qid": 10034,
"docid": "53583",
"rank": 35,
"score": 80255
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"While nothing is guaranteed - any stock market or country could collapse tomorrow - if you have a fairly long window (15+ years is certainly long), ETFs are likely to earn you well above inflation. Looking at long term ETFs, you typically see close to 10% annual growth over almost any ten year period in the US, and while I don't know European indexes, they're probably well above inflation at least. The downside of ETFs is that your money is somewhat less liquid than in a savings account, and any given year you might not earn anything - you easily could lose money in a particular year. As such, you shouldn't have money in ETFs that you expect to use in the next few months or year or even a few years, perhaps. But as long as you're willing to play the long game - ie, invest in ETF, don't touch it for 15 years except to reinvest the dividends - as long as you go with someone like Vanguard, and use a very low expense ratio fund (mine are 0.06% and 0.10%, I believe), you are likely in the long term to come out ahead. You can diversify your holdings - hold 10% to 20% in bond funds, for example - if you're concerned about risk; look at how some of the \"\"Target\"\" retirement funds allocate their investments to see how diversification can work [Target retirement funds assume high risk tolerance far out and then as the age grows the risk tolerance drops; don't invest in them, but it can be a good example of how to do it.] All of this does require a tolerance of risk, though, and you have to be able to not touch your funds even if they go down - studies have repeatedly shown that trying to time the market is a net loss for most people, and the best thing you can do when your (diverse) investments go down is stay neutral (talking about large funds here and not individual stocks). I think this answers 3 and 4. For 1, share price AND quantity matter (assuming no splits). This depends somewhat on the fund; but at minimum, funds must dividend to you what they receive as dividends. There are Dividend focused ETFs, which are an interesting topic in themselves; but a regular ETF doesn't usually have all that large of dividends. For more information, investopedia has an article on the subject. Note that there are also capital gains distributions, which are typically distributed to help offset capital gains taxes that may occur from time to time with an ETF. Those aren't really returns - you may have to hand most or all over to the IRS - so don't consider distributions the same way. The share price tracks the total net asset value of the fund divided by the number of shares (roughly, assuming no supply/demand split). This should go up as the stocks the ETF owns go up; overall, this is (for non-dividend ETFs) more often the larger volatility both up and down. For Vanguard's S&P500 ETF which you can see here, there were about $3.50 in dividends over 2014, which works out to about a 2% return ($185-$190 share price). On the other hand, the share price went from around $168 at the beginning of 2014 to $190 at the end of 2014, for a return of 13%. That was during a 'good' year for the market, of course; there will be years where you get 2-3% in dividends and lose money; in 2011 it opened at 116 and closed the year at 115 (I don't have the dividend for that year; certainly lower than 3.5% I'd think, but likely nonzero.) The one caveat here is that you do have stock splits, where they cut the price (say) in half and give you double the shares. That of course is revenue neutral - you have the same value the day after the split as before, net of market movements. All of this is good from a tax point of view, by the way; changes in price don't hit you until you sell the stock/fund (unless the fund has some capital gains), while dividends and distributions do. ETFs are seen as 'tax-friendly' for this reason. For 2, Vanguard is pretty good about this (in the US); I wouldn't necessarily invest monthly, but quarterly shouldn't be a problem. Just pay attention to the fees and figure out what the optimal frequency is (ie, assuming 10% return, what is your break even point). You would want to have some liquid assets anyway, so allow that liquid amount to rise over the quarter, then invest what you don't immediately see a need to use. You can see here Vanguard in the US has no fees for buying shares, but has a minimum of one share; so if you're buying their S&P500 (VOO), you'd need to wait until you had $200 or so to invest in order to invest additional funds.\"",
"qid": 10034,
"docid": "511559",
"rank": 36,
"score": 79338
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Gold ETFs are treated different than stock ETFs, as a collectable. This makes long-term investing in gold ETFs (for one year or longer) subject to a relatively large capital gains tax (maximum rate of 28%, rather than the 15% rate that is applicable to most other long-term capital gains). Read The Gold Showdown: ETFs Vs. Futures for more details.",
"qid": 10034,
"docid": "84238",
"rank": 37,
"score": 79286
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Here's the real reason OKPay (actually the banks they interface with) won't accept US Citizens. The Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act Congress passed the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) in 2010 without much fanfare. One reason the act was so quiet was its four-year long ramp up; FATCA did not really take effect until 2014. Never before had a single national government attempted, and so far succeeded in, forcing compliance standards on banks across the world. FATCA requires any non-U.S. bank to report accounts held by American citizens worth over $50,000 or else be subject to 30% withholding penalties and possible exclusion from U.S. markets. By mid-2015, more than 100,000 foreign entities had agreed to share financial information with the IRS. Even Russia and China agreed to FATCA. The only major global economy to fight the Feds is Canada; however it was private citizens, not the Canadian government, who filed suit to block FATCA under the International Governmental Agreement clause making it illegal to turn over private bank account information. Read more: The Tax Implications of Opening a Foreign Bank Account | Investopedia http://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/102915/tax-implications-opening-foreign-bank-account.asp#ixzz4TzEck9Yo Follow us: Investopedia on Facebook",
"qid": 10034,
"docid": "75568",
"rank": 38,
"score": 78759
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: An accountant should be able to advise on the tax consequences of different classes of investments/assets/debts (e.g. RRSP, TFSA, mortgage). But I would not ask an accountant which specific securities to hold in these vehicles, or what asset allocation (in terms of geography, capitalization, or class (equity vs fixed income vs derivatives vs structured notes etc). An investment advisor would be better suited to matching your investments to your risk tolerance.",
"qid": 10034,
"docid": "549435",
"rank": 39,
"score": 78491
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: A stock, bond or ETF is basically a commodity. Where you bought it does not really matter, and it has a value in USD only inasmuch as there is a current market price quoted at an American exchange. But nothing prevents you from turning around and selling it on a European exchange where it is also listed for an equivalent amount of EUR (arbitrage activities of investment banks ensure that the price will be equivalent in regard to the current exchange rate). In fact, this can be used as a cheap form of currency conversion. For blue chips at least this is trivial; exotic securities might not be listed in Europe. All you need is a broker who allows you to trade on European exchanges and hold an account denominated in EUR. If necessary, transfer your securities to a broker who does, which should not cost more than a nominal fee. Mutual funds are a different beast though; it might be possible to sell shares on an exchange anyway, or sell them back to the issuer for EUR. It depends. In any case, however, transferring 7 figure sums internationally can trigger all kinds of tax events and money laundering investigations. You really need to hire a financial advisor who has international investment experience for this kind of thing, not ask a web forum!",
"qid": 10034,
"docid": "369266",
"rank": 40,
"score": 77734
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Yes, you do. Since you've been a green card holder since the beginning of the year - your whole worldwide income for the whole year is taxable in the US. You can take credit for the taxes paid in the UK (use form 1116) to reduce your US tax liability.",
"qid": 10034,
"docid": "72135",
"rank": 41,
"score": 77525
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If the brokerage account holds US assets, such as the stock of US companies, then it may be taxable under some conditions. The rules are complex and depend on the nationality of the individuals, because the results may be affected by tax treaties between the United States and whatever country the person is from.",
"qid": 10034,
"docid": "430868",
"rank": 42,
"score": 77420
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: A DRIP plan with the ETF does just that. It provides cash (the dividends you are paid) back to the fund manager who will accumulate all such reinvested dividends and proportionally buy more shares of stock in the ETF. Most ETFs will not do this without your approval, as the dividends are taxed to you (you must include them as income for that year if this is in a taxable account) and therefore you should have the say on where the dividends go.",
"qid": 10034,
"docid": "158934",
"rank": 43,
"score": 77410
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I would recommend not paying it off early for 2 key reasons: If you are a resident of the U.S. you get tax deductibility of mortgage interest, which as pointed out in previous posts, reduces the effective interest rate on your mortgage, never in your life will you ever be allowed to obtain such high leverage at such a low rates. You can probably get higher returns with not much risk. @JoeTaxpayer mentioned various statistics regarding returns when investing in equities. Even though they are a decent bet over the long term, you can get an even better risk reward tradeoff by considering municipal bonds. If you are in the U.S. and invest in the municipal bonds of your state, the interest income will be both federal and state tax-free. In other words, if you were making 3.5% investing in equities, your after tax returns would be significantly less depending on your tax bracket whereas investment-grade municipal bond ETFs will yield probably the same or higher and have no tax. They are also significantly less volatile. Even though they have default risk, the risk is small since most of these bonds are backed by future tax obligations, or other income streams derived from hard assets such as tolls or property. Furthermore, an ETF will have a portfolio of these bonds which will also dampen the impact of any individual defaults. In essence, you are getting paid this spread for simply having access to credit, take advantage of it while you can.",
"qid": 10034,
"docid": "568454",
"rank": 44,
"score": 77275
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: In the case of VFIAX versus VOO, if you're a buy-and-hold investor, you're probably better off with the mutual fund because you can buy fractional shares. However, in general the expense ratio for ETFs will be lower than equivalent mutual funds (even passive index funds). They are the same in this case because the mutual fund is Admiral Class, which has a $10,000 minimum investment that not all people may be able to meet. Additionally, ETFs are useful when you don't have an account with the mutual fund company (i.e. Vanguard), and buying the mutual fund would incur heavy transaction fees.",
"qid": 10034,
"docid": "377429",
"rank": 45,
"score": 76489
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I would personally suggest owning Mutual Funds or ETF's in a tax sheltered account, such as a 401k or an IRA, especially Roth options if available. This lets you participate in the stock market while ensuring that you have diversified portfolio, and the money is managed by an expert. The tax sheltered accounts (or tax free in the case of Roth accounts) increase your savings, and simplify your life as you don't need to worry about taxes on earnings within those accounts, as long as you leave the money in. For a great beginner's guide see Clark's Investment Guide (Easy).",
"qid": 10034,
"docid": "576890",
"rank": 46,
"score": 76482
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I'm really surprised more people didn't recommend UGA or USO specifically. These have been mentioned in the past on a myriad of sites as ways to hedge against rising prices. I'm sure they would work quite well as an investment opportunity. They are ETF's that invest in nearby futures and constantly roll the position to the next delivery date. This creates a higher than usual expense ratio, I believe, but it could still be a good investment. However, be forewarned that they make you a \"\"partner\"\" by buying the stock so it can mildly complicate your tax return.\"",
"qid": 10034,
"docid": "172814",
"rank": 47,
"score": 76171
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: So how is it that American citizens working overseas get taxed, but American companies holding profits overseas don't? Or foreign companies making profits within the US for that matter. I don't really think we should be protectionist, but I do think corporations should be paying a fair share of taxes needed to support infrastructure, social and legal framework.",
"qid": 10034,
"docid": "470879",
"rank": 48,
"score": 75849
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: This post has been wrote in 2014, so if you read this text be aware. At the time, and since France does tax a lot investment, I'd suggest you start a PEA and filling in using the lazy investment portfolio. That means buying European and/or French ETFs & index, and hold them as long as you can. You can fill your PEA (Plan d'Epargne en Action) up to 150.000€ for a period of at least 8 years as long as you fill it with European and French stocks. After the period of 8 years your profit is taxed at only mere 15%, instead of the 33% you see in a raw broker account. Since you are young, I think a 100% stocks is something you can hold on. If you can't sleep at night with 100% stocks, take some bonds up to 25%, even more. Anyway, the younger you start investing, the more ahead you may eventually go.",
"qid": 10034,
"docid": "415061",
"rank": 49,
"score": 75801
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Bit hesitant to put this in an answer as I don't know if specific investment advice is appropriate, but this has grown way too long for a comment. The typical answer given for people who don't have the time, experience, knowledge or inclination to pick specific stocks to hold should instead invest in ETFs (exchange-traded index funds.) What these basically do is attempt to simulate a particular market or stock exchange. An S&P 500 index fund will (generally) attempt to hold shares in the stocks that make up that index. They only have to follow an index, not try to beat it so are called \"\"passively\"\" managed. They have very low expense ratios (far below 1%) and are considered a good choice for investors who want to hold stock without significant effort or expense and who's main goal is time in the market. It's a contentious topic but on average an index (and therefore an index fund) will go even with or outperform most actively managed funds. With a sufficiently long investment horizon, which you have, these may be ideal for you. Trading in ETFs is also typically cheap because they are traded like stock. There are plenty of low-fee online brokers and virtually all will allow trading in ETFs. My broker even has a list of several hundred popular ETFs that can be traded for free. The golden rule in investing is that you should never buy into something you don't understand. Don't buy individual stock with little information: it's often little more than gambling. The same goes for trading platforms like Loyal3. Don't use them unless you know their business model and what they stand to gain from your custom. As mentioned I can trade certain funds for free with my broker, but I know why they can offer that and how they're still making money.\"",
"qid": 10034,
"docid": "311192",
"rank": 50,
"score": 75740
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: There's no law that prohibits a US citizen or US LPR from holding an account abroad, at least in a country that's not subject to some sort of embargo, so I don't see how it could affect your wife's chances of getting US citizenship when she's eligible. As mentioned by other posters, you'll have to file FBAR if the money you have in all your accounts abroad exceeds $10k at any point of the year and if the account pays any interest, you'll have to tell the IRS about the interest paid and (if applicable) taxes you paid on the interest income abroad.",
"qid": 10034,
"docid": "437584",
"rank": 51,
"score": 75634
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"On BlackRock's XIN page under Key Facts it says the number of holdings as 1. Looking at the top 10 holdings shows EFA as the number 1 holding with a 101% weighting. XIN is \"\"iShares MSCI EAFE Index ETF (CAD-Hedged)\"\", so it takes the underlying component and hedges it to CAD. The underlying component is an ETF itself, EFA, so they only need to hold that one component (since that is the MSCI EAFE Index ETF). How is it possible to hold over 100%? Take a look at the full list of holdings. While EFA is the only underlying security (e.g. ETF, Stock, Bond, et.c), the remaining holdings (looks to be 133 remaining holdings) are cash positions. Some of those positions are negative for hedge purposes. Because of this, the total value of the portfolio is less than the position of EFA itself (since total value is EFA plus a bunch of negative entries); because the total value is less than EFA itself, EFA has a > 100% weighting.\"",
"qid": 10034,
"docid": "124900",
"rank": 52,
"score": 75628
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Given you other question and your resulting marginal tax rate, you may want to optimize where you hold each type of security. If you still plan to have a regular investment account, it's hard to beat the low tax rate of Canadian dividends. In a TFSA, you won't pay tax on the dividend income, and you won't get a dividend tax credit either. For some people in BC this actually costs them money as they have negative marginal dividend tax rates. For you it seems to be 6%. Contrast this with any other holding in your regular account, interest at full marginal rates, and cap gains at half that. Dividends still win in a regular account.",
"qid": 10034,
"docid": "263724",
"rank": 53,
"score": 75562
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: IANAL, I am married to someone in your situation. As a US citizen age 26 who has not had any contact with the IRS, you should most definitely be worried... As a US citizen, you are (and always have been) required to file a US tax return and pay any tax on all income, no matter where earned, and no matter where you reside. There are often (but not always) agreements between governments to reduce double taxation. The US rule as to whether a particular type of income is taxable will prevail. As a US citizen with financial accounts (chequing, saving, investment, etc.) above a minimum balance, abroad, you are required to report information, including the amounts in the account, to the US government annually (Look up FBAR). Failure to file these forms carries harsh penalties. A recent law (FATCA) requires foreign financial institutions to report information on their US citizen clients to the US, irrespective of any local banking privacy laws. It's possible that your application triggered these reporting requirements. You will not be allowed to renounce your US citizenship until you have paid all past US taxes and penalties. Good new: you are eligible in ten years or so to run for President. Don't believe any of this, or that nothing has been missed; you must consult with a local tax expert specializing in US/UK tax laws.",
"qid": 10034,
"docid": "381884",
"rank": 54,
"score": 75526
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Investopedia laid out the general information of tax treatment on the ETF fund structures as well as their underlying asset classes: http://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0213/how-tax-treatments-of-etfs-work.aspx",
"qid": 10034,
"docid": "474745",
"rank": 55,
"score": 75377
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"You seem to be assuming that ETFs must all work like the more traditional closed-end funds, where the market price per share tends—based on supply and demand—to significantly deviate from the underlying net asset value per share. The assumption is simplistic. What are traditionally referred to as closed-end funds (CEFs), where unit creation and redemption are very tightly controlled, have been around for a long time, and yes, they do often trade at a premium or discount to NAV because the quantity is inflexible. Yet, what is generally meant when the label \"\"ETF\"\" is used (despite CEFs also being both \"\"exchange-traded\"\" and \"\"funds\"\") are those securities which are not just exchange-traded, and funds, but also typically have two specific characteristics: (a) that they are based on some published index, and (b) that a mechanism exists for shares to be created or redeemed by large market participants. These characteristics facilitate efficient pricing through arbitrage. Essentially, when large market participants notice the price of an ETF diverging from the value of the shares held by the fund, new units of the ETF can get created or redeemed in bulk. The divergence quickly narrows as these participants buy or sell ETF units to capture the difference. So, the persistent premium (sometimes dear) or discount (sometimes deep) one can easily witness in the CEF universe tend not to occur with the typical ETF. Much of the time, prices for ETFs will tend to be very close to their net asset value. However, it isn't always the case, so proceed with some caution anyway. Both CEF and ETF providers generally publish information about their funds online. You will want to find out what is the underlying Net Asset Value (NAV) per share, and then you can determine if the market price trades at a premium or a discount to NAV. Assuming little difference in an ETF's price vs. its NAV, the more interesting question to ask about an ETF then becomes whether the NAV itself is a bargain, or not. That means you'll need to be more concerned with what stocks are in the index the fund tracks, and whether those stocks are a bargain, or not, at their current prices. i.e. The ETF is a basket, so look at each thing in the basket. Of course, most people buy ETFs because they don't want to do this kind of analysis and are happy with market average returns. Even so, sector-based ETFs are often used by traders to buy (or sell) entire sectors that may be undervalued (or overvalued).\"",
"qid": 10034,
"docid": "119819",
"rank": 56,
"score": 75352
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The main difference between an ETF and a Mutual Fund is Management. An ETF will track a specific index with NO manager input. A Mutual Fund has a manager that is trying to choose securities for its fund based on the mandate of the fund. Liquidity ETFs trade like a stock, so you can buy at 10am and sell at 11 if you wish. Mutual Funds (most) are valued at the end of each business day, so no intraday trading. Also ETFs are similar to stocks in that you need a buyer/seller for the ETF that you want/have. Whereas a mutual fund's units are sold back to itself. I do not know of many if any liquity issues with an ETF, but you could be stuck holding it if you can not find a buyer (usually the market maker). Mutual Funds can be closed to trading, however it is rare. Tax treatment Both come down to the underlying holdings in the fund or ETF. However, more often in Mutual Funds you could be stuck paying someone else's taxes, not true with an ETF. For example, you buy an Equity Mutual Fund 5 years ago, you sell the fund yourself today for little to no gain. I buy the fund a month ago and the fund manager sells a bunch of the stocks they bought for it 10 years ago for a hefty gain. I have a tax liability, you do not even though it is possible that neither of us have any gains in our pocket. It can even go one step further and 6 months from now I could be down money on paper and still have a tax liability. Expenses A Mutual Fund has an MER or Management Expense Ratio, you pay it no matter what. If the fund has a positive return of 12.5% in any given year and it has an MER of 2.5%, then you are up 10%. However if the fund loses 7.5% with the same MER, you are down 10%. An ETF has a much smaller management fee (typically 0.10-0.95%) but you will have trading costs associated with any trades. Risks involved in these as well as any investment are many and likely too long to go into here. However in general, if you have a Canadian Stock ETF it will have similar risks to a Canadian Equity Mutual Fund. I hope this helps.",
"qid": 10034,
"docid": "270992",
"rank": 57,
"score": 74993
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"When you hold units of the DLR/DLR.U (TSX) ETF, you are indirectly holding U.S. dollars cash or cash equivalents. The ETF can be thought of as a container. The container gives you the convenience of holding USD in, say, CAD-denominated accounts that don't normally provide for USD cash balances. The ETF price ($12.33 and $12.12, in your example) simply reflects the CAD price of those USD, and the change is because the currencies moved with respect to each other. And so, necessarily, given how the ETF is made up, when the value of the U.S. dollar declines vs. the Canadian dollar, it follows that the value of your units of DLR declines as quoted in Canadian dollar terms. Currencies move all the time. Similarly, if you held the same amount of value in U.S. dollars, directly, instead of using the ETF, you would still experience a loss when quoted in Canadian dollar terms. In other words, whether or not your U.S. dollars are tied up either in DLR/DLR.U or else sitting in a U.S. dollar cash balance in your brokerage account, there's not much of a difference: You \"\"lose\"\" Canadian dollar equivalent when the value of USD declines with respect to CAD. Selling, more quickly, your DLR.U units in a USD-denominated account to yield U.S. dollars that you then directly hold does not insulate you from the same currency risk. What it does is reduce your exposure to other cost/risk factors inherent with ETFs: liquidity, spreads, and fees. However, I doubt that any of those played a significant part in the change of value from $12.33 to $12.12 that you described.\"",
"qid": 10034,
"docid": "241661",
"rank": 58,
"score": 74847
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The finance team from your company should be able to advise you. From what I understand you are Indian Citizen for Tax purposes. Any income you receive globally is taxable in India. In this specific case you are still having a Employee relationship with your employer and as such the place of work does not matter. You are still liable to pay tax in India on the salary. If you are out of India for more than 182 days, you can be considered as Non-Resident from tax point of view. However this clause would not be of any benefit to you as are having a Employee / Employer relationship and being paid in India. Edit: This is only about the India portion of taxes. There maybe a UK protion of it as well, plus legally can you work and your type of Visa in UK may have a bearing on the answer",
"qid": 10034,
"docid": "298796",
"rank": 59,
"score": 74753
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: From the UK-USA tax treaty.... ARTICLE 1 General Scope 1. Except as specifically provided herein, this Convention is applicable only to persons who are residents of one or both of the Contracting States. 2. This Convention shall not restrict in any manner any benefit now or hereafter accorded: a) by the laws of either Contracting State; or b) by any other agreement between the Contracting States... I'm not an expert but to me that sounds like the tax free advantage of an UK ISA would be respected by the IRS From the UK-USA tax treaty.... ARTICLE 7 7. Where under any provision of this Convention income or gains arising in one of the Contracting States are relieved from tax in that Contracting State and, under the law in force in the other Contracting State, a person, in respect of the said income or gains, is subject to tax by reference to the amount thereof which is remitted to or received in that other Contracting State and not by reference to the full amount thereof, then the relief to be allowed under this Convention in the first-mentioned Contracting State shall apply only to so much of the income or gains as is taxed in the other Contracting State. This is very difficult to comprehend but suggets also that tax free status is upheld in the uSa",
"qid": 10034,
"docid": "85926",
"rank": 60,
"score": 74732
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: An instant 15% profit sounds good to me, so you can't go wrong selling as soon as you are able. Here are a couple other considerations: Tax implications: When you sell the stock, you have to pay taxes on the profit (including that 15% discount). The tax rate you pay is based on how long you wait to sell it. If you wait a certain amount of time (usually 2 years, but it will depend on your specific tax codes) before you sell, you could be subject to lower tax rates on that profit. See here for a more detailed description. This might only apply if you're in the US. Since you work for the company, you may be privy to a bit more information about how the company is run and how likely it is to grow. As such, if you feel like the company is headed in the right direction, you may want to hold on the the stock for a while. I am generally wary of being significantly invested in the company you work for. If the company goes south, then the stock price will obviously drop, but you'll also be at risk to be laid off. As such you're exposed much more risk than investing in other companies. This is a good argument to sell the stock and take the 15% profit.* * - I realize your question wasn't really about whether to sell the stock, but more for when, but I felt this was relevant nonetheless.",
"qid": 10034,
"docid": "102237",
"rank": 61,
"score": 74541
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Disclaimer: it's hard to be definitive as there may be some law or tax rule I'm not aware of. From a UK perspective, this should be perfectly legal. If it's just a one-off or occasional thing for personal reasons, rather than being done in the course of a business, there probably aren't any tax implications. In theory if there's an identifiable profit from the transaction, e.g. because you originally obtained the INR at a lower exchange rate, then you might be liable to capital gains tax. However this is only payable above approximately £10K capital gains (see http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/rates/cgt.htm) so unless this is a very large transaction or you have other gains in the tax year, you don't need to worry about that. I would only recommend doing this if you trust each other. If one side transfers the money and the other doesn't, the international nature will make it quite hard in practice to enforce the agreement legally, even though I think that in theory it should be possible. If the sums involved are large, you may find that the transaction is automatically reported to the authorities by your bank under money laundering regulations, or they may want documentation of the source of the funds/reason for the transaction. This doesn't automatically mean you'll have a problem, but the transaction may receive some scrutiny. I think that reporting typically kicks in when several thousand pounds are involved.",
"qid": 10034,
"docid": "63666",
"rank": 62,
"score": 74382
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: First I assume you are resident for tax purposes in the UK? 1 Put 2000 in a cash ISA as an emergency fund. 2 Buy shares in 2 or 3 of the big generalist Investment trusts as they have low charges and long track records – unless your a higher rate tax payer don’t buy the shares inside the ISA its not worth it You could use FTSE 100 tracker ETF's or iShares instead of Investment Trusts.",
"qid": 10034,
"docid": "489640",
"rank": 63,
"score": 74360
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: There is little difference between buying shares in your broker's index fund and shares of their corresponding ETF. In many cases the money invested in an ETF gets essentially stuffed right into the index fund (I believe Vanguard does this, for example). In either case you will be paying a little bit of tax. In the ETF case it will be on the dividends that are paid out. In the index fund case it will additionally be on the capital gains that have been realized within the fund, which are very few for an index fund. Not a ton in either case. The more important tax consideration is between purchase and sale, which is the same in either case. I'd say stick it wherever the lowest fees are.",
"qid": 10034,
"docid": "518735",
"rank": 64,
"score": 74185
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"MD-Tech's answer is correct. Let me only point out that there are easier ways to invest in the DJIA index without having to buy individual stocks. You can buy a mutual fund or ETF that will track the index and your return will be almost identical to the performance of the underlying index. It's \"\"almost\"\" identical because the fund will take a small management fee, you will have to pay annual taxes on capital gains (if you hold the investment in a taxable account), and because the fund has to actually invest in the underlying stocks, there will be small differences due to rounding and timing of the fund's trades. You also ask: Assuming that I calculated those numbers correctly, is this gain approximately better, equal to, or worse than an average investment for that timespan? While people argue about the numbers, index funds tend to do better than average (depends on what you call \"\"average\"\", of course). They do better than most actively managed funds, too. And since they have low management fees, index funds are often considered to be an important part of a long-term investment portfolio because they require very little activity on your part other than buying and holding.\"",
"qid": 10034,
"docid": "243797",
"rank": 65,
"score": 74162
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The ETF supply management policy is arcane. ETFs are not allowed to directly arbitrage their holdings against the market. Other firms must handle redemptions & deposits. This makes ETFs slightly costlier than the assets held. For ETFs with liquid holdings, its price will rarely vary relative to the holdings, slippage of the ETF's holdings management notwithstanding. This is because the firms responsible for depositing & redeeming will arbitrage their equivalent holdings of the ETF assets' prices with the ETF price. For ETFs with illiquid holdings, such as emerging markets, the ETF can vary between trades of the holdings. This will present sometimes large variations between the last price of the ETF vs the last prices of its holdings. If an ETF is shunned, its supply of holdings will simply drop and vice versa.",
"qid": 10034,
"docid": "270539",
"rank": 66,
"score": 73933
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Bond ETFs are just another way to buy a bond mutual fund. An ETF lets you trade mutual fund shares the way you trade stocks, in small share-size increments. The content of this answer applies equally to both stock and bond funds. If you are intending to buy and hold these securities, your main concerns should be purchase fees and expense ratios. Different brokerages will charge you different amounts to purchase these securities. Some brokerages have their own mutual funds for which they charge no trading fees, but they charge trading fees for ETFs. Brokerage A will let you buy Brokerage A's mutual funds for no trading fee but will charge a fee if you purchase Brokerage B's mutual fund in your Brokerage A account. Some brokerages have multiple classes of the same mutual fund. For example, Vanguard for many of its mutual funds has an Investor class (minimum $3,000 initial investment), Admiral class (minimum $10,000 initial investment), and an ETF (share price as initial investment). Investor class has the highest expense ratio (ER). Admiral class and the ETF generally have much lower ER, usually the same number. For example, Vanguard's Total Bond Market Index mutual fund has Investor class (symbol VBMFX) with 0.16% ER, Admiral (symbol VBTLX) with 0.06% ER, and ETF (symbol BND) with 0.06% ER (same as Admiral). See Vanguard ETF/mutual fund comparison page. Note that you can initially buy Investor class shares with Vanguard and Vanguard will automatically convert them to the lower-ER Admiral class shares when your investment has grown to the Admiral threshold. Choosing your broker and your funds may end up being more important than choosing the form of mutual fund versus ETF. Some brokers charge very high purchase/redemption fees for mutual funds. Many brokers have no ETFs that they will trade for free. Between funds, index funds are passively managed and are just designed to track a certain index; they have lower ERs. Actively managed funds are run by managers who try to beat the market; they have higher ERs and tend to actually fall below the performance of index funds, a double whammy. See also Vanguard's explanation of mutual funds vs. ETFs at Vanguard. See also Investopedia's explanation of mutual funds vs. ETFs in general.",
"qid": 10034,
"docid": "138383",
"rank": 67,
"score": 73879
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"It depends. Dividends and fees are usually unrelated. If the ETF holds a lot of stocks which pay significant dividends (e.g. an S&P500 index fund) these will probably cover the cost of the fees pretty readily. If the ETF holds a lot of stocks which do not pay significant dividends (e.g. growth stocks) there may not be any dividends - though hopefully there will be capital appreciation. Some ETFs don't contain stocks at all, but rather some other instruments (e.g. commodity-trust ETFs which hold precious metals like gold and silver, or daily-leveraged ETFs which hold options). In those cases there will never be any dividends. And depending on the performance of the market, the capital appreciation may or may not cover the expenses of the fund, either. If you look up QQQ's financials, you'll find it most recently paid out a dividend at an annualized rate of 0.71%. Its expense ratio is 0.20%. So the dividends more than cover its expense ratio. You could also ask \"\"why would I care?\"\" because unless you're doing some pretty-darned-specific tax-related modeling, it doesn't matter much whether the ETF covers its expense ratio via dividends or whether it comes out of capital gains. You should probably be more concerned with overall returns (for QQQ in the most recent year, 8.50% - which easily eclipses the dividends.)\"",
"qid": 10034,
"docid": "244813",
"rank": 68,
"score": 73727
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: In the US this is considered a sale, and the proceeds will be taxed as if you've sold the stocks in any other way. The decision about the treatment (capital, ordinary, etc) is dependent on what kind of stock that is, how you acquired it, how long have you held it, etc. If it is a regular stock that you bought as an investment and held it for more than a year - then it will likely to be a capital gain treatment. However, this is only relevant for the US taxation. Since you're a UK person, you should also check how it is handled in the UK, which may or may not be different.",
"qid": 10034,
"docid": "267067",
"rank": 69,
"score": 73519
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Is this transaction legal Yes it is. Are there any tax implications in US? The interest is taxable in US. From what I understand, there are no tax implications in India. Yes this is right. The question you haven't asked is does this makes sense? So you are paying 3% upfront. Getting 8% at end of one year. You can making monthly repayments through the year. You have not factored in the Fx Rate and their fluctuations. For Example you would convert USD to INR and back to USD. Even if you do this the same day, you loose around 2% that is referred to as Fx Spread. Plus the rates for USD and INR get adjusted for inflation. This means that INR will loose value in a year. In long term it would be balance out [i.e. the gain in interest rate is offset by loss in Fx rate]. At times its ahead or behind due to local conditions.",
"qid": 10034,
"docid": "156721",
"rank": 70,
"score": 73273
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Oddly enough, in the USA, there are enough cost and tax savings between buy-and-hold of a static portfolio and buying into a fund that a few brokerages have sprung up around the concept, such as FolioFN, to make it easier for small investors to manage numerous small holdings via fractional shares and no commission window trades. A static buy-and-hold portfolio of stocks can be had for a few dollars per trade. Buying into a fund involves various annual and one time fees that are quoted as percentages of the investment. Even 1-2% can be a lot, especially if it is every year. Typically, a US mutual fund must send out a 1099 tax form to each investor, stating that investors share of the dividends and capital gains for each year. The true impact of this is not obvious until you get a tax bill for gains that you did not enjoy, which can happen when you buy into a fund late in the year that has realized capital gains. What fund investors sometimes fail to appreciate is that they are taxed both on their own holding period of fund shares and the fund's capital gains distributions determined by the fund's holding period of its investments. For example, if ABC tech fund bought Google stock several years ago for $100/share, and sold it for $500/share in the same year you bought into the ABC fund, then you will receive a \"\"capital gains distribution\"\" on your 1099 that will include some dollar amount, which is considered your share of that long-term profit for tax purposes. The amount is not customized for your holding period, capital gains are distributed pro-rata among all current fund shareholders as of the ex-distribution date. Morningstar tracks this as Potential Capital Gains Exposure and so there is a way to check this possibility before investing. Funds who have unsold losers in their portfolio are also affected by these same rules, have been called \"\"free rides\"\" because those funds, if they find some winners, will have losers that they can sell simultaneously with the winners to remain tax neutral. See \"\"On the Lookout for Tax Traps and Free Riders\"\", Morningstar, pdf In contrast, buying-and-holding a portfolio does not attract any capital gains taxes until the stocks in the portfolio are sold at a profit. A fund often is actively managed. That is, experts will alter the portfolio from time to time or advise the fund to buy or sell particular investments. Note however, that even the experts are required to tell you that \"\"past performance is no guarantee of future results.\"\"\"",
"qid": 10034,
"docid": "41625",
"rank": 71,
"score": 73241
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I interned at a wealth management firm that used very active momentum trading, 99% technicals. Strictly ETFs (indexes, currencies, commodities, etc), no individual equities. They'd hold anywhere from 1-4 weeks, then dump it as soon as the chart starts turning over. As soon as I get enough capital I'm adopting their same exact strategy, it's painfully easy",
"qid": 10034,
"docid": "486458",
"rank": 72,
"score": 73173
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: PST, or any of the Ultra Short/Long funds aren't actually holding any traditional securities -- just swaps that are betting on the underlying asset. They also don't track the value of the underlying security over time -- just for one day. (And they're not even guaranteed to do that!) IEF is an actual treasury bond fund that holds real-life treasury securities, not swaps. Shorting a fund like IEF is one option, another is to buy options on a fund like IEF. Be very careful investing with ETFs, and don't buy any until you fully read and understand the prospectus. I got burned by an Ultra Long ETF because I didn't do my homework.",
"qid": 10034,
"docid": "532907",
"rank": 73,
"score": 73155
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: There is no ETF that closely tracks oil or gasoline. This is because all existing oil and gasoline ETFs hold futures contracts or other derivatives. Storing the oil and gasoline would be prohibitively costly. Futures contracts are prone to contango and backwardation, sometimes resulting in large deviations from the price of the physical commodity. Contrast oil ETFs with metal ETFs, which track nicely. EDIT: See this article about contango. The UNG chart is particularly ugly.",
"qid": 10034,
"docid": "98230",
"rank": 74,
"score": 73112
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Don't put money in things that you don't understand. ETFs won't kill you, ignorance will. The leveraged ultra long/short ETFs hold swaps that are essentially bets on the daily performance of the market. There is no guarantee that they will perform as designed at all, and they frequently do not. IIRC, in most cases, you shouldn't even be holding these things overnight. There aren't any hidden fees, but derivative risk can wipe out portions of the portfolio, and since the main \"\"asset\"\" in an ultra long/short ETF are swaps, you're also subject to counterparty risk -- if the investment bank the fund made its bet with cannot meet it's obligation, you're may lost alot of money. You need to read the prospectus carefully. The propectus re: strategy. The Fund seeks daily investment results, before fees and expenses, that correspond to twice the inverse (-2x) of the daily performance of the Index. The Fund does not seek to achieve its stated investment objective over a period of time greater than a single day. The prospectus re: risk. Because of daily rebalancing and the compounding of each day’s return over time, the return of the Fund for periods longer than a single day will be the result of each day’s returns compounded over the period, which will very likely differ from twice the inverse (-2x) of the return of the Index over the same period. A Fund will lose money if the Index performance is flat over time, and it is possible that the Fund will lose money over time even if the Index’s performance decreases, as a result of daily rebalancing, the Index’s volatility and the effects of compounding. See “Principal Risks” If you want to hedge your investments over a longer period of time, you should look at more traditional strategies, like options. If you don't have the money to make an option strategy work, you probably can't afford to speculate with leveraged ETFs either.\"",
"qid": 10034,
"docid": "440417",
"rank": 75,
"score": 73080
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: As far as I read in many articles, all earnings (capital gains and dividends) from Canadian stocks will be always tax-free. Right? There's no withholding tax, ie. a $100 dividend means you get $100. There's no withholding for capital gains in shares for anybody. You will still have to pay taxes on the amounts, but that's only due at tax time and it could be very minor (or even a refund) for eligible Canadian dividends. That's because the company has already paid tax on those dividends. In contrast, holding U.S. or any foreign stock that yields dividends in a TFSA will pay 15% withholding tax and it is not recoverable. Correct, but the 15% is a special rate for regular shares and you need to fill out a W8-BEN. Your broker will probably make sure you have every few years. But if you hold the same stock in a non-registered account, this 15% withholding tax can be used as a foreign tax credit? Is this true or not or what are the considerations? That's true but reduces your Canadian tax payable, it's not refundable, so you have to have some tax to subtract it from. Another consideration is foreign dividends are included 100% in income no mater what the character is. That means you pay tax at your highest rate always if not held in a tax sheltered account. Canadian dividends that are in a non-registered account will pay taxes, I presume and I don't know how much, but the amount can be used also as a tax credit or are unrecoverable? What happens in order to take into account taxes paid by the company is, I read also that if you don't want to pay withholding taxes from foreign > dividends you can hold your stock in a RRSP or RRIF? You don't have any withholding taxes from US entities to what they consider Canadian retirement accounts. So TFSAs and RESPs aren't covered. Note that it has to be a US fund like SPY or VTI that trades in the US, and the account has to be RRSP/RRIF. You can't buy a Canadian listed ETF that holds US stocks and get the same treatment. This is also only for the US, not foreign like Europe or Asia. Also something like VT (total world) in the US will have withholding taxes from foreign (Europe & Asia mostly) before the money gets to the US. You can't get that back. Just an honourable mention for the UK, there's no withholding taxes for anybody, and I hear it's on sale. But at some point, if I withdraw the money, who do I need to pay taxes, > U.S. or Canada? Canada.",
"qid": 10034,
"docid": "459953",
"rank": 76,
"score": 73065
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"If you need less than $125k for the downpayment, I recommend you convert your mutual fund shares to their ETF counterparts tax-free: Can I convert conventional Vanguard mutual fund shares to Vanguard ETFs? Shareholders of Vanguard stock index funds that offer Vanguard ETFs may convert their conventional shares to Vanguard ETFs of the same fund. This conversion is generally tax-free, although some brokerage firms may be unable to convert fractional shares, which could result in a modest taxable gain. (Four of our bond ETFs—Total Bond Market, Short-Term Bond, Intermediate-Term Bond, and Long-Term Bond—do not allow the conversion of bond index fund shares to bond ETF shares of the same fund; the other eight Vanguard bond ETFs allow conversions.) There is no fee for Vanguard Brokerage clients to convert conventional shares to Vanguard ETFs of the same fund. Other brokerage providers may charge a fee for this service. For more information, contact your brokerage firm, or call 866-499-8473. Once you convert from conventional shares to Vanguard ETFs, you cannot convert back to conventional shares. Also, conventional shares held through a 401(k) account cannot be converted to Vanguard ETFs. https://personal.vanguard.com/us/content/Funds/FundsVIPERWhatAreVIPERSharesJSP.jsp Withdraw the money you need as a margin loan, buy the house, get a second mortgage of $125k, take the proceeds from the second mortgage and pay back the margin loan. Even if you have short term credit funds, it'd still be wiser to lever up the house completely as long as you're not overpaying or in a bubble area, considering your ample personal investments and the combined rate of return of the house and the funds exceeding the mortgage interest rate. Also, mortgage interest is tax deductible while margin interest isn't, pushing the net return even higher. $125k Generally, I recommend this figure to you because the biggest S&P collapse since the recession took off about 50% from the top. If you borrow $125k on margin, and the total value of the funds drop 50%, you shouldn't suffer margin calls. I assumed that you were more or less invested in the S&P on average (as most modern \"\"asset allocations\"\" basically recommend a back-door S&P as a mix of credit assets, managed futures, and small caps average the S&P). Second mortgage Yes, you will have two loans that you're paying interest on. You've traded having less invested in securities & a capital gains tax bill for more liabilities, interest payments, interest deductions, more invested in securities, a higher combined rate of return. If you have $500k set aside in securities and want $500k in real estate, this is more than safe for you as you will most likely have a combined rate of return of ~5% on $500k with interest on $500k at ~3.5%. If you're in small cap value, you'll probably be grossing ~15% on $500k. You definitely need to secure your labor income with supplementary insurance. Start a new question if you need a model for that. Secure real estate with securities A local bank would be more likely to do this than a major one, but if you secure the house with the investment account with special provisions like giving them copies of your monthly statements, etc, you might even get a lower rate on your mortgage considering how over-secured the loan would be. You might even be able to wrap it up without a down payment in one loan if it's still legal. Mortgage regulations have changed a lot since the housing crash.\"",
"qid": 10034,
"docid": "321637",
"rank": 77,
"score": 73050
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"If a person is not a U.S. citizen and they live and work outside the U.S., then any income they make from a U.S. company or person for services provided does not qualify as \"\"U.S. Source income\"\" according to the IRS. Therefore you wouldn't need to worry about withholding or providing tax forms for them for U.S. taxes. See the IRS Publication 519 U.S. Tax Guide for Aliens.\"",
"qid": 10034,
"docid": "264068",
"rank": 78,
"score": 72998
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Indian PF is a social security scheme, and as per the US India DTAA Article 20, is not taxable by the US. The exact text says as under - This clearly states that any social security benefit paid by any of the two contracting states to a resident of the other contracting state is taxable only in the first mentioned state. In other words, US cannot tax Indian social security benefits (and vice versa). Therefore, you are liable for taxes only in India even though you have to declare to the US that you were given the social security (PF) benefit by India.",
"qid": 10034,
"docid": "357797",
"rank": 79,
"score": 72746
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Is he affiliated with the company charging this fee? If so, 1% is great. For him. You are correct, this is way too high. Whatever tax benefit this account provides is negated over a sufficiently long period of time. you need a different plan, and perhaps, a different friend. I see the ISA is similar to the US Roth account. Post tax money deposited, but growth and withdrawals tax free. (Someone correct, if I mis-read this). Consider - You deposit £10,000. 7.2% growth over 10 years and you'd have £20,000. Not quite, since 1% is taken each year, you have £18,250. Here's what's crazy. When you realize you lost £1750 to fees, it's really 17.5% of the £10,000 your account would have grown absent those fees. In the US, our long term capital gain rate is 15%, so the fees after 10 years more than wipe out the benefit. We are not supposed to recommend investments here, but it's safe to say there are ETFs (baskets of stocks reflecting an index, but trading like an individual stock) that have fees less than .1%. The UK tag is appreciated, but your concern regarding fees is universal. Sorry for the long lecture, but \"\"1%, bad.\"\"\"",
"qid": 10034,
"docid": "346498",
"rank": 80,
"score": 72540
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"An Exchange-Traded Fund (ETF) is a special type of mutual fund that is traded on the stock exchange like a stock. To invest, you buy it through a stock broker, just as you would if you were buying an individual stock. When looking at a mutual fund based in the U.S., the easiest way to tell whether or not it is an ETF is by looking at the ticker symbol. Traditional mutual funds have ticker symbols that end in \"\"X\"\", and ETFs have ticker symbols that do not end in \"\"X\"\". The JPMorgan Emerging Markets Equity Fund, with ticker symbol JFAMX, is a traditional mutual fund, not an ETF. JPMorgan does have ETFs; the JPMorgan Diversified Return Emerging Markets Equity ETF, with ticker symbol JPEM, is an example. This ETF invests in similar stocks as JFAMX; however, because it is an index-based fund instead of an actively managed fund, it has lower fees. If you aren't sure about the ticker symbol, the advertising/prospectus of any ETF should clearly state that it is an ETF. (In the example of JPEM above, they put \"\"ETF\"\" right in the fund name.) If you don't see ETF mentioned, it is most likely a traditional mutual fund. Another way to tell is by looking at the \"\"investment minimums\"\" of the fund. JFAMX has a minimum initial investment of $1000. ETFs, however, do not have an investment minimum listed; because it is traded like a stock, you simply buy whole shares at whatever the current share price is. So if you look at the \"\"Fees and Investment Minimums\"\" section of the JPEM page, you'll see the fees listed, but not any investment minimums.\"",
"qid": 10034,
"docid": "472663",
"rank": 81,
"score": 72481
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I'll start with the bottom line. Below the line I'll address the specific issues. Becoming a US tax resident is a very serious decision, that has significant consequences for any non-American with >$0 in assets. When it involves cross-border business interests, it becomes even more significant. Especially if Switzerland is involved. The US has driven at least one iconic Swiss financial institution out of business for sheltering US tax residents from the IRS/FinCEN. So in a nutshell, you need to learn and be afraid of the following abbreviations: and many more. The best thing for you would be to find a good US tax adviser (there are several large US tax firms in the UK handling the US expats there, go to one of those) and get a proper assessment of all your risks and get a proper advice. You can get burnt really hard if you don't prepare and plan properly. Now here's that bottom line. Q) Will I have to submit the accounts for the Swiss Business even though Im not on the payroll - and the business makes hardly any profit each year. I can of course get our accounts each year - BUT - they will be in Swiss German! That's actually not a trivial question. Depending on the ownership structure and your legal status within the company, all the company's bank accounts may be reportable on FBAR (see link above). You may also be required to file form 5471. Q) Will I need to have this translated!? Is there any format/procedure to this!? Will it have to be translated by my Swiss accountants? - and if so - which parts of the documentation need to be translated!? All US forms are in English. If you're required to provide supporting documentation (during audit, or if the form instructions require it with filing) - you'll need to translate it, and have the translation certified. Depending on what you need, your accountant will guide you. I was told that if I sell the business (and property) after I aquire a greencard - that I will be liable to 15% tax of the profit I'd made. Q) Is this correct!? No. You will be liable to pay income tax. The rate of the tax depends on the kind of property and the period you held it for. It may be 15%, it may be 39%. Depends on a lot of factors. It may also be 0%, in some cases. I also understand that any tax paid (on selling) in Switzerland will be deducted from the 15%!? May be. May be not. What you're talking about is called Foreign Tax Credit. The rules for calculating the credit are not exactly trivial, and from my personal experience - you can most definitely end up being paying tax in both the US and Switzerland without the ability to utilize the credit in full. Again, talk to your tax adviser ahead of time to plan things in the most optimal way for you. I will effectively have ALL the paperwork for this - as we'll need to do the same in Switzerland. But again, it will be in Swiss German. Q) Would this be a problem if its presented in Swiss German!? Of course. If you need to present it (again, most likely only in case of audit), you'll have to have a translation. Translating stuff is not a problem, usually costs $5-$20 per page, depending on complexity. Unless a lot of money involved, I doubt you'll need to translate more than balance sheet/bank statement. I know this is a very unique set of questions, so if you can shed any light on the matter, it would be greatly appreciated. Not unique at all. You're not the first and not the last to emigrate to the US. However, you need to understand that the issue is very complex. Taxes are complex everywhere, but especially so in the US. I suggest you not do anything before talking to a US-licensed CPA/EA whose practice is to work with the EU/UK expats to the US or US expats to the UK/EU.",
"qid": 10034,
"docid": "188816",
"rank": 82,
"score": 72441
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The IRS rules are actually the same. 26 U.S. Code § 1091 - Loss from wash sales of stock or securities In the case of any loss claimed to have been sustained from any sale or other disposition of shares of stock or securities where it appears that, within a period beginning 30 days before the date of such sale or disposition and ending 30 days after such date, the taxpayer has acquired (by purchase or by an exchange on which the entire amount of gain or loss was recognized by law), or has entered into a contract or option so to acquire, substantially identical stock or securities, then no deduction shall be allowed... What you should take away from the quote above is \"\"substantially identical stock or securities.\"\" With stocks, one company may happen to have a high correlation, Exxon and Mobil come to mind, before their merger of course. With funds or ETFs, the story is different. The IRS has yet to issue rules regarding what level of overlap or correlation makes two funds or ETFs \"\"substantially identical.\"\" Last month, I wrote an article, Tax Loss Harvesting, which analyses the impact of taking losses each year. I study the 2000's which showed an average loss of 1% per year, a 9% loss for the decade. Tax loss harvesting made the decade slightly positive, i.e. an annual boost of approx 1%.\"",
"qid": 10034,
"docid": "261902",
"rank": 83,
"score": 72404
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you are a non resident Indian, the income you earn and transfer to India is tax free in India. You can hold the funds in USD or convert then into INR, there is no tax implication.",
"qid": 10034,
"docid": "306800",
"rank": 84,
"score": 72340
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: if you open spreadbetting accounts and prove to the inland revenue that trading profits are not your main income, you will not be liable for any tax on your gains. Holding a property in the uk which is point of call for any held bank accounts needs to be verifiable though. This is only an issue if accounts are larger than £400k. seems anything smaller doesnt get the sniffer dogs attention at the IR dept.",
"qid": 10034,
"docid": "569210",
"rank": 85,
"score": 72315
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: There might be some US tax implications depending on the amount of gift. See more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gift_tax_in_the_United_States",
"qid": 10034,
"docid": "530576",
"rank": 86,
"score": 72261
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: NO. All the leveraged ETFs are designed to multiply the performance of the underlying asset FOR THAT DAY, read the prospectus. Their price is adjusted at the end of the day to reflect what is called a NAV unit. Basically, they know that their price is subject to fluctuations due to supply and demand throughout the day - simply because they trade in a quote driven system. But the price is automatically corrected at the end of the day regardless. In practice though, all sorts of crazy things happen with leveraged ETFs that will simply make them more and more unfavorable to hold long term, the longer you look at it.",
"qid": 10034,
"docid": "214281",
"rank": 87,
"score": 72240
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The US is one of the only countries which taxes its citizens on global income. You're ignoring the high fixed costs of compliance with the US tax code, both for individuals and institutions. Compliance is so big an issue that foreign banks are turning away US customers rather than having to comply with FATCA, leaving people unable to open a bank account. Also, renunciations of citizenship are up something like 400%, and they aren't all billionaires.",
"qid": 10034,
"docid": "420360",
"rank": 88,
"score": 72135
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"In an attempt to express this complicated fact in lay terms I shall focus exclusively on the most influential factor effecting the seemingly bizarre outcome you have noted, where the price chart of VIX ETFs indicates upwards of a 99% decrease since inception. Other factors include transaction costs and management fees. Some VIX ETFs also provide leveraged returns, describing themselves as \"\"two times VIX\"\" or \"\"three times VIX\"\", etc. Regarding the claim that volatility averages out over time, this is supported by your own chart of the spot VIX index. EDIT It should be noted that (almost) nobody holds VIX ETFs for anything more than a day or two. This will miminise the effects described above. Typical daily volumes of VIX ETFs are in excess of 100% of shares outstanding. In very volatile markets, daily volumes will often exceed 400% of shares outstanding indicating an overwhelming amount of day trading.\"",
"qid": 10034,
"docid": "598238",
"rank": 89,
"score": 72102
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The United States taxes gifts to the giver, not the receiver. Thus, in your case there would be no direct tax implications from the receiver so long as you are gifting cash and the cash is in Canada. If you are gifting capital (stocks, property, etc.), or if you are gifting something that is in the United States (US stock, for example), there may be a tax implication for either or both of you. Your adult child would, however, have to file an IRS form since the gift is so large (over $100k) to create a paper trail for the money (basically proving s/he isn't money laundering or otherwise avoiding tax). See this article in The Globe And Mail which goes into more detail. There are no implications, except that there is a form (IRS Form 3520) that would have to be filed by the U.S. recipient if the foreign gift is over $100,000 (U.S.). But the child would still receive the gift tax-free. The U.S. gift tax would only apply when the Canadian parent makes a gift of U.S. “situs” assets, which are typically only U.S. real estate or tangible personal property such as a boat located in the U.S. For gift-tax purposes, U.S. shares are not considered to be U.S. situs assets.",
"qid": 10034,
"docid": "309555",
"rank": 90,
"score": 72000
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: As keshlam said, an ETF holds various assets, but the level of diversification depends on the individual ETF. A bond ETF can focus on short term bonds, long term bonds, domestic bonds, foreign bonds, government bonds, corporate bonds, low risk, high risk, or a mixture of any of those. Vanguard Total International Bond ETF (BNDX) for instance tries to be geographically diverse.",
"qid": 10034,
"docid": "558924",
"rank": 91,
"score": 71996
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"While @JB's \"\"yes\"\" is correct, a few more points to consider: There is no tax penalty for withdrawing any time from a taxable investment, that is, one not using specific tax protections like 401k/IRA or ESA or HSA. But you do pay tax on any income or gain distributions you receive from a taxable investment in a fund (except interest on tax-exempt aka \"\"municipal\"\" bonds), and any net capital gains you realize when selling (or technically redeeming for non-ETF funds). Just like you do for dividends and interest and gains on non-fund taxable investments. Many funds have a sales charge or \"\"load\"\" which means you will very likely lose money if you sell quickly typically within at least several months and usually a year or more, and even some no-load funds, to discourage rapid trading that makes their management more difficult (and costly), have a \"\"contingent sales charge\"\" if you sell after less than a stated period like 3 months or 6 months. For funds that largely or entirely invest in equities or longer term bonds, the share value/price is practically certain to fluctuate up and down, and if you sell during a \"\"down\"\" period you will lose money; if \"\"liquid\"\" means you want to take out money anytime without waiting for the market to move, you might want funds focussing on short-term bonds, especially government bonds, and \"\"money market\"\" funds which hold only very short bonds (usually duration under 90 days), which have much more stable prices (but lower returns over the longer term).\"",
"qid": 10034,
"docid": "344283",
"rank": 92,
"score": 71900
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You can buy the exchange traded fund ETFS WTI Crude Oil (CRUD), amongst other ETFS products. http://funds.ft.com/uk/Tearsheet/Summary?s=CRUD:LSE:USD Note these funds do not 'jump' when the crude oil futures contracts are in contango (e.g. June contract is priced higher than May) and the futures roll-over, as they do monthly. When this happens the EFTS continues with no movement. Currently May is $52.85 and June is $54.15 (so in contango). LSE:CRUD is $13.40 and if the crude oil futures rolled-over it would carry straight on at that value. For this reason one should be cautious buying and holding LSE:CRUD longterm.",
"qid": 10034,
"docid": "234115",
"rank": 93,
"score": 71879
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"ETFs are well suited to day trading, but you should be mindful of the bid-ask spread. See article: Commission-free ETFs are a great way to save money, but watch the bid-ask spread too. Bid-ask spread is largely a function of liquidity, or the volume of buyers and sellers for an asset during a particular moment in time. ... It may be more difficult to trade certain assets that are less liquid, where bid-ask spreads can be higher. Think some penny stocks. If you have the choice, compare the spreads of the ETF and the target stock. Longer-term \"\"keep & hold\"\" trading on ETFs tracking futures can be somewhat disadvantageous. Futures contracts roll-over every month. Exchange traders have to sell and buy in on the next contract. ETFs don't reflect the price differential between the futures contract. See here for more detail on that: Positioning For An Oil ETF Rebound? Watch For Contango Contango occurs when the price on a futures contract is higher than the expected future spot price, which creates the upward sloping curve on future commodity prices over time. Essentially, the phenomenon reflects a current spot price that is lower than the futures price. ... While this phenomena is a normal occurrence in the futures market, contango can have a negative effect on ETFs.\"",
"qid": 10034,
"docid": "159822",
"rank": 94,
"score": 71780
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Standard federal candidate political donations are limited to $2700 per candidate per election. The primary and general elections are different elections for this purpose. Source: http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/citizens.shtml There are no tax implications to a campaign contribution. Even if you contribute to the campaign of someone to whom you have made gifts now or in the past, that does count. You are contributing to the campaign, not the person. Such money has to be used for campaign purposes. The candidate could be prosecuted (for something like embezzlement) for using the funds for something else. Example source: http://www.rothcpa.com/archives/006985.php Congress itself ordered the IRS away from direct political contributions by enacting what is now Code Section 2501(c)(4) in 1975, which prohibits gift tax assessments on \"\"political organizations,\"\" defined by Section 527 as \"\"...a party, committee, association, fund, or other organization (whether or not incorporated) organized and operated primarily for the purpose of directly or indirectly accepting contributions or making expenditures, or both, for an exempt function.\"\" There is no way to donate to a candidate's campaign in a tax deductible way. The only tax-deductible money in politics is money given to a charity that the charity then uses to fund their own campaigning activities like advertisements or get out the vote calls. Such spending might supplant some candidate spending, but it can't be given to the candidate's campaign to spend. In fact, such spending can't be coordinated with the campaign at all. Example source: http://blogs.hrblock.com/2013/03/04/how-to-capture-political-contributions-on-your-tax-return/ If you wrote a check for a presidential candidate or even a local mayoral candidate, you’re out of luck when it comes to deductions. Contributions given directly to campaigns and parties are absolutely non-deductible. Note that it spends a lot of time explaining how you can deduct contributions to independent charities that happen to do campaign work.\"",
"qid": 10034,
"docid": "213591",
"rank": 95,
"score": 71778
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Nothing \"\"happens\"\" to it. It works the same way regardless of whether you are a U.S. citizen or resident or not. Taxes and penalties work the same way on withdrawal. That said, if you are not in the U.S. and don't have any income in the U.S. in a particular year in the future, you can take advantage of the fact that your U.S. tax that year will probably be zero. Then, if you withdraw a little bit, even if they count as taxable income, your U.S. income will still be so low that it may be under your personal exemption, or if not at least it will be taxed in the lowest tax bracket.\"",
"qid": 10034,
"docid": "116009",
"rank": 96,
"score": 71635
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: It isn't just ETFs, you have normal mutual funds in India which invest internationally. This could be convenient if you don't already have a depository account and a stockbroker. Here's a list of such funds, along with some performance data: Value Research - Equity: International: Long-term Performance. However, you should also be aware that in India, domestic equity and equity fund investing is tax-free in the long-term (longer than one year), but this exemption doesn't apply to international investments. Ref: Invest Around the World.",
"qid": 10034,
"docid": "386173",
"rank": 97,
"score": 71551
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: It seems to me that the study fails to adjust for the fact that if the UK became a US state, UK taxes would be removed which would probably result in lower living costs, higher incomes, more investments..and shittier healthcare... etc etc.",
"qid": 10034,
"docid": "17998",
"rank": 98,
"score": 71214
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Without making specific recommendations, it is worthwhile to point out the differing tax treatments for a Roth IRA: investments in a Roth IRA will not be taxed when you withdraw them during retirement (unless they change the law on that or something crazy). So if you are thinking about investing in some areas with high risk and high potential reward (e.g. emerging market stocks) then the Roth IRA might be the place to do it. That way, if the investment works out, you have more money in the account that won't ever be taxed. We can talk about the possible risks of certain kinds of investments, but this is not an appropriate forum to recommend for or against them specifically. Healthcare stocks are subject to political risk in the current regulatory climate. BRICs are subject to political risks regarding the political and business climate in the relevant nations, and the growth of their economies need not correspond with growth in the companies you hold in your portfolio. Energy stocks are subject to the world economic climate and demand for oil, unless you're talking alternative-energy stocks, which are subject to political risk regarding their subsidies and technological risk regarding whether or not their technologies pan out. It is worth pointing out that any ETF you invest in will have a prospectus, and that prospectus will contain a section discussing the risks which could affect your investment. Read it before investing! :)",
"qid": 10034,
"docid": "272840",
"rank": 99,
"score": 71195
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Bond ETFs are traded like normal stock. It just so happens to be that the underlying fund (for which you own shares) is invested in bonds. Such funds will typically own many bonds and have them laddered so that they are constantly maturing. Such funds may also trade bonds on the OTC market. Note that with bond ETFs you're able to lose money as well as gain depending on the situation with the bond market. The issuer of the bond does not need to default in order for this to happen. The value of a bond (and thus the value of the bond fund which holds the bonds) is, much like a stock, determined based on factors like supply/demand, interest rates, credit ratings, news, etc.",
"qid": 10034,
"docid": "137299",
"rank": 100,
"score": 71128
}
] |
Do individual investors use Google to obtain stock quotes? | [
{
"content": "Title: Content: The dividend quoted on a site like the one you linked to on Yahoo shows what 1 investor owning 1 share received from the company. It is not adjusted at all for taxes. (Actually some dividend quotes are adjusted but not for taxes... see below.) It is not adjusted because most dividends are taxed as ordinary income. This means different rates for different people, and so for simplicity's sake the quotes just show what an investor would be paid. You're responsible for calculating and paying your own taxes. From the IRS website: Ordinary Dividends Ordinary (taxable) dividends are the most common type of distribution from a corporation or a mutual fund. They are paid out of earnings and profits and are ordinary income to you. This means they are not capital gains. You can assume that any dividend you receive on common or preferred stock is an ordinary dividend unless the paying corporation or mutual fund tells you otherwise. Ordinary dividends will be shown in box 1a of the Form 1099-DIV you receive. Now my disclaimer... what you see on a normal stock quote for dividend in Yahoo or Google Finance is adjusted. (Like here for GE.) Many corporations actually pay out quarterly dividends. So the number shown for a dividend will be the most recent quarterly dividend [times] 4 quarters. To find out what you would receive as an actual payment, you would need to divide GE's current $0.76 dividend by 4 quarters... $0.19. So you would receive that amount for each share of stock you owned in GE.",
"qid": 10039,
"docid": "559884",
"rank": 1,
"score": 126678
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I won't be able to model stock prices using this information. The pros aren't likely to use Google as much. Even the casual investor is likely to have his own habits. For example, I've come to like how Yahoo permits me to set up a portfolio and follow the stocks I want. And the information that interests me is there, laid out nicely, price, history, insider trades, news etc. But your effort probably still has some discovery value, as it will help you understand when interest in a company suddenly swells above normal. Nothing wrong with a good project like that. Just don't expect to extract too much market-beating success from it. The pros will eat your lunch, take your money, and not even say thanks. Welcome to Money.SE.",
"qid": 10039,
"docid": "67785",
"rank": 2,
"score": 122009
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: From Wikipedia: 'Bezos was one of the first shareholders in Google, when he invested $250,000 in 1998. That $250,000 investment resulted in 3.3 million shares of Google stock worth about $3.1 billion today.' His wealth may be tied to amazon but he is a savvy investor. Recently, I was watching an early interview he did with Charlie Rose, and I read more about him - which led to reading the Wikipedia article.",
"qid": 10039,
"docid": "265637",
"rank": 3,
"score": 120025
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You can use Google Finance Stock Screener for screening US stocks. Apparently it doesn't have the specific criterion (Last Price % diff from 52 week low) you are (were!) looking for. I believe using its api you can get it, although it won't exactly be a very direct solution.",
"qid": 10039,
"docid": "326128",
"rank": 4,
"score": 118747
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"A company whose stock is available for sale to the public is called a publicly-held or publicly-traded company. A public company's stock is sold on a stock exchange, and anyone with money can buy shares through a stock broker. This contrasts with a privately-held company, in which the shares are not traded on a stock exchange. In order to invest in a private company, you would need to talk directly to the current owners of the company. Finding out if a company is public or private is fairly easy. One way to check this is to look at the Wikipedia page for the company. For example, if you take a look at the Apple page, on the right sidebar you'll see \"\"Type: Public\"\", followed by the stock exchange ticker symbol \"\"AAPL\"\". Compare this to the page for Mars, Inc.; on that page, you'll see \"\"Type: Private\"\", and no stock ticker symbol listed. Another way to tell: If you can find a quote for a share price on a financial site (such as Google Finance or Yahoo Finance), you can buy the stock. You won't find a stock price for Mars, Inc. anywhere, because the stock is not publicly traded.\"",
"qid": 10039,
"docid": "53993",
"rank": 5,
"score": 118411
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Here is one from a Bloomberg partnership, it is free. To get the end of day prices, you may need some programming done. PM me if you need help with that. Getting bond quotes and general information about a bond issue is considerably more difficult than researching a stock or a mutual fund. A major reason for this is that there is not a lot of individual investor demand for the information; therefore, most bond information is available only through higher level tools that are not accessible to the average investor. Read more: Where can I get bond market quotes? | Investopedia http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/06/bondquote.asp#ixzz3wXVwv3s5",
"qid": 10039,
"docid": "574777",
"rank": 6,
"score": 115964
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You can invest upto $200K per year abroad, and yes, you can buy Google as a stock. Consider opening an international account with a broker like interactive brokers (www.interactivebrokers.co.in) which allows you to fund the account from your local Indian account, and then on, buy shares of companies listed abroad.",
"qid": 10039,
"docid": "347560",
"rank": 7,
"score": 115629
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Although this is an old question, it's worth pointing out that the Google Stock Screener now supports stocks traded on the London Stock Exchange. From the country dropdown on the left, select \"\"United Kingdom\"\" and use the screener as before.\"",
"qid": 10039,
"docid": "177114",
"rank": 8,
"score": 115263
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you're looking to invest using stocks and shares, I recommend you set up an account at something like Google Finance - it is free and user-friendly with lots of online help. You can set up some 'virtual cash' and put it into a number of stocks which it'll track for you. Review your progress and close some positions and open others as often as you want, but remember to enter some figure for the cost of the transaction, say $19.95 for a trade, to discourage you from high-frequency trading. Take it as seriously as you want - if you stick to your original cash input, you'll see real results. If you throw in more virtual cash than you could in real life, it'll muddle the outcome. After some evaluation period, say 3 months, look back at your progress. You will learn a tremendous amount from doing this and don't need to have read any books or spent any money to get started. Knowing which stocks to pick and when to buy or sell is much more subtle - see other answers for suggestions.",
"qid": 10039,
"docid": "484327",
"rank": 9,
"score": 114842
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The biggest benefit to having a larger portfolio is relatively reduced transaction costs. If you buy a $830 share of Google at a broker with a $10 commission, the commission is 1.2% of your buy price. If you then sell it for $860, that's another 1.1% gone to commission. Another way to look at it is, of your $30 ($860 - $830) gain you've given up $20 to transaction costs, or 66.67% of the proceeds of your trade went to transaction costs. Now assume you traded 10 shares of Google. Your buy was $8,300 and you sold for $8,600. Your gain is $300 and you spent the same $20 to transact the buy and sell. Now you've only given up 6% of your proceeds ($20 divided by your $300 gain). You could also scale this up to 100 shares or even 1,000 shares. Generally, dividend reinvestment are done with no transaction cost. So you periodically get to bolster your position without losing more to transaction costs. For retail investors transaction costs can be meaningful. When you're wielding a $5,000,000 pot of money you can make your trades on a larger scale giving up relatively less to transaction costs.",
"qid": 10039,
"docid": "416569",
"rank": 10,
"score": 113980
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: As @littleadv and @DumbCoder point out in their comments above, Bloomberg Terminal is expensive for individual investors. If you are looking for a free solution I would recommend Yahoo and Google Finance. On the other side, if you need more financial metrics regarding historic statements and consensus estimates, you should look at the iPad solution from Worldcap, which is not free, but significantly cheaper then Bloomberg and Reuters. Disclosure: I am affiliated with WorldCap.",
"qid": 10039,
"docid": "201771",
"rank": 11,
"score": 113237
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"In the US, a private company with less than 500 owners can dictate who can or can't become a shareholder (this is true in general, but I'm sure there are loopholes). Prior to Google's IPO I could not buy shares in Google at any price. The reason Google was \"\"forced\"\" to go public is the 500 shareholder rule. At a high level, with 500 shareholders the company is forced to do some extra financial accounting and they no longer can control who owns a share of the company, allowing me to purchase shares of google at that point. At that point, it typically becomes in the companies best interest to go public. See this article about Google approaching the 500 shareholder limit in 2003. Further, Sorkin is not quite correct that \"\"securities laws mandate that the company go public\"\" if by \"\"go public\"\" we mean list on a stock exchange, available for general purchase. Securities laws mandate what has to be reported in financial reporting and when you have to report it. Securities laws also can dictate restrictions on ownership of stock and if a company can impose their own restrictions. A group of investors cannot force a company onto a stock exchange. If shares of Facebook are already for sale to anyone, then having >500 shareholders will force Facebook to file more paperwork with the SEC, it won't force Facebook onto the NYSE or NASDAQ. When that point is reached, it may be in Facebook's best interest to have an IPO, but they will not be required by law to do so. Update: CNN article discusses likely Facebook IPO in 2012. When companies have more than 500 shareholders, they're required to make significant financial disclosures -- though they can choose to remain private and keep their stock from trading publicly. However, most companies facing mandatory disclosures opt to go public. The Securities and Exchange Commission gives businesses lots of time to prepare for that milestone. Companies have until 120 days after the end of the fiscal year in which they cross the 500-shareholder line to begin making their disclosures. If Facebook tips the scale this year, that gives it until April 2012 to start filing financial reports.\"",
"qid": 10039,
"docid": "390529",
"rank": 12,
"score": 113162
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Short answer: No, it only matters if you want to use covered calls strategies. The price of a share is not important. Some companies make stock splits from time to time so that the price of their shares is more affordable to small investors. It is a decision of the company's board to keep the price high or low. More important is the capitalization for these shares. If you have lots of money to invest, the best is to divide and invest a fixed pourcentage of your portfolio in each company you choose. The only difference is if you eventually decide to use covered call strategies. To have a buy write on Google will cost you a lot of money and you will only be able to sell 1 option for every 100 shares. Bottom line: the price is not important, capitalization and estimated earnings are. Hope this answers your question.",
"qid": 10039,
"docid": "378906",
"rank": 13,
"score": 112941
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Stocks prices are determined whenever a buyer and seller agree to trade at a given price. The company (you use AAPL as an example) doesn't set its own stock price. Rather, the investors set the price every time it trades. There's no \"\"official\"\" price -- just the last trade. Likewise, you can offer to trade a stock at whatever price you want: that's the definition of a limit order. You might not find a willing buyer or seller at that price, but you can certainly open an order. Stock quotes that you get from your broker or a finance web site reflect the price as last traded. These quotes are updated throughout the trading day and the frequency and delay varies amongst quote providers. Like Knuckle-Dragger suggests in the comments, there are ways to get real-time quotes. It's often more helpful to think in terms of bid/ask instead of \"\"official price\"\". See this question for details.\"",
"qid": 10039,
"docid": "567531",
"rank": 14,
"score": 112714
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"If you're looking to generate your own charts, you can get up-to-date TSP fund share prices in a Google Docs spreadsheet by \"\"scraping\"\" the data from the HTML of certain TSP webpages. You'll need to do this because the GoogleFinance function does not recognize \"\"private\"\" funds or collective trusts like those of the TSP. See this thread for tips: Bogleheads • View topic - GoogleFinance price quotes for TSP Funds\"",
"qid": 10039,
"docid": "330453",
"rank": 15,
"score": 111247
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Since you seem to be interested in investing in individual stocks, this answer will address that. As for the general question of investing, the answer that @johnfx gave is just about as good as it gets. Investing in individual stocks is extremely risky and takes a LOT of work to do right. On top of the fairly obvious need to research a stock before you buy, there is the matter of keeping up with the stocks to know when you need to sell as well as myriad other facets of investing. Paid professionals spend all day, every day, doing this and they have a hard time beating an index fund. Unless you take the time to educate yourself and are willing to continually put in a good bit of effort, I would advise you to stay away from individual stocks and rely on mutual funds.",
"qid": 10039,
"docid": "210241",
"rank": 16,
"score": 110543
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Great question! While investing in individual stocks can be very useful as a learning experience, my opinion is that concentrating an entire portfolio in a few companies' stock is a mistake for most investors, and especially for a novice for several reasons. After all, only a handful of professional investors have ever beaten the market over the long term by picking stocks, so is it really worth trying? If you could, I'd say go work on Wall Street and good luck to you. Diversification For many investors, diversification is an important reason to use an ETF or index fund. If they were to focus on a few sectors or companies, it is more likely that they would have a lop-sided risk profile and might be subject to a larger downside risk potential than the market as a whole, i.e. \"\"don't put all your eggs in one basket\"\". Diversification is important because of the nature of compound investing - if you take a significant hit, it will take you a long time to recover because all of your future gains are building off of a smaller base. This is one reason that younger investors often take a larger position in equities, as they have longer to recover from significant market declines. While it is very possible to build a balanced, diversified portfolio from individual stocks, this isn't something I'd recommend for a new investor and would require a substantial college-level understanding of investments, and in any case, this portfolio would have a more discrete efficient frontier than the market as a whole. Lower Volatility Picking individual stocks or sectors would could also significantly increase or decrease the overall volatility of the portfolio relative to the market, especially if the stocks are highly cyclical or correlated to the same market factors. So if they are buying tech stocks, they might see bigger upswings and downswings compared to the market as a whole, or see the opposite effect in the case of utilities. In other words, owning a basket of individual stocks may result in an unintended volatility/beta profile. Lower Trading Costs and Taxes Investors who buy individual stocks tend to trade more in an attempt to beat the market. After accounting for commission fees, transaction costs (bid/ask spread), and taxes, most individual investors get only a fraction of the market average return. One famous academic study finds that investors who trade more trail the stock market more. Trading also tends to incur higher taxes since short term gains (<1 year) are taxed at marginal income tax rates that are higher than long term capital gains. Investors tend to trade due to behavioral failures such as trying to time the market, being overconfident, speculating on stocks instead of long-term investing, following what everyone else is doing, and getting in and out of the market as a result of an emotional reaction to volatility (ie buying when stocks are high/rising and selling when they are low/falling). Investing in index funds can involve minimal fees and discourages behavior that causes investors to incur excessive trading costs. This can make a big difference over the long run as extra costs and taxes compound significantly over time. It's Hard to Beat the Market since Markets are Quite Efficient Another reason to use funds is that it is reasonable to assume that at any point in time, the market does a fairly good job of pricing securities based on all known information. In other words, if a given stock is trading at a low P/E relative to the market, the market as a whole has decided that there is good reason for this valuation. This idea is based on the assumption that there are already so many professional analysts and traders looking for arbitrage opportunities that few such opportunities exist, and where they do exist, persist for only a short time. If you accept this theory generally (obviously, the market is not perfect), there is very little in the way of insight on pricing that the average novice investor could provide given limited knowledge of the markets and only a few hours of research. It might be more likely that opportunities identified by the novice would reflect omissions of relevant information. Trying to make money in this way then becomes a bet that other informed, professional investors are wrong and you are right (options traders, for example). Prices are Unpredictable (Behave Like \"\"Random\"\" Walks) If you want to make money as a long-term investor/owner rather than a speculator/trader, than most of the future change in asset prices will be a result of future events and information that is not yet known. Since no one knows how the world will change or who will be tomorrow's winners or losers, much less in 30 years, this is sometimes referred to as a \"\"random walk.\"\" You can point to fundamental analysis and say \"\"X company has great free cash flow, so I will invest in them\"\", but ultimately, the problem with this type of analysis is that everyone else has already done it too. For example, Warren Buffett famously already knows the price at which he'd buy every company he's interested in buying. When everyone else can do the same analysis as you, the price already reflects the market's take on that public information (Efficent Market theory), and what is left is the unknown (I wouldn't use the term \"\"random\"\"). Overall, I think there is simply a very large potential for an individual investor to make a few mistakes with individual stocks over 20+ years that will really cost a lot, and I think most investors want a balance of risk and return versus the largest possible return, and don't have an interest in developing a professional knowledge of stocks. I think a better strategy for most investors is to share in the future profits of companies buy holding a well-diversified portfolio for the long term and to avoid making a large number of decisions about which stocks to own.\"",
"qid": 10039,
"docid": "216757",
"rank": 17,
"score": 110248
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: How much should a rational investor have in individual stocks? Probably none. An additional dollar invested in a ETF or low cost index fund comprised of many stocks will be far less risky than a specific stock. And you'd need a lot more capital to make buying, voting, and selling in individual stocks as if you were running your own personal index fund worthwhile. I think in index funds use weightings to make it easier to track the index without constantly trading. So my advice here is to allocate based not on some financial principal but just loss aversion. Don't gamble with more than you can afford to lose. Figure out how much of that 320k you need. It doesn't sound like you can actually afford to lose it all. So I'd say 5 percent and make sure that's funded from other equity holdings or you'll end up overweight in stocks.",
"qid": 10039,
"docid": "135765",
"rank": 18,
"score": 109332
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Sounds like you are a candidate for stock trading simulators. Or just pick stocks and use Yahoo! or Google finance tools to track and see how you do. I wouldn't suggest you put real money into it. You need to learn about research and timing and a bunch of other topics you can learn about here. I personally just stick to life cycle funds that are managed products that offer me a cruise control setting for investing.",
"qid": 10039,
"docid": "484730",
"rank": 19,
"score": 109111
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You just disclosed that you are new investor to the stock market. I'd advise that you first understand investing a bit better, as most will advise that investors need to be above a certain level before picking individual stocks. That said, most stocks trade in high enough volume and have low enough short interest that they don't fall under the category you seek. You want to first ask your broker if they have such a process, not all do. If so, they would need to provide you with the stocks that fall into this odd situation, specifically, the shares that have traders seeking to short the stock, but the stock is unavailable. Even then, the broker may have requirements that you don't fall into, minimum history with broker, minimum size account, etc. Worse, they are not likely to offer this for 100 shares, but may have a 1000 or higher share requirement. Are you willing to buy some obscure $50/sh priced stock to lend out at 1%/mo? The guy trying to short it is far smarter than both you and I, at least regarding this particular stock. This strategy is more appropriate for the 7 figure net worth investor. If any reader has actual experience with this, I'm happy to hear it. This response is from my recollection of two articles I read about 3 years ago, coincidence they both were published within weeks of each other.",
"qid": 10039,
"docid": "356726",
"rank": 20,
"score": 108283
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I'm in a remarkably similar situation as yourself. I keep roughly 80% of my portfolio in low-cost ETFs (16% bond, 16% commodities, 48% stock), with about 20% in 6-8 individual stocks. Individual stocks are often overlooked by investors. The benefits of individual stock ownership are that you can avoid paying any holding or management fee (unlike ETFs and mutual funds). As long as you assess the fundamentals (P/B, P/E, PEG etc.) of the company you are buying, and don't over-trade, you can do quite well. I recommend semi-annual re-balancing among asset classes, and an individual stock check up. I've found over the years that my individual stocks outperform the S&P500 the vast majority of the time, although it often accompanied by an increase in volatility. Since you're limiting your stake to only 20%, the volatility is not really an issue.",
"qid": 10039,
"docid": "508610",
"rank": 21,
"score": 108004
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Don't do it until you have educated yourself enough to know what you are doing. I hope you won't take this personally, but given that you are wandering around asking random strangers on the Internet how to \"\"get into investing,\"\" I feel safe in concluding that you are by no means a sophisticated enough investor to be choosing individual investments, nor should you be trusting financial advisors to choose investments for you. Believe me, they do not have your interests at heart. I usually advise people in your position to start by reading one book: A Random Walk Down Wall Street by Burton Malkiel. Once you've read the book by Malkiel you'll understand that the best strategy for all but the most sophisticated investors is to buy an index fund, which simply purchases a portfolio of ALL available stocks without trying to pick winners and losers. The best index funds are at Vanguard (there is also a Vanguard site for non-US residents). Vanguard is one of the very, very, very few honest players in the business. Unlike almost any other mutual fund, Vanguard is owned by its investors, so it has no profit motive. They never try to pick individual stocks, so they don't have to pay fancy high-priced analysts to pick stocks. If you find it impossible to open a Vanguard account from wherever you're living, find a local brokerage account that will allow you to invest in the US stock market. Many Vanguard mutual funds are available as ETFs which means that you buy and sell them just like any other stock on the US market, which should be easy to do from any reasonably civilized place.\"",
"qid": 10039,
"docid": "328477",
"rank": 22,
"score": 107965
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"(Note: out of my depth here, but in case this helps...) While not a direct answer to your question, I'll point out that in the inverse situation - a U.S. investor who wants to buy individual stocks of companies headquartered outside US - you would buy ADRs, which are $-denominated \"\"wrapper\"\" stocks. They can be listed with one or multiple brokerages. One alternative I'd offer the person in my example would be, \"\"Are you really sure you want to directly buy individual stocks?\"\" One less targeted approach available in the US is to buy ETFs targeted for a given country (or region). Maybe there's something similar there in Asia that would eliminate the (somewhat) higher fees associated with trading foreign stocks.\"",
"qid": 10039,
"docid": "18349",
"rank": 23,
"score": 107916
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Yes, depending on what you're trying to achieve. If its just a symbolic gift - you can use a service like this. There are several companies providing this service, look them up, but the prices are fairly the same. You'll end up getting a real stock certificate, but it will cost a lot of overhead (around $40 to get the certificate, and then another $40 to deposit it into a brokerage account if you want to sell it on a stock exchange). So although the certificate is real and the person whose name on it is a full-blown shareholder, it doesn't actually have much value (unless you buy a Google or Apple stock, where the price is much much higher than the fees). Take into account that it takes around 2 months for the certificate to be issued and mailed to you, so time accordingly. Otherwise, you can open a custodial brokerage account, and use it to buy stocks for the minor. Both ways are secure and legal, each for its own purpose and with its own fees.",
"qid": 10039,
"docid": "328703",
"rank": 24,
"score": 107858
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I think it depends entirely on your risk tolerance. Putting money in individual stocks obviously increases your risk and potentially increases your reward. Personally (as a fairly conservative investor) I'd only invest in individual stocks if I could afford to lose the entire investment (maybe I'd end up buying Enron or Nortel). If you enjoy envesting and feel 10% is an acceptable loss I think you have your answer",
"qid": 10039,
"docid": "465774",
"rank": 25,
"score": 107807
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: On closer look, it appears that Google Finance relies on the last released 10-k statement (filing date 10/30/2013), but outstanding shares as of last 10-Q statement. Using these forms, you get ($37,037M / 5.989B ) = $6.18 EPS. I think this is good to note, as you can manually calculate a more up to date EPS value than what the majority of investors out there are relying on.",
"qid": 10039,
"docid": "489220",
"rank": 26,
"score": 107748
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Short answer: google finance's market cap calculation is nonstandard (a.k.a. wrong). The standard way of computing the market capitalization of a firm is to take the price of its common stock and multiply by the number of outstanding common stock shares. If you do this using the numbers from google's site you get around $13.4B. This can be verified by going to other sites like yahoo finance and bloomberg, which have the correct market capitalization already computed. The Whole Foods acquisition appears to be very cut-and-dry. Investors will be compensated with $42 cash per share. Why are google finance's numbers wrong for market cap? Sometimes people will add other things to \"\"market capitalization,\"\" like the value of the firm's debt and other debt-like securities. My guess is that google has done something like this. Whole Foods has just over $3B in total liabilities, which is around the size of the discrepancy you have found.\"",
"qid": 10039,
"docid": "404222",
"rank": 27,
"score": 107385
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The only sensible reason to invest in individual stocks is if you have reason to think that they will perform better than the market as a whole. How are you to come to that conclusion other than by doing in-depth research into the stock and the company behind it? If you can't, or don't want to, reach that conclusion about particular stocks then you're better off putting your money into cheap index trackers.",
"qid": 10039,
"docid": "358846",
"rank": 28,
"score": 107280
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Um, for the same reason they don't give everyone free Google stock or index fund shares, which are also good long-term investments. Or water, which you also have to pay for, or food, which is an excellent short-term investment. Wiping yourself after using the restroom is also a good idea, but I wouldn't wait for the government to do it for you. \"\"Is a good idea\"\" =/= \"\"the government should do this for everyone for free\"\"\"",
"qid": 10039,
"docid": "216393",
"rank": 29,
"score": 107123
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Cash flow is needed for expansion, either to increase manufacturing capacity or to expand the workforce. Other times companies use it to purchase other companies. Microsoft and Google have both used their cash or stocks to purchase companies. Examples by Google include YouTube, Keyhole (Google Earth), and now part of Motorola to expand into Phones. If you are investing for the future, you don't want a lot of dividends. They do bring tax issues. That is not a big problem if you are investing in an IRA or 401K. It is an issue if the non-tax-defered mutual fund distributes those dividends via the 1099, forcing you to address it on your taxes each year. Some investors do like dividends, but they are looking for their investments to generate cash. Who would require it? Would it be an SEC requirement? Even more government paperwork for companies.",
"qid": 10039,
"docid": "147025",
"rank": 30,
"score": 106108
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I dont know if this data is available for the 1980s, but this response to an old question of mine discusses how you can pull stock related information from google or yahoo finance over a certain period of time. You could do this in excel or google spreadsheet and see if you could get the data you're looking for. Quote from old post: Google Docs spreadsheets have a function for filling in stock and fund prices. You can use that data to graph (fund1 / fund2) over some time period.",
"qid": 10039,
"docid": "376396",
"rank": 31,
"score": 105362
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Most investors should not be in individual stocks. The market, however you measure it, can rise, yet some stocks will fall for whatever reason. The diversification needed is to have a number of shares of different stocks, and that a bit higher than most investors are able to invest and certainly not one starting out. I suggest you look at either mutual funds or ETFs, and keep studying. (I'm told I should have offered the UK equivalent Investment Trusts , OEIC, or Unit Trusts)",
"qid": 10039,
"docid": "225239",
"rank": 32,
"score": 105187
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Probably the easiest way for individual investors is oil ETFs. In particular, USO seems to be fairly liquid and available. You should check carefully the bid/ask spreads in this volatile time. There are other oil ETFs and leveraged and inverse oil ETFs exist as well, but one should heed the warnings about leveraged ETFs. Oil futures are another possibility though they can be more complicated and tough to access for an individual investor. Note that futures have a drift associated with them as well. Be careful close or roll any positions before delivery, of course, unless you have a need for a bunch of actual barrels of oil. Finally, you can consider investing in commodities ETFs or Energy stocks or stock ETFs that are strongly related to the price of oil. As Keshlam mentions, care is advised in all these methods. Many people thought oil reached its bottom a few weeks back then OPEC decided to do nothing and the price dropped even further.",
"qid": 10039,
"docid": "127566",
"rank": 33,
"score": 105098
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"There are two scenarios to determine the relevant date, and then a couple of options to determine the relevant price. If the stocks were purchased in your name from the start - then the relevant date is the date of the purchase. If the stocks were willed to you (i.e.: you inherited them), then the relevant date is the date at which the person who willed them to you had died. You can check with the company if they have records of the original purchase. If it was in \"\"street name\"\" - they may not have such records, and then you need to figure out what broker it was to hold them. Once you figured out the relevant date, contact the company's \"\"investor relationships\"\" contact and ask them for the adjusted stock price on that date (adjusted for splits/mergers/acquisitions/whatever). That would be the cost basis per share you would be using. Alternatively you can research historical prices on your favorite financial information site (Google/Yahoo/Bloomberg or the stock exchange where the company is listed). If you cannot figure the cost basis, or it costs too much - you can just write cost basis as $0, and claim the whole proceeds as gains. You'll pay capital gains tax on the whole amount, but that may end up being cheaper than conducting the investigation to reveal the actual numbers.\"",
"qid": 10039,
"docid": "248021",
"rank": 34,
"score": 103950
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Generally Google gets their data, directly from the exchanges (Nasdaq, NYSE). This is really expensive -- tens of thousands of dollars a month just for the license from the exchange, and lots of telecom costs on top of that.",
"qid": 10039,
"docid": "6826",
"rank": 35,
"score": 103688
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I was thinking that the value of the stock is the value of the stock...the actual number of shares really doesn't matter, but I'm not sure. You're correct. Share price is meaningless. Google is $700 per share, Apple is $100 per share, that doesn't say anything about either company and/or whether or not one is a better investment over the other. You should not evaluate an investment decision on price of a share. Look at the books decide if the company is worth owning, then decide if it's worth owning at it's current price.",
"qid": 10039,
"docid": "421992",
"rank": 36,
"score": 103320
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: First, what Daniel Carson said. Second, if you're getting started, just make sure you are well diversified. Lots of growth stocks turn into dividend stocks over time-- Microsoft and Apple are the classic examples in this era. Someday, Google will pay a dividend too. If you're investing for the long haul, diversify and watch your taxes, and you'll make out better than nearly everyone else.",
"qid": 10039,
"docid": "404949",
"rank": 37,
"score": 103233
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"(Value of shares+Dividends received)/(Initial investment) would be the typical formula though this is more of a percentage where 1 would indicate that you broke even, assuming no inflation to be factored. No, you don't have to estimate the share price based on revenues as I would question how well did anyone estimate what kind of revenues Facebook, Apple, or Google have had and will have. To estimate the value of shares, I'd likely consider what does my investment strategy use as metrics: Is it discounted cash flow, is it based on earnings, is it something else? There are many ways to determine what a stock \"\"should be worth\"\" that depending on what you want to believe there are more than a few ways one could go.\"",
"qid": 10039,
"docid": "170652",
"rank": 38,
"score": 103055
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: No. You're lucky, maybe, but not really a successful investor. Warren Buffet is, you're not him. Sometimes it is easier to pick stocks to bid on, sometimes its harder. I got my successes too. It is easier on a raising market, especially when it is recovering after a deep fall, like now. But generally it is very hard to beat the market. You need to remember that an individual investor, not backed by deep pockets, algo-trading and an army of analysts, is in a disadvantage on the market by definition. So what can you do? Get the deep pockets, algo-trading and an army of analysts. How? By pooling with others - investing through funds.",
"qid": 10039,
"docid": "98638",
"rank": 39,
"score": 102895
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"In this instance \"\"quotational\"\" is a reference to a market price quote, not a mathematical function. Staunch \"\"value investors\"\" like Graham, Dodd, Munger, Buffett et al. believe there is a material difference between what security is \"\"worth\"\" and what the current market mood quotes as its price. You, the investor, perform your analysis then derive a value for a security. If there has been no material change to an aspect of the security you analyzed then there hasn't been a change in that security's value, even if there has been a decline in the price quoted by the market, that is a \"\"quotational loss.\"\"\"",
"qid": 10039,
"docid": "68249",
"rank": 40,
"score": 102469
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Rule 610 (Google for it) stands that if Bid and Ask are the same, the market is considered Locked, and the exchange must stop all trading. So the same person can't quote the same bid and ask price. However, HFTs have found ways to circumvent this limitation when exchanges created special order types for them, e.g. Spam-and-Cancel",
"qid": 10039,
"docid": "530697",
"rank": 41,
"score": 102461
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: This is kind of a silly article and it mostly misses the point. First, Google and others essentially have in-house investment banking departments that are vetting, valuing, negotiating, and sealing these deals. These M&A guys are mostly former bankers. So while they may not be using investment banks, they are certainly using bankers. Google has $60B in cash and does dozens and dozens of acquisitions each year. It's not surprising they find it appealing to move the banking function in-house. Second, certain tech companies like Google and Facebook and Zynga have unique corporate structures where the CEO / founders retain majority voting control of their companies. This means guys like Zuckerberg, Page, Brin, Pincus et al control over 50% of all voting shares and they cannot be ousted by the board of directors, nor can they be overruled on any matter via a proxy battle. This gives these founders far reaching control over M&A and thus you see deals like the $19B cash + stock WhatsApp acquisition (and Instagram); both of these deals were reportedly driven by Zuckerberg himself who not only initiated and vetted the deals, but determined the price. Most CEOs do not have this kind of latitude. Third, within Silicon Valley, the network is very small and tight and everybody knows each other. The CEOs, founders, VCs, etc...they all know each other and they know who to call when they are looking to acquire. It's not like Zuck needs a banker to tell him to check out Snapchat...",
"qid": 10039,
"docid": "467935",
"rank": 42,
"score": 102249
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"When we say \"\"stock market,\"\" we are usually thinking of the publicly traded stocks, such as the New York Stock Exchange or the NASDAQ. Shares of individual products do not go on these exchanges, only large corporations. You won't see a stock ticker symbol for The Force Awakens or for the iPhone 6s Plus. The reason for this is that when investors buy a stock, they are looking for something that will grow in value theoretically forever. Individual products usually have a limited lifespan. Your movie will (hopefully) generate revenue when it comes out, but after a while sales will slow down after people have seen it. If someone bought a share of stock in a movie on the stock market, they have to realize that eventually the movie will stop making money, and their share of stock won't be worth anything anymore. Instead, people invest in companies that have the potential to make new products, such as Disney or Apple. So if you were envisioning seeing the ticker symbol of your movie going across the screen on CNBC, sorry, that's not going to happen. However, you could theoretically sell shares to individual investors for a percentage of the profit. You figure out how much money you need to create the movie, and estimate how much profit you think the movie will earn. Then you find an investor (or group of investors) that is willing to give you the money you need in exchange for a percentage of the profit. Unlike a stock market investor, these investors won't be looking for the long-term growth potential of the resale value of the stock, but simply a share of the profit.\"",
"qid": 10039,
"docid": "237323",
"rank": 43,
"score": 102222
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Whether an investment is pre-tax is determined by the type of account (i.e., tax-advantaged vs ordinary taxable account), but whether you can invest in individual stocks is determined by the provider (i.e., the particular bank where you have the account). These are orthogonal choices. If you want to invest in individual stocks, you need to look for a bank that offers an IRA/401k/other tax-advantaged account and allows you to invest in individual stocks with it. For example, this page suggests that Fidelity would let you do that. Obviously you should look into various providers yourself to find one that offers the mix of features you want.",
"qid": 10039,
"docid": "159263",
"rank": 44,
"score": 102204
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: A few days ago they launched Fannie Mae Guaranteed Multifamily Structures (link) but who knows? It's a penny stock now. Google Finance is pretty good at marking news right on the chart for a particular stock. That's how I tracked that piece of news down. Can't say that it precipitated a lot of people buying the stock, but Google Finance isn't a bad place to start looking.",
"qid": 10039,
"docid": "372703",
"rank": 45,
"score": 101847
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: My interpretation of that sentence is that you can't do the buying/selling of shares outright (sans margin) because of the massive quantity of shares he's talking about. So you have to use margin to buy the stocks. However, because in order to make significant money with this sort of strategy you probably need to be working dozens of stocks at the same time, you need to be familiar with portfolio margin. Since your broker does not calculate margin calls based on individual stocks, but rather on the value of your whole portfolio, you should have experience handling margin not just on individual stock movements but also on overall portfolio movements. For example, if 10% (by value) of the stocks you're targeting tend to have a correlation of -0.8 with the price of oil you should probably target another 10% (by value) in stocks that tend to have a correlation of +0.8 with the price of oil. And so on and so forth. That way your portfolio can weather big (or even small) changes in market conditions that would cause a margin call on a novice investor's portfolio.",
"qid": 10039,
"docid": "84870",
"rank": 46,
"score": 101831
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Nothing beats statistics like that found on Morning Star, Yahoo or Google Finance. When you are starting out, there is no need to reinvent the wheel. Pick a couple of mutual funds with good track records and start there. Keep in mind the financial press, to some degree, has a vested interest in having their readership chase the next hot thing. So while sites like Seeking Alpha, Kiplingers, or Money do provide some good advice, there is also an element that placates their advertisers. The only peer-to-peer lending I would consider is Lending Club. However, you are probably better off in the long run investing in mutual funds. One way to get involved in individual stocks without getting burned is to participate in Dividend Reinvestment Plans (DRIPs). Companies that have them tend to be very well established, and they are structured to discourage trading. Buying is easy, dividend reinvestment is easy, dividend payouts are easy; but, starting and selling is kind of a pain. That is a good thing.",
"qid": 10039,
"docid": "40227",
"rank": 47,
"score": 101614
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Prices quoted are primarily the offer prices quoted by the numerous market makers on the stock exchange(s) willing to sell you the stock. There is another price which generally isn't seen on these websites, the bid prices, which are lower prices quoted by buyers and market makers willing to buy your shares from you. You wouldn't see those prices, unless you login to your trade terminal. How meaningful are they to you depends on what you want to do buy or sell. If you want to buy then yes they are relevant. But if you want to sell, then no. And remember some websites delay market information by 15 minutes, in case of Google you might have seen that the volume is delayed by 15 minutes. So you need to consider that also while trading, but mayn't be a concern unless you are trying to buy out the company.",
"qid": 10039,
"docid": "218842",
"rank": 48,
"score": 101598
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The stock market is generally a long term investment platform. The share prices reflect more the companies potential to be profitable in the future rather than its actual value. Companies that have good potential can over perform their actual value. We saw this regularly in the early days of the internet prior to the .com bust. Companies would go up exponentially based on their idea's and potential. Investors learned from that and are demanding more these days. As a result companies that do not show growth potential go down. Companies that show growth and potential (apple and google for 2 easy examples) continue to go up. Many companies have specific days where employees can buy and sell stocks. there are minor ripples in the market on these days as the demand and supply are temporarily altered by a large segment of the owner base making trades. For this reason some companies have a closed pool that is only open to inside trades that then executes the orders over time so that the effect is minimized on the actual stock price. This is not happening with face book. Instead many of the investors are dumping their stock directly into the market. These are savvy investors and if there was potential for profit remaining you would not see the full scale exodus from the stock. The fact that it is visible is scaring off investors itself. I can not think of another instance that has gone like facebook, especially one that was called so accurately by many industry pundits.",
"qid": 10039,
"docid": "73321",
"rank": 49,
"score": 101153
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I will assume that you are not asking in the context of high frequency trading, as this is Personal Finance Stack Exchange. It is completely acceptable to trade odd lots for retail brokerage customers. The odd lot description that you provided in your link, from Interactive Brokers is correct. But even in that context, it says, regarding the acceptability of odd lots to stock exchanges: The exception is that odd lots can be routed to NYSE/ARCA/AMEX, but only as part of a basket order or as a market-on-close (MOC) order. Google GOOG is traded on the NASDAQ. Everything on the NASDAQ is electronic, and always has been. You will have no problem selling or buying less than 100 shares of Google. There is also an issue of higher commissions with odd lots: While trading commissions for odd lots may still be higher than for standard lots on a percentage basis, the popularity of online trading platforms and the consequent plunge in brokerage commissions means that it is no longer as difficult or expensive for investors to dispose of odd lots as it used to be in the past. Notice what it says about online trading making it easier, not more difficult, to trade odd lots.",
"qid": 10039,
"docid": "492503",
"rank": 50,
"score": 101067
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You probably will not find to many places if any that give you live quotes on options because for the general public there is not that high of a demand. Most people do not even know what stock options are. You can get update on some sites like CNBC, but you will have refresh constantly to get the latest option prices. You can also try an online broker, most of whom will let you have access to their tools and quotes if you sign up for an account. Some require a deposit before you can access those tools and some don't. Personally, I use TD Ameritrade and I do not believe they require a deposit to use their tools, but don't quote me on that.",
"qid": 10039,
"docid": "375544",
"rank": 51,
"score": 101007
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Keep in mind that it's a cliche statement used as non-controversial filler in articles, not some universal truth. When you were young, did you mom tell you to eat your vegetables because children are starving in Ethiopia? This is the personal finance article equivalent of that. Generally speaking, the statement as an air of truth about it. If you're living hand to mouth, you probably shouldn't be thinking about the stock market. If you're a typical middle class individual investor, you probably shouldn't be messing around with very speculative investments. That said, be careful about looking for some deeper meaning that just isn't there. If the secret of investment success is hidden in that statement, I have a bridge to sell you that has a great view of Brooklyn.",
"qid": 10039,
"docid": "556913",
"rank": 52,
"score": 100897
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"For \"\"real\"\" investing I would usually recommend mutual funds. But if you are trying to teach a kid about investing, I would recommend they choose individual stocks. That will give them a great opportunity to follow the companies they bought in the news. It also gives you an opportunity to sit down with them periodically and discuss their companies performance, economic news, etc. and how those things play into stock prices.\"",
"qid": 10039,
"docid": "311568",
"rank": 53,
"score": 100867
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I'd refer you to Is it true that 90% of investors lose their money? The answer there is \"\"no, not true,\"\" and much of the discussion applies to this question. The stock market rises over time. Even after adjusting for inflation, a positive return. Those who try to beat the market, choosing individual stocks, on average, lag the market quite a bit. Even in a year of great returns, as is this year ('13 is up nearly 25% as measured by the S&P) there are stocks that are up, and stocks that are down. Simply look at a dozen stock funds and see the variety of returns. I don't even look anymore, because I'm sure that of 12, 2 or three will be ahead, 3-4 well behind, and the rest clustered near 25. Still, if you wish to embark on individual stock purchases, I recommend starting when you can invest in 20 different stocks, spread over different industries, and be willing to commit time to follow them, so each year you might be selling 3-5 and replacing with stocks you prefer. It's the ETF I recommend for most, along with a buy and hold strategy, buying in over time will show decent returns over the long run, and the ETF strategy will keep costs low.\"",
"qid": 10039,
"docid": "497786",
"rank": 54,
"score": 100761
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I take the route of the tortoise. I subscribe to the adage that you invest in an excellent index fund like VFINX and forget about day trading and trying to make short term gains. Just like I would do at a casino I do gamble a bit for fun. Using etrade you can purchase some Vanguard or a billion of other things. I purchased some Apple, Google, Verizon, and Ford (when it was at 1.3) and all of those have been good investments. However, I don't invest the majority of my money in to individual stocks. I just do this with some 'play' money. After maxing out 401k, etc. I put away my 6 months of safety net in a money mark and put the rest in Vanguard.",
"qid": 10039,
"docid": "317493",
"rank": 55,
"score": 100641
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: In my opinion, the average investor should not be buying individual stocks. One reason why is that the average investor is not capable of reading financial statements and evaluating whether a stock is overpriced or underpriced. As such, they're often tempted to make buy/sell decisions based solely on the current value of a stock as compared to the price at which they bought it. The real reasons to buy (or sell) a stock is the expectation of future growth of the company (or continued profit and expected dividends). If you aren't able to analyze a company's financial statements and business plan, then you really aren't in a position to evaluate that company's stock price. So instead of asking whether to sell based on a recent drop in stock price, you should be investigating why the stock price is falling, and deciding whether those reasons indicate a trend that you expect to continue. If you buy and sell stocks based solely on recent trends in the stock price, you probably will end up buying stocks that have recently risen and selling stocks that have recently fallen. In that case, you are buying high and selling low, which is a recipe for poor financial outcomes.",
"qid": 10039,
"docid": "26292",
"rank": 56,
"score": 100245
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Since you seem determined to consider this, I'd like to break down for you why I believe it is an incredibly risky proposition: 1) In general, picking individual stocks is risky. Individual stocks are by their nature not diversified assets, and a single company-wide calamity (a la Volkswagen emissions, etc.) can create huge distress to your investments. The way to mitigate this risk is of course to diversify (invest in other types of assets, such as other stocks, index funds, bonds, etc.). However, you must accept that this first step does have risks. 2) Picking stocks on the basis of financial information (called 'fundamental analysis') requires a very large amount of research and time dedication. It is one of the two main schools of thought in equity investing (as opposed to 'technical analysis', which pulls information directly from stock markets, such as price volatility). This is something that professional investors do for a living - and that means that they have an edge you do not have, unless you dedicate similar resources to this task. That information imbalance between you and professional traders creates additional risk where you make determinations 'against the grain'. 3) Any specific piece of public information (and this is public information, regardless of how esoteric it is) may be considered to be already 'factored into' public stock prices. I am a believer in market efficiency first and foremost. That means I believe that anything publically known related to a corporation ['OPEC just lowered their oil production! Exxon will be able to increase their prices!'] has already been considered by the professional traders currently buying and selling in the market. For your 'new' information to be valuable, it would need to have the ability to forecast earnings in a way not already considered by others. 4) I doubt you will be able to find the true nature of the commercial impact of a particular event, simply by knowing ship locations. So what if you know Alcoa is shipping Aluminium to Cuba - is this one of 5 shipments already known to the public? Is this replacement supplies that are covering a loss due to damaged goods previously sent? Is the boat only 1/3 full? Where this information gets valuable, is when it gets to the level of corporate espionage. Yes, if you had ship manifests showing tons of aluminum being sold, and if this was a massive 'secret' shipment about to be announced at the next shareholders' meeting, you could (illegally) profit from that information. 5) The more massive the company, the less important any single transaction is. That means the super freighters you may see transporting raw commodities could have dozens of such ships out at any given time, not to mention news of new mine openings and closures, price changes, volume reports, etc. etc. So the most valuable information would be smaller companies, where a single shipment might cover a month of revenue - but such a small company is (a) less likely to be public [meaning you couldn't buy shares in the company and profit off of the information]; and (b) less likely to be found by you in the giant sea of ship information. In summary, while you may have found some information that provides insight into a company's operations, you have not shown that this information is significant and also unknown to the market. Not to mention the risks associated with picking individual stocks in the first place. In this case, it is my opinion that you are taking on additional risk not adequately compensated by additional reward.",
"qid": 10039,
"docid": "384536",
"rank": 57,
"score": 100245
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"- In a quote driven market, must every investor trade with a market maker? In other words, two parties that are both not market makers cannot trade between themselves directly? In a way yes, all trades go through a market maker but those trades can be orders put in place by a \"\"person\"\" IE: you, or me. - Does a quote driven market only display the \"\"best\"\" bid and ask prices proposed by the market makers? In other words, only the highest bid price among all the market makers is displayed, and other lower bid prices by other market makers are not? Similarly, only the lowest ask price over all market makers is displayed, and other higher ask prices by other market makers are not? No, you can see other lower bid and higher ask prices. - In a order-driven market, is it meaningful to talk about \"\"the current stock price\"\", which is the price of last transaction? Well that's kind of an opinion. Information is information so it won't be bad to know it. Personally I would say the bid and ask price is more important. However in the real world these prices are changing constantly and quickly so realistically it is easier to keep track of the quote price and most likely the bid/ask spread is small and the quote will fall in between. The less liquid a security is the more important the bid/ask is. -- This goes for all market types. - For a specific asset, will there be several transactions happened at the same time but with different prices? Today with electronic markets, trades can happen so quickly it's difficult to say. In the US stock market trades happen one at a time but there is no set time limit between each trade. So within 1 second you can have a trade be $50 or $50.04. However it will only go to $50.04 when the lower ask prices have been exhausted. - Does an order driven market have market makers? By definition, no. - What are some examples of quote driven and order driven financial markets, in which investors are commonly trading stocks and derivatives, especially in U.S.? Quote driven market: Bond market, Forex. Order driven market: NYSE comes from an order driven market but now would be better classified as a \"\"hybird market\"\" Conclusion: If you are asking in order to better understand today's stock markets then these old definitions of Quote market or Order market may not work. The big markets in the real world are neither. (IE: Nasdaq, NYSE...) The NYSE and Nasdaq are better classified as a \"\"hybird market\"\" as they use more then a single tactic from both market types to insure market liquidity, and transparency. Markets these days are strongly electronic, fast, and fairly liquid in most cases. Here are some resources to better understand these markets: An Introduction To Securities Markets The NYSE And Nasdaq: How They Work Understanding Order Execution\"",
"qid": 10039,
"docid": "505244",
"rank": 58,
"score": 100136
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I had the same problem and was looking for a software that would give me easy access to historical financial statements of a company, preferably in a chart. So that I could easily compare earnings per share or other data between competitors. Have a look at Stockdance this might be what you are looking for. Reuters Terminal is way out of my league (price and complexity) and Yahoo and Google Finance just don't offer the features I want, especially on financials. Stockdance offers a sort of stock selection check list on which you can define your own criterion’s. Hence it makes no investment suggestions but let's you implement your own investing strategy.",
"qid": 10039,
"docid": "465971",
"rank": 59,
"score": 99793
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: This is going to be a bit of a shameless plug, but I've build a portfolio tracking website to track your portfolio and be able to share it (in read-only mode) as well. It is at http://frano.carelessmusings.com and currently in beta. Most portfolio trackers are behind a login wall and thus will lack the sharing function you are looking for. Examples of these are: Yahoo Finance, Google Finance, Reuters Portfolios, MorningStart Portfolios, and many others. Another very quick and easy solution (if you are not trading too often) is a shared google docs spreadsheet. Gdocs has integration with google finance and can retrieve prices for stocks by symbol. A spreadsheet can contain the following: Symbol, Quantity, Avg. Buy Price, Price, P/L, P/L% and so on. The current price and P/L data can be functions that use the google finance API. Hope this helps, and if you check out my site please let me know what you think and what I could change.",
"qid": 10039,
"docid": "81865",
"rank": 60,
"score": 99556
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Oddly enough, in the USA, there are enough cost and tax savings between buy-and-hold of a static portfolio and buying into a fund that a few brokerages have sprung up around the concept, such as FolioFN, to make it easier for small investors to manage numerous small holdings via fractional shares and no commission window trades. A static buy-and-hold portfolio of stocks can be had for a few dollars per trade. Buying into a fund involves various annual and one time fees that are quoted as percentages of the investment. Even 1-2% can be a lot, especially if it is every year. Typically, a US mutual fund must send out a 1099 tax form to each investor, stating that investors share of the dividends and capital gains for each year. The true impact of this is not obvious until you get a tax bill for gains that you did not enjoy, which can happen when you buy into a fund late in the year that has realized capital gains. What fund investors sometimes fail to appreciate is that they are taxed both on their own holding period of fund shares and the fund's capital gains distributions determined by the fund's holding period of its investments. For example, if ABC tech fund bought Google stock several years ago for $100/share, and sold it for $500/share in the same year you bought into the ABC fund, then you will receive a \"\"capital gains distribution\"\" on your 1099 that will include some dollar amount, which is considered your share of that long-term profit for tax purposes. The amount is not customized for your holding period, capital gains are distributed pro-rata among all current fund shareholders as of the ex-distribution date. Morningstar tracks this as Potential Capital Gains Exposure and so there is a way to check this possibility before investing. Funds who have unsold losers in their portfolio are also affected by these same rules, have been called \"\"free rides\"\" because those funds, if they find some winners, will have losers that they can sell simultaneously with the winners to remain tax neutral. See \"\"On the Lookout for Tax Traps and Free Riders\"\", Morningstar, pdf In contrast, buying-and-holding a portfolio does not attract any capital gains taxes until the stocks in the portfolio are sold at a profit. A fund often is actively managed. That is, experts will alter the portfolio from time to time or advise the fund to buy or sell particular investments. Note however, that even the experts are required to tell you that \"\"past performance is no guarantee of future results.\"\"\"",
"qid": 10039,
"docid": "41625",
"rank": 61,
"score": 99523
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Google Finance certainly has data for Tokyo Stock Exchange (called TYO on Google) listings. You could create a \"\"portfolio\"\" consisting of the stocks you care about and then visit it once per day (or write a script to do so).\"",
"qid": 10039,
"docid": "52940",
"rank": 62,
"score": 99376
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I think for this a picture is worth a thousand words. This is a \"\"depth chart\"\" that I pulled from google images, specifically because it doesn't name any security. On the left you have all of the \"\"bids\"\" to buy this security, on the right you have the \"\"asks\"\" to sell the security. In the middle you have the bid/ask spread, this is the space between the highest bid and the lowest ask. As you can see you are free to place you order to the market to buy for 232, and someone else is free to place their order to the market to sell for 234. When the bid and the ask match there's a transaction for the maximum number of available shares. Alternatively, someone can place a market order to buy or sell and they'll just take the current market price. Retail investors don't really get access to this kind of chart from their brokers because for the most part the information isn't terribly relevant at the retail level.\"",
"qid": 10039,
"docid": "322798",
"rank": 63,
"score": 99317
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You can easily build a Google Sheet spreadsheet to track what you want as Sheet has a 'googlefinance()' function to look-up the same prices and data you can enter and track in a Google Finance portfolio, except you can use it in ways you want. For example, you can track your purchase price at a fixed exchange rate, track the current market value as the product of the stock's price times the floating exchange rate, and then record your realized profit and loss using another fixed exchange rate. You don't have to record the rates either, as googlefinance() func is able to lookup prices as of a particular date. You can access Google Sheet through a web browser or Android app.",
"qid": 10039,
"docid": "100057",
"rank": 64,
"score": 99217
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Yup. What I wanted to know was where they are pulling it up from. Have casually used Google finance for personal investments, but they suck at corp actions. Not sure if they provide free APIs, but that would probably suck too! :D",
"qid": 10039,
"docid": "575018",
"rank": 65,
"score": 99177
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Most of the time* you're selling to other investors, not back to the company. The stock market is a collection of bid (buy offers) and asks (sell offers). When you sell your stock as a retail investor at the \"\"market\"\" price you're essentially just meeting whatever standing bid offers are on the market. For very liquid stocks (e.g. Apple), you can pretty much always get the displayed price because so many stocks are being traded. However during periods of very high volatility or for low-volume stocks, the quoted price may not be indicative of what you actually pay. As an example, let's say you have 5 stocks you're trying to sell and the bid-side order book is 2 stocks for $105, 2 for $100, and 5 for $95. In this scenario the quoted price will be $105 (the best bid price), but if you accept market price you'll settle 2 for 105, 2 for 100, and 1 for 95. After your sell order goes through, the new quoted price will be $95. For high volume stocks, there will usually be so many orders near the midpoint price ($105, in this case) that you won't see any price slippage for small orders. You can also post limit orders, which are essentially open orders waiting to be filled like in the above example. They ensure you get the price you want, but you have no way to guarantee they'll be filled or not. Edit: as a cool example, check out the bitcoin GDAX on coinbase for a live example of what the order book looks like for stocks. You'll see that the price of bitcoin will drift towards whichever direction has the less dense order book (e.g. price drifts upwards when there are far more bids than asks.)\"",
"qid": 10039,
"docid": "317365",
"rank": 66,
"score": 98970
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: That's a very good question.. of which I didn't know the answer. I didn't pay very close attention when they actually IPO'ed, so I researched just now and I couldn't believe the amount of public complaining the banks did about Google's IPO structure. Hilarious in retrospect. Either way, in a very satisfying development, Google only paid 3% on the underwrite. The offering was worth almost $3B which means $100m for the banks, but they didn't have to do a road show or make a single call to sell the thing, so I'd say that was more than fair. {[Source](http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2004/07/frugal_google.html)} >Google's IPO price will thus be set naturally by all interested market participants, not artificially by underwriters. Google—and not well-connected investors—will receive the full benefit of investors' enthusiasm for the stock. To add insult to the injury of the chastened investment bankers, Google has decreed that it'll only pay a 3 percent underwriting fee.",
"qid": 10039,
"docid": "131421",
"rank": 67,
"score": 98746
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I assume you are talking about a publicly traded company listed on a major stock exchange and the buyer resides in the US. (Private companies and non-US locations can change the rules really a lot.) The short answer is no, because the company does not own the stock, various investors do. Each investor has to make an individual decision to sell or not sell. But there are complications. If an entity buys more than about 10% of the company they have to file a declaration with the SEC. The limit can be higher if they file an assertion that they are buying it solely for investment and are not seeking control of the company. If they are seeking control of the company then more paperwork must be filed and if they want to buy the whole company they may be required to make a tender offer where they offer to buy any and all shares at a specific price. If the company being bought is a financial institution, then the buyer may have to declare as a bank holding company and more regulations apply. The company can advise shareholders not to take the tender offer, but they cannot forbid it. So the short answer is, below 10% and for investment purposes only, it is cash and carry: Whoever has the cash gets to carry the stock away. Above that various regulations and declarations apply, but the company still does not have the power prevent the purchase in most circumstances.",
"qid": 10039,
"docid": "458730",
"rank": 68,
"score": 98564
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: There's a primer on valuing community banks by oddball Stocks, an investor who specializes in that kind of stuff. I can't link it cause I'm on my phone, but just search it up on Google and I'm sure you'll find it.",
"qid": 10039,
"docid": "114304",
"rank": 69,
"score": 98495
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The answer to this question is related to another question: How would I invest in Uber? Given that Uber is a privately-held company, the average investor cannot directly buy stock. However, there are some indirect methods that you can use to invest in Uber, and as a result, it is also possible to indirectly short Uber. One method is to invest in (or short) companies that invest in Uber. Alphabet/Google (GOOG) owns some, as well as Microsoft (MSFT), Toyota (ADR), and other companies. Theoretically, you could short these companies, as a hit to Uber would be bad for those companies. Another method would be to look at Uber's competitors. Think about what companies would do well if Uber went under. Lyft, perhaps, although it is so similar to Uber that if one has trouble, the other may as well. Perhaps instead you might invest in a traditional taxi company, or a company that provides services to taxi companies, such as Medallion Financial Corporation (MFIN). Keep in mind that either investing or shorting any of these is not really the same as investing/shorting Uber. It provides you some exposure in Uber, but your investment is also affected by many other things that have nothing to do with Uber. For more information, see the Investopedia article Ways to Invest in Uber before It Goes Public. For the record, I don't recommend that you do any of this.",
"qid": 10039,
"docid": "2338",
"rank": 70,
"score": 98437
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: So how often do investors really lose money? The short answer is, every day. Let's first examine your assumptions: If the price of the share gets lower, the investor can just wait until it gets higher. What are the chances that it won't forever, or for years? There are many stocks whose price goes down and then down further and then to zero. The most apparent example is, of course, Enron. The stock went from about $90 per share to zero in about 18 months. For it to have been sold at $90, obviously, someone had to buy it. Almost no matter where they sold it, they lost money. If they didn't sell it, when the stock was worthless, they lost money. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron#/media/File:EnronStockPriceAugust2000toJanuary2001.svg There are more modern examples of companies that are declining in a rapidly changing market. For example, Sears Holdings is getting beat down by Amazon and many other on-line retailers. I suspect that if you buy it today and wait for it to go higher, you will be disappointed. https://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ%3ASHLD&ei=E8_fWIjWGsSGmAGx7b_IAw The more common way to lose money is to either not have a plan or not stick to the plan. Disciplined investors typically plan to buy quality stocks at a fair price and hold them long enough for increasing sales and profits to bring the stock price up. If, later, he hears a bit of bad news about his stock and decides to sell out of panic or fear and become a trader instead of keeping to the plan to remain a disciplined investor, he is likely to lose money. He will lose because no-one can predict accurately that a stock is going down and will never recover; nor can he predict accurately when a stock is going up and will never falter. The chance of bankruptcy (especially for huge companies like Apple) is really low, as I see it, but I may be wrong. Thousands of people lost billions of dollars thinking that about Enron, too. I too believe Apple is a fine stock with excellent prospects, but technology changes and markets change. Twenty or thirty years from now, it may be a different case.",
"qid": 10039,
"docid": "170628",
"rank": 71,
"score": 98356
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Yes, there are a lot of places you can research stocks online, Google Finance, Yahoo Finance, Reuters etc. It's important to understand that the price of the stock doesn't actually mean anything. Share price is just a function of the market capitalization divided by the number of shares outstanding. As an example take two companies that are both worth $1 million, but Company A has issued 10,000 shares and Company B has issued 100,000 shares. Company A has a share price of $100 while Company B has a share price of just $10. Comparing share price does nothing to indicate the relative value or health of Company A versus Company B. I know there are supposed to be no product recommendations but the dictionary area of investopedia.com is a good source of beginner investing information. And as Joe points out below the questions here with the \"\"stock\"\" tag would also be a good place to start. And while I'm on a roll, the book \"\"A Random Walk Down Wall Street\"\" is a good starting point in investing in the stock market.\"",
"qid": 10039,
"docid": "224366",
"rank": 72,
"score": 98335
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Take a look at this: http://code.google.com/p/stock-portfolio-manager/ It is an open source project aimed to manage your stock portfolio.",
"qid": 10039,
"docid": "45218",
"rank": 73,
"score": 97924
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You should get a 1099-MISC for the $5000 you got. And your broker should send you a 1099-B for the $5500 sale of Google stock. These are two totally separate things as far as the US IRS is concerned. 1) You made $5000 in wages. You will pay income tax on this as well as FICA and other state and local taxes. 2) You will report that you paid $5000 for stock, and sold it for $5500 without holding it for one year. Since this was short term, you will pay tax on the $500 in income you made. These numbers will go on different parts of your tax form. Essentially in your case, you'll have to pay regular income tax rates on the whole $5500, but that's only because short term capital gains are treated as income. There's always the possibility that could change (unlikely). It also helps to think of them separately because if you held the stock for a year, you would pay different tax on that $500. Regardless, you report them in different ways on your taxes.",
"qid": 10039,
"docid": "290045",
"rank": 74,
"score": 97888
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Thank you for the in-depth, detailed explanation; it's refreshing to see a concise, non verbose explanation on reddit. I have a couple of questions, if that's alright. Firstly, concerning mezzanine investors. Based on my understanding from Google, these people invest after a venture has been partially financed (can I use venture like that in a financial context, or does it refer specifically to venture capital?) so they would receive a smaller return, yes? Is mezzanine investing particularly profitable? It sounds like you'd need a wide portfolio. Secondly, why is dilution so important further down the road? Is it to do with valuation? Finally, at what point would a company aim to meet an IPO? Is it case specific, or is there a general understanding of the \"\"best time\"\"? Thank you so much for answering my questions.\"",
"qid": 10039,
"docid": "513502",
"rank": 75,
"score": 97824
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Yes, it is unreasonable and unsustainable. We all want returns in excess of 15% but even the best and richest investors do not sustain those kinds of returns. You should not invest more than a fraction of your net worth in individual stocks in any case. You should diversify using index funds or ETFs.",
"qid": 10039,
"docid": "318140",
"rank": 76,
"score": 97742
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"You should only invest in individual stocks if you truly understand the company's business model and follow its financial reports closely. Even then, individual stocks should represent only the tiniest, most \"\"adventurous\"\" part of your portfolio, as they are a huge risk. A basic investing principle is diversification. If you invest in a variety of financial instruments, then: (a) when some components of your portfolio are doing poorly, others will be doing well. Even in the case of significant economic downturns, when it seems like everything is doing poorly, there will be some investment sectors that are doing relatively better (such as bonds, physical real estate, precious metals). (b) over time, some components of your portfolio will gain more money than others, so every 6 or 12 months you can \"\"rebalance\"\" such that all components once again have the same % of money invested in them as when you began. You can do this either by selling off some of your well-performing assets to purchase more of your poorly-performing assets or (if you don't want to incur a taxable event) by introducing additional money from outside your portfolio. This essentially forces you to \"\"buy (relatively) low, sell (relatively) high\"\". Now, if you accept the above argument for diversification, then you should recognize that owning a handful (or even several handfuls) of individual stocks will not help you achieve diversification. Even if you buy one stock in the energy sector, one in consumer discretionary, one in financials, etc., then you're still massively exposed to the day-to-day fates of those individual companies. And if you invest solely in the US stock market, then when the US has a decline, your whole portfolio will decline. And if you don't buy any bonds, then again when the world has a downturn, your portfolio will decline. And so on ... That's why index mutual funds are so helpful. Someone else has already gone to the trouble of grouping together all the stocks or bonds of a certain \"\"type\"\" (small-cap/large-cap, domestic/foreign, value/growth) so all you have to do is pick the types you want until you feel you have the diversity you need. No more worrying about whether you've picked the \"\"right\"\" company to represent a particular sector. The fewer knobs there are to turn in your portfolio, the less chance there is for mistakes!\"",
"qid": 10039,
"docid": "533576",
"rank": 77,
"score": 97471
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Small purchases will have a disproportionate expense for commissions. Even a $5 trade fee is 5% on a $100 purchase. So on one hand, it's common to advise individuals just starting out to use mutual funds, specifically index funds with low fees. On the flip side, holding stocks has no annual fee, and if you are buying for the long term, you may still be better off with an eye toward cost, and learn over time. In theory, an individual stands a better chance to beat the experts for a number of reasons, no shareholders to answer to, and the ability to purchase without any disclosure, among them. In reality, most investor lag the average by such a wide margin, they'd be best off indexing and staying in for the long term.",
"qid": 10039,
"docid": "222900",
"rank": 78,
"score": 97380
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Funds - especially index funds - are a safe way for beginning investors to get a diversified investment across a lot of the stock market. They are not the perfect investment, but they are better than the majority of mutual funds, and you do not spend a lot of money in fees. Compared to the alternative - buying individual stocks based on what a friend tells you or buying a \"\"hot\"\" mutual fund - it's a great choice for a lot of people. If you are willing to do some study, you can do better - quite a bit better - with common stocks. As an individual investor, you have some structural advantages; you can take significant (to you) positions in small-cap companies, while this is not practical for large institutional investors or mutual fund managers. However, you can also lose a lot of money quickly in individual stocks. It pays to go slow and to your homework, however, and make sure that you are investing, not speculating. I like fool.com as a good place to start, and subscribe to a couple of their newsletters. I will note that investing is not for the faint of heart; to do well, you may need to do the opposite of what everybody else is doing; buying when the market is down and selling when the market is high. A few people mentioned the efficient market hypothesis. There is ample evidence that the market is not efficient; the existence of the .com and mortgage bubbles makes it pretty obvious that the market is often not rationally valued, and a couple of hedge funds profited in the billions from this.\"",
"qid": 10039,
"docid": "312591",
"rank": 79,
"score": 97319
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: There is no one answer to this question, but there are some generalities. Most exchanges make a distinction between the passive and the aggressive sides of a trade. The passive participant is the order that was resting on the market at the time of the trade. It is an order that based on its price was not executable at the time, and therefore goes into the order book. For example, I'm willing to sell 100 shares of a stock at $9.98 but nobody wants to buy that right now, so it remains as an open order on the exchange. Then somebody comes along and is willing to meet my price (I am glossing over lots of details here). So they aggressively take out my order by either posting a market-buy, or specifically that they want to buy 100 shares at either $9.98, or at some higher price. Most exchanges will actually give me, as the passive (i.e. liquidity making) investor a small rebate, while the other person is charged a few fractions of a cent. Google found NYSEArca details, and most other exchanges make their fees public as well. As of this writing the generic price charged/credited: But they provide volume discounts, and many of the larger deals do fall into another tier of volume, which provides a different price structure.",
"qid": 10039,
"docid": "571306",
"rank": 80,
"score": 97291
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: it sounds like you don't have experience in this, and neither does your *investor*; which is a recipe for disaster (pun intended). Your first order of business is to check whether your investor is an *Accredited Investor* (google to see what it means), if s/he's not, **walk away**. If s/he's an accredited investor, find a lawyer who can help you navigate this process, however these are the issues: * lawyers are expensive, and lawyers who have experience in these type of transactions are even more expensive * you actually need 2 lawyers, one for you and one for the investor * if neither of you have experience, there will be a lot more billable hours from the lawyers..... In principle this can go 3 ways: 1. The investors give you a loan, you pay them interests on a periodic basis, and then also principal. Items to be negotiated: interest rates, repayment schedule, collateral, personal guarantees. Highly unlikely this is what the investors wants. 2. The Investors get equity. items to be negotiated: your compensation, % of ownership, how profits are divided, how profits are paid; who gets to decide what. 3. A combination of 1 and 2 above, a *Convertible Note*. There's a lot more, too much for a Reddit post. There's not an easy ELI5.",
"qid": 10039,
"docid": "106733",
"rank": 81,
"score": 97272
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: In terms of building the initial investment using some kind of mutual fund, I'd suggest you see my answer to this similar question https://money.stackexchange.com/questions/9943/cheapest-or-free-online-broker-for-beginner For buying individual stocks later, you could look at sharebuilder, or a low cost broker, however most of them charge between $5-$7 per trade, and if you are doing small dollar value trades then that can really really eat into things if you try to trade a lot.",
"qid": 10039,
"docid": "413856",
"rank": 82,
"score": 97267
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Fake stock market trading may teach you about trading, which isn't necessarily the same thing as investing. I think you need to understand how things work and how to read financial news and statistics before you start trading. Otherwise, you're just going to get frustrated when you mysteriously win and lose funny money. I'd suggest a few things: Also, don't get into individual stocks until you have at least $5k to invest -- focus on saving and use ETFs or mutual funds. You should always invest in around a half dozen diversified stocks at a time, and doing that with less than $1,000 a stock will make it impossible to trade and make money -- If a $100 stock position goes up 20%, you haven't cleared enough to pay your brokerage fees.",
"qid": 10039,
"docid": "555521",
"rank": 83,
"score": 96970
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The short answer: zero. dg99's answer gives some good reasons why. You will basically never be able to achieve diversification with individual stocks that is anywhere close to what you can get with mutual funds. Owning individual stocks exposes you to much greater risk in that random one-off events that happen to affect one of the companies you own can have a disproportionate effect on your assets. (For instance, some sort of scandal involving a particular company can cause its stock to tank.) There are only two reasons I can see to invest in individual stocks: a. You have some unique opportunity to acquire stock that other people might not be able to get (or get at that price). This can be the case if you work for a privately-held company that allows you to buy stock (or options), or allows you to participate in its IPO. Even then, you should not go too crazy, since having too much stock in the company you work for can double your pain if the company falls on hard times (you may lose your job and your investment). b. For fun. If you like tracking stocks and trying to beat the market, you may want to test your skills at this by using a small proportion of your investable cash (no more than 10%). In this case you're not so much hoping to increase your returns as to just enjoy investing more. This can also have a psychological benefit in that it allows you to \"\"blow off steam\"\" and indulge your desire to make decisions, while allowing your passive investments (index funds) to shoulder the load of actually gaining value.\"",
"qid": 10039,
"docid": "564069",
"rank": 84,
"score": 96964
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Another one I have seen mentioned used is Equity Feed. It had varies levels of the software depending on the markets you want and can provide level 2 quotes if select that option. http://stockcharts.com/ is also a great tool I see mentioned with lots of free stuff.",
"qid": 10039,
"docid": "471643",
"rank": 85,
"score": 96952
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Diversified is relative. Alfred has all his money in Apple. He's done very well over the last 10 years, but I think most investors would say that he's taking an incredible risk by putting everything on one stock. Betty has stock in Apple, Microsoft, and Google. Compared to Alfred, she is diversified. Charlie looks at Betty and realizes that she is only investing in one particular industry. All the companies in an individual industry can have a downturn together, so he invests everything in an S&P 500 index fund. David looks at Charlie and notes that he's got everything in large, high-capitalization companies. Small-cap stocks are often where the growth happens, so he invests in a total stock market fund. Evelyn realizes that David has all his money tied up in one country, the United States. What about the rest of the world? She invests in a global fund. Frank really likes Evelyn's broad approach to equities, but he knows that some portion of fixed-income assets (e.g. cash deposits, bonds) can reduce portfolio volatility—and may even enhance returns through periodic rebalancing. He does what Evelyn does, but also allocates some percentage of his portfolio to fixed income, and intends to maintain his target allocations. Being diversified enough depends on your individual goals and investing philosophy. There are some who would say that it is wrong to put all of your money in one fund, no matter what it is. Others would say that a sufficiently broad index fund is inherently diversified as-is.",
"qid": 10039,
"docid": "312942",
"rank": 86,
"score": 96871
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you use Google Finance, you will get incorrect results because Google Finance does not show the dividend history. Since your requirement is that dividends are re-invested, you should use Yahoo Finance instead, downloading the historical 'adjusted' price.",
"qid": 10039,
"docid": "239137",
"rank": 87,
"score": 96735
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Quote driven markets are the predecessors to the modern securities market. Before electronic trading and HFTs specifically, trading was thin and onerous. Today, the average investor can open up a web page, type in a security, and buy at the narrowest spread permitted by regulators with anyone else who wants to take the other side. Before the lines between market maker and speculator became blurred to indistinction, a market maker was one who was contractually obligated to an exchange to provide a bid and ask for a given security on said exchange even though at heart a market maker is still simply a trader despite the obligation. A market maker would simultaneously buy a large amount of securities privately and short the same amount to have no directional bias, exposure to the direction of the security, and commence to making the market. The market maker would estimate its cost basis for the security based upon those initial trades and provide a bid and ask appropriate for the given level of volume. If volumes were high, the spread would be low and vice versa. Market makers who survived crashes and spikes would forgo the potential profit in always providing a steady price and spread, ie increased volume otherwise known as revenue, to maintain no directional bias. In other words, if there were suddenly many buyers and no sellers, hitting the market maker's ask, the MM would raise the ask rapidly in proportion to the increased exposure while leaving the bid somewhere below the cost basis. Eventually, a seller would arise and hit the MM's bid, bringing the market maker's inventory back into balance, and narrowing the spread that particular MM could provide since a responsible MM's ask could rise very high very quickly if a lack of its volume relative to its inventory made inventory too costly. This was temporarily extremely costly to the trader if there were few market makers on the security the trader was trading or already exposed to. Market makers prefer to profit from the spread, bidding below some predetermined price, based upon the cost basis of the market maker's inventory, while asking above that same predetermined cost basis. Traders profit from taking exposure to a security's direction or lack thereof in the case of some options traders. Because of electronic trading, liquidity rebates offered by exchanges not only to contractually obligated official market makers but also to any trader who posts a limit order that another trader hits, and algorithms that become better by the day, market making HFTs have supplanted the traditional market maker, and there are many HFTs where there previously were few official market makers. This speed and diversification of risk across many many algorithmically market making HFTs have kept spreads to the minimum on large equities and have reduced the same for the smallest equities on major exchanges. Orders and quotes are essentially identical. Both are double sided auction markets with impermenant bids and asks. The difference lies in that non-market makers, specialists, etc. orders are not shown to the rest of the market, providing an informational advantage to MMs and an informational disadvantage to the trader. Before electronic trading, this construct was of no consequence since trader orders were infrequent. With the prevalence of HFTs, the informational disadvantage has become more costly, so order driven markets now prevail with much lower spreads and accelerated volumes even though market share for the major exchanges has dropped rapidly and hyperaccelerated number of trades even though the size of individual trades have fallen. The worst aspect of the quote driven market was that traders could not directly trade with each other, so all trades had to go between a market maker, specialist, etc. While this may seem to have increased cost to a trader who could only trade with another trader by being arbitraged by a MM et al, paying more than what another trader was willing to sell, these costs were dwarfed by the potential absence of those market makers. Without a bid or ask at any given time, there could be no trade, so the costs were momentarily infinite. In essence, a quote driven market protects market makers from the competition of traders. While necessary in the days where paper receipts were carted from brokerage to brokerage, and the trader did not dedicate itself to round the clock trading, it has no place in a computerized market. It is more costly to the trader to use such a market, explaining quote driven markets' rapid exit.",
"qid": 10039,
"docid": "69197",
"rank": 88,
"score": 96683
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Certainly, there aren't algorithms lying in wait for me to enter a buy order for a couple thousand dollars worth of APPL. However, anybody that has a pension plan or a 401k gets shaved by predatory HFT. This is the majority of *ordinary investors*. Most of the population doesn't trade in individual stocks. The ones that have their investments managed by large funds are most certainly affected. Katsayuma's dissection of the underlying mechanisms makes that abundantly clear. I can understand why those with a financial stake attempt to discredit Katsuyama, but it's fairly transparent bullshit. Bullshit that \"\"you seem to have been suckered in\"\" by.\"",
"qid": 10039,
"docid": "148549",
"rank": 89,
"score": 96588
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Even with non-voting shares, you own a portion of the company including all of its assets and its future profits. If the company is sold, goes out of business and liquidates, etc., those with non-voting shares still stand collect their share of the funds generated. There's also the possibility, as one of the comments notes, that a company will pay dividends in the future and distribute its assets to shareholders that way. The example of Google (also mentioned in the comments) is interesting because when they went to voting and non-voting stock, there was some theoretical debate about whether the two types of shares (GOOG and GOOGL) would track each other in value. It turned out that they did not - People did put a premium on voting, so that is worth something. Even without the voting rights, however, Google has massive assets and each share (GOOG and GOOGL) represented ownership of a fraction of those assets and that kept them highly correlated in value. (Google had to pay restitution to some shareholders of the non-voting stock as a result of the deviation in value. I won't get into the details here since it's a bit of tangent, but you could easily find details on the web.)",
"qid": 10039,
"docid": "488920",
"rank": 90,
"score": 96514
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"To calculate a sector (or index) P/E ratio you need to sum the market caps of the constituent stocks and divide it by the sum of the total earnings of the constituent stocks (including stocks that have negative earnings). There are no \"\"per share\"\" figures used in the calculation. Beware when you include an individual stock that there may be multiple issues associated with the company that are not in the index.... eg. Berkshire Hathaway BRK.B is in the S&P 500 but BRK.A is not. In contrast, Google has both GOOGL and GOOG included in the S&P 500 index but not its unlisted Class B shares. All such shares need to be included in the market cap and figuring out the different share class ratios can be tricky.\"",
"qid": 10039,
"docid": "197480",
"rank": 91,
"score": 96513
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Funds which track the same index may have different nominal prices. From an investors point of view, this is not important. What is important is that when the underlying index moves by a given percentage, the price of the tracking funds also move by an equal percentage. In other words, if the S&P500 rises by 5%, then the price of those funds tracking the S&P500 will also rise by 5%. Therefore, investing a given amount in any of the tracking funds will produce the same profit or loss, regardless of the nominal prices at which the individual funds are trading. To see this, use the \"\"compare\"\" function available on the popular online charting services. For example, in Google finance call up a chart of the S&P500 index, then use the compare textbox to enter the codes for the various ETFs tracking the S&P500. You will see that they all track the S&P500 equally so that your relative returns will be equal from each of the tracking funds. Any small difference in total returns will be attributable to management fees and expenses, which is why low fees are so important in passive investing.\"",
"qid": 10039,
"docid": "148721",
"rank": 92,
"score": 96499
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I use Google Finance too. The only thing I have problem with is dividend info which it wouldn't automatically add to my portfolio. At the same time, I think that's a lot to ask for a free web site tool. So when dividend comes, I manually \"\"deposit\"\" the dividend payment by updating the cash amount. If the dividend comes in share form, I do a BUY at price 0 for that particular stock. If you only have 5 stocks, this additional effort is not bad at all. I also use the Hong Kong version of it so perhaps there maybe an implementation difference across country versions. Hope this helps. CF\"",
"qid": 10039,
"docid": "124298",
"rank": 93,
"score": 96312
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"How often do investors really lose money? All the time. And it's almost always reason number 1. Let's start with the beginner investor, the person most likely to make some real losses and feel they've \"\"learned\"\" that investing is no better than Vegas. This person typically gets into it because they've been given a hot stock tip, or because they've received a windfall, decided to give this investing lark a try, and bought stock in half a dozen companies whose names they know from their everyday lives (\"\"I own a bit of Google! How cool is that?\"\"). These are people who don't understand the cyclic nature of the market (bear gives way to bull gives way to bear, and on and on), and so when they suddenly see that what was $1000 is now $900 they panic and sell everything. Especially as all the pundits are declaring the end of the world (they always do). Until the moment they sold, they only had paper losses. But they crystallised those losses, made them real, and ended at a loss. Then there's the trend-follower. These are people who don't necessarily hit a bear market, or even a downturn, in their early days, but never really try to learn how the market works in any real sense. They jump into every hot stock, then panic and sell out of anything that starts to go the wrong way. Both of these reactive behaviours seem reasonable in the moment (\"\"It's gone up 15% in the past week? Buy buy buy!\"\" and \"\"I've lost 10% this month on that thing? Get rid of it before I lose any more!\"\"), but they work out over time to lots of buying high and selling low, the very opposite of what you want to do. Then there's the day-trader. These are people who sit in their home office, buying and selling all day to try and make lots of little gains that add up to a lot. The reason these people don't do well in the long run is slightly different to the other examples. First, fees. Yes, most platforms offer a discount for \"\"frequent traders\"\", but it still ain't free. Second, they're peewees playing in the big leagues. Of course there are exceptions who make out like bandits, but day traders are playing a different game than the people I'd call investors. That game, unlike buy-and-hold investing, is much more like gambling, and day-traders are the enthusiastic amateurs sitting down at a table with professional poker players – institutional investors and the computers and research departments that work for them. Even buy-and-hold investors, even the more sophisticated ones, can easily realise losses on a given stock. You say you should just hold on to a stock until it goes back up, but if it goes low enough, it could take a decade or more to even just break even again. More savvy stock-pickers will have a system worked out, something like \"\"ok, if it gets down to 90% of what I bought it for, I cut my losses and sell.\"\" This is actually a sensible precaution, because defining hard rules like that helps you eliminate emotion from your investing, which is incredibly important if you want to avoid becoming the trend-follower above. It's still a loss, but it's a calculated one, and hopefully over time the exception rather than the rule. There are probably as many other ways to lose money as there are people investing, but I think I've given you a taste. The key to avoiding such things is understanding the psychology of investing, and defining the rules that you'll follow no matter what (as in that last example). Or just go learn about index investing. That's what I did.\"",
"qid": 10039,
"docid": "532485",
"rank": 94,
"score": 96099
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"To answer your question: yes, it's often \"\"worth it\"\" to have investments that produce income. Do a Google search for \"\"income vs growth investing\"\" and you'll get a sense for two different approaches to investing in equities. In a nutshell: \"\"growth\"\" stocks (think Netflix, etc) don't pay dividends but are poised to appreciate in price more than \"\"income\"\" stocks (think banks, utilities, etc) that tend to have less volatile prices but pay a consistent dividend. In the long run (decades), growth stocks tend to outperform income stocks. That's why younger investors tend to pick growth stocks while those closer to retirement tend to stick with more stable income-producing portfolio. But there's nothing wrong with a mixed approach, either. I agree with Pete's answer, too.\"",
"qid": 10039,
"docid": "98345",
"rank": 95,
"score": 96067
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Yes, an investment can be made in a company before IPO. The valuation process is similar as that done for arriving at IPO or for a normal listed company. The difference may be the premium perceived for the idea in question. This would differ from one investor to other. For example, whether Facebook will be able to grow at the rate and generate enough revenues and win against competition is all a mathematical model based on projections. There are quite a few times the projection would go wrong, and quite a few times it would go correct. An individual investor cannot generally borrow from banks to invest into a company (listed or otherwise) (or for any other purpose) if he does not have any collateral that can be kept as security by the bank. An individual can get a loan only if he has sufficient collateral. The exceptions being small personal loans depending on one's credit history. The Private Equity placement arm of banks or firms in the business of private equity invest in start-up and most of the time make an educated guess based on their experience. More than half of their investments into start-ups end up as wiped out. An occasional one or two companies are ones that they make a windfall gain on.",
"qid": 10039,
"docid": "473154",
"rank": 96,
"score": 95898
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"This is a really interesting question and something a lot of work is being done to understand. I'm going to look at the closely related question \"\"Do non market-cap etf weighting methods consistently outperform once you take into account their investment biases?\"\" Let's use revenue weighting as a reason why investment biases are so important. In revenue weighting, you would own almost no fast-growing tech companies as they generally have little revenue. This sounds great if we are talking about say Pets.com in the late 90s but you also would miss most of the rise of Google. To believe in these ETFs consistently outperform (adjusted for risk) you would have to have a strong reason to believe that earnings, sales, or dividends are a better predictor of company value than market value. Market analysts include the above three metrics and many more when pricing stocks so out-performance using only one of the above metrics seems unlikely. There is one caveat to this and that is value and small cap stocks have been shown to give slightly better risk-adjusted returns in the very long run (see Fama/French) and many of these alternative weighting methods will have a value or small cap bias. First, it is unclear if this out-performance will continue now that it is more widely known. Second, even if you believe this will continue you can more easily and cheaply get this bias though value/small-cap etfs than these weighting schemes. In the end, the only thing that is perfectly clear is that higher fee investments will generally under-perform.\"",
"qid": 10039,
"docid": "402091",
"rank": 97,
"score": 95792
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"For US equities, Edgar Online is where companies post their government filings to the SEC. On Google Finance, you would look at the \"\"SEC filings\"\" link on the page, and then find their 10K and 10Q documents, where that information is listed and already calculated. Many companies also have these same documents posted on their Investor Relations web pages.\"",
"qid": 10039,
"docid": "161411",
"rank": 98,
"score": 95730
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The cause of incomplete/inaccurate financial data's appearing on free sites is that it is both complicated and expensive to obtain and parse these data. Even within a single country, different pieces of financial data are handled by different authorities. In the US, for example, there is one generally recognized authority for stock prices and volumes (CQS), but a completely different authority for corporate earnings data (SEC). For futures and options data the only authority is each individual exchange. Each of these sources might have a vastly different interface to their data; some may have websites, others may have FTPs, others may have TCP datastreams to which you must subscribe, etc. Now throw in the rest of the world and all their exchanges and regulatory agencies, and you can see how it's a difficult job to gather all this information, parse it on a daily (or more frequent) basis, and check it all for errors. There are some companies (e.g. Bloomberg) whose entire business model is to do the above. They spend tens of millions of dollars per year to support the infrastructure and manpower required to keep such a complex system working, and they charge their consumers a pretty penny in return. Do Google/Yahoo pay for Bloomberg data access just to display information that we then consume for free? Maybe. Maybe they pay for some less expensive reduced data set. Or a data set that is less rigorously checked for errors. Even if they pay for the best data available, there's no guarantee that a company's last earnings report didn't have a glitch in it, or that Bloomberg's latest download from the Canadian Agency for Corporate Dividends and Moose Census-Taking didn't get cut off in the middle, or that the folks at Yahoo built a robust system that can handle a particular file's not arriving on time. Bloomberg has dozens or even hundreds of employees focused on just this one task; Yahoo probably has 5. Moral: If you really need the best available data you must go to the source(s), or you must pay a provider to whom you can then complain when something is wrong. With free data you get what you pay for.",
"qid": 10039,
"docid": "156816",
"rank": 99,
"score": 95600
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"This functionality is widely available, not only on brokerage sites, but also financial management and even financial information sites. For instance, two of the latter are Google Finance and Yahoo Finance. If you are logged in, they let you create \"\"portfolios\"\" listing your stocks and, optionally, the size of your holdings in that stock (which you don't need if you are just \"\"watching\"\" a stock). Then you can visit the site at any time and see the current valuations.\"",
"qid": 10039,
"docid": "20994",
"rank": 100,
"score": 95579
}
] |
Why does Charles Schwab have a Mandatory Settlement Period after selling stocks? | [
{
"content": "Title: Content: quid's answer explains the settlement period well. However, it should be noted that you can avoid the settlement period by opening a margin account. Any specific broker like Schwab may or may not offer margin accounts. Margin accounts allow you to borrow money to avoid the settlement period or to buy more securities than you can actually afford. Note that if you buy more securities than you can afford using margin, you expose yourself to losses potentially larger than your initial investment. If you fund your account with $50,000 and use margin to purchase $80,000 of stock which then drops in value by 80% you will have lost $64,000 and owe the broker $14,000 plus fees.",
"qid": 10109,
"docid": "93231",
"rank": 1,
"score": 143742
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: It's important to understand that, in general, security transactions involve you and a relatively unknown entity with your broker standing in the middle. When you sell through Schwab, Schwab needs to receive the funds from the other side of the transaction. If Schwab gave you access to the funds immediately, it would essentially be a loan until the transaction settles after funds and securities change hands. If Schwab made funds available to you as soon as they were received, it might still be two days until the money is received; because the other side also has three days. Guaranteed one day settlement would have to include receipt of funds from the buyer in one day and Schwab can't control that. You need to remember this transaction likely includes at least one party in addition to you and Schwab. Here's the SEC page related to the three day settlement period, About Settling Trades in Three Days: T+3",
"qid": 10109,
"docid": "28314",
"rank": 2,
"score": 143404
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You have to wait for three (business) days. That's the time it takes for the settlement to complete and for the money to get to your account. If you don't wait - brokers will still allow you to buy a new stock, but may limit your ability to sell it until the previous sale is settled. Here's a FAQ from Schwab on the issue.",
"qid": 10109,
"docid": "332243",
"rank": 3,
"score": 136349
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Yes, the newly bought shares will have a long-term holding period, regardless of when you sell them. In addition, it's only a wash sale if you sold the first shares for a loss; it's not a wash sale if you sold them for a gain. Wikipedia mentions this: When a wash sale occurs, the holding period for the replacement stock includes the period you held the stock you sold. Example: You've held shares of XYZ for 10 years. You sell it at a loss but then buy it back within the wash sale period. When you sell the replacement stock, your gain or loss will be long-term — no matter how soon you sell it. Charles Schwab also mentions this: Here's a quick example of a wash sale. On 9/30/XX, you buy 500 shares of ABC at $10 per share. One year later the stock price starts to drop, and you sell all your shares at $9 per share on 10/4/XY. Two days later, on 10/6, ABC bottoms out at $8 and you buy 500 shares again. This series of trades triggers a wash sale. The holding period of the original shares will be added to the holding period of the replacement shares, effectively leaving you with a long-term position.",
"qid": 10109,
"docid": "537212",
"rank": 4,
"score": 124201
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Because it takes 3 business days for the actual transfer of stock to occur after you buy or sell to the next owner, your cash is tied up until that happens. This is called the settlement period. Therefore, brokers offer \"\"margin\"\", which is a form of credit, or loan, to allow you to keep trading while the settlement period occurs, and in other situations unrelated to the presented question. To do this you need a \"\"margin account\"\", you currently have a \"\"cash account\"\". The caveat of having a retail margin account (distinct from a professional margin account) is that there is a limited amount of same-day trades you can make if you have less than $25,000 in the account. This is called the Pattern Day Trader (PDT) rule. You don't need $25k to day trade, you will just wish you had it, as it is easy to get your account frozen or downgraded to a cash account. The way around THAT is to have multiple margin accounts at different brokerages. This will greatly increase the number of same day trades you can make. Many brokers that offer a \"\"solution\"\" to PDT to people that don't have 25k to invest, are offering professional trading accounts, which have additional fees for data, which is free for retail trading accounts. This problem has nothing to do with: So be careful of the advice you get on the internet. It is mostly white noise. Feel free to verify\"",
"qid": 10109,
"docid": "402726",
"rank": 5,
"score": 118516
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: During the settlement period, the buyer transfers payment to the seller and the seller transfers ownership to the buyer. This is really a holdover from the days when so much of stock trading was done by individual human traders, and computers were still not a huge part of the operation. Back then, paper tickets for trades exchanged hands, and the time period was actually 5 days, so 3 days is an improvement. A settlement period was necessary for everyone to figure out their trades and do what was necessary to make the settlements happen, so it was not always a quick process, mainly because of smaller trading firms that didn't have technology to help them along. Nowadays, technology makes settlements easy, and they usually occur at the end of the trading day. The trading firms sum up their trades, figure out who they owe, and send lump sum settlements to the counterparties to their trades. If anything, the 3-day period may just be used now to let parties verify trades before settling. I hope this helps. Good luck!",
"qid": 10109,
"docid": "370635",
"rank": 6,
"score": 118172
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Yes, there is a delay between when you buy a stock and when you actually take ownership of it. This is called the settlement period. The settlement period for US equities is T+2 (other markets have different settlement periods), meaning you don't actually become a shareholder of record until 2 business days after you buy. Conversely, you don't stop being a shareholder of record until 2 business days after you sell. Presumably at some point in the (far) future all public markets will move to same-day changes of ownership, at which point companies will stop making announcements of the form all shareholders of record as of September 22nd and will switch to announcements of the form all shareholders of record as of September 22nd at 13:00 UTC",
"qid": 10109,
"docid": "266767",
"rank": 7,
"score": 116255
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: According to Regulation T, you can make as many day trade (round trip) stock purchases using a cash account as long as you have the funds to cover each and every round trip sale. However, the funds generated from the sales cannot be used again to purchase new stocks until the settlement period (T-2 or T-3) is over. For example, say you have $10000 dollars in your cash account and no securities. You buy 1000 shares of XYZ stock in the morning at one dollar per share and you sell the stock 30 minutes later because it went up say by 50 cents. According to Regulation T, you cannot use the money generated from the sale of your 1000 shares until after the settlement date. However, you can use the remaining $9000 dollars in your account to execute other trades just as the first trade. You can do this as many times as you want as long as you have funds available to pay for the transaction the same day it's executed. The only thing to worry about and that isn't clear, is, what happens if you perform this action more than 3 times in a week? Does it mean that your cash account now becomes a margin account subject to margin account rules because you executed more than three round trip trades in a five day rolling period?",
"qid": 10109,
"docid": "367873",
"rank": 8,
"score": 107531
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I have an account with ETrade. Earlier this week I got an offer to participate in the IPO proper (at the IPO price). If Charles Schwab doesn't give you the opportunity, that's a shortcoming of them as a brokerage firm; there are definitely ways for retail investors to invest in it, wise investment or no. (Okay, technically it wasn't an offer to participate, it was a notice that participation was possibly available, various securities-law disclaimers etc withstanding. \"\"This Web site is neither an offer to sell nor a solicitation to buy these securities. The offer is by prospectus only. This Web site contains a preliminary prospectus for each offering.\"\" etc etc).\"",
"qid": 10109,
"docid": "239334",
"rank": 9,
"score": 103999
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I'd advise you to use a broker. Even a discount broker like Charles Schwab would do. First, they would do the \"\"trades\"\" purchase/sale, on your behalf, using parameters you specify (and also tell you where the \"\"market\"\" is at any given time). Second, they may sell you bills of a desirable term (e.g. six weeks) of out their own inventory. Third, they will lend you money (50% or more) against your holdings, so you'll have some money when you need it, and the balance when the bills mature.\"",
"qid": 10109,
"docid": "257832",
"rank": 10,
"score": 101651
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Simple Schwaab does not have actually your securities they have leased them out and have to borrow them back. all assets are linked with derivatives now. They show on the balance sheet but have to be untangled. Thats why the market drops disproportionally fast to the actual number of shares sold.",
"qid": 10109,
"docid": "566591",
"rank": 11,
"score": 101059
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The settlement date for any trade is the date on which the seller gets the buyer's money and the buyer gets the seller's product. In US equities markets the settlement date is (almost universally) three trading days after the trade date. This settlement period gives the exchanges, the clearing houses, and the brokers time to figure out how many shares and how many dollars need to actually be moved around in order to give everyone what they're owed (and then to actually do all that moving around). So, \"\"settling\"\" a short trade is the same thing as settling any other trade. It has nothing to do with \"\"closing\"\" (or covering) the seller's short position. Q: Is this referring to when a short is initiated, or closed? A: Initiated. If you initiate a short position by selling borrowed shares on day 1, then settlement occurs on day 4. (Regardless of whether your short position is still open or has been closed.) Q: All open shorts which are still open by the settlement date have to be reported by the due date. A: Not exactly. The requirement is that all short positions evaluated based on their settlement dates (rather than their trade dates) still open on the deadline have to be reported by the due date. You sell short 100 AAPL on day 1. You then cover that short by buying 100 AAPL on day 2. As far as the clearing houses and brokers are concerned, however, you don't even get into the short position until your sell settles at the end of day 4, and you finally get out of your short position (in their eyes) when your buy settles at the end of day 5. So imagine the following scenarios: The NASDAQ deadline happens to be the end of day 2. Since your (FINRA member) broker has been told to report based on settlement date, it would report no open position for you in AAPL even though you executed a trade to sell on day 1. The NASDAQ deadline happens to be the end of day 3. Your sell still has not settled, so there's still no open position to report for you. The NASDAQ deadline happens to be the end of day 4. Your sell has settled but your buy has not, so the broker reports a 100 share open short position for you. The NASDAQ deadline happens to be the end of day 5. Your sell and buy have both settled, so the broker once again has no open position to report for you. So, the point is that when dealing with settlement dates you just pretend the world is 3 days behind where it actually is.\"",
"qid": 10109,
"docid": "226984",
"rank": 12,
"score": 99447
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Fidelity, Charles Schwab, TDA, and just about every make online brokerage gives you massive amounts of free trades each year and when you sign up. Pretty much the same as 100+ free trades /yr over a 10 year period. Also, you get commission-free trade for the most popular ETFs, which is much more important. Lastly, if you care about free trades, you're probably investing poorly. Non-professionals shouldn't be making that many non-ETF trades in a year. Professional traders wouldn't blink over a tiny $5-10 commission fee.",
"qid": 10109,
"docid": "108671",
"rank": 13,
"score": 98111
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I traded futures for a brief period in school using the BrokersXpress platform (now part of OptionsXpress, which is in turn now part of Charles Schwab). They had a virtual trading platform, and apparently still do, and it was excellent. Since my main account was enabled for futures, this carried over to the virtual account, so I could trade a whole range of futures, options, stocks, etc. I spoke with OptionsXpress, and you don't need to fund your acount to use the virtual trading platform. However, they will cancel your account after an arbitrary period of time if you don't log in every few days. According to their customer service, there is no inactivity fee on your main account if you don't fund it and make no trades. I also used Stock-Trak for a class and despite finding the occasional bug or website performance issue, it provided a good experience. I received a discount because I used it through an educational institution, and customer service was quite good (probably for the same reason), but I don't know if those same benefits would apply to an individual signing up for it. I signed up for top10traders about seven years ago when I was in secondary school, and it's completely free. Unfortunately, you get what you pay for, and the interface was poorly designed and slow. Furthermore, at that time, there were no restrictions that limited the number of shares you could buy to the number of outstanding shares, so you could buy as many as you could afford, even if you exceeded the number that physically existed. While this isn't an issue for large companies, it meant you could earn a killing trading highly illiquid pink sheet stocks because you could purchase billions of shares of companies with only a few thousand shares actually outstanding. I don't know if these issues have been corrected or not, but at the time, I and several other users took advantage of these oversights to rack up hundreds of trillions of dollars in a matter of days, so if you want a realistic simulation, this isn't it. Investopedia also has a stock simulator that I've heard positive things about, although I haven't used it personally.",
"qid": 10109,
"docid": "555047",
"rank": 14,
"score": 97600
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"And to answer your other questions about fees, there are a number of sites that compare brokers' fees, Google \"\"broker fee comparison\"\". I like the Motley Fool, although there are a lot of others. However, don't go just by the comparison sites, because they can be out-of-date and usually just have the basic fees. Once you find a broker that you like, go to that broker's site and get all the fees as of now. You can't sell the shares that are in your Charles Schwab account using some other broker. However, you can (possibly now, definitely eventually, see below) transfer the shares to another broker and then sell them there. But be aware that Charles Schwab might charge you a fee to transfer the shares out, which will probably be larger than the fee they'll charge you to sell the shares, unless you're selling them a few at a time. For example, I have a Charles Schwab account through my previous employer and it's $9.99 commission to sell shares, but $50 to transfer them out. Note that your fees might be different even though we're both at Charles Schwab, because employers can negotiate individual deals. There should be somewhere on the site that has a fee schedule, but if you can't find it, send them a message or call them. One final thing to be aware of, shares you get from an employer often have restrictions on sale or transfer, or negative tax consequences on sale or transfer, that shares just bought on the open market wouldn't, so make sure you investigate that before doing anything with the shares.\"",
"qid": 10109,
"docid": "266725",
"rank": 15,
"score": 96636
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"There are two ways to handle this. The first is that the better brokers, such as Charles Schwab, will produce summaries of your gains and losses (using historical cost information), as well as your trades, on a monthly and annual basis. These summaries are \"\"ready made\"\" for the IRS. More brokers will provide these summaries come 2011. The second is that if you are a \"\"frequent trader\"\" (see IRS rulings for what constitutes one), then they'll allow you to use the net worth method of accounting. That is, you take the account balance at the end of the year, subtract the beginning balance, adjust the value up for withdrawals and down for infusions, and the summary is your gain or loss. A third way is to do all your trading in say, an IRA, which is taxed on distribution, not on stock sales.\"",
"qid": 10109,
"docid": "252176",
"rank": 16,
"score": 96473
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Anytime you invest in stocks, you do that inside an investment account - such as the type you might open at ETrade, Vanguard, Fidelity or Charles Schwab. Once you have the account and fund it, you can tell the system to invest some/all of your money in When you open your investment account, their first question will be whether this is a cash account, traditional IRA, or Roth IRA. The broker must report this to the IRS because the tax treatment is very different.",
"qid": 10109,
"docid": "511760",
"rank": 17,
"score": 96017
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: From 26 CFR 1.1012(c)(1)i): ... if a taxpayer sells or transfers shares of stock in a corporation that the taxpayer purchased or acquired on different dates or at different prices and the taxpayer does not adequately identify the lot from which the stock is sold or transferred, the stock sold or transferred is charged against the earliest lot the taxpayer purchased or acquired to determine the basis and holding period of the stock. From 26 CFR 1.1012(c)(3): (i) Where the stock is left in the custody of a broker or other agent, an adequate identification is made if— (a) At the time of the sale or transfer, the taxpayer specifies to such broker or other agent having custody of the stock the particular stock to be sold or transferred, and ... So if you don't specify, the first share bought (for $100) is the one sold, and you have a capital gain of $800. But you can specify to the broker if you would rather sell the stock bought later (and thus have a lower gain). This can either be done for the individual sale (no later than the settlement date of the trade), or via standing order: 26 CFR 1.1012(c)(8) ... A standing order or instruction for the specific identification of stock is treated as an adequate identification made at the time of sale, transfer, delivery, or distribution.",
"qid": 10109,
"docid": "474384",
"rank": 18,
"score": 93217
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"In the case of Wells Fargo, I believe that free trading is linked to your overall banking relationship with the firm. So if you have a checking account with a balance of $X, or a total relationship with the bank (\"\"relationship\"\" is usually defined as loan balances + deposit balances) over a certain amount, they give you a plum like free stock trades. The theory behind this approach is that banks want to be a one-stop shop for you. The idea is that they can market the banks products to you over a period of years (lowering customer acquisition cost) and offer you a level of convenience that allows them to charge a premium for services. For example, many people will pay a rate or fee premium on a mortgage or car loan so that they can do all of their business in one place. In other cases, free trading is linked to marketing campaigns by funds. Charles Schwab started this with the \"\"no transaction fee\"\" mutual fund store many years ago -- transaction fees are actually paid for by the mutual funds who pay for placement in the program. \"\"Free ETF trade\"\" programs are similar.\"",
"qid": 10109,
"docid": "174310",
"rank": 19,
"score": 93163
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The problem you're talking about can be handled the same way now until better alternatives appear. I'm simply talking about improving the existing infrastructure to carry out these trades. Instead of holding a number on charles schwab account, you hold a token which is the same as a stock certificate of ownership.",
"qid": 10109,
"docid": "563826",
"rank": 20,
"score": 92051
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: No, you cannot. The cash settlement period will lock up your cash depending on the product you trade. Three business days for stocks, 1 business day for options, and you would need waaaaaay more than $5,000 to trade futures.",
"qid": 10109,
"docid": "296475",
"rank": 21,
"score": 91847
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Yes, on the settlement the stock is yours to sell with no risk of freeride or day trading applying.",
"qid": 10109,
"docid": "124188",
"rank": 22,
"score": 91572
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"(Since you used the dollar sign without any qualification, I assume you're in the United States and talking about US dollars.) You have a few options here. I won't make a specific recommendation, but will present some options and hopefully useful information. Here's the short story: To buy individual stocks, you need to go through a broker. These brokers charge a fee for every transaction, usually in the neighborhood of $7. Since you probably won't want to just buy and hold a single stock for 15 years, the fees are probably unreasonable for you. If you want the educational experience of picking stocks and managing a portfolio, I suggest not using real money. Most mutual funds have minimum investments on the order of a few thousand dollars. If you shop around, there are mutual funds that may work for you. In general, look for a fund that: An example of a fund that meets these requirements is SWPPX from Charles Schwabb, which tracks the S&P 500. Buy the product directly from the mutual fund company: if you go through a broker or financial manager they'll try to rip you off. The main advantage of such a mutual fund is that it will probably make your daughter significantly more money over the next 15 years than the safer options. The tradeoff is that you have to be prepared to accept the volatility of the stock market and the possibility that your daughter might lose money. Your daughter can buy savings bonds through the US Treasury's TreasuryDirect website. There are two relevant varieties: You and your daughter seem to be the intended customers of these products: they are available in low denominations and they guarantee a rate for up to 30 years. The Series I bonds are the only product I know of that's guaranteed to keep pace with inflation until redeemed at an unknown time many years in the future. It is probably not a big concern for your daughter in these amounts, but the interest on these bonds is exempt from state taxes in all cases, and is exempt from Federal taxes if you use them for education expenses. The main weakness of these bonds is probably that they're too safe. You can get better returns by taking some risk, and some risk is probably acceptable in your situation. Savings accounts, including so-called \"\"money market accounts\"\" from banks are a possibility. They are very convenient, but you might have to shop around for one that: I don't have any particular insight into whether these are likely to outperform or be outperformed by treasury bonds. Remember, however, that the interest rates are not guaranteed over the long run, and that money lost to inflation is significant over 15 years. Certificates of deposit are what a bank wants you to do in your situation: you hand your money to the bank, and they guarantee a rate for some number of months or years. You pay a penalty if you want the money sooner. The longest terms I've typically seen are 5 years, but there may be longer terms available if you shop around. You can probably get better rates on CDs than you can through a savings account. The rates are not guaranteed in the long run, since the terms won't last 15 years and you'll have to get new CDs as your old ones mature. Again, I don't have any particular insight on whether these are likely to keep up with inflation or how performance will compare to treasury bonds. Watch out for the same things that affect savings accounts, in particular fees and reduced rates for balances of your size.\"",
"qid": 10109,
"docid": "585269",
"rank": 23,
"score": 90497
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Probably not, but they would have to remove old stock from the state after the one year grace period and they may have to entertain suits against them, which would probably end in settlements. In 2016 alone there was over 30 million [paid out in settlements.](https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/prop65/2016-summary-settlements.pdf?) I have read there is somewhat of a cottage industry for those who seek out prop 65 violations just for the purpose of suing the manufacturer. Then there is the cost associated with the maintenance of complying with the ever changing regulations. I'm sure there is more to it but I can see where a company would not want to label there products as cancer causing if it was not necessary. People might also be more hesitant to purchase a product for there household if it's labeled as cancer causing. Additionally, the US has its own hazard communication standards that require manufacturers to label any IARC know carcinogens as such. Edit: Plus Monsanto probably thinks it can do what it wants",
"qid": 10109,
"docid": "189443",
"rank": 24,
"score": 89633
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: It is a general truism but the reasons are that the rules change dramatically when you simply have more capital. Here are some examples, limited to particular kinds of markets: Under $2,000 in capital Nobody is going to offer you a margin account, and if you do get one it isn't with the best broker on commissions and other capabilities. So this means cash only trading, enjoy your 3 business day settlement periods. This means no shorting, confining a trader to only buy and hold strategies, making them more dependent on luck than a more capable trader. This means it is more expensive to buy stock, since you have to put down 100% of the cash to hold a share, whereas someone with more money puts down less capital to hold the exact same number of shares. This means no covered options strategies or spreads, again limiting the market directions where a trader could earn Under $25,000 in capital In the stock market, the pattern day trader rule applies to retail margin accounts with a balance under $25,000 and this severally limits the kinds of trades you are able to take because of the limit in the number of trades you can take in a given time period. Forget managing a multi-leg option position when the market isn't moving your direction. Under $125,000 in capital Worse margin rules. You excluded portfolio margin from your post, but it is a key part of the answer Over $1,000,000 in capital Participate in private placements, regulation D offerings reserved for accredited investors. These days, as buy and hold investments, these generally have more growth potential than publicly traded offerings. Over $5,000,000 in capital You can easily get the compliance and risk manager to turn the other way on margin rules. This is not conjecture, leverage up to infinity, try not to bankrupt yourself and the trading firm.",
"qid": 10109,
"docid": "46529",
"rank": 25,
"score": 89271
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I am very happy with Charles Schwab. I use both their investing tools and banking tool, but I don't do much investing besides buy more shares a random mutual fund I purchase 4 years ago I did once need to call in about an IRA rollover and I got a person on the phone immediately who answered my questions and followed up as he said he would. It is anecdotal, but I am happy with them.",
"qid": 10109,
"docid": "535317",
"rank": 26,
"score": 88298
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: OptionsXpress includes India in the list of countries where is possible to open an international account to invest in the US Stock Market. They just merged with Charles Schwab and they have a nice online trading platform. Stocks and ETFs are little bit pricey.. Get in touch with them to get more information.",
"qid": 10109,
"docid": "113644",
"rank": 27,
"score": 87545
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Well it would appear that you had a wash sale that canceled out a loss position. Without seeing the entire report, I couldn't tell you exactly what was happening or how you triggered § 1091. But just from the excerpted images, it appears as though your purchase of stock was layered into multiple tranches - perhaps you acquired more of the stock in the 61-day period than you sold (possibly because of a prior holding). If in the 61-day period around the sale of stock (30 days before and 30 days after), you also acquire the same stock (including by contract or option), then it washes out your loss. If you held your stock for a while, then in a 61-day period bought more, and sold some, then any loss would be washed out by the acquisition. Of course it is also a wash sale if your purchase of the stock follows your sale, rather than precedes it. Your disallowed loss goes into the basis of your stock holding, so will be meaningful when you do have a true economic sale of that stock. From IRS Pub 550: A wash sale occurs when you sell or trade stock or securities at a loss and within 30 days before or after the sale you: Buy substantially identical stock or securities, Acquire substantially identical stock or securities in a fully taxable trade, Acquire a contract or option to buy substantially identical stock or securities, or Acquire substantially identical stock for your individual retirement account (IRA) or Roth IRA. If you sell stock and your spouse or a corporation you control buys substantially identical stock, you also have a wash sale. Looking at your excerpted account images, we can see a number of positions sold at a loss (sale proceeds less than basis) but each one is adjusted to a zero loss. I suspect the fuller picture of your account history and portfolio will show a more complicated and longer history with this particular stock. That is likely the source of the wash sale disallowed loss notations. You might be able to confirm that all the added numbers are appearing in your current basis in this stock (or were reflected upon your final exit from the stock).",
"qid": 10109,
"docid": "232540",
"rank": 28,
"score": 87322
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I often sell covered calls, and if they are in the money, let the stock go. I am charged the same fee as if I sold online ($9, I use Schwab) which is better than buying back the option if I'm ok to sell the stock. In my case, If the option is slightly in the money, and I see the options are priced well, i.e. I'd do another covered call anyway, I sometimes buy the option and sell the one a year out. I prefer to do this in my IRA account as the trading creates no tax issue.",
"qid": 10109,
"docid": "30070",
"rank": 29,
"score": 87197
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"TLDR: Yes you can. That is quite a steep price to pay for a trade. I've used TradeKing previously, which would charge you $5 for that same trade. Some other brokers are more or less expensive, and it is normally representative of the service one receives. One option would be Scottrade. While they are much more expensive than TradeKing, they offer a much higher level of service. Even at $17 a trade, you'll save a lot of money over the Edward Jones trade. A big question here is who does your investing now? Most people are pretty horrible at managing their own investments. Some professional advice is probably in order. For most they discover this when their investments are small, mitigating any mistakes made. You don't have that luxury. I would highly recommend making sure you have people that can help you make good decisions. The more I think about it the more I like the move to Scottrade (no affiliation) or one like that (Charles Schwab is another option). With Scottrade you can go into a local branch and talk things over. I think they offer some professional management as well. Schwab will offer the latter but not the former. However you can call them up and talk on the phone. Another option is to go with Fidelity and have them manage at least part of your money. Of course you can always just do a professional, independent money manager. Another option is to renegotiate with Edward Jones. Something like: \"\"Sorry but this is ridiculous, you need to do much better or I am moving all my money.\"\" Its much cheaper to charge you $100 for that same trade than lose the whole account.\"",
"qid": 10109,
"docid": "213310",
"rank": 30,
"score": 86839
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: There are hundreds of entities which offer mutual funds - too many to adequately address here. If you need to pick one, just go with Vanguard for the low low low fees. Yes, this is important. A typical expense ratio of 1% may not sound like much until you realize that the annualized real rate of return on the stock market - after inflation - is about 4%... so the fund eats a quarter of your earnings. (Vanguard's typical expense ratios are closer to 0.1-0.2%). If your company offers a tax-deferred retirement account such as a 401(k), you'll probably find it advantageous to use whatever funds that plan offers just to get the tax advantage, and roll over the account to a cheaper provider when you change employers. You can also buy mutual funds and exchange-traded funds (ETFs) through most brokerages. E*Trade has a nice mutual fund screener, with over 6700 mutual funds and 1180 ETFs. Charles Schwab has one you can browse without even having an account.",
"qid": 10109,
"docid": "427842",
"rank": 31,
"score": 86810
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You should not have to wait 3 days to sell the stock after purchase. If you are trading with a cash account you will have to wait for the sale to settle (3 business days) before you can use those funds to purchase other stock. If you meet the definition of a pattern day trader which is 4 or more day trades in 5 business days then your brokerage will require you to have a minimum of $25,000 in funds and a margin account.",
"qid": 10109,
"docid": "584291",
"rank": 32,
"score": 86561
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Indeed the IRS publication references the 3-6 year time span. And no limit for fraud. But. I get a notice that some stock I owned 10 years ago has a settlement pending, and the records of this stock purchase and sale would potentially get me back some money. I get my Social Security statement (the one they stopped sending, but this was before then) and I see the 1995 income shows zero. Both of these were easily resolved with my returns going all the way back, and my brokerage statement as well. For the brokerage, I recently started downloading all statements as PDFs, and storing a copy away from home. Less concerned about the bank statements as I've never had an issue where I'd need them.",
"qid": 10109,
"docid": "458047",
"rank": 33,
"score": 86374
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I'm in the US and I once transferred shares in a brokerage account from Schwab to Fidelity. I received the shares from my employer as RSUs and the employer used Schwab. After I quit and the shares vested, I wanted to move the shares to Fidelity because that is where all my other accounts are. I called Fidelity and they were more than happy to help, and it was an easy process. I believe Schwab charged about $50 for the transfer. The only tricky part is that you need to transfer the cost basis of the shares. I was on a three-way phone call with Schwab and Fidelity for Schwab to tell Fidelity what the purchase price was.",
"qid": 10109,
"docid": "27283",
"rank": 34,
"score": 86261
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: No, you cannot withdraw the money until settlement day. Some brokers will allow you to trade with unsettled funds, but you cannot withdraw it until it is settled. Think about it, when you buy stock you have to pay for them by T+3, so if you sell you actually don't receive the funds until T+3.",
"qid": 10109,
"docid": "109422",
"rank": 35,
"score": 86020
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"This is the sad state of US stock markets and Regulation T. Yes, while options have cleared & settled for t+1 (trade +1 day) for years and now actually clear \"\"instantly\"\" on some exchanges, stocks still clear & settle in t+3. There really is no excuse for it. If you are in a margin account, regulations permit the trading of unsettled funds without affecting margin requirements, so your funds in effect are available immediately after trading but aren't considered margin loans. Some strict brokers will even restrict the amount of uncleared margin funds you can trade with (Scottrade used to be hyper safe and was the only online discount broker that did this years ago); others will allow you to withdraw a large percentage of your funds immediately (I think E*Trade lets you withdraw up to 90% of unsettled funds immediately). If you are in a cash account, you are authorized to buy with unsettled funds, but you can't sell purchases made on unsettled funds until such funds clear, or you'll be barred for 90 days from trading as your letter threatened; besides, most brokers don't allow this. You certainly aren't allowed to withdraw unsettled funds (by your broker) in such an account as it would technically constitute a loan for which you aren't even liable since you've agreed to no loan contract, a margin agreement. I can't be sure if that actually violates Reg T, but when I am, I'll edit. While it is true that all marketable options are cleared through one central entity, the Options Clearing Corporation, with stocks, clearing & settling still occurs between brokers, netting their transactions between each other electronically. All financial products could clear & settle immediately imo, and I'd rather not start a firestorm by giving my opinion why not. Don't even get me started on the bond market... As to the actual process, it's called \"\"clearing & settling\"\". The general process (which can generally be applied to all financial instruments from cash deposits to derivatives trading) is: The reason why all of the old financial companies were grouped on Wall St. is because they'd have runners physically carting all of the certificates from building to building. Then, they discovered netting so slowed down the process to balance the accounts and only cart the net amounts of certificates they owed each other. This is how we get the term \"\"bankers hours\"\" where financial firms would close to the public early to account for the days trading. While this is all really done instantly behind your back at your broker, they've conveniently kept the short hours.\"",
"qid": 10109,
"docid": "293389",
"rank": 36,
"score": 85904
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"This is a tough question, because it is something very specific to your situation and finances. I personally started at a young age (17), with US$1,000 in Scottrade. I tried the \"\"stock market games\"\" at first, but in retrospect they did nothing for me and turned out to be a waste of time. I really started when I actually opened my brokerage account, so step one would be to choose your discount broker. For example, Scottrade, Ameritrade (my current broker), E-Trade, Charles Schwab, etc. Don't worry about researching them too much as they all offer what you need to start out. You can always switch later (but this can be a little of a hassle). For me, once I opened my brokerage account I became that much more motivated to find a stock to invest in. So the next step and the most important is research! There are many good resources on the Internet (there can also be some pretty bad ones). Here's a few I found useful: Investopedia - They offer many useful, easy-to-understand explanations and definitions. I found myself visiting this site a lot. CNBC - That was my choice for business news. I found them to be the most watchable while being very informative. Fox Business, seems to be more political and just annoying to watch. Bloomberg News was just ZzzzZzzzzz (boring). On CNBC, Jim Cramer was a pretty useful resource. His show Mad Money is entertaining and really does teach you to think like an investor. I want to note though, I don't recommend buying the stocks he recommends, specially the next day after he talks about them. Instead, really pay attention to the reasons he gives for his recommendation. It will teach you to think more like an investor and give you examples of what you should be looking for when you do research. You can also use many online news organizations like MarketWatch, The Motley Fool, Yahoo Finance (has some pretty good resources), and TheStreet. Read editorial (opinions) articles with a grain of salt, but again in each editorial they explain why they think the way they think.\"",
"qid": 10109,
"docid": "274400",
"rank": 37,
"score": 85519
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Here's an excerpt from the Charles Schwab website which I think will help evaluate your position: The simple answer to your question is no, the value of a gift of stock for gift tax liability is NOT the donor's cost basis, but rather the fair market value of the stock at the time the gift is given. So let's say you purchased 100 shares of XYZ stock at $50 a share. Your cost basis is $5,000. Now the stock is $80 a share and you give it as a gift. The value of your gift for gift tax purposes is $8,000. In 2015, you can give up to $14,000 to an unlimited number of individuals each year without paying a gift tax or even reporting the gifts. If you give over that amount to any individual, however, you must report the gift on your tax return, but you don't have to pay taxes until you give away more than the current lifetime limit of $5,430,000—for the amount above and beyond $14,000 per person per year. So in the example above, there would be no gift tax liability. However, if the stock happened to be $150 a share, the value of the gift would be $15,000. You'd then have to report it and $1,000 would be applied toward your $5,430,000 lifetime exclusion. You will need to pay a gift tax on the current value of the stock. I'm not familiar with the tax laws in India, but if your brother was in the US, he wouldn't pay taxes on that gift until he sells the stock. The recipient doesn’t have to worry about gift taxes. It's when the recipient decides to sell the stock that the issue of valuation comes up—for income taxes. And this is where things can get a bit more complicated. In general, when valuing a gift of stock for capital gains tax liability, it's the donor's cost basis and holding period that rules. As an example, let's say you receive a gift of stock from your grandfather. He bought it for $10 a share and it's worth $15 a share on the day you receive it. If you then sell the stock, whether for a gain or a loss, your cost basis will be the same as your grandfather’s: $10 per share. Sell it at $25 and you'll pay tax (at the short- or long-term rate, depending on how long he owned the stock) on a gain of $15 a share; sell it at $8 and your capital loss will be $2 a share. Ultimately, with a gift this large that also crosses international borders, you really should hire a professional who is experienced with these types of transactions. Their fees/commission will be completely offset by the savings in risk and paperwork. http://www.schwab.com/public/schwab/nn/articles/How-Do-You-Value-a-Gift-of-Stock-It-Depends-on-Whether-You-re-the-Giver-or-the-Receiver",
"qid": 10109,
"docid": "100128",
"rank": 38,
"score": 84545
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: why sell? Because the stock no longer fits your strategy. Or you've lost faith in the company. In our case, it's because we're taking our principal out and buying something else. Our strategy is, basically, to sell (or offer to sell) after the we can sell and get our principal out, after taxes. That includes dividends -- we reduce the sell price a little with every dividend collected.",
"qid": 10109,
"docid": "217837",
"rank": 39,
"score": 84199
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Typically the settlement price for a financial instrument (such as AAPL stock) underlying a derivative contract is determined from the average price of trading in that instrument during some short time window specified by the exchange offering the derivative. (Read the fine print on your contract to learn the exact date and time of that settlement period.) Because it's in an exchange's best interest to appear as fair as possible, the exchange will in general pick a high-volume period of time -- such as the close of trading on the expiry date -- in which to determine the settlement price. Now, the expiry date/time may be different from the last time at which the option can be traded, which may be different from the underlying settlement time. For example, most US equity options currently expire on the Saturday following the third Friday of the month, whereas they can last be traded at end-of-day on the third Friday of the month, and the settlement period may be at a slightly different time on the third Friday of the month. (Again, read the contract to know for sure.) Moreover, your broker may demand to know whether you plan to exercise the option at an even earlier date/time. So, to answer your question: After-hours trading can only affect the settlement price of an underlying instrument if the exchange in question decides that the settlement period should happen during after-hours trading. But since no exchange that wants to stay in business would possibly do that, the answer is no. Contract expiry time, contract exercise time, final contract trading time, and underlying settlement time may all fall at different dates/times. The important one for your question is settlement time.",
"qid": 10109,
"docid": "467463",
"rank": 40,
"score": 82788
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Do not do investing with a bank. Do investing with a low cost investment company like Vanguard, Fidelity, or Charles Schwab. The lower the expenses of the fund the better. The additional money your account earns because of lower overhead expenses is so dramatic over the course of your investing it is mind boggling to me. The lower the expenses, the more of your money you keep, which feeds the power of compound interest. http://www.fool.com/investing/mutual-funds/2008/09/03/this-fund-charges-what.aspx",
"qid": 10109,
"docid": "346398",
"rank": 41,
"score": 82576
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: At the bottom of the page you linked to, NASDAQ provides a link to this page on nasdaqtrader.com, which states Each FINRA member firm is required to report its “total” short interest positions in all customer and proprietary accounts in NASDAQ-listed securities twice a month. These reports are used to calculate short interest in NASDAQ stocks. FINRA member firms are required to report their short positions as of settlement on (1) the 15th of each month, or the preceding business day if the 15th is not a business day, and (2) as of settlement on the last business day of the month.* The reports must be filed by the second business day after the reporting settlement date. FINRA compiles the short interest data and provides it for publication on the 8th business day after the reporting settlement date. The dates you are seeing are the dates the member firms settled their trades. In general (also from nasdaq.com), the settlement date is The date on which payment is made to settle a trade. For stocks traded on US exchanges, settlement is currently three business days after the trade.",
"qid": 10109,
"docid": "36193",
"rank": 42,
"score": 82464
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Purchases and sales from the same trade date will both settle on the same settlement date. They don't have to pay for their purchases until later either. Because HFT typically make many offsetting trades -- buying, selling, buying, selling, buying, selling, etc -- when the purchases and sales settle, the amount they pay for their purchases will roughly cancel with the amount they receive for their sales (the difference being their profit or loss). Margin accounts and just having extra cash around can increase their ability to have trades that do not perfectly offset. In practice, the HFT's broker will take a smaller amount of cash (e.g. $1 million) as a deposit of capital, and will then allow the HFT to trade a larger amount of stock value long or short (e.g. $10 million, for 10:1 leverage). That $1 million needs to be enough to cover the net profit/loss when the trades settle, and the broker will monitor this to ensure that deposit will be enough.",
"qid": 10109,
"docid": "525337",
"rank": 43,
"score": 82168
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"It's easy to own many of the larger UK stocks. Companies like British Petroleum, Glaxo, and Royal Dutch Shell, list what they call ADRs (American Depositary Receipts) on the U.S. stock exchanges. That is, they will deposit local shares with Bank of NY Mellon, JP Morgan Chase, or Citicorp (the three banks that do this type of business), and the banks will turn around and issue ADRs equivalent to the number of shares on deposit. This is not true with \"\"small cap\"\" companies. In those cases, a broker like Schwab may occasionally help you, usually not. But you might have difficulty trading U.S. small cap companies as well.\"",
"qid": 10109,
"docid": "209493",
"rank": 44,
"score": 82016
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: A public company should have a link for investor relations, which should help provide a trail of basis if this is a matter of company buyout, takeover, etc. This gets you close, but if you don't have an exact date, it will just be close, not exact. One clean way out of this, assuming the goal is to get rid of the stock and move on, is to donate the shares to charity. You will take the present value as a deduction, and be done. You can use a charitable gift fund such as those offered by Schwab or Fidelity, so if say, the shares are worth $20K, and you typically donate $5K per year, the fund lets you do this transaction at once, then send to the charities you wish over the next few years.",
"qid": 10109,
"docid": "581127",
"rank": 45,
"score": 81984
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: No, the dividends can't be exploited like that. Dividends settlement are tied to an ex-dividend date. The ex-dividend, is the day that allows you to get a dividend if you own the stock. Since a buyer of the stock after this date won't get the dividend, the price usually drop by the amount of the dividend. In your case the price of a share would lose $2.65 and you will be credited by $2.65 in cash such that your portfolio won't change in value due to the dividend. Also, you can't exploit the drop in price by short-selling, as you would be owing the dividend to the person lending you the stock for the short sale. Finally, the price of the stock at the ex-dividend will also be affected by the supply and demand, such that you can't be precisely sure of the drop in price of the security.",
"qid": 10109,
"docid": "115553",
"rank": 46,
"score": 81811
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: For point two.. The norm for buying stock is to just register online with a major broker: Fidelity, Schwab,TD Ameritrade...etc, send them money to fund your purchase, make the stock purchase in your account, and then have a little faith. You could probably get them to physically transfer the stock certificates from them to you, but it is not the norm at all. I would plan on a fee being involved also. The 10$ is for one trade... regardless of if you buy one share or many. So you wouldn't buy 1 share of a five dollar stock as your cost would be absurd. You might buy a hundred shares.",
"qid": 10109,
"docid": "528095",
"rank": 47,
"score": 81791
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The problem is that you don't have the money now; so they can't know with 100% certainty that you will have it on settlement day. What happens if you don't file the paperwork in time? or you change your mind because you think the company stock is going to go through the roof next quarter? They would have to pull the funding for the loan. The seller would be upset, and could even file for damages if the deal falls through. It could even snowball because if they delay the sale then they can't buy the new place, which impacts another closing... Frequently lenders want to see the money for the down payment long before settlement. They want to know the money is there, and it isn't a hidden loan. While you can point to the money in the ESPP, they would still like to see the money in a regular bank account. Even if you do convince them to delay their evaluation you can count on being asked to prove the existence of the funds in the days before closing, or they will delay giving the loan.",
"qid": 10109,
"docid": "98767",
"rank": 48,
"score": 81755
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"US law dictates that you cannot buy / sell shares in a company you work for except during open trading windows. I understand lockout periods when you're in a company but what about after you quit? There's no such law. Trading lockouts are imposed by companies themselves to avoid the complexities of identifying \"\"insiders\"\". For large companies it sometimes is easier/cheaper to assume everyone is insider instead of imposing internal data flow controls and limitations. For such companies, their internal policies would also manage how the employees who are leaving should be treated.\"",
"qid": 10109,
"docid": "370388",
"rank": 49,
"score": 81239
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Here's how this works in the United States. There's no law regarding your behavior in this matter and you haven't broken any laws. But your broker-dealer has a law that they must follow. It's documented here: The issue is if you buy stock before your sell has settled (before you've received cash) then you're creating money where before none existed (even though it is just for a day or two). The government fears that this excess will cause undue speculation in the security markets. The SEC calls this practice freeriding, because you're spending money you have not yet received. In summary: your broker is not allowed to loan money to an account than is not set-up for loans; it must be a margin account. People with margin account are able to day-trade because they have the ability to use margin (borrow money). Margin Accounts are subject to Pattern Daytrading Rules. The Rules are set forth by FINRA (The Financial Industry Reporting Authority) and are here:",
"qid": 10109,
"docid": "344065",
"rank": 50,
"score": 80916
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: There's some risk, but it's quite small: The only catastrophic case I can think of is if the brokerage firm defrauded you about purchasing the assets in the first place; e.g., when you ostensibly put money into a mutual fund, they just pocketed it and displayed a fictitious purchase on their web site. In that case, you'd have no real asset to legally recover. I think the more realistic risks you should be concerned with are: The only major brokerage firm that I'm aware of that accepts liability for theft is Charles Schwab: http://www.schwab.com/public/schwab/nn/legal_compliance/schwabsafe/security_guarantee.html If you're going to diversify for security reasons, be sure to use different passwords, email addresses, and secret question answers on the two accounts.",
"qid": 10109,
"docid": "476721",
"rank": 51,
"score": 80818
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Securities clearing and settlement is a complex topic - you can start by browsing relevant Wikipedia articles, and (given sufficient quantities of masochism and strong coffee) progress to entire technical books. You're correct - modern trade settlement systems are electronic and heavily streamlined. However, you're never going to see people hand over assets until they're sure that payment has cleared - given current payment systems, that means the fastest settlement time is going to be the next business day (so-called T+1 settlement), which is what's seen for heavily standardized instruments like standard options and government debt securities. Stocks present bigger obstacles. First, the seller has to locate the asset being sold & make sure they have clear title to it... which is tougher than it might seem, given the layers of abstraction/virtualization involved in the chain of ownership & custody, complicated in particular by \"\"rehypothecation\"\" involved in stock borrowing/lending for short sales... especially since stock borrow/lending record-keeping tends to be somewhat slipshod (cf. periodic uproar about \"\"naked shorting\"\" and \"\"failure to deliver\"\"). Second, the seller has to determine what exactly it is that they have sold... which, again, can be tougher than it might seem. You see, stocks are subject to all kinds of corporate actions (e.g. cash distributions, spin-offs, splits, liquidations, delistings...) A particular topic of keen interest is who exactly is entitled to large cash distributions - the buyer or the seller? Depending on the cutoff date (the \"\"ex-dividend date\"\"), the seller may need to deliver to the buyer just the shares of stock, or the shares plus a big chunk of cash - a significant difference in settlement. Determining the precise ex-dividend date (and so what exactly are the assets to be settled) can sometimes be very difficult... it's usually T-2, except in the case of large distributions, which are usually T+1, unless the regulatory authority has neglected to declare an ex-dividend date, in which case it defaults to standard DTC payment policy (i.e. T-2)... I've been involved in a few situations where the brokers involved were clueless, and full settlement of \"\"due bills\"\" for cash distributions to the buyer took several months of hard arguing. So yeah, the brokers want a little time to get their records in order and settle the trade correctly.\"",
"qid": 10109,
"docid": "121465",
"rank": 52,
"score": 80810
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I would think that a lot of brokers would put the restriction suggested in @homer150mw in place or something more restrictive, so that's the first line of answer. If you did get assigned on your short option, then (I think) the T+3 settlement rules would matter for you. Basically you have 3 days to deliver. You'll get a note from your broker demanding that you provide the stock and probably threatening to liquidate assets in your account to cover their costs if you don't comply. If you still have the long-leg of the calendar spread then you can obtain the stock by exercising your long call, or, if you have sufficient funds available, you can just buy the stock and keep your long call. (If you're planning to exercise the long call to cover the position, then you need to check with your broker to see how quickly the stock so-obtained will get credited to your account since it also has some settlement timeline. It's possible that you may not be able to get the stock quickly enough, especially if you act on day 3.) Note that this is why you must buy the call with the far date. It is your \"\"insurance\"\" against a big move against you and getting assigned on your short call at a price that you cannot cover. With the IRA, you have some additional concerns over regular cash account - Namely you cannot freely contribute new cash any time that you want. That means that you have to have some coherent strategy in place here that ensures you can cover your obligations no matter what scenario unfolds. Usually brokers put additional restrictions on trades within IRAs just for this reason. Finally, in the cash account and assuming that you are assigned on your short call, you could potentially could get hit with a good faith, cash liquidation, or free riding violation when your short call is assigned, depending on how you deliver the stock and other things that you're doing in the same account. There are other questions on that on this site and lots of information online. The rules aren't super-simple, so I won't try to reproduce them here. Some related questions to those rules: An external reference also on potential violations in a cash account: https://www.fidelity.com/learning-center/trading-investing/trading/avoiding-cash-trading-violations\"",
"qid": 10109,
"docid": "273142",
"rank": 53,
"score": 80415
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Scenario 1 - When you sell the shares in a margin account, you will see your buying power go up, but your \"\"amount available to withdraw\"\" stays the same until settlement. Yes, you can reallocate the same day, no need to wait until settlement. There is no margin interest for this scenario. Scenario 2 - If that stock is marginable to 50%, and all you have is $10,000 in that stock, you can buy another $10,000. Once done, you are at 50% margin, exactly.\"",
"qid": 10109,
"docid": "292159",
"rank": 54,
"score": 79740
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: For self-service type online customers, OptionsXpress gives me far better trading features(like technicals advanced conditions) and tools, ACH money management & scheduling, fullfillment too. $9 stock trades. I don't know if they yet share Schwab's (their new parent company?) commission-free ETFs getting so trendy nowadays.",
"qid": 10109,
"docid": "405217",
"rank": 55,
"score": 79504
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: (For people looking at this question many years later...) Schwab and Fidelity offer a wide selection of commission-free ETFs. You need an initial purchase amount, though, of (when last I checked at Schwab) $1,000.",
"qid": 10109,
"docid": "176489",
"rank": 56,
"score": 79416
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: It is possible but unlikely. Securities firms would prefer never to settle externally; rather, they prefer to wait until the liabilities can be netted. They are forced to make and take payment in three business days. The reason why is because settlement is costly in the same way as any other business would prefer to build trade credit instead of taking or making payment rapidly. The only circumstance where a financial firm would wish to take full delivery is when a counterparty is no longer trusted to be solvent.",
"qid": 10109,
"docid": "562458",
"rank": 57,
"score": 79273
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Brokerage firms are required to report the number of shares being shorted. This information is reported to the exchange (NYSE of NASDAQ) and is made public. Most financial sites indicate the number of shares being shorted for a particular stock. The image below from Yahoo finance shows 3.29 million shares of CMG were being shorted at the close of 9-28-2012. This is over 12% of the total outstanding shares of CMG. For naked short selling additional information is tracked. If the brokerage is unable to borrow shares to deliver before the settlement date of a short sale then the transaction is recorded as fails-to-deliver. No money or shares are exchanged since the brokerage is unable to deliver the shares that were agreed upon. A large amount of fails-to-deliver transactions for a stock usually indicates an excessive amount of naked shorting. When investors and brokerage firms start to aggressively short a stock they will do so without having borrowed the shares to sell. This will result in a large amount of naked short selling. When there are a large number of naked short sellers not all the sellers will be able to borrow the necessary shares before the settlement date and many fails-to-deliver transactions will be recorded. The SEC records the number of fails-to-deliver transactions. The table below summarizes the fails-to-deliver transactions from 1-1-2012 through 9-14-2012 (data obtained from here). The “Ext Amount” column shows the total dollar value of the transactions that failed ( i.e. Fail Qty * Share price ). The “Volume” column is the total number of shares traded in the same time period. The “% Volume” shows the percentage of shares that failed to deliver as a percentage of the total market volume. The table orders the data in descending order by the quantity of shares that were not delivered. Most of the companies at the top of the list no longer exist. For many of these companies, the quantity of shares that failed to deliver where many multiples of the number of shares traded during the same time period. This indicates massive naked short selling as many brokerages where unable to find shares to borrow before the settlement date. More information here.",
"qid": 10109,
"docid": "246586",
"rank": 58,
"score": 79170
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"It is difficult to find investment banks that offer both low fees and low minimum investments. If you google around for \"\"no-fee low-minimum mutual funds\"\" you can find various articles with recommendations, such as this one. One fund they mention that looks promising is the Schwab Total Stock Market Index Fund, which apparently has a minimum investment of only $100 and an expense ratio of 0.09%. (I've never heard of this fund before, so I'm just repeating the info from the site. Be sure to look into it more thoroughly to see if there are any hidden costs here. I'm not recommending this fund, just mentioning it as an example of what you may be able to find.) Another possibility is to make use of funds in an existing brokerage account that you use for yourself. This could allow you to make use of Craig W.'s suggestion about ETFs. For instance, if you already have a brokerage account at Vanguard or another firm, you could add $100 to the account and buy some particular fund, mentally earmarking it as your daughter's.\"",
"qid": 10109,
"docid": "443951",
"rank": 59,
"score": 79149
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Their paperwork should help you along. Schwab is the broker and custodian, you are the administrator. There's virtually no paperwork after the account is opened, until you hit $250K in value, and then there's one extra IRS form you need to fill out each year. See One-Participant 401(k) Plans for a good IRS description of form 5500. Disclosure - I use the Schwab Solo 401(k) myself, and the only downsides, in my opinion, the don't offer a Roth flavor, and no loans are permitted. Both of these features would offer flexibility.",
"qid": 10109,
"docid": "256448",
"rank": 60,
"score": 79043
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The answers you've received already are very good. I truly sympathize with your situation. In general, it makes sense to try to build off of existing relationships. Here are a few ideas: I don't know if you work for a small or large company, or local/state government. But if there is any kind of retirement planning through your workplace, make sure to investigate that. Those people are usually already paid something for their services by your employer, so they should have less of an interest in making money off you directly. One more thought: A no-fee brokerage company e.g. Charles Schwab. They offer a free one hour phone call with an investment adviser if you invest at least $25K. I personally had very good experiences with them. This answer may be too anecdotal and not specifically address the annuity dilemma you mentioned. That annunity dilemma is why you need to find someone you can trust, who is competent (see the credentials for financial advisers mentioned in the other answers), and will work the numbers out with you.",
"qid": 10109,
"docid": "535427",
"rank": 61,
"score": 79033
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Schwab suggests investors do the following in the face of tighter monetary policy in the near term: > * Consider limiting the average duration in their portfolios to the short to intermediate term to mitigate the risk of rising interest rates as the program begins. > * Consider using bond ladders to spread out maturities of bonds in a portfolio, as a way to manage through a rising-interest-rate environment. > * Focus on high-credit-quality bonds, as volatility may pick up as the Fed reduces liquidity.",
"qid": 10109,
"docid": "510883",
"rank": 62,
"score": 78710
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: There are several ways that the issuers profit from CFDs. If the broker has trades on both sides (buy and sell) they can net the volumes off against each other and profit off the spread whilst using the posted margins to cover p&l from both sides. Because settlement for most securities is not on the same day that the order is placed they can also buy the security with no intention of taking delivery and simply sell it off at the end of day to pass delivery on to someone else. Here again they profit from the spread and that their volumes give them really low commissions so their costs are much lower than the value of the spread. If they have to do this rather than netting the position out the spreads will be wider. Sometimes that may be forced to buy the security outright but that is rare and the spreads will be even wider so that they can make a decent profit.",
"qid": 10109,
"docid": "8177",
"rank": 63,
"score": 78607
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You already did the leg work by putting your money in a Schwab account. They have some of the lowest fees on index funds you can buy. I would keep things dead simple. Decide if you want some of it to be an IRA or not, and then plow your funds into a broad stock only index fund such as SCHB, SCHX, or SCHV (you could buy all three, but there would be no need to whatsoever). You will get around 2-2.5 % dividend yield, be diversified, and have extreme low fees. Fees are key to getting good returns in funds. Of course..set tax money aside as well.",
"qid": 10109,
"docid": "296690",
"rank": 64,
"score": 78543
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Charles Schwab and HSBC offer security tokens.",
"qid": 10109,
"docid": "570248",
"rank": 65,
"score": 78522
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I use the self-directed option for the 457b plan at my job, which basically allows me to invest in any mutual fund or ETF. We get Schwab as a broker, so the commissions are reasonable. Personally, I think it's great, because some of the funds offered by the core plan are limited. Generally, the trustees of your plan are going to limit your investment options, as participants generally make poor investment choices (even within the limited options available in a 401k) and may sue the employer after losing their savings. If I was a decision-maker in this area, there is no way I would ever sign off to allowing employees to mess around with options.",
"qid": 10109,
"docid": "477175",
"rank": 66,
"score": 78405
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: NSCC illiquid charges are charges that apply to the trading of low-priced over-the counter (OTC) securities with low volumes. Open net buy quantity represents the total unsettled share amount per stock at any given time during a 3-day settlement cycle. Open net buy quantity must be less than 5,000,000 shares per stock for your entire firm Basically, you can't hold a long position of more than 5 million shares in an illiquid OTC stock without facing a fee. You'll still be assessed this fee if you accumulate a long position of this size by breaking your purchase up into multiple transactions. Open net sell quantity represents the total unsettled share amount per stock at any given time during a 3-day settlement cycle. Open net sell quantity must be less than 10% percent of the 20-day average volume If you attempt to sell a number of shares greater than 10% of the stock's average volume over the last 20 days, you'll also be assessed a fee. The first link I included above is just an example, but it makes the important point: you may still be assessed a fee for trading OTC stocks even if your account doesn't meet the criteria because these restrictions are applied at the level of the clearing firm, not the individual client. This means that if other investors with your broker, or even at another broker that happens to use the same clearing firm, purchase more than 5 million shares in an individual OTC stock at the same time, all of your accounts may face fees, even though individually, you don't exceed the limits. Technically, these fees are assessed to the clearing firm, not the individual investor, but usually the clearing firm will pass the fees along to the broker (and possibly add other charges as well), and the broker will charge a fee to the individual account(s) that triggered the restriction. Also, remember that when buying OTC/pink sheet stocks, your ability to buy or sell is also contingent on finding someone else to buy from/sell to. If you purchase 10,000 shares one day and attempt to sell them sometime in the future, but there aren't enough buyers to buy all 10,000 from you, you might not be able to complete your order at the desired price, or even at all.",
"qid": 10109,
"docid": "593644",
"rank": 67,
"score": 78068
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Depends on what you are, an investor or a speculator. An investor will look at an 'indefinite' investment period. A speculator will be after a fast buck. If you are an investor, buy your stock once as that will cost less commissions. After all, you'll sell your stock in 10, 15, 20 years.",
"qid": 10109,
"docid": "144349",
"rank": 68,
"score": 78010
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I got notice from Charles Schwab that the forms weren't being mailed out until the middle of February because, for some reason, the forms were likely to change and rather than mail them out twice, they mailed them out once. Perhaps some state tax laws took effect (such as two Oregon bills regarding tax rates for higher incomes) and they waited on that. While I haven't gotten my forms mailed to me yet, I did go online and get the electronic copies that allowed me to finish my taxes already.",
"qid": 10109,
"docid": "80789",
"rank": 69,
"score": 77597
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Yes- you do not realize gains or losses until you actually sell the stock. After you sell the initial stocks/bonds you have realized the gain. When you buy the new, different stocks you haven't realized anything until you then sell those. There is one exception to this, called the \"\"Wash-Sale Rule\"\". From Investopedia.com: With the wash-sale rule, the IRS disallows a loss deduction from the sale of a security if a ‘substantially identical security' was purchased within 30 days before or after the sale. The wash-sale period is actually 61 days, consisting of the 30 days before and the 30 days after the date of the sale. For example, if you bought 100 shares of IBM on December 1 and then sold 100 shares of IBM on December 15 at a loss, the loss deduction would not be allowed. Similarly, selling IBM on December 15 and then buying it back on January 10 of the following year does not permit a deduction. The wash-sale rule is designed to prevent investors from making trades for the sole purpose of avoiding taxes.\"",
"qid": 10109,
"docid": "132111",
"rank": 70,
"score": 77516
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Zero. Zero is reasonable. That's what Schwab offers with a low minimum to open the IRA. The fact is, you'll have expenses for the investments, whether a commission on stock purchase or ongoing expense of a fund or ETF. But, in my opinion, .25% is criminal. An S&P fund or ETF will have a sub-.10% expense. To spend .25% before any other fees are added is just wrong.",
"qid": 10109,
"docid": "30417",
"rank": 71,
"score": 77388
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If anyone could reliably pick winners, they could make more money by investing in those winners than by selling their advice. Generally, when someone sends you unsolicited hype about stocks, that's because they're trying to pump the price up so they can dump their own shares before it collapses again. Also note that, these days, it's remarkably easy to run the scam where you sell half your customers buy advice and the other half sell advice on the same stock. Each time, some of the customers drop out in disgust (half, minus whoever decides to give you another chance) and the rest pay you for the next iteration. You can make a lot of money before you run out of suckers. That, all by itself, is good reason to be skeptical about anyone who doesn't publish their full history so it can be audited for such shenanigans.",
"qid": 10109,
"docid": "303754",
"rank": 72,
"score": 77049
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: From Schwab With a Roth, withdrawals of contributions are always tax-free because you've already paid income taxes on that money. So are withdrawals of earnings of up to $10,000 under the homebuyer exemption, assuming you've had the Roth for five-plus years. But if you withdraw more than $10,000 in earnings, that money will be subject to both ordinary income taxes and the 10 percent penalty.",
"qid": 10109,
"docid": "58683",
"rank": 73,
"score": 76921
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"A covered call risks the disparity between the purchase price and the potential forced or \"\"called\"\" sale price less the premium received. So buy a stock for $10.00 believing it will drop you or not rise above $14.00 for a given period of days. You sell a call for a $1.00 agreeing to sell your stock for $14.00 and your wrong...the stock rises and at 14.00 or above during the option period the person who paid you the $1.00 premium gets the stock for a net effective price of $15.00. You have a gain of 5$. Your hypothecated loss is unlimited in that the stock could go to $1mil a share. That loss is an opportunity loss you still had a modest profit in actual $. The naked call is a different beast. you get the 1.00 in commission to sell a stock you don't own but must pay for that right. so lets say you net .75 in commission per share after your sell the option. as long as the stock trades below $14.00 during the period of the option you sold your golden. It rises above the strike price you must now buy that stock at market to fill the order when the counter party choses to exercise the option which results in a REAL loss of 100% of the stocks market price less the .75 a share you made. in the scenarios a 1000 shares that for up $30.00 a share over the strike price make you $5,000 in a covered call and lose you $29,250 in a naked call.Naked calls are speculative. Covered calls are strategic.\"",
"qid": 10109,
"docid": "363043",
"rank": 74,
"score": 76746
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: My take on this is that this reduces your liquidity risk. Stocks, bonds and many other investment vehicles on secondary markets you may think of are highly liquid but they still require that markets are open and then an additional 3-5 business days to settle the transaction and for funds to make their way to your bank account. If you require funds immediately because of an emergency, this 3-5 business days (which gets longer as week-ends and holidays are in the way) can cause a lot of discomfort which may be worth a small loss in potential ROI. Think of your car breaking down or a water pipe exploding in your home and having to wait for the stock sale to process before you can make the payment. Admittedly, you have other options such as margin loans and credit cards that can help absorb the shock in such cases but they may not be sufficient or cause you to pay interest or fees if left unpaid.",
"qid": 10109,
"docid": "560391",
"rank": 75,
"score": 76694
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Most of the time* you're selling to other investors, not back to the company. The stock market is a collection of bid (buy offers) and asks (sell offers). When you sell your stock as a retail investor at the \"\"market\"\" price you're essentially just meeting whatever standing bid offers are on the market. For very liquid stocks (e.g. Apple), you can pretty much always get the displayed price because so many stocks are being traded. However during periods of very high volatility or for low-volume stocks, the quoted price may not be indicative of what you actually pay. As an example, let's say you have 5 stocks you're trying to sell and the bid-side order book is 2 stocks for $105, 2 for $100, and 5 for $95. In this scenario the quoted price will be $105 (the best bid price), but if you accept market price you'll settle 2 for 105, 2 for 100, and 1 for 95. After your sell order goes through, the new quoted price will be $95. For high volume stocks, there will usually be so many orders near the midpoint price ($105, in this case) that you won't see any price slippage for small orders. You can also post limit orders, which are essentially open orders waiting to be filled like in the above example. They ensure you get the price you want, but you have no way to guarantee they'll be filled or not. Edit: as a cool example, check out the bitcoin GDAX on coinbase for a live example of what the order book looks like for stocks. You'll see that the price of bitcoin will drift towards whichever direction has the less dense order book (e.g. price drifts upwards when there are far more bids than asks.)\"",
"qid": 10109,
"docid": "317365",
"rank": 76,
"score": 76625
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: My wife and I have two Schwab brokerage accounts, one for retirement and one for non-retirement investments. The latter also has a checking/savings account which we use as our main account. Schwab is very happy with us, as we are cheapskates and save a lot of money. The checking account, which seems to act like any ordinary checking account, gives us all the things listed above. They pay the ATM fees, which is not a lot of money, but seems like a nice thing to me. We can also do cash deposits and we can go to any Schwab branch to talk to someone face to face. We've only had to do the latter once in 10 or so years, and the former maybe once or twice.",
"qid": 10109,
"docid": "399118",
"rank": 77,
"score": 76423
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You could buy shares of an Exchange-Traded Fund (ETF) based on the price of gold, like GLD, IAU, or SGOL. You can invest in this fund through almost any brokerage firm, e.g. Fidelity, Etrade, Scotttrade, TD Ameritrade, Charles Schwab, ShareBuilder, etc. Keep in mind that you'll still have to pay a commission and fees when purchasing an ETF, but it will almost certainly be less than paying the markup or storage fees of buying the physical commodity directly. An ETF trades exactly like a stock, on an exchange, with a ticker symbol as noted above. The commission will apply the same as any stock trade, and the price will reflect some fraction of an ounce of gold, for the GLD, it started as .1oz, but fees have been applied over the years, so it's a bit less. You could also invest in PHYS, which is a closed-end mutual fund that allows investors to trade their shares for 400-ounce gold bars. However, because the fund is closed-end, it may trade at a significant premium or discount compared to the actual price of gold for supply and demand reasons. Also, keep in mind that investing in gold will never be the same as depositing your money in the bank. In the United States, money stored in a bank is FDIC-insured up to $250,000, and there are several banks or financial institutions that deposit money in multiple banks to double or triple the effective insurance limit (Fidelity has an account like this, for example). If you invest in gold and the price plunges, you're left with the fair market value of that gold, not your original deposit. Yes, you're hoping the price of your gold investment will increase to at least match inflation, but you're hoping, i.e. speculating, which isn't the same as depositing your money in an insured bank account. If you want to speculate and invest in something with the hope of outpacing inflation, you're likely better off investing in a low-cost index fund of inflation-protected securities (or the S&P500, over the long term) rather than gold. Just to be clear, I'm using the laymen's definition of a speculator, which is someone who engages in risky financial transactions in an attempt to profit from short or medium term fluctuations This is similar to the definition used in some markets, e.g. futures, but in many cases, economists and places like the CFTC define speculators as anyone who doesn't have a position in the underlying security. For example, a farmer selling corn futures is a hedger, while the trading firm purchasing the contracts is a speculator. The trading firm doesn't necessarily have to be actively trading the contract in the short-run; they merely have no position in the underlying commodity.",
"qid": 10109,
"docid": "13885",
"rank": 78,
"score": 76297
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"If they made deposits 20 years ago, and none since, the S&P is up over 300% since then. i.e. a return of $40,000 on $10,000 invested. We wouldn't expect to see that full return, as a prudent mix of stock and bonds (or any treasury bills/CDs, etc) would lower the overall return during this period. Advice \"\"Transfer the money, directly to an IRA at a broker, Fidelity, Schwab, Vanguard, etc.\"\" For most people, going after the advisor isn't worth it, unless the sums are large and the poor management, pretty clear. The lesson for readers here - monitor your investments. Ask questions. It's not about \"\"beating the market\"\" which can actually create more risk, but about understanding the returns you see, and the fees you are spending. The mistake didn't occur at the time the money was invested, but every year it wasn't monitored.\"",
"qid": 10109,
"docid": "31664",
"rank": 79,
"score": 76231
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The way I would use it is, every trade done by a broker has a client side and a street side. The client side is for their brokerage account, and the street side is whoever they traded with Say, John Doe calls me at Charles Schwab and wants to buy 100 IBM. I look at the market and decide that the best execution is on Arca. I trade on Arca for the client. Then, I book a client side trade into his account, and a street side trade against Arca. If I myself was a dealer in IBM and executed against my inventory, the street side would basically be internal, booking a trade against my account.",
"qid": 10109,
"docid": "395357",
"rank": 80,
"score": 76229
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The minimum at Schwab to open an IRA is $1000. Why don't you check the two you listed to see what their minimum opening balance is? If you plan to go with ETFs, you want to ask them what their commission is for a minimum trade. In Is investing in an ETF generally your best option after establishing a Roth IRA? sheegaon points out that for the smaller investor, index mutual funds are cheaper than the ETFs, part due to commission, part the bid/ask spread.",
"qid": 10109,
"docid": "373501",
"rank": 81,
"score": 76199
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The reason for this is arbitrage. In an free and open market, investments that are certain to generate above-average profits would do so by being sold cheaply, while having a high return on investment after that. But in a free market, prices are set by supply and demand. There is a high demand and little supply for investments that would certainly outperform the market. The demand is in fact so high, that the purchase price rises to the point of eliminating that excess return. And with high-frequency automated trading, that price hike is instant. But who would even want to sell such guaranteed outperformers in the first place? Of course, there are uncertainties associated with stocks, and individual stocks therefore move independently. As \"\"the market\"\" is an average, some stocks will therefore beat the market over certain time periods. That's random statistical variation. The only realistic path to above-average returns is to accept higher risks. As discussed above, nobody wants to sell you safe bets. But risky bets are another matter. Different actors will price risk differently. If you aren't worried much about risk, you can pick up stocks that are cheap by your standards. That is possible only because such stocks aren't cheap by risk-averse standards. Looking a bit deeper, we see that arbitrage works in a free market because there's essentially perfect information. But risk is precisely the absence of such information, and that can lead to price variations. Yet, as the lack of information means a lack of certainty, you can't use this to reliably beat the market.\"",
"qid": 10109,
"docid": "168080",
"rank": 82,
"score": 75921
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Glad my question got bumped. I took it as a sign to get a solid answer out of Schwab. First the rep gave me the same line that it was impossible to provide paperless statements for a 401(k) plan because of \"\"regulations\"\". I pressed the issue and got this from the rep: I just spoke with our dedicated small business plan team. They told me that there are regulations that state that a Qualified Plan, such as this, require to have a statement sent. It is a Schwab policy that we have decided to only allow paper statements for this account type. So to clarify, it is a Schwab business decision to have the statements available only by mail. Hope someone from Schwab with some authority sees this post and is pushed toward helping change their policy. I can't imagine what a colossal waste of paper, postage, and hassle it is for everyone involved.\"",
"qid": 10109,
"docid": "364471",
"rank": 83,
"score": 75918
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The American \"\"Security Exchange Commission\"\" has imposed a rule upon all stock trading accounts. This rule is \"\"Regulation-T\"\". This rule specifies that stock trading accounts must be permitted three days after the termination of a trade to settle the account. This is just fancy lingo to justify the guarantee that the funds are either transferred out of your account to another persons (the person that made money), or the money flows into your account. A \"\"Day Trader's\"\" account avoids the hassle because you're borrowing money from your broker to trade with and circumvent Reg-T. It's technically not how long you hold the trade that determines if you're a day trader, or not. It's your accounts liquidity and your credit worthiness.\"",
"qid": 10109,
"docid": "340263",
"rank": 84,
"score": 75843
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: There are a few reasons, dependent on the location of the company. The first, as you mentioned is that it means that the employee is invested in the companies success - in theory this should motivate the employee to work hard in order to increase the value of their holdings. Sometimes these have a vestment period which requires that they hold the stock for a certain amount of time before they are able to sell, and that they continue working at the company for a certain amount of time. The second, is that unlike cash, providing stocks doesn't come out of the companies liquid cash. While it is still an expense and does devalue the shares of other shareholders, it doesn't effect the daily working capital which is important to maintain to ensure business continuity. And the third, and this is for the employee, is tax reasons. In particular for substantial amounts. Of course this is dependent on jurisdiction but you can often achieve lower tax rates on receiving shares vs a cash equivalent sum, as you can draw out the money over time lowering your tax obligation each year, or other methods which aren't possible to look into now. Hope this helps.",
"qid": 10109,
"docid": "272117",
"rank": 85,
"score": 75822
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"According to page 56 of the 2015 IRS Publication 550 on Investment Income and Expenses: Wash sales. Your holding period for substantially identical stock or securities you acquire in a wash sale includes the period you held the old stock or securities. It looks like the rule applies to stocks and other securities, including options. It seems like the key is \"\"substantially identical\"\". For your brokerage / trading platform to handle these periods correctly for reporting to IRS, it seems best to trade the same security instead of trying to use something substantially identical.\"",
"qid": 10109,
"docid": "330848",
"rank": 86,
"score": 75774
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I agree, Schwab representatives are easy to reach and very helpful. I also like Vanguard for their low mutual fund fees, so I do my retirement stuff with them, but it took forever to get in touch with a representative just to ask a simple question. Now that they are lowering their rates to 8.95 per trade (effective January 19th), the value for your money is even better.",
"qid": 10109,
"docid": "431652",
"rank": 87,
"score": 75748
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"In this scenario the date of income is the date on which the contract has been signed, even if you received the actual money (settlement) later. Regardless of the NY special law for residency termination - that is the standard rule for recognition of income during a cash (not installments) sale. The fact that you got the actual money later doesn't matter, which is similar to selling stocks on a public exchange. When you sell stocks through your broker on a public exchange - you still recognize the income on the day of the sale, not on the day of the settlement. This is called \"\"the Constructive Receipt doctrine\"\". The IRS publication 538 has this to say about the constructive receipt: Constructive receipt. Income is constructively received when an amount is credited to your account or made available to you without restriction. You need not have possession of it. If you authorize someone to be your agent and receive income for you, you are considered to have received it when your agent receives it. Income is not constructively received if your control of its receipt is subject to substantial restrictions or limitations. Once you signed the contract, the money has essentially been credited to your account with the counter-party, and unless they're bankrupt or otherwise insolvent - you have no restrictions over it. And also (more specifically for your case): You cannot hold checks or postpone taking possession of similar property from one tax year to another to postpone paying tax on the income. You must report the income in the year the property is received or made available to you without restriction. Timing wire transfer is akin to holding and not depositing a check, from this perspective. So unless there was a restriction that was lifted after you moved out of New York, I doubt you can claim that you couldn't have received it before moving out, i.e.: you have, in fact, constructively received it.\"",
"qid": 10109,
"docid": "565007",
"rank": 88,
"score": 75670
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Note that the rules around wash sales vary depending on where you live. For the U.S., the wash sale rules say that you cannot buy a substantially identical stock or security within 30 days (before or after) your sale. So, you could sell your stock today to lock in the capital losses. However, you would then have to wait at least 30 days before purchasing it back. If you bought it back within 30 days, you would disqualify the capital loss event. The risk, of course, is that the stock's price goes up substantially while you are waiting for the wash sale period. It's up to you to determine if the risk outweighs the benefit of locking in your capital losses. Note that this applies regardless of whether you sell SOME or ALL of the stock. Or indeed, if we are talking about securities other than stocks.",
"qid": 10109,
"docid": "407602",
"rank": 89,
"score": 75454
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Schwab is a highly diversified operation and has a multitude of revenue streams. Schwab obviously thinks it can make more off you than you will cost in ATM fees and it's probably safe to assume most Schwab clients use more services than the ATM card. It's not worthwhile to discuss the accounting of ATM/Debit/Credit card fee norms because for a diversified operation it's about the total relationship, not whether each customer engagement is specifically profitable. People who get Schwab accounts soley for the ATM fee refunds are in the minority. In 2016 10-k filing Schwab posted $1.8B in net earnings, 10 million client accounts with a total of $2.78T in client assets. A couple grand in ATM fees over several years is a rounding error. \"\"ATM\"\" doesn't even appear in the 2016 10-K.\"",
"qid": 10109,
"docid": "73032",
"rank": 90,
"score": 75367
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Disclosure - I love Jack Bogle. Jack basically invented the index fund, and as a result, let the common investor have an opportunity to choose a long term return of (S&P-.05%) instead of losing nearly 2% that many funds in that day charged. The use of index investing has saved investors many billions of dollars. The 1% round trip, total cost to buy/sell, was common. Fees for trading have since dropped. I happen to use Schwab who charges $9 for a trade. On $100,000, this is not .5% ($500) but less than .01%. I think it's safe to say that billion dollar mutual funds are paying even less for trades that I do. I believe Jack's example here is a combination of old data and hyperbole. The cost is not so much for the trades, per se, but for the people managing the fund. An index fund has a manager of course, but it's pretty much run by a computer.",
"qid": 10109,
"docid": "142696",
"rank": 91,
"score": 75297
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Morningstar is often considered a trusted industry standard when it comes to rating mutual funds and ETFs. They offer the same data-centric information for other investments as well, such as individual stocks and bonds. You can consult Morningstar directly if you like, but any established broker will usually provide you with Morningstar's ratings for the products it is trying to sell to you. Vanguard offers a few Emerging Markets stock and bond funds, some actively managed, some index funds. Other investment management companies (Fidelity, Schwab, etc.) presumably do as well. You could start by looking in Morningstar (or on the individual companies' websites) to find what the similarities and differences are among these funds. That can help answer some important questions: I personally just shove a certain percentage of my portfolio into non-US stocks and bonds, and of that allocation a certain fraction goes into \"\"established\"\" economies and a certain fraction into \"\"emerging\"\" ones. I do all this with just a few basic index funds, because the indices make sense (to me) and index funds cost very little.\"",
"qid": 10109,
"docid": "459596",
"rank": 92,
"score": 75254
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: In addition to the higher risk as pointed out by @JamesRoth, you also need to consider that there are regulations against 'naked shorting' so you generally need to either own the security, or have someone that is willing to 'loan' the security to you in order to sell short. If you own a stock you are shorting, the IRS could view the transaction as a Sell followed by a buy taking place in a less than 30 day period and you could be subject to wash-sale rules. This added complexity (most often the finding of someone to loan you the security you are shorting) is another reason such trades are considered more advanced. You should also be aware that there are currently a number of proposals to re-instate the 'uptick rule' or some circuit-breaker variant. Designed to prevent short-sellers from driving down the price of a stock (and conducting 'bear raids etc) the first requires that a stock trade at the same or higher price as prior trades before you can submit a short. In the latter shorting would be prohibited after a stock price had fallen a given percentage in a given amount of time. In either case, should such a rule be (re)established then you could face limitations attempting to execute a short which you would not need to worry about doing simple buys or sells. As to vehicles that would do this kind of thing (if you are convinced we are in a bear market and willing to take the risk) there are a number of ETF's classified as 'Inverse Exchange Traded Funds (ETF's) for a variety of markets that via various means seek to deliver a return similar to that of 'shorting the market' in question. One such example for a common broad market is ticker SH the ProShares Short S&P500 ETF, which seeks to deliver a return that is the inverse of the S&P500 (and as would be predicted based on the roughly +15% performance of the S&P500 over the last 12 months, SH is down roughly -15% over the same period). The Wikipedia article on inverse ETF's lists a number of other such funds covering various markets. I think it should be noted that using such a vehicle is a pretty 'aggressive bet' to take in reaction to the belief that a bear market is imminent. A more conservative approach would be to simply take money out of the market and place it in something like CD's or Treasury instruments. In that case, you preserve your capital, regardless of what happens in the market. Using an inverse ETF OTOH means that if the market went bull instead of bear, you would lose money instead of merely holding your position.",
"qid": 10109,
"docid": "39265",
"rank": 93,
"score": 75137
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The correct answer to this question is: the person who the short sells the stock to. Here's why this is the case. Say we have A, who owns the stock and lends it to B, who then sells it short to C. After this the price drops and B buys the stock back from D and returns it to A. The outcome for A is neutral. Typically stock that is sold short must be held in a margin account; the broker can borrow the shares from A, collect interest from B, and A has no idea this is going on, because the shares are held in a street name (the brokerage's name) and not A. If A decides during this period to sell, the transaction will occur immediately, and the brokerage must shuffle things around so the shares can be delivered. If this is going to be difficult then the cost for borrowing shares becomes very high. The outcome for B is obviously a profit: they sold high first and bought (back) low afterwards. This leaves either C or D as having lost this money. Why isn't it D? One way of looking at this is that the profit to B comes from the difference in the price from selling to C and buying from D. D is sitting on the low end, and thus is not paying out the profit. D bought low, compared to C and this did not lose any money, so C is the only remaining choice. Another way of looking at it is that C actually \"\"lost\"\" all the money when purchasing the stock. After all, all the money went directly from C to B. In return, C got some stock with the hope that in the future C could sell it for more than was paid for it. But C literally gave the money to B, so how could anybody else \"\"pay\"\" the loss? Another way of looking at it is that C buys a stock which then decreases in value. C is thus now sitting on a loss. The fact that it is currently only a paper loss makes this less obvious; if the stock were to recover to the price C bought at, one might conclude that C did not lose the money to B. However, in this same scenario, D also makes money that C could have made had C bought at D's price, proving that C really did lose the money to B. The final way of seeing that the answer is C is to consider what happens when somebody sells a stock which they already hold but the price goes up; who did they lose out on the gain to? The person again is; who bought their stock. The person would buys the stock is always the person who the gain goes to when the price appreciates, or the loss comes out of if the price falls.\"",
"qid": 10109,
"docid": "591694",
"rank": 94,
"score": 75090
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: So, why or why should I not invest in the cheaper index fund? They are both same, one is not cheaper than other. You get something that is worth $1000. To give a simple illustration; There is an item for $100, Vanguard creates 10 Units out of this so price per unit is $10. Schwab creates 25 units out of this, so the per unit price is $4. Now if you are looking at investing $20; with Vanguard you would get 2 units, with Schwab you would get 5 units. This does not mean one is cheaper than other. Both are at the same value of $20. The Factors you need to consider are; Related question What differentiates index funds and ETFs?",
"qid": 10109,
"docid": "107462",
"rank": 95,
"score": 75000
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The commenters who referred you to the prisoner's dilemma are exactly correct, but I wanted to give a more detailed explanation because I find game theory quite interesting. The prisoner's dilemma is a classic scenario in game theory where even though it's in the best interests of two or more players to cooperate, they fail to do so. Wikipedia has a simple example using prisoners, but I'll use a simple example using Fidel and Charles, who are fund managers at Fidelity and Charles Schwab, respectively. To make the table shorter, I abbreviated a bit: INC = increase fees, KEEP=keep fees the same, DEC=decrease fees. Here is the dilemma itself, in the table that shows the resulting market shares if each fund manager follows the course of action in question. While this example isn't mathematically rigorous because I completely fabricated the numbers, it makes a good example. The most profitable course of action would be both fund managers agreeing to increase their fees, which would keep their market shares the same but increase their profits as they earn more fees. However, this won't happen for several reasons. Because economies of scale exist in the market for investment funds, it's reasonable to assume in a simple example that as funds grow larger, their costs decrease, so even though a fund manager decreases his fees (betraying the other players), this decrease won't be enough to reduce their profits. In fact, the increased market share resulting from such a decrease may well dominate the decreased fees and lead to higher profits. The prisoner's dilemma is highly applicable to markets such as these because they exist as oligopolies, i.e. markets where a relatively small number of established sellers possess considerable market power. If you actually wanted to model the market for donor-advised funds using game theory, you need to take a few more things into account. Obviously there are more than two firms. It's probably a valid assumption that the market is an oligopoly with significant economies of scale, but I haven't researched this extensively. There is more than one time period, so some form of the iterated prisoner's dilemma is needed. The market for donor-advised funds is also complicated by the fact that these are philanthropic funds. This may introduce tax implications or the problem of goodwill and institutional opinion of these funds. Although both funds increasing their fees may increase their profits in theory, institutional investors may look on this as a pure profit-seeking and take their funds elsewhere. For example, they may choose to invest in smaller funds with higher fees but better reputations. While reputation is important for any company, it might make more of a difference when the fund/investment vehicle is philanthropic in nature. I am by no means an expert on game theory, so I'm sure there are other nuances to the situation that I'm unaware of.",
"qid": 10109,
"docid": "187729",
"rank": 96,
"score": 74841
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: When I log in to Schwab to look at these options it tells me there's only Adjusted Options available on these terms: Adjusted Options: Multiplier: 100; Deliverable: 15 PTIE; Cash: ---- It does confirm your July Call quote price of $0.05 because the contract, though priced for 100 shares, will only deliver 15 shares. Separately, looking at the company website for news there was a 7 for 1 Reverse Split announced on May 8, which is the culprit for this option adjustment and the seemingly nonsensical call price.",
"qid": 10109,
"docid": "559417",
"rank": 97,
"score": 74819
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: > I shorted it the moment it opened for trading at $42 dollars a share. Now this is a shady part of the capital markets and the preferred treatment some investors get. Technically, you shouldn't be able to short stocks until 3 days after it starts trading because the trades don't settle for three days and only then should you be able to borrow the stock. But, big brokers and banks can cover managers they have good relations with and let them borrow the shares to short it.",
"qid": 10109,
"docid": "75764",
"rank": 98,
"score": 74702
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Buying stocks is like an auction. Put in the price you want to pay and see if someone is willing to sell at that price. Thing to remember about after hours trading; There is a lot less supply so there's always a larger bid/ask price spread. That's the price brokers charge to handle the stocks they broker over and above the fee. That means you will always pay more after the market closes. Unless it is bad news, but I don't think you want to buy when that happens. I think a lot of the after market trading is to manipulate the market. Traders drive up the price overnight with small purchases then sell their large holdings when the market opens.",
"qid": 10109,
"docid": "362212",
"rank": 99,
"score": 74606
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Is this an employee stock purchase plan (ESPP)? If so, and there is no required holding period, selling right away is essentially a guaranteed bonus with minimal risk. One caveat is that sometimes it takes a while to actually receive the shares at your brokerage, and in the meantime your company may have an earnings report that could cause the share price to drop. If your discount is only 5%, for example, a bad earnings report could easily wipe that out. The only other cons I can think of is ESPP contributions being withheld from you for months (albeit for a virtually guaranteed return), and it complicates your taxes a bit. On the flip side, another pro is that after you sell the shares, you are more likely to invest that money rather than spend it.",
"qid": 10109,
"docid": "133644",
"rank": 100,
"score": 74551
}
] |
Why diversify stocks/investments? | [
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Diversification is extremely important and the one true \"\"Free Lunch\"\" of investing, meaning it can provide both greater returns and less risk than a portfolio that is not diversified. The reason people say otherwise is because they are talking about \"\"true\"\" portfolio diversification, which cannot be achieved by simply spreading money across stocks. To truly diversify a portfolio it must be diversified across multiple, unrelated \"\"Return Drivers.\"\" I describe this throughout my best-selling book and am pleased to provide complimentary links to the following two chapters, where I discuss the lack of diversification from spreading money solely across stocks (including correlation tables), as well as the benefits of true portfolio diversification: Jackass Investing - Myth #8: Trading is Gambling – Investing is Safer Jackass Investing - Myth #20: There is No Free Lunch\"",
"qid": 10122,
"docid": "508540",
"rank": 1,
"score": 178457
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: In a word, no. Diversification is the first rule of investing. Your plan has poor diversification because it ignores most of the economy (large cap stocks). This means for the expected return your portfolio would get, you would bear an unnecessarily large amount of risk. Large cap and small cap stocks take turns outperforming each other. If you hold both, you have a safer portfolio because one will perform well while the other performs poorly. You will also likely want some exposure to the bond market. A simple and diversified portfolio would be a total market index fund and a total bond market fund. Something like 60% in the equity and 40% in the bonds would be reasonable. You may also want international exposure and maybe exposure to real estate via a REIT fund. You have expressed some risk-aversion in your post. The way to handle that is to take some of your money and keep it in your cash account and the rest into the diversified portfolio. Remember, when people add more and more asset classes (large cap, international, bonds, etc.) they are not increasing the risk of their portfolio, they are reducing it via diversification. The way to reduce it even more (after you have diversified) is to keep a larger proportion of it in a savings account or other guaranteed investment. BTW, your P2P lender investment seems like a great idea to me, but 60% of your money in it sounds like a lot.",
"qid": 10122,
"docid": "323363",
"rank": 2,
"score": 173889
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Great question! While investing in individual stocks can be very useful as a learning experience, my opinion is that concentrating an entire portfolio in a few companies' stock is a mistake for most investors, and especially for a novice for several reasons. After all, only a handful of professional investors have ever beaten the market over the long term by picking stocks, so is it really worth trying? If you could, I'd say go work on Wall Street and good luck to you. Diversification For many investors, diversification is an important reason to use an ETF or index fund. If they were to focus on a few sectors or companies, it is more likely that they would have a lop-sided risk profile and might be subject to a larger downside risk potential than the market as a whole, i.e. \"\"don't put all your eggs in one basket\"\". Diversification is important because of the nature of compound investing - if you take a significant hit, it will take you a long time to recover because all of your future gains are building off of a smaller base. This is one reason that younger investors often take a larger position in equities, as they have longer to recover from significant market declines. While it is very possible to build a balanced, diversified portfolio from individual stocks, this isn't something I'd recommend for a new investor and would require a substantial college-level understanding of investments, and in any case, this portfolio would have a more discrete efficient frontier than the market as a whole. Lower Volatility Picking individual stocks or sectors would could also significantly increase or decrease the overall volatility of the portfolio relative to the market, especially if the stocks are highly cyclical or correlated to the same market factors. So if they are buying tech stocks, they might see bigger upswings and downswings compared to the market as a whole, or see the opposite effect in the case of utilities. In other words, owning a basket of individual stocks may result in an unintended volatility/beta profile. Lower Trading Costs and Taxes Investors who buy individual stocks tend to trade more in an attempt to beat the market. After accounting for commission fees, transaction costs (bid/ask spread), and taxes, most individual investors get only a fraction of the market average return. One famous academic study finds that investors who trade more trail the stock market more. Trading also tends to incur higher taxes since short term gains (<1 year) are taxed at marginal income tax rates that are higher than long term capital gains. Investors tend to trade due to behavioral failures such as trying to time the market, being overconfident, speculating on stocks instead of long-term investing, following what everyone else is doing, and getting in and out of the market as a result of an emotional reaction to volatility (ie buying when stocks are high/rising and selling when they are low/falling). Investing in index funds can involve minimal fees and discourages behavior that causes investors to incur excessive trading costs. This can make a big difference over the long run as extra costs and taxes compound significantly over time. It's Hard to Beat the Market since Markets are Quite Efficient Another reason to use funds is that it is reasonable to assume that at any point in time, the market does a fairly good job of pricing securities based on all known information. In other words, if a given stock is trading at a low P/E relative to the market, the market as a whole has decided that there is good reason for this valuation. This idea is based on the assumption that there are already so many professional analysts and traders looking for arbitrage opportunities that few such opportunities exist, and where they do exist, persist for only a short time. If you accept this theory generally (obviously, the market is not perfect), there is very little in the way of insight on pricing that the average novice investor could provide given limited knowledge of the markets and only a few hours of research. It might be more likely that opportunities identified by the novice would reflect omissions of relevant information. Trying to make money in this way then becomes a bet that other informed, professional investors are wrong and you are right (options traders, for example). Prices are Unpredictable (Behave Like \"\"Random\"\" Walks) If you want to make money as a long-term investor/owner rather than a speculator/trader, than most of the future change in asset prices will be a result of future events and information that is not yet known. Since no one knows how the world will change or who will be tomorrow's winners or losers, much less in 30 years, this is sometimes referred to as a \"\"random walk.\"\" You can point to fundamental analysis and say \"\"X company has great free cash flow, so I will invest in them\"\", but ultimately, the problem with this type of analysis is that everyone else has already done it too. For example, Warren Buffett famously already knows the price at which he'd buy every company he's interested in buying. When everyone else can do the same analysis as you, the price already reflects the market's take on that public information (Efficent Market theory), and what is left is the unknown (I wouldn't use the term \"\"random\"\"). Overall, I think there is simply a very large potential for an individual investor to make a few mistakes with individual stocks over 20+ years that will really cost a lot, and I think most investors want a balance of risk and return versus the largest possible return, and don't have an interest in developing a professional knowledge of stocks. I think a better strategy for most investors is to share in the future profits of companies buy holding a well-diversified portfolio for the long term and to avoid making a large number of decisions about which stocks to own.\"",
"qid": 10122,
"docid": "216757",
"rank": 3,
"score": 168266
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Diversification is used by many to hopefully reduce the risk when bad investments are made. Diversification does not help you make more profits but instead averages down your profits. There is no way one can tell whether a stock or portfolio of stocks will go up or down once they are purchased. In order to try to provide some protection against total loss of the portfolio, a lazy so called long term investor will use diversification as a way of risk management. But the best outcome for them will be an averaging down of their profits. A better method is to let the market tell you when your purchased investment is a bad one and get out of that investment early and thus limiting your losses, whilst letting your good investments (as determined by the market) run and make larger profits.",
"qid": 10122,
"docid": "259084",
"rank": 4,
"score": 166572
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"While it's definitely possible (and likely?) that a diversified portfolio generates higher returns than the S&P 500, that's not the main reason why you diversify. Diversification reduces risk. Modern portfolio theory suggests that you should maximize return while reducing risk, instead of blindly chasing the highest returns. Think about it this way--say the average return is 11% for large cap US stocks (the S&P 500), and it's 10% for a diversified portfolio (say, 6-8 asset classes). The large cap only portfolio has a 10% chance of losing 30% in a given year, while the diversified portfolio has a 1% chance of losing 30% in a year. For the vast majority of investors, it's worth the 1% annual gap in expected return to greatly reduce their risk exposure. Of course, I just made those numbers up. Read what finance professors have written for the \"\"data and proof\"\". But modern portfolio theory is believed by a lot of investors and other finance experts. There are a ton of studies (and therefore data) on MPT--including many that contradict it.\"",
"qid": 10122,
"docid": "296567",
"rank": 5,
"score": 162730
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: When interest rates rise, the price of bonds fall because bonds have a fixed coupon rate, and since the interest rate has risen, the bond's rate is now lower than what you can get on the market, so it's price falls because it's now less valuable. Bonds diversify your portfolio as they are considered safer than stocks and less volatile. However, they also provide less potential for gains. Although diversification is a good idea, for the individual investor it is far too complicated and incurs too much transaction costs, not to mention that rebalancing would have to be done on a regular basis. In your case where you have mutual funds already, it is probably a good idea to keep investing in mutual funds with a theme which you understand the industry's role in the economy today rather than investing in some special bonds which you cannot relate to. The benefit of having a mutual fund is to have a professional manage your money, and that includes diversification as well so that you don't have to do that.",
"qid": 10122,
"docid": "31581",
"rank": 6,
"score": 160774
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: What explains the most of the future returns of a portfolio is the allocation between asset classes. In the long term, stock investments are almost certain to return more than any other kinds of investments. For 40+ years, I would choose a portfolio of 100% stocks. How to construct the portfolio, then? Diversification is the key. You should diversify in time (don't put a large sum of money into your stock portfolio immediately; if you have a large sum to invest, spread it around several years). You should diversify based on company size (invest in both large and small companies). You should also diversify internationally (don't invest in just US companies). If you prefer to pick individual stocks, 20 very carefully selected stocks may provide enough diversification if you keep diversification in mind during stock picking. However, careful stock picking cannot be expected to yield excess returns, and if you pick stocks manually, you need to rebalance your portfolio occasionally. Thus, if you're lazy, I would recommend a mutual fund, or many mutual funds if you have difficulty finding a low-cost one that is internationally diversified. The most important consideration is the cost. You cannot expect careful fund selection to yield excess returns before expenses. However, the expenses are certain costs, so prefer low-cost funds. Almost always this means picking index funds. Avoid funds that have a small number of stocks, because they typically invest only in the largest companies, which means you fail to get diversification in company size. So, instead of Euro STOXX 50, select STOXX 600 when investing to the European market. ETFs may have lower costs than traditional mutual funds, so keep ETFs in mind when selecting the mutual funds in which to invest. For international diversification, do not forget emerging markets. It is not excessive to invest e.g. 20% to emerging markets. Emerging markets have a higher risk but they also have a higher return. A portfolio that does not include emerging markets is not in my opinion well diversified. When getting close to retirement age, I would consider increasing the percentage of bonds in the portfolio. This should be done primarily by putting additional money to bonds instead of selling existing investments to avoid additional taxes (not sure if this applies to other taxation systems than the Finnish one). Bond investments are best made though low-cost mutual funds as well. Keep bond investments in your local currency and risk-free assets (i.e. select US government bonds). Whatever you do, remember that historical return is no guarantee of future return. Actually, the opposite may be true: there is a mean reversion law. If a particular investment has returned well in the past, it often means its price has gone up, making it more likely that the price goes down in the future. So don't select a fund based on its historical return; instead, select a fund based on low costs. However, I'm 99% certain that over a period of 40 years, stocks will return better than other investments. In addition to fund costs, taxes are the other certain thing that will be deducted from your returns. Research what options you have to reduce the taxes you need to pay. 401-K was explained in another answer; this may be a good option. Some things recommended in other answers that I would avoid:",
"qid": 10122,
"docid": "160170",
"rank": 7,
"score": 159551
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Since you seem determined to consider this, I'd like to break down for you why I believe it is an incredibly risky proposition: 1) In general, picking individual stocks is risky. Individual stocks are by their nature not diversified assets, and a single company-wide calamity (a la Volkswagen emissions, etc.) can create huge distress to your investments. The way to mitigate this risk is of course to diversify (invest in other types of assets, such as other stocks, index funds, bonds, etc.). However, you must accept that this first step does have risks. 2) Picking stocks on the basis of financial information (called 'fundamental analysis') requires a very large amount of research and time dedication. It is one of the two main schools of thought in equity investing (as opposed to 'technical analysis', which pulls information directly from stock markets, such as price volatility). This is something that professional investors do for a living - and that means that they have an edge you do not have, unless you dedicate similar resources to this task. That information imbalance between you and professional traders creates additional risk where you make determinations 'against the grain'. 3) Any specific piece of public information (and this is public information, regardless of how esoteric it is) may be considered to be already 'factored into' public stock prices. I am a believer in market efficiency first and foremost. That means I believe that anything publically known related to a corporation ['OPEC just lowered their oil production! Exxon will be able to increase their prices!'] has already been considered by the professional traders currently buying and selling in the market. For your 'new' information to be valuable, it would need to have the ability to forecast earnings in a way not already considered by others. 4) I doubt you will be able to find the true nature of the commercial impact of a particular event, simply by knowing ship locations. So what if you know Alcoa is shipping Aluminium to Cuba - is this one of 5 shipments already known to the public? Is this replacement supplies that are covering a loss due to damaged goods previously sent? Is the boat only 1/3 full? Where this information gets valuable, is when it gets to the level of corporate espionage. Yes, if you had ship manifests showing tons of aluminum being sold, and if this was a massive 'secret' shipment about to be announced at the next shareholders' meeting, you could (illegally) profit from that information. 5) The more massive the company, the less important any single transaction is. That means the super freighters you may see transporting raw commodities could have dozens of such ships out at any given time, not to mention news of new mine openings and closures, price changes, volume reports, etc. etc. So the most valuable information would be smaller companies, where a single shipment might cover a month of revenue - but such a small company is (a) less likely to be public [meaning you couldn't buy shares in the company and profit off of the information]; and (b) less likely to be found by you in the giant sea of ship information. In summary, while you may have found some information that provides insight into a company's operations, you have not shown that this information is significant and also unknown to the market. Not to mention the risks associated with picking individual stocks in the first place. In this case, it is my opinion that you are taking on additional risk not adequately compensated by additional reward.",
"qid": 10122,
"docid": "384536",
"rank": 8,
"score": 155387
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Typically you diversify a portfolio to reduce risk. The S&P 500 is a collection of large-cap stocks; a diversified portfolio today probably contains a mix of large cap, small cap, bonds, international equity and cash. Right now, if you have a bond component, that part of your portfolio isn't performing as well. The idea of diversification is that you \"\"smooth out\"\" the ups and downs of the market and come out ahead in most situations. If you don't have a bond or cash component in your portfolio, you may have picked (or had someone pick for you) lousy funds. Without more detail, that's about all that can be said. EDIT: You provided more detail, so I want to add a little to my answer. Basically, you're in a fund that has high fees (1.58% annually) and performance that trails the mid-cap index. The S&P 500 is a large-cap index (large cap == large company), so a direct comparison is not necessarily meaningful. Since you seem to be new at this, I'd recommend starting out with the Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund (VTSMX) or ETF (VTI). This is a nice option because it represents the entire stock market and is cheap... it's a good way to get started without knowing alot. If your broker charges a transaction fee to purchase Vanguard funds and you don't want to change brokers or pay ETF commissions, look for or ask about transaction-fee free \"\"broad market\"\" indexes. The expense ratio should be below 0.50% per year and optimally under 0.20%. If you're not having luck finding investment options, swtich to a discount broker like TD Ameritrade, Schwab, ScottTrade or Fidelity (in no particular order)\"",
"qid": 10122,
"docid": "335136",
"rank": 9,
"score": 153842
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"You should only invest in individual stocks if you truly understand the company's business model and follow its financial reports closely. Even then, individual stocks should represent only the tiniest, most \"\"adventurous\"\" part of your portfolio, as they are a huge risk. A basic investing principle is diversification. If you invest in a variety of financial instruments, then: (a) when some components of your portfolio are doing poorly, others will be doing well. Even in the case of significant economic downturns, when it seems like everything is doing poorly, there will be some investment sectors that are doing relatively better (such as bonds, physical real estate, precious metals). (b) over time, some components of your portfolio will gain more money than others, so every 6 or 12 months you can \"\"rebalance\"\" such that all components once again have the same % of money invested in them as when you began. You can do this either by selling off some of your well-performing assets to purchase more of your poorly-performing assets or (if you don't want to incur a taxable event) by introducing additional money from outside your portfolio. This essentially forces you to \"\"buy (relatively) low, sell (relatively) high\"\". Now, if you accept the above argument for diversification, then you should recognize that owning a handful (or even several handfuls) of individual stocks will not help you achieve diversification. Even if you buy one stock in the energy sector, one in consumer discretionary, one in financials, etc., then you're still massively exposed to the day-to-day fates of those individual companies. And if you invest solely in the US stock market, then when the US has a decline, your whole portfolio will decline. And if you don't buy any bonds, then again when the world has a downturn, your portfolio will decline. And so on ... That's why index mutual funds are so helpful. Someone else has already gone to the trouble of grouping together all the stocks or bonds of a certain \"\"type\"\" (small-cap/large-cap, domestic/foreign, value/growth) so all you have to do is pick the types you want until you feel you have the diversity you need. No more worrying about whether you've picked the \"\"right\"\" company to represent a particular sector. The fewer knobs there are to turn in your portfolio, the less chance there is for mistakes!\"",
"qid": 10122,
"docid": "533576",
"rank": 10,
"score": 153559
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Diversification is a risk-mitigation strategy. When you invest in equities, you generally get a higher rate of return than a fixed income investment. But you have risks... a single company's market value can decline for all sorts of reasons, including factors outside of the control of management. Diversification lets you spread risk and concentrate on sectors that you feel offer the best value. Investing outside of your currency zone allows you to diversify more, but also introduces currency risks, which require a whole other level of understanding. Today, investing in emerging markets is very popular for US investors because these economies are booming and US monetary policy has been weakening the dollar for some time. A major bank failure in China or a flip to a strong dollar policy could literally implode those investments overnight. At the end of the day, invest in what you understand. Know the factors that can lower your investment value.",
"qid": 10122,
"docid": "89084",
"rank": 11,
"score": 152459
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"There are a couple of reasons to diversify your assets. First, since we cannot predict which of our investments will perform best, we want to \"\"cast our net\"\" broadly enough to have something invested in what's going to be performing well. Second, diversification isn't intended to provide the highest returns, but rather it is used to soften the effects of market volatility. By softening the downsides and lowering the overall volatility among our assets, returns are more consistent. If a model does not address future downside risk it is only telling you part of the story. (Past performance does not guarantee... you get the picture)\"",
"qid": 10122,
"docid": "297100",
"rank": 12,
"score": 152065
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Index funds are well-known to give the best long-term investment. Not exactly. Indexes give the best long term performance when compared to actively managing investments directly in the underlying stocks. That is, if you compare an S&P500 index to trying to pick stocks that are part of it, you're more likely to succeed with blindly following the index than trying to actively beat it. That said, no-one promises that investing in S&P500 is better than investing in DJIA, for example. These are two different indexes tracking different stocks and areas. So when advisers say \"\"diversify\"\" they don't mean it that you should diversify between different stocks that build up the S&P500 index. They mean that you should diversify your investments in different areas. Some in S&P500, some in DJIA, some in international indexes, some in bond indexes, etc. Still, investing in various indexes will likely yield better results than actively managing the investments trying to beat those indexes, but you should not invest in only one, and that is the meaning of diversification. In the comments you asked \"\"why diversify at all?\"\", and that is entirely a different question from your original \"\"what diversification is?\"\". You diversify to reduce the risk of loss from one side, and widen the net for gains from another. The thing is that any single investment can eventually fail, regardless of how it performed before. You can see that the S&P500 index lost 50% of its value twice within ten years, whereas before it was doubling itself every several years. Many people who were only invested in that index (or what's underlying to it) lost a lot of money. But consider you've diversified, and in the last 20 years you've invested in a blend of indexes that include the S&P500, but also other investments like S&P BSE SENSEX mentioned by Victor below. You would reduce your risk of loss on the American market by increasing your gains on the Indian market. Add to the mix soaring Chinese Real Estate market during the time of the collapse of the US real-estate, gains on the dollar losing its value by investing in other currencies (Canadian dollar, for example), etc. There are many risks, and by diversifying you mitigate them, and also have a chance to create other potential gains. Now, another question is why invest in indexes. That has been answered before on this site. It is my opinion that some methods of investing are just gambling by trying to catch the wave and they will almost always fail, and rarely will individual stock picking beat the market. Of course, after the fact its easy to be smart and pick the winning stocks. But the problem is to be able to predict those charts ahead of time.\"",
"qid": 10122,
"docid": "144261",
"rank": 13,
"score": 151845
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Most investors should not be in individual stocks. The market, however you measure it, can rise, yet some stocks will fall for whatever reason. The diversification needed is to have a number of shares of different stocks, and that a bit higher than most investors are able to invest and certainly not one starting out. I suggest you look at either mutual funds or ETFs, and keep studying. (I'm told I should have offered the UK equivalent Investment Trusts , OEIC, or Unit Trusts)",
"qid": 10122,
"docid": "225239",
"rank": 14,
"score": 150370
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Diversifying is the first advice given to beginner in order to avoid big loss. For example in 2014 the company Theranos was really appealing before it fail in 2016. So a beginner could have invest ALL his money and lose it. But if he has deverified he wouldn't lost everything. As an investor goes from beginner to experience some still Diversify and other concentrate. Mostly it depends how much confident you are about an investement. If you have 20 years of experience, now everything about the company and you are sure there will be profit you can concentrate. If you are not 100% sure there will be a profit, it is better to Diversify. Diversifying can also be profitating when you loose money: because you will pay tax when you earn money, if you diversify you can choose to loose money in some stock (usually in december) and in this way cut your taxes.",
"qid": 10122,
"docid": "139368",
"rank": 15,
"score": 149728
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"An asset allocation formula is useful because it provides a way to manage risk. Rebalancing preserves your asset allocation. The investment risk of a well-diversified portfolio (with a few ETFs or mutual funds in there to get a wide range of stocks, bonds, and international exposure) is mostly proportional to the asset class distribution. If you started out with half-stocks and half-bonds, and stocks surged 100% over the past few years while bonds have stayed flat, then you may be left with (say) 66% stocks and 33% bonds. Your portfolio is now more vulnerable to future stock market drops (the risk associated with stocks). (Most asset allocation recommendations are a little more specific than a stock/bond split, but I'm sure you can get the idea.) Rebalancing can be profitable because it's a formulaic way to enforce you to \"\"buy low, sell high\"\". Massive recessions notwithstanding, usually not everything in your portfolio will rise and fall at the same time, and some are actually negatively correlated (that's one idea behind diversification, anyway). If your stocks have surged, chances are that bonds are cheaper. This doesn't always work (repeatedly transferring money from bonds into stocks while the market was falling in 2008-2009 could have lost you even more money). Also, if you rebalance frequently, you might incur expenses from the trading (depending on what sort of financial instrument you're holding). It may be more effective to simply channel new money into the sector that you're light on, and limit the major rebalancing of the portfolio so that it's just an occasional thing. Talk to your financial adviser. :)\"",
"qid": 10122,
"docid": "269169",
"rank": 16,
"score": 149426
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: diversifying; but isn't that what mutual funds already do? They diversify and reduce stock-specific risk by moving from individual stocks to many stocks, but you can diversify even further by selecting different fund types (e.g. large-cal, small-cap, fixed- income (bond) funds, international, etc.). Your target-date fund probably includes a few different types already, and will automatically reallocate to less risky investments as you get close to the target date. I would look at the fees of different types of funds, and compare them to the historical returns of those funds. You can also use things like morningstar and other ratings as guides, but they are generally very large buckets and may not be much help distinguishing between individual funds. So to answer the question, yes you can diversify further - and probably get better returns (and lower fees) that a target-date fund. The question is - is it worth your time and effort to do so? You're obviously comfortable investing for the long-term, so you might get some benefit by spending a little time looking for different funds to increase your diversification. Note that ETFs don't really diversify any differently than mutual funds, they are just a different mechanism to invest in funds, and allow different trading strategies (trading during the day, derivatives, selling short, etc.).",
"qid": 10122,
"docid": "286227",
"rank": 17,
"score": 148084
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Diversification is spreading your investments around so that one point of risk doesn't sink your whole portfolio. The effect of having a diversified portfolio is that you've always got something that's going up (though, the corollary is that you've also always got something going down... winning overall comes by picking investments worth investing in (not to state the obvious or anything :-) )) It's worth looking at the different types of risk you can mitigate with diversification: Company risk This is the risk that the company you bought actually sucks. For instance, you thought gold was going to go up, and so you bought a gold miner. Say there are only two -- ABC and XYZ. You buy XYZ. Then the CEO reveals their gold mine is played out, and the stock goes splat. You're wiped out. But gold does go up, and ABC does gangbusters, especially now they've got no competition. If you'd bought both XYZ and ABC, you would have diversified your company risk, and you would have been much better off. Say you invested $10K, $5K in each. XYZ goes to zero, and you lose that $5K. ABC goes up 120%, and is now worth $11K. So despite XYZ bankrupting, you're up 10% on your overall position. Sector risk You can categorize stocks by what \"\"sector\"\" they're in. We've already talked about one: gold miners. But there are many more, like utilities, bio-tech, transportation, banks, etc. Stocks in a sector will tend to move together, so you can be right about the company, but if the sector is out of favor, it's going to have a hard time going up. Lets extend the above example. What if you were wrong about gold going up? Then XYZ would still be bankrupt, and ABC would be making less money so they went down as well; say, 20%. At that point, you've only got $4K left. But say that besides gold, you also thought that banks were cheap. So, you split your investment between the gold miners and a couple of banks -- lets call them LMN and OP -- for $2500 each in XYZ, ABC, LMN, and OP. Say you were wrong about gold, but right about banks; LMN goes up 15%, and OP goes up 40%. At that point, your portfolio looks like this: XYZ start $2500 -100% end $0 ABC start $2500 +120% end $5500 LMN start $2500 +15% end $2875 OP start $2500 +40% end $3500 For a portfolio total of: $11,875, or a total gain of 18.75%. See how that works? Region/Country/Currency risk So, now what if everything's been going up in the USA, and everything seems so overpriced? Well, odds are, some area of the world is not over-bought. Like Brazil or England. So, you can buy some Brazilian or English companies, and diversify away from the USA. That way, if the market tanks here, those foreign companies aren't caught in it, and could still go up. This is the same idea as the sector risk, except it's location based, instead of business type based. There is an additional twist to this -- currencies. The Brits use the pound, and the Brazilians use the real. Most small investors don't think about this much, but the value of currencies, including our dollar, fluctuates. If the dollar has been strong, and the pound weak (as it has been, lately), then what happens if that changes? Say you own a British bank, and the dollar weakens and the pound strengthens. Even if that bank doesn't move at all, you would still make a gain. Example: You buy British bank BBB for 40 pounds a share, when each pound costs $1.20. Say after a while, BBB is still 40 pounds/share, but the dollar weakened and the pound strengthened, such that each pound is now worth $1.50. You could sell BBB, and because of the currency exchange once you've got it converted back to dollars you'd have a 25% gain. Market cap risk Sometimes big companies do well, sometimes it's small companies. The small caps are riskier but higher returning. When you think about it, small and mid cap stocks have much more \"\"room to run\"\" than large caps do. It's much easier to double a company worth $1 billion than it is to double a company worth $100 billion. Investment types Stocks aren't the only thing you can invest in. There's also bonds, convertible bonds, CDs, preferred stocks, options and futures. It can get pretty complicated, especially the last two. But each of these investment behaves differently; and again the idea is to have something going up all the time. The classical mix is stocks and bonds. The idea here is that when times are good, the stocks go up; when times are bad, the bonds go up (because they're safer, so more people want them), but mostly they're there to providing steady income and help keep your portfolio from cratering along with the stocks. Currently, this may not work out so well; stocks and bonds have been moving in sync for several years, and with interest rates so low they don't provide much income. So what does this mean to you? I'm going make some assumptions here based on your post. You said single index, self-managed, and don't lower overall risk (and return). I'm going to assume you're a small investor, young, you invest in ETFs, and the single index is the S&P 500 index ETF -- SPY. S&P 500 is, roughly, the 500 biggest companies in the USA. Further, it's weighted -- how much of each stock is in the index -- such that the bigger the company is, the bigger a percentage of the index it is. If slickcharts is right, the top 5 companies combined are already 11% of the index! (Apple, Microsoft, Exxon, Amazon, and Johnson & Johnson). The smallest, News Corp, is a measly 0.008% of the index. In other words, if all you're invested in is SPY, you're invested in a handfull of giant american companies, and a little bit of other stuff besides. To diversify: Company risk and sector risk aren't really relevant to you, since you want broad market ETFs; they've already got that covered. The first thing I would do is add some smaller companies -- get some ETFs for mid cap, and small cap value (not small cap growth; it sucks for structural reasons). Examples are IWR for mid-cap and VBR for small-cap value. After you've done that, and are comfortable with what you have, it may be time to branch out internationally. You can get ETFs for regions (such as the EU - check out IEV), or countries (like Japan - see EWJ). But you'd probably want to start with one that's \"\"all major countries that aren't the USA\"\" - check out EFA. In any case, don't go too crazy with it. As index investing goes, the S&P 500 is not a bad way to go. Feed in anything else a little bit at a time, and take the time to really understand what it is you're investing in. So for example, using the ETFs I mentioned, add in 10% each IWR and VBR. Then after you're comfortable, maybe add 10% EFA, and raise IWR to 20%. What the ultimate percentages are, of course, is something you have to decide for yourself. Or, you could just chuck it all and buy a single Target Date Retirement fund from, say, Vanguard or T. Rowe Price and just not worry about it.\"",
"qid": 10122,
"docid": "477646",
"rank": 18,
"score": 145914
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"You mentioned three concepts: (1) trading (2) diversification (3) buy and hold. Trading with any frequency is for people who want to manage their investments as a hobby or profession. You do not seem to be in that category. Diversification is a critical element of any investment strategy. No matter what you do, you should be diversified. All the way would be best (this means owning at least some of every asset out there). The usual way to do this is to own a mutual or index fund. Or several. These funds own hundreds or thousands of stocks, so that buying the fund instantly diversifies you. Buy and hold is the only reasonable approach to a portfolio for someone who is not interested in spending a lot of time managing it. There's no reason to think a buy-and-hold portfolio will underperform a typical traded portfolio, nor that the gains will come later. It's the assets in the portfolio that determine how aggressive/risky it is, not the frequency with which it is traded. This isn't really a site for specific recommendations, but I'll provide a quick idea: Buy a couple of index funds that cover the whole universe of investments. Index funds have low expenses and are the cheapest/easiest way to diversify. Buy a \"\"total stock market\"\" fund and a \"\"total bond fund\"\" in a ratio that you like. If you want, also buy an \"\"international fund.\"\" If you want specific tickers and ratios, another forum would be better(or just ask your broker or 401(k) provider). The bogleheads forum is one that I respect where people are very happy to give and debate specific recommendations. At the end of the day, responsibly managing your investment portfolio is not rocket science and shouldn't occupy a lot of time or worry. Just choose a few funds with low expenses that cover all the assets you are really interested in, put your money in them in a reasonable-ish ratio (no one knows that the best ratio is) and then forget about it.\"",
"qid": 10122,
"docid": "384983",
"rank": 19,
"score": 145576
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The main advantage of commodities to a largely stock and bond portfolio is diversification and the main disadvantages are investment complexity and low long-term returns. Let's start with the advantage. Major commodities indices and the single commodities tend to be uncorrelated to stocks and bonds and will in general be diversifying especially over short periods. This relationship can be complex though as Supply can be even more complicated (think weather) so diversification may or may not work in your favor over long periods. However, trading in commodities can be very complex and expensive. Futures need to be rolled forward to keep an investment going. You really, really don't want to accidentally take delivery of 40000 pounds of cattle. Also, you need to properly take into account roll premiums (carry) when choosing the closing date for a future. This can be made easier by using commodities index ETFs but they can also have issues with rolling and generally have higher fees than stock index ETFs. Most importantly, it is worth understanding that the long-term return from commodities should be by definition (roughly) the inflation rate. With stocks and bonds you expect to make more than inflation over the long term. This is why many large institutions talk about commodities in their portfolio they often actually mean either short term tactical/algorithmic trading or long term investments in stocks closely tied to commodities production or processing. The two disadvantages above are why commodities are not recommended for most individual investors.",
"qid": 10122,
"docid": "266323",
"rank": 20,
"score": 145208
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Bonds by themselves aren't recession proof. No investment is, and when a major crash (c.f. 2008) occurs, all investments will be to some extent at risk. However, bonds add a level of diversification to your investment portfolio that can make it much more stable even during downturns. Bonds do not move identically to the stock market, and so many times investing in bonds will be more profitable when the stock market is slumping. Investing some of your investment funds in bonds is safer, because that diversification allows you to have some earnings from that portion of your investment when the market is going down. It also allows you to do something called rebalancing. This is when you have target allocation proportions for your portfolio; say 60% stock 40% bond. Then, periodically look at your actual portfolio proportions. Say the market is way up - then your actual proportions might be 70% stock 30% bond. You sell 10 percentage points of stocks, and buy 10 percentage points of bonds. This over time will be a successful strategy, because it tends to buy low and sell high. In addition to the value of diversification, some bonds will tend to be more stable (but earn less), in particular blue chip corporate bonds and government bonds from stable countries. If you're willing to only earn a few percent annually on a portion of your portfolio, that part will likely not fall much during downturns - and in fact may grow as money flees to safer investments - which in turn is good for you. If you're particularly worried about your portfolio's value in the short term, such as if you're looking at retiring soon, a decent proportion should be in this kind of safer bond to ensure it doesn't lose too much value. But of course this will slow your earnings, so if you're still far from retirement, you're better off leaving things in growth stocks and accepting the risk; odds are no matter who's in charge, there will be another crash or two of some size before you retire if you're in your 30s now. But when it's not crashing, the market earns you a pretty good return, and so it's worth the risk.",
"qid": 10122,
"docid": "303037",
"rank": 21,
"score": 144898
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Diversification tends to protect you from big losses. But it also tends to \"\"protect\"\" you from big gains. In any industry, some companies provide good products and services and prosper while others have problems and fail. (Or maybe the winners are just lucky or they paid off the right politicians, whatever, not the point here.) If you put all your money in one stock and they do well, you could make a bundle. But if you pick a loser, you could lose your entire investment. If you buy a little stock in each of many companies, then some will go up and some will go down, and your returns will be an average of how everyone in the industry is doing. Suppose I offered to bet you a large sum of money that if I roll a die, it will come up 6. You might be reluctant to take that bet, because you can't predict what number will come up on one roll of a die. But suppose I offered to bet you a large sum of money that a die will come up 6, 100 times in a row. You might well take that bet, because the chance that it will turn up 6 time after time after time is very low. You reduce risk by spreading your bets. Anyone who's bought stock has surely had times when he said, \"\"Oh man! If only I'd bought X ten years ago I'd be a millionaire now!\"\" But quite a few have also said, \"\"If only I'd sold X ten years ago I wouldn't have lost all this money!\"\" I recently bought a stock a stock that within a few months rose to 10 times what I paid for it ... and then a few months later the company went bankrupt and the stock was worth nothing. I knew the company was on a roller coaster when I bought the stock, I was gambling that they'd pull through and I'd make money. I guessed wrong. Fortunately I gambled an amount that I was willing to lose.\"",
"qid": 10122,
"docid": "153989",
"rank": 22,
"score": 144695
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Diversification is an important aspect of precious metals investing. Therefore I would suggest diversifying in a number of different ways:",
"qid": 10122,
"docid": "559027",
"rank": 23,
"score": 144075
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"There's already an excellent answer here from @BenMiller, but I wanted to expand a bit on Types of Investments with some additional actionable information. You can invest in stocks, bonds, mutual funds (which are simply collections of stocks and bonds), bank accounts, precious metals, and many other things. Discussing all of these investments in one answer is too broad, but my recommendation is this: If you are investing for retirement, you should be investing in the stock market. However, picking individual stocks is too risky; you need to be diversified in a lot of stocks. Stock mutual funds are a great way to invest in the stock market. So how does one go about actually investing in the stock market in a diversified way? What if you also want to diversify a bit into bonds? Fortunately, in the last several years, several products have come about that do just these things, and are targeted towards newer investors. These are often labeled \"\"robo-advisors\"\". Most even allow you to adjust your allocation according to your risk preferences. Here's a list of the ones I know about: While these products all purport to achieve similar goals of giving you an easy way to obtain a diversified portfolio according to your risk, they differ in the buckets of stocks and funds they put your money into; the careful investor would be wise to compare which specific ETFs they use (e.g. looking at their expense ratios, capitalization, and spreads).\"",
"qid": 10122,
"docid": "187124",
"rank": 24,
"score": 143921
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Your question reminds me of a Will Rogers quote: buy some good stock, and hold it till it goes up, then sell it. If it don’t go up, don’t buy it. There's no way to prevent yourself from buying a stock that goes down. In fact all stocks go down at some times. The way to protect your long term investment is to diversify, which increases the chances that you have more stocks that go up than go down. So many advisors will encourage index funds, which have a low cost (which eats away at returns) and low rick (because of diversification). If you want to experiment with your criteria that's great, and I wish you luck, but Note that historically, very few managed funds (meaning funds that actively buy and sell stocks based on some set of criteria) outperform the market over long periods. So don't be afraid of some of your stocks losing - if you diversify enough, then statistically you should have more winners than losers. It's like playing blackjack. The goal is not to win every hand. The goal is to have more winning hands than losing hands.",
"qid": 10122,
"docid": "336722",
"rank": 25,
"score": 142563
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Diversification is just one aspect in an investment portfolio. The other aspects in Investment are Risk Taking Ability, Liquidity, Local Regulations, Tax benefits, Ease & Convenience, Cost of carrying out transactions etc. Investing in other regions is prone FX risk and other risks depending on the region of investment. For example investing in Emerging markets there is a risk of Local Regulations being changed, additional tax being levied, or Political instability and host of such risks. Investing in local markets give you better understanding of such changes and the risk associated is less plus the Ease of carrying out transactions is great, less expensive compared to cost of transactions in other markets. Diversification in Investment should also be looked upon how much you invest in; Equities Debt Bullion Real Estate Once you have a sizeable amount of investment in Equities or Debt, it would then make more sense to diversify this portion more to include funds from other regions. Unless you are an Running your own business, it makes sense to invest in your line of business if that is performing well. The reason being that the benefit / returns from the equities is much greater than the salary rise / bonus. For example I am in Information Technology and yet invest in all leading IT companies because the returns from companies in these segments have been good.",
"qid": 10122,
"docid": "378137",
"rank": 26,
"score": 141352
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The short answer: zero. dg99's answer gives some good reasons why. You will basically never be able to achieve diversification with individual stocks that is anywhere close to what you can get with mutual funds. Owning individual stocks exposes you to much greater risk in that random one-off events that happen to affect one of the companies you own can have a disproportionate effect on your assets. (For instance, some sort of scandal involving a particular company can cause its stock to tank.) There are only two reasons I can see to invest in individual stocks: a. You have some unique opportunity to acquire stock that other people might not be able to get (or get at that price). This can be the case if you work for a privately-held company that allows you to buy stock (or options), or allows you to participate in its IPO. Even then, you should not go too crazy, since having too much stock in the company you work for can double your pain if the company falls on hard times (you may lose your job and your investment). b. For fun. If you like tracking stocks and trying to beat the market, you may want to test your skills at this by using a small proportion of your investable cash (no more than 10%). In this case you're not so much hoping to increase your returns as to just enjoy investing more. This can also have a psychological benefit in that it allows you to \"\"blow off steam\"\" and indulge your desire to make decisions, while allowing your passive investments (index funds) to shoulder the load of actually gaining value.\"",
"qid": 10122,
"docid": "564069",
"rank": 27,
"score": 140377
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The question you should be asking yourself is this: \"\"Why am I putting money into a 401(k)?\"\" For many people, the answer is to grow a (large) nest egg and save for future retirement expenses. Investors are balancing risk and potential reward, so the asset categories you're putting your 401(k) contribution towards will be a reflection on how much risk you're willing to take. Per a US News & World Report article: Ultimately, investors would do well to remember one of the key tenants of investing: diversify. The narrower you are with your investments, the greater your risk, says Vanguard's Bruno: \"\"[Diversification] doesn't ensure against a loss, but it does help lessen a significant loss.\"\" Generally, investing in your employer's stock in your 401(k) is considered very risk. In fact, one Forbes columnist recommends not putting any money into company stock. FINRA notes: Simply stated, if you put too many eggs in one basket, you can expose yourself to significant risk. In financial terms, you are under-diversified: you have too much of your holdings tied to a single investment—your company's stock. Investing heavily in company stock may seem like a good thing when your company and its stock are doing well. But many companies experience fluctuations in both operational performance and stock price. Not only do you expose yourself to the risk that the stock market as a whole could flounder, but you take on a lot of company risk, the risk that an individual firm—your company—will falter or fail. In simpler terms, if you invest a large portion of your 401(k) funds into company stock, if your company runs into trouble, you could lose both your job AND your retirement investments. For the other investment assets/vehicles, you should review a few things: Personally, I prefer to keep my portfolio simple and just pick just a few options based on my own risk tolerance. From your fund examples, without knowing specifics about your financial situation and risk tolerance, I would have created a portfolio that looks like this when I was in my 20's: I avoided the bond and income/money market funds because the growth potential is too low for my investing horizon. Like some of the other answers have noted, the Target Date funds invest in other funds and add some additional fee overhead, which I'm trying to avoid by investing primarily in index funds. Again, your risk tolerance and personal preference might result in a completely different portfolio mix.\"",
"qid": 10122,
"docid": "128077",
"rank": 28,
"score": 140060
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"This depends strongly on what you mean by \"\"stock trading\"\". It isn't a single game, but a huge number of games grouped under a single name. You can invest in individual stocks. If you're willing to make the (large) effort needed to research the companies and their current position and potentialities, this can yield large returns at high risk, or moderate returns at moderate risk. You need to diversify across multiple stocks, and multiple kinds of stocks (and probably bonds and other investment vehicles as well) to manage that risk. Or you can invest in managed mutual funds, where someone picks and balances the stocks for you. They charge a fee for that service, which has to be subtracted from their stated returns. You need to decide how much you trust them. You will usually need to diversify across multiple funds to get the balance of risk you're looking for, with a few exceptions like Target Date funds. Or you can invest in index funds, which automate the stock-picking process to take a wide view of the market and count on the fact that, over time, the market as a whole moves upward. These may not produce the same returns on paper, but their fees are MUCH lower -- enough so that the actual returns to the investor can be as good as, or better than, managed funds. The same point about diversification remains true, with the same exceptions. Or you can invest in a mixture of these, plus bonds and other investment vehicles, to suit your own level of confidence in your abilities, confidence in the market as a whole, risk tolerance, and so on. Having said all that, there's also a huge difference between \"\"trading\"\" and \"\"investing\"\", at least as I use the terms. Stock trading on a short-term basis is much closer to pure gambling -- unless you do the work to deeply research the stocks in question so you know their value better than other people do, and you're playing against pros. You know the rule about poker: If you look around the table and don't see the sucker, he's sitting in your seat... well, that's true to some degree in short-term trading too. This isn't quite a zero-sum game, but it takes more work to play well than I consider worth the effort. Investing for the long term -- defining a balanced mixture of investments and maintaining that mixture for years, with purchases and sales chosen to keep things balanced -- is a positive sum game, since the market does drift upward over time at a long-term average of about 8%/year. If you're sufficiently diversified (which is one reason I like index funds), you're basically riding that rise. This puts you in the position of betting with the pros rather than against them, which is a lower-risk position. Of course the potential returns are reduced too, but I've found that \"\"market rate of return\"\" has been entirely adequate, though not exciting. Of course there's risk here too, if the market dips for some reason, such as the \"\"great recession\"\" we just went through -- but if you're planning for the long term you can usually ride out such dips, and perhaps even see them as opportunities to buy at a discount. Others can tell you more about the details of each of these, and may disagree with my characterizations ... but that's the approach I've taken, based on advice I trust. I could probably increase my returns if I was willing to invest more time and effort in doing so, but I don't especially like playing games for money, and I'm getting quite enough for my purposes and spending near-zero effort on it, which is exactly what I want.\"",
"qid": 10122,
"docid": "498378",
"rank": 29,
"score": 139672
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Diversifying your portfolio between asset A and asset B only reduces the portfolio risk if asset A and asset B are not correlated. If they have either a low correlation or a negative correlation to each other, then you benefit from combining them in a portfolio in terms of risk reduction. The standard deviation of returns will be lower in a portfolio of low or uncorrelated assets. If on the other hand you combine two correlated assets into a portfolio you are doubling down on the same assumption, which means you are not reducing your risk. You are also wasting capital because now you have allocated capital to 2 separate trades / investments yet they have shown a high tendency of moving together. Here is an article that discusses this further: Why Diversify your Stock Portfolio",
"qid": 10122,
"docid": "180855",
"rank": 30,
"score": 139166
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Buying the right shares gives higher return. Buying the wrong ones gives worse return, possibly negative. The usual recommendation, even if you have a pro advising you, is to diversify most of your investments to reduce the risk, even though that may reduce the possible gain. A mutual fund is diversification-in-a-can. It requires little to no active maintenance. Yes, you pay a management fee, but you aren't paying per-transaction fees every time you adjust your holdings, and the management costs can be quite reasonable if you pick the right funds; minimal in the case of computer-managed (index) funds. If you actively enjoy playing with stocks and bonds and are willing/able to accept your failures and less-than-great choices as part of the game, and if you can convince yourself that you will do better this way, go for it. For those of us who just want to deposit out money, watch it grow, and maybe rebalance once a year if that, index funds are a perfectly good choice. I spend at least 8 hours a day working for my money; the rest of the time, I want my money to work for me. Risk and reward tend to be proportional to each other; when they aren't, market prices tend to move to correct that. You need to decide how much risk you're comfortable with, and how much time and effort and money you're willing to spend managing that risk. Personally, I am perfectly happy with the better-than-market-rate-of-return I'm getting, and I don't have any conviction that I could do better if I was more involved. Your milage will vary. If folks didn't disagree, there wouldn't be a market.",
"qid": 10122,
"docid": "576008",
"rank": 31,
"score": 139053
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The calculation and theory are explained in the other answers, but it should be pointed out that the video is the equivalent of watching a magic trick. The secret is: \"\"Stock A and B are perfectly negatively correlated.\"\" The video glasses over that fact that without that fact the risk doesn't drop to zero. The rule is that true diversification does decrease risk. That is why you are advised to spread year investments across small-cap, large-cap, bonds, international, commodities, real estate. Getting two S&P 500 indexes isn't diversification. Your mix of investments will still have risk, because return and risk are backward calculations, not a guarantee of future performance. Changes that were not anticipated will change future performance. What kind of changes: technology, outsourcing, currency, political, scandal.\"",
"qid": 10122,
"docid": "474351",
"rank": 32,
"score": 137086
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I would like to first point out that there is nothing special about a self-managed investment portfolio as compared to one managed by someone else. With some exceptions, you can put together exactly the same investment portfolio yourself as a professional investor could put together for you. Not uncommonly, too, at a lower cost (and remember that cost is among the, if not the, best indicator(s) of how your investment portfolio will perform over time). Diversification is the concept of not \"\"putting all your eggs in one basket\"\". The idea here is that there are things that happen together because they have a common cause, and by spreading your investments in ways such that not all of your investments have the same underlying risks, you reduce your overall risk. The technical term for risk is generally volatility, meaning how much (in this case the price of) something fluctuates over a given period of time. A stock that falls 30% one month and then climbs 40% the next month is more volatile than one that falls 3% the first month and climbs 4% the second month. The former is riskier because if for some reason you need to sell when it is down, you lose a larger portion of your original investment with the former stock than with the latter. Diversification, thus, is reducing commonality between your investments, generally but not necessarily in an attempt to reduce the risk of all investments moving in the same direction by the same amount at the same time. You can diversify in various ways: Do you see where I am going with this? A well-diversed portfolio will tend to have a mix of equity in your own country and a variety of other countries, spread out over different types of equity (company stock, corporate bonds, government bonds, ...), in different sectors of the economy, in countries with differing growth patterns. It may contain uncommon classes of investments such as precious metals. A poorly diversified portfolio will likely be restricted to either some particular geographical area, type of equity or investment, focus on some particular sector of the economy (such as medicine or vehicle manufacturers), or so on. The poorly diversified portfolio can do better in the short term, if you time it just right and happen to pick exactly the right thing to buy or sell. This is incredibly hard to do, as you are basically working against everyone who gets paid to do that kind of work full time, plus computer-algorithm-based trading which is programmed to look for any exploitable patterns. It is virtually impossible to do for any real length of time. Thus, the well-diversified portfolio tends to do better over time.\"",
"qid": 10122,
"docid": "331008",
"rank": 33,
"score": 137018
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: stocks represent ownership in a company. their price can go up or down depending on how much profit the company makes (or is expected to make). stocks owners are sometimes paid money by the company if the company has extra cash. these payments are called dividends. bonds represent a debt that a company owes. when you buy a bond, then the company owes that debt to you. typically, the company will pay a small amount of money on a regular basis to the bond owner, then a large lump some at some point in the future. assuming the company does not file bankrupcy, and you keep the bond until it becomes worthless, then you know exactly how much money you will get from buying a bond. because bonds have a fixed payout (assuming no bankrupcy), they tend to have lower average returns. on the other hand, while stocks have a higher average return, some stocks never return any money. in the usa, stocks and bonds can be purchased through a brokerage account. examples are etrade, tradeking, or robinhood.com. before purchasing stocks or bonds, you should probably learn a great deal more about other investment concepts such as: diversification, volatility, interest rates, inflation risk, capital gains taxes, (in the usa: ira's, 401k's, the mortgage interest deduction). at the very least, you will need to decide if you want to buy stocks inside an ira or in a regular brokerage account. you will also probably want to buy a low-expense ration etf (e.g. an index fund etf) unless you feel confident in some other choice.",
"qid": 10122,
"docid": "461018",
"rank": 34,
"score": 135873
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Diversification is the only real free lunch in finance (reduction in risk without any reduction in expected returns), so clearly every good answer to your question will be \"\"yes.\"\" Diversification is good.\"\" Let's talk about many details your question solicits. Many funds are already pretty diversified. If you buy a mutual fund, you are generally already getting a large portion of the gains from diversification. There is a very large difference between the unnecessary risk in your portfolio if you only hold a couple of stocks and if you hold a mutual fund. Should you be diversified across mutual funds as well? It depends on what your funds are. Many funds, such as target-date funds, are intended to be your sole investment. If you have funds covering every major asset class, then there may not be any additional benefit to buying other funds. You probably could not have picked your \"\"favorite fund\"\" early on. As humans, we have cognitive biases that make us think we knew things early on that we did not. I'm sure at some point at the very beginning you had a positive feeling toward that fund. Today you regret not acting on it and putting all your money there. But the number of such feelings is very large and if you acted on all those, you would do a lot of crazy and harmful things. You didn't know early on which fund would do well. You could just as well have had a good feeling about a fund that subsequently did much worse than your diversified portfolio did. The advice you have had about your portfolio probably isn't based on sound finance theory. You say you have always kept your investments in line with your age. This implies that you believe the guidelines given you by your broker or financial advisor are based in finance theory. Generally speaking, they are not. They are rules of thumb that seemed good to someone but are not rigorously proven either in theory or empirics. For example the notion that you should slowly shift your investments from speculative to conservative as you age is not based on sound finance theory. It just seems good to the people who give advice on such things. Nothing particularly wrong with it, I guess, but it's not remotely on par with the general concept of being well-diversified. The latter is extremely well established and verified, both in theory and in practice. Don't confuse the concept of diversification with the specific advice you have received from your advisor. A fund averaging very good returns is not an anomaly--at least going forward it will not be. There are many thousand funds and a large distribution in their historical performance. Just by random chance, some funds will have a truly outstanding track record. Perhaps the manager really was skilled. However, very careful empirical testing has shown the following: (1) You, me, and people whose profession it is to select outperforming mutual funds are unable to reliably detect which ones will outperform, except in hindsight (2) A fund that has outperformed, even over a long horizon, is not more likely to outperform in the future. No one is stopping you from putting all your money in that fund. Depending on its investment objective, you may even have decent diversification if you do so. However, please be aware that if you move your money based on historical outperformance, you will be acting on the same cognitive bias that makes gamblers believe they are on a \"\"hot streak\"\" and \"\"can't lose.\"\" They can, and so can you. ======== Edit to answer a more specific line of questions =========== One of your questions is whether it makes sense to buy a number of mutual funds as part of your diversification strategy. This is a slightly more subtle question and I will indicate where there is uncertainty in my answer. Diversifying across asset classes. Most of the gains from diversification are available in a single fund. There is a lot of idiosyncratic risk in one or two stocks and much less in a collection of hundreds of stocks, which is what any mutual fund will hold. Still,you will probably want at least a couple of funds in your portfolio. I will list them from most important to least and I will assume the bulk of your portfolio is in a total US equity fund (or S&P500-style fund) so that you are almost completely diversified already. Risky Bonds. These are corporate, municipal, sovereign debt, and long-term treasury debt funds. There is almost certainly a good deal to be gained by having a portion of your portfolio in bonds, and normally a total market fund will not include bond exposure. Bonds fund returns are closely related to interest rate and inflation changes. They are also exposed to some market risk but it's more efficient to get that from equity. The bond market is very large, so if you did market weights you would have more in bonds than in equity. Normally people do not do this, though. Instead you can get the exposure to interest rates by holding a lesser amount in longer-term bonds, rather than more in shorter-term bonds. I don't believe in shifting your weights toward nor away from this type of bond (as opposed to equity) as you age so if you are getting that advice, know that it is not well-founded in theory. Whatever your relative weight in risky bonds when you are young is should also be your weight when you are older. International. There are probably some gains from having some exposure to international markets, although these have decreased over time as economies have become more integrated. If we followed market weights, you would actually put half your equity weight in an international fund. Because international funds are taxed differently (gains are always taxed at the short-term capital gains rate) and because they have higher management fees, most people make only a small investment to international funds, if any at all. Emerging markets International funds often ignore emerging markets in order to maintain liquidity and low fees. You can get some exposure to these markets through emerging markets funds. However, the value of public equity in emerging markets is small when compared with that of developed markets, so according to finance theory, your investment in them should be small as well. That's a theoretical, not an empirical result. Emerging market funds charge high fees as well, so this one is kind of up to your taste. I can't say whether it will work out in the future. Real estate. You may want to get exposure to real estate by buying a real-estate fund (REIT). Though, if you own a house you are already exposed to the real estate market, perhaps more than you want to be. REITs often invest in commercial real estate, which is a little different from the residential market. Small Cap. Although total market funds invest in all capitalization levels, the market is so skewed toward large firms that many total market funds don't have any significant small cap exposure. It's common for individuals to hold a small cap fund to compensate for this, but it's not actually required by investment theory. In principle, the most diversified portfolio should be market-cap weighted, so small cap should have negligible weight in your portfolio. Many people hold small cap because historically it has outperformed large cap firms of equal risk, but this trend is uncertain. Many researchers feel that the small cap \"\"premium\"\" may have been a short-term artifact in the data. Given these facts and the fact that small-cap funds charge higher fees, it may make sense to pass on this asset class. Depends on your opinion and beliefs. Value (or Growth) Funds. Half the market can be classed as \"\"value\"\", while the other half is \"\"growth.\"\" Your total market fund should have equal representation in both so there is no diversification reason to buy a special value or growth fund. Historically, value funds have outperformed over long horizons and many researchers think this will continue, but it's not exactly mandated by the theory. If you choose to skew your portfolio by buying one of these, it should be a value fund. Sector funds. There is, in general, no diversification reason to buy funds that invest in a particular sector. If you are trying to hedge your income (like trying to avoid investing in the tech sector because you work in that sector) or your costs (buying energy because you buy use a disproportionate amount of energy) I could imagine you buying one of these funds. Risk-free bonds. Funds specializing in short-term treasuries or short-term high-quality bonds of other types are basically a substitute for a savings account, CD, money market fund, or other cash equivalent. Use as appropriate but there is little diversification here per se. In short, there is some value in diversifying across asset classes, and it is open to opinion how much you should do. Less well-justified is diversifying across managers within the same asset class. There's very little if any advantage to doing that.\"",
"qid": 10122,
"docid": "322806",
"rank": 35,
"score": 135820
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Index funds are good for diversifying risk. For people who don't have a large sum of money to invest, holding all the different types of stocks in the index is both very expensive and not practical because you incur too many transaction costs. For an index funds, the main advantages are that costs are pooled, and investors can invest a smaller amount that they would if they bought all the different stocks individually. Naturally, if you wanted to figure out the percentage composition of the index and invest directly it would be possible, albeit tedious.",
"qid": 10122,
"docid": "334919",
"rank": 36,
"score": 135522
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The biggest challenge with owning any individual stock is price fluctuation, which is called risk. The scenarios you describe assume that the stock behaves exactly as you predict (price/portfolio doubles) and you need to consider risk. One way to measure risk in a stock or in a portfolio is Sharpe Ratio (risk adjusted return), or the related Sortino ratio. One piece of advice that is often offered to individual investors is to diversify, and the stated reason for diversification is to reduce risk. But that is not telling the whole story. When you are able to identify stocks that are not price correlated, you can construct a portfolio that reduces risk. You are trying to avoid 10% tax on the stock grant (25%-15%), but need to accept significant risk to avoid the 10% differential tax ($1000). An alternative to a single stock is to invest in an ETF (much lower risk), which you can buy and hold for a long time, and the price/growth of an ETF (ex. SPY) can be charted versus your stock to visualize the difference in growth/fluctuation. Look up the beta (volatility) of your stock compared to SPY (for example, IBM). Compare the beta of IBM and TSLA and note that you may accept higher volatility when you invest in a stock like Tesla over IBM. What is the beta of your stock? And how willing are you to accept that risk? When you can identify stocks that move in opposite directions, and mix your portfolio (look up beta balanced portolio), you can smooth out the variability (reduce the risk), although you may reduce your absolute return. This cannot be done with a single stock, but if you have more money to invest you could compose the rest of your portfolio to balance the risk for this stock grant, keep the grant shares, and still effectively manage risk. Some years ago I had accumulated over 10,000 shares (grants, options) in a company where I worked. During the time I worked there, their price varied between $30/share and < $1/share. I was able to liquidate at $3/share.",
"qid": 10122,
"docid": "30774",
"rank": 37,
"score": 135289
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I don't like REITs because they are more closely correlated to the movement of the stock market. They don't really do the job of diversifying a portfolio because of that correlation. When the stock market dropped in 2008, REITs were hammered as well because the housing bubble burst. Bonds went up, and if you rebalanced (sold the bonds to buy more stock) then you came out much further ahead when the stock market recovered. The point of adding bonds for diversification is that they move in the opposite direction of equities; blunting the major drops (and providing buying opportunities). REITs don't fit that bill. REITs are not undergoing a correction like bonds because the price of real estate is a function of housing supply and buyer demand. Rising interest rates only make it a little harder for buyers to buy, so the effect of rising interest rates on real estate prices is muted. The other effects on real estate prices (more wealth in the economy for buyers) pushes in the opposite direction of the rising interest rates.",
"qid": 10122,
"docid": "24822",
"rank": 38,
"score": 135184
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you buy stock in established companies, it is vey unlikely that they will lose all their value. Spreading your money across multiple stocks -- diversifying -- reduces that risk because it is extremely unlikely that they all lose all their value at once. Spreading them across multiple industries and adding bonds to the mix increases diversification. Of course the trade-off is that if one of the stocks skyrockets you don't benefit as much as if you had been lucky enough to put all your money in that one stock. You need to decide for yourself how much risk you are willing to tolerate in exchange for the chance of gains. Other answers on this site have dealt with this in more detail.",
"qid": 10122,
"docid": "110078",
"rank": 39,
"score": 135146
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you are diversifying just for diversification purposes then all you are doing is averaging down your returns. You shouldn't just buy two securities because you think it is safer than putting all your money into one. A better method is to use money management and position sizing to limit your risk and exposure in any one security. You should know what your maximum risk is before you buy any security and know when it is time to get out of it. There are better ways to manage your risk. Don't put all your eggs in the one basket - yes, but don't diversify just for diversification purposes.",
"qid": 10122,
"docid": "279072",
"rank": 40,
"score": 134969
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: When the market moves significantly, you should rebalance your investments to maintain the diversification ratios you have selected. That means if bonds go up and stocks go down, you sell bonds and buy stocks (to some degree), and vice versa. Sell high to buy low, and remember that over the long run most things regress to the mean.",
"qid": 10122,
"docid": "107751",
"rank": 41,
"score": 134867
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I'd say that because you are young, even the 'riskier' asset classes are not as risky as you think, for example, assuming conservatively that you only have 30 years to retirement, investing in stocks index might be a good option. In short term share prices are volatile and prone to bull and bear cycles but given enough time they have pretty much always outperformed any other asset classes. The key is not to be desperate to withdraw when an index is at the bottom. Some cycles can be 20 years, so when you need get nearer retirement you will need to diversify so that you can survive without selling low. Just make sure to pick an index tracker with low fees and you should be good to go. A word of warning is of course past performance is no indication of a future one, but if a diversified index tracker goes belly up for 20+ years, we are talking global calamity, in which case buy a shotgun and some canned food ;)",
"qid": 10122,
"docid": "115378",
"rank": 42,
"score": 134556
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Diversification is a good method of risk management. Different types of investments do better in different situations and economic climates. Invest all your money at the wrong time in a single product and you could lose everything. You could also technically make a great deal of money, but actions such as these are the actions of speculators, not investors. Spreading your investments appropriately lets you maximize your growth opportunities while limiting your risk.",
"qid": 10122,
"docid": "502495",
"rank": 43,
"score": 134449
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: This depends completely on your investing goals. Typically when saving for retirement younger investors aim for a more volatile and aggressive portfolio but diversify their portfolio with more cautious stocks/bonds as they near retirement. In other words, the volatility that owning a single stock brings may be in line with your goals if you can shoulder the risk.",
"qid": 10122,
"docid": "179328",
"rank": 44,
"score": 133779
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The common advice you mentioned is just a guideline and has little to do with how your portfolio would look like when you construct it. In order to diversify you would be using correlations and some common sense. Recall the recent global financial crisis, ones of the first to crash were AAA-rated CDO's, stocks and so on. Because correlation is a statistical measure this can work fine when the economy is stable, but it doesn't account for real-life interrelations, especially when population is affected. Once consumers are affected this spans to the entire economy so that sectors that previously seemed unrelated have now been tied together by the fall in demand or reduced ability to pay-off. I always find it funny how US advisers tell you to hold 80% of US stocks and bonds, while UK ones tell you to stick to the UK securities. The same happens all over the world, I would assume. The safest portfolio is a Global Market portfolio, obviously I wouldn't be getting, say, Somalian bonds (if such exist at all), but there are plenty of markets to choose from. A chance of all of them crashing simultaneously is significantly lower. Why don't people include derivatives in their portfolios? Could be because these are mainly short-term, while most of the portfolios are being held for a significant amount of time thus capital and money markets are the key components. Derivatives are used to hedge these portfolios. As for the currencies - by having foreign stocks and bonds you are already exposed to FX risk so you, again, could be using it as a hedging instrument.",
"qid": 10122,
"docid": "384857",
"rank": 45,
"score": 133416
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: As a general rule, diversification means carrying sufficient amounts in cash equivalents, stocks, bonds, and real estate. An emergency fund should have six months income (conservative) or expenses (less conservative) in some kind of cash equivalent (like a savings account). As you approach retirement, that number should increase. At retirement, it should be something like five years of expenses. At that time, it is no longer an emergency fund, it's your everyday expenses. You can use a pension or social security to offset your effective monthly expenses for the purpose of that fund. You should five years net expenses after income in cash equivalents after retirement. The normal diversification ratio for stocks, bonds, and real estate is something like 60% stocks, 20% bonds, and 20% real estate. You can count the equity in your house as part of the real estate share. For most people, the house will be sufficient diversification into real estate. That said, you should not buy a second home as an investment. Buy the second home if you can afford it and if it makes you happy. Then consider if you want to keep your first home as an investment or just sell it now. Look at your overall ownership to determine if you are overweighted into real estate. Your primary house is not an investment, but it is an ownership. If 90% of your net worth is real estate, then you are probably underinvested in securities like stocks and bonds. 50% should probably be an upper bound, and 20% real estate would be more diversified. If your 401k has an employer match, you should almost certainly put enough in it to get the full match. I prefer a ratio of 70-75% stocks to 25-30% bonds at all ages. This matches the overall market diversification. Rebalance to stay in that range regularly, possibly by investing in the underweight security. Adding real estate to that, my preference would be for real estate to be roughly a quarter of the value of securities. So around 60% stocks, 20% bonds, and 20% real estate. A 50% share for real estate is more aggressive but can work. Along with a house or rental properties, another option for increasing the real estate share is a Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT). These are essentially a mutual fund for real estate. This takes you out of the business of actively managing properties. If you really want to manage rentals, make sure that you list all the expenses. These include: Also be careful that you are able to handle it if things change. Perhaps today there is a tremendous shortage of rental properties and the vacancy rate is close to zero. What happens in a few years when new construction provides more slack? Some kinds of maintenance can't be done with tenants. Also, some kinds of maintenance will scare away new tenants. So just as you are paying out a large amount of money, you also aren't getting rent. You need to be able to handle the loss of income and the large expense at the same time. Don't forget the sales value of your current house. Perhaps you bought when houses were cheaper. Maybe you'd be better off taking the current equity that you have in that house and putting it into your new house's mortgage. Yes, the old mortgage payment may be lower than the rent you could get, but the rent over the next thirty years might be less than what you could get for the house if you sold it. Are you better off with minimal equity in two houses or good equity with one house? I would feel better about this purchase if you were saying that you were doing this in addition to your 401k. Doing this instead of your 401k seems sketchy to me. What will you do if there is another housing crash? With a little bad luck, you could end up underwater on two mortgages and unable to make payments. Or perhaps not underwater on the current house, but not getting much back on a sale either. All that said, maybe it's a good deal. You have more information about it than we do. Just...be careful.",
"qid": 10122,
"docid": "523949",
"rank": 46,
"score": 133321
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"As many before me said but will say again for the sake of completeness of an answer: First off provision to have an emergency fund of 6 months living expenses to cover loss of employment, unforeseen medical issues etc. When that is done you re free to start investing. Do remember that putting all your eggs in one basket enable risks, so diversify your portfolio and diversify even within each investment vehicle. Stocks: I would personally stay away from stocks as it's for the most part a bear market right now (and I assume you re not interested day-trading to make any short term return) and most importantly you dont mention any trading experience which means you can get shafted. Mutual Funds: Long story short most of these work; mainly for the benefit for their management and people selling them. Bonds Instead, I would go for corporate bonds where you essentially buy the seller(aka the issuing company) and unlike gambling on stocks of the same company, you dont rely on speculation and stock gains to make a profit. As long as the company is standing when the bond matures you get your payment. This allows you to invest with less effort spent on a daily basis to monitor your investments and much better returns(especially if you find opportunities where you can buy bonds from structurally sound companies that have for reasons you deem irrelevant, purchase prices in the secondary market for cents in the dollar) than your other long term \"\"stable options\"\" like German issued bonds or saving accounts that are low in general and more so like in the current situation for German banks. Cryptocurrency I would also look into cryptocurrency for the long term as that seems to be past its childhood diseases and its also a good period of time to invest in as even the blue chips of that market are down party due to correction from all time highs and partly due to speculation. As Im more knowledgeable on this than German-locale bonds, a few coins I suggest you look into and decide for yourself would be the obvious ETH & BTC, then a slew of newer ones including but not limited to OmiseGO, Tenx(Pay), Augur and IOTA. Beware though, make sure to understand the basics of security and good practices on this field, as there's no central bank in this sector and if you leave funds in an exchange or your wallet's private key is compromised the money are as good as gone.\"",
"qid": 10122,
"docid": "416358",
"rank": 47,
"score": 133081
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The reason diversification in general is a benefit is easily seen in your first graph. While the purple line (Betterment 100% Stock) is always below the blue line (S&P), and the blue line is the superior return over the entire period, it's a bit different if you retired in 2009, isn't it? In that case the orange line is superior: because its risk is much lower, so it didn't drop much during the major crash. Lowering risk (and lowering return) is a benefit the closer you get to retirement as you won't see as big a cumulative return from the large percentage, but you could see a big temporary drop, and need your income to be relatively stable (if you're living off it or soon going to). Now, you can certainly invest on your own in a diverse way, and if you're reasonably smart about it and have enough funds to avoid any fees, you can almost certainly do better than a managed solution - even a relatively lightly managed solution like Betterment. They take .15% off the top, so if you just did exactly the same as them, you would end up .15% (per year) better off. However, not everyone is reasonably smart, and not everyone has much in the way of funds. Betterment's target audience are people who aren't terribly smart about investing and/or have very small amounts of funds to invest. Plenty of people aren't able to work out how to do diversification on their own; while they probably mostly aren't asking questions on this site, they're a large percentage of the population. It's also work to diversify your portfolio: you have to make minor changes every year at a minimum to ensure you have a nicely balanced portfolio. This is why target retirement date portfolios are very popular; a bit higher cost (similar to Betterment, roughly) but no work required to diversify correctly and maintain that diversification.",
"qid": 10122,
"docid": "347825",
"rank": 48,
"score": 132818
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You spread money/investment across different accounts for different reasons: All this is in addition to diversification reasons. Investing all your money into one stock, bond, Mutual fund, ETF is risky if that one segment of the economy/market suffers. There is a drawback to diversification of accounts. Some have minimum amounts and fee structures. In the original question you asked about 1,000 per account. That may mean that some accounts may be closed to you. In other cases they will charge a higher percentage for fees for small accounts. Those issues would disappear long before you hit the 1,000,000 per account you mentioned in your comment. One problem can occur with having too much diversification. Having dozens of funds could mean that the overlap between the funds might result in over investing in a segment because you didn't realize that one stock segment appeared in 1/3 of the funds.",
"qid": 10122,
"docid": "165378",
"rank": 49,
"score": 132412
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Generally a diversified portfolio will give you a better overall return --a couple of factors that may address what you are looking at - 1) Correlation - The correlation between your two funds is still very high -- it's partially a function of how global economies are related and many companies are now multi-national. It may help if you diversified into other types of products. 2) Diversification - Following up from before, you may want to also look into diversifying into some bonds, commodities, reits, etc. They will have a much smaller correlation with a total domestic stock fund. 3) Returns - I'm not sure if by dominate you mean that it has better overall returns, but the point of diversification is to to get you the highest returns. It's really the ability to limit the risk for the returns - this really translates to limiting the volatility. This may mean that overall your max returns could be lower-- ie: maybe VTSAX gives potential average returns between 3%-11%. A diversified portfolio may give you potential average returns of 5%-9%. A similar article debating the merits of 'smart beta ETFs' if you are curious. Hope that helps.",
"qid": 10122,
"docid": "119392",
"rank": 50,
"score": 132407
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Have a look at: Diversify Portfolio. The site provides various tools all focused on correlation, diversification and portfolio construction. You can scan through every stock and ETF listed on the NASDAQ and NYSE to find any kind of correlation you're looking for. You can also create a portfolio and then analyze all the correlations within it, or search for specific stocks that can be added to the portfolio based on correlation and various other factors.",
"qid": 10122,
"docid": "449043",
"rank": 51,
"score": 132122
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Let's say that you want to invest in the stock market. Choosing and investing in only one stock is risky. You can lower your risk by diversifying, or investing in lots of different stocks. However, you have some problems with this: When you buy stocks directly, you have to buy whole shares, and you don't have enough money to buy even one whole share of all the stocks you want to invest in. You aren't even sure which stocks you should buy. A mutual fund solves both of these problems. You get together with other investors and pool your money together to buy a group of stocks. That way, your investment is diversified in lots of different stocks without having to have enough money to buy whole shares of each one. And the mutual fund has a manager that chooses which stocks the fund will invest in, so you don't have to pick. There are lots of mutual funds to choose from, with as many different objectives as you can imagine. Some invest in large companies, others small; some invest in a certain sector of companies (utilities or health care, for example), some invest in stocks that pay a dividend, others are focused on growth. Some funds don't invest in stocks at all; they might invest in bonds, real estate, or precious metals. Some funds are actively managed, where the manager actively buys and sells different stocks in the fund continuously (and takes a fee for his services), and others simply invest in a list of stocks and rarely buy or sell (these are called index funds). To answer your question, yes, the JPMorgan Emerging Markets Equity Fund is a mutual fund. It is an actively-managed stock mutual fund that attempts to invest in growing companies that do business in countries with rapidly developing economies.",
"qid": 10122,
"docid": "199493",
"rank": 52,
"score": 131496
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Another disadvantage is the inability to value commodities in an accounting sense. In contrast with stocks, bonds and real estate, commodities don't generate cash flows and so any valuation methodology is by definition speculative. But as rhaskett notes, there are diversification advantages. The returns for gold, for instance, tend to exhibit low/negative correlation with the performance of stocks. The question is whether the diversification advantage, which is the primary reason to hold commodities in a multi-asset class portfolio through time, overcomes the disadvantages? The answer... maybe.",
"qid": 10122,
"docid": "568006",
"rank": 53,
"score": 131403
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I would recommend using growth/value/income/bond based asset allocation because your goal is to find asset classes that have different performance trends (when 1 is up, the other is down and vice-versa). If you chose Domestic, US stocks and diversified between Med Cap and Large Cap stocks, they would not exactly mirror each other, but they would roughly rise and fall at the same time, preventing you from taking full advantage of diversification, increasing risk and lowering returns.",
"qid": 10122,
"docid": "462581",
"rank": 54,
"score": 131139
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"There are probably 3-4 questions here. Diversification - A good index, a low cost S&P fund or ETF can serve you very well. If you add an extended market index or just go with \"\"Total market\"\", that might be it for your stock allocation. I've seen people with 5 funds, and it didn't take much analysis to see the overlap was so significant, that the extra 4 funds added little, and 2 of the 5 would have been it. If you diversify by buying more ETFs or funds, be sure to see what they contain. If you can go back in time, buy Apple, Google, Amazon, etc, and don't sell them. Individual stocks are fun to pick, but unless you put in your homework, are tough to succeed at. You need to be right at the buy side, and again to know if, and when, to sell. I bought Apple, for example, long ago, pre-last few splits. But, using responsible a approach, I sold a bit each time it doubled. Has I kept it all through the splits, I'd have $1M+ instead of the current $200K or so of stock. Can you tell which companies now have that kind of potential for the future? The S&P has been just about double digit over 60 years. The average managed fund will lag the S&P over time, many will be combined with other funds or just close. Even with huge survivor bias, managed funds can't beat the index over time, on average. Aside from a small portion of stocks I've picked, I'm happy to get S&P less .02% in my 401(k). In aggregate, people actually do far worse due to horrific timing and some odd thing, called emotions.\"",
"qid": 10122,
"docid": "387492",
"rank": 55,
"score": 131024
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you're worried about volatility, and you're in mostly long positions, you should be looking to diversify your portfolio (meaning, buying some stocks that will do better in a bear market) if it's not already diverse, but you shouldn't be looking to abandon your positions, unless you anticipate a short-term need for cash. Other than that, you may want to hold off on the short-term positions for a while if you're concerned about volatility, though many traders see volatility as a great time to make money (as there is more movement, there's more opportunity to make money from mispriced stocks in both directions). Unless you think the market will be permanently down due to these reasons, anyway, but I don't see any reason to believe that yet. Even World War Two wasn't enough to permanently hurt the market, after all! Remember that everyone in the market knows what you do. If there were a sure thing that the market was going to crash, it already would have. Conservative positions tend to involve holding onto a well diversified portfolio rather than simply holding onto cash, unless the investor is very conservative (in which case the portfolio should be cash anyway). The fact that you say this is your rainy day fund does make me a little curious, though; typically rainy day funds are better in cash (and not invested) since you might hit that rainy day and need cash quickly (in which case you could take significant losses if the time isn't right).",
"qid": 10122,
"docid": "257921",
"rank": 56,
"score": 130539
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: As stated in the comments, Index Funds are the way to go. Stocks have the best return on investment, if you can stomach the volatility, and the diversification index funds bring you is unbeatable, while keeping costs low. You don't need an Individual Savings Account (UK), 401(k) (US) or similar, though they would be helpful to boost investment performance. These are tax advantaged accounts; without them you will have to pay taxes on your investment gains. However, there's still a lot to gain from investing, specially if the alternative is to place them in the vault or similar. Bear in mind that inflation makes your money shrink in real terms. Even a small interest is better than no interest. By best I mean that is safe (regulated by the financial authorities, so your money is safe and insured up to a certain amount) and has reasonable fees (keeping costs low is a must in any scenario). The two main concerns when designing your portfolio are diversification and low TER (Total Expense Ratio). As when we chose broker, our concern is to be as safe as we possibly can (diversification helps with this) and to keep costs at the bare minimum. Some issues might restrict your election or make others seem better. Depending on the country you live and the one of the fund, you might have to pay more taxes on gains/dividends. e.g. The US keeps some of them if your country doesn't have a special treaty with them. Look for W-8Ben and tax withholding for more information. Vanguard and Blackrock offer nice index funds. Morningstar might be a good place for gathering information. Don't trust blindly the 'rating'. Some values are 'not rated' and kick ass the 4 star ones. Again: seek low TER. Not a big fan of this point, but I'm bound to mention it. It can be actually helpful for sorting out tax related issues, which might decide the kind of index fund you pick, and if you find this topic somewhat daunting. You start with a good chunk of money, so it might make even more sense in your scenario to hire someone knowledgeable and trustworthy. I hope this helps to get you started. Best of luck.",
"qid": 10122,
"docid": "591909",
"rank": 57,
"score": 130191
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Is there a reason you are focusing on stocks? A portfolio of $4,000 in stocks alone will not give you much diversification, and buying $40 of 100 stocks will not have enough impact to grow your portfolio in the way it sounds like you would like it to. Have you considered using ETFs?",
"qid": 10122,
"docid": "414116",
"rank": 58,
"score": 129308
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: This is Ellie Lan, investment analyst at Betterment. To answer your question, American investors are drawn to use the S&P 500 (SPY) as a benchmark to measure the performance of Betterment portfolios, particularly because it’s familiar and it’s the index always reported in the news. However, going all in to invest in SPY is not a good investment strategy—and even using it to compare your own diversified investments is misleading. We outline some of the pitfalls of this approach in this article: Why the S&P 500 Is a Bad Benchmark. An “algo-advisor” service like Betterment is a preferable approach and provides a number of advantages over simply investing in ETFs (SPY or others like VOO or IVV) that track the S&P 500. So, why invest with Betterment rather than in the S&P 500? Let’s first look at the issue of diversification. SPY only exposes investors to stocks in the U.S. large cap market. This may feel acceptable because of home bias, which is the tendency to invest disproportionately in domestic equities relative to foreign equities, regardless of their home country. However, investing in one geography and one asset class is riskier than global diversification because inflation risk, exchange-rate risk, and interest-rate risk will likely affect all U.S. stocks to a similar degree in the event of a U.S. downturn. In contrast, a well-diversified portfolio invests in a balance between bonds and stocks, and the ratio of bonds to stocks is dependent upon the investment horizon as well as the individual's goals. By constructing a portfolio from stock and bond ETFs across the world, Betterment reduces your portfolio’s sensitivity to swings. And the diversification goes beyond mere asset class and geography. For example, Betterment’s basket of bond ETFs have varying durations (e.g., short-term Treasuries have an effective duration of less than six months vs. U.S. corporate bonds, which have an effective duration of just more than 8 years) and credit quality. The level of diversification further helps you manage risk. Dan Egan, Betterment’s Director of Behavioral Finance and Investing, examined the increase in returns by moving from a U.S.-only portfolio to a globally diversified portfolio. On a risk-adjusted basis, the Betterment portfolio has historically outperformed a simple DIY investor portfolio by as much as 1.8% per year, attributed solely to diversification. Now, let’s assume that the investor at hand (Investor A) is a sophisticated investor who understands the importance of diversification. Additionally, let’s assume that he understands the optimal allocation for his age, risk appetite, and investment horizon. Investor A will still benefit from investing with Betterment. Automating his portfolio management with Betterment helps to insulate Investor A from the ’behavior gap,’ or the tendency for investors to sacrifice returns due to bad timing. Studies show that individual investors lose, on average, anywhere between 1.2% to 4.3% due to the behavior gap, and this gap can be as high as 6.5% for the most active investors. Compared to the average investor, Betterment customers have a behavior gap that is 1.25% lower. How? Betterment has implemented smart design to discourage market timing and short-sighted decision making. For example, Betterment’s Tax Impact Preview feature allows users to view the tax hit of a withdrawal or allocation change before a decision is made. Currently, Betterment is the only automated investment service to offer this capability. This function allows you to see a detailed estimate of the expected gains or losses broken down by short- and long-term, making it possible for investors to make better decisions about whether short-term gains should be deferred to the long-term. Now, for the sake of comparison, let’s assume that we have an even more sophisticated investor (Investor B), who understands the pitfalls of the behavior gap and is somehow able to avoid it. Betterment is still a better tool for Investor B because it offers a suite of tax-efficient features, including tax loss harvesting, smarter cost-basis accounting, municipal bonds, smart dividend reinvesting, and more. Each of these strategies can be automatically deployed inside the portfolio—Investor B need not do a thing. Each of these strategies can boost returns by lowering tax exposure. To return to your initial question—why not simply invest in the S&P 500? Investing is a long-term proposition, particularly when saving for retirement or other goals with a time horizon of several decades. To be a successful long-term investor means employing the core principles of diversification, tax management, and behavior management. While the S&P might look like a ‘hot’ investment one year, there are always reversals of fortune. The goal with long-term passive investing—the kind of investing that Betterment offers—is to help you reach your investing goals as efficiently as possible. Lastly, Betterment offers best-in-industry advice about where to save and how much to save for no fee.",
"qid": 10122,
"docid": "436904",
"rank": 59,
"score": 129204
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The catch is that you're doing a form of leveraged investing. In other words, you're gambling on the stock market using money that you've borrowed. While it's not as dangerous as say, getting money from a loan shark to play blackjack in Vegas, there is always the chance that markets can collapse and your investment's value will drop rapidly. The amount of risk really depends on what specific investments you choose and how diversified they are - if you buy only Canadian stocks then you're at risk of losing a lot if something happened to our economy. But if your Canadian equities only amount to 3.6% of your total (which is Canada's share of the world market), and you're holding stocks in many different countries then the diversification will reduce your overall risk. The reason I mention that is because many people using the Smith Maneuver are only buying Canadian high-yield dividend stocks, so that they can use the dividends to accelerate the Smith Maneuver process (use the dividends to pay down the mortgage, then borrow more and invest it). They prefer Canadian equities because of preferential tax treatment of the dividend income (in non-registered accounts). But if something happened to those Canadian companies, they stand to lose much of the investment value and suddenly they have the extra debt (the amount borrowed from a HELOC, or from a re-advanceable mortgage) without enough value in the investments to offset it. This could mean that they will not be able to pay off the mortgage by the time they retire!",
"qid": 10122,
"docid": "290831",
"rank": 60,
"score": 129130
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I think this is a good question with no single right answer. For a conservative investor, possible responses to low rates would be: Probably the best response is somewhere in the middle: consider riskier investments for a part of your portfolio, but still hold on to some cash, and in any case do not expect great results in a bad economy. For a more detailed analysis, let's consider the three main asset classes of cash, bonds, and stocks, and how they might preform in a low-interest-rate environment. (By \"\"stocks\"\" I really mean mutual funds that invest in a diversified mixture of stocks, rather than individual stocks, which would be even riskier. You can use mutual funds for bonds too, although diversification is not important for government bonds.) Cash. Advantages: Safe in the short term. Available on short notice for emergencies. Disadvantages: Low returns, and possibly inflation (although you retain the flexibility to move to other investments if inflation increases.) Bonds. Advantages: Somewhat higher returns than cash. Disadvantages: Returns are still rather low, and more vulnerable to inflation. Also the market price will drop temporarily if rates rise. Stocks. Advantages: Better at preserving your purchasing power against inflation in the long term (20 years or more, say.) Returns are likely to be higher than stocks or bonds on average. Disadvantages: Price can fluctuate a lot in the short-to-medium term. Also, expected returns are still less than they would be in better economic times. Although the low rates may change the question a little, the most important thing for an investor is still to be familiar with these basic asset classes. Note that the best risk-adjusted reward might be attained by some mixture of the three.\"",
"qid": 10122,
"docid": "127689",
"rank": 61,
"score": 128887
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Asset Allocation serves many purposes, not just mitigating risk via a diversification of asset classes, but also allowing you to take a level of risk that is appropriate for a given investor at a given time by how much is allocated to which asset classes. A younger investor with a longer timeframe, may wish to take a lot more risk, investing heavily in equities, and perhaps managed funds that are of the 'aggressive growth' variety, seeking better than market returns. Someone a little older may wish to pull back a bit, especially after a bull market has brought them substantial gains, and begin to 'take money off the table' perhaps by starting to establish some fixed income positions, or pulling back to slightly less risky index, 'value' or 'balanced' funds. An investor who is near or in retirement will generally want even less risk, going to a much more balanced approach with half or more of their investments in fixed income, and the remainder often in income producing 'blue chip' type stocks, or 'income funds'. This allows them to protect a good amount of their wealth from potential loss at a time when they have to be able to depend on it for a majority of their income. An institution such as Yale has very different concerns, and may always be in a more aggressive 'long term' mode since 'retirement' is not a factor for them. They are willing to invest mostly in very aggressive ways, using diversification to protect them from one of those choices 'tanking' but still overall taking a pretty high level of risk, much more so than might be appropriate for an individual who will generally need to seek safety and to preserve gains as they get older. For example look at the PDF that @JLDugger linked, and observe the overall risk level that Yale is taking, and in addition observe the large allocations they make to things like private equity with a 27%+ risk level compared to their very small amount of fixed income with a 10% risk level. Yale has a very long time horizon and invests in a way that is atypical of the needs and concerns of an individual investor. They also have as you pointed out, the economy of scale (with something like #17B in assets?) to afford to hire proven experts, and their own internal PHD level experts to watch over the whole thing, all of which very few individual investors have. For either class of investor, diversification, is a means to mitigate risk by not having all your eggs in one basket. Via having multiple different investments (such as picking multiple individual stocks, or aggressive funds with different approaches, or just an index fund to get multiple stocks) you are protected from being wiped out as might happen if a single choice might fail. For example imagine what would have happened if you had in 2005 put all your money into a single stock with a company that had been showing record profits such as Lehman Brothers, and left it there until 2008 when the stock tanked. or even faster collapses such as Enron, etc that all 'looked great' up until shortly after they failed utterly. Being allocated across multiple asset classes provides some diversification all on it's own, but you can also be diversified within a class. Yale uses the diversification across several asset classes to have lower risk than being invested in a single asset class such as private equity. But their allocation places much more of their funds in high risk classes and much less of their funds in the lowest risk classes such as fixed income.",
"qid": 10122,
"docid": "391861",
"rank": 62,
"score": 128798
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: In general, investors with a long period of time until they would need to withdraw the cash are best off holding mostly equities. While the dividends that equities would return are less than the interest you would get in peer-to-peer lending, over long periods of time not only do you get the dividends from equity investment but the value of the stock will grow faster than interest on loans. The higher returns from stocks, however, comes with more risk of big downturns. Many people pull their investments out of stocks right after crashes which really hurts their long term returns. So, in order to get the benefit of investing in stocks you need to be strong enough to continue to hold the stocks through the crash and into the recovery. As for which stocks to invest in, generally it is best to invest in low-fee index funds/etfs where you own a broad collection of stocks so that if (when) any one stock goes bust that your portfolio does not take much damage. Try to own both international and domestic stocks to get good diversification. The consensus recommends adding just a little bit of REITs and bonds to your investments, but for someone at 25 it might not be worth it yet. Warren Buffett had some good thoughts on index investing.",
"qid": 10122,
"docid": "282483",
"rank": 63,
"score": 128526
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Many folks use bonds to diversify their portfolio since bonds rise and fall in value at different times and for different reasons than stocks. Bonds pay interest on a regular basis (usually monthly or quarterly) and so some people invest in bonds in order to match the interest payments to some regular expense they might have. The interest payment does not change (fixed income). For individual bonds, there is a maturity date at which you can expect to receive the face value of the bond (the issuer's creditworthiness is important here). You can make a little money on a bond by buying it when its value is lower than its face value and either selling later for a higher value, or waiting for it to mature. Often the minimum investment for a single bond is high, so if you don't have a large enough amount, you can still get the performance of bonds through a bond fund. These do not mature, so you don't have a guarantee of a return of your investment. However, they have access to more bonds than retail investors, so the funds can keep your money more fully invested. If you don't need the income, you can reinvest the dividends and have a little extra capital growth this way.",
"qid": 10122,
"docid": "104254",
"rank": 64,
"score": 128302
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You are correct that over a short term there is no guarantee that one index will out perform another index. Every index goes through periods of feat and famine. That uis why the advice is to diversify your investments. Every index does have some small amount of management. For the parent index (the S&P 500 in this case) there is a process to divide all 500 stocks into growth and value, pure growth and pure value. This rebalancing of the 500 stocks occurs once a year. Rebalancing The S&P Style indices are rebalanced once a year in December. The December rebalancing helps set the broad universe and benchmark for active managers on an annual cycle consistent with active manager performance evaluation cycles. The rebalancing date is the third Friday of December, which coincides with the December quarterly share changes for the S&P Composite 1500. Style Scores, market-capitalization weights, growth and value midpoint averages, and the Pure Weight Factors (PWFs), where applicable across the various Style indices, are reset only once a year at the December rebalancing. Other changes to the U.S. Style indices are made on an as-needed basis, following the guidelines of the parent index. Changes in response to corporate actions and market developments can be made at any time. Constituent changes are typically announced for the parent index two-to-five days before they are scheduled to be implemented. Please refer to the S&P U.S. Indices Methodology document for information on standard index maintenance for the S&P 500, the S&P MidCap 400,the S&P SmallCap 600 and all related indices. As to which is better: 500, growth,value or growth and value? That depends on what you the investor is trying to do.",
"qid": 10122,
"docid": "178875",
"rank": 65,
"score": 128281
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You're missing the concept of systemic risk, which is the risk of the entire market or an entire asset class. Diversification is about achieving a balance between risk and return that's appropriate for you. Your investment in Vanguard's fund, although diversified between many public companies, is still restricted to one asset class in one country. Yes, you lower your risk by investing in all of these companies, but you don't erase it entirely. Clearly, there is still risk, despite your diversification. You may decide that you want other investments or a different asset allocation that reduce the overall risk of your portfolio. Over the long run, you may earn a high level of return, but never forget that there is still risk involved. bonds seem pretty worthless, at least until I retire According to your profile, you're about my age. Our cohort will probably begin retiring sometime around 2050 or later, and no one knows what the bond market will look like over the next 40 years. We may have forecasts for the next few years, but not for almost four decades. Writing off an entire asset class for almost four decades doesn't seem like a good idea. Also, bonds are like equity, and all other asset classes, in that there are different levels of risk within the asset class too. When calculating the overall risk/return profile of my portfolio, I certainly don't consider Treasuries as the same risk level as corporate bonds or high-yield (or junk) bonds from abroad. Depending on your risk preferences, you may find that an asset allocation that includes US and/or international bonds/fixed-income, international equities, real-estate, and cash (to make rebalancing your asset allocation easier) reduces your risk to levels you're willing to tolerate, while still allowing you to achieve returns during periods where one asset class, e.g. equities, is losing value or performing below your expectations.",
"qid": 10122,
"docid": "186575",
"rank": 66,
"score": 128022
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The easiest way to deal with risks for individual stocks is to diversify. I do most of my investing in broad market index funds, particularly the S&P 500. I don't generally hold individual stocks long, but I do buy options when I think there are price moves that aren't supported by the fundamentals of a stock. All of this riskier short-term investing is done in my Roth IRA, because I want to maximize the profits in the account that won't ever be taxed. I wouldn't want a particularly fruitful investing year to bite me with short term capital gains on my income tax. I usually beat the market in that account, but not by much. It would be pretty easy to wipe out those gains on a particularly bad year if I was investing in the actual stocks and not just using options. Many people who deal in individual stocks hedge with put options, but this is only cost effective at strike prices that represent losses of 20% or more and it eats away the gains. Other people or try to add to their gains by selling covered call options figuring that they're happy to sell with a large upward move, but if that upward move doesn't happen you still get the gains from the options you've sold.",
"qid": 10122,
"docid": "257835",
"rank": 67,
"score": 127791
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"There are some good answers about the benefits of diversification, but I'm going to go into what is going on mathematically with what you are attempting. I was always under the assumption that as long as two securities are less than perfectly correlated (i.e. 1), that the standard deviation/risk would be less than if I had put 100% into either of the securities. While there does exist a minimum variance portfolio that is a combination of the two with lower vol than 100% of either individually, this portfolio is not necessarily the portfolio with highest utility under your metric. Your metric includes returns not just volatility/variance so the different returns bias the result away from the min-vol portfolio. Using the utility function: E[x] - .5*A*sig^2 results in the highest utility of 100% VTSAX. So here the Sharpe ratio (risk adjusted return) of the U.S. portfolio is so much higher than the international portfolio over the period tracked that the loss of returns from adding more international stocks outweigh the lower risk that you would get from both just adding the lower vol international stocks and the diversification effects from having a correlation less than one. The key point in the above is \"\"over the period tracked\"\". When you do this type of analysis you implicitly assume that the returns/risk observed in the past will be similar to the returns/risk in the future. Certainly, if you had invested 100% in the U.S. recently you would have done better than investing in a mix of US/Intl. However, while the risk and correlations of assets can be (somewhat) stable over time relative returns can vary wildly! This uncertainty of future returns is why most people use a diversified portfolio of assets. What is the exact right amount is a very hard question though.\"",
"qid": 10122,
"docid": "344783",
"rank": 68,
"score": 127287
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You may want to have a look at DiversifyPortfolio which will give you the info you want plus quite a bit more. They offer various tools all related to stock correlation and diversification. You'll be able to create heatmaps and various other charts showing stock correlations. It also has several scans which allow you to search for stocks that meet your requirements in terms of correlation to existing positions in your portfolio or to specific stocks / ETF's.",
"qid": 10122,
"docid": "74659",
"rank": 69,
"score": 127134
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you're referring to investment hedging, then you should diversify into things that would profit if expected event hit. For example alternative energy sources would benefit greatly from increased evidence of global warming, or the onset of peak oil. Preparing for calamities that would render the stock market inaccessible, the answer is quite different. Simply own more of things that people would want than you need. A list of possibilities would include: Precious metals are also a way to secure value outside the financial markets, but would not be readily sellable until the immediate calamity had passed. All this should be balanced on an honest evaluation of the risks, including the risk of nothing happening. I've heard of people not saving for retirement because they don't expect the financial markets to be available then, but that's not a risk I'm willing to take.",
"qid": 10122,
"docid": "436091",
"rank": 70,
"score": 126397
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Beatrice does a good job of summarizing things. Tracking the index yourself is expensive (transaction costs) and tedious (number of transactions, keeping up with the changes, etc.) One of the points of using an index fund is to reduce your workload. Diversification is another point, though that depends on the indexes that you decide to use. That said, even with a relatively narrow index you diversify in that segment of the market. A point I'd like to add is that the management which occurs for an index fund is not exactly \"\"active.\"\" The decisions on which stocks to select are already made by the maintainers of the index. Thus, the only management that has to occur involves the trades required to mimic the index.\"",
"qid": 10122,
"docid": "379213",
"rank": 71,
"score": 126188
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"If you're asking this question, you probably aren't ready to be buying individual stock shares, and may not be ready to be investing in the market at all. Short-term in the stock market is GAMBLING, pure and simple, and gambling against professionals at that. You can reduce your risk if you spend the amount of time and effort the pros do on it, but if you aren't ready to accept losses you shouldn't be playing and if you aren't willing to bet it all on a single throw of the dice you should diversify and accept lower potential gain in exchange for lower risk. (Standard advice: Index funds.) The way an investor, as opposed to a gambler, deals with a stock price dropping -- or surging upward, or not doing anything! -- is to say \"\"That's interesting. Given where it is NOW, do I expect it to go up or down from here, and do I think I have someplace to put the money that will do better?\"\" If you believe the stock will gain value from here, holding it may make more sense than taking your losses. Specific example: the mortgage-crisis market crash of a few years ago. People who sold because stock prices were dropping and they were scared -- or whose finances forced them to sell during the down period -- were hurt badly. Those of us who were invested for the long term and could afford to leave the money in the market -- or who were brave/contrarian enough to see it as an opportunity to buy at a better price -- came out relatively unscathed; all I have \"\"lost\"\" was two years of growth. So: You made your bet. Now you have to decide: Do you really want to \"\"buy high, sell low\"\" and take the loss as a learning experience, or do you want to wait and see whether you can sell not-so-low. If you don't know enough about the company to make a fairly rational decision on that front, you probably shouldn't have bought its stock.\"",
"qid": 10122,
"docid": "138096",
"rank": 72,
"score": 126126
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The software you provided as an example won't teach you much about investing. The most important things of investing are: These are the only free lunches in investing. Allocation tells you how much expected return (and also how much risk) your portfolio has. Diversification is the only way to reduce risk without reducing return; however, just note that there is market risk that cannot be eliminated with diversification. Every penny you save on costs and taxes is important, as it's guaranteed return. If you were to develop e.g. software that calculates the expected return of a portfolio when given allocation as an input, it could teach you something about investing. Similarly, software that calculates the average costs of your mutual fund portfolio would teach you something about investing. But sadly, these kinds of software are uncommon.",
"qid": 10122,
"docid": "436437",
"rank": 73,
"score": 125989
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I think the real answer to your question here is diversification. You have some fear of having your money in the market, and rightfully so, having all your money in one stock, or even one type of mutual fund is risky as all get out, and you could lose a lot of your money in such a stock-market based undiversified investment. However, the same logic works in your rental property. If you lose your tennant, and are unable to find a new one right away, or if you have some very rare problem that insurance doesn't cover, your property could become very much not a \"\"break even\"\" investment very quickly. In reality, there isn't any single investment you can make that has no risk. Your assets need to be balanced between many different market-investments, that includes bonds, US stocks, European stocks, cash, etc. Also investing in mutual funds instead of individual stocks greatly reduces your risk. Another thing to consider is the benefits of paying down debt. While investments have a risk of not performing, if you pay off a loan with interest payments, you definitely will save the money you would have paid in interest. To be specific, I'd recommend the following plan -\"",
"qid": 10122,
"docid": "371392",
"rank": 74,
"score": 125701
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Yes, it is unreasonable and unsustainable. We all want returns in excess of 15% but even the best and richest investors do not sustain those kinds of returns. You should not invest more than a fraction of your net worth in individual stocks in any case. You should diversify using index funds or ETFs.",
"qid": 10122,
"docid": "318140",
"rank": 75,
"score": 125584
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Diversify, diversify, diversify. Gold, USD, Swiss Franc and one thing that hasn't really been mentioned yet: equities. Yes, they may go down if the recession gets worse but at the end of the day you have a claim to a company. That's a physical asset. It's also a hedge against inflation/devaluation just like foreign currencies and precious metals. Make sure that you invest in companies that actually produce something that will always be needed though. I.e. Siemens, Novartis, Caterpillar etc. NOT the Zyngas and Facebooks of the world!",
"qid": 10122,
"docid": "595349",
"rank": 76,
"score": 125509
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"An investment portfolio is typically divided into three components: All three of those can be accessed through mutual funds or ETFs. A 401(k) will probably have a small set of mutual funds for you to pick from. Mutual funds may charge you silly expenses if you pick a bad one. Look at the prospectus for the expense ratio. If it's over 1% you're definitely paying too much. If it's over 0.5% you're probably paying too much. If it's less than 0.1% you have a really good deal. US stocks are generally the core holding until you move into retirement (or get close to spending the money on something else if it's not invested for retirement). International stocks are riskier than US stocks, but provide opportunity for diversification and better returns than the US stocks. Bonds, or fixed-income investments, are generally very safe, but have limited opportunities for returns. They tend to do better when stocks are doing poorly. When you've got a while to invest, you should be looking at riskier investments; when you don't, you should be looking for safer investments. A quick (and rough) rule of thumb is that \"\"your age should match the portion of your portfolio in bonds\"\". So if you're 50 years old and approaching retirement in 15 years or so, you should have about 50% in bonds. Roughly. People whose employment and future income is particularly tied to one sector of the market would also do well to avoid investing there, because they already are at risk if it performs badly. For instance, if you work in the technology sector, loading up on tech stocks is extra risky: if there's a big bust, you're not just out of a job, your portfolio is dead as well. More exotic options are available to diversify a portfolio: While many portfolios could benefit from these sorts of holdings, they come with their own advantages and disadvantages and should be researched carefully before taking a significant stake in them.\"",
"qid": 10122,
"docid": "246253",
"rank": 77,
"score": 125101
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: First, what Daniel Carson said. Second, if you're getting started, just make sure you are well diversified. Lots of growth stocks turn into dividend stocks over time-- Microsoft and Apple are the classic examples in this era. Someday, Google will pay a dividend too. If you're investing for the long haul, diversify and watch your taxes, and you'll make out better than nearly everyone else.",
"qid": 10122,
"docid": "404949",
"rank": 78,
"score": 125089
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"There are several reasons. One, mutual funds provide instant diversification. To build a diverse portfolio \"\"manually\"\" (by buying individual shares) requires a lot of time and effort. If your portfolio is not diverse, then it is wrong to say \"\"buying shares gives higher return\"\"; in many cases diversification will increase your returns. Two, mutual funds reduce transactions costs. If you buy individual shares, you pay transactions costs every time you buy or sell. If you buy and sell the shares of many companies, you must perform many transactions and thus incur heavy fees. With mutual funds, a single transaction gets you access to many companies. In addition, it is often possible to buy mutual funds without paying transactions costs at all (although you will still pay fund expenses). Three (sort of a combination of the previous two) it is just easier. Many people can easily buy mutual funds with no cost and little effort through their bank. It is also simple to set up auto-investment plans so that you automatically save money over time. All of these things are much more complicated if you try to buy many individual shares. Four, if you buy the right kinds of funds (low-cost index funds), it is probably more lucrative than buying individual shares. The odds that, through carefully selected stock-buying, you will earn more than the market average are small. Even professional stock-pickers consistently underperform broad market indexes. In short, it is not true that \"\"buying shares gives higher return\"\", and even if it were, the convenience and diversification of mutual funds would still be good reasons to use them.\"",
"qid": 10122,
"docid": "170863",
"rank": 79,
"score": 124557
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"When you invest in a single index/security, you are completely exposed to the risk of that security. Diversification means spreading the investments so the losses on one side can be compensated by the gains on the other side. What you are talking about is one thing called \"\"risk apettite\"\", more formally known as Risk Tolerance: Risk tolerance is the degree of variability in investment returns that an investor is willing to withstand. (emphasis added) This means that you are willing to accept some losses in order to get a potential bigger return. Fidelity has this graph: As you can see in the table above, the higher the risk tolerance, the bigger the difference between the best and worst values. That is the variability. The right-most pie can be one example of an agressive diversified portfolio. But this does not mean you should go and buy exactly that security compostion. High-risk means playing with fire. Unless you are a professional stuntman, playing with fire usually leaves people burnt. In a financial context this usually means the money is gone. Recommended Reading: Investopedia; Risk and Diversification: The Risk-Reward Tradeoff Investopedia; How to construct a High Risk portfolio Fidelity: Guide to Diversification KPMG: Understanding and articulating Risk Appetite (pdf)\"",
"qid": 10122,
"docid": "134542",
"rank": 80,
"score": 123964
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I'd recommend investing in a mutual fund that diversifies your purchase across a number of stocks (and bonds, depending on the fund). Vanguard has some of the lowest fees around, and have a large number of funds to choose from. Take a look at their offerings for a data point if nothing else.",
"qid": 10122,
"docid": "511664",
"rank": 81,
"score": 123925
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"First, let me say that $1000 is not that much of amount to invest in stocks. You need to remember that each transaction (buy/sell) has fees, which vary between $4-$40 (depending on the broker, you mentioned Scottrade - they charge $7 per transaction for stocks and about twice as much for some mutual funds). Consider this: you invest $1000, you gain $100. You'll pay $15 in fees just to buy/sell, that's 1.5% expense ratio. If you invest in more than 1 stock - multiply your fees. To avoid that you can look into mutual funds. Different brokers offer different funds for free, and almost all of them carry many of the rest for a fee. When looking into funds, you can find their expense ratio and compare. Remember that a fund with 1% expense ratio diversifies and invests in many stocks, while for you 1.5% expense ratio is for investing in a single stock. Is it a good idea to invest only in US or diversify worldwide? You can invest in the US, but in funds that diversify worldwide or across industries. Generally it is a good idea to diversify. I am 28. Should I be a conservative investor or take some risks? Depends on how bad of a shape will you be if you lose all your principle. What online brokerage service is the best? I have heard a lot about Scotttrade but want to be sure before I start. It seems to be the least expensive and most user-friendly to me. \"\"Best\"\" is a problematic term. Scottrade is OK, E*Trade is OK, you can try Sharebuilder, Ameritrade, there are several \"\"discount\"\" online brokers and plenty of on-line reviews and comparisons amongst them. What is a margin account and how would it affect my investing? From what I understand it comes into play when an investor borrows money from the broker. Do I need to use it at all as I won't be investing on a big scale yet. You understand right. There are rules to use margin accounts, and with the amount you have I'd advise against them even if you get approved. Read through the brokers' FAQ's on their requirement. Should I keep adding money on a monthly basis to my brokerage account to give me more money to invest or keep it at a certain amount for an extended period of time? Sharebuilder has a mechanism to purchase monthly at discounted prices. But be careful, they give you discounted prices to buy, but not to sell. You may end up with a lot of positions, and the discounts you've gotten to buy will cause you spend much more on selling. Generally, averaging (investing monthly) is a good way to save and mitigate some risks, but the risks are still there. This is good only for long term savings. How should my breakdown my investments in terms of bonds vs stocks? Depends on your vulnerability and risk thresholds.\"",
"qid": 10122,
"docid": "513281",
"rank": 82,
"score": 123903
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I think you need to be very careful here. Covered calls don't reduce risk or increase performance overall. If they did, every investment manager would be using them. In a typical portfolio, over the long term, the gains you give up when your stock goes beyond the strike of your calls will negate the premiums you receive over time. Psychologically, covered calls are appealing because your gains happen over a long period and this is why many people suggest it. But if you believe the Black-Scholes model (used for pricing options) this is what the model predicts over the long term - that you won't do any better than just holding stock (unless you have some edge other traders don't). Now you say you want to reduce diversification and raise your risk. Keeping in mind that there is no free lunch, there are several ways to reduce your risk but they all come at a price. For simplicity, there are three elements to consider - risk, potential gain and cash. These are tradeoffs and you can't simultaneously make them all favorable. You must trade one or more of them to gain in the others. Let's say you wanted to concentrate into a few stocks... how could you counteract the additional risk? 1) Covered calls: very popular strategy usually intended (erroneously) for increasing returns. You get the bonus of cash along with marginally less risk. But you give up a substantial amount of potential return. You won't have blowout returns if you do this. You still face substantial risk. 2) Collar your stock: You sell a covered call while using the cash from the sale to buy puts for protection. You give up potential gains, you're neutral on cash but gain significantly on reducing risk. 3) Use calls as proxy for stock: You don't hold stock but only calls in equivalent delta to the stock you would have held. Substantially lower risk while still having potential gain. Your tradeoff is the cash you have to pay for the calls. When using this, one must be very, very careful not to overleverage. 4) Puts as protection for stocks: This is basically the same as #3 in tradeoffs. You won't overleverage and you also get dividends. But for the most part it's the same. These are the main ways to reduce the risk you gain by concentrating. Options themselves are far broader. But keep in mind that there is no free money. All these techniques involve tradeoffs that you have to be aware of.",
"qid": 10122,
"docid": "213366",
"rank": 83,
"score": 123417
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: That is absolute rubbish. Warren Buffet follows simple value and GARP tenants that literally anyone could follow if they had the discipline to do so. I have never once heard of an investment made by Warren Buffet that wasn't rooted in fundamentals and easy to understand. The concept is fairly simple as is the math, buying great companies trading at discounts to what they are worth due to market fluctuations, emotionality, or overreactions to key sectors etc. If I buy ABC corp at $10 knowing it is worth $20, it could go down or trade sideways for FIVE YEARS doing seemingly nothing and then one day catch up with its worth due to any number of factors. In that case, my 100% return which took five years to actualize accounts for an average 20% return per year. Also (and this should be obvious), but diversification is a double edged sword. Every year, hundreds of stocks individually beat the market return. Owning any one of these stocks as your only holding would mean that YOU beat the market. As you buy more stocks and diversify your return will get closer and closer to that of an index or mutual fund. My advice is to stick to fundamentals like value and GARP investing, learn to separate when the market is being silly from when it is responding to a genuine concern, do your own homework and analysis on the stocks you buy, BE PATIENT after buying stock that your analysis gives you confidence in, and don't over diversify. If you do these things, congrats. YOU ARE Warren Buffet.",
"qid": 10122,
"docid": "145140",
"rank": 84,
"score": 123397
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Of course. \"\"Best\"\" is a subjective term. However relying on the resources of the larger institutions by pooling with them will definitely reduce your own burden with regards to the research and keeping track. So yes, investing in mutual funds and ETFs is a very sound strategy. It would be better to diversify, and not to invest all your money in one fund, or in one industry/area. That said, there are more than enough individuals who do their own research and stock picking and invest, with various degrees of success, in individual securities. Some also employe more advanced strategies such as leveraging, options, futures, margins, etc. These advance strategies come at a greater risk, but may bring a greater rewards as well. So the answer to the question in the subject line is YES. For all the rest - there's no one right or wrong answer, it depends greatly on your abilities, time, risk tolerance, cash available to invest, etc etc.\"",
"qid": 10122,
"docid": "193463",
"rank": 85,
"score": 123144
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The biggest issue is your lack of diversification. Your real estate investments have performed quite well so far, but you have also likely enjoyed a period of unprecedented growth that is not sustainable. In the long term, stocks have always outperformed real estate investments, which tend to track more closely to the inflation rate. You need more balance for when when the real estate market cools off. You don't mention tax-deferred retirement savings accounts. You should prioritize your attention to these to keep your income tax low. Consider selling one of your investment properties if you can't adequately fund the 401k.",
"qid": 10122,
"docid": "510676",
"rank": 86,
"score": 122956
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Since then I had gotten a job at a supermarket stocking shelves, but recently got fired because I kept zoning out at work This is not a good sign for day trading, where you spend all day monitoring investments. If you start focusing on the interesting math problem and ignoring your portfolio, you can easily lose money. Not so big a problem for missed buy opportunities, but this could be fatal for missed sale opportunities. Realize that in day trading, if you miss the uptick, you can get caught in a stock that is now going down. And I agree with those who say that you aren't capitalized well enough to get started. You need significantly more capital so that you can buy a diversified portfolio (diversification is your limitation, not hedging). Let's say that you make money on two out of three stocks on average. What are the chances that you will lose money on three stocks in a row? One in twenty-seven. What if that happens on your first three stocks? What if your odds at starting are really one in three to make money? Then you'll lose money more than half the time on each of your first three stocks. The odds don't favor you. If you really think that finance would interest you, consider signing up for an internship at an investment management firm or hedge fund. Rather than being the person who monitors stocks for changes, you would be the person doing mathematical analysis on stock information. Focusing on the math problem over other things is then what you are supposed to be doing. If you are good at that, you should be able to turn that into a permanent job. If not, then go back to school somewhere. You may not like your schooling options, but they may be better than your work options at this time. Note that most internships will be easier to get if you imply that you are only taking a break from schooling. Avoid outright lying, but saying things like needing to find the right fit should work. You may even want to start applying to schools now. Then you can truthfully say that you are involved in the application process. Be open about your interest in the mathematics of finance. Serious math minds can be difficult to find at those firms. Given your finances, it is not practical to become a day trader. If you want proof, pick a stock that is less than $100. Found it? Write down its current price and the date and time. You just bought that stock. Now sell it for a profit. Ignore historical data. Just monitor the current price. Missed the uptick? Too bad. That's reality. Once you've sold it, pick another stock that you can afford. Don't forget to mark your price down for the trading commission. A quick search suggests that $7 a trade is a cheap price. Realize that you make two trades on each stock (buy and sell), so that's $14 that you need to make on every stock. Keep doing that until you've run out of money. Realize that that is what you are proposing to do. If you can make enough money doing that to replace a minimum wage job, then we're all wrong. Borrow a $100 from your mom and go to town. But as others have said, it is far more realistic to do this with a starting stake of $100,000 where you can invest in multiple stocks at once and spread your $7 trading fee over a hundred shares. Starting with $100, you are more likely to run out of money within ten stocks.",
"qid": 10122,
"docid": "421987",
"rank": 87,
"score": 122920
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: That's a broad question, but I can throw some thoughts at you from personal experience. I'm actually an Australian who has worked in a couple of companies but across multiple countries and I've found out first hand that you have a wealth of opportunities that other people don't have, but you also have a lot of problems that other people won't have. First up, asset classes. Real estate is a popular asset class, but unless you plan on being in each of these countries for a minimum of one to two years, it would be seriously risky to invest in rental residential or commercial real estate. This is because it takes a long time to figure out each country's particular set of laws around real estate, plus it will take a long time to get credit from the local bank institutions and to understand the local markets well enough to select a good location. This leaves you with the classics of stocks and bonds. You can buy stocks and bonds in any country typically. So you could have some stocks in a German company, a bond fund in France and maybe a mutual fund in Japan. This makes for interesting diversification, so if one country tanks, you can potentially be hedged in another. You also get to both benefit and be punished by foreign exchange movements. You might have made a killing on that stock you bought in Tokyo, but it turns out the Yen just fell by 15%. Doh. And to top this off, you are almost certainly going to end up filling out tax returns in each country you have made money in. This can get horribly complicated, very quickly. As a person who has been dealing with the US tax system, I can tell you that this is painful and the US in particular tries to get a cut of your worldwide income. That said, keep in mind each country has different tax rates, so you could potentially benefit from that as well. My advice? Choose one country you suspect you'll spend most of your life in and keep most of your assets there. Make a few purchases in other places, but minimize it. Ultimately most ex-pats move back to their country of origin as friends, family and shared culture bring them home.",
"qid": 10122,
"docid": "307173",
"rank": 88,
"score": 122486
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: For what it's worth -- and I realize this isn't directly an answer to the question -- one of the advantages of sticking with mutual funds, beyond their being inherently diversified, is that it removes a lot of the temptation to try to time the market. When you need money, you sell shares in such a way that it maintains your preferred investment ratio, and simply don't worry about which stocks are actually involved. (I've gotten 15% APR this year across all my investments, for absolutely minimal effort. That's quite good enough for me.)",
"qid": 10122,
"docid": "90294",
"rank": 89,
"score": 122327
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Only if you sell the stock in question, and use the proceeds to buy other stock. (You should probably never feel bad about selling your company stock, even if it goes up a lot later, because from a risk-exposure basis you are already exposed to your company's performance through your career. Unless you have a lot of other savings, you should diversify.)",
"qid": 10122,
"docid": "40831",
"rank": 90,
"score": 122112
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Some financial planners would not advise one way or the other on a specific stock without knowing your investment strategy... if you didn't have one, their goal would be to help you develop one and introduce you to a portfolio management framework like Asset Allocation. Is a two of clubs a good card? Well, that all depends on what is in your hand (diversification) and what game you are playing(investing strategy). One possibility to reduce your basis over time if you would like to hold the stock is to sell calls against it, known as a 'covered-call'. It can be an intermediate-term (30-60+ months depending on option pricing) trading strategy that may require you to upgrade your brokerage account to allow option trades. Personally I like this strategy because it makes me feel proactive about my portfolio rather than sitting on the side lines and watching stocks move.",
"qid": 10122,
"docid": "71292",
"rank": 91,
"score": 122055
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Consistently beating the market by picking stocks is hard. Professional fund managers can't really do it -- and they get paid big bucks to try! You can spend a lot of time researching and picking stocks, and you may find that you do a decent job. I found that, given the amount of money I had invested, even if I beat the market by a couple of points, I could earn more money by picking up some moonlighting gigs instead of spending all that time researching stocks. And I knew the odds were against me beating the market very often. Different people will tell you that they have a sure-fire strategy that gets returns. The thing I wonder is: why are you selling the information to me rather than simply making money by executing on your strategy? If they're promising to beat the market by selling you their strategy, they've probably figured out that they're better off selling subscriptions than putting their own capital on the line. I've found that it is easier to follow an asset allocation strategy. I have a target allocation that gives me fairly broad diversification. Nearly all of it is in ETFs. I rebalance a couple times a year if something is too far off the target. I check my portfolio when I get my quarterly statements. Lastly, I have to echo JohnFx's statement about keeping some of your portfolio in cash. I was almost fully invested going into early 2001 and wished I had more cash to invest when everything tanked -- lesson learned. In early 2003 when the DJIA dropped to around 8000 and everybody I talked to was saying how they had sold off chunks of their 401k in a panic and were staying out of stocks, I was able to push some of my uninvested cash into the market and gained ~25% in about a year. I try to avoid market timing, but when there's obvious panic or euphoria I might under- or over-allocate my cash position, respectively.",
"qid": 10122,
"docid": "469519",
"rank": 92,
"score": 122048
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I separate them out, simply because they're for different purposes, with different goals and time-frames, and combining them may mask hidden problems in either the retirement account or the regular account. Consider an example: A young investor has been working on their retirement planning for a few years now, and has a modest amount of retirement savings (say $15,000) allocated carefully according to one of the usually recommended schemes. A majority exposure to large cap U.S. stocks, with smaller exposures to small cap, international and bond markets. Years before however, they mad an essentially emotional investment in a struggling manufacturer of niche personal computers, which then enjoyed something of a renaissance and a staggering growth in shareholder value. Lets say their current holdings in this company now represent $50,000. Combining them, their portfolio is dominated by large cap U.S. equities to such an extent that the only way to rebalance their portfolio is to pour money into bonds and the international market for years on end. This utterly changes the risk profile of their retirement account. At the same time, if we switch the account balances, the investor might be reassured that their asset allocation is fine and diversified, even though the assets they have access to before retirement are entirely in a single risky stock. In neither case is the investor well served by combining their funds when figuring out their allocation - especially as the \"\"goal\"\" allocations may very well be different.\"",
"qid": 10122,
"docid": "294855",
"rank": 93,
"score": 122028
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Cost. If an investor wanted to diversify his portfolio by investing in the companies that make up the S&P 500, the per-share and commission costs to individually place trades for each and every one of those companies would be prohibitive. I can buy one share of an exchange-traded fund that tracks the S&P 500 for less than the purchase price of a single share in some of the companies that make up the index.",
"qid": 10122,
"docid": "362579",
"rank": 94,
"score": 121987
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: They are using several banks, hedge funds or other financial institutions, in order to diversify the risk inherent to the fact that the firm holding (a fraction of) their cash, can be insolvent which would makes them incur a really big loss. Also, the most available form of cash is very often reinvested everyday in overnight*products and any other highly liquid products, so that it can be available quickly if needed. Since they are aware that they are not likely to need all of their cash in one day, they also use longer terms or less liquid investments (bonds, stocks, etc..).",
"qid": 10122,
"docid": "170147",
"rank": 95,
"score": 121852
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The other example I'd offer is the case for diversification. If one buys 10 well chosen stocks, i.e. stocks spread across different industries so their correlation to one another is low, they will have lower risk than each of the 10 folk who own one of those stocks per person. Same stocks, but lower risk when combined.",
"qid": 10122,
"docid": "218728",
"rank": 96,
"score": 121774
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Dollar cost averaging is an great way to diversify your investment risk. There's mainly 2 things you want to achieve when you're saving for retirement: 1) Keep your principal investment; 2) Grow it. The best methods recommended by most financial institutions are as follows: 1) Diversification; 2) Re-balance. There are a lot of additional recommendations, but these are my main take away. When you dollar cost average, you're essentially diversifying your exchange risk between the value of the funds you're investing. Including the ups and downs of the value of the underlying asset, may actually be re-balancing. Picking your asset portfolio: 1) You generally want to include within your 401k or any other invest, classes of investments that do not always move in total correlation as this allows you to diversify risk; 2) I'm making a lot of assumptions here - since you may have already picked your asset classes. Consider utilizing the following to tell you when to buy or sell your underlying investment: 1) Google re-balance excel sheet to find several examples of re-balance tools to help you always buy low and sell high; 2) Enter your portfolio investment; 3) Utilize the movement to invest in the underlying assets based on market movement; and 4) Execute in an emotionless way and stick to your plan. Example - Facts 1) I have 1 CAD and 1 USD in my 401k. Plan I will invest 1 dollar in the ratio of 50/50 - forever. Let's start in 2011 since we were closer to par: 2010 - 1 CAD (value 1 USD) and 1 USD (value 1 USD) = 50/50 ratio 2011 start - 1 CAD ( value .8 USD) and 1 USD (value 1 USD) = 40/60 ratio 2011 - rebalance - invest 1 USD as follows purchase .75 CAD (.60 USD) and purchase .40 USD = total of 1 USD reinvested 2011 end - 1.75 CAD (value 1.4USD) and 1.4 USD (value 1.4 USD) - 50/50 ratio As long as the fundamentals of your underlying assets (i.e. you're not expecting hyperinflation or your asset to approach 0), this approach will always build value over time since you're always buying low and selling high while dollar averaging. Keep in mind it does reduce your potential gains - but if you're looking to max gain, it may mean you're also max potential loss - unless you're able to find A symmetrical investments. I hope this helps.",
"qid": 10122,
"docid": "18436",
"rank": 97,
"score": 121601
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Yes, a diversified portfolio can generate greater returns than the S&P 500 by going OUTSIDE it. For instance, small stocks (on average) generate higher returns than the \"\"large caps\"\" found in the S&P 500. So if you own a diversified portfolio of stocks, some of which are smaller (in market cap) than the typical S&P 500 stock, you have a chance to outperform. You might also outperform by owning other asset classes than stocks such as gold, real estate, and timber (among others) at appropriate times. (You may also be able to get the relevant exposure by owning gold and timber stocks and REITS.) This was a lesson that David Swensen of the Yale endowment taught us.\"",
"qid": 10122,
"docid": "146637",
"rank": 98,
"score": 121354
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"A diversified portfolio (such as a 60% stocks / 40% bonds balanced fund) is much more predictable and reliable than an all-stocks portfolio, and the returns are perfectly adequate. The extra returns on 100% stocks vs. 60% are 1.2% per year (historically) according to https://personal.vanguard.com/us/insights/saving-investing/model-portfolio-allocations To get those average higher stock returns, you need to be thinking 20-30 years (even 10 years is too short-term). Over the 20-30 years, you must never panic and go to cash, or you will destroy the higher returns. You must never get discouraged and stop saving, or you will destroy the higher returns. You have to avoid the panic and discouragement despite the likelihood that some 10-year period in your 20-30 years the stock market will go nowhere. You also must never have an emergency or other reason to withdraw money early. If you look at \"\"dry periods\"\" in stocks, like 2000 to 2011, a 60/40 portfolio made significant money and stocks went nowhere. A diversified portfolio means that price volatility makes you money (due to rebalancing) while a 100% stocks portfolio means that price volatility is just a lot of stress with no benefit. It's somewhat possible, probably, to predict dry periods in stocks; if I remember the statistics, about 50% of the variability in the market price 10 years out can be explained by normalized market valuation (normalized = adjusted for business cycle and abnormal profit margins). Some funds such as http://hussmanfunds.com/ are completely based on this, though a lot of money managers consider it. With a balanced portfolio and rebalancing, though, you don't have to worry about it very much. In my view, the proper goal is not to beat the market, nor match the market, nor is it to earn the absolute highest possible returns. Instead, the goal is to have the highest chance of financing your non-financial goals (such as retirement, or buying a house). To maximize your chances of supporting your life goals with your financial decisions, predictability is more important than maximized returns. Your results are primarily determined by your savings rate - which realistic investment returns will never compensate for if it's too low. You can certainly make a 40-year projection in which 1.2% difference in returns makes a big difference. But you have to remember that a projection in which value steadily and predictably compounds is not the same as real life, where you could have emergency or emotional factors, where the market will move erratically and might have a big plunge at just the wrong time (end of the 40 years), and so on. If your plan \"\"relies\"\" on the extra 1.2% returns then it's not a reasonable plan anyhow, in my opinion, since you can't count on them. So why suffer the stress and extra risk created by an all-stocks portfolio?\"",
"qid": 10122,
"docid": "593879",
"rank": 99,
"score": 121300
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Look. Here's a graph of the S&P 500. It's up 1200% since the start of the 70's, our late recession notwithstanding. You're not going to get that kind of return on bonds or commodities or savings accounts. (Maybe real estate stands a chance, if your real estate wasn't in, say, Detroit. It's not as easy to diversify real estate...) People in their 20's who have plenty of time before they need to spend their retirement money invest in the stock market exactly because they're long-term and can withstand these dips just by waiting them out, and earn a ton of money. People approaching their 60's transition their portfolio to bonds so that a market crash won't wipe them out.",
"qid": 10122,
"docid": "133380",
"rank": 100,
"score": 121224
}
] |
How to minimise the risk of a reduction in purchase power in case of Brexit for money held in a bank account? | [
{
"content": "Title: Content: By your logic, if a loan of £100 is new money dilutes your purchasing power, then the repayment of £110 is a reduction of the money supply that increases your purchasing power. Indeed, ultimately the increase in purchasing power upon repayment is greater than the initial reduction, so you are 'better off' every time a loan is made and successfully repaid. The effect on you is tiny, but the collective benefit you get from all the loans being repaid with interest is more or less equivalent to the purchasing power reduction of the loans that are never repaid. Therefore you do not lose out and are indeed compensated (in a tiny way) for the tiny risk you incurred. The bank incurs a substantial risk and is thus compensated in a substantial way.",
"qid": 10136,
"docid": "51337",
"rank": 1,
"score": 106283
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Having savings only in your home currency is relatively 'low risk' compared with other types of 'low diversification'. This is because, in a simple case, your future cash outflows will be in your home currency, so if the GBP fluctuates in value, it will (theoretically) still buy you the same goods at home. In this way, keeping your savings in the same currency as your future expenditures creates a natural hedge against currency fluctuation. This gets complicated for goods imported from other countries, where base price fluctuates based on a foreign currency, or for situations where you expect to incur significant foreign currency expenditures (retirement elsewhere, etc.). In such cases, you no longer have certainty that your future expenditures will be based on the GBP, and saving money in other currencies may make more sense. In many circumstances, 'diversification' of the currency of your savings may actually increase your risk, not decrease it. Be sure you are doing this for a specific reason, with a specific strategy, and not just to generally 'spread your money around'. Even in case of a Brexit, consider: what would you do with a bank account full of USD? If the answer is \"\"Convert it back to GBP when needed (in 6 months, 5 years, 30, etc.), to buy British goods\"\", then I wouldn't call this a way to reduce your risk. Instead, I would call it a type of investment, with its own set of risks associated.\"",
"qid": 10136,
"docid": "466950",
"rank": 2,
"score": 103634
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"With regard to your edit (although I didn't downvote): one way to reduce the security risk is to separate the payment from the ability to drain your account. A considerable part of the security risk is inherent in giving people a number which is directly linked to a bank account where you keep all your money. If you don't want that risk, don't do that. Instead of (or in addition to) trying to reduce the chance of fraud, you can reduce the impact of fraud, even if it occurs, by not paying for things using the details of an account where you have all your money. Trying to protect against fraud while keeping all your money in the account is sort of like carrying around thousands of dollars in cash in your wallet and then worrying about how to defend against robbery. Yes, you can carry a weapon or hire a bodyguard, but it's probably simpler to just not carry that much money in the first place. You already mentioned one solution with your option #1, which is to just keep a small amount of money in a separate account and use that for online payments. Assuming you can easily transfer money in and out of this account via online banking, this effectively is what you say you want in your edit: you log in to your bank online, but rather than \"\"informing it\"\" you're about to make a payment, you just transfer money in. You'll probably have to keep a small amount of money in the account to keep it open, but if this is an important issue for you, that shouldn't be that big a deal. Another solution is a credit card. With a credit card, you simply make the payment online. In the US, if the merchant (or someone else stealing the info) makes fraudulent charges, the credit card company assumes the liability and the consumer suffers only the inconvenience of having to get a new card issued. I don't know what the UK laws are regarding credit vs. debit fraud, but some sites I found seem to suggest that credit cards have fraud protection in the UK as well. This is probably worth looking into if you are concerned about fraud.\"",
"qid": 10136,
"docid": "265453",
"rank": 3,
"score": 97280
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Only you can decide whether it's wise or not given your own personal circumstances. Brexit is certainly a big risk, and noone can really know what will happen yet. The specific worries you mention are certainly valid. Additionally you might find it hard to keep your job or get a new one if the economy turns bad, and in an extreme \"\"no deal\"\" scenario you might find yourself forced to leave - though I think that's very unlikely. House prices could also collapse leaving you in \"\"negative equity\"\". If you're planning on staying in the same location in the UK for a long time, a house tends to be a worthwhile investment, particularly as you always need somewhere to live, so owning it is a \"\"hedge\"\" against prices rising. Even if prices do fall, you do still have somewhere to live. If you're planning on going back to your home country at some point, that reduces the value of owning a house. If you want to reduce your risk, consider getting a mortgage with a long-term fixed rate. There are some available for 10 years, which I'd hope would be enough to get us over most of the Brexit volatility.\"",
"qid": 10136,
"docid": "588608",
"rank": 4,
"score": 96493
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: This depends on a combination of factors: What are you charged (call it margin interest) to hold the position? How does this reduce your buying power and what are the opportunity costs? What are the transaction costs alternative ways to close the position? What are your risks (exposure while legging out) for alternative ways to close? Finally, where is the asset closing relative to the strike? Generally, If asset price is below the put strike then the call expires worthless and you need to exercise the put. If asset is above the call strike then put expires worthless and you'll likely get assigned. Given this framework: If margin interest is eating up your profit faster than you're earning theta (a convenient way to represent the time value) then you have some urgency and you need to exit that position before expiry. I would not exit the stock until the call is covered. Keep minimal risk at all times. If you are limited by the position's impact on your buying power and probable value of available opportunities is greater than the time decay you're earning then once again, you have some urgency about closing instead of unwinding at expiry. Same as above. Cover that call, before you ditch your hedge in the long stock. Playing the tradeoff game of expiration/exercise cost against open market transactions is tough. You need sub-penny commissions on stock (and I would say a lot of leverage) and most importantly you need options charges much lower than IB to make that kind of trading work. IB is the cheapest in the retail brokerage game, but those commissions aren't even close to what the traders are getting who are more than likely on the other side of your options trades.",
"qid": 10136,
"docid": "384221",
"rank": 5,
"score": 90944
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The obvious risk is that you might buy at a time when the market is particularly high. Of course, you won't know that is the case until afterwards. A common way to reduce that risk is dollar cost averaging, where you buy gradually over a period of time.",
"qid": 10136,
"docid": "67022",
"rank": 6,
"score": 89593
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Traditionally, dealers and broker-dealers were in contact with the actual producers of a product or issuers of a security, selling it at the exchange on their behalf. Consumers would traditionally be on the buy side, of course. These days, anyone can enter the market on either side. Even if you don't hold the security or product, you could sell it, and take on the risk of having to stock up on it by the delivery date in exchange for cash or other securities. On the other side, if you can't hold the product or security you could still buy it, taking on the risk of having to dispose of it somehow by delivery in exchange for cash or other securities. In either case you (the sell-side) take on risk and provide products/securities/cash. This is most commonly known as market making. Modern literature coins the terms liquidity taker (buy-side) and liquidity provider (sell-side). Even more accurately, risk management literature would use the terms risk-taker (sell-side) and risk spreader or risk reducer (buy side). This is quite illustrative in modern abstract markets. Take a market that allows for no offsetting or hedging because the product in question is abstract or theoretical, e.g. weather trading, volatility trading, inflation trading, etc. There's always one party trying to eliminate dependence on or correlation to the product (the risk reducer, buy-side) and the counterparty taking on their risk (sell-side).",
"qid": 10136,
"docid": "579244",
"rank": 7,
"score": 89527
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I think your premise is slightly flawed. Every investment can add or reduce risk, depending on how it's used. If your ordering above is intended to represent the probability you will lose your principal, then it's roughly right, with caveats. If you buy a long-term government bond and interest rates increase while you're holding it, its value will decrease on the secondary markets. If you need/want to sell it before maturity, you may not recover your principal, and if you hold it, you will probably be subject to erosion of value due to inflation (inflation and interest rates are correlated). Over the short-term, the stock market can be very volatile, and you can suffer large paper losses. But over the long-term (decades), the stock market has beaten inflation. But this is true in aggregate, so, if you want to decrease equity risk, you need to invest in a very diversified portfolio (index mutual funds) and hold the portfolio for a long time. With a strategy like this, the stock market is not that risky over time. Derivatives, if used for their original purpose, can actually reduce volatility (and therefore risk) by reducing both the upside and downside of your other investments. For example, if you sell covered calls on your equity investments, you get an income stream as long as the underlying equities have a value that stays below the strike price. The cost to you is that you are forced to sell the equity at the strike price if its value increases above that. The person on the other side of that transaction loses the price of the call if the equity price doesn't go up, but gets a benefit if it does. In the commodity markets, Southwest Airlines used derivatives (options to buy at a fixed price in the future) on fuel to hedge against increases in fuel prices for years. This way, they added predictability to their cost structure and were able to beat the competition when fuel prices rose. Even had fuel prices dropped to zero, their exposure was limited to the pre-negotiated price of the fuel, which they'd already planned for. On the other hand, if you start doing things like selling uncovered calls, you expose yourself to potentially infinite losses, since there are no caps on how high the price of a stock can go. So it's not possible to say that derivatives as a class of investment are risky per se, because they can be used to reduce risk. I would take hedge funds, as a class, out of your list. You can't generally invest in those unless you have quite a lot of money, and they use strategies that vary widely, many of which are quite risky.",
"qid": 10136,
"docid": "561997",
"rank": 8,
"score": 88797
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The advice you were given in the other question was don't do it. The math is not the issue. The interest structure is not the issue. But there is a significant chance that you could lose money on the deal. If you invested your money in a NASDAQ heavy position in January 2000, you are still waiting to break even in November of 2013; Invest in almost anything in August 2001 and you will be down for a long time. Invest just before the housing collapse in 2007 and only now returning back to where you were. If you take money on a monthly basis and invest it you will be better off. If want to get the loan; then set up a stream of money into a bank account to make sure that when payments are due you have the cash to do so. When the two years are up you will have cash to repay the loan, and no need to sell the investments. Also if you are a bad judge of investments you won't have a problem repaying the loan. Using a loan to purchase stock reduces your gains and increases your losses. Use the power of Dollar cost averaging by making periodic purchases.",
"qid": 10136,
"docid": "408058",
"rank": 9,
"score": 87583
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Government purchases of mortgages simply transfers the debt burden from households to the sovereign. Taxes pay sovereign debt (65% of whom are homeowners anyway). No debt has been restructured -- it's now paid via taxes instead of monthly mortgage payments -- and those paying include persons who responsibly avoided housing speculation. The U.S. has a debt-to-GDP ratio just shy of the critical point of 90%. Purchasing $10 trillion in mortgage debt (about a year of GDP) would put the U.S. on an inexorable path towards insolvency and inflation. There are all sorts of other risks (loss of a risk-free asset, moral hazard, nationalization of the housing industry, etc.) but this should make the point clear that it's not a good idea. There are only three ways to reduce debt: 1) default, 2) restructure, or 3) lower the real debt burden by de-valuing currency in which the debt is denominated.",
"qid": 10136,
"docid": "44360",
"rank": 10,
"score": 84432
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I would say your decision making is reasonable. You are in the middle of Brexit and nobody knows what that means. Civil society in the United States is very strained at the moment. The one seeming source of stability in Europe, Germany, may end up with a very weakened government. The only country that is probably stable is China and it has weak protections for foreign investors. Law precedes economics, even though economics often ends up dictating the law in the long run. The only thing that may come to mind is doing two things differently. The first is mentally dropping the long-term versus short-term dichotomy and instead think in terms of the types of risks an investment is exposed to, such as currency risk, political risk, liquidity risk and so forth. Maturity risk is just one type of risk. The second is to consider taking some types of risks that are hedged either by put contracts to limit the downside loss, or consider buying longer-dated call contracts using a small percentage of your money. If the underlying price falls, then the call contracts will be a total loss, but if the price increases then you will receive most of the increase (minus the premium). If you are uncomfortable purchasing individual assets directly, then I would say you are probably doing everything that you reasonably can do.",
"qid": 10136,
"docid": "12623",
"rank": 11,
"score": 83350
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Figured it out. Vertical spreads significantly reduce the amount of \"\"buying power\"\" on the account needed vs. buying / selling pure calls / puts. So even though the transaction fees may more double in some instances, it may be worth it in order to operate with pricier underlying instruments. Spreads are also considered \"\"defined risk\"\" trades where both the profit and loss are capped per how the spreads are setup. This is compared to single calls / puts where either the upside or the downside can be unlimited. So for times when the expected move is not as pronounced, a spread may be a better fit depending on environment and other factors.\"",
"qid": 10136,
"docid": "516790",
"rank": 12,
"score": 82830
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You're trying to mitigate the risk of having your investments wiped out by fraud committed by your broker by using margin loans to buy stock secured by other, non-cash assets in your account. The solution that you are proposing does not make any sense at all. You mitigate a very low probability/high impact risk by doing something that comes with a high probability/medium impact risk. In addition to interest costs, holding stocks on margin subjects you to the very real risk of being forced to sell assets at inopportune times to meet margin calls. Given the volatility that the markets are experiencing in 2011, there is a high risk that some irrational decision in Greece could wipe you out. If I were worried about this, I would: If you have enough money that SIPC protection limits are an issue, you desperately need a financial adviser. Do not implement any strategy involving margin loans until you talk to a qualified adviser.",
"qid": 10136,
"docid": "153010",
"rank": 13,
"score": 82204
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The important thing to realize is, what would you do, if you didn't have the call? If you didn't have call options, but you wanted to have a position in that particular stock, you would have to actually purchase it. But, having purchased the shares, you are at risk to lose up to the entire value of them-- if the company folded or something like that. A call option reduces the potential loss, since you are at worst only out the cost of the call, and you also lose a little on the upside, since you had to pay for the call, which will certainly have some premium over buying the underlying share directly. Risk can be defined as reducing the variability of outcomes, so since calls/shorts etc. reduce potential losses and also slightly reduce potential gains, they pretty much by definition reduce risk. It's also worth noting, that when you buy a call, the seller could also be seen as hedging the risk of price decreases while also guaranteeing that they have a buyer at a certain price. So, they may be more concerned about having cash flow at the right time, while at the same time reducing the cost of the share losing in value than they are losing the potential upside if you do exercise the option. Shorts work in the same way but opposite direction to calls, and forwards and futures contracts are more about cash flow management: making sure you have the right amount of money in the right currency at the right time regardless of changes in the costs of raw materials or currencies. While either party may lose on the transaction due to price fluctuations, both parties stand to gain by being able to know exactly what they will get, and exactly what they will have to pay for it, so that certainty is worth something, and certainly better for some firms than leaving positions exposed. Of course you can use them for speculative purposes, and a good number of firms/people do but that's not really why they were invented.",
"qid": 10136,
"docid": "105231",
"rank": 14,
"score": 81999
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: By buying the call option, you are getting the benefit of purchasing the underlying shares (that is, if the shares go up in value, you make money), but transferring the risk of the shares reducing in value. This is more apparent when you are using the option to offset an explicit risk that you hold. For example, if you have a short position, you are at unlimited risk of the position going up in value. You could decide you only want to take the risk that it might rise to $X. In that case, you could buy a call option with $X strike price. Then you have transferred the risk that the position goes over $X to the counterpart, since, even if the shares are trading at $X+$Y you can close out the short position by purchasing the shares at $X, while the option counterpart will lose $Y.",
"qid": 10136,
"docid": "393418",
"rank": 15,
"score": 81614
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: There are two parts to this. Firstly, if you are also living in the property you have bought, then you should not consider it to be an investment. You need it to provide shelter, and the market value is irrelevant unless/until you decide to move. Of course, if your move is forced at a time not of your choosing then if the market value has dropped, you might lose out. No-one can accurately predict the housing market any more than they can predict interest rates on normal savings accounts, the movement of the stock market, etc. Secondly, if you just have a lump sum and you want to invest it safely, the bank is one of the safest places to keep it. It is protected / underwritten by EU law (assuming you are in the EU) up to €100,000. See for example here which is about the UK and Brexit in particular but mentions the EU blanket protection. The other things you could do with it - buy property, gold, art works, stocks and shares, whatever thing you think will be least likely to lose value over time - would not be protected in the same way.",
"qid": 10136,
"docid": "121017",
"rank": 16,
"score": 80714
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: There are interpersonal relationships risks which you should consider. These are most likely to eventuate following a financial problem, and depend on your existing relationship. In this answer I'm going to focus on the financial risks. This is not financial advice, but my understanding as someone who has done this. This is best thought of as a loan from my parents to myself. The main financial risks for my parents (the lenders): To avoid these risks, I need to ensure that I am sufficient ahead of loan repayments that I have the full amount of principal available to repay at any time. Redraw Facility While some loans may allow for redraw, you should check the fine print of your loan agreement. A redraw is like borrowing from the bank using existing collateral. There could be some circumstances under which the bank does not allow redraw, even though you are ahead of loan repayments. This might happen if house prices drop enough that you no longer have equity. Offset Account To avoid this problem, the loaned money is best put in an offset account. An offset account reduces the interest on the loan. Importantly, the money in the offset account is yours. Withdrawal from the offset account does not represent a new borrowing but is a withdrawal from savings account. Savings are government guaranteed to some figure.",
"qid": 10136,
"docid": "514790",
"rank": 17,
"score": 80640
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The security concept of minimising attack surface could be stretched to apply here, especially if closing the account would mean the end of your relationship with that bank. Essentially more routes into your finances or personal information means more opportunities for fraud, more accounts to keep an eye on, more logins to remember/store, and even more paperwork/idle cards to check (for unexpected activity and T&C changes), store and eventually shred. However I had a couple of online-only savings accounts with zero balance for a few years, at a bank where I have other accounts, and I didn;t worry in the slightest. (You can open the accounts online but have to phone to close them and sitting on hold is too much of a chore for me. Eventually they realised their mistake, brought in a minimum balance requirement, and after giving notice closed accounts with less that that in them)",
"qid": 10136,
"docid": "284774",
"rank": 18,
"score": 80498
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: 1) Don't trade individual stocks. You expose yourself to unnecessary risk. 2) Pick a fund with low expenses that pays a dividend. Reinvest the dividend back into the fund. To quote Einstein: The greatest power on earth is compound interest. Something is wrong with the software of the site. It will not allow me to answer mark with another comment. So I have to edit this answer to be able to answer him. @mark No, I am not hoping the price will go up. The price is only relevant in comparison to the dividend. It is the dividend that is important, not the price. The price is irrelevant if you never sell. Dividend paying securities are what you buy and hold. Then you reinvest the dividend and buy more of the security. As I am buying the security with the dividend I am actually pleasantly surprised when the price goes down. When the price goes down, but the dividend remains the same, I am able to buy more shares of the security withwith that dividend. So if the price goes down, and the dividend remains the same, it is a good thing. Again, the site will not allow me to add another comment. @mark I profit from my investment, without selling, by receiving the dividend. I used to be a speculator, trying to get ahead of the market by 'buy low, sell high' but all that did was make money for the broker. I lost as much as I gained trying to do that. The broker made money on each transaction, regardless if I did or not. It took me decades to learn the lesson that 'buy and hold' of dividend paying securities is the way to go. Don't make my mistake. I now get, at least, 5.5% yeald on my investment (look at PGF, which forms the backbone of my investments). That is almost 0.5% per month. Each month that dividend is reinvested into PGF, with no commission. You can't beat that with a stick.",
"qid": 10136,
"docid": "38510",
"rank": 19,
"score": 80219
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: from what I learnt in au and limited to au banking system ( very much like other western countries), banks settle their transfers ( inter banks) 4pm afternoon. Those transactions are like everyday between accounts, person to person, person to vendor(not credit cards), vendors to vendors( small businesses) etc. as for large transactions banks use check accounts( yes banks themselves have check account for each other). Check accounts are settled in three business days( ex public holidays). When large business deal with large business, they use debentures and corporate bonds which is a business IOU and using banks as mediate to settle. IOUs have up to 60 days settle periods. Some complications unique to au banking system. There are only 4 large banks in au and they and their subsidiaries own 99% of the assets collectively. What gets more interesting is large 4 banks owns each other. Each banks holds significant amount shares of other banks. They are like 4 brothers with different surnames. All of it is to minimise risk and share profit.",
"qid": 10136,
"docid": "206140",
"rank": 20,
"score": 80096
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"If you're asking this question, you probably aren't ready to be buying individual stock shares, and may not be ready to be investing in the market at all. Short-term in the stock market is GAMBLING, pure and simple, and gambling against professionals at that. You can reduce your risk if you spend the amount of time and effort the pros do on it, but if you aren't ready to accept losses you shouldn't be playing and if you aren't willing to bet it all on a single throw of the dice you should diversify and accept lower potential gain in exchange for lower risk. (Standard advice: Index funds.) The way an investor, as opposed to a gambler, deals with a stock price dropping -- or surging upward, or not doing anything! -- is to say \"\"That's interesting. Given where it is NOW, do I expect it to go up or down from here, and do I think I have someplace to put the money that will do better?\"\" If you believe the stock will gain value from here, holding it may make more sense than taking your losses. Specific example: the mortgage-crisis market crash of a few years ago. People who sold because stock prices were dropping and they were scared -- or whose finances forced them to sell during the down period -- were hurt badly. Those of us who were invested for the long term and could afford to leave the money in the market -- or who were brave/contrarian enough to see it as an opportunity to buy at a better price -- came out relatively unscathed; all I have \"\"lost\"\" was two years of growth. So: You made your bet. Now you have to decide: Do you really want to \"\"buy high, sell low\"\" and take the loss as a learning experience, or do you want to wait and see whether you can sell not-so-low. If you don't know enough about the company to make a fairly rational decision on that front, you probably shouldn't have bought its stock.\"",
"qid": 10136,
"docid": "138096",
"rank": 21,
"score": 79430
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The biggest challenge with owning any individual stock is price fluctuation, which is called risk. The scenarios you describe assume that the stock behaves exactly as you predict (price/portfolio doubles) and you need to consider risk. One way to measure risk in a stock or in a portfolio is Sharpe Ratio (risk adjusted return), or the related Sortino ratio. One piece of advice that is often offered to individual investors is to diversify, and the stated reason for diversification is to reduce risk. But that is not telling the whole story. When you are able to identify stocks that are not price correlated, you can construct a portfolio that reduces risk. You are trying to avoid 10% tax on the stock grant (25%-15%), but need to accept significant risk to avoid the 10% differential tax ($1000). An alternative to a single stock is to invest in an ETF (much lower risk), which you can buy and hold for a long time, and the price/growth of an ETF (ex. SPY) can be charted versus your stock to visualize the difference in growth/fluctuation. Look up the beta (volatility) of your stock compared to SPY (for example, IBM). Compare the beta of IBM and TSLA and note that you may accept higher volatility when you invest in a stock like Tesla over IBM. What is the beta of your stock? And how willing are you to accept that risk? When you can identify stocks that move in opposite directions, and mix your portfolio (look up beta balanced portolio), you can smooth out the variability (reduce the risk), although you may reduce your absolute return. This cannot be done with a single stock, but if you have more money to invest you could compose the rest of your portfolio to balance the risk for this stock grant, keep the grant shares, and still effectively manage risk. Some years ago I had accumulated over 10,000 shares (grants, options) in a company where I worked. During the time I worked there, their price varied between $30/share and < $1/share. I was able to liquidate at $3/share.",
"qid": 10136,
"docid": "30774",
"rank": 22,
"score": 79380
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Very wealthy people usually have an investment manager who is constantly moving money between investments and accounts. They hold cash (or cash equivalent) accounts for use in a near-term buying opportunity, for example if they believe certain stocks will go down in price soon. This amount can vary from under 1% (for a money manager with no intention of any short-term trading) to over 20% (for a market pessimist who expects a huge price reduction shortly). In rare cases they will also hold significant cash because of a planned large purchase, but there's almost never a reason for that to exceed 1% of their net worth.",
"qid": 10136,
"docid": "505351",
"rank": 23,
"score": 78642
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: In most cases, the brand on the card, eg Visa or MasterCard, is a middleman. The company processes the transaction, transferring $xx from the bank to the seller, and telling the bank to debit the buyer's account. The bank is at risk, not the company transacting the purchase. What's interesting is that American Express started as both. My first Amex card, issued in 1979 (long expired, but in my box of memorabilia) had no bank. American Express offered a card that offered no extended credit, it was pay in full each month. Since then, Amex started offering extended credit, i.e. with annual interest, and minimum payments, and more recently, offering transaction processing for banks which take on the credit risk, essentially becoming very similar to MasterCard and Visa.",
"qid": 10136,
"docid": "521688",
"rank": 24,
"score": 77789
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: 22 June 2016 would have been the time to do this. Nobody on here can tell you what GBP/EUR will do in the next few months and years now. Brexit is going to happen, which implies lower UK growth and consequently a lower path for GBP interest rates, but this is all already priced in. If you believe the UK economy will underperform current forecasts and/or the euro-area economy will outperform current forecasts, that may imply there's scope for further GBP depreciation. If you believe the probability of a further political shock from a 'no deal' Brexit is materially higher than the market thinks, the same is true. But the opposite of these things could happen also. I would worry less about playing the currency markets as a retail investor and more about what currency your outgoings are denominated in. You live in Spain. Do you have significant GBP expenses or liabilities, or do you expect to have them in the future? If not, why are you taking currency risk by holding GBP balances? Whereas if you do - e.g. if you plan to move (back?) to the UK in the near future - then it makes more sense.",
"qid": 10136,
"docid": "351293",
"rank": 25,
"score": 77774
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You are not missing something basic. Putting money in the bank will cost you in terms of purchasing power. The same thing has been true in the US and other places for a long time now. The real interest rate is negative--there is too much aggregate wealth being saved compared to the number of profitable lending opportunities. That means any truly risk-free investment will not make as much money as you will lose to inflation. If the real interest rate appears to be positive in your home country it means one of the following is happening: Capital controls or other barriers are preventing foreigners from investing in your home country, keeping the interest rate there artificially high Expected inflation is not being measured very accurately in your home country Inflation is variable and unpredictable in your home country, so investors are demanding high interest rates to compensate for inflation risk. In other words, bank accounts are not risk-free in your home country. If you find any securities that are beating inflation, you can bet they are taking on risk. Investing in risky securities is fine, but just understand that it's not a substitute for a risk-free bank account. Part of every interest rate is compensation for the time-value-of-money and the rest is compensation for risk. At present, the global time-value-of-money is negative.",
"qid": 10136,
"docid": "32744",
"rank": 26,
"score": 77261
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Automatic exercisions can be extremely risky, and the closer to the money the options are, the riskier their exercisions are. It is unlikely that the entire account has negative equity since a responsible broker would forcibly close all positions and pursue the holder for the balance of the debt to reduce solvency risk. Since the broker has automatically exercised a near the money option, it's solvency policy is already risky. Regardless of whether there is negative equity or simply a liability, the least risky course of action is to sell enough of the underlying to satisfy the loan by closing all other positions if necessary as soon as possible. If there is a negative equity after trying to satisfy the loan, the account will need to be funded for the balance of the loan to pay for purchases of the underlying to fully satisfy the loan. Since the underlying can move in such a way to cause this loan to increase, the account should also be funded as soon as possible if necessary. Accounts after exercise For deep in the money exercised options, a call turns into a long underlying on margin while a put turns into a short underlying. The next decision should be based upon risk and position selection. First, if the position is no longer attractive, it should be closed. Since it's deep in the money, simply closing out the exposure to the underlying should extinguish the liability as cash is not marginable, so the cash received from the closing out of the position will repay any margin debt. If the position in the underlying is still attractive then the liability should be managed according to one's liability policy and of course to margin limits. In a margin account, closing the underlying positions on the same day as the exercise will only be considered a day trade. If the positions are closed on any business day after the exercision, there will be no penalty or restriction. Cash option accounts While this is possible, many brokers force an upgrade to a margin account, and the ShareBuilder Options Account Agreement seems ambiguous, but their options trading page implies the upgrade. In a cash account, equities are not marginable, so any margin will trigger a margin call. If the margin debt did not trigger a margin call then it is unlikely that it is a cash account as margin for any security in a cash account except for certain options trades is 100%. Equities are convertible to cash presumably at the bid, so during a call exercise, the exercisor or exercisor's broker pays cash for the underlying at the exercise price, and any deficit is financed with debt, thus underlying can be sold to satisfy that debt or be sold for cash as one normally would. To preempt a forced exercise as a call holder, one could short the underlying, but this will be more expensive, and since probably no broker allows shorting against the box because of its intended use to circumvent capital gains taxes by fraud. The least expensive way to trade out of options positions is to close them themselves rather than take delivery.",
"qid": 10136,
"docid": "277311",
"rank": 27,
"score": 77053
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I am not interested in watching stock exchange rates all day long. I just want to place it somewhere and let it grow Your intuition is spot on! To buy & hold is the sensible thing to do. There is no need to constantly monitor the stock market. To invest successfully you only need some basic pointers. People make it look like it's more complicated than it actually is for individual investors. You might find useful some wisdom pearls I wish I had learned even earlier. Stocks & Bonds are the best passive investment available. Stocks offer the best return, while bonds are reduce risk. The stock/bond allocation depends of your risk tolerance. Since you're as young as it gets, I would forget about bonds until later and go with a full stock portfolio. Banks are glorified money mausoleums; the interest you can get from them is rarely noticeable. Index investing is the best alternative. How so? Because 'you can't beat the market'. Nobody can; but people like to try and fail. So instead of trying, some fund managers simply track a market index (always successfully) while others try to beat it (consistently failing). Actively managed mutual funds have higher costs for the extra work involved. Avoid them like the plague. Look for a diversified index fund with low TER (Total Expense Ratio). These are the most important factors. Diversification will increase safety, while low costs guarantee that you get the most out of your money. Vanguard has truly good index funds, as well as Blackrock (iShares). Since you can't simply buy equity by yourself, you need a broker to buy and sell. Luckily, there are many good online brokers in Europe. What we're looking for in a broker is safety (run background checks, ask other wise individual investors that have taken time out of their schedules to read the small print) and that charges us with low fees. You probably can do this through the bank, but... well, it defeats its own purpose. US citizens have their 401(k) accounts. Very neat stuff. Check your country's law to see if you can make use of something similar to reduce the tax cost of investing. Your government will want a slice of those juicy dividends. An alternative is to buy an index fund on which dividends are not distributed, but are automatically reinvested instead. Some links for further reference: Investment 101, and why index investment rocks: However the author is based in the US, so you might find the next link useful. Investment for Europeans: Very useful to check specific information regarding European investing. Portfolio Ideas: You'll realise you don't actually need many equities, since the diversification is built-in the index funds. I hope this helps! There's not much more, but it's all condensed in a handful of blogs.",
"qid": 10136,
"docid": "231195",
"rank": 28,
"score": 76909
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: My take on this is that this reduces your liquidity risk. Stocks, bonds and many other investment vehicles on secondary markets you may think of are highly liquid but they still require that markets are open and then an additional 3-5 business days to settle the transaction and for funds to make their way to your bank account. If you require funds immediately because of an emergency, this 3-5 business days (which gets longer as week-ends and holidays are in the way) can cause a lot of discomfort which may be worth a small loss in potential ROI. Think of your car breaking down or a water pipe exploding in your home and having to wait for the stock sale to process before you can make the payment. Admittedly, you have other options such as margin loans and credit cards that can help absorb the shock in such cases but they may not be sufficient or cause you to pay interest or fees if left unpaid.",
"qid": 10136,
"docid": "560391",
"rank": 29,
"score": 76869
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The company's value (which should be reflected in the share price) is not how much money it has in the bank, but something along the lines of 'how much money will it make between now and the end of times' (adjusted for time value of money and risk). So when you purchase a share of a company that has, say, little money in the bank, but expects to make 1M$ profit this year, 2M$ for the following 3 years, and say, nothing after, you are going to pay your fraction of 7M$ (minus some discount because of the risk involved). If now they announce that their profits were only 750k$, then people may think that the 2M$ are more likely to be 1.5M$, so the company's value would go to ~ 5M$. And with that, the market may perceive the company as more risky, because its profits deviated from what was expected, which in turn may reduce the company's value even further.",
"qid": 10136,
"docid": "325669",
"rank": 30,
"score": 76443
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Late to the party, but it's just improving your cost basis in a defined risk trade even further. If you want to put up less risk capital but want to test the waters, this can be one way to do it. Another could be buying cheap OTM butterflies or financing a further otm option with the basis reduction from the debit spread if you want to gamble a bit further and venture into 15-20 delta positions. Usually, I am doing debit spreads with a buying atm and selling a couple strikes further otm or at least at the most liquid strikes, but if it's a high flier, it can be disappointing, but a good trade. If you're more of a contrarian in where you buy your calls/puts, it's absolutely a good way to lessen your risk on a calculated bet.",
"qid": 10136,
"docid": "108849",
"rank": 31,
"score": 76398
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you have such a long term investment goal there really is no reason to try time the markets, 1990s market high was nothing compared to 1999s market high which was nothing to 2006 etc and so on(years quoted as example). Also consider cost of opportunity missed by holding back investing your immediately available investment capital and have it sit in a bank account for 18-24months, collecting meager returns instead of a 5-10% potential return for example(which isnt a strech by any means). Now if you re really hell-bent on timing the market, since you re in the UK, if you really want to attempt it, I would pay close attention to Brexit news and talks that are scheduled for 2018 onwards. Any delays on that deal and/or potential bad development may lead to speculation and temporary lows for you to buy in. If thats worth the effort and cost of opportunity mentioned before is up to you.",
"qid": 10136,
"docid": "33155",
"rank": 32,
"score": 76343
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"If you read Joel Greenblatt's The Little Book That Beats the Market, he says: Owning two stocks eliminates 46% of the non market risk of owning just one stock. This risk is reduced by 72% with 4 stocks, by 81% with 8 stocks, by 93% with 16 stocks, by 96% with 32 stocks, and by 99% with 500 stocks. Conclusion: After purchasing 6-8 stocks, benefits of adding stocks to decrease risk are small. Overall market risk won't be eliminated merely by adding more stocks. And that's just specific stocks. So you're very right that allocating a 1% share to a specific type of fund is not going to offset your other funds by much. You are correct that you can emulate the lifecycle fund by simply buying all the underlying funds, but there are two caveats: Generally, these funds are supposed to be cheaper than buying the separate funds individually. Check over your math and make sure everything is in order. Call the fund manager and tell him about your findings and see what they have to say. If you are going to emulate the lifecycle fund, be sure to stay on top of rebalancing. One advantage of buying the actual fund is that the portfolio distributions are managed for you, so if you're going to buy separate ETFs, make sure you're rebalancing. As for whether you need all those funds, my answer is a definite no. Consider Mark Cuban's blog post Wall Street's new lie to Main Street - Asset Allocation. Although there are some highly questionable points in the article, one portion is indisputably clear: Let me translate this all for you. “I want you to invest 5pct in cash and the rest in 10 different funds about which you know absolutely nothing. I want you to make this investment knowing that even if there were 128 hours in a day and you had a year long vacation, you could not possibly begin to understand all of these products. In fact, I don’t understand them either, but because I know it sounds good and everyone is making the same kind of recommendations, we all can pretend we are smart and going to make a lot of money. Until we don’t\"\" Standard theory says that you want to invest in low-cost funds (like those provided by Vanguard), and you want to have enough variety to protect against risk. Although I can't give a specific allocation recommendation because I don't know your personal circumstances, you should ideally have some in US Equities, US Fixed Income, International Equities, Commodities, of varying sizes to have adequate diversification \"\"as defined by theory.\"\" You can either do your own research to establish a distribution, or speak to an investment advisor to get help on what your target allocation should be.\"",
"qid": 10136,
"docid": "549188",
"rank": 33,
"score": 76036
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: A. Bank transfer is the normal way to do it. The Law Society will (eventually) make good any losses incurred on money held by solicitors acting fraudulently, so your money should not be at risk, provided you make sure to transfer the money to the account number your solicitor gave you. B. It's not just normal but essential to transfer the money before exchanging contracts, since the deposit has to be paid by your solicitor to the vendor's solicitor as part of the exchange process. You can't wait to pay the deposit until after you've exchanged, because you haven't exchanged until you've paid the deposit. C. If you really want to put down the 10% deposit now and pay the rest upon completion, that should be possible -- talk to your solicitor about it.",
"qid": 10136,
"docid": "207848",
"rank": 34,
"score": 76020
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Behind paywall, so copy/paste of article below: > Brexit will push up costs for banks by as much as 4 per cent and their capital requirements will rise up to 30 per cent, according to the most detailed assessment yet of what Britain’s departure from the EU means for the sector. > The findings by consultants Oliver Wyman will make grim reading for its bank clients, many of which are struggling with low profitability. They come a day after HSBC became the first lender to put a price tag on Brexit, saying the immediate disruption would cost it $200m-$300m. > Stuart Gulliver, chief executive of HSBC, said $1bn of revenue in its global banking and markets unit would be put “at risk” by Brexit. But he said it planned protect this revenue by moving up to 1,000 of its 6,000 UK investment banking jobs to France. > The pace of announcements about banks’ Brexit plans has picked up in recent weeks, partly because of pressure from the Bank of England for them to submit their plans for coping with the “worst-case scenario” of a hard Brexit, severing access to EU clients. The UK is set to leave the EU in March 2019. > Such plans are expected to cause duplication of resources and capital for large banks in Europe, Oliver Wyman warned. It said this may cause some banks to abandon some European activities altogether and shift resources to the US and Asia. > “At the moment what everyone is doing is planning to be able to continue doing what they already do after a hard Brexit,” said Matthew Austen, head of European corporate and institutional banking at Oliver Wyman. > “Once you have done that, if you have a strong performance in the US or Asia, then that is when you start to look at the post-Brexit foundations and it will prompt you to look at what the right business mix is,” he said. > The consultancy, which has access to detailed figures on almost every bank from the benchmarking work it does for the sector, estimated that 2 percentage points would be knocked off wholesale banks’ return on equity in Europe because of the disruption. > Wholesale banks — which serve corporate and institutional clients — would need to find $30bn-$50bn extra capital to support their new European operations, an increase of 15 to 30 per cent, it estimated. The industry’s annual costs would rise by $1bn, or 2 to 4 per cent. > “Any time you split a portfolio up — whether it be a credit portfolio or a trading book portfolio — you lose the benefits of diversification that allow you to reduce the capital you hold against it,” said Mr Austen. > Many banks have decided they cannot afford to wait for the political uncertainty over the outcome of Brexit negotiations to clear before implementing their plans and have started finding office space and applying for licences with regulators. > “Once everyone is back from this summer holidays, the annual planning process will really start in earnest and at that point people will start planning for next year’s costs and returns,” said Mr Austen. > “As you move into the back end of this year and the start of next year you have to start making those decisions. You would want to have moved people by next summer if they are going to get their kids into school in September.” > The consultancy stuck to the forecast it made last year that Brexit would drive 31,000-35,000 financial services jobs out of the UK, of which 12,000-17,000 would be in banking. In a worst-case scenario, in which euro clearing is shifted to the eurozone, banks could shift as many as 40,000 jobs out of the UK.",
"qid": 10136,
"docid": "304500",
"rank": 35,
"score": 76019
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"We change it every so often to reduce fraud. This is idiocy. They receive regular payments. They are asking the people who pay them to regularly change where their money is being sent. This increases their exposure to fraud dramatically as each time the account is changed, there is a risk it will be changed to an account they do not control. This is a huge red flag. Confirm that this is authentic and, if so, insist that they sign an agreement accepting all liability for the risks this crazy policy causes, otherwise, you should refuse to go through the effort of confirming new accounts and risking typing or communication errors on a regular basis. This is definitely a \"\"what were they thinking?!\"\" kind of thing. If it's not fake entirely. (This answer assumes that you were given a correct explanation, that they change it regularly believing that will reduce fraud.)\"",
"qid": 10136,
"docid": "104859",
"rank": 36,
"score": 75999
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Some highly pessimistic things worth noting to go alongside all the stability and tax break upside that homes generally provide: Negative equity is no joke and basically the only thing that bankrupts the middle classes consistently en masse. The UK is at the end of a huge housing bull run where rents are extremely cheap relative to buying (often in the 1% range within the M25), Brexit is looming and interest rates could well sky rocket with inflation. Borrowing ~500k to buy a highly illiquid asset you might have to fire sale in case of emergency/job loss etc for 300k in a few years when lots of (relatively) cheap rental housing is available to rent risk free, could be argued to be a highly lopsided and dangerous bet vs the alternatives. Locking in 'preferential' mortgage rates can be a huge trap: low interest rates generally increase asset values. If/when they rise, assets fall in value as the demand shrinks, making you highly exposed to huge losses if you need to sell before it is paid off. In the case of housing this can be exceptionally vicious as the liquidity dramatically dries up during falls, meaning fire sales become much more severe than they are for more liquid assets like stock. Weirdly and unlike most products, people tend to buy the very best house they can get leverage for, rather than work out what they need/want and finding the best value equivalent. If a bank will lend you £20 a day to buy lunch, and you can just afford to pay it, do you hunt out the very best £20 lunch you can every day, or do you make some solid compromises so you can save money for other things etc? You seem to be hunting very close to the absolute peak amount you can spend on these numbers. Related to above, at that level of mortgage/salary you have very little margin for error if either of you lose jobs etc. Houses are much more expensive to maintain/trade than most people think. You spend ~2-5% every time you buy and sell, and you can easily spend 2-20k+ a year depending what happens just keeping the thing watertight, paid for, liveable and staying up. You need to factor this in and be pessimistic when you do. Most people don't factor in these costs to the apparent 'index' rise in house values and what they expect to sell for in x years. In reality no buy and hold investor can ever realise even close to the quoted house price returns as they are basically stocks you have to pay 5% each time you buy or sell and then 1-20% percent a year to own - they have to rise dramatically over time for you to even break even after all the costs. In general you should buy homes to make memories, not money, and to buy them at prices that don't cause you sleepless nights in case of disasters.",
"qid": 10136,
"docid": "108399",
"rank": 37,
"score": 75821
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I don't believe there is such a process. My observation (i.e. my opinion) is that banks will have a level of security walls appropriate to the cost vs risk they experience. Since as Frazell says, your liability is limited for this type of fraud, you personally bear little if any risk. If this fraud were common enough that the cost of your proposal outweighed the expense, they would implement it. On a similar note. Credit card fraud can be reduced ten fold if a PIN were required for all purchases. The 3 digits on the back helps prove the card is there, and you just didn't steal the from 16 digits, but a 6-8 digit PIN required at point of sale would be tough for the thief to guess. How much software to do this would cost, I don't know, but the idea is brilliant, even if it's mine. 10 fold reduction, if not 100 fold. (Any bank guys reading?)",
"qid": 10136,
"docid": "115890",
"rank": 38,
"score": 75821
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"This answer is based on Australian tax, which is significantly different. I only offer it in case others want to compare situations. In Australia, a popular tax reduction technique is \"\"Negative Gearing\"\". Borrow from a bank, buy an investment property. If the income frome the new property is not enough to cover interest payments (plus maintenance etc) then the excess each year is a capital loss - which you claim each year, as an offset to your income (ie. pay less tax). By the time you reach retirement, the idea is to have paid off the mortgage. You then live off the revenue stream in retirement, or sell the property for a (taxed) lump sum.\"",
"qid": 10136,
"docid": "179262",
"rank": 39,
"score": 75779
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Given that we live in a world rife with geopolitical risks such as Brexit and potential EU breakup, would you say it's advisable to keep some of cash savings in a foreign currency? Probably not. Primarily because you don't know what will happen in the fallout of these sorts of political shifts. You don't know what will happen to banking treaties between the various countries involved. If you can manage to place funds on deposit in a foreign bank/country in a currency other than your home currency and maintain the deposit insurance in that country and not spend too much exchanging your currency then there probably isn't a downside other than liquidity loss. If you're thinking I'll just wire some whatever currency to some bank in some foreign country in which you have no residency or citizenship consideration without considering deposit insurance just so you might protect some of your money from a possible future event I think you should stay away.",
"qid": 10136,
"docid": "393823",
"rank": 40,
"score": 75436
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Recessions are prolonged by less spending and wages being 'sticky' downward. My currency, the 'wallark', allows a company to pay its workers in it's own scrip instead of dollars which they can use to purchase its goods, thus reducing it's labor costs and allowing prices to fall faster. While scrip in the past purposely devalued to discourage hoarding, the wallark hold's it's purchasing power. The difference is, a worker can only use it to purchase their company's good *on the date the wallark was earned or before*. In other words, each good is labeled with a date it was put on display for sale, if a worker earns scrip on that same day, they can trade the scrip for that good, or any good that was on the shelves on that day it was earned *or before that date*. Any good that comes onto market after the date that particular wallark was earned cannot be purchased with that wallark(which is dated), and must be purchased either with dollars or with wallark that was earned on that good's date or after. This incentivizes spending without creating inflation, and allows costs to fall which helps businesses during rough economic times. Please feel free to read it, and comment on my site! Any feedback is welcome!",
"qid": 10136,
"docid": "371759",
"rank": 41,
"score": 75257
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If they are truly long term investments I would not put a stop loss on them. The recent market dive related to the Brexit vote is a prime example of why not to have one. That was a brief dive that may have stopped you out of any or all of your positions and it was quite short lived. You would likely have bought your positions back (or new positions entirely) and run the risk of experiencing a loss over what turned out to be a non event. That said, I would recommend evaluating your positions periodically to see if they still make sense and are performing the way you want.",
"qid": 10136,
"docid": "472741",
"rank": 42,
"score": 75214
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I'd suggest you start by looking at the mutual fund and/or ETF options available via your bank, and see if they have any low-cost funds that invest in high-risk sectors. You can increase your risk (and potential returns) by allocating your assets to riskier sectors rather than by picking individual stocks, and you'll be less likely to make an avoidable mistake. It is possible to do as you suggest and pick individual stocks, but by doing so you may be taking on more risk than you suspect, even unnecessary risk. For instance, if you decide to buy stock in Company A, you know you're taking a risk by investing in just one company. However, without a lot of work and financial expertise, you may not be able to assess how much risk you're taking by investing in Company A specifically, as opposed to Company B. Even if you know that investing in individual stocks is risky, it can be very hard to know how risky those particular individual stocks are, compared to other alternatives. This is doubly true if the investment involves actions more exotic than simply buying and holding an asset like a stock. For instance, you could definitely get plenty of risk by investing in commercial real estate development or complicated options contracts; but a certain amount of work and expertise is required to even understand how to do that, and there is a greater likelihood that you will slip up and make a costly mistake that negates any extra gain, even if the investment itself might have been sound for someone with experience in that area. In other words, you want your risk to really be the risk of the investment, not the \"\"personal\"\" risk that you'll make a mistake in a complicated scheme and lose money because you didn't know what you were doing. (If you do have some expertise in more exotic investments, then maybe you could go this route, but I think most people -- including me -- don't.) On the other hand, you can find mutual funds or ETFs that invest in large economic sectors that are high-risk, but because the investment is diversified within that sector, you need only compare the risk of the sectors. For instance, emerging markets are usually considered one of the highest-risk sectors. But if you restrict your choice to low-cost emerging-market index funds, they are unlikely to differ drastically in risk (at any rate, far less than individual companies). This eliminates the problem mentioned above: when you choose to invest in Emerging Markets Index Fund A, you don't need to worry as much about whether Emerging Markets Index Fund B might have been less risky; most of the risk is in the choice to invest in the emerging markets sector in the first place, and differences between comparable funds in that sector are small by comparison. You could do the same with other targeted sectors that can produce high returns; for instance, there are mutual funds and ETFs that invest specifically in technology stocks. So you could begin by exploring the mutual funds and ETFs available via your existing investment bank, or poke around on Morningstar. Fees will still matter no matter what sector you're in, so pay attention to those. But you can probably find a way to take an aggressive risk position without getting bogged down in the details of individual companies. Also, this will be less work than trying something more exotic, so you're less likely to make a costly mistake due to not understanding the complexities of what you're investing in.\"",
"qid": 10136,
"docid": "17823",
"rank": 43,
"score": 75209
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: would you say it's advisable to keep some of cash savings in a foreign currency? This is primarily opinion based. Given that we live in a world rife with geopolitical risks such as Brexit and potential EU breakup There is no way to predict what will happen in such large events. For example if one keeps funds outside on UK in say Germany in Euro's. The UK may bring in a regulation and clamp down all funds held outside of UK as belonging to Government or tax these at 90% or anything absurd that negates the purpose of keeping funds outside. There are example of developing / under developed economics putting absurd capital controls. Whether UK will do or not is a speculation. If you are going to spend your live in a country, it is best to invest in country. As normal diversification, you can look at keep a small amount invested outside of country.",
"qid": 10136,
"docid": "35511",
"rank": 44,
"score": 75122
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You should never take advice from someone else in relation to a question like this. Who would you blame if things go wrong and you lose money or make less than your savings account. For this reason I will give you the same answer I gave to one of your previous similar questions: If you want higher returns you may have to take on more risk. From lowest returns (and usually lower risk) to higher returns (and usually higher risk), Bank savings accounts, term deposits, on-line savings accounts, offset accounts (if you have a mortgage), fixed interest eg. Bonds, property and stock markets. If you want potentially higher returns then you can go for derivatives like options or CFDs, FX or Futures. These usually have higher risks again but as with any investments some risks can be partly managed. What ever you decide to do, get yourself educated first. Don't put any money down unless you know what your potential risks are and have a risk management strategy in place, especially if it is from advice provided by someone else. The first rule before starting any new investment is to understand what your potential risks are and have a plane to manage and reduce those risks.",
"qid": 10136,
"docid": "320675",
"rank": 45,
"score": 74633
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: An alternative options strategy to minimize loss of investment capital is to buy a put, near the money around your original buy price, with a premium less than the total dividend. The value of the put will increase if the stock price falls quickly. Likely, a large portion of your dividend will go towards paying the option premium, this will however ensure that your capital doesn't drop much lower than your buy price. Continued dividend distributions will continue to pay to buy future put options. Risks here are if the stock does not have a very large up or down movement from your original buy price causing most of the dividend to be spent on insuring your position. It may take a few cycles, but once the stock has appreciated in value say 10% above buying price, you can consider either skipping the put insurance so you can pocket the dividend, or you can bu ythe put with a higher strike price for additional insurance against a loss of gains. Again, this sacrifices much of the dividend in favor of price loss, and still is open to a risk of neutral price movement over time.",
"qid": 10136,
"docid": "584090",
"rank": 46,
"score": 74476
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"How do option market makers actually hedge their positions so that they do not have a price risk? You cannot complete hedge away price risk of a sold call simply by buying the underlying and waiting. As the price of the underlying decreases, the \"\"Delta\"\" (price risk) decreases, so as the underlying decreases, you would gradually sell some of the underlying to reduce your price risk from the underlying to match the price risk of the option. The opposite is true as well - as the price of the underlying increases, you'd buy more of the underlying to maintain a \"\"delta neutral\"\" position. If you want to employ this strategy, first you need to fully understand what \"\"delta\"\" is and how to calculate it. Then you can use delta hedging to reduce your price risk.\"",
"qid": 10136,
"docid": "202432",
"rank": 47,
"score": 74420
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Restricting the discussion only to Internet hacking: In Option 2 or Option 3, you have to realize that the funds are credited to a specific Registered Bank Account. So the max damage an hacker can do is liquidate your holding. In Option 2, the Banking Internet Login and the Broker Internet Login will be different, For example HDFC Bank and HDFC Securities. In Option 3, if you choose your Bank, then it will be the same Login. If you choose a Non-Bank as provider then there is a different login. The risk is no different to investing in shares. In the end its up to an individual, there is nothing that stops you from opening multiple accounts in option 2 and option 3 and buying the stocks worth particular value. From an overall risk point of view; Option 2 seems best suited as the units are held in a Demat from by a Depository.",
"qid": 10136,
"docid": "180400",
"rank": 48,
"score": 74128
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Yes. There are several downsides to this strategy: You aren't taking into account commissions. If you pay $5 each time you buy or sell a stock, you may greatly reduce or even eliminate any possible gains you would make from trading such small amounts. This next point sounds obvious, but remember that you pay a commission on every trade regardless of profit, so every trade you make that you make at a loss also costs you commissions. Even if you make trades that are profitable more often than not, if you make quite a few trades with small amounts like this, your commissions may eat away all of your profits. Commissions represent a fixed cost, so their effect on your gains decreases proportionally with the amount of money you place at risk in each trade. Since you're in the US, you're required to follow the SEC rules on pattern day trading. From that link, \"\"FINRA rules define a “pattern day trader” as any customer who executes four or more “day trades” within five business days, provided that the number of day trades represents more than six percent of the customer’s total trades in the margin account for that same five business day period.\"\" If you trip this rule, you'll be required to maintain $25,000 in a margin brokerage account. If you can't maintain the balance, your account will be locked. Don't forget about capital gains taxes. Since you're holding these securities for less than a year, your gains will be taxed at your ordinary income tax rates. You can deduct your capital losses too (assuming you don't repurchase the same security within 30 days, because in that case, the wash sale rule prevents you from deducting the loss), but it's important to think about gains and losses in real terms, not nominal terms. The story is different if you make these trades in a tax-sheltered account like an IRA, but the other problems still apply. You're implicitly assuming that the stock's prices are skewed in the positive direction. Remember that you have limit orders placed at the upper and lower bounds of the range, so if the stock price decreases before it increases, your limit order at the lower bound will be triggered and you'll trade at a loss. If you're hoping to make a profit through buying low and selling high, you want a stock that hits its upper bound before hitting the lower bound the majority of the time. Unless you have data analysis (not just your intuition or a pattern you've talked yourself into from looking at a chart) to back this up, you're essentially gambling that more often than not, the stock price will increase before it decreases. It's dangerous to use any strategy that you haven't backtested extensively. Find several months or years of historical data, either intra-day or daily data, depending on the time frame you're using to trade, and simulate your strategy exactly. This helps you determine the potential profitability of your strategy, and it also forces you to decide on a plan for precisely when you want to invest. Do you invest as soon as the stock trades in a range (which algorithms can determine far better than intuition)? It also helps you figure out how to manage your risk and how much loss you're willing to accept. For risk management, using limit orders is a start, but see my point above about positively skewed prices. Limit orders aren't enough. In general, if an active investment strategy seems like a \"\"no-brainer\"\" or too good to be true, it's probably not viable. In general, as a retail investor, it's foolish to assume that no one else has thought of your simple active strategy to make easy money. I can promise you that someone has thought of it. Trading firms have quantitative researchers that are paid to think of and implement trading strategies all the time. If it's viable at any scale, they'll probably already have utilized it and arbitraged away the potential for small traders to make significant gains. Trust me, you're not the first person who thought of using limit orders to make \"\"easy money\"\" off volatile stocks. The fact that you're asking here and doing research before implementing this strategy, however, means that you're on the right track. It's always wise to research a strategy extensively before deploying it in the wild. To answer the question in your title, since it could be interpreted a little differently than the body of the question: No, there's nothing wrong with investing in volatile stocks, indexes, etc. I certainly do, and I'm sure many others on this site do as well. It's not the investing that gets you into trouble and costs you a lot of money; it's the rapid buying and selling and attempting to time the market that proves costly, which is what you're doing when you implicitly bet that the distribution of the stock's prices is positively skewed. To address the commission fee problem, assuming a fee of $8 per trade ... and a minimum of $100 profit per sale Commissions aren't your only problem, and counting on $100 profit per sale is a significant assumption. Look at point #4 above. Through your use of limit orders, you're making the implicit assumption that, more often than not, the price will trigger your upper limit order before your lower limit order. Here's a simple example; let's assume you have limit orders placed at +2 and -2 of your purchase price, and that triggering the limit order at +2 earns you $100 profit, while triggering the limit order at -2 incurs a loss of $100. Assume your commission is $5 on each trade. If your upper limit order is triggered, you earn a profit of 100 - 10 = 90, then set up the same set of limit orders again. If your lower limit order is triggered this time, you incur a loss of 100 + 10 = 110, so your net gain is 90 - 110 = -20. This is a perfect example of why, when taking into account transaction costs, even strategies that at first glance seem profitable mathematically can actually fail. If you set up the same situation again and incur a loss again (100 + 10 = 110), you're now down -20 - 110 = -130. To make a profit, you need to make two profitable trades, without incurring further losses. This is why point #4 is so important. Whenever you trade, it's critical to completely understand the risk you're taking and the bet you're actually making, not just the bet you think you're making. Also, according to my \"\"algorithm\"\" a sale only takes place once the stock rises by 1 or 2 points; otherwise the stock is held until it does. Does this mean you've removed the lower limit order? If yes, then you expose yourself to downside risk. What if the stock has traded within a range, then suddenly starts declining because of bad earnings reports or systemic risks (to name a few)? If you haven't removed the lower limit order, then point #4 still stands. However, I never specified that the trades have to be done within the same day. Let the investor open up 5 brokerage accounts at 5 different firms (for safeguarding against being labeled a \"\"Pattern Day Trader\"\"). Each account may only hold 1 security at any time, for the span of 1 business week. How do you control how long the security is held? You're using limit orders, which will be triggered when the stock price hits a certain level, regardless of when that happens. Maybe that will happen within a week, or maybe it will happen within the same day. Once again, the bet you're actually making is different from the bet you think you're making. Can you provide some algorithms or methods that do work for generating some extra cash on the side, aside from purchasing S&P 500 type index funds and waiting? When I purchase index funds, it's not to generate extra liquid cash on the side. I don't invest nearly enough to be able to purchase an index fund and earn substantial dividends. I don't want to get into any specific strategies because I'm not in the business of making investment recommendations, and I don't want to start. Furthermore, I don't think explicit investment recommendations are welcome here (unless it's describing why something is a bad idea), and I agree with that policy. I will make a couple of points, however. Understand your goals. Are you investing for retirement or a shorter horizon, e.g. some side income? You seem to know this already, but I include it for future readers. If a strategy seems too good to be true, it probably is. Educate yourself before designing a strategy. Research fundamental analysis, different types of orders (e.g., so you fully understand that you don't have control over when limit orders are executed), different sectors of the market if that's where your interests lie, etc. Personally, I find some sectors fascinating, so researching them thoroughly allows me to make informed investment decisions as well as learn about something that interests me. Understand your limits. How much money are you willing to risk and possibly lose? Do you have a risk management strategy in place to prevent unexpected losses? What are the costs of the risk management itself? Backtest, backtest, backtest. Ideally your backtesting and simulating should be identical to actual market conditions and incorporate all transaction costs and a wide range of historical data. Get other opinions. Evaluate those opinions with the same critical eye as I and others have evaluated your proposed strategy.\"",
"qid": 10136,
"docid": "146632",
"rank": 49,
"score": 73955
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: These products are real, but they aren't risk free: 1) The bank could go under in that time. (Are the investments FDIC insured?) 2) Your money is locked up for 5 years, probably with either no way to get it back out or a stiff penalty for early withdrawal, so you risk having a better investment opportunity come along and not having the liquidity to take advantage of it. 3) If the market does go down and you get 100% of your principal back, the endless ratchet of inflation practically guarantees that $10K will be worth less 5 years from now than it is today, so you risk losing purchasing power even if you're not losing any nominal quantity of money. It's still a fairly low-risk investment option, particularly if it's tied to something that you have reason to believe will increase in value significantly faster than inflation in the next 5 years.",
"qid": 10136,
"docid": "95246",
"rank": 50,
"score": 73937
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Yes. Although I imagine the risk is small, you can remove the risk by splitting your money amongst multiple accounts at different banks so that none of the account totals exceed the FDIC Insurance limit. There are several banks or financial institutions that deposit money in multiple banks to double or triple the effective insurance limit (Fidelity has an account like this, for example)",
"qid": 10136,
"docid": "278734",
"rank": 51,
"score": 73910
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Honestly, the best way to manage this risk is to manage your savings appropriately. Many experts recommend that maintain a reasonably liquid account with 6-9x your minimum monthly expenses for just this occurrence. I know, easier said than done. Right? As for insurance, I can only speak for what is the case in the US. Here, most mortgages will require you to get PMI insurance until you have at least 20% equity in your house. However, that insurance only protects the BANK from losing money if you can't pay. It doesn't save you from foreclosure or ruining your credit. Really, the type of insurance you are talking about is Unemployment insurance which all states in the US make available to workers via deductions from their paycheck. The best advice, I suppose, is to keep your expenses low enough to cover them with an unemployment check until you have accumulated enough savings to get through a rough patch. That may mean buying a less expensive home, or just waiting until you have saved a bigger down payment. If you didn't plan ahead, and you are already in the house, another option might be to extend your mortgage. For example from a 20 to a 30 year to reduce your payments to a manageable level. A more risky option might be to convert to a variable rate loan temporarily, which typically carries a lower interest rate. However, it might be hard to secure a new loan if you don't currently have an income.",
"qid": 10136,
"docid": "344573",
"rank": 52,
"score": 73475
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"A dividend is a cash disbursement from the company. The value of the company goes down the same amount of the dividend, so it is analogous to having money in a savings account and taking a withdrawal every month. Obviously you are going to have less in the end than if you just kept the money in the account. suppose that I own 10 different stocks, and don't reinvest dividends, but keep them on account, and each month or two, as I add more money to invest, either in one of my existing stocks, or perhaps something new, I add whichever dividend amount is currently available in cash to my new purchase, would this strategy provide the same results? Roughly, yes. Reinvesting dividends is essentially buying more stock at the lower price, which is a net zero effect in total balance. So if you invested in the same stocks, yes you'd be in the same place. If you invested in different stocks, then you would have a performance difference depending on what you invested in. The risk is the temptation to take the cash dividend and not reinvest it, but take it in cash, thereby reducing your earning power. That is, is there some particular reason that the brokers are recommending automatically reinvesting dividends as opposed to reinvesting them manually, perhaps not always in the same item? I'd like to think that they're looking after your best interest (and they might be), but the cynical part of me thinks that they're either trying to keep your business by increasing your returns, or there's some UK regulation I'm not aware of that requires them to disclose the effect of reinvesting dividends. £100 invested in the UK stock market since 1899 would have grown into just £177 after adjusting for inflation. This figure seems ludicrous to me. I haven't actually measured what the historical returns on the \"\"UK market\"\" are, but that would mean an annualized return (adjusted for inflation) of just 0.5%. Either UK stocks pay a ridiculous amount of dividends or there's something wrong with the math. EDIT I still have not found a definitive source for the real UK market return, but according to this inflation calculator, £100 in 1899 would equate to almost £12,000 today, for an average inflation rate of 4.14 percent, which would put the CAGR of the UK market at about 4.9%, which seems reasonable. The CAGR with dividend reinvestment would then be about 9.1%, making dividend reinvestment a no-brainer in the UK market at least.\"",
"qid": 10136,
"docid": "105781",
"rank": 53,
"score": 73091
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The catch is that you're doing a form of leveraged investing. In other words, you're gambling on the stock market using money that you've borrowed. While it's not as dangerous as say, getting money from a loan shark to play blackjack in Vegas, there is always the chance that markets can collapse and your investment's value will drop rapidly. The amount of risk really depends on what specific investments you choose and how diversified they are - if you buy only Canadian stocks then you're at risk of losing a lot if something happened to our economy. But if your Canadian equities only amount to 3.6% of your total (which is Canada's share of the world market), and you're holding stocks in many different countries then the diversification will reduce your overall risk. The reason I mention that is because many people using the Smith Maneuver are only buying Canadian high-yield dividend stocks, so that they can use the dividends to accelerate the Smith Maneuver process (use the dividends to pay down the mortgage, then borrow more and invest it). They prefer Canadian equities because of preferential tax treatment of the dividend income (in non-registered accounts). But if something happened to those Canadian companies, they stand to lose much of the investment value and suddenly they have the extra debt (the amount borrowed from a HELOC, or from a re-advanceable mortgage) without enough value in the investments to offset it. This could mean that they will not be able to pay off the mortgage by the time they retire!",
"qid": 10136,
"docid": "290831",
"rank": 54,
"score": 73015
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: But investing into your own company is already a tax deductible event. Expenditures like Research & Development, employee compensation, and acquiring new equipment are all things that reduce taxable income. https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/markets/2016/05/20/third-cash-owned-5-us-companies/84640704/ > Apple (AAPL), Microsoft (MSFT), Alphabet (GOOGL), Cisco Systems (CSCO) and Oracle (ORCL) are sitting on $504 billion, or 30%, of the $1.7 trillion in cash and cash equivalents held by U.S. non-financial companies in 2015, according to an analysis released Friday by ratings agency Moody's Investors Service. That's even more cash concentration than in previous years, as these five companies held 27% of cash in 2014 and 25% in 2013. Apple alone is holding more cash and investments than eight of the 10 entire industry sectors. 1/3 of all dollars created by the US Federal Reserve banking system (physically minted or otherwise) is collectively held by 5 companies. Companies exist to accumulate wealth and will seek to avoid unnecessary expenditures, which includes taxes. The corporate income tax rate is 35%. For individuals, the top income tax bracket (for every dollar of income above $400,000) is 39.6%. I argue that dropping the top individual income tax bracket down to 34% will not materially affect these companies (paying 35% income tax) from continuing to just sit on a ludicrous sum of wealth.",
"qid": 10136,
"docid": "26091",
"rank": 55,
"score": 73011
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The risk-reward relation depends on what you are changing. In the most cases people ask about, it is not linear but I will give examples of both. Nonlinear case 1: As you diversify your portfolio, the firm-specific risks of various stocks cancel each other out without necessarily affecting the expected return of the portfolio. Reduction in risk without any loss in returns--very nonlinear. Nonlinear case 2: If you are changing the weights in your portfolio to move along the efficient frontier, then you the risk-reward relation is a hyperbola, which is nonlinear. Nonlinear case 3: If you are changing the weights in your portfolio to move away from the efficient frontier, then you increase risk without adding a fully compensatory amount of return. There could be many paths along the risk-reward plane, but generally it will not be linear in the sense that it will not be on the same line as your initial, efficient, portfolio and your savings account. Linear case 1: The most common sense in which we think of the risk-reward relation being linear is when the thing you are changing is the size of your investment. If you take money out of savings to put in your fully diversified portfolio without changing the relative weights, your expected returns will increase linearly. Linear case 2: If you believe the CAPM, then the expected return of an asset stock is linearly proportional to the market risk of the firm. If you could change the market risk of a single asset without changing anything else, then you would linearly change its expected return. The general rule about the risk/reward relation is this: If you are changing the size of your investment, the relation is linear. If you are changing its composition, the relation is nonlinear",
"qid": 10136,
"docid": "309387",
"rank": 56,
"score": 72989
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"From what you say, a savings account sounds like the most appropriate option. (Of course you should keep your checking account too to use for day-to-day expenses, but put money that you want to sock away into the savings account.) The only way to guarantee you won't lose money and also guarantee that you can take the money out whenever you want is to put your money in a checking or savings account. If you put it in a savings account you will at least earn some paltry amount of interest, whereas with a checking account you wont. The amount of interest you earn with only a few hundred (or even a few thousand) dollars will be miniscule, but you know that the nominal value of your money won't go down. The real value of your money will go down, because the interest you're earning will be less than inflation. (That is, if you put $1000 in, you know there will be at least $1000 in there until you take some out. But because of inflation, that $1000 won't buy as much in the future as it does today, so the effective buying power of your money will go down.) However, there's no way to avoid this while keeping your money absolutely safe from loss and maintaining absolute freedom to take it out whenever you want. To address a couple of the alternatives you mentioned: It's good that you're thinking about this now. However, you shouldn't worry unduly about \"\"getting the most out of your money\"\" at this stage. As you said, you have $400 and will soon be making $200/week. In other words, two weeks after your job starts, you'll have earned as much as your entire savings before you started the job. Even if all your cash \"\"went down the drain\"\", you'd make it up in two weeks. Of course, you don't want to throw your money away for nothing. But when your savings are small relative to your income, it's not really worth it to agonize over investment choices to try to get the maximum possible return on your investment. Instead, you should do just what you seem to be doing: prioritize safety, both in terms of keeping your money in a safe account, and try to save rather than spending frivolously. In your current situation, you can double your savings in one month, by working at your part-time job. There's no investment anywhere there that can even come close to that. So don't worry about missing out on some secret opportunity. At this stage, you can earn far more by working than you can by investing, so you should try to build up your savings. When you have enough that you are comfortable with more risk, then you will be in a position to consider other kinds of investments (like stock market index funds), which are riskier but will earn you better returns in the long run.\"",
"qid": 10136,
"docid": "390556",
"rank": 57,
"score": 72981
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Check whether you're being charged a \"\"Cash advance\"\" fee with your withdrawals, because it's being withdrawn from your credit card account. If that's happening to you, then having a positive balance on your credit card account will dramatically reduce the fees. Quoting from my answer to a similar question on Travel Stack Exchange: It turns out that even though \"\"Cash advance fee - ATM\"\" has \"\"ATM\"\" in it, it doesn't mean that it's being charged by the ATM you're withdrawing from. It's still being charged by the bank of your home country. And depending on your bank, that fee can be minimized by having a positive balance in your credit card account. This isn't just for cards specially marketed at globehoppers and globeshoppers (mentioned in an answer to a similar question), but even for ordinary credit cards: Help minimise and avoid fees An administrative charge of 2% of the value of the transaction will apply to each cash advance made on your card account, where your account has a negative (debit) balance after the transaction has been posted to it. A minimum charge of $2.50 and a maximum charge of $150 will apply in these circumstances. Where your account has a positive (credit) balance after the transaction has been posted to it, a charge of $2.50 will apply to the transaction. Any such charge will appear on your credit card statement directly below the relevant cash advance. A $2.50 charge if your account is positive, versus $20 if the account is negative? That's a bit of a difference!\"",
"qid": 10136,
"docid": "198349",
"rank": 58,
"score": 72915
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"All investors have ultimately the same investment goal: maximize returns while limiting risk to an acceptable level. Of course we would love to maximize returns while minimizing risk, but in most cases if you want higher returns you must be willing to accept higher levels of risk. We must keep in mind that investors are humans, not computers. As such not everybody is willing to accept the same level of risk. Insurance is simply a way to \"\"buy down\"\" risk. Yes, it reduces our overall gains (most of the time), but so do bonds vs stocks (most of the time). And yet who among us doesn't have bonds in our portfolio? Insurance is yet another way to balance risk and return.\"",
"qid": 10136,
"docid": "272520",
"rank": 59,
"score": 72896
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Article (behind paywall): > There has been a glut of gloomy Brexit predictions about the UK’s financial services industry. Consultancy Oliver Wyman has said up to 75,000 jobs could leave Britain. EY, another consulting firm, thinks as many as 83,000 roles could move. The London Stock Exchange Group has plumped for 100,000. > Much of the analysis is based on worst-case “hard Brexit” scenarios, involving only a very loose association or no deal at all between the UK and the EU. The banking industry would be most at risk, experts agree, but there would also be some impact on insurance. Analysts have been more optimistic, however, about the asset management industry. > For anyone paying attention over the summer break, though, this last piece of received wisdom has been thrown into doubt. > In mid-July, Esma, the EU securities regulator, published an opinion paper, suggesting national regulators should take a tougher line on policing the asset management sector after Brexit. > In particular, it zeroed in on “delegation” rules that allow a fund management company registered in one country to outsource its asset management to another place, either within the EU or outside it. > This sounds like pretty arcane stuff. But it is crucial architecture for the European and global asset management industry. Philip Warland, a former Fidelity executive who is now a consultant, reckons about 90 per cent of EU assets under management make use of delegation rules. Most European funds are registered in Dublin or Luxembourg, but the actual fund management takes place globally, with the largest chunk delegated to London. > Anecdotal evidence suggests France is very keen to win more of this business. And when Esma published its paper, the UK industry smelled a rat. Not only is the regulator Paris-based, but the “convergence” agenda, under which the opinion paper was published, is the responsibility of Sophie Vuarlot-Dignac, a seasoned French regulator. > The wording in the delegation section of the document has alarmed some fund managers. “Delegation to non-EU entities could make oversight and supervision of the delegated functions more difficult . . . National competent authorities should therefore give special consideration to such delegation arrangements and be satisfied that their implementation is justified based on objective reasons despite the additional risks which may arise from them.” > In plain language, that could mean at the very least that more risk management functions need to be put on the ground where a fund is registered, or at most that no fund management functions can be delegated outside the EU. > Taken to its logical extreme, this would not only be very disruptive for the asset management industry and the current hubs in the UK, the US and Asia where most of the best fund managers are based, but there would in likelihood be a second-order magnetic effect on the investment banks, whose traders and salespeople would need to follow their fund manager clients to parts of mainland Europe. If that happened, those apparently doom-mongering post-Brexit job-move predictions might start to look conservative. > According to Efama, the European fund management association, total assets under management in Europe last year were €22.8tn, equivalent to almost a third of the global total. More than 4,000 asset management groups are registered in Europe directly employing 100,000 people, nearly 40 per cent of them in the UK. Across the EU, close to half a million people are in jobs that service the asset management industry. > All of the above is a worst-case interpretation of a non-binding document. Eyes are now turning to the European Commission, which is due next January to review the AIFMD, a directive that covers “alternative” asset managers such as hedge funds. > It may also review the directive on Ucits — the rules on mutual funds based in the EU. Even if the commission did decide the delegation rules should be tightened, any changes would need to go through the full EU process at the European Parliament and European Council. Fund experts believe Ireland and Luxembourg, which have prospered as global administration hubs for the industry thanks to the current rules, would reject calls for change, no matter how hard France pushes. > Such optimism may prove justified, but in the meantime another Brexit risk for London has appeared on the horizon.",
"qid": 10136,
"docid": "543267",
"rank": 60,
"score": 72545
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"value slip below vs \"\"equal a bank savings account’s safety\"\" There is no conflict. The first author states that money market funds may lose value, precisely due to duration risk. The second author states that money market funds is as safe as a bank account. Safety (in the sense of a bond/loan/credit) mostly about default risk. For example, people can say that \"\"a 30-year U.S. Treasury Bond is safe\"\" because the United States \"\"cannot default\"\" (as said in the Constitution/Amendments) and the S&P/Moody's credit rating is the top/special. Safety is about whether it can default, ex. experience a -100% return. Safety does not directly imply Riskiness. In the example of T-Bond, it is ultra safe, but it is also ultra risky. The volatility of 30-year T-Bond could be higher than S&P 500. Back to Money Market Funds. A Money Market Fund could hold deposits with a dozen of banks, or hold short term investment grade debt. Those instruments are safe as in there is minimal risk of default. But they do carry duration risk, because the average duration of the instrument the fund holds is not 0. A money market fund must maintain a weighted average maturity (WAM) of 60 days or less and not invest more than 5% in any one issuer, except for government securities and repurchase agreements. If you have $10,000,000, a Money Market Fund is definitely safer than a savings account. 1 Savings Account at one institution with amount exceeding CDIC/FDIC terms is less safe than a Money Market Fund (which holds instruments issued by 20 different Banks). Duration Risk Your Savings account doesn't lose money as a result of interest rate change because the rate is set by the bank daily and accumulated daily (though paid monthly). The pricing of short term bond is based on market expectation of the interest rates in the future. The most likely cause of Money Market Funds losing money is unexpected change in expectation of future interest rates. The drawdown (max loss) is usually limited in terms of percentage and time through examining historical returns. The rule of thumb is that if your hold a fund for 6 months, and that fund has a weighted average time to maturity of 6 months, you might lose money during the 6 months, but you are unlikely to lose money at the end of 6 months. This is not a definitive fact. Using GSY, MINT, and SHV as an example or short duration funds, the maximum loss in the past 3 years is 0.4%, and they always recover to the previous peak within 3 months. GSY had 1.3% per year return, somewhat similar to Savings accounts in the US.\"",
"qid": 10136,
"docid": "422218",
"rank": 61,
"score": 72113
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"There are two kinds of engagements in an IPO. The traditional kind where the Banks assume the risks of unsold shares. Money coming out of their pockets to hold shares no one wants. That is the main risk. No one buying the stock that the bank is holding. Secondly, there is a \"\"best efforts\"\" engagement. This means that bank will put forth its best effort to sell the shares, but will not be on the hook if any don't sell. This is used for small cap / risky companies. Source: Author/investment banker\"",
"qid": 10136,
"docid": "518242",
"rank": 62,
"score": 72095
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The simplest, most convenient way I know of to \"\"move your savings to Canada\"\" is to purchase an exchange-traded fund like FXC, the CurrencyShares Canadian Dollar Trust, or a similar instrument. (I identify this fund because I know it exists, not because I particularly recommend it.) Your money will be in Canadian currency earning Canadian interest rates. You will pay a small portion of that interest in fees. Since US banks are already guaranteed by the FDIC up to $250,000 per account, I don't really think you avoid any risks associated with the failure of an individual bank, but you might fare better if the US currency is subject to inflation or unfavorable foreign-exchange movements - not that such a thing would be a direct risk of a bank failure, but it could happen as a result of actions taken by the Federal Reserve under the auspices of aiding the economy if the economy worsens in the wake of a financial crisis - or, for that matter, if it worsens as a result of something else, including legislative, regulatory, or executive policies. Read the prospectus to understand additional risks with this investment. One of them is foreign-exchange risk. If the US economy and currency strengthen relative to the Canadian economy and its currency, you may lose substantial amounts of purchasing power. Additionally, one of the possible results of a financial crisis is a \"\"flight to safety\"\"; the global financial markets still seem to think the US dollar is pretty safe, and they may bid it up as they have done in the past, resulting in losses to your position (at least in the short term). I do not personally recommend moving all your savings to Canada, especially if it deprives you of income from more profitable investments over the long term, but moving some of your savings to Canada at least isn't a stupid idea, and it may turn out to be somewhat profitable. Having some Canadian currency is also a good idea if you plan to spend the money that you are saving on Canadian goods in the intermediate future.\"",
"qid": 10136,
"docid": "217727",
"rank": 63,
"score": 71942
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If I knew a surefire way to make money in FOREX (or any market for that matter) I would not be sharing it with you. If you find an indicator that makes sense to you and you think you can make money, use it. For what it's worth, I think technical analysis is nonsense. If you're just now wading in to the FOREX markets because of the Brexit vote I suggest you set up a play-money account first. The contracts and trades can be complicated, losses can be very large and you can lose big -- quickly. I suspect FOREX brokers have been laughing to the bank the last couple weeks with all the guppies jumping in to play with the sharks.",
"qid": 10136,
"docid": "450740",
"rank": 64,
"score": 71918
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Assuming this'll be a taxable account and you're an above-average wage earner, the following seem to be biggest factors in your decision: tax-advantaged income w/o retirement account protection - so I'd pick a stock/stocks or fund that's designed to minimize earnings taxable at income and/or short-term gains rates (e.g. dividends) declining risk profile - make sure you periodically tweak your investment mix over the 2-3 year period to reduce your risk exposure. You want to be near savings account risk levels by the end of your timeline. But make sure you keep #1 in mind - so probably don't adjust (by selling) anything until you've hit the 1-year holding mark to get the long-term capital gains rates. In addition to tax-sensitive stock & bond funds at the major brokerages like Fidelity, I'd specifically look at tax-free municipal bond funds (targeted for your state of residence) since those generally pay better than savings on after tax basis for little increase in risk (assuming you stick w/ higher-rated municipalities).",
"qid": 10136,
"docid": "446770",
"rank": 65,
"score": 71824
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: A 15% discount is a 17.6% return. (100/85 = 1.176). For a holding period that's an average 15.5 days, a half month. It would be silly to compound this over a year as the numbers are limited. The safest way to do this is to sell the day you are permitted. In effect, you are betting, 12 times a year, that the stock won't drop 15% in 3 days. You can pull data going back decades, or as long as your company has been public, and run a spreadsheet to see how many times, if at all, the stock has seen this kind of volatility over 3 day periods. Even for volatile stocks, a 15% move is pretty large, you're likely to find your stock doing this less than once per year. It's also safest to not accumulate too many shares of your company for multiple reasons, having to do with risk spreading, diversification, etc. 2 additional points - the Brexit just caused the S&P to drop 4% over the last 3 days trading. This was a major world event, but, on average we are down 4%. One would have to be very unlucky to have their stock drop 15% over the specific 3 days we are discussing. The dollars at risk are minimal. Say you make $120K/yr. $10K/month. 15% of this is $1500 and you are buying $1765 worth of stock. The gains, on average are expected to be $265/mo. Doesn't seem like too much, but it's $3180 over a years' time. $3180 in profit for a maximum $1500 at risk at any month's cycle.",
"qid": 10136,
"docid": "121480",
"rank": 66,
"score": 71691
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Two ways to mitigate this risk are to buy a put at a lower premium to the written call, or manage your trade by buying back your call if you see the underlying price going against you - a bit similar to having a stop loss.",
"qid": 10136,
"docid": "343613",
"rank": 67,
"score": 71614
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I'm going to suggest a slightly different approach. Most answers seem to suggest paying off the lower rate card to clear it. Some answers / comments also talk about emergency funds. One risk of paying off a card is that the card issuer may choose to reduce your credit limit if they see you as high risk, to prevent you re-spending the money. If you don't trust yourself with the card then this could be a good thing (and remember you're always free to ask for a limit decrease). But if you want access to emergency funds, then I would suggest paying half onto each card. That way if one card cuts you off, you have a chance of still having access to the other in an emergency.",
"qid": 10136,
"docid": "273095",
"rank": 68,
"score": 71607
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Short time horizon, small pot of money, and low appetite for risk? That smells like low return situation to me. I guess it depends on how low your appetite for risk is, though. You could open a brokerage account (free) and purchase $10K worth of a fully diversified ETF like VTI, optionally putting maybe 20% of it in a diversified bond ETF. I consider that a reasonably conservative investment, but if you are of the mindset that you cannot tolerate a drop in your wealth, it's not going to work. Plus if you don't have any other investments, this will be the thing that requires you to report capital gains to the IRS, and that paperwork is never fun. As an alternative, you have CD's, which will make you very little. Or a high-ish interest rate electronic savings account like Capital one 360 or Emigrant Direct (there are probably newer ones now that outcompete even these). Still, with anything in this paragraph you will be lucky to beat inflation. The real interest rate was negative last time I checked, so every risk-free investment will lose money in purchasing power terms. To beat inflation you will need to take on nonnegligible risk.",
"qid": 10136,
"docid": "368338",
"rank": 69,
"score": 71081
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Risk is reduced but isn't zero The default risk is still there, the issuer can go bankrupt, and you can still loose all or some of your money if restructuring happens. If the bond has a callable option, the issuer can retire them if conditions are favourable for the issuer, you can still loose some of your investment. Callable schedule should be in the bond issuer's prospectus while issuing the bond. If the issuer is in a different country, that brings along a lot of headaches of recovering your money if something goes bad i.e. forex rates can go up and down. YTM, when the bond was bought was greater than risk free rate(govt deposit rates) Has to be greater than the risk free rate, because of the extra risk you are taking. Reinvestment risk is less because of the short term involved(I am assuming 2-3 years at max), but you should also look at the coupon rate of your bond, if it isn't a zero-coupon bond, and how you invest that. would it be ideal to hold the bond till maturity irrespective of price change It always depends on the current conditions. You cannot be sure that everything is fine, so it pays to be vigilant. Check the health of the issuer, any adverse circumstances, and the overall economy as a whole. As you intend to hold till maturity you should be more concerned about the serviceability of the bond by the issuer on maturity and till then.",
"qid": 10136,
"docid": "286226",
"rank": 70,
"score": 71030
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The problem is that every option comes with risk - as you note, if you put money in stocks, you could lose (and many stocks are overpriced). If you put money in bonds, you could lose (many bonds are overpriced). If you buy precious metals, they could fall further currently. If you hold cash, central banks might try to ban cash (we'll hear the typical \"\"This will never happen\"\" from financial advisers - and they'll be wrong). Cryptocurrencies are an option, but boy do they fluctuate, so there's risk here too. Those are options and all come with risks, and here's my preferred approach to handling negative interest rates:\"",
"qid": 10136,
"docid": "374400",
"rank": 71,
"score": 70751
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Several events will always result in a reduction of your score, including: These will show up in the short term, but I don't think it's worth $40 per year in perpetuity to avoid this. These aren't serious \"\"black marks\"\" in the same category as missing payments, carrying too much debt, or foreclosures/evictions, etc. These effects are designed to signal issuers when someone acquires a large amount of credit in a very short period of time, which may indicate a greater risk. If your credit is good and you are using your other cards responsibly, closing the card (given the annual fee) would not cause me great concern if it were me. Since you are so much better of a risk than you likely were in college, you can also call Capital One, ask to speak with a supervisor, and ask them to drop the fee and increase your credit limit. They should be able to easily verify that you meet the requirements for other types of preferred cards they offer, and they should be willing to offer you improved terms rather than losing your business. It is very possible they simply haven't re-evaluated your risk since you initially applied. Also, remember that these types of effects determine only a portion of your overall score. Activity is also a major component. Rather than leaving an unused card open for history and debt-to-limit purposes only, I would also recommend having some minimum level of activity, such as an automatic bill payment, on each card you carry. The effect of using your cards over time will have a significant positive effect on your score. Best of luck!\"",
"qid": 10136,
"docid": "579472",
"rank": 72,
"score": 70731
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"It's amusing that despite all the evidence that \"\"you can't time the market\"\", everyone still wants to try. Of course I understand your fear. If you invest all your money in the stock market today and it suddenly falls tomorrow you will feel very bad. There are a few things you can do to reduce your risk with respect to timing, however: Don't plop all your money down on the same day. Invest in the market over time, perhaps a few hundred dollars per month worth (depending on your appetite). This averages your purchase cost to ensure you aren't buying at the time when prices are highest. The down side is of course that if you leave cash sitting around, you might also not be buying when the prices are lowest either and will probably miss out on some gains. Still, if risk is your concern, this is a sound strategy. Invest in various markets overseas. This will expose you to some currency risk, but lower your timing risk, as even with globalization markets don't rise and fall in tandem. Even with both of the above, you can still be just plain unlucky (or lucky). I would recommend that you invest only money that you don't need to take out in the near future (in order to reduce the chance that the money will have lost value since you put it in!), and that you don't watch the markets since it makes a lot of people nervous and tends to prod them into doing exactly the wrong thing at exactly the wrong time.\"",
"qid": 10136,
"docid": "350068",
"rank": 73,
"score": 70699
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The risk of any investment is measured by its incremental effect on the volatility of your overall personal wealth, including your other investments. The usual example is that adding a volatile stock to your portfolio may actually reduce the risk of your portfolio if it is negatively correlated with the other stuff in your portfolio. Common measures of risk, such as beta, assume that you have whole-market diversified portfolio. In the case of an investment that may or may not be hedged against currency movements, we can't say whether the hedge adds or removes risk for you without knowing what else is in your portfolio. If you are an EU citizen with nominally delimited savings or otherwise stand to lose buying power if the Euro depreciates relative to the dollar, than the \"\"hedged\"\" ETF is less risky than the \"\"unhedged\"\" version. On the other hand, if your background risk is such that you benefit from that depreciation, then the reverse is true. \"\"Hedging\"\" means reducing the risk already present in your portfolio. In this case it does not refer to reducing the individual volatility of the ETF. It may or may not do that but individual asset volatility and risk are two very different things.\"",
"qid": 10136,
"docid": "519941",
"rank": 74,
"score": 70573
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Yes there is regulation in place see here Quote from the page Instant-access savings accounts As with current accounts, if a bank is to reduce the interest rate on an instant-access savings account it generally has to give two months’ notice. Other savings accounts To change the interest rate on other savings accounts, such as those with a notice period and cash ISAs, a bank should give you reasonable notice that it intends to make a ‘material reduction’. A reduction is consider to be ‘material’ if you have £500 or more in your account and the interest rate falls by more than 0.25% at one time or by 0.5% or more over 12 months. This should give you enough time to move your money to another account, without penalty, if you are not happy with the reduced rate.",
"qid": 10136,
"docid": "295893",
"rank": 75,
"score": 70397
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: A short sale will be pretty bad for your credit report. It will linger for 7 years. This may ruin your opportunity to buy in the new area. On the other hand you need to run the numbers, the last I looked into this, the bank will look at rent and discount it by 25%. So the shortfall of $800/mo (after adjustment) will reduce your borrowing power if you rent it out. In general this is the idea. You rent for a year, and buy into the new area. If you short sell after this, while your credit is trashed, you still have your new home, and $50K less debt. (Disclaimer - There are those who question the ethics of this, a willing short sale. I am offering a purely business answer and making no judgment either way. I owed $90K on a condo where others were selling for $20K. I paid until it came up enough that a lump sum got me out upon sale. The bank got its money in full) An article on the differences between foreclosure and short sale.",
"qid": 10136,
"docid": "404487",
"rank": 76,
"score": 70334
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If the bank wants to close your account, they will do just that. Having a small ongoing balance isn't going to prompt them to keep it open. Typically, the risk is for a card with zero usage to be closed, as it's a cost to them to keep the account open, and it has no revenue. To avoid this, it's a good idea to use that card or cards for a regular purchase, say, gasoline. A non-impulse buy, and just pay in full to avoid interest. There's no need to keep a balance accruing interest. Keep in mind - A bill contains a month of charges. The bill for December is issued on the 31st, but due January 25th or so. When you pay it in full you do not have zero balance, you have the charges from January. This accomplishes your goal, will no interest.",
"qid": 10136,
"docid": "261197",
"rank": 77,
"score": 70054
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: From the business side of credit cards, Discover and American Express carry their own risk. AmEx has lent their logo to banks such as Bank of America (BofA) to use the AmEx transaction network, but the financial risk and customer service is provided by BofA. Visa and MasterCard let banks use their logo and process through their respective networks for a fee. The financial risk of fraud, non-payment from merchants, etc is the risk that the individual banks carry.",
"qid": 10136,
"docid": "442435",
"rank": 78,
"score": 69872
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If your money market funds are short-term savings or an emergency fund, you might consider moving them into an online saving account. You can get interest rates close to 1% (often above 1% in higher-rate climates) and your savings are completely safe and easily accessible. Online banks also frequently offer perks such as direct deposit, linking with your checking account, and discounts on other services you might need occasionally (i.e. money orders or certified checks). If your money market funds are the lowest-risk part of your diversified long-term portfolio, you should consider how low-risk it needs to be. Money market accounts are now typically FDIC insured (they didn't used to be), but you can get the same security at a higher interest rate with laddered CD's or U.S. savings bonds (if your horizon is compatible). If you want liquidity, or greater return than a CD will give you, then a bond fund or ETF may be the right choice, and it will tend to move counter to your stock investments, balancing your portfolio. It's true that interest rates will likely rise in the future, which will tend to decrease the value of bond investments. If you buy and hold a single U.S. savings bond, its interest payments and final payoff are set at purchase, so you won't actually lose money, but you might make less than you would if you invested in a higher-rate climate. Another way to deal with this, if you want to add a bond fund to your long-term investment portfolio, is to invest your money slowly over time (dollar-cost averaging) so that you don't pay a high price for a large number of shares that immediately drop in value.",
"qid": 10136,
"docid": "559927",
"rank": 79,
"score": 69805
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: It also reduces risk from the bank's eyes. Believe it or not, they do lose out when people don't pay on their mortgages. Take the big 3 (Wells, Chase and BoA). If they have 50 million mortgages between the 3 of them and 20% of people at one point won't be able to pay their mortgage due to loss of income or other factors, this presents a risk factor. Although interest payments are still good, reducing their principal and interest keeps them tied down for additional (or sometimes shorter) time, but now they are more likely to keep getting those payments. That's why credit cards back in 07 and 08 reduced limits for customers. The risk factor is huge now for these financial institutions. Do your research, sometimes a refi isn't the best option. Sometimes it is.",
"qid": 10136,
"docid": "129567",
"rank": 80,
"score": 69525
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The difference is downside risk. Your CD, assuming you are in the US and the CD is purchased from a deposit bank, will be FDIC insured, your $10,000 is definitely coming back to you. Your stock portfolio has no such guarantee and can lose money. Your potential upside is theoretically correlated to the risk that some or all of your money may not be returned to you.",
"qid": 10136,
"docid": "237712",
"rank": 81,
"score": 69486
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: sorry I disagree, they buy government bonds currently held by private banks (who hold them for account holders), this increased demand for government bonds means that the yield on them decreases, this means the government can then borrow at a lower rate (providing the QE isn't offset by a fall in private demand for bonds as they may be seen as unrewarding in terms of the risk taken), private investors will then turn to other investments offering a greater return, this will then increase the capital stock available and expand output, thus increasing employment",
"qid": 10136,
"docid": "598177",
"rank": 82,
"score": 69485
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: When using a debit card there are two limits that may be imposed on the use: the current balance and the maximum daily limit. If the banking institution limits your daily usage that may mean that on a particular day you may not be able to make a large purchase, even though you have money in the bank. Otherwise as long as you have funds in the account linked to the debit card you can make the transaction. The catch is that as soon as the transaction is sent to the bank one of two things happens: the money is immediately deducted from the account; or a hold equal to the the amount of the transaction is placed on the account. A hold is generally used when the transaction is done in two parts: the pre-scan at a restaurant, or gas station. The hold reduces the amount of available funds in the account. A hold or an immediate deduction limits the size of future transactions. To be able to make larger transactions you need to transfer more money into the account. There is no debit card transaction that you can do to artificially allow a larger transaction, unless the bank is not placing a hold or doing an immediate deduction. Because a debit card is linked to a bank account, some accounts have overdraft protection. This protection comes in two forms: they either transfer your money from another account, or they make a loan. Either way there can be costs involved.",
"qid": 10136,
"docid": "440527",
"rank": 83,
"score": 69447
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"You have several options depending on your tolerance for risk. Certainly open an investment account with your bank or through any of the popular discount brokerage services. Then take however much money you're willing to invest and start earning some returns! You can split up the money into various investments, too. A typical default strategy is to take any money you won't need for the long term and put it in an Index Fund like the S&P 500 (or a European equivalent). Yes, it could go down, especially in the short term, but you can sell shares at any time so you're only 2-3 days away at any time from liquidity. Historically this money will generate a positive return in the long run. For smaller time frames, a short-term bond fund often gives a slightly better return than a money market account and some people (like me!) use short-term bond funds as if it were a money market account. There is a very low but real risk of having the fund lose value. So you could take a certain percentage of your money and keep it \"\"close\"\" in a bond fund. Likewise, you can sell shares at any time, win or lose and have the cash available within a couple days.\"",
"qid": 10136,
"docid": "235972",
"rank": 84,
"score": 69356
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"This type of structured product is called a capital protection product. It's like an insurance product - where you give up some upside for protection against losses in certain cases. From the bank's perspective they take your investment, treat it as an \"\"interest-free loan\"\" and buy derivatives (like options) that give them an expected return greater then They make their money: With this product, you are giving up some potential upside in order to protect against losses (other than catastrophic losses if the lower index drops by 50% or more). What's the catch? There's not really a catch. It's a lot like insurance, you might come out ahead (e.g. if the market goes down less than 50%), but you might also give up some upside. The bank will sell enough of these in various flavors to reduce their risk overall (losses in your product will be covered by gains in another). Note that this product won't necessarily sell for $1,000. You might have to pay $1,100 (or $1,005, or whatever the bank can get people to buy them for) for each note whenever it's released. That's where the gain or loss comes into play. If you pay $1,100 but only get $1,000 back because the index didn't go up (or went down) you'd have a net loss of $100. It's subtle, but it is in the prospectus: The estimated value of the notes is only an estimate determined by reference to several factors. The original issue price of the notes will exceed the estimated value of the notes because costs associated with selling, structuring and hedging the notes are included in the original issue price of the notes. These costs include the selling commissions, the projected profits, if any, that our affiliates expect to realize for assuming risks inherent in hedging our obligations under the notes and the estimated cost of hedging our obligations under the notes.\"",
"qid": 10136,
"docid": "520952",
"rank": 85,
"score": 69318
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"You might find some of the answers here helpful; the question is different, but has some similar concerns, such as a changing economic environment. What approach should I take to best protect my wealth against currency devaluation & poor growth prospects. I want to avoid selling off any more of my local index funds in a panic as I want to hold long term. Does my portfolio balance make sense? Good question; I can't even get US banks to answer questions like this, such as \"\"What happens if they try to nationalize all bank accounts like in the Soviet Union?\"\" Response: it'll never happen. The question was what if! I think that your portfolio carries a lot of risk, but also offsets what you're worried about. Outside of government confiscation of foreign accounts (if your foreign investments are held through a local brokerage), you should be good. What to do about government confiscation? Even the US government (in 1933) confiscated physical gold (and they made it illegal to own) - so even physical resources can be confiscated during hard times. Quite a large portion of my foreign investments have been bought at an expensive time when our currency is already around historic lows, which does concern me in the event that it strengthens in future. What strategy should I take in the future if/when my local currency starts the strengthen...do I hold my foreign investments through it and just trust in cost averaging long term, or try sell them off to avoid the devaluation? Are these foreign investments a hedge? If so, then you shouldn't worry if your currency does strengthen; they serve the purpose of hedging the local environment. If these investments are not a hedge, then timing will matter and you'll want to sell and buy your currency before it does strengthen. The risk on this latter point is that your timing will be wrong.\"",
"qid": 10136,
"docid": "407259",
"rank": 86,
"score": 69290
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: TL:DR: You should read something like The Little Book of Common Sense Investing, and read some of the popular questions on this site. The main message that you will get from that research is that there is an inescapable connection between risk and reward, or to put it another way, volatility and reward. Things like government bonds and money market accounts have quite low risk, but also low reward. They offer a nearly guaranteed 1-3%. Stocks, high-risk bonds, or business ventures (like your soda and vending machine scheme) may return 20% a year some years, but you could also lose money, maybe all you've invested (e.g., what if a vandal breaks one of your machines or the government adds a $5 tax for each can of soda?). Research has shown that the best way for the normal person to use their money to make money is to buy index funds (these are funds that buy a bunch of different stocks), and to hold them for a long time (over 10-15 years). By buying a broad range of stocks, you avoid some of the risks of investing (e.g., if one company's stock tanks, you don't lose very much), while keeping most of the benefits. By keeping them for a long time, the good years more than even out the bad years, and you are almost guaranteed to make ~6-7%/year. Buying individual stocks is a really, really bad idea. If you aren't willing to invest the time to become an expert investor, then you will almost certainly do worse than index funds over the long run. Another option is to use your capital to start a side business (like your vending machine idea). As mentioned before, this still has risks. One of those risks is that it will take more work than you expect (who will find places for your vending machines? Who will fill them? Who will hire those who fill them? etc.). The great thing about an index fund is that it doesn't take work or research. However, if there are things that you want to do, that take capital, this can be a good way to make more income.",
"qid": 10136,
"docid": "540527",
"rank": 87,
"score": 69144
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: A general rule of thumb is to avoid having more than 5% of your investments in any single stock, to avoid excessive risk; it's usually even more risky if you're talking company stock because an adverse event could result in an inferior stock price and you getting laid off. Under other circumstances, the ideal amount of company stock is probably 0%. But there are tax benefits to waiting, as you've noted, and if you're reasonably confident that the stock isn't likely to jerk around too much, and you have a high risk tolerance (i.e. lots of extra savings besides this), and you're comfortable shouldering the risk of losing some money, it might make sense to hold onto the stock for a year - but never any longer. The real risk to holding a lot of company stock doesn't depend on how often you buy it and sell it per se, but having period purchases every month should make it easier for you to ladder the funds, and regularly sell your old shares as you purchase new shares. You might also consider a stop-loss order on the stock at or near the price you purchased it at. If the stock is at $100, then you buy at $85, and then the stock drops to $85, there are no more outstanding tax benefits and it makes no sense to have it as part of your portfolio instead of any other speculative instrument - you probably get better diversification benefits with any other speculative instrument, so your risk-adjusted returns would be higher.",
"qid": 10136,
"docid": "124230",
"rank": 88,
"score": 69130
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-jobs-exclusive/exclusive-10000-uk-finance-jobs-affected-in-brexits-first-wave-reuters-survey-idUSKCN1BT1EU) reduced by 91%. (I'm a bot) ***** > LONDON - Around 10,000 finance jobs will be shifted out of Britain or created overseas in the next few years if the UK is denied access to Europe&#039;s single market, according to a Reuters survey of firms employing the bulk of workers in international finance. > The 39 who gave information on their Brexit staffing plans included many of the companies most likely to be affected by losing the EU financial &quot;Passport&quot; mechanism because London is their base to sell services across the EU. The survey indicated 9,777 banking roles would be affected. > Bank of America and Credit Suisse, two of the biggest investment banks in London, declined to say how many jobs would be affected. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/70vv1n/10000_uk_finance_jobs_affected_in_brexits_first/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~212179 tl;drs so far.\"\") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") | *Top* *keywords*: **Bank**^#1 **Brexit**^#2 **survey**^#3 **job**^#4 **LONDON**^#5\"",
"qid": 10136,
"docid": "565861",
"rank": 89,
"score": 69111
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Be interesting to see how this falls in line with new rules on data protection in the EU (and probably more relevant, the UK as it's maintaining them after Brexit..). Some of the data being held may well not be shareable without consent and if someone turns a spotlight on banks sharing data it could get quite ugly quite quickly.",
"qid": 10136,
"docid": "284305",
"rank": 90,
"score": 69066
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Banks will always and forever make the claim that regulations are \"\"hurting\"\" them. Bankers will always and forever trade tomorrow's systemic risk for today's profits -- if given the chance. Once regulations are reduced, it's only a matter of time before these pathologically self-interested children blow up the system (again).\"",
"qid": 10136,
"docid": "400797",
"rank": 91,
"score": 69018
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you're absolutely certain that you won't buy a house within a year or so, I'd still be tempted to put some of the money into short-term CDs (ie, a max of 12 months). I think that at the moment CDs are a bit of a mug's game though because you'd hardly find one that offers better interest rates than some of the few savings accounts that still offer 1%+ interest. A savings account is probably where I'd put the money unless I could find a really good deal on a CD, but I think you might have to check if they've got withdrawal limits. There are a couple of savings accounts out there that pay at least 1% (yes, I know it's pitiful) so I'd seek out one or two of those. From memory, both Sallie Mae and Amex offer those and I'm sure there are a couple more. It's not great that your money is growing at less than inflation but if you're saving for something like a downpayment on a house I would think that (nominal) capital preservation is probably more important than the potential for a higher return with the associated higher risk.",
"qid": 10136,
"docid": "436777",
"rank": 92,
"score": 69017
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: One reason to not do that is if you consider that one of the loans is at risk of being called in early. e.g. You have a line of credit which is close to its limit, and the bank decides to reduce that limit, forcing you to quickly come up with the money to pay it down below the new limit, which can really throw a wrench into your plans.",
"qid": 10136,
"docid": "426120",
"rank": 93,
"score": 69007
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Either way, letting these humongous institutions fail would have undoubtedly produced a worse result (best case scenario complete credit freeze, i.e no mre credit cards. Worst case scenario, even the most financially sound banks fail as part of a financial domino effect and we're back to trading deer skin for beaver pelts). The best way to prevent these kinds of situations is to never get in them in the first place. Placing graduated capital constraints on larger and larger financial institutions (i.e. the larger your balance sheet, the greater the percentage of capital you must retain to offset risk) is the best way to protect against financial collapse. This way competitive market forces would remain intact, while simoutaneosly reducing risk. Basel 3 addresses some of these issues, but I speculate more will need to be done to prevent another collapse from happening in the future.",
"qid": 10136,
"docid": "19958",
"rank": 94,
"score": 69006
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you hadn't done it already cut up the cards. Don't close the accounts because it could hurt your credit score even more. Switching some or all of the CC debt onto low rate cards, or a debt consolidation loan is a way that some people use to reduce their credit card payments. The biggest risk is that you become less aggressive with the loan payback. If you were planning on paying $800 in minimum payments,plus $200 extra each month; then still pay $1000 with the new loan and remaining credit cards. Another risk is that you start overusing the credit card again, because you have available credit on the card that was paid off with the loan. The third risk, which you haven't proposed, occurs when people switch unsecured credit card dept, to a secured 2nd mortgage debt. This then puts the family home at risk.",
"qid": 10136,
"docid": "508510",
"rank": 95,
"score": 68883
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Myself I am in a similar position. I've had a few good conversations about this with people in the financial services industry. It all depends how much time you want to spend on yielding your profits and how much risk you would like to take. High time and high risk obviously means higher expected gain, but also has a high chance of creating a loss. Option 1: You could buy a home now and take out a mortgage with a high down payment (thus lower interest rates) and rent it out. By the time you are ready to have your own house, you can decide to either take out a mortgage on your second house and make money off your first house, and keep renting it out. Or you could move in there yourself. If you use an asset-back mortgage (i'm not sure if that is the term, but a mortgage where in the worst case you give your home back to the bank), you generally carry least risk. If you keep doing this you can have 2 houses paid off if everything goes well. Option 2: You could also invest in stocks. This all depends on the risk you want to take and the time you want to put in it. Option 3: You could also put the money in a savings account. Some banks will give you better interest rates if you lock the money for a set amount of years. Option 4: You could buy a foreclosure and try to flip it, though this is very risky and requires a lot of time. Also, it is important to also have some sort of emergency fund, so whatever you do, don't spend all your money. Save some for a rainy day :-) Hope it helps..",
"qid": 10136,
"docid": "233413",
"rank": 96,
"score": 68873
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I'm not an expert by any means, but pretty much every source I've seen says that one year is far too short for any sort of real \"\"investment\"\". Most guides suggest that anything less than 3-5 years should stay in no-risk accounts like savings or CDs. If you need to be sure you get all of the money back after just one year, any sort of market-based investment (e.g., stocks or bonds) is too risky. One option is to buy I-bonds. You can buy up to $10,000 worth in a calendar year, and 12 months is the minimum holding period. The advantage of I bonds is that the interest rate is indexed to inflation, so that (roughly speaking) they cannot lose value in real dollars. Right now they pay 1.94% per year, which is substantially better than you're likely to get with a savings account or 12-month CD. This would come to $194 if you buy $10k of I Bonds. If you sell before holding them for five years (which you will under your plan) you forfeit the last 3 months' worth of interest. Even so, your effective rate will likely be better than a savings account or CD. (Also you could get 12 months' worth of interest if you're able to buy them slightly early and/or postpone your sabbatical slightly so that you hold them for 15 months.) Your other option is to find the best rate you can in a CD or savings account. Nerdwallet for instance suggests you could get between 1% and 1.1% for a $10k deposit in a 1-year CD, which would be about $100. As you can see, either way your money is not going to grow that much. You'll be gaining somewhere in the ballpark of a couple hundred dollars at most. There just isn't a way to earn more than that in one year without some risk of losing principal. (I'm assuming based on your Texas flag pic that you live in the USA. :-) To buy I Bonds you must be a US citizen, resident, or government employee.)\"",
"qid": 10136,
"docid": "4772",
"rank": 97,
"score": 68819
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"This does not directly address the question, but how the Bank views your behaviour is not the same as a credit reporting bureau. If you do not \"\"go deep\"\" on your card at all, you may be deemed not to be exercising the facility, indeed they may ask you to reduce your credit limit. This is not the same as \"\"missing a payment\"\". At the same time, do not just make the minimum payment. Ideally you should clear it within 3 months. Think of it as a very short term line of credit. Not clearing the balance within three months (or turning it over) demonstrates a cash flow problem, as does clearing it from another card. Some banks call this \"\"kite flying\"\" after similar behaviour in older days with cheque accounts. If you use the credit and show you can pay it off, you should never need to ask for a credit increase, it will be offered. The Bureau will be informed of these offers. Also, depending upon how much the bank trusts you, the Bureau may see a \"\"monthly\"\" periodic credit review, which is good if you have no delinquencies. Amex does this as a rule.\"",
"qid": 10136,
"docid": "453074",
"rank": 98,
"score": 68794
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Firstly, going short on a stock and worrying if the price suddenly gaps up a lot due to good news is the same as being long on a stock and worrying that the price will suddenly collapse due to bad news. Secondly, an out of the money call option would be cheaper than an in the money call option, in fact the further out of the money the cheaper the premium will be, all other things being equal. So a good risk management strategy would be to set your stop orders as per your trading plan and if you wish to have added protection in case of a large gap is to buy a far out of the money call option. The premium should not be too expensive. Something you should also consider is the time until expiry for the option, if your time frame for trading is days to weeks you make consider a cheaper option that expires in about a month, but if you are planning on holding the position for more than a month you might need a longer expiry period on the option, which will increase the premium. Another option to consider, if your broker offers it, is to use a guaranteed stop loss order. You will pay a little premium for this type of order and not all brokers offer it, but if it is offered you will be protected against any price gaps past your guaranteed stop loss price.",
"qid": 10136,
"docid": "100103",
"rank": 99,
"score": 68607
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: With 100K, I would dump the first 95K into something lame like a tax advantaged bond or do as the others here suggested. My alternative would be to take the remaining 5K and put into something leveraged. For instance, 5K would be more than enough to buy long term LEAPS options on the SPY ETF. @ Time of post, you could get 4 contracts on the DEC 2017 leaps at the $225 strike (roughly 10% out of the money) for under $1200 apiece. Possibly $1100 if you scalp them. 4 * $1200 = $4800 at risk. 4 * $22500 = $90,000 = amount of SPY stock you control with your $4800. If the market drops, SPY never reaches $225 in the next 3 years and you are out the $4800, but can use that to reduce capital gains and still have the $95K on the sidelines earning $950 or so per year. Basically you'd be guaranteed to have $97K in the bank after two years. If the market goes up significantly before 2018, you'll still have 95K in the bank earning a measly 1%, but you've also got 4 contracts which are equal to $90K shares of S&P 500. Almost as if every single dollar was invested. Bad news, if SPY goes up 20% or more from current levels over the next three years you'll unfortunately have earned some taxable income. Boo freaking hoo. https://money.stackexchange.com/a/48958/13043",
"qid": 10136,
"docid": "111921",
"rank": 100,
"score": 68380
}
] |
F-1 student investing in foreign markets | [
{
"content": "Title: Content: As an F1 student, I have been investing (and occasionally buying and selling within few weeks) for several years, and I have never had problems (of course I report to IRS gains/losses every year at tax time). On the other hand, the officer in charge of foreign students at my school advised me to not run ads on a website and make a profit. So, it seems to me that investing is perfectly legit for a F1 student, as it's not considered a business activity. That's obviously my personal understanding, you may want to speak with an immigration attorney to be on the safe side.",
"qid": 10137,
"docid": "78632",
"rank": 1,
"score": 136082
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: It is absolutely legal. While studying on a F-1 you would typically be considered a non-resident alien for tax purposes. You can trade stocks, just like any other foreigner having an account with a US- or non-US based brokerage firm. Make sure to account for profit made on dividends/capital gain when doing your US taxes. A software package provided by your university for doing taxes might not be adequate for this.",
"qid": 10137,
"docid": "308048",
"rank": 2,
"score": 110246
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Since you were a nonresident alien student on F-1 visa then you will be considered engaged in a trade or business in the USA. You must file Form 1040NR. Here is the detailed instruction by IRS - http://www.irs.gov/Individuals/International-Taxpayers/Taxation-of-Nonresident-Aliens",
"qid": 10137,
"docid": "382295",
"rank": 3,
"score": 108860
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You cannot have off-campus employment in your first year, but investments are considered passive income no matter how much time you put into that effort. Obviously you need to stay enrolled full-time and get good enough grades to stay in good standing academically, so you should be cautious about how much time you spend day trading. If the foreign market is also active in a separate time zone, that may help you not to miss class or otherwise divert your attention from your investment in your own education. I have no idea about your wealth, but it seems to me that completing your degree is more likely to build your wealth than your stock market trades, otherwise you would have stayed home and continued trading instead of attending school in another country.",
"qid": 10137,
"docid": "57168",
"rank": 4,
"score": 104578
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I strongly recommend you to invest in either stocks or bonds. Both markets have very strict regulations, and usually follow international standards of governance. Plus, they are closely supervised by local governments, since they look to serve the interests of capital holders in order to attract foreign investment. Real estate investment is not all risky, but regulations tend to be very localized. There are federal, state/county laws and byelaws, the last usually being the most significant in terms of costs (city taxes) and zoning. So if they ever change, that could ruin your investment. Keeping up with them would be hard work, because of language, legal and distance issues (visiting notary's office to sign papers, for example). Another thing to consider is, specially on rural distant areas, the risk of forgers taking your land. In poorer countries you could also face the problem of land invasion, both urban and rural. Solution for that depends on a harsh (fast) or socially populist (slow) local government. Small businesses are out of question for you, frankly. The list of risks (cash stealing, accounting misleading, etc.) is such that you will lose money. Even if you ran the business in your hometown it would not be easy right?",
"qid": 10137,
"docid": "152643",
"rank": 5,
"score": 99472
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: There are no legal reasons preventing you from trading as a F-1 visa holder, as noted in this Money.SE answer. Per this article, here are the things you need to set up an account: What do I need to have for doing Stock trading as F1 student ? Typically, most of the stock brokerage firms require Social Security Number (SSN) for stock trading. The reason is that, for your capital gains, it is required by IRS for tax purposes. If you work on campus, then you would already get SSN as part of the job application process…Typically, once you get the on-campus job or work authorization using CPT or OPT , you use that offer letter and take all your current documents like Passport, I-20, I-94 and apply for SSN at Social Security Administration(SSA) Office, check full details at SSA Website . SSN is typically used to report job wages by employer for tax purposes or check eligibility of benefits to IRS/Government. I do NOT have SSN, Can I still do stock trading as F1 student ? While many stock brokerage firms require SSN, you are not out of luck, if you do not have one…you will have to apply for an ITIN Number ( Individual Taxpayer Identification Number ) and can use the same when applying for stock brokerage account. While some of the firms accept ITIN number, it totally depends on the stock brokering firm and you need to check with the one that you are interested in. The key thing is that you'll need either a SSN or ITIN to open a US-based brokerage account.",
"qid": 10137,
"docid": "412226",
"rank": 6,
"score": 98121
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Between 1 and 2 G is actually pretty decent for a High School Student. Your best bet in my opinion is to wait the next (small) stock market crash, and then invest in an index fund. A fund that tracks the SP500 or the Russel 2000 would be a good choice. By stock market crash, I'm talking about a 20% to 30% drop from the highest point. The stock market is at an all time high, but nobody knows if it's going to keep going. I would avoid penny stocks, at least until you can read their annual report and understand most of what they're claiming, especially the cash flow statement. From the few that I've looked at, penny stock companies just keep issuing stock to raise money for their money loosing operations. I'd also avoid individual stocks for now. You can setup a practice account somewhere online, and try trading. Your classmates probably brag about how much they've made, but they won't tell you how much they lost. You are not misusing your money by \"\"not doing anything with it\"\". Your classmates are gambling with it, they might as well go to a casino. Echoing what others have said, investing in yourself is your best option at this point. Try to get into the best school that you can. Anything that gives you an edge over other people in terms of experience or education is good. So try to get some leadership and team experience. , and some online classes in a field that interests you.\"",
"qid": 10137,
"docid": "23116",
"rank": 7,
"score": 96394
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You weren't really clear about where you are in the world, what currency you are using and what you want your eventual asset allocation to be. If you're in the US, I'd recommend splitting your international investment between a Global ex-US fund like VEU (as Chris suggested in his comment) and an emerging markets ETF like VWO. If you're not in the US, you need to think about how much you would like to invest in US equities and what approach you would like to take to do so. Also, with international funds, particularly emerging markets, low expense ratios aren't necessarily the best value. Active management may help you to avoid some of the risks associated with investing in foreign companies, particularly in emerging markets. If you still want low expenses at all cost, understand the underlying index that the ETF is pegged to.",
"qid": 10137,
"docid": "273861",
"rank": 8,
"score": 95535
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"If you invest in a foreign bank you are subject to their financial rules and regulations. If you put your money with their CD it will be converted to UAH (grivna) and you will be paid back in UAH, which introduces the exchange rate risk. FDIC is not the only reason why a CD in a US bank pays a lower interest, but it could be seen as a contributing factor. It all comes down to risk and what the bank is willing to pay for your money, when a bank issues a CD they are entering the debt market and competing against other banks, governments, or anyone looking for money. If the yield from lending to one bank is the same as the yield of another, the logical choice would be whichever loan is less risky. So in order for the riskier bank to receive loans they must entice investors by offering a greater rate of return. In addition, if a bank isn't looking for loans they might be less inclined to pay for them. - See \"\"What is the “Bernanke Twist” and “Operation Twist”? What exactly does it do?\"\" If your looking to invest in the CD's of foreign banks I would suggest doing research on their regulations. Especially if and how your money is protected in the event the bank goes bust.\"",
"qid": 10137,
"docid": "499436",
"rank": 9,
"score": 91111
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you are tax-resident in the US, then you must report income from sources within and without the United States. Your foreign income generally must be reported to the IRS. You will generally be eligible for a credit for foreign income taxes paid, via Form 1116. The question of the stock transfer is more complicated, but revolves around the beneficial owner. If the stocks are yours but held by your brother, it is possible that you are the beneficial owner and you will have to report any income. There is no tax for bringing the money into the US. As a US tax resident, you are already subject to income tax on the gain from the sale in India. However, if the investment is held by a separate entity in India, which is not a US domestic entity or tax resident, then there is a separate analysis. Paying a dividend to you of the sale proceeds (or part of the proceeds) would be taxable. Your sale of the entity containing the investments would be taxable. There are look-through provisions if the entity is insufficiently foreign (de facto US, such as a Subpart-F CFC). There are ways to structure that transaction that are not taxable, such as making it a bona fide loan (which is enforceable and you must pay back on reasonable terms). But if you are holding property directly, not through a foreign separate entity, then the sale triggers US tax; the transfer into the US is not meaningful for your taxes, except for reporting foreign accounts. Please review Publication 519 for general information on taxation of resident aliens.",
"qid": 10137,
"docid": "454563",
"rank": 10,
"score": 90285
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Foreign stocks tend to be more volatile -- higher risk trades off against higher return potential, always. The better reason for having some money in that area is that, as with bonds, it moves out-of-sync with the US markets and once you pick your preferred distribution, maintaining that balance semi-automatically takes advantage of that to improve your return-vs-risk position. I have a few percent of my total investments in an international stock index fund, and a few percent in an international REIT, both being fairly low-fee. (Low fees mean more of the money reaches you, and seems to be one of the better reasons for preferring one fund over another following the same segment of the market.) They're there because the model my investment advisor uses -- and validated with monte-carlo simulation of my specific mix -- shows that keeping them in the mix at this low level is likely to result in a better long-term outcome than if i left them out. No guarantees, but probabilities lean toward this specfic mix doing what i need. I don't pretend to be able to justify that via theory or to explain why these specific ratios work... but I understand enough about the process to trust that they are on (perhaps of many) reasonable solutions to get the best odds given my specific risk tolerance, timeline, and distaste for actively managing my money more than a few times a year. If that.",
"qid": 10137,
"docid": "79275",
"rank": 11,
"score": 90170
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: As I tell all my clients... remember WHY you are investing in the first. Make a plan and stick to it. Find a strategy and perfect it. A profit is not a profit until you take it. the same goes with a loss. You never loose till you sell for less than what you paid. Stop jumping for one market to the next, find one strategy that works for you. Making money in the stock market is easy when you perfect your trading strategy. As for your questions: Precious metal... Buying or selling look for the trends and time frame for your desired holdings. Foreign investments... They have problem in their economy just as we do, if you know someone that specializes in that... good for you. Bonds and CD are not investments in my opinion... I look at them as parking lots for your cash. At this moment in time with the devaluation of the US dollar and inflation both killing any returns even the best bonds are giving out I see no point in them at this time. There are so many ways to easily and safely make money here in our stock market why look elsewhere. Find a strategy and perfect it, make a plan and stick to it. As for me I love Dividend Capturing and Dividend Stocks, some of these companies have been paying out dividends for decades. Some have been increasing their payouts to their investors since Kennedy was in office.",
"qid": 10137,
"docid": "478711",
"rank": 12,
"score": 89781
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"they said the expected returns from the stock market are around 7-9%(ish). (emphasis added) The key word in your quote is expected. On average \"\"the market\"\" gains in the 7-9% range (more if you reinvest dividends), but there's a great deal of risk too, meaning that in any given year the market could be down 20% or be up 30%. Your student loan, on the other hand, is risk free. You are guaranteed to pay (lose) 4% a year in interest. You can't directly compare the expected return of a risk-free asset with the expected return of a risky asset. You can compare the risks of two assets with equal expected returns, and the expected returns of assets with equal risks, but you can't directly compare returns of assets with different risks. So in two years, you might be better off if you had invested the money versus paying the loan, or you might be much worse off. In ten years, your chances of coming out ahead are better, but still not guaranteed. What's confusing is I've heard that if you're investing, you should be investing in both stocks and bonds (since I'm young I wouldn't want to put much in bonds, though). So how would that factor in? Bonds have lower risk (uncertainty) than stocks, but lower expected returns. If you invest in both, your overall risk is lower, since sometimes (not always) the gain in stocks are offset by losses in bonds). So there is value in diversifying, since you can get better expected returns from a diversified portfolio than from a single asset with a comparable amount of risk. However, there it no risk-free asset that will have a better return than what you're paying in student loan interest.\"",
"qid": 10137,
"docid": "414205",
"rank": 13,
"score": 89528
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: For most people, investing in the stock market directly is one of the last things to do. That's not to say you shouldn't, but rather that there are other things to consider as well. Start with automatic monthly deposits to a liquid account such as savings or money market. The morale boost you get from seeing the balance grow is nearly impossible to beat. Following that, paying down any debts such as student loans or credit cards. Once you've done that, then you should look at company sponsored 401k plans or IRAs. Sharebuilder offers IRAs holding whichever stock or fund you pick. Again, automatic monthly deposits are the way to go here. Good luck, and happy investing :)",
"qid": 10137,
"docid": "178017",
"rank": 14,
"score": 88701
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Inflows to the US equity market can come from a variety of sources; for instance: You were paid a year-end bonus and decided to invest it in US equities instead of foreign equities, bonds, savings or debt reduction. You sold foreign equities, bonds, or other non-US equities and decided to invest in US equities. You decided a better use of cash in a savings account, CD or money market fund, was to invest in US equities. If for every buyer, there's a seller, doesn't that also mean that there were $25B in outflows in the same time period? Not necessarily. Generally, the mentions we see of inflows and outflows are net; that is, the gross investment in US equities, minus gross sales of US equities equals net inflows or outflows. The mere fact that I sold my position in, say, Caterpillar, doesn't mean that I had to re-invest in US equities. I may have bought a bond or a CD or a house. Because of fluctuations in existing stocks market value, bankruptcies and new issues, US equities never are and never will be a zero-sum game.",
"qid": 10137,
"docid": "52149",
"rank": 15,
"score": 87827
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: U.S. citizens are allowed to own foreign bank and investment accounts. However, there are various financial and tax reporting requirements for owners of such accounts. Even when there is no foreign income involved. For example famous FBAR (Fincen Report Form 114), Form 8938, and even more forms if your assets/activities abroad become more complicated. Penalties, even for unintentional non-compliance can be Draconian. So just keep in mind, that once you start having foreign accounts, you will start having additional obligations and might spend more money and time on tax preparation. If you are ok with that, then its cool. But... assuming your gloomy predictions on Trump presidency come true. They might be accompanied by more strict capital control, reporting requirements, and may become even greater pain in the neck for people with foreign assets. Regarding recommendations, I am not sure about banks, but there are some foreign precious metal investing companies that are completely online based such as https://www.bullionvault.com/ and https://www.goldmoney.com/. These might also guard you from potential problems with US dollar.",
"qid": 10137,
"docid": "508895",
"rank": 16,
"score": 87094
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: buying real estate is for people with sufficient financial resources to cover market downturns. Please read about the 2008 real estate market. Investing in real estate when you are a poor college student is a sure way to become a bankrupt college student. A single word answer to your question: No. Not reasonable. Your best investment is completing college with as little debt as possible and the most practical experience in the market area you are interested in entering.",
"qid": 10137,
"docid": "209826",
"rank": 17,
"score": 85914
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Investing in the stock market early is a good thing. However, it does have a learning curve, and that curve can, and eventually will, cost you. One basic rule in investing is that risk and reward are proportional. The greater the reward, the higher the risk that you either (a) won't get the reward, or (b) lose your money instead. Given that, don't invest money you can't afford to lose (you mentioned you're on a student budget). If you want to start with short but sercure investments, try finding a high-interest savings account or CD. For example, the bank I use has an offer where the first $500 in your account gets ~6% interest - certainly not bad if you only put $500 in the account. Unfortunately, most banks are offering a pittance for savings rates or CDs. If you're willing to take more risk, you could certainly put money into the stock market. Before you do, I would recommend spending some time learning about how the stock market works, it's flows and ebbs, and how stock valuations work. Don't buy a stock because you hear about it a lot; understand why that stock is being valued as such. Also consider buying index funds (such as SPY) which is like a stock but tracks an entire index. That way if a specific company suddenly drops, you won't be nearly as affected. On the flip side, if only 1 company goes up, but the market goes down, you'll miss out. But consider the odds of having picked that 1 company.",
"qid": 10137,
"docid": "64168",
"rank": 18,
"score": 85540
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Foreign Exchange (Forex) trading is extremely difficult to do profitably over time – for retail investors and institutional investors alike. Many Forex traders enter the markets with hope of a profitable trading adventure, only to find themselves overwhelmed by the complexity of the markets. Binary options trading enables traders who have experienced difficulty in the Forex market to trade options.",
"qid": 10137,
"docid": "245931",
"rank": 19,
"score": 85351
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"As user quid states in his answer, all you need to do is open an account with a stock broker in order to gain access to the world's stock markets. If you are currently banking with one of the six big bank, then they will offer stockbroking services. You can shop around for the best commission rates. If you wish to manage your own investments, then you will open a \"\"self-directed\"\" account. You can shelter your investments from all taxation by opening a TFSA account with your stock broker. Currently, you can add $5,500 per year to your TFSA. Unused allowances from previous years can still be used. Thus, if you have not yet made any TFSA contributions, you can add upto $46,500 to your TFSA and enjoy the benefits of tax free investing. Investing in what you are calling \"\"unmanaged index funds\"\" means investing in ETFs (Exchange Traded Funds). Once you have opened your account you can invest in any ETFs traded on the stock markets accessible through your stock broker. Buying shares on foreign markets may carry higher commission rates, but for the US markets commissions are generally the same as they are for Canadian markets. However, in the case of buying foreign shares you will carry the extra cost and risk of selling Canadian dollars and buying foreign currency. There are also issues to do with foreign withholding taxes when you trade foreign shares directly. In the case of the US, you will also need to register with the US tax authorities. Foreign withholding taxes payable are generally treated as a tax credit with respect to Canadian taxation, so you will not be double taxed. In today's market, for most investors there is generally no need to invest directly in foreign market indices since you can do so indirectly on the Toronto stock market. The large Canadian ETF providers offer a wide range of US, European, Asian, and Global ETFs as well as Canadian ETFs. For example, you can track all of the major US indices by trading in Toronto in Canadian dollars. The S&P500, the Dow Jones, and the NASDAQ100 are offered in both \"\"currency hedged\"\" and \"\"unhedged\"\" forms. In addition, there are ETFs on the total US Market, US Small Caps, US sectors such as banks, and more exotic ETFs such as those offering \"\"covered call\"\" strategies and \"\"put write\"\" strategies. Here is a link to the BMO ETF website. Here is a link to the iShares (Canada) ETF website.\"",
"qid": 10137,
"docid": "535340",
"rank": 20,
"score": 84605
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Interactive Brokers offers many foreign markets (19 countries) for US based investors. You can trade all these local markets within one universal account which is very convenient in my view. IB offering",
"qid": 10137,
"docid": "89351",
"rank": 21,
"score": 84384
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: There are some ETF's on the Indian market that invest in broad indexes in other countries Here's an article discussing this Be aware that such investments carry an additional risk you do not have when investing in your local market, which is 'currency risk' If for example you invest in a ETF that represents the US S&P500 index, and the US dollar weakens relative to the indian rupee, you could see the value if your investment in the US market go down, even if the index itself is 'up' (but not as much as the change in currency values). A lot of investment advisors recommend that you have at least 75% of your investments in things which are denominated in your local currency (well technically, the same currency as your liabilities), and no more than 25% invested internationally. In large part the reason for this advice is to reduce your exposure to currency risk.",
"qid": 10137,
"docid": "98461",
"rank": 22,
"score": 84376
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Since you already have an emergency fund in place, focus your extra funds on paying off debts like student loans. While some have advised you to play the stock market, not one person has mentioned the word \"\"risk\"\". You are gambling (\"\"investing\"\") your money in the hopes your money will grow. Your student loan is real liability. The longer you keep the loan, the more interest you will pay. You can pay off your student loan in 21 months if you pay $1,100 each month. After the 21 months, you can almost fully fund a 401(k) each year. That will be amazing at your age. Our company gives us the Vanguard Retirement Fund with a low expense ratio of 0.19%. It is passive automated investing where you don't have to think about it. Just add money and just let it ride.\"",
"qid": 10137,
"docid": "502170",
"rank": 23,
"score": 83739
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I agree with the advice given, but I'll add another angle from which to look at it. It sounds like you are already viewing the money used to either pay off the loan early or invest in the market as an investment, which is great. You are wise to think about opportunity cost, but like others pointed out, you are overlooking the risk factor. The way I would look at this is: I could take a guaranteed 6.4% return by paying off the loan or a possible 7% return by investing the money. If the risk pays off modestly, all you've done is earned 0.6%, with a huge debt still hanging over you. Personally, I would take the guaranteed 6.4% return by paying off the debt, then invest in the stock market. Now this is looking at the investment as a single, atomic pool of money. But you can split it up a bit. Let's say the amount of extra disposable income you want to invest with is $1,000/mo. Then you could pay an extra $500/mo to your student loan and invest the other $500 in the stock market, or do a 400/600 split, or whatever suits your risk tolerance. You mentioned multiple loans and 6.4% is the highest loan. What I would do, based on what I value personally, is put every extra penny into paying off the 6.4% loan because that is high. Once that is done, if the next loan is 4% of less, then split my income between paying extra to it and investing in the market. Remember, with each loan you pay off, the monthly income that previously went to it is now available, and can be used for the next loan or the other goals.",
"qid": 10137,
"docid": "546070",
"rank": 24,
"score": 83504
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Which of these two factors is likely to be more significant? There is long term trend that puts one favourable with other. .... I realise that I could just as easily have lost 5% on the LSE and made 5% back on the currency, leaving me with my original investment minus various fees; or to have lost 5% on both. Yes that is true. Either of the 3 scenarios are possible. Those issues aside, am I looking at this in remotely the right way? Yes. You are looking at it the right way. Generally one invests in Foreign markets for;",
"qid": 10137,
"docid": "378390",
"rank": 25,
"score": 82810
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: ChrisW's comment may appear flippant, but it illustrates (albeit too briefly) an important fact - there are aspects of investing that begin to look exactly like gambling. In fact, there are expressions which overlap - Game Theory, often used to describe investing behavior, Monte Carlo Simulation, a way of convincing ourselves we can produce a set of possible outcomes for future returns, etc. You should first invest time. 100 hours reading is a good start. 1000 pounds, Euros, or dollars is a small sum to invest in individual stocks. A round lot is considered 100 shares, so you'd either need to find a stock trading less than 10 pounds, or buy fewer shares. There are a number of reasons a new investor should be steered toward index funds, in the States, ETFs (exchange traded funds) reflect the value of an entire index of stocks. If you feel compelled to get into the market this is the way to go, whether a market near you of a foreign fund, US, or other.",
"qid": 10137,
"docid": "158426",
"rank": 26,
"score": 82721
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"If I understand correctly, your question boils down to this: \"\"I have $X to invest over 25 years, are guaranteed returns at a 0.6% lower rate better than what I expect to get from the stock market over the same period?\"\" Well, I believe the standard advice would go something like: Rational investors pay a premium to reduce risk/volatility. Or, put another way, guaranteed returns are more valuable than risky returns, all things equal. I don't know enough about student loans in America (I'm Australian). Here a student loan is very low interest and the minimum repayments scale with what you earn not what you owe, starting at $0 for a totally liveable wage - Here I'd say there's a case to just pay the minimum and invest extra money elsewhere. If yours is a private loan though, following the same rules as other loans, remember the organisation extending your loan has access to the stock market too! why would they extend a loan to you on worse terms than they would get by simply dumping money into an index fund? Is the organisation that extends student loans a charity or subsidised in some way? If not, someone has already built a business on the the analysis that returns at 6.4% (including defaults) beats the stock market at 7% in some way. What I would put back to you though, is that your question oversimplifies what is likely your more complex reality, and so answering your question directly doesn't help that much to make a persuasive case - It's too mathematical and sterile. Here are some things off the top of my head that your real personal circumstances might convince you to pay off your loan first, hit up Wall Street second:\"",
"qid": 10137,
"docid": "187010",
"rank": 27,
"score": 82448
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I was commenting on your other assessments. I have investments in various funds and some stocks I think may end up being bought up. Your judgements on the health market and student loans fails to scratch the surface of why we have these issues. There will be a market bubble burst though it always happens. Short any consumer stock you see as it'll likely be the most hurt by the bubble. Also any of these tech stocks with no profit.",
"qid": 10137,
"docid": "533780",
"rank": 28,
"score": 82315
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The Financial Services Compensation Scheme says: Investments FSCS provides protection if an authorised investment firm is unable to pay claims against it. For example: for loss arising from bad investment advice, poor investment management or misrepresentation; when an authorised investment firm goes out of business and cannot return investments or money. Investments covered include: stocks and shares; unit trusts; futures and options; personal pension plans and long-term investments such as mortgage endowments. An index-tracking fund provided by an authorised investment firm would seem to qualify in the cases where: The critical points here then are: I can't find anything easily to hand about FSCS on Blackrock's website, so I would imagine that you'd need to consult the documentation on your investment product to be sure.",
"qid": 10137,
"docid": "51615",
"rank": 29,
"score": 82266
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Paying off your student loan is an investment, and a completely risk-free one. Every payment of your loan is a purchase of debt at the interest rate of the loan. It would be extremely unusual to be able to find a CD, bond or other low-risk play at a better rate. Any investment in a risky asset such as stocks is just leveraging up your personal balance sheet, which is strictly a personal decision based on your risk appetite, but would nearly universally be regarded as a mistake by a financial advisor. (The only exception I can think of here would be taking out a home mortgage, and even that would be debatable.) Unless your loan interest rate is in the range of corporate or government bonds -- and I'm sure it isn't -- don't think twice about paying them off with any free cash you have.",
"qid": 10137,
"docid": "327700",
"rank": 30,
"score": 81863
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: $USD, electronic or otherwise, are not created/destroyed during international transactions. If India wants to buy an F-16s, at cost $34M USD, they'll have to actually acquire $34M USD, or else convince the seller to agree to a different currency. They would acquire that $34M USD in a few possible ways. One of which is to exchange INR (India Rupees) at whatever the current exchange rate is, to whomever will agree to the opposite - i.e., someone who has USD and wants INR, or at least is willing to be the middleman. Another would be to sell some goods or services in the US (for USD), or to someone else for USD. Indian companies undoubtedly do this all the time. Think of all of those H1B workers that are in the news right now; they're all earning USD and then converting those to INRs. So the Indian government can just buy their USD for INR, directly or more likely indirectly (through a currency exchange market). A third method would be to use some of their currency stores. Most countries have significant reserves of various foreign currencies on hand, for two reasons: one to simplify transactions like this one, and also to stabilize the value of their own currency. A less stable currency can be stabilized simply by the central bank of that country owning USD, EUR, Pounds Sterling, or similar stable-value currencies. The process for an individual would be essentially the same, though the third method would be less likely available (most individuals don't have millions in cash on hand from different currencies - although certainly some would). No government gets involved (except for taxes or whatnot), it's just a matter of buying USD in exchange for INRs or for goods or services.",
"qid": 10137,
"docid": "248817",
"rank": 31,
"score": 81390
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Others have given a lot of advice about how to invest, but as a former expat I wanted to throw this in: US citizens living and investing overseas can VERY easily run afoul of the IRS. Laws and regulations designed to prevent offshore tax havens can also make it very difficult for expats to do effective investing and estate planning. Among other things, watch out for: US citizens owe US income tax on world income regardless of where they live or earn money FBAR reporting requirements affect foreign accounts valued over $10k The IRS penalizes (often heavily) certain types of financial accounts. Tax-sheltered accounts (for education, retirement, etc.) are in the crosshairs, and anything the IRS deems a \"\"foreign-controlled trust\"\" is especially bad. Heavy taxes on investment not purchased from a US stock exchange Some US states will demand income taxes from former residents (including expats) who cannot prove residency in a different US state. I believe California is neutral in that regard, at least. I am neither a lawyer nor an accountant nor a financial advisor, so please take the above only as a starting point so you know what sorts of questions to ask the relevant experts.\"",
"qid": 10137,
"docid": "284805",
"rank": 32,
"score": 81185
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: REITs can be classified as equity, mortgage, or hybrid. A security that sells like a stock on the major exchanges and invests in real estate directly, either through properties or mortgages. Trades like equity but the underlying is a property ot mortgage. So you are investing in real estate but without directly dealing with it. So you wouldn't classify it as real estate. CD looks more like a bond.If you look at the terms and conditions they have many conditions as a bond i.e. callable, that is a very precious option for both the buyer and seller. Self occupied house - Yes an asset because it comes with liabilities. When you need to sell it you have to move out. You have to perform repairs to keep it in good condition. Foreign stock mutual fund - Classify it as Foreign stocks, for your own good. Investments in a foreign country aren't the same as in your own country. The foreign economy can go bust, the company may go bust and you would have limited options of recovering your money sitting at home and so on and so forth.",
"qid": 10137,
"docid": "87844",
"rank": 33,
"score": 80889
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: OptionsXpress includes India in the list of countries where is possible to open an international account to invest in the US Stock Market. They just merged with Charles Schwab and they have a nice online trading platform. Stocks and ETFs are little bit pricey.. Get in touch with them to get more information.",
"qid": 10137,
"docid": "113644",
"rank": 34,
"score": 80476
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"2.47% is a really, really good rate, doubly so if it's a fixed rate, and quadruply so if the interest is tax-deductible. That's about as close to \"\"free money\"\" as you're ever going to get. Heck, depending on what inflation does over the next few years, it might even be cheaper than free. So if you have the risk tolerance for it, it's probably more effective to invest the money in the stock market than to accelerate your student loan payoff. You can even do better in the bond market (my go-to intermediate-term corporate bond fund is yielding nearly 4% right now.) Just remember the old banker's aphorism: Assets shrink. Liabilities never shrink. You can lose the money you've invested in stocks or bonds, and you'll still have to pay back the loan. And, when in doubt, you can usually assume you're underestimating your risks. If you're feeling up for it, I'd say: make sure you have a good emergency fund outside of your investment money - something you could live on for six months or so and pay your bills while looking for a job, and sock the rest into something like the Vanguard LifeStrategy Moderate Growth fund or a similar instrument (Vanguard's just my personal preference, since I like their style - and by style, I mean low fees - but definitely feel free to consider alternatives). You could also pad your retirement accounts and avoid taxes on any gains instead, but remember that it's easier to put money into those than take it out, so be sure to double-check the state of your emergency fund.\"",
"qid": 10137,
"docid": "466806",
"rank": 35,
"score": 80394
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: yeah - the point is why should any foreign investor trust you with their money? just because Bangladesh might have a hot housing market, doesn't make you a reliable or trustworthy partner. Maybe if you were an established and reputable real estate investor this post might get traction.",
"qid": 10137,
"docid": "503052",
"rank": 36,
"score": 80366
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"In addition to @MD-tech's answer: I'd distinguish between stock of a foreign company traded in local currency at a local exchange from the same stock traded in the foreign currency at a foreign exchange (and maybe with a foreign bank holding your accounts). The latter option will typically have higher variation because of exchange rate, and (usually) higher risks associated with possibility of recovery, (double) taxation and the possible legal difficulties @MD-tech mentions. Trading the foreign stock at a local exchange may mean that the transaction volume is far lower than at their \"\"home\"\" exchange. Holding stock of companies working in foreign markets OTOH can be seen as diversification and may lower your risk. If you only invest in the local market, your investments may be subject to the same economic fluctuations that your wage/employment/pension situation is subject to - it may be good to try de-correlating this a bit. Of course, depending on political circumstances in your home country, foreign investments may be less risky (though I'd suspect these home countries also come with a high risk of seizing foreign investments...)\"",
"qid": 10137,
"docid": "426703",
"rank": 37,
"score": 80052
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: At the heart of this issue is an accounting disagreement that BIS has with current accounting standards. So basically, foreign investors want to invest in lucrative American Dollar investment products but they don't want to have to buy American Dollars in order to do so because of foreign exchange risk (the risk that by the time your investment is realized, any gains are adversely effected by the change in currency values). So instead, they trade in a series of (currency) swaps that allow them to mitigate that foreign exchange risk. In doing so, they are only required by current accounting standards to record such transactions at fair value = 0, thus skipping over the balance sheet and only hitting the footnotes. BIS believes these transactions should be recorded at gross values and on the balance sheet as opposed to the footnotes. The debt is hidden insofar as global dollar debt is calculated using liabilities on balance sheets and not the footnotes. That being said, in no way are these transactions truly hidden as (1) any good analyst values footnotes as much as the financial statements themselves and (2) exposure isn't really the same as debt. TL:DR BIS (as reputable as they are) wants to change currently accepted accounting standards and screaming $14 TRILLION DOLLARS is their way of doing it.",
"qid": 10137,
"docid": "220284",
"rank": 38,
"score": 80013
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: This is Ellie Lan, investment analyst at Betterment. To answer your question, American investors are drawn to use the S&P 500 (SPY) as a benchmark to measure the performance of Betterment portfolios, particularly because it’s familiar and it’s the index always reported in the news. However, going all in to invest in SPY is not a good investment strategy—and even using it to compare your own diversified investments is misleading. We outline some of the pitfalls of this approach in this article: Why the S&P 500 Is a Bad Benchmark. An “algo-advisor” service like Betterment is a preferable approach and provides a number of advantages over simply investing in ETFs (SPY or others like VOO or IVV) that track the S&P 500. So, why invest with Betterment rather than in the S&P 500? Let’s first look at the issue of diversification. SPY only exposes investors to stocks in the U.S. large cap market. This may feel acceptable because of home bias, which is the tendency to invest disproportionately in domestic equities relative to foreign equities, regardless of their home country. However, investing in one geography and one asset class is riskier than global diversification because inflation risk, exchange-rate risk, and interest-rate risk will likely affect all U.S. stocks to a similar degree in the event of a U.S. downturn. In contrast, a well-diversified portfolio invests in a balance between bonds and stocks, and the ratio of bonds to stocks is dependent upon the investment horizon as well as the individual's goals. By constructing a portfolio from stock and bond ETFs across the world, Betterment reduces your portfolio’s sensitivity to swings. And the diversification goes beyond mere asset class and geography. For example, Betterment’s basket of bond ETFs have varying durations (e.g., short-term Treasuries have an effective duration of less than six months vs. U.S. corporate bonds, which have an effective duration of just more than 8 years) and credit quality. The level of diversification further helps you manage risk. Dan Egan, Betterment’s Director of Behavioral Finance and Investing, examined the increase in returns by moving from a U.S.-only portfolio to a globally diversified portfolio. On a risk-adjusted basis, the Betterment portfolio has historically outperformed a simple DIY investor portfolio by as much as 1.8% per year, attributed solely to diversification. Now, let’s assume that the investor at hand (Investor A) is a sophisticated investor who understands the importance of diversification. Additionally, let’s assume that he understands the optimal allocation for his age, risk appetite, and investment horizon. Investor A will still benefit from investing with Betterment. Automating his portfolio management with Betterment helps to insulate Investor A from the ’behavior gap,’ or the tendency for investors to sacrifice returns due to bad timing. Studies show that individual investors lose, on average, anywhere between 1.2% to 4.3% due to the behavior gap, and this gap can be as high as 6.5% for the most active investors. Compared to the average investor, Betterment customers have a behavior gap that is 1.25% lower. How? Betterment has implemented smart design to discourage market timing and short-sighted decision making. For example, Betterment’s Tax Impact Preview feature allows users to view the tax hit of a withdrawal or allocation change before a decision is made. Currently, Betterment is the only automated investment service to offer this capability. This function allows you to see a detailed estimate of the expected gains or losses broken down by short- and long-term, making it possible for investors to make better decisions about whether short-term gains should be deferred to the long-term. Now, for the sake of comparison, let’s assume that we have an even more sophisticated investor (Investor B), who understands the pitfalls of the behavior gap and is somehow able to avoid it. Betterment is still a better tool for Investor B because it offers a suite of tax-efficient features, including tax loss harvesting, smarter cost-basis accounting, municipal bonds, smart dividend reinvesting, and more. Each of these strategies can be automatically deployed inside the portfolio—Investor B need not do a thing. Each of these strategies can boost returns by lowering tax exposure. To return to your initial question—why not simply invest in the S&P 500? Investing is a long-term proposition, particularly when saving for retirement or other goals with a time horizon of several decades. To be a successful long-term investor means employing the core principles of diversification, tax management, and behavior management. While the S&P might look like a ‘hot’ investment one year, there are always reversals of fortune. The goal with long-term passive investing—the kind of investing that Betterment offers—is to help you reach your investing goals as efficiently as possible. Lastly, Betterment offers best-in-industry advice about where to save and how much to save for no fee.",
"qid": 10137,
"docid": "436904",
"rank": 39,
"score": 79841
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Look at a mixture of low-fee index funds, low-fee bond funds, and CDs. The exact allocation has to be tailored to your appetite for risk. If you only want to park the money with essentially no risk of loss then you need FDIC insured products like CDs or a money market account (as opposed to a money market fund which is not FDIC insured). However as others have said, interest rates are awful now. Since you are in your early 30's, and expect to keep this investment for 10+ years, you can probably tolerate a bit of risk. Also considering speaking to a tax professional to determine the specific tax benefits/drawbacks of one investment strategy (funds and CDs) versus another (e.g. real estate).",
"qid": 10137,
"docid": "467830",
"rank": 40,
"score": 79619
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"No, 90% of investors do not lose money. 90% or even larger percentage of \"\"traders\"\" lose money. Staying invested in stock market over the long term will almost always be profitable if you spread your investments across different companies or even the index but the key here is long term which is 10+ years in any emerging market and even longer in developed economies where yields will be a lot lower but their currencies will compensate over time if you are an international investor.\"",
"qid": 10137,
"docid": "282435",
"rank": 41,
"score": 79411
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"In the US there is only one stock market (ignoring penny stocks) and handfuls of different exchanges behind it. NYSE and NASDAQ are two different exchanges, but all the products you can buy on one can also be bought on the other; i.e. they are all the same market. So a US equities broker cannot possibly restrict access to any \"\"markets\"\" in the US because there is only one. (Interestingly, it is commonplace for US equity brokers to cheat their customers by using only exchanges where they -- the brokers -- get the best deals, even if it means your order is not executed as quickly or cheaply as possible. This is called payment for order flow and unfortunately will probably take an Act of Congress to stop.) Some very large brokers will have trading access to popular equity markets in other countries (Toronto Stock Exchange, Mexico Stock Exchange, London Stock Exchange) and can support your trades there. However, at many brokers or in less popular foreign markets this is usually not the case; to trade in the average foreign country you typically must open an account with a broker in that country.\"",
"qid": 10137,
"docid": "343638",
"rank": 42,
"score": 79356
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The Vanguard Emerging Market Bond Index has a SEC yield of 4.62%, an expense ratio of 0.34%, a purchase fee of 0.75%, and an average duration of 6.7 years. The Vanguard Emerging Market Bond Index only invests in US Dollar denominated securities, so it is not exposed to currency risk. The US Intermediate Term Bond Index Fund has a SEC yield of 2.59%, an expense ratio of 0.1% and an average duration of 6.5 years. So after expenses, the emerging market bond fund gives you 1.04% of extra yield (more in subsequent years as the purchase fee is only paid once). Here are the results of a study by Vanguard: Based on our findings, we believe that most investors should consider adding [currency risked] hedged foreign bonds to their existing diversified portfolios. I think a globally diversified bond portfolio results in a portfolio that's more diversified.",
"qid": 10137,
"docid": "83860",
"rank": 43,
"score": 79136
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: A foreign stock mutual fund definitely belongs in stocks. It's composed of stocks. Your self occupied house is definitely real estate. You don have to keep in mind,however that selling it would create costs such as rent. I wouldn't leave it out, if doing that would cause you to buy more real estate. This would cause you to be overweighted in the real estate area. I would tend to think if a CD as cash. While it could be considered a bond, as you said the principal doesn't go down. The REIT is the toughest one. I would really like to see a graph showing how correlated it is to the real estate market. That would determine where I would put it.",
"qid": 10137,
"docid": "349355",
"rank": 44,
"score": 78374
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Yeah, after considering your advice from before, I did a bit of research, and I see that the market average return each year is about 7%, which beats the rate at which my car is financed by 2% and my student loans by 1%, so maybe I should be less concerned about paying those down and more concerned about starting to invest well. Again, your advice is very much appreciated.",
"qid": 10137,
"docid": "587804",
"rank": 45,
"score": 78107
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: My advice would be to invest in the 401k with the same type of funds you'd purchase when you rollover to your IRA. They are both retirement accounts. If the stock market tanks, your 401k balance will be low but you'll also be purchasing stocks at a much cheaper price when you establish your roth. You should create an asset allocation based on your age, not on the type of retirement account you have. One question to consider: When you do become a student, you'll likely be a in lower tax bracket. Can you contribute pre-tax dollars and then rollover to a ROTH in the year that you're a student?",
"qid": 10137,
"docid": "175252",
"rank": 46,
"score": 78003
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: My Credit Union offers a market-linked CD where the investment has FDIC protection if it is held to maturity, but otherwise they are linked with the S&P 500. it comes with this warning: Market-Link CDs are not appropriate for all depositors including clients needing a guaranteed interest payment or seeking full participation in the stock market. If redeemed prior to maturity, the amount received will be subject to market risk including interest rate fluctuations an issuer credit quality. So they still do exist. Another credit union I belong to has a similar product. The risk is that if you need the money early, there may be losses. There would also not be a way to switch to a more conservative posture as the CD approached maturity, if you were interested in protecting your gains.",
"qid": 10137,
"docid": "173973",
"rank": 47,
"score": 77936
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Well, sorry to hear about your struggles! For your question, $15,000 is sadly not enough money to build a career on investing for yourself, if you’re referring to the stock market. Unfortunately you need I believe $25,000 to even have a day trading account, plus the best investors in the world probably net 5-10% which is only tops $2,500 per year! On the other hand, $15,000 maybe you could use an FHA loan and buy a small condo that you could renovate and flip. FHA lenders only require 3.5% down plus closing costs. I would need more information on what type of investing you’re referring to.",
"qid": 10137,
"docid": "336661",
"rank": 48,
"score": 77870
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you buy for $1 and sell $1 when the price goes to $2, you would have sold only half of your initial investment. So your investment would now be worth $2 and you sell $1 leaving $1 still in the market. This means you would have sold half your initial investment, making a profit of $0.50 on this half of your initial investment, and having to pay CGT on this amount.",
"qid": 10137,
"docid": "581793",
"rank": 49,
"score": 77780
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Conventional wisdom says (100-age) percentage of your saving should go to Equity and (age) percentage should go to debt. My advice to you is to invest (100-age) into index fund through SIP and rest in FD. You can re-balance your investment once a year. Stock picking is very risky. And so is market timing. Of cource you can change the 100 into a other number according to your risk tolerance.",
"qid": 10137,
"docid": "55513",
"rank": 50,
"score": 77313
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I will solely address your fear because from what I read you fear investing in something that could possibly go down in the future. This is almost identical to market timing, so let's use the SPY as an example. Look at the SPY on Yahoo Finance, specifically in 2011. The market experienced a little bit of a pull back during the year, and some \"\"analysts\"\" claimed that it would fall below 600 (read this). In fact, a co-worker of mine said that he feared buying the S&P 500 in 2011 (as well as in 2010), so he bought gold (compare the two from 2011 to now - to put it bluntly he experienced 50% less gain than I did). Did the S&P 500 ever fall below 600 in that timeframe, or according to the linked analyst (there were plenty of similar predictions then)? No. If you avoid doing something because you're afraid it could drop, technically, you should be just as afraid of it rising (Fear of Losing Everything, FOLE, vs. Fear of Missing Out, FOMO - both are real). That's not to say invest out of fear, but that fear cuts both ways, and generally, we only look at it from one side. Retirement investing should be a boring, automated process where, ideally, we don't try and time the market (though some will try, and like in 2011, fail). If you can't help your fear, you can always approach retirement investing with automated re-balancing where you hold some money in \"\"less risky\"\" forms and others in \"\"higher risk\"\" forms and automate a rebalance every month or quarter.\"",
"qid": 10137,
"docid": "488338",
"rank": 51,
"score": 77105
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you are a US citizen, you need to very carefully research the US tax implications of investing in foreign stocks before you do so. The US tax rules have been set up in general to make this very unattractive.",
"qid": 10137,
"docid": "197478",
"rank": 52,
"score": 76802
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: As observed above, 1.5% for 3 years is not attractive, and since due to the risk profile the stock market also needs to be excluded, there seems about 2 primary ways, viz: fixed income bonds and commodity(e,g, gold). However, since local bonds (gilt or corporate) are sensitive and follow the central bank interest rates, you could look out investing in overseas bonds (usually through a overseas gilt based mutual fund). I am specifically mentioning gilt here as they are government backed (of the overseas location) and have very low risk. Best would be to scout out for strong fund houses that have mutual funds that invest in overseas gilts, preferably of the emerging markets (as the interest is higher). The good fund houses manage the currency volatility and can generate decent returns at fairly low risk.",
"qid": 10137,
"docid": "576688",
"rank": 53,
"score": 76622
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"But, wait! There's more! [Exhibit A](http://www.reddit.com/r/dogecoin/comments/1z8khe/i_am_a_film_producer_looking_to_fund_an_indie/) >I am a film producer looking to fund an indie grand slam with doge, any takers? >Yes, I was a student at the very prestigious fsu school of film where thousands apply and 30 get in. I've worked on over 15 shorts and was asked to co-produce this with an agent who was a classmate of mine. This is the real deal. We have a trailer but will not show it unless we know your what we call a \"\"qualified\"\" investor. This means you can afford to invest in the film and you're not mortgaging your house to do it. [Exhibit B](http://www.reddit.com/r/finance/comments/21voeu/looking_for_bond_tradersbroker_in_south_fl_with/) >We are a broker/dealer in south FL looking for traders/brokers of debt securities (preferably muni's) Email resumes to: Tyagman@gmail.com >Because I'm not giving out my firms email unless I get a legit resume you prick. We've been around for 20 yrs. and claiming your a market marker in your user name just makes you more of a prick; prick. [Exhibit C](https://gust.com/companies/oddlotbonds) > We are a bond trading broker/dealer located in Aventura, FL. Our ability to specialize in the niche sector we do business in has allowed us to produce very agressive returns annually for over 15 years. We are looking to expand and make this a mid-sized firm and restructure into a fund. We currently do business with high net worth individuals and all top 20 investment banks, retail brokerage firms and liquidity houses. [Exhibit D](http://www.reddit.com/r/finance/comments/2eh4sw/i_work_at_a_boutique_bd/) >I'm a risk on us debt trader but because I also went to a top film school they want me to get creative and come up with a few ideas of how they can be more innovative and spread they're tentacles. **--- UBS Comment Due Diligence Quant**\"",
"qid": 10137,
"docid": "384347",
"rank": 54,
"score": 76588
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I'd check the terms of the student loan. It's been a long time since I had a student loan, but when I did it had restrictions that it could only be used for educational expenses, which they pretty clear spelled out meant tuition, books, lab fees, I think some provision for living expenses. If your student loan is subsidized by the government, they're not going to let you use it to start a business or go on vacation ... nor are they likely to let you invest it. Even if it is legal and within the terms of the contract, borrowing money to invest is very risky. What if you invest in the stock market, and then the stock market goes down? You may find you don't have the money to make the payments on the loan. People do this sort of thing all the time -- that's what \"\"buying on margin\"\" is all about. And some of them lose a bundle and get in real trouble.\"",
"qid": 10137,
"docid": "187155",
"rank": 55,
"score": 76565
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If your money market funds are short-term savings or an emergency fund, you might consider moving them into an online saving account. You can get interest rates close to 1% (often above 1% in higher-rate climates) and your savings are completely safe and easily accessible. Online banks also frequently offer perks such as direct deposit, linking with your checking account, and discounts on other services you might need occasionally (i.e. money orders or certified checks). If your money market funds are the lowest-risk part of your diversified long-term portfolio, you should consider how low-risk it needs to be. Money market accounts are now typically FDIC insured (they didn't used to be), but you can get the same security at a higher interest rate with laddered CD's or U.S. savings bonds (if your horizon is compatible). If you want liquidity, or greater return than a CD will give you, then a bond fund or ETF may be the right choice, and it will tend to move counter to your stock investments, balancing your portfolio. It's true that interest rates will likely rise in the future, which will tend to decrease the value of bond investments. If you buy and hold a single U.S. savings bond, its interest payments and final payoff are set at purchase, so you won't actually lose money, but you might make less than you would if you invested in a higher-rate climate. Another way to deal with this, if you want to add a bond fund to your long-term investment portfolio, is to invest your money slowly over time (dollar-cost averaging) so that you don't pay a high price for a large number of shares that immediately drop in value.",
"qid": 10137,
"docid": "559927",
"rank": 56,
"score": 75904
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The (U.S) \"\"accredited investor\"\" laws apply to investments in the U.S. Foreign countries may or may not have their own laws regarding investment in startups, and if so, the foreign laws apply. One way around the net worth minimum is to be a member of the management team. \"\"Active\"\" (management) investors don't need to be accredited because they can see what's going on on a day to day basis. The accredited investor laws apply to the target companies, not to the investors. Basically, a start-up company can't take \"\"other people's money\"\" from a non-accredited investor. But you can invest \"\"your own\"\" money in it if you are a manager.\"",
"qid": 10137,
"docid": "591616",
"rank": 57,
"score": 75876
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Your source does not support the claim above that \"\"foreign buyers are screwing everyone, particularly upper middle class people from China\"\". Foreign direct investments are beneficial to the economy and knee-jerk protectionism does more harm than good. Sure, in the short term, an increase in real estate investment will increase property prices due to the rise in demand. However, housing developers and tenants will respond by increasing the supply of affordable housing elsewhere eventually reaching price equilibrium. There will always be displacement in a dynamic and robust economy but I guess it's easier to make out foreign investors as the boogeyman.\"",
"qid": 10137,
"docid": "15376",
"rank": 58,
"score": 75845
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you havent yet maxed out your ISA, then its a no-brainer. You get excellent tax rebates and its silly not to take advantage of these before considering self investing in shares. Note that even if your ISA is maxed out, the economic turbulence means that investing in individual stocks is an intimidating place for beginners right now. The FSA is also looking at revising the average percentages used for pension, from 7% for adventurous investments, down to 5% or 6%, so there is industry wide recognition that on average the stock market is going to be a little less lucrative than it was a few years ago. Thats not to say you cant still make a whopping profit, but the chances of you doing so as a first time investor are remote to say the least. My advice would be to look seriously into some of the social lending sites, where you can still easily get a 7% return with minimal risk. Whilst I do have a portfolio which is performing well overall (I am a very speculative investor), I am moving a lot of funds into Zopa.com, as I am averaging 7% return with a lot less time, effort and risk than the stockmarket. Whatever you decide, I think its time you thought about consulting an IFA. They can help you understand what sort of risk you are willing to tolerate, which is a very important aspect of investing.",
"qid": 10137,
"docid": "345943",
"rank": 59,
"score": 75798
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: For some ideas on investing priority guidelines, see Oversimplify it for me: the correct order of investing. Congratulations on being debt free! My advice to you is to do what you can to remain debt free. You could certainly invest the money; it will earn much more over the long-term in a stock mutual fund than it would left in a savings account. However, if you need any of this money in the next few years, it would be a shame if it lost money in the short-term. How much do you need to finish grad school? Don't invest that money in the stock market, because you will need it over the next few years. Likewise, think about other expenses that are coming up. Will your car need to be replaced in the next couple of years? Will you have enough income to meet your living expenses while you are in grad school, or will you need some of this to money to help with that? Finally, it would be good to keep some extra as an emergency fund, so you can easily pay for any unexpected expenses that come up. If you can make it through grad school debt free, you will be much better off than if you invest all the money but take out student loans in the process. After you've accounted for all of that, whatever is left of the money could definitely be invested. If your goal is to start a retirement fund, an index mutual fund invested inside a Roth IRA is a great place to start.",
"qid": 10137,
"docid": "385600",
"rank": 60,
"score": 75767
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The number one difference is that bank savings accounts, or money market accounts (MMAs allow limited checking--six non-ATM withdrawals per month, max, else possible fees) have FDIC insurance up to $250,000. However don't put that much in--allow some room for interest, so you never go over the $250,000. Money Market Mutual Funds do not enjoy FDIC insurance. There may be some SPIC insurance--generally against brokerage failure though, but its coverage is questionable--search out those details, and if they apply to anything besides actual cash held at the brokerage. If the money market mutual fund is strictly invested in US Treasury securities (like T-Bills, or other short-term US Treasury instruments), it enjoys the full faith and credit of the US government, FWIW--but many MMMFs invest in corporate instruments. If the fund has any pricing issues, there might be a delay in getting paid off. (Extremely unlikely.) Number two, and more importantly, bank savings accounts (or MMAs) pay way more! You can get a bit over 1% APY now--many paying 0.90% APY, or higher. No money market mutual funds are close to that, generally yielding a small fraction of that, almost zero for US Treasury MMM funds. Sure 1.05% ain't too exciting, but you may as well get the most you can if holding \"\"cash,\"\" and fully insured to boot.\"",
"qid": 10137,
"docid": "400845",
"rank": 61,
"score": 75713
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Well first, this program wouldn't exclude people from privately funding their own education if they have the resources. But second, the investors wouldn't be investing in individuals but entire classes so it isn't whether or not an individual student is worth the investment but whether or not that academic program was worth an investment. If a basic physics degree from a particular university was typically attracting people that were going to school for \"\"knowledge and a deep understanding of the world\"\" then the investors would demand a larger fraction of the student's future income, which, presumably, the students would be OK with since they weren't \"\"wanting an 'income'\"\".\"",
"qid": 10137,
"docid": "159636",
"rank": 62,
"score": 75620
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"If you live outside the US, then you probably need to deal with foreign tax credits, foreign income exclusions, FBAR forms (you probably have bank account balances enough for the 10K threshold) , various monsters the Congress enacted against you like form 8939 (if you have enough banking and investment accounts), form 3520 (if you have a IRA-like local pension), form 5471 (if you have a stake in a foreign business), form 8833 (if you have treaty claims) etc ect - that's just what I had the pleasure of coming across, there's more. TurboTax/H&R Block At Home/etc/etc are not for you. These programs are developed for a \"\"mainstream\"\" American citizen and resident who has nothing, or practically nothing, abroad. They may support the FBAR/FATCA forms (IIRC H&R Block has a problem with Fatca, didn't check if they fixed it for 2013. Heard reports that TurboTax support is not perfect as well), but nothing more than that. If you know the stuff well enough to fill the forms manually - go for it (I'm not sure they even provide all these forms in the software though). Now, specifically to your questions: Turbo tax doesn't seem to like the fact that my wife is a foreigner and doesn't have a social security number. It keeps bugging me to input a valid Ssn for her. I input all zeros for now. Not sure what to do. No, you cannot do that. You need to think whether you even want to include your wife in the return. Does she have income? Do you want to pay US taxes on her income? If she's not a US citizen/green card holder, why would you want that? Consider it again. If you decide to include here after all - you have to get an ITIN for her (instead of SSN). If you hire a professional to do your taxes, that professional will also guide you through the ITIN process. Turbo tax forces me to fill out a 29something form that establishes bonafide residency. Is this really necessary? Again in here it bugs me about wife's Ssn Form 2555 probably. Yes, it is, and yes, you have to have a ITIN for your wife if she's included. My previous state is California, and for my present state I input Foreign. When I get to the state tax portion turbo doesn't seem to realize that I have input foreign and it wants me to choose a valid state. However I think my first question is do i have to file a California tax now that I am not it's resident anymore? I do not have any assets in California. No house, no phone bill etc If you're not a resident in California, then why would you file? But you might be a partial resident, if you lived in CA part of the year. If so, you need to file 540NR for the part of the year you were a resident. If you have a better way to file tax based on this situation could you please share with me? As I said - hire a professional, preferably one that practices in your country of residence and knows the provisions of that country's tax treaty with the US. You can also hire a professional in the US, but get a good one, that specializes on expats.\"",
"qid": 10137,
"docid": "34338",
"rank": 63,
"score": 75608
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Given that hedge funds and trading firms employ scores of highly intelligent analysts, programmers, and managers to game the market, what shot does the average person have at successful investing in the stock market? Good question and the existing answers provide valuable insight. I will add one major ingredient to successful investing: emotion. The analysts and experts that Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley or the best hedge funds employ may have some of the most advanced analytical skills in the world, but knowing and doing still greatly differ. Consider how many of these same companies and funds thought real estate was a great buy before the housing bubble. Why? FOMO (fear of missing out; what some people call greed). One of my friends purchased Macy's and Las Vegas Sands in 2009 at around $5 for M and $2 for LVS. He never graduated high school, so we might (foolishly) refer to him as below average because he's not as educated as those individuals at Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, etc. Today M sits around $40 a share and LVS at around $70. Those returns in five years. The difference? Emotion. He holds little attachment to money (lives on very little) and thus had the freedom to take a chance, which to him didn't feel like a chance. In a nutshell, his emotions were in the right place and he studied a little bit about investing (read two article) and took action. Most of the people who I know, which easily had quintuple his wealth and made significantly more than he did, didn't take a chance (even on an index fund) because of their fear of loss. I mean everyone knows to buy low, right? But how many actually do? So knowing what to do is great; just be sure you have the courage to act on what you know.",
"qid": 10137,
"docid": "485766",
"rank": 64,
"score": 75520
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"One way to \"\"get into the real estate market\"\" is to invest your money in a fund which has its value tied to real estate. For example, a Real Estate Investment Trust. This fund would fluctuate largely inline with the property values in the area(s) where the fund puts its money. This would have a few (significant) changes from 'traditional' real estate investing, including:\"",
"qid": 10137,
"docid": "146218",
"rank": 65,
"score": 75391
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"First, I'd like to congratulate you on your financial discipline in paying off your loans and living well within your means. I have friends who make more than twice your salary with similar debt obligations, and they barely scrape by month to month. If we combine your student loan debt and unallocated income each month, we get about $1,350. You say that $378 per month is the minimum payment for your loans, which have an average interest rate of about 3.5%. Thus, you have about $1,350 a month to \"\"invest.\"\" Making your loan payments is basically the same as investing with the same return as the loan interest rate, when it comes down to it. An interest rate of 3.5% is...not great, all things considered, and barely above inflation. However, that's a guaranteed return of 3.5%, more or less like a bond. As noted previously, the stock market historically averages 10% before inflation over the long run. The US stock market is right around its historic high at this point (DJIA is at 20,700 today, April 6th, 2017 - historic high hit just over 21,000 on March 1, 2017). Obviously, no one can predict the future, but I get the feeling that a market correction may be in order, especially depending on how things go in Washington in the next weeks or months. If that's the case (again, we have no way of knowing if it is), you'd be foolish to invest heavily in any stocks at this point. What I would do, given your situation, is invest the $1,350/month in a \"\"portfolio\"\" that's 50/50 stocks and \"\"bonds,\"\" where the bonds here are your student loans. Here, you have a guaranteed return of ~3.5% on the bond portion, and you can still hedge the other 50% on stocks continuing their run (and also benefiting from dividends, capital gains, etc. over time). I would apply the extra loan payments to the highest-interest loan first, paying only the minimum to the others. Once the highest-interest loan is paid off, move onto the next one. Once you have all your loans paid off, your portfolio will be pretty much 100% stocks, at which point you may want to add in some actual bonds (say a 90/10 or 80/20 split, depending on what you want). I'm assuming you're pretty young, so you still have plenty of time to let the magic of compounding interest do its work, even if you happen to get into the market right before it drops (well, that, and the fact that you won't really have much invested anyway). Again, let me stress that neither I nor anyone else has any way of knowing what will happen with the market - I'm just stating my opinion and what my course of action would be if I were in your shoes.\"",
"qid": 10137,
"docid": "30887",
"rank": 66,
"score": 75373
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: There is a subtle difference. In an FDIC insured bank account, you are guaranteed to get all of your money back out. If you put $1000 into your bank account, you are guaranteed to be able to get at least $1000 back out when you want. The value of the account (in dollars) can never go down, for any reason. When you put money into a brokerage account, cash is typically invested in a money market fund. Money market funds are considered very safe investments, with low risk of loss (and a corresponding low rate of return). However, it is possible for the value of a money market fund to go down, and SIPC insurance does not cover that. What SIPC does cover is any sort of shenanigans that a broker might play on you. If they screw up and delete your account, or give your money to someone else, or close up shop and head to Grand Cayman, SIPC ensures that you will get your money back. But it does not cover investment losses.",
"qid": 10137,
"docid": "513054",
"rank": 67,
"score": 75353
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You have a comparatively small sum to invest, and since you're presumably expecting to go to college.university soon, where you may well need the money, you also have a short timescale for your investment. I don't think anything stock-related would be good for you -- you need a longer timescale for stock market investments, at least five years and preferably ten or more. I don't know the details of Australian savings, but I'd suggest just finding a bank that is giving a good interest rate for a one-year fixed-term savings account.",
"qid": 10137,
"docid": "154508",
"rank": 68,
"score": 75215
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Don't go for the 'fast buck'. There's no such thing. There are two types of people that make money on the stock market: Investors and Speculators. Investors are people that pick a stock that's relatively low, relatively secure, and buy the stock for the long run, 5, 10 years or more. Warren Buffet said his ideal period for investing is forever. Basically, a well run company should always be a good investment. Speculators go for the fluctuations in stock prices. Day traders, Options, etc. It's risky business and you'll be able to lose a lot of money in a short term. There's always a risk when you invest your money, so go with MrChrister's advise to start with a simulator. Have fun.",
"qid": 10137,
"docid": "91032",
"rank": 69,
"score": 75168
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: International means from all over the world. In the U.S. A Foreign Equity fund would be non-US stocks. There's an odd third choice I'm aware of, a fund of US companies that derive their sales from overseas, primarily.",
"qid": 10137,
"docid": "599293",
"rank": 70,
"score": 75148
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Let's say that you want to invest in the stock market. Choosing and investing in only one stock is risky. You can lower your risk by diversifying, or investing in lots of different stocks. However, you have some problems with this: When you buy stocks directly, you have to buy whole shares, and you don't have enough money to buy even one whole share of all the stocks you want to invest in. You aren't even sure which stocks you should buy. A mutual fund solves both of these problems. You get together with other investors and pool your money together to buy a group of stocks. That way, your investment is diversified in lots of different stocks without having to have enough money to buy whole shares of each one. And the mutual fund has a manager that chooses which stocks the fund will invest in, so you don't have to pick. There are lots of mutual funds to choose from, with as many different objectives as you can imagine. Some invest in large companies, others small; some invest in a certain sector of companies (utilities or health care, for example), some invest in stocks that pay a dividend, others are focused on growth. Some funds don't invest in stocks at all; they might invest in bonds, real estate, or precious metals. Some funds are actively managed, where the manager actively buys and sells different stocks in the fund continuously (and takes a fee for his services), and others simply invest in a list of stocks and rarely buy or sell (these are called index funds). To answer your question, yes, the JPMorgan Emerging Markets Equity Fund is a mutual fund. It is an actively-managed stock mutual fund that attempts to invest in growing companies that do business in countries with rapidly developing economies.",
"qid": 10137,
"docid": "199493",
"rank": 71,
"score": 75145
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Considering I'm in a nearly identical situation, I'll speak to my personal strategy and maybe there's some value for you as well. You have ~$22k in loans, which you say you could pay off today. So, what I read is that you're sitting there with a $22k investment and want to know which investment to make: pay down debt, invest in yourself/start up, or some variation between those options. Any investor worth his salt will ask a couple of questions: what is my risk, and what is my gain? Paying off your student loans offers no financial risk at the cost of opportunity risk, and gains you returns of 3.4%, 6.8%, 3.4%, 4.5%, and 6.8%. Those percentage gains are guaranteed and the opportunity risk is unknown. Investing in a startup is inherently risky, with the potential for big payoffs. But with this investment, you are accepting a lot of risk for potentially some gain (it could be the next Apple, it could also fail). So, with your situation (like mine), I'd say it's best to accept the easy investment for now and fully vet out your tech start up idea in the meantime.",
"qid": 10137,
"docid": "285024",
"rank": 72,
"score": 75037
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Tricky question, basically, you just want to first spread risk around, and then seek abnormal returns after you understand what portions of your portfolio are influenced by (and understand your own investment goals) For a relevant timely example: the German stock exchange and it's equity prices are reaching all time highs, while the Greek asset prices are reaching all time lows. If you just invested in \"\"Europe\"\" your portfolio will experience only the mean, while suffering from exchange rate changes. You will likely lose because you arbitrarily invested internationally, for the sake of being international, instead of targeting a key country or sector. Just boils down to more research for you, if you want to be a passive investor you will get passive investor returns. I'm not personally familiar with funds that are good at taking care of this part for you, in the international markets.\"",
"qid": 10137,
"docid": "365295",
"rank": 73,
"score": 75007
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You will not be able to continue filing with TurboTax if you invest in foreign funds. Form 8261 which is required to report PFIC investments is not included. Read the form instructions carefully - if you don't feel shocked and scared, you didn't understand what it says. The bottom line is that the American Congress doesn't want you do what you want to do and will punish you dearly.",
"qid": 10137,
"docid": "480749",
"rank": 74,
"score": 74998
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: No, you don't. But you do need to file FBAR to report your foreign accounts if you have $10K or more at any given day in all of them combined, when you're a US resident. You need to file FBAR annually by the end of June (note: it must be received by FinCEN by the end of June, but nowadays you file it electronically anyway).",
"qid": 10137,
"docid": "184908",
"rank": 75,
"score": 74797
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Do developing country equities have a higher return and/or lower risk than emerging market equities? Generally in finance you get payed more for taking risk. Riskier stocks over the long run return more than less risky bonds, for instance. Developing market equity is expected to give less return over the long run as it is generally less risky than emerging market equity. One way to see that is the amount you pay for one rupee/lira/dollar/euro worth of company earnings is fewer rupees/lira and more dollars/euros. when measured in the emerging market's currency? This makes this question interesting. Risky emerging currencies like the rupee tend to devalue over time against less risky currencies euro/dollars/yen like where most international investment ends up, but the results are rather wild. Think how badly Brazil has done recently and how relatively well the rupee has been doing. This adds to the returns (roughly based on interest rates) of foreign stocks from the point of view of a emerging market investor on average but has really wild variations. Do you have data for this over a long timeframe (decades), ideally for multiple countries? Not really, unfortunately. Good data for emerging markets is a fairly new phenomenon and even where it does exist decades ago it would have been very hard to invest like we can now so it likely is not comparable. Does foreign equity pay more or less when measured in rupees (or other emerging market currency)? Probably less on average (theoretically and empirically) all things included though the evidence is not strong, but there is a massive amount of risk in a portfolio that is 85% in a single emerging market currency. Think about if you were a Brazilian and needed to retire now and 85% of your portfolio was in the Real. International goods like gas would be really expensive and your local currency portfolio would seem paltry right now. If you want to bet on emerging markets in the long run I would suggest that you at least spread the risk over many emerging markets and add a good chunk developed to the mix. As for investing goals, it's just to maximize my return in INR, or maximize my risk-adjusted return. That is up to you, but the goal I generally recommend is making sure you are comfortable in retirement. This usually involves looking for returns are high in the long run, but not having a ton of risk in a single currency or a single market. There are reasons to believe a little bias toward your homeland is good as fees tend to be lower on local investments and local investments tend to track closer to your retirement costs, but too much can be very dangerous even for countries with stronger currencies, say Greece.",
"qid": 10137,
"docid": "197241",
"rank": 76,
"score": 74698
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: One risk not mentioned is that foreign stock might be thinly traded on your local stock market, so you will find it harder to buy and sell, and you will be late to the game if there is some sudden change in the share price in the original country.",
"qid": 10137,
"docid": "268022",
"rank": 77,
"score": 74508
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Answers: 1: No, Sections 1291-1298 of the IRC were passed in the Reagan adminstration. 2: Not only can a foreign company like a chocolate company fall afoul of the definition of PFIC because of the \"\"asset test\"\", which you cite, but it can also be called a PFIC because of the \"\"income test\"\". For example, I have shares in a development-stage Canadian biotech which is considered a PFIC because it has no income at all, except for a minor amount of bank interest on its working capital. This company is by no means \"\"passive\"\" (it has run 31 clinical trials in over 1100 human research subjects, burning $250M of investor's money in the process) nor is it an \"\"investment company\"\", but the stupid IRS considers it to be a \"\"passive foreign investment company\"\"! The IRS looks at it and sees only the bank account, and assumes it is a foreign shell corporation set up to shield the bank interest from them. 3: Yes, a foreign mutual fund is EXACTLY what congress intended to be a PFIC when passed IRC 1291-1298. (Biotechs, candy factories, ect got nailed as innocent bystanders.) Note that if you hold a US mutual fund then every year you'll get a form 1099 in the mail. The 1099 will report your share of the mutual fund's own income and capital gains, which you must report on your taxes. (You can also have capital gains from selling your shares of the mutual fund, but that's a different thing.) Now suppose that there was no PFIC law. Then the US investors in the mutual fund would do better if the mutual fund were in a foreign country, for two reasons: a) The fund would no longer distribute 1099's. That means the shareholders wouldn't have to pay tax every year on their proportions of the fund's own income/gains. The money that would have sooner gone to the IRS can sit around for years earning interest. b) The fund could return profits to shareholders exclusively through capital gains rather than dividends, thus ensuring that all of the investors' income on the fund would be taxed at <15%-20% rather than up to 39%. The fund could do this by returning cash to shareholders exclusively through buybacks. However, the US mutual fund industry doesn't want to move the industry to Canada, and it only takes a few newspaper articles about a foreign loophole to make congress spring to action. 4) It depends. If you have a PEDIGREED QEF election in place (as I do for my biotech shares) then form 8621 takes a few minutes by hand. However, this requires both the company and the investor to fully cooperate with congress's vision for PFICs. The company cooperates by providing a so-called \"\"PFIC annual information sheet\"\", which replaces the 1099 form for a US mutual fund. The investor cooperates by having a \"\"QEF election\"\" in place for EACH AND EVERY TAX YEAR in which he held the stock and by reporting the numbers from the PFIC annual information sheet on his return. (Note that the QEF election persists once made, until revoked. There are subtleties here that I am glossing over, since \"\"deemed sale\"\" elections and other means may be used to modify a share's holding period to come into compliance.) Note that there is software coming out to handle PFICs, and that the software makers will already run their software to make your form 8621 for $75 or so. I should also warn you that the blogs of tax accountants and tax lawyers all contradict each other on the basic issue of whether you can take capital losses on PFICs for which you have no form 8621 elections. (See section 2.3 of my notes http://tinyurl.com/mh9vlnr for commentary on this mess.) I do not know if the software people will tell you which elections are best made on form 8621, though, or advise you if it's time to simply dump your investment. The professional software is at 8621.com, and the individual 8621 preparation is at http://expattaxtools.com/?page_id=242. BTW, in case you're interested, I wrote up a very careful analysis of how to deal with the PFIC situation for the small biotech I invested in in certain cases. It is posted http://tinyurl.com/mh9vlnr. (For tax reasons it was quite fortunate that the share price dipped to near an all-time low on Jan 1, 2015, making the (next) 2015 tax year ripe for a so-called \"\"deemed sale\"\" election. This was only possible because the company provides the necessary \"\"PFIC annual information statements\"\", which your chocolate factory may or may not do.)\"",
"qid": 10137,
"docid": "368938",
"rank": 78,
"score": 74394
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Paying off the student loans slower and investing the rest has some advantages - the interest is tax deductible (essentially lowering that 7% number), and it helps allow you to build up a liquid emergency fund which is more important to financial security than returns.",
"qid": 10137,
"docid": "307517",
"rank": 79,
"score": 74392
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: So like any market, the housing market will *on average* trend upward. But the extreme prices we're seeing in Toronto or San Francisco are not part of the normal market growth. There's a lot of factors that can affect housing outside of just increased demand. Here's a few of the big ones. 1) Low-Interest Rates: Since (2008? I think) interests rates have been really low, meaning mortgages are really low. If you can borrow money at 4% and the inflation rate is 8%, you've borrowed expensive dollars and are paying back in cheap dollars. 2)NIMBY (Not in my back yard): If you have enough land to build 10 houses or one 100 apartment building, what do you build? Theoretically the apartment building, but in reality, the people that already paid for their million dollar house, don't want a giant apartment complex bringing down the value of the neighborhood and ruining their views. So they pass laws preventing new and bigger buildings, meaning higher prices for the homes that already exist. And as a bonus, it's easier on the city to have 10 people who make a million dollars a year than a 100 people who make 100,000 a year. Foreign investment: So there's a lot of places where people have money, but because of corruption or shaky economies, it's not safe to hold it there. So you buy properties in the U.S. or Canada because you know no one's going to seize it and it's (generally) not going to lose value. So you end up with foreign dollars competing with the local markets for housing, driving the price up.",
"qid": 10137,
"docid": "279865",
"rank": 80,
"score": 74184
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: In a word, no. Diversification is the first rule of investing. Your plan has poor diversification because it ignores most of the economy (large cap stocks). This means for the expected return your portfolio would get, you would bear an unnecessarily large amount of risk. Large cap and small cap stocks take turns outperforming each other. If you hold both, you have a safer portfolio because one will perform well while the other performs poorly. You will also likely want some exposure to the bond market. A simple and diversified portfolio would be a total market index fund and a total bond market fund. Something like 60% in the equity and 40% in the bonds would be reasonable. You may also want international exposure and maybe exposure to real estate via a REIT fund. You have expressed some risk-aversion in your post. The way to handle that is to take some of your money and keep it in your cash account and the rest into the diversified portfolio. Remember, when people add more and more asset classes (large cap, international, bonds, etc.) they are not increasing the risk of their portfolio, they are reducing it via diversification. The way to reduce it even more (after you have diversified) is to keep a larger proportion of it in a savings account or other guaranteed investment. BTW, your P2P lender investment seems like a great idea to me, but 60% of your money in it sounds like a lot.",
"qid": 10137,
"docid": "323363",
"rank": 81,
"score": 74166
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: For question #1, at least some US-based online brokers do permit direct purchases of stocks on foreign exchanges. Depending on your circumstances, this might be more cost effective than purchasing US-listed ADRs. One such broker is Interactive Brokers, which allows US citizens to directly purchase shares on many different foreign exchanges using their online platform (including in France). For France, I believe their costs are currently 0.1% of the total trade value with a 4€ minimum. I should warn you that the IB platform is not particularly user-friendly, since they market themselves to traders and the learning curve is steep (although accounts are available to individual investors). IB also won't automatically convert currencies for you, so you also need to use their foreign exchange trading interface to acquire the foreign currency used to purchase a foreign stock, which has plusses and minuses. On the plus side, their F/X spread is very competitive, but the interface is, shall we say, not very intuitive. I can't answer question #2 with specific regards to US/France. At least in the case of IB, though, I believe any dividends from a EUR-denominated stock would continue to accumulate in your account in Euros until you decide to convert them to dollars (or you could reinvest in EUR if you so choose).",
"qid": 10137,
"docid": "447303",
"rank": 82,
"score": 74023
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: (After seeing your most recent comment on the original question, it looks like others have answered the question you intended, and described the extreme difficulty of getting the timing right the way you're trying to. Since I've already typed it up, what follows answers what I originally thought your question was, which was asking if there were drawbacks to investing entirely in money market funds to avoid stock volatility altogether.) Money market funds have the significant drawback that they offer low returns. One of the fundamental principles in finance is that there is a trade-off between low risk and high returns. While money market funds are extremely stable, their returns are paltry; under current market conditions, you can consider them roughly equivalent to cash. On the other hand, though investing in stocks puts your money on a roller coaster, returns will be, on average, substantially higher. Since people often invest in order to achieve personal financial stability, many feel naturally attracted to very stable investments like money market funds. However, this tendency can be a big mistake. The higher returns of the stock market don't merely serve to stoke an investor's greed, they are necessary for achieving most people's financial goals. For example, consider two hypothetical investors, saving for retirement over the course of a 40-year career. The first investor, apprehensive Adam, invests $10k per year in a money market fund. The second investor, brave Barbara, invests $10k per year in an S&P 500 index fund (reinvesting dividends). Let's be generous and say that Adam's money market fund keeps pace with inflation (in reality, they typically don't even do that). At the end of 40 years, in today's money, Adam will have $10,000*40 = $400,000, not nearly enough to retire comfortably on. On the other hand, let's assume that Barbara gets returns of 7% per year after inflation, which is typical (though not guaranteed). Barbara will then have, using the formula for the future value of an annuity, $10,000 * [(1.07)^40 - 1] / 0.07, or about $2,000,000, which is much more comfortable. While Adam's strategy produces nearly guaranteed results, those results are actually guaranteed failure. Barbara's strategy is not a guarantee, but it has a good chance of producing a comfortable retirement. Even if her timing isn't great, over these time scales, the chances that she will have more money than Adam in the end are very high. (I won't produce a technical analysis of this claim, as it's a bit complicated. Do more research if you're interested.)",
"qid": 10137,
"docid": "52504",
"rank": 83,
"score": 73982
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://news.bitcoin.com/britain-largest-broker-exchange-traded-bitcoin-investments/) reduced by 86%. (I'm a bot) ***** > On Thursday, June 1, two bitcoin investments were added to Hargreaves Lansdown&#039;s platform; Bitcoin Tracker One and Bitcoin Tracker Eur. > The foreign exchange rate risk for Bitcoin Tracker One is USD/SEK whereas it is USD/EUR for Bitcoin Tracker Eur. > While the certificates are denominated in SEK and EUR, they track the price of bitcoin in USD. &quot;As the BTC/USD market is the most liquid bitcoin market widely available for trading, we regard it as the most suitable underlying asset in a bitcoin product,&quot; the company explained. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6ewbj3/britains_largest_broker_offers_exchangetraded/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~135054 tl;drs so far.\"\") | [Theory](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31bfht/theory_autotldr_concept/) | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") | *Top* *keywords*: **bitcoin**^#1 **accounts**^#2 **Hargreaves**^#3 **Lansdown**^#4 **track**^#5\"",
"qid": 10137,
"docid": "246335",
"rank": 84,
"score": 73834
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"**David F. Swensen** David F. Swensen (born 1954) is an American investor, endowment fund manager, and philanthropist. He has been the chief investment officer at Yale University since 1985. Swensen is responsible for managing and investing Yale's endowment assets and investment funds, which total $25.4 billion as of September 2016. He invented The Yale Model with Dean Takahashi, an application of the modern portfolio theory commonly known in the investing world as the \"\"Endowment Model.\"\" His investing philosophy has been dubbed the \"\"Swensen Approach\"\" and is unique in that it stresses allocation of capital in Treasury inflation protection securities, government bonds, real estate funds, emerging market stocks, domestic stocks, and developing world international equities. *** ^[ [^PM](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=kittens_from_space) ^| [^Exclude ^me](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiTextBot&message=Excludeme&subject=Excludeme) ^| [^Exclude ^from ^subreddit](https://np.reddit.com/r/finance/about/banned) ^| [^FAQ ^/ ^Information](https://np.reddit.com/r/WikiTextBot/wiki/index) ^| [^Source](https://github.com/kittenswolf/WikiTextBot) ^] ^Downvote ^to ^remove ^| ^v0.24\"",
"qid": 10137,
"docid": "538940",
"rank": 85,
"score": 73795
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: FBAR should be filed if total balance of all your foreign accounts is more than $10000 any time during the year (even if only for one day). My TurboTax handled that well last year, including filling the FBAR for me. Shouldn't be an issue, just don't forget to file it (not with your IRS package, it goes to a different place), if you need to. On the tax forms (1040 Schedule B, Part III) you should check a checkbox that you have a foreign bank account.",
"qid": 10137,
"docid": "415309",
"rank": 86,
"score": 73770
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: As an international student, the tuition is sky high. Typically, most students take loans for Education and start paying it back once they get a job. If you have exhausted your OPT period and have not got H1B, your options are either to go for further education(Hint: Phd), you can hope to cover living expense by part-time on campus job. This will give you additional time to look for a job and try for H1B again!",
"qid": 10137,
"docid": "243809",
"rank": 87,
"score": 73708
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Two things you should consider about paying off student loans ahead of the 10 year amortization schedule: What interest rate are you paying on your loans? What are you earning on your investments in a balanced mutual fund? When you pay off your student loans you are essentially guaranteed a return of the interest rate on your loan (future interest you would have had to pay). However if you are investing well and getting a good return on your investments you will get a greater return. Ex. Half of my student loans are at 6.8%, thr other half are at 2.5%. I make the minimum payments on the loans at 2.5% and invest my money in tax sheltered retirement accounts. The return on these funds has been 8% and that is on per-tax dollars so really closer to 11%. Now there is also downside risk when you invest in the market, but 2.5% guaranteed I will forgoe for 11% in low risk return. However my loans at 6.8% I repay in excess of the minimums because 6.8% guaranteed return is pretty good! So this decision is based on your confidence in your investments and your own risk tolerance. Once you pay your bank on your student loans that money is gone, out of your control. If you need it in the future you may need to pay higher interest on an unsecured loan, or you may not be able to borrow it. When you want to make large purchases (a car, house) that money you per-paid on your loans isn't available to you as a down payment. Banks should want you to have some of your own \"\"skin in the game\"\" on these purchases and the lending standards keep getting tougher. You are better off if you have money saved in your name rather than against the balance on your loan. Yes you can't bankrupt these loans, but the money you repay on them doesn't go toward housing you or paying your bills on a rainy day. I went through the same feeling when I completed my MBA with $50k in debt, you want to pay it off as soon as possible. But you need to step away and realize that it was an investment in your future and your future is long, you need time to make a financial foundation for it. And you will feel a lot more empowered when you have money saved and you can make the decision for how you want to deploy it to work for you. (Ex. I could pay down my student loans with the balance I have in the bank, but I am going to use it to invest in myself and open my own business).\"",
"qid": 10137,
"docid": "27484",
"rank": 88,
"score": 73586
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: **I would encourage you to clear all your debts and remain debt free, then you can consult a financial manager-for investing purposes that fits your needs and goals. There are so many investment vehicles out, but the best of all is in real estate which requires lots of money. For your case I would prefer money market funds. If don't have time for a specialist you just walk into any stock broker and invest in those shares from well established companies with strong fundamentals. Buy them when undervalued but with long term goals. Ask the stock broker about bonds and other ways that the government purposes for domestic borrowings. Etc.",
"qid": 10137,
"docid": "331623",
"rank": 89,
"score": 73580
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"This page from the CRA website details the types of investments you can hold in a TFSA. You can hold individual shares, including ETFs, traded on any \"\"designated stock exchange\"\" in addition to the other types of investment you have listed. Here is a list of designated stock exchanges provided by the Department of Finance. As you can see, it includes pretty well every major stock exchange in the developed world. If your bank's TFSA only offers \"\"mutual funds, GICs and saving deposits\"\" then you need to open a TFSA with a different bank or a stock broking company with an execution only service that offers TFSA accounts. Almost all of the big banks will do this. I use Scotia iTrade, HSBC Invest Direct, and TD, though my TFSA's are all with HSBC currently. You will simply provide them with details of your bank account in order to facilitate money transfers/TFSA contributions. Since purchasing foreign shares involves changing your Canadian dollars into a foreign currency, one thing to watch out for when purchasing foreign shares is the potential for high foreign exchange spreads. They can be excessive in proportion to the investment being made. My experience is that HSBC offers by far the best spreads on FX, but you need to exchange a minimum of $10,000 in order to obtain a decent spread (typically between 0.25% and 0.5%). You may also wish to note that you can buy unhedged ETFs for the US and European markets on the Toronto exchange. This means you are paying next to nothing on the spread, though you obviously are still carrying the currency risk. For example, an unhedged S&P500 trades under the code ZSP (BMO unhedged) or XUS (iShares unhedged). In addition, it is important to consider that commissions for trades on foreign markets may be much higher than those on a Canadian exchange. This is not always the case. HSBC charge me a flat rate of $6.88 for both Toronto and New York trades, but for London they would charge up to 0.5% depending on the size of the trade. Some foreign exchanges carry additional trading costs. For example, London has a 0.5% stamp duty on purchases. EDIT One final thing worth mentioning is that, in my experience, holding US securities means that you will be required to register with the US tax authorities and with those US exchanges upon which you are trading. This just means fill out a number of different forms which will be provided by your stock broker. Exchange registrations can be done electronically, however US tax authority registration must be submitted in writing. Dividends you receive will be net of US withholding taxes. I am not aware of any capital gains reporting requirements to US authorities.\"",
"qid": 10137,
"docid": "458635",
"rank": 90,
"score": 73572
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: J-1 students are considered to be nonresidents for taxation purposes during their first five years of presence in the US. J-1 scholars are considered to be non-residents for taxation purposes during their first two years of presence in the US.",
"qid": 10137,
"docid": "501956",
"rank": 91,
"score": 73548
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: FDIC insurance only protects certain funds, and is not meant to protect against losses in the market, or to guarantee every investment you might make. Generally, the only accounts that will be FDIC insured are savings, checking, money market and CDs.",
"qid": 10137,
"docid": "307186",
"rank": 92,
"score": 73187
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The simplest, most convenient way I know of to \"\"move your savings to Canada\"\" is to purchase an exchange-traded fund like FXC, the CurrencyShares Canadian Dollar Trust, or a similar instrument. (I identify this fund because I know it exists, not because I particularly recommend it.) Your money will be in Canadian currency earning Canadian interest rates. You will pay a small portion of that interest in fees. Since US banks are already guaranteed by the FDIC up to $250,000 per account, I don't really think you avoid any risks associated with the failure of an individual bank, but you might fare better if the US currency is subject to inflation or unfavorable foreign-exchange movements - not that such a thing would be a direct risk of a bank failure, but it could happen as a result of actions taken by the Federal Reserve under the auspices of aiding the economy if the economy worsens in the wake of a financial crisis - or, for that matter, if it worsens as a result of something else, including legislative, regulatory, or executive policies. Read the prospectus to understand additional risks with this investment. One of them is foreign-exchange risk. If the US economy and currency strengthen relative to the Canadian economy and its currency, you may lose substantial amounts of purchasing power. Additionally, one of the possible results of a financial crisis is a \"\"flight to safety\"\"; the global financial markets still seem to think the US dollar is pretty safe, and they may bid it up as they have done in the past, resulting in losses to your position (at least in the short term). I do not personally recommend moving all your savings to Canada, especially if it deprives you of income from more profitable investments over the long term, but moving some of your savings to Canada at least isn't a stupid idea, and it may turn out to be somewhat profitable. Having some Canadian currency is also a good idea if you plan to spend the money that you are saving on Canadian goods in the intermediate future.\"",
"qid": 10137,
"docid": "217727",
"rank": 93,
"score": 73166
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Like most other investment decisions - it depends. Specifically in this case it depends upon your view of the FX (Foreign Exchange) market over the next few years, and how sensitive you are to losses. As you correctly note, a hedge has a cost, so it detracts from your overall return. But given that you need to repatriate the investment eventually to US Dollars, you need to be aware of the fluctuations of the dollar versus other currencies. If you believe that over your time horizon, the US dollar will be worth the same as now or less, then you should not buy the hedge. If the dollar is the same - the choice is/was obvious. If you believe the US dollar will be weaker in the future, that means that when you repatriate back to US dollars, you will purchase more dollars with your foreign currency. If on the other hand, you believe the US Dollar will get stronger, then you should certainly lock in some kind of hedge. That way, when your foreign currency would have effectively bought fewer US, you will have made money on the hedge to make up the difference. If you choose not to hedge now, you can likely hedge that exposure at any time in the future, separate from the initial investment purchase buy buying/selling the appropriate FX instrument. Good Luck",
"qid": 10137,
"docid": "476834",
"rank": 94,
"score": 73102
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I wouldn't recommend trying to chase a good return on this money. I'd just put it into a savings account of some sort. If you can get a better interest rate with an online account, then feel free to do that. I'd recommend using this money to pay for as much of college out of pocket as you can. The more student loans you can avoid, the better. As @John Bensin said, trying to make money in the stock market in such a short time is too risky. For this money, you want to preserve the principal to pay for school, or to pay down your loans when you get out. If you find you have more money than you need to finish paying for school, then I'd suggest setting some aside for an emergency fund, setting aside enough to pay your loans off when you're out of school, saving for future purchases (house, car, etc), and then start investing (maybe for retirement in a Roth IRA or something like that).",
"qid": 10137,
"docid": "354551",
"rank": 95,
"score": 72999
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Yeah. The student run investment fund at my school valued Tesla and they're significantly overvalued. Their capital structure is way too much debt and given the capital intensity requirements of the industry, they're gonna be cash flow negative for a while. They made 45% in three months bc of the capital gains but knew that shit wasnt stable lmao",
"qid": 10137,
"docid": "53924",
"rank": 96,
"score": 72976
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The stock market's principal justification is matching investors with investment opportunities. That's only reasonably feasible with long-term investments. High frequency traders are not interested in investments, they are interested in buying cheap and selling expensive. Holding reasonably robust shares for longer binds their capital which is one reason the faster-paced business of dealing with options is popular instead. So their main manner of operation is leeching off actually occuring investments by letting the investors pay more than the recipients of the investments receive. By now, the majority of stock market business is indirect and tries guessing where the money goes rather than where the business goes. For one thing, this leads to the stock market's evaluations being largely inflated over the actual underlying committed deals happening. And as the commitment to an investment becomes rare, the market becomes more volatile and instable: it's money running in circles. Fast trading is about running in front of where the money goes, anticipating the market. But if there is no actual market to anticipate, only people running before the imagination of other people running before money, the net payout converges to zero as the ratio of serious actual investments in tangible targets declines. By and large, high frequency trading converges to a Ponzi scheme, and you try being among the winners of such a scheme. But there are a whole lot of people competing here, and essentially the net payoff is close to zero due to the large volumes in circulation as opposed to what ends up in actual tangible investments. It's a completely different game with different rules riding on the original idea of a stock market. So you have to figure out what your money should be doing according to your plans.",
"qid": 10137,
"docid": "56742",
"rank": 97,
"score": 72961
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: $23,000 Student Loans at 4% This represents guaranteed loss. Paying this off quickly is a conservative move, while your other investments may easily surpass 4% return, they are not guaranteed. Should I just keep my money in my savings account since I want to keep my money available? Or are there other options I have that are not necessarily long term may provide better returns? This all depends on your plans, if you're just trying to keep cash in anticipation of the next big dip, you might strike gold, but you could just as easily miss out on significant market gains while waiting. People have a poor track record of predicting market down-turns. If you are concerned about how exposed to market risk you are in your current positions, then you may be more comfortable with a larger cash position. Savings/CDs are low-interest, but much lower risk. If you currently have no savings (you titled the section savings, but they all look like retirement/investment accounts), then I would recommend focusing on that first, getting a healthy emergency fund saved up, and budgeting for your car/house purchases. There's no way to know if you'd be better off investing everything or piling up cash in the short-term. You have to decide how much risk you are comfortable with and act accordingly.",
"qid": 10137,
"docid": "302448",
"rank": 98,
"score": 72901
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If your returns match the market, that means their rate of return is the same as the market in question. If your returns beat the market, that means their rate of return is higher. There's no one 'market', mind you. I invest in mutual funds that track the S&P500 (which is, very roughly, the U.S. stock market), that track the Canadian stock market, that track the international stock market, and which track the Canadian bond market. In general, you should be deeply dubious of any advertised investment option that promises to beat the market. It's certainly possible to do so. If you buy a single stock, for example, that stock may go up by 40% over the course of a year while the market may go up by 5%. However, you are likely taking on substantially more risk. So there's a very good chance (likely, a greater chance) that the investment would go down, losing you money.",
"qid": 10137,
"docid": "369439",
"rank": 99,
"score": 72867
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: This is a somewhat complicated question because it really depends on your personal situation. For example, the following parameters might impact your optimal asset allocation: If you need the money before 3 years, I would suggest keeping almost all of it in cash, CDs, Treasuries, and ultra safe short-term corporate bonds. If however, you have a longer time horizon (and since you're in your 30s you would ideally have decades) you should diversify by investing in many different asset classes. This includes Australian equity, international equity, foreign and domestic debt, commodities, and real estate. Since you have such a long time horizon market timing is not that important.",
"qid": 10137,
"docid": "365479",
"rank": 100,
"score": 72840
}
] |
What does a high operating margin but a small but positive ROE imply about a company? | [
{
"content": "Title: Content: The operating margin deals with the ability for a company to make a profit above the costs of running the company and generating sales. While ROE is how much money the company makes relative to the shareholders equity. I'd be willing to bet that if a company has a small ROE then it also has a quite large P/E (price to earnings) ratio. This would be caused by the company's stock being bid up in relation to its earnings and may not necessarily be a bad thing. People expect the high operating margin to help drive increased revenues in the future, and are willing to pay a higher price now for when that day comes.",
"qid": 10152,
"docid": "113585",
"rank": 1,
"score": 162316
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: A company's Return on Equity (ROE) is its net income divided by its shareholder's equity. The shareholder's equity is the difference between total assets and total liabilities, and is not dependent on the stock price. What it takes to have a ROE over 100% is to have the income be greater than the equity. This might happen for a variety of reasons, but one way a high ROE happens is if the shareholder's equity (the divisor) is small, which can occur if past losses have eroded the company's capital (the original invested cash and retained earnings). If the equity has become a small value, the income for some period might exceed it, and so the ROE would be over 100%. Operating margin is not closely related to ROE. Although operating income is related to net income, to calculate the margin you divide by sales, which is completely unrelated to shareholder's equity. So there is no relationship with ROE to be expected. Operating margin is primarily dependent on market conditions, and can be substantially different in different industries.",
"qid": 10152,
"docid": "549181",
"rank": 2,
"score": 148140
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: An operating margin will not compare with ROE. If a company has even a small margin on a large turnover and has a comparative lower shareholder equity, it ROE will be much higher. One ratio alone can not analyse a company. You need a full set of ratios and figures.",
"qid": 10152,
"docid": "371515",
"rank": 3,
"score": 138863
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Small companies could have growth prospects. Large companies may not have that many. So look at ROE of companies by quatile to determine which companies have better growth.",
"qid": 10152,
"docid": "37032",
"rank": 4,
"score": 89632
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"P/E is a pretty poor way to value the company as it exists today. The company generates free cash flow yield of 2.5-3.3% which isn't remarkably high, but it's not nearly as bad as the earnings yield of 1.1%. But let's operate within the P/E ratio for right now. The company sells $40 billion of \"\"stuff\"\" each year with a net margin of 2%. If they increased prices on every product by 1% (which really wouldn't be _that_ noticeable) their profit would grow 50%. Thus, P/E drops from 90 to 60. SGA expenses equal ~20% of their operating costs. Cut 5% of SGA and you get the same 1% increase in net margin. This could come from cost-cutting today, or by greater economies of scale in the future while keeping prices the same. So, yes, it's priced as a growth firm, but it doesn't necessarily need customer growth in the traditional sense to be fairly-valued.\"",
"qid": 10152,
"docid": "552281",
"rank": 5,
"score": 86646
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"This isn't as rigorous as it should be, but may offer some useful insight into how big and small companies differ operationally. Putting Apple aside, larger companies tend to sell larger volumes of products (even if they're MRI devices, or turbines) relative to what smaller companies can sell (obviously, in absolute terms as well). They are also able to negotiate volume discounts as well as payment terms. This allows them to finance sales through their supply chain. However, their large direct competitors are able to do the same thing as well. Competitive forces then drive prices down. Smaller businesses, without these advantages of scale, tend to have to charge higher margins since they have to pay directly (and, if their clients are large businesses, finance the sale). Small businesses still have higher proportional costs of operation. Sadly, my reference here is a study I performed for the South African Revenue Service about ten years ago, and not available online. However, the time taken by a small business to manage admin, tax, HR is a greater proportion of revenue than for larger companies. If the small business is a start-up with big investment from venture finance, then they could subsidise their selling price, run at a loss and try and gain scale. Funnily enough, there is a fantastic article on this by Joel Spolsky (Ben and Jerry's vs. Amazon) For the average highly-competitive smaller company, the best choice is to chase design/quality/premium markets in order to justify the higher margins they have to charge. And that's what makes Apple interesting as a case study. They were a small company in the presence of giants (Intel, Microsoft, IBM). They were \"\"forced\"\" to concentrate on design and premium markets in order to justify their need for higher margins. It almost didn't work but then they broke through. Now they're in the unique position of having gained scale but are still small enough relative to other electronics manufacturers to continue charging that premium (by volume their sales are still relatively small but their margins make them a giant). This type of variation from market to market makes developing some sort of generalised solution very unlikely but the general requirement holds: that smaller companies must charge higher margins in order to create equivalent profits to larger companies which must gain scale through volume.\"",
"qid": 10152,
"docid": "336601",
"rank": 6,
"score": 86076
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Fuck you. Fuck the HELL out of you. First, what if I operate a business that has industry-wise small margins? All manufacturing, for instance, operates on an average margin of 2%. How much is that tax increase going to be, again? 5%? Thanks, I guess you didn't want a manufacturing sector in the US after all. Second, what if my competitive advantage *is* a small margin? For many small businesses, that is their *only* competitive advantage in their start-up years. Third, when the HELL did being left alone and keeping the money I earned by generating wealth and providing services become a motherfucking SUBSIDY? When the hell did the money I earn become the government's by right???? Also fuck you, you disgusting self-important pimple. The risk-takers, wealth generators and employers of half of America are in fear for their survival; their livelyhoods, their life's work, and their retirement are all at risk from government meddling; and you cavalierly snark that they should just go out of business. May you live long enough to one day learn how it feels.",
"qid": 10152,
"docid": "537450",
"rank": 7,
"score": 83717
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: >Jeremy Grantham, chief investment strategist of Boston-based Grantham, Mayo, Van Otterloo & Co., said margins will send stock markets tumbling when they eventually revert to their mean. >“The implication for the stock market is ugly, because it means earnings are unsustainably high,” Grantham’s colleague Ben Inker, GMO’s director of asset allocation, said in a telephone interview.",
"qid": 10152,
"docid": "384642",
"rank": 8,
"score": 81967
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You need experience. Work in retail, hopefully to some sort of managerial level where you get to see behind the scenes and not just manage associates. If you're really gung-ho about it and willing to take a big risk, I've heard many people say the same reason that a small business fails - not enough cash flow. You might be lucky to raise enough capital for start-up costs, but can you survive two years of negative income? And I'm not even talking about your personal living expenses. Forget about that, you're going to be living at home eating ramen. I'm talking about having enough cash to pay the rent and keep the lights on. Unfortunately, it's going to be a vicious cycle because banks know small businesses are a huge risk and are unwilling to provide loans for them to survive...but small businesses fail because they aren't able to survive in the short-term no matter how good the prospects are in the long-term. Your safest bet is to grow organically. This means having a business model with negligible start-up costs and little overhead costs. Your inventory is going to be small and because of that, your margins are going to be thin (no wholesale prices). But at this point, based on the products you're selling, you're basically just another one of the millions of internet re-sellers. You're going to basically have to place all your value in getting savvy to learn how to spot good deals and re-sell products for a higher price. Honestly, I'll be harsh about it. You have 0 competitive advantage and offer 0 extra value in your idea. There's really no point in wasting your time and money unless you can pivot the idea so you're creating actual competitive advantages for yourself. Otherwise, just stick to re-selling online, at the very least to get a feel for the profit margins and gain experience.",
"qid": 10152,
"docid": "400751",
"rank": 9,
"score": 81262
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"**Warning:** Really fucking simplified (like undergrad \"\"intro to corp finance\"\" simple). Tell them they are running a company. Say they just received a huge pile of cash (end of year earnings or some shit). Tell them they have two options: * Invest the money to expand current operations (say they make footballs) and continue making 10% ROE or w/e return their current operations make. * Invest the money into a new project, say expanding products and making soccer balls. Now ask them what rate of return from soccer balls would they need to receive to make it justifiable to pursue that project instead of just putting that cash back in footballs? I mean, ask them if they received only a 5% ROE from soccer balls, would it make sense to produce them instead of expanding football production? The required rate of return on the soccer ball project would be whatever return they'd make from their other project option (expanding football production).\"",
"qid": 10152,
"docid": "248342",
"rank": 10,
"score": 79037
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Short answer: Structural decline in banking revenue and margins. Longer answer: A combination of regulation and technology has slowly eroded the profitability of banks, just look at historic ROEs. This has been exacerbated by low interest rates which has compressed banking margins via lower interest revenue, particularly affecting Swiss and German banks. Bottom line, investment banking is not as profitable as it was and is likely to become less profitable going forward.",
"qid": 10152,
"docid": "91698",
"rank": 11,
"score": 76442
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Assuming there is actual competition that is what will happen. If MS offers M&A advisory for $3 MM, their operating expenses for the project is $2 MM . DB has greater technological efficiency, cutting down on analyst and support staff costs. Their operating expenses is only $1 MM, their best choice of action would be to undercut to $2.5 MM. This allows them to boost their operating margins and ROE while the client saves $500,000. Obviously if they are a monopoly, any technology gain just means fatter margins since they have all the pricing power.",
"qid": 10152,
"docid": "536174",
"rank": 12,
"score": 76036
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The short answer is that it depends on the industry. In other words, margin alone - even in comparison to peers - will not be a sufficient index to track company success. I'll mention Apple quickly as a special case that has managed to charge a premium margin for a mass-market product. Few companies can achieve this. As with all investment analysis, you need to have a very clear understanding of the industry (i.e. what is \"\"normal\"\" for debt/equity/gearing/margin/cash-on-hand) as well as of the barriers-to-entry which competitors face. A higher-than-normal margin may swiftly be undermined by competitors (Apple aside). Any company offering perpetual above-the-odds returns may just be a Ponzi scheme (Bernie Maddof, etc.). More important than high-margins or high-profits over some short-term track is consistency of approach, an ability to whether adverse cyclical events, and deep investment in continuity (i.e. the entire company doesn't come to a grinding halt when a crucial staff-member retires).\"",
"qid": 10152,
"docid": "516797",
"rank": 13,
"score": 75869
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"how can I get started knowing that my strategy opportunities are limited and that my capital is low, but the success rate is relatively high? A margin account can help you \"\"leverage\"\" a small amount of capital to make decent profits. Beware, it can also wipe out your capital very quickly. Forex trading is already high-risk. Leveraged Forex trading can be downright speculative. I'm curious how you arrived at the 96% success ratio. As Jason R has pointed out, 1-2 trades a year for 7 years would only give you 7-14 trades. In order to get a success rate of 96% you would have had to successful exploit this \"\"irregularity\"\" at 24 out of 25 times. I recommend you proceed cautiously. Make the transition from a paper trader to a profit-seeking trader slowly. Use a low leverage ratio until you can make several more successful trades and then slowly increase your leverage as you gain confidence. Again, be very careful with leverage: it can either greatly increase or decrease the relatively small amount of capital you have.\"",
"qid": 10152,
"docid": "450178",
"rank": 14,
"score": 75085
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: It says Amazon has no profits (or very low profits) but the value of the company is very high and growing because of the high revenue. All of the returns to investors are in the form of increased share price which isn't realized or taxed until the shares are sold. This isn't a loophole. Anybody can run a business where they spend most of their revenue on operating costs and run on very slim margins with the goal of growing the revenue.",
"qid": 10152,
"docid": "517641",
"rank": 15,
"score": 73782
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Time for Redditors to not understand that the reason someone is losing cash matters far more than the fact that they're losing cash in the first place. If you have positive unit economics on every transaction and spend your margins on customer acquisition, you're losing money but gaining market share. Once you stop growing, all of the customer acquisition spend is now pure profit. This is a great reason to be losing money and raising capital from equity/debt. If you have *negative* unit economics on every transaction and have *no* margins, you are resorting to financing to just keep your operations running. When you stop growing, you're still losing money. The only way you start having a margin is by reducing cost or increasing prices. Uber has experimented with raising prices and it is reducing their losses. But it's also reducing their market share. Revenue growth but market share loss means they're growing slower than the rest of the market. Not great. In fact, catastrophic, because it means people are jumping ship because of increased prices. People keep comparing Kalanick to Bezos and Jobs, and could not be any more wrong. Jobs made incredibly high margin, noncommodity premium products that you couldn't get anywhere else. If you're putting companies on a \"\"commodity-noncommodity\"\" axis, Apple is going to be on the opposite end of Uber. Amazon does deliver a lot of commodity goods, but they lost money for so long not just to deliver goods at negative unit economics but to *also* build and scale infrastructure that let them achieve positive economies of scale. They built an infrastructure that rivals the logistics ops of anyone in the world. They also use negative unit economics as a loss leader; so for instance, selling the Fire and Kindle at a loss because people will buy zero marginal cost items like movies, music, ebooks, etc through them, in addition to serving as a portal for Amazon's entire online store. I have bought hundreds of dollars of digital goods through Amazon hardware. That's pure margin for them. How is UberX a loss leader? Uber shares none of these traits with Amazon or Apple.\"",
"qid": 10152,
"docid": "224224",
"rank": 16,
"score": 73776
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you are a small business, you're likely not doing said business at razor thin margins and making your profits on volume like walmart does. Even minor increases in wages have a sweeping affect on their margins because they are a a huge company. It's the same principle of why McDonalds started limiting and/or charging for ketchup packets. At scale, there are massive costs.",
"qid": 10152,
"docid": "508350",
"rank": 17,
"score": 73541
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I agree with that, but this study can't have been conducted over the long term. I'm just pointing out that just because the rates of increase are different doesn't necessarily imply a high margin of error. Could be a high margin of error, of course, just saying the difference doesn't imply this.",
"qid": 10152,
"docid": "221572",
"rank": 18,
"score": 72766
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: It is true that operation profit comes from gross profit however it is possible for a company to have negative net profit yet have postive cash flow , it has to do with the accounting practice A possible example is that a company has extremely high depreciation expense of fixed asset hence net profit will be negative but cash flow will be positive. Assuming the fixed asset has been fully paid for in earlier years",
"qid": 10152,
"docid": "97688",
"rank": 19,
"score": 72724
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Right, but doesn't this apply to the owner operators too? Meaning, the drivers that only occasionally get work from either company? That does hurt, when those drivers operate low margin trips and the fewer high profit trips (typically seasonal or situational) from the big companies make their year. Walmart won't get their way at scale, and even then this type of policy is not an impasse, but is only a temporary roadblock until the market moves around them.",
"qid": 10152,
"docid": "433863",
"rank": 20,
"score": 71045
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Generally speaking, you want to find goods and services that are inelastic and also require oil as a cost. Oil company stocks make record profits when oil is high, because direct demand for oil is relatively inelastic. Profit margins of oil competition should also go up, as this creates inflation in general, as people seek alternatives to the inelastic demand.",
"qid": 10152,
"docid": "250028",
"rank": 21,
"score": 70769
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Absolutely. The overhead for a product based business like that is particularly high. Service based businesses tend to have much better profit margins. But if she was running a plant nursery she has to pay huge heating costs, renting the area she operates in, not to mention inventory and employees. That $300k vanishes pretty fast. This article talking about disappearing middle class is a bad argument. This sounds much more about how the recession hurts a small business. Assuming of course it is the recession. I know a coffee shop near me that isn't doing that great and says the economy is hurting them bad. They apparently don't realize that being blatantly rude to their customers drives them away. There are often other sides to the story besides the economy, whether the fault of the business owner or some other factor outside their control that may not be covered in these kinds of posts.",
"qid": 10152,
"docid": "17488",
"rank": 22,
"score": 70614
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"But what happen if the stock price went high and then go down near expiry date? When you hold a short (sold) call option position that has an underlying price that is increasing, what will happen (in general) is that your net margin requirements will increase day by day. Thus, you will be required to put up more money as margin to finance your position. Margin money is simply a \"\"good faith\"\" deposit held by your broker. It is not money that is debited as cash from the accounting ledger of your trading account, but is held by your broker to cover any potential losses that may arise when you finally settle you position. Conversely, when the underlying share price is decreasing, the net margin requirements will tend to decrease day by day. (Net margin is the net of \"\"Initial Margin\"\" and \"\"Variation Margin\"\".) As the expiry date approaches, the \"\"time value\"\" component of the option price will be decreasing.\"",
"qid": 10152,
"docid": "61853",
"rank": 23,
"score": 70142
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I think you're misunderstanding amazon's business practices. they are not concerned with profits and losses on a short term basis like most companies. typically they re-invest profits back into themselves for growth, which sometimes means they don't show a profit even though they are a profitable company. (however recently they have been profitable, in no small part due to the growth of AWS) this is fundamentally different than operating at a loss to avoid taxes. in the case of the whole foods price slashing, they are just doing it to hurt the competition and gain market share. they also don't need the margins to be as large as whole foods did since they are so much bigger.",
"qid": 10152,
"docid": "195398",
"rank": 24,
"score": 70088
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The key to evaluating book value is return on equity (ROE). That's net profit divided by book value. The \"\"value\"\" of book value is measured by the company's ROE (the higher the better). If the stock is selling below book value, the company's assets aren't earning enough to satisfy most investors. Would you buy a CD that was paying, say two percentage points below the going rate for 100 cents on the dollar? Probably not. You might be willing to buy it only by paying 2% less per year, say 98 cents on the dollar for a one year CD. The two cent discount from \"\"book value\"\" is your compensation for a low \"\"interest\"\" rate.\"",
"qid": 10152,
"docid": "477426",
"rank": 25,
"score": 70082
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I look at the following ratios and how these ratios developed over time, for instance how did valuation come down in a recession, what was the trough multiple during the Lehman crisis in 2008, how did a recession or good economy affect profitability of the company. Valuation metrics: Enterprise value / EBIT (EBIT = operating income) Enterprise value / sales (for fast growing companies as their operating profit is expected to be realized later in time) and P/E Profitability: Operating margin, which is EBIT / sales Cashflow / sales Business model stability and news flow",
"qid": 10152,
"docid": "254319",
"rank": 26,
"score": 69784
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I look at the following ratios and how these ratios developed over time, for instance how did valuation come down in a recession, what was the trough multiple during the Lehman crisis in 2008, how did a recession or good economy affect profitability of the company. Valuation metrics: Enterprise value / EBIT (EBIT = operating income) Enterprise value / sales (for fast growing companies as their operating profit is expected to be realized later in time) and P/E Profitability: Operating margin, which is EBIT / sales Cashflow / sales Business model stability and news flow",
"qid": 10152,
"docid": "62417",
"rank": 27,
"score": 69784
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Thirtyfive years ago, when buying checks through one's bank was the sole option, if you got a \"\"business\"\" account with a bank, you had to buy \"\"business\"\" checks. One difference between a \"\"business\"\" account and a personal account was that on the business account, the incorporated or unincorporated company (say Simply Wonderful Apps) had the option of changing from John Doe to Richard Roe as the Treasurer of Simply Wonderful Apps and the person signing the checks, whereas a personal account in John Doe's name could not be changed to allow Richard Roe signature authority over the account. For a self-employed person doing business as Simply Wonderful Apps, a personal checking account would do just as well, since the need to change the person responsible for signing checks might never arise. It was, of course, important to have a separate checking account for the business because it made book-keeping simpler and also separated business expenses deductible on Schedule C from personal expenses. But it was not necessary to have a business account or business checks to run a small business. In addition to the various advantages described in other answers, one advantage that I found for larger checks is that various money management programs could do things like print an address below the name on (computer-printable) checks so that after folding, the check could be put into a window envelope and mailed directly. For the one check to a page format, the programs could print additional information on the blank area below the check (e.g. explanations about the check, company logo etc. So, it was convenient if one had to write several checks each month. But if outgoing checks are infrequent and extra security is not much of an issue, there is less reason to spend a lot extra on business style checks rather than the personal style checks.\"",
"qid": 10152,
"docid": "98636",
"rank": 28,
"score": 69171
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The strategy has intrinsic value, which may or may not be obstructed in practice by details mentioned in other answers (tax and other overheads, regulation, risk). John Bensin says that as a general principle, if a simple technical analysis is good then someone will have implemented it before you. That's fair, but we can do better than an existence proof for this particular case, we can point to who is doing approximately this. Market makers are already doing this with different numbers. They quote a buy price and a sell price on the same stock, so they are already buying low and selling high with a small margin. If your strategy works in practice, that means you can make low-risk money from short-term volatility that they're missing out on, by setting your margin at approximately the daily price variation instead of the current bid-offer spread. But market makers choose their own bid-offer spread, and they choose it because they think it's the best margin to make low-risk money in the long run. So you'd be relying that:",
"qid": 10152,
"docid": "278450",
"rank": 29,
"score": 68920
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Expanding like crazy compared to what? Apple? You mean the company that has maintained a 25% operating margin while growing top line by 160% since 2010? No company has EVER had a market cap of $1T, let alone maintained it. What is your point? All you're talking about is relative price and \"\"history\"\" which has little to no bearing on what is going to happen in the future. I see no indication of any argument related to the actual valuation of Apple stock. It is still, at $650B, pretty reasonably valued considering the facts, e.g., ability to generate cash, maintain margins, grow revenues, and for management to make sound financial moves, i.e., return $ to shareholders. You come off extremely condescending yet you seem not to have much of an understanding in regards to what dictates stock price over the long term.\"",
"qid": 10152,
"docid": "355158",
"rank": 30,
"score": 68693
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \">Yeah, that's Obama and the economy alright. Not just regular \"\"being burnt out\"\". Making room for motivated young entrepreneurs and small business owners is such a horrible thing. Mostly related to compressed margins, but in a down economy it's even worse without adding extra liabilities. Some have been doing it for decades, admittedly with higher profit, but as the incentives to continue become less and less, its not completely being burnt out, its like if gas became 50% of your net salary. Why even go to work? It costs half your income just to GET to work. >Making room for motivated young entrepreneurs and small business owners is such a horrible thing. Well they have a ton of \"\"for lease\"\" warehouse space and thousand and thousands of empty storefronts to choose from. Room is not the issue. Successful business plans that can flourish and actually produce something is the issue. >I imagine you're seeing this trend with young business owners too right? No, I see young business owners mostly failing, they know they want to start a company but their understanding of details can often be limited. Desire is only part of the picture, you must also have discipline, sacrafice and determination. Some people do and can have those things, but most dont. >People are still starting businesses, being profitable and succeeding? Oh well, the government is still around to blame! Fewer and fewer. Want to open a competitor to best buy? Good luck. Want to open a competitor to amazon? You're about 10-15 years behind. Most companies produce nothing tangible and you can only make so much money making custom t-shirts. >Oh well, the government is still around to blame! I prefer to put my faith in people who know what they're doing and have been proven successful over decades. Not the government administration du jour who is gone in a few years whilst a new one comes in with entirely new policies.\"",
"qid": 10152,
"docid": "391561",
"rank": 31,
"score": 68580
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Well like a lot of stuff on money.stackexchange there is not a simple answer, but generally it is not a good thing. Take a look at the wikipedia entry on Net Operating Loss. Basically the company is commenting that when they do make money they will receive preferential tax treatment on that income. So whether or not this is a positive or a negative depends on a couple of things: NOL doesn't directly impact book value other than how the actual assets of the company changed over the previous quarter. I believe there is a 1:1 correspondence to how the assets change and NOL, but I am sure someone could clarify that for me in another answer or as a comment.",
"qid": 10152,
"docid": "23489",
"rank": 32,
"score": 68533
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: It's not rocket science. Verizon, for example, runs a 6% margin. Finances of huge corporations are quite public. Sure, the telcos could invest more into wireless infrastructure, but it's not like these companies aren't operating at close to their capacity. And when you look down a rung on the ladder at tower companies, they're heavily leveraged and generally in debt due to expansion that they hope will pay off in the future. The way you see it discussed on reddit, you would think that we could have 100% 7g coverage if it wasn't for corporate greed, but in reality these companies are already running at very high speeds and make liberal use of leverage and debt to expand as quick as they can.",
"qid": 10152,
"docid": "251111",
"rank": 33,
"score": 68358
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Sedar is I guess the Canadian equivalent of EDGAR. You can find the company's filings there. Here's a picture from their filings. Can't post the link, if you go and find the filing through Sedar you'll know why (it's not as nice a site as EDGAR). The 4.8 million is from unrealized gain on biological assets. So that's what it is. The reason, I think, as to why Operating Income is a positive 2.67 even though Operating Expense and Gross Profit are both negative is because Google Finance backed into Operating Expense. Operating Income is the same between the two sources, it's just the unrealized gain that moves.",
"qid": 10152,
"docid": "258745",
"rank": 34,
"score": 68330
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Because buying at discount provides a considerable safety of margin -- it increases the likelihood of profiting. The margin serves to cushion future adverse price movement. Why is so much effort made to get a small percentage off an investment, if one is then willing to let the investment drop another 20% or more with the reason of being in it for the long term? Nobody can predict the stock price. Now if a long term investor happens to buy some stocks and the market crashes the next day, he could afford to wait for the stock prices to bounce back. Why should he sells immediately to incur a definite loss, should he has confidence in the underlying companies to recover eventually? One can choose to buy wisely, but the market fluctuation is out of his/her control. Wouldn't you agree that he/she should spend much efforts on something that can be controlled?",
"qid": 10152,
"docid": "466711",
"rank": 35,
"score": 67831
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: This situation sounds better than most, the company it seems likely to be profitable in the future. As such it is a good candidate to have a successful IPO. With that your stock options are likely to be worth something. How much of that is your share is likely to be very small. The workers that have been their since the beginning, the venture capitalist, and the founders will make the majority of profits from an IPO or sale. Since you and others hired at a similar time as you are assuming almost no risk it is fair that your share of the take is small. Despite being 1/130 employees expect your share of the profits to be much smaller than .77%. How about we go with .01%? Lets also assume that they go public in 2.5 years and that revenues during that time continue to increase by about 25M/year. Profit margins remains the same. So revenues to 112M, profits to 22.5M. Typically the goal for business is to pay no more than 5 times profits, that could be supplanted by other factors, but let's assume that figure. So about 112M from the IPO. So .01% of that is about 11K. That feels about right. Keep in mind there would be underwriting fees, and also I would discount that figure for things that could go wrong. I'd be at about 5K. That would be my expected value figure, 5K. I'd also understand that there is a very small likelihood that I receive that amount. The value received is more likely to be zero, or enough to buy a Ferarri. There might also be some value in getting to know these people. If this fails will their next venture be a success. In my own life, I went to work for a company that looked great on paper that just turned out to be a bust. Great concept, horrible management, and within a couple of years of being hired, the company went bust. I worked like a dog for nothing.",
"qid": 10152,
"docid": "275902",
"rank": 36,
"score": 67593
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: A pattern of high level people buying or selling is a sign, positive or negative. An individual, not so much. He can be selling to diversify, trying to keep his investments from being all in the company. He can be selling to pay his large bills. Same reasons any of us might be selling an investment to have cash to use.",
"qid": 10152,
"docid": "61227",
"rank": 37,
"score": 67351
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: > Most businesses operate at a loss for the first year or two, and reinvest all the profits for expansion for a few years after that. So higher income taxes won't affect them one bit. Yes, but tariffs, licenses, excise taxes, payroll taxes, and the like do. I say this as a business owner. I agree that the personal margin income tax brackets should go higher, I was just making a comment about how you form a healthy ecosystem for businesses. It takes tax friendly policies on the corporate level. > Half of all incomes goes to the top 10%. They have more than enough money... Well, if we open it up to the top 10% now instead of only 1% (which is what I was referencing with the whole Occupy movement), we are starting to get somewhere. They already pay the largest proportion of taxes, obviously raising taxes would impact them the most no matter how you look at it. I have no disagreement with doing that, in fact I encourage it. > (Note: I intentionally ommitted health care because money alone won't fix that mess.) I would say education fits within that category too. Per capita we spend more than any other country on our children already. But yes, raising taxes will be necessary to fund what we need to fund, but I'd like to start with cutting government spending, reforming the fucked up programs, and creating a real economic / jobs plan for the next 50 years and then, at that point, we can determine who pays what taxes rather than asking the wealthy to pay more so we can fund useless wars.",
"qid": 10152,
"docid": "133472",
"rank": 38,
"score": 67186
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Profit margins. The difference goes to shareholders as new equity every quarter. You don’t need growth to see a return on equity. The consumer staple sector is a great example of this. They’ve had negative to 0 revenue growth, yet have posted respectable returns since the recession.",
"qid": 10152,
"docid": "565598",
"rank": 39,
"score": 66997
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Reading and analyzing financial statements is one of the most important tasks of Equity Analysts which look at a company from a fundamental perspective. However, analyzing a company and its financial statements is much more than just reading the absolute dollar figures provided in financial statements: You need to calculate financial ratios which can be compared over multiple periods and companies to be able to gauge the development of a company over time and compare it to its competitors. For instance, for an Equity Analyst, the absolute dollar figures of a company's operating profit is less important than the ratio of the operating profit to revenue, which is called the operating margin. Another very important figure is Free Cash Flow which can be set in relation to sales (= Free Cash Flow / Sales). The following working capital related metrics can be used as a health check for a company and give you early warning signs when they deviate too much: You can either calculate those metrics yourself using a spreadsheet (e.g. Excel) or use a professional solution, e.g. Bloomberg Professional, Reuters Eikon or WorldCap.",
"qid": 10152,
"docid": "258306",
"rank": 40,
"score": 66959
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Focus on the economics of it. If you have a contract do deliver energy at some price P in the future, and you know your current operating margins. If your job is to hedge, you want to lock in your profits and let the market go whereever it goes. Basically, the goal of hedging in these markets is to lock in your operating margins by creating a spread between your production, the market and the consumer's prices.",
"qid": 10152,
"docid": "303878",
"rank": 41,
"score": 66646
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I agree, the markets that Amazon competes in his extremely competitive with larger companies (such as Wal Mart) operating at smaller margins to increase volume. Since Amazon is continuously trying to increase its customer base and customer loyalty, they really need the low margins. The 1% increase could be harmful to the long-term growth of the company, which as the executives of Amazon explain, really matters more than higher profits this quarter. Furthermore, 5% decrease in SGA sounds like a company that's downsizing, particularly a company that operates as efficiently as Amazon, making that suggestion unreasonable and unrealistic.",
"qid": 10152,
"docid": "154769",
"rank": 42,
"score": 65683
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Market capitalization is one way to represent the value of the company. So if a company has 10 million shares, which are each worth $100, then the company's market capitalization is 1 billion. Large cap companies tend to be larger and more stable. Small cap companies are smaller, which indicates higher volatility. So if you want more aggressive investments then you may want to invest in small cap companies while if you lean on the side of caution then big cap companies may be your friend.",
"qid": 10152,
"docid": "460230",
"rank": 43,
"score": 65546
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: (1). Is this right? Pretty much, though this is a really rudimentary way to think about it. (2). If it is, why is it that extensive services are provided by high margin companies competing for talent, rather then lower margin businesses looking to boost their profits by reducing their expenditures on employees (by cutting out the government)? It's the polar opposite of that. Google (and companies like that) do things like have a day care center on premises. The company staffs a day care center which has costs, then lets employees use it for free. This is a business expense for Google, and in relative terms, a considerably large business expense that a lower margin business could no afford. Employer healthcare is a tax protected expense for employees via section 125 of the tax code. The company portion of the healthcare costs are a deductible business expense to the company, as expected. Healthcare is different than most other expenses because the employee can forego income before it's effectively received which negates it from taxable income. This doesn't work for something like food purchased at a cafe on a Google complex. If employee money is being spent at a corporate cafe, it's taxable income being spent (though the cost of running the cafe is a tax deductible business expense to the company). There have been discussions in congress to assess a value as income to employees for services like on site child care and no cost employee cafeterias. To address your new example: For example, suppose John Doe makes $100,000 a year taxed at a rate of 20%, for a take home pay of $80,000. He spends $10,000 on food. His employer Corporation decides to give him all of his food and deduct it as a business expense - costing them $10,000. But now they can pay John Doe an amount so his take home pay will be reduced by $10,000 - $87,500 The company is now spending $97500 employing John Doe, for a savings of $2500$. This would be an audit prone administrative nightmare. Either You need John to submit receipts for reimbursement up to the $10,000 agreed upon amount which would require some kind of administrative staff, or After a very short period of time John forgets the abstract value of the food cost arrangement, that is only really benefiting the employer in the form of lower payroll expense, and is enticed away for more pay somewhere else anyway. The company may be saving $2,500, though again there will be an additional administrative expense of some sort, but John is only saving $500 ($97,500 * 0.20 - $100,000 * 0.20).",
"qid": 10152,
"docid": "289620",
"rank": 44,
"score": 65165
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: > more people should die if it means companies can operate more efficiently. I don't care about companies operating efficiently. I care about individuals operating effectively. Small business owners do it everyday, even using simple technology platforms to propel their business. They follow government safety guidelines, interact directly with their customers in a professional way, and no one dies. Placing all the liability on companies is ineffective and a sign of government doing too much.",
"qid": 10152,
"docid": "289501",
"rank": 45,
"score": 64842
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: And losing market share. Which means that an increase in prices (which is why their margins are improving) means a loss of market share. Their entire investment thesis as a company is that by subsidizing prices they can capture market share and slowly raise prices. This data proves that thesis untrue. Uber is fucked*. *if they stay on their current path.",
"qid": 10152,
"docid": "399042",
"rank": 46,
"score": 64832
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Small companies are generally able to adapt quickly to take advantage of changing conditions to enter new markets when the economy is growing. This gives them a lot of growth potential under those circumstances. However, in times of crisis, there may not be a lot of new markets to enter, and financing to expand any operations may be impossible to get. Under these conditions, small-caps will suffer relative to large-caps.",
"qid": 10152,
"docid": "176253",
"rank": 47,
"score": 64778
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Capitalization rate and \"\"Net Profit margin\"\" are two different things. In Capitalization rate note that we are taking the \"\"total value\"\" in the denominator and in Net profit margin we are taking \"\"Revenue/Sales\"\". Capitalization Rate: Capitalization Rate = Yearly Income/Total Value For example (from Investopedia: ) if Stephane buys a property that will generate $125,000 per year and he pays $900,000 for it, the cap rate is: 125,000/900,000 = 13.89%. Net Profit margin: Net Profit margin = Net Profit/Revenue For example (from finance formulas): A company's income statement shows a net income of $1 million and operating revenues of $25 million. By applying the formula, $1 million divided by $25 million would result in a net profit margin of 4%. Although the formula is simplistic, applying the concept is important in that 4% of sales will result in after tax profit.\"",
"qid": 10152,
"docid": "109148",
"rank": 48,
"score": 64712
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: To a certain extent, small cap companies will in general follow the same trends as large cap companies. The extent of this cointegration depends on numerous factors, but a prime reason is the presence of systemic risk, i.e. the risk to the entire market. In simple terms, sthis is the risk that your portfolio will approach asymptotically as you increase its diversification, and it's why hedging is also important. That being said, small cap businesses will, in general, likely do worse than large cap stocks, for several reasons. This was/is certainly the case in the Great Recession. Small cap businesses have, on average, higher betas, which is a measure of a company's risk compared to the overall market. This means that small cap companies, on average outperform large cap companies during boom times, but it also means that they suffer more on average during bear times. The debate over whether or not the standard beta is still useful for small cap companies continues, however. Some economists feel that small cap companies are better measured against the Russell 2000 or similar indexes instead of the S&P 500. Small cap companies may face problems accessing or maintaining access to lines of credit. During the Great Recession, major lenders decreased their lending to small businesses, which might make it harder for them to weather the storm. On a related point, small businesses might not have as large an asset base to use as collateral for loans in bad times. One notable large cap company that used its asset base to their advantage was Ford, which gave banks partial ownership of its factories during hard times. This a) gave Ford a good amount of cash with which to continue their short-term operations, and b) gave the banks a vested interest in keeping Ford's lines of credit open. Ford struggled, but it never faced the financial problems of GM and Chrysler. Despite political rhetoric about Main Street vs. Wall Street, small businesses don't receive as much government aid in times of crisis as some large cap companies do. For example, the Small Business Lending Fund, a brilliant but poorly implemented idea in 2010, allocated less than $30 billion to small businesses. (The actual amount loaned was considerably less). Compare that to the amounts loaned out under TARP. Discussions about corporate lobbying power aside, small businesses aren't as crucial to the overall stability of the financial system Small businesses don't always have the manpower to keep up with changes in regulation. When the Dodd-Frank Act passed, large banks (as an example), could hire more staff to understand it and adapt to it relatively easily; small banks, however, don't always have the resources to invest in such efforts. There are other reasons, some of which are industry-specific, but these are some of the basic ones. If you want visual confirmation that small cap businesses follow a similar trend, here is a graph of the Russell 2000 and S&P 500 indexes: Here is a similar graph for the Russell 2000 and the Dow Jones Industrial Average. If you wanted to confirm this technically and control for the numerous complicated factors (overlap between indexes, systemic risk, seasonal adjustment, etc.), just ask and I'll try to run some numbers on it when I have a chance. Keep in mind, too, that looking at a pretty picture is no substitute for rigorous financial econometrics. A basic start would be to look at the correlation between the indexes, which I calculate as 0.9133 and 0.9526, respectively. As you can see, they're pretty close. Once again, however, the reality is more complicated technically, and a sufficiently detailed analysis is beyond my capabilities. Just a quick side note. These graphs show the logarithm of the values of the indexes, which is a common statistical nuance that is used when comparing time series with radically different magnitudes but similar trends. S&P500 and Russell 2000 data came from Yahoo! Finance, and the Dow Jones Industrial Average data came from Federal Reserve Economic Data (FRED) Per usual, I try to provide code whenever possible, if I used it. Here is the Stata code I used to generate the graphs above. This code assumes the presence of russell2000.csv and sp500.csv, downloaded from Yahoo! Finance, and DJIA.csv, downloaded from FRED, in the current directory. Fidelity published an article on the subject that you might find interesting, and Seeking Alpha has several pieces related to small-cap vs. large-cap returns that might be worth a read too.",
"qid": 10152,
"docid": "10098",
"rank": 49,
"score": 64676
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"There is no general theory to support the notion that larger companies will be more profitable than smaller companies. Economies of scale are not always positive, one can have diseconomies of scale too. It is more common to talk about an optimal firm size, even going back to Stigler's (1958) \"\"The Economies of Scale.\"\" Intuitively, if economies of scale extended indefinitely, then natural monopolies would dominate all industries in the long run. A profit ratio, unfortunately, wouldn't quite get at scale economies. Consider, for example, that the denominator of your metric would be profit+cost and that you are trying to get at the cost reduction that derives from scale. Then, you are measuring the size of a company by the exact metric that should be reduced if scale economies exist, so the calculation would be a bit confounded. It is my understanding that such assessments are usually conducted at the industry level by determining whether the industry is becoming increasingly concentrated among fewer firms over time. (Again see Stigler). If concentration is increasing, there is an implication that, at current firm sizes, there are economies of scale in the industry.\"",
"qid": 10152,
"docid": "502432",
"rank": 50,
"score": 64366
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: How I understand it is: supply/demand affect price of stock negatively/positively, respectively. Correct. Volume is the amount of buying/selling activity in these stocks (more volume = more fluctuation, right?). Sort of. Higher volume means higher liquidity. That is, a stock that is traded more is easier to trade. It doesn't necessarily mean more fluctuation and in the real world, it often means that these are well-understood stocks with a high amount of analyst coverage. This tends towards these stocks not being as volatile as smaller stocks with less liquidity. Company revenue (and profit) will help an investor predict company growth. That is one factor in a stock price. There are certain stocks that you would buy without them making a profit because their future revenue looks potentially explosive. However, these stocks are very risky and are bubble-prone. If you're starting out in the share market, it's generally a good idea to invest in index funds (I am not a broker, my advice should not be taken as financial advice). These funds aggregate risk by holding a lot of different companies. Also, statistics have shown that over time, buying and holding index funds long term tends to dramatically outperform other investment strategies, particularly for people with low amounts of capital.",
"qid": 10152,
"docid": "115134",
"rank": 51,
"score": 64056
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I see another way of looking at this that hasn't been addressed yet. By offering the discount, the company is attempting to change your behavior into doing something irrational, that benefits them at your expense. The company hopes for one (or more) of the following psychological effects to happen to you: The proper thing to do, if you have enough capital to prevent margin calls, it to short-sell the stock at the same instant the price is set, thus locking in the profit. Eventually you can take possession of the shares and deliver them to offset the short -- hopefully before you get a margin call from the stock dropping.",
"qid": 10152,
"docid": "569303",
"rank": 52,
"score": 63889
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \">Good, that gives their competition time to take market share. Except TAM (total actual market) is decreasing, the pool of \"\"market share\"\" is going down. So what's happening is companies are slashing margins to even maintain market share, much less increase it. Look at what's happening in computers, DELL, HP, Acer, Asus, Lenovo. Apple's sales numbers dropped for notebooks as well, but because they didnt drop as much as HP or Lenovo their market share went up. This is the new normal. Less than stellar sales. >As long as there is money on the table, someone is going to reach for it. Markets aren't known for their patience. Problem is there is less and less money on the table. Big companies are squeezing little companies. Know what you just described? Wal-mart puts the little guy out of business--- they're efficent! >Bullshit, tax burdens cause tax avoidance, they don't touch production as long as profits are still available. Yes, some, but you can only avoid it if you are multi-national. Businesses with completely domestic operations cannot avoid liabilities in the same way. But as I said above the markets are shrinking, there is less money on the table and the players that are left are fighting over the last scraps. That is obviously a bit extreme, but I personally deal with a lot of retailers and OEMs and there is NOT the wiggle room you describe. I get beat up for a few dollars. I am not talking about banks, or energy companies, or healthcare companies. I am talking about the thousands of small and medium businesses that are already squeezed. These entities are the lifeblood of the larger economy. One or two go out of business and nobody notices, but hundreds and thousands of these companies have closed now. A healthy company is not made up of only Wal-mart, Exxon and Apple.\"",
"qid": 10152,
"docid": "63725",
"rank": 53,
"score": 63802
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Well Company is a small assets company for example it has 450,000,000 shares outstanding and is currently traded at .002. Almost never has a bid price. Compare it to PI a relative company with 350 million marker cap brokers will buy your shares. This is why blue chip stock is so much better than small company because it is much more safer. You can in theory make millions with start up / small companies. You would you rather make stable medium risk investment than extremely high risk with high reward investment I only invest in medium risk mutual funds and with recent rallies I made 182,973 already in half year period.",
"qid": 10152,
"docid": "445258",
"rank": 54,
"score": 63704
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Dude, I'm a small business owner. The fact of the matter is employee costs are a big expense. But the truth is, I think people that pay minimum wage are scum. If you're so convinced that a livable wage would make it \"\"worse\"\", why don't you standardize a companies 10-k and show me that the cost of the product will raise equal to the wage increase? You can't, because it won't. The cost increase on margins is divided over every operating metric a company has, and therefore the price won't increase at a 1:1 ratio. Further, the margins that are made by the companies employing the people making minimum wage are often from government assistance. So you're claiming it's cheaper for the populace to create false net revenues by directing tax dollars to support the very people that can't buy food because of a $7 an hour wage. Then you have the countless people stuck in the welfare hole of losing their benefits if they get a slightly better job that just knocks them out of the specified ranges required to qualify. So you have people that want to work, but now can't make too much money or it will make their life worse, all because of the system that was created by a minimum wage that never matched inflation and cheap companies that rely on welfare systems to keep their employees happy a rough to keep living. Companies that pay minimum wage are jokes.\"",
"qid": 10152,
"docid": "193347",
"rank": 55,
"score": 63594
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Stock issuing and dilution is legal because there must be some mechanism for small companies to grow into big companies. A company sees a great investment opportunity. It would be a perfect extension of their activities ... but they cannot afford it. To get the necessary money they can either take out a loan or issue shares. Taking a loan basically means that this is temporary, but the company will go back to being small when the loan is paid back. Issuing new shares basically means that the Board means that this growth is permanent and the company will be big for the foreseeable future. It is utterly necessary that companies have this option for raising cash, and therefore it is legal. As detailed in the other answers, you end up with a smaller percentage of a larger company, usually ending up with more or less the same value.",
"qid": 10152,
"docid": "419505",
"rank": 56,
"score": 63487
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"If you are like most people, your timing is kind of awful. What I mean by most, is all. Psychologically we have strong tendencies to buy when the market is high and avoid buying when it is low. One of the easiest to implement strategies to avoid this is Dollar Cost Averaging. In most cases you are far better off making small investments regularly. Having said that, you may need to \"\"save\"\" a bit in order to make subsequent investments because of minimums. For me there is also a positive psychological effect of putting money to work sooner and more often. I find it enjoyable to purchase shares of a mutual fund or stock and the days that I do so are a bit better than the others. An added benefit to doing regular investing is to have them be automated. Many wealthy people describe this as a key to success as they can focused on the business of earning money in their chosen profession as opposed to investing money they have already earned. Additionally the author of I will Teach You to be Rich cites this as a easy, free, and key step in building wealth.\"",
"qid": 10152,
"docid": "24846",
"rank": 57,
"score": 63464
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I think you've got basics, but you may have the order / emphasis a bit wrong. I've changed the order of the things you've learned in to what I think is the most important to understand: Owning a stock is like owning a tiny chunk of the business Owning stock is owning a tiny chunk of the business, it's not just \"\"like\"\" it. The \"\"tiny chunks\"\" are called shares, because that is literally what they are, a share of the business. Sometimes shares are also called stocks. The words stock and share are mostly interchangeable, but a single stock normally means your holding of many shares in a business, so if you have 100 shares in 1 company, that's a stock in that company, if you then buy 100 shares in another company, you now own 2 stocks. An investor seeks to buy stocks at a low price, and sell when the price is high. Not necessarily. An investor will buy shares in a company that they believe will make them a profit. In general, a company will make a profit and distribute some or all of it to shareholders in the form of dividends. They will also keep back a portion of the profit to invest in growing the company. If the company does grow, it will grow in value and your shares will get more valuable. Price (of a stock) is affected by supply/demand, volume, and possibly company profits The price of a share that you see on a stock ticker is the price that people on the market have exchanged the share for recently, not the price you or I can buy a share for, although usually if people on the market are buying and selling at that price, someone will buy or sell from you at a similar sort of price. In theory, the price will be the companies total value, if you were to own the whole thing (it's market capitalisation) divided by the total number of shares that exist in that company. The problem is that it's very difficult to work out the total value of a company. You can start by counting the different things that it owns (including things like intellectual property and the knowledge and experience of people who work there), subtract all the money it owes in loans etc., and then make an allowance for how much profit you expect the company to make in the future. The problem is that these numbers are all going to be estimates, and different peoples estimates will disagree. Some people don't bother to estimate at all. The market makers will just follow supply and demand. They will hold a few shares in each of many companies that they are interested in. They will advertise a lower price that they are willing to buy at and a higher price that they will sell at all the time. When they hold a lot of a share, they will price it lower so that people buy it from them. When they start to run out, they will price it higher. You will never need to spend more than the market makers price to buy a share, or get less than the market makers price when you come to sell it (unless you want to buy or sell more shares than they are willing to). This is why stock price depends on supply and demand. The other category of people who don't care about the companies they are trading are the high speed traders. They just look at information like the past price, the volume (total amount of shares being exchanged on the market) and many other statistics both from the market and elsewhere and look for patterns. You cannot compete with these people - they do things like physically locate their servers nearer to the stock exchanges buildings to get a few milliseconds time advantage over their competitors to buy shares quicker than them.\"",
"qid": 10152,
"docid": "307008",
"rank": 58,
"score": 63386
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Few companies are on such small margins that a tiny flip would cause profitable to unprofitable. But say overhead mandatory costs like insurances and other liabilities already eat up 60% of your gross profits then you're faced with another 5-15% increase in these costs. Would you continue working for only 25% of your gross profits? If you're already rich, why not retire? That's exactly what this guy is talking about. The guy obviously worked hard and sacraficed to get where he is, but at a certain point you receive less and less benefit from your efforts.",
"qid": 10152,
"docid": "328017",
"rank": 59,
"score": 63195
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Thank you, finally somebody else who is able to explain this basic premise. It's odd how many people operate on the assumption that businesses operate on a margin so thin that every $1 of increased cost must be added to the product price. It just bears no resemblance to reality...",
"qid": 10152,
"docid": "41963",
"rank": 60,
"score": 63163
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"No. That return on equity number is a target that the regulators consider when approving price hikes. If PG&E tried to get a 20% RoE, the regulator would deny the request. Utilities are basically compelled to accept price regulation in return for a monopoly on utility business in a geographic area. There are obviously no guarantees that a utility will make money, but these good utilities are good stable investments that generally speaking will not make you rich, but appreciate nicely over time. Due to deregulation, however, they are a more complex investment than they once were. Basically, the utility builds and maintains a bunch of physical infrastructure, buys fuel and turns it into electricity. So they have fixed costs, regulated pricing, market-driven costs for fuel, and market-driven demand for electricity. Also consider that the marginal cost of adding capacity to the electric grid is incredibly high, so uneven demand growth or economic disruption in the utility service area can hurt the firms return on equity (and thus the stock price). Compare the stock performance of HE (the Hawaiian electric utlity) to ED (Consolidated Edison, the NYC utility) to SO (Southern Companies, the utility for much of the South). You can see that the severe impact of the recession on HE really damaged the stock -- location matters. Buying strategy is key as well -- during bad market conditions, money flows into these stocks (which are considered to be low-risk \"\"defensive\"\" investments) and inflates the price. You don't want to buy utilities at a peak... you need to dollar-cost average a position over a period of years and hold it. Focus on the high quality utilities or quality local utilities if you understand your local market. Look at Southern Co, Progress Energy, Duke Energy or American Electric Power as high-quality benchmarks to compare with other utilities.\"",
"qid": 10152,
"docid": "342554",
"rank": 61,
"score": 62936
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: This is the point of the article. Somehow a company which is so successful has, for tax purposes, such a razor thin margin. So their taxation clearly isn't in keeping with its actual ability to pay, passing along the burden to other businesses and individuals.",
"qid": 10152,
"docid": "330242",
"rank": 62,
"score": 62848
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I think to some extent you may be confusing the terms margin and leverage. From Investopedia Two concepts that are important to traders are margin and leverage. Margin is a loan extended by your broker that allows you to leverage the funds and securities in your account to enter larger trades. In order to use margin, you must open and be approved for a margin account. The loan is collateralized by the securities and cash in your margin account. The borrowed money doesn't come free, however; it has to be paid back with interest. If you are a day trader or scalper this may not be a concern; but if you are a swing trader, you can expect to pay between 5 and 10% interest on the borrowed money, or margin. Going hand-in-hand with margin is leverage; you use margin to create leverage. Leverage is the increased buying power that is available to margin account holders. Essentially, leverage allows you to pay less than full price for a trade, giving you the ability to enter larger positions than would be possible with your account funds alone. Leverage is expressed as a ratio. A 2:1 leverage, for example, means that you would be able to hold a position that is twice the value of your trading account. If you had $25,000 in your trading account with 2:1 leverage, you would be able to purchase $50,000 worth of stock. Margin refers to essentially buying with borrowed money. This must be paid back, with interest. You also may have a \"\"margin call\"\" forcing you to liquidate assets if you go beyond your margin limits. Leverage can be achieved in a number of ways when investing, one of which is investing with a margin account.\"",
"qid": 10152,
"docid": "543811",
"rank": 63,
"score": 62629
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The main reason, as far as I can see, is that the dividends are payments with which the shareholders may do what they want. Capital that the company has no use for does not make a significant positive return on investment, as you pointed out, yes the company could accrue interest, but that is not going to make the company large sums of cash. While the company may be great at making shoes - maybe even the best in the world - doesn't mean they are good investors. Sure they could dabble at using their capital to invest in other equities, but they don't, because they just want to focus on making shoes. If the dividend goes to the investors, they can do what they wish, be it reinvest in the company, or invest elsewhere. Other companies that may make good use of the capital, and create significant returns on it are one such example. That is the rational answer, beyond that, one of the main reasons is that people like the feeling of receiving dividends - it might not be the answer you are looking for, but many people prefer companies that pay dividends for no rational reason over companies which grow their asset value.",
"qid": 10152,
"docid": "477143",
"rank": 64,
"score": 62604
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: In highly developed and competitive industries companies tread a continuous and very fine line between maximising shareholder profits by keeping prices up while making products as cheaply as possible, vs competitors lowering prices when they work out a way to make equivalents cheaper. In the short run you will quite often see companies hold onto large portions of efficiency savings (particularly if they make a major breakthrough in a specific manufacturing process etc) by holding old prices up, but in the long run competition pretty quickly lowers prices as the companies trying to keep high margins and prices get ruthlessly undercut by smaller competitors happy to make a bit less.",
"qid": 10152,
"docid": "322171",
"rank": 65,
"score": 62525
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: With your numbers, look at it this way - You borrowed $50. When the stock is $100, you are at 50% margin. What's most important, is that there's margin interest charged, so the amount owed will increase regardless of the stock price. When calculating your return or loss, the interest has to be accounted for or your numbers will be wrong. For a small investor, margin rates can run high, and often, will offset much of your potential gain. What good is a $100 gain if you paid $125 in margin interest?",
"qid": 10152,
"docid": "294095",
"rank": 66,
"score": 62471
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: > TK didnt lose investor tens of billions of dollars. Uber has spent close to $13B. > Also, for the past several years the whole market rewards growth over earnings, so that helped guys like Musk and Kalanick quite a lot and to a lessor degree, Bezos and Reddings. Growth of a model with positive unit economics. It's one thing to have positive unit economics and use your margins to 1) accelerate customer acquisition or 2) build infrastructure that reduces your costs. It's another entirely to have negative unit economics and require subsidy just to continue providing your service at all. > For all assets, investor profits come from either earnings or valuation growth and Kalanick provided quite a bit of the latter. Sure, investors may have the opportunity sell their stock before it crashes, just as some home sellers made a killing right before the housing bubble popped. That's why TK was forced from the company, his investors are trying to get Uber into IPO-able shape so they can ditch their stock before people realize how worthless it is.",
"qid": 10152,
"docid": "243207",
"rank": 67,
"score": 62103
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"what does negative Total Equity means in McDonald's balance sheet? It means that their liabilities exceed their total assets. Usually is means that a company has accumulated losses over time, but that's just one explanation. But, isn't McDonald a very healthy company, and never lost money? Just because a company has \"\"always\"\" money does not mean it's a healthy company. It may have borrowed a lot of money in order to operate, and now the growth is not able to keep up with the debt load. In McDonald's case, the major driver in the equity change is the fact that they have bought back over $20 Billion in stock over the past few years, which reduces assets and equity. If they had instead paid off debt, their equity would not be negative, but their debt may be so cheap (in terms of interest rate) that it made more financial sense to buy back stock instead of paying off debt. There are too many variables to assess that in this forum.\"",
"qid": 10152,
"docid": "399191",
"rank": 68,
"score": 62101
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If it's a low margin business and you can get value for it that's higher than the leadership values it, and they have some opportunity in a better margin business but for some reason couldn't acquire debt funding or more investors to fund the new business; then it might be feasible, but unusual and probably not ideal.",
"qid": 10152,
"docid": "113506",
"rank": 69,
"score": 62090
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Hmm. I appreciate some peoples margins are tighter than others, but in 10 years we've never been so close to the wire that these decisions could significantly effect (or possibly affect?) the viability of the company as a whole. In that case it would be morally right to favour the greater good of the majority, sure.",
"qid": 10152,
"docid": "236591",
"rank": 70,
"score": 61988
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: High ROI and high barriers to entry are rare to find existing together at the same time in the same market. More commonly, you have high margins/ROI in early markets, but high barriers to entry are more common in mature markets. The most common places to find high ROI and barriers to entry is when there is something *proprietary* involved. This is why the STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) fields are so valuable. Industries related to these fields have an edge because they are the most likely fields to create something proprietary. When something proprietary is also in high demand, you have a barrier to entry and also a potential to create high margins (which in turn will be high ROI). Some people have mentioned medical devices, which are an excellent example. There are only a handful of companies that have went to the lengths of development to create the Swan Ganz catheter, for example (an essential tool used in cardiac surgeries). With little competition and high demand, companies that manufacture Swan Ganz catheters can put healthy margins on the product without worry. TL;DR: The best way to find something high ROI that also has barriers to entry is to specialize towards something proprietary that cannot be imitated or replaced, but is also in high demand.",
"qid": 10152,
"docid": "331530",
"rank": 71,
"score": 61973
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"*Most* companies have gross margins, because it's not *just* tied to cost of \"\"goods,\"\" but cost of *revenue.* FedEx has costs of revenue and therefore a gross margin. In some cases, however, yes, some companies will not have a cost directly tied to revenue. These are services companies in which an employees salary is by no means tied to the revenue (i.e. a salary of $50k will still do $100k of work or $1M of work with no change). EDIT: Work has me looking at American Addiction Centers (AAC), which is an example of a company without cost of revenue/goods.\"",
"qid": 10152,
"docid": "498284",
"rank": 72,
"score": 61966
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Margin trades let you post a margin of a certain proportion of the value of the trade as collateral against the price of a trade and pay off the difference between the current price and the price that you bought at. Any losses incurred are taken from the margin so the margin has to be maintained as prices change. In practice this means that when the price moves significantly from the buying price a \"\"margin call\"\" is triggered and the buyer has to increase their posted margin. The vast majority of the foreign exchange trades done every day are margin trades as (effectively) are all spread bets. Margins get reset overnight whether or not a call has occurred.\"",
"qid": 10152,
"docid": "23609",
"rank": 73,
"score": 61857
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: No. The information you are describing is technical data about a stock's market price and trading volume, only. There is nothing implied in that data about a company's financial fundamentals (earnings/profitability, outstanding shares, market capitalization, dividends, balance sheet assets and liabilities, etc.) All you can infer is positive or negative momentum in the trading of the stock. If you want to understand if a company is performing well, then you need fundamental data about the company such as you would get from a company's annual and quarterly reports.",
"qid": 10152,
"docid": "384583",
"rank": 74,
"score": 61681
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Theoretically, it's a question of rate of return. If a desired or acceptable rate of return for market makers' capital is X, and X is determined by the product of margin & turnover then higher turnover means lower margin for a constant X. Margin, in the case of trading, is the bid/ask spread, and turnover, in the case of trading, is volume. Empirically, it has been noted in the last markets still offering such wide-varying evidence, equity options: http://faculty.baruch.cuny.edu/lwu/890/mayhew_jf2002.pdf",
"qid": 10152,
"docid": "508144",
"rank": 75,
"score": 61198
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: (At least in the UK) a company named Card Factory has been very successful in undercutting the competition using the classic pile 'em high and sell 'em cheap strategy with less glamorous high-street locations than 'traditional' stores. Interestingly it doesn't seem to have spawned either competition at their price point or lowered the general prices for greetings cards even in low-margin businesses like supermarkets. A quick glance at their annual report suggests they're doing reasonably well with this approach.",
"qid": 10152,
"docid": "50809",
"rank": 76,
"score": 60976
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Earnings per share is the company profit (or loss), divided by the number of outstanding shares. The number should always be compared to the share price, so for instance if the EPS is $1 and the share price is $10, the EPS is 10% of the share price. This means that if the company keeps up this earning you should expect to make 10% yearly on your investment, long term. The stock price may fluctuate, but if the company keeps on making money you will eventually do so too as investor. If the EPS is low it means that the market expects the earnings to rise in the future, either because the company has a low profit margin that can be vastly improved, or because the business is expected to grow. Especially the last case may be a risky investment as you will lose money if the company doesn't grow fast enough, even if it does make a healthy profit. Note that the listed EPS, like most key figures, is based on the last financial statement. Recent developments could mean that better or worse is generally expected. Also note that the earnings of some companies will fluctuate wildly, for instance companies that produce movies or video games will tend to have a huge income for a quarter or two following a new release, but may be in the negative in some periods. This is fine as long as they turn a profit long term, but you will have to look at data for a longer period in order to determine this.",
"qid": 10152,
"docid": "288403",
"rank": 77,
"score": 60905
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: What I know about small companies and companies who are not listed on the stock markets is this: If a small company has shares issued to different people either within an organization or outside the value of the shares is generally decided by the individual who wants to sell the share and the buyer who wants to buy it. Suppose my company issued 10 shares to you for your help in the organization. Now you need money and you want to sell it. You can offer it at any price you want to to the buyer. If the buyer accepts your offer thats the price you get. So the price of the share is determined by the price a buyer is willing to buy it at from you. Remember the Face value of the shares remains the same no matter what price you sell it for. Now annual profit distribution is again something called dividends. Suppose my company has 100 shares in total out of which I have given you 10. This means you are a 10% owner of the company and you will be entitled to 10% of the net profit the company makes. Now at the end of the year suppose my company makes a 12,000 USD net profit. Now a panel called board of directors which is appointed by share holders will decide on how much profit to keep within the company for future business and how much to distribute about share holders. Suppose they decide to keep 2000 and distribute 10,000 out of total profit. Since you own 10% shares of the company you get 1000. The softwares you are talking are accounting softwares. You can do everything with those softwares. After-all a company is only about profit and loss statements.",
"qid": 10152,
"docid": "468188",
"rank": 78,
"score": 60891
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Why do these fees exist? From a Banks point of view, they are operating in Currency A; Currency B is a commodity [similar to Oil, Grains, Goods, etc]. So they will only buy if they can sell it at a margin. Currency Conversion have inherent risks, on small amount, the Bank generally does not hedge these risks as it is expensive; but balances the position end of day or if the exposure becomes large. The rate they may get then may be different and the margin covers it. Hence on highly traded currency pairs; the spread is less. Are there back-end processes and requirements that require financial institutions to pass off the loss to consumers as a fee? The processes are to ensure bank does not make loss. is it just to make money on the convenience of international transactions? Banks do make money on such transactions; however they also take some risks. The Forex market is not single market, but is a collective hybrid market place. There are costs a bank incurs to carry and square off positions and some of it is reflected in fees. If you see some of the remittance corridors, banks have optimized a remittance service; say USD to INR, there is a huge flow often in small amounts. The remittance service aggregates such amounts to make it a large amount to get a better deal for themselves and passes on the benefits to individuals. Such volume of scale is not available for other pairs / corridors.",
"qid": 10152,
"docid": "386745",
"rank": 79,
"score": 60880
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"In general, when dealing with quantities like net income that are not restricted to being positive, \"\"percentage change\"\" is a problematic measure. Even with small positive values it can be difficult to interpret. For example, compare these two companies: Company A: Company B: At a glance, I think most people would come away with the impression that both companies did badly in Y2, but A made a much stronger recovery. The difference between 99.7 and 99.9 looks unimportant compared to the difference between 100,000 and 40,000. But if we translate those to dollars: Company A: Y1 $100m, Y2 $0.1m, Y3 $100.1m Company B: Y1 $100m, Y2 $0.3m, Y3 $120.3m Company B has grown by a net of 20% over two years; Company A by only 1%. If you're lucky enough to know that income will always be positive after Y1 and won't drop too close to zero, then this doesn't matter very much and you can just look at year-on-year growth, leaving Y1 as undefined. If you don't have that guarantee, then you may do better to look for a different and more stable metric, the other answers are correct: Y1 growth should be left blank. If you don't have that guarantee, then it might be time to look for a more robust measure, e.g. change in net income as a percentage of turnover or of company value.\"",
"qid": 10152,
"docid": "294191",
"rank": 80,
"score": 60679
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Margin is when you borrow to buy stock. The margin % is the amount you can have borrowed over your own stock. There may also be some other considerations e.g. risk portfolio. Say you have 10,000. Your broker allows you buy on margin with a margin requirement of 100%. So You buy 18,000 of stock. You have 10k of your own and borrowed 8k to buy this. So you have 80% extra stock on margin. Say the stock has a downturn and loses 12% or so. Suddenly you have 16k stock value. But you still owe 8k. You are now at 100% margin. 8k is yours 8k is borrowed money. At this point if you drop anymore you are exceeding 100% margin and your broker may sell to ensure they get their 8k. The benefits of this are of course if the stock goes in your favor. 10% rise is 1,800 instead of 1,000.",
"qid": 10152,
"docid": "545287",
"rank": 81,
"score": 60586
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The margin money you put up to fund a short position ($6000 in the example given) is simply a \"\"good faith\"\" deposit that is required by the broker in order to show that you are acting in good faith and fully intend to meet any potential losses that may occur. This margin is normally called initial margin. It is not an accounting item, meaning it is not debited from you cash account. Rather, the broker simply segregates these funds so that you may not use them to fund other trading. When you settle your position these funds are released from segregation. In addition, there is a second type of margin, called variation margin, which must be maintained while holding a short position. The variation margin is simply the running profit or loss being incurred on the short position. In you example, if you sold 200 shares at $20 and the price went to $21, then your variation margin would be a debit of $200, while if the price went to $19, the variation margin would be a credit of $200. The variation margin will be netted with the initial margin to give the total margin requirement ($6000 in this example). Margin requirements are computed at the close of business on each trading day. If you are showing a loss of $200 on the variation margin, then you will be required to put up an additional $200 of margin money in order to maintain the $6000 margin requirement - ($6000 - $200 = $5800, so you must add $200 to maintain $6000). If you are showing a profit of $200, then $200 will be released from segregation - ($6000 + $200 = $6200, so $200 will be release from segregation leaving $6000 as required). When you settle your short position by buying back the shares, the margin monies will be release from segregation and the ledger postings to you cash account will be made according to whether you have made a profit or a loss. So if you made a loss of $200 on the trade, then your account will be debited for $200 plus any applicable commissions. If you made a profit of $200 on the trade then your account will be credited with $200 and debited with any applicable commissions.\"",
"qid": 10152,
"docid": "266900",
"rank": 82,
"score": 60390
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: What I did not understand when I first called is that margin able account means the ability to borrow margin, but not the necessity of borrowing. Like I was saying, it is something I am going to do a lot of due diligence on before I plunge in. I have a general vague idea of futures, and thus why I was asking for info on the matter.",
"qid": 10152,
"docid": "144431",
"rank": 83,
"score": 60324
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: My interpretation of that sentence is that you can't do the buying/selling of shares outright (sans margin) because of the massive quantity of shares he's talking about. So you have to use margin to buy the stocks. However, because in order to make significant money with this sort of strategy you probably need to be working dozens of stocks at the same time, you need to be familiar with portfolio margin. Since your broker does not calculate margin calls based on individual stocks, but rather on the value of your whole portfolio, you should have experience handling margin not just on individual stock movements but also on overall portfolio movements. For example, if 10% (by value) of the stocks you're targeting tend to have a correlation of -0.8 with the price of oil you should probably target another 10% (by value) in stocks that tend to have a correlation of +0.8 with the price of oil. And so on and so forth. That way your portfolio can weather big (or even small) changes in market conditions that would cause a margin call on a novice investor's portfolio.",
"qid": 10152,
"docid": "84870",
"rank": 84,
"score": 60213
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: This is just a byproduct of high margin, low fixed cost businesses. They are retaining shitloads of earnings with little need, or even ability, to deploy it. Their growth strategy is probably acquisition based as well (hello Whole Foods), so having billions on the sidelines is optionality to execute quickly on an opportunity if/when it presents itself.",
"qid": 10152,
"docid": "436745",
"rank": 85,
"score": 60021
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Small cap companies are just smaller, so the risk for them to fail is higher but the potential for higher returns is also higher.",
"qid": 10152,
"docid": "508858",
"rank": 86,
"score": 60001
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: First price isn't artificially maintained at a level. When a refining company signs a contract to buy crude from a supplier, it promises to buy at a certain price with options for increase and decrease due to the fluctuating prices in the market. And it buys crude to build up a certain buffer to supply itself for a certain duration, in case of supply problems. As it had bought oil at a higher price, it would be reluctant to lower the prices even if the current crude it buys is at a lower cost. If it buys oil from the open market, it has no other option than to pass on the hike on to the consumers, so a more intense fluctuation in the prices of oil at the point, where you buy it. Some airlines used hedging to take care of the spurts in the price of oil, to mantian their operating margins. And moreover refining and distribution is a very low margin business, so the company has an incentive to sell at a higher cost if required.",
"qid": 10152,
"docid": "324037",
"rank": 87,
"score": 59994
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"You are correct that, barring an equity capital raise, your money doesn't actually end up in the company. However, interest in their stock can help a company in other ways; Management/board members hopefully own shares or options themselves, thus knowing that \"\"green\"\" policies are favorable for the stock price (as your fund might buy shares) can be quite an incentive for them to go green(er). Companies with above average company share performance are also often viewed as financially healthy and so creditors tend to charge lower interest for companies with good share performance. Lastly, a high share price makes a company difficult to take over (as all those shares have to be acquired) and at the same time makes it easier for the company to perform takeovers themselves as they can finance such acquisitions by issuing more of their own shares. There is also the implication that money flowing towards such green companies is money flowing out of/away from polluting companies, for these \"\"dirty\"\" companies the inverse of the previous points can hold true. Of course on the other hand there is quite an argument to be made that large enough \"\"green\"\" funds should actually buy substantial positions in companies with poor environmental records and steer the company towards greener policies but that might be a hard sell to investors.\"",
"qid": 10152,
"docid": "454222",
"rank": 88,
"score": 59949
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I expected a word or two on the price elasticity of demand here :) Andrey, Your question needs slight revision in its current form. Rising prices actually do not mean increased profitability for a company. The quantity they sell also pays a huge part and actually is correlated to the price at which they sell the goods (and other factors such as the price at which their competitor sells the goods etc., but we will ignore it for simplicity). The net profit of sales for any firm is equal to (Qty x Sale Price) - COGS - SG&A - taxes - other expenses where, COGS means cost of goods sold SG&A means sales, general and admin costs (e.g., cleaning the inventory storage area daily so that the goods stay fresh etc.) other expenses include any miscellaneous other costs that the firm incurs to make the sale. Now, if everything in that equation remains same (COGS, SG&A, taxes, and other expenditures), rising prices will only translate into a higher profit if the quantity does not fall by the same margin. Prices may also rise simply as a response to risking COGS, SG&A or other expenditures --the latter may be observed in inflationary environments. In such a case, the supplying firm can end up losing its profit margin if the quantity falls by more than the price rise.",
"qid": 10152,
"docid": "579114",
"rank": 89,
"score": 59933
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Nobody tracks a single company's net assets on a daily basis, and stock prices are almost never derived directly from their assets (otherwise there would be no concept of 'growth stocks'). Stocks trade on the presumed current value of future positive cash flow, not on the value of their assets alone. Funds are totally different. They own nothing but stocks and are valued on the basis on the value of those stocks. (Commodity funds and closed funds muddy the picture somewhat, but basically a fund's only business is owning very liquid assets, not using their assets to produce wealth the way companies do.) A fund has no meaning other than the direct value of its assets. Even companies which own and exploit large assets, like resource companies, are far more complicated than funds: e.g. gold mining or oil extracting companies derive most of their value from their physical holdings, but those holdings value depends on the moving price and assumed future price of the commodity and also on the operations (efficiency of extraction etc.) Still different from a fund which only owns very liquid assets.",
"qid": 10152,
"docid": "106665",
"rank": 90,
"score": 59840
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Just to clarify things: The Net Working Capital is the funds, the capital that will finance the everyday, the short term, operations of a company like buying raw materials, paying wages erc. So, Net Working Capital doesn't have a negative impact. And you should not see the liabilities as beneficial per se. It's rather the fact that with smaller capital to finance the short term operations the company is able to make this EBIT. You can see it as the efficiency of the company, the smaller the net working capital the more efficient the company is (given the EBIT). I hope you find it helpful, it's my first amswer here. Edit: why do you say the net working capital has a negative impact?",
"qid": 10152,
"docid": "557607",
"rank": 91,
"score": 59744
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Short-term, the game is supply/demand and how the various participants react to it at various prices. On longer term, prices start to better reflect the fundamentals. Within something like week to some month or two, if there has not been any unique value affecting news, then interest, options, market maker(s), swing traders and such play bigger part. With intraday, the effects of available liquidity become very pronounced. The market makers have algos that try to guess what type of client they have and they prefer to give high price to large buyer and low price to small buyer. As intraday trader has spreads and commissions big part of their expenses and leverage magnifies those, instead of being able to take advantage of the lower prices, they prefer to stop out after small move against them. In practise this means that when they buy low, that low will soon be the midpoint of the day and tomorrows high etc if they are still holding on. Buy and sell are similar to long call or long put options position. And options are like insurance, they cost you. Also the longer the position is held the more likely it is to end up with someone with ability to test your margin if you're highly leveraged and constantly making your wins from the same source. Risk management is also issue. The leveraged pros trade through a company. Not sure if they're able to open another such company and still open accounts after the inevitable.",
"qid": 10152,
"docid": "357583",
"rank": 92,
"score": 59556
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Would you consider the owner of a company to be supporting the company? If you buy stock in the company you own a small part of that company. Your purchase also increases the share price, and thus the value of the company. Increased value allows the company to borrow more money to say expand operations. The affect that most individuals might have on share price is very very small. That doesn't mean it isn't the right thing for you to do if it is something you believe in. After all if enough people followed those same convictions it could have an impact on the company.",
"qid": 10152,
"docid": "149384",
"rank": 93,
"score": 59544
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Meh, that's good for pain if that works, but that's a relatively small market compared to pharmaceuticals from a business perspective, much lower profit margins because anyone can grow it. It's a highly competitive field, and as soon as it becomes legal federally you know that Altria and other huge corporations are going to be able to sell it and put the small producers out of business. Many great minds also never did drugs. Again, I'm just going by my experiences, and none of the smart/successful people at my company or in my group of friends smoke pot.",
"qid": 10152,
"docid": "591320",
"rank": 94,
"score": 59315
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Most companies are taken over. One can reasonably guess that company X will be taken over for a price P, at some future point in time. Then the company has a value today, that is less than price P, by a large enough margin so that the investor will likely \"\"make out\"\" when the company finally is taken over at some unknown point in time. The exception is a company like Microsoft or Apple that basically grow too large to be taken over. But then they eventually start paying dividends when they become \"\"mature.\"\" Again, the trick, during the non-dividend paying period (e.g. ten or fifteen years ago) is to guess what dividends will be paid in some future time, and price the stock low enough today so that it will be worthwhile for the buyer.\"",
"qid": 10152,
"docid": "435125",
"rank": 95,
"score": 59228
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: There are more companies in the S&P500 that are tech enabled services companies, and a few are software as a service (salesforce, cerner, etc.). As a result profit margins used here have expanded. If wages increase, margins should shrink but there is likely going to be growing revenue as we still have a huge output gap because of all the unemployed people who would have income. Not sure there is a mean to regress to",
"qid": 10152,
"docid": "86249",
"rank": 96,
"score": 59117
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"In general, small cap stocks are exposed to more downside during recessions and when credit is tight, because it is more difficult for small companies to raise capital, and minor variations in cash flow have a bigger impact. Coming out of recessions or when credit is cheap, small companies generally perform better than larger companies. In the depths of recession, small companies with good cash flow are often great value investments, as analysts and institutional investors \"\"punish\"\" the entire class of smallcap companies.\"",
"qid": 10152,
"docid": "475405",
"rank": 97,
"score": 59080
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The key there is Large companies. The vast majority of companies in the US are small businesses with little or no international presence, and are taxed at the full 35%. Their very large competitors, however, have the ability to flout US corporate taxes, and therefore keep more of their profits - whether in terms of retained earnings or higher dividends to shareholders.",
"qid": 10152,
"docid": "356003",
"rank": 98,
"score": 59076
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Stock basically implies your ownership in the company. If you own 1% ownership in a company, the value of your stake becomes equal to 1% of the valuation of the entire company. Dividends are basically disbursal of company's profits to its shareholders. By holding stocks of a company, you become eligible to receiving dividends proportional to your ownership in the company. Dividends though are not guaranteed, as the company may incur losses or the management may decide to use the cash for future growth instead of disbursing it to the shareholders. For example, let's say a company called ABC Inc, is listed on NYSE and has a total of 1 million shares issued. Let's say if you purchase 100 stocks of ABC, your ownership in ABC will become Let's say that the share price at the time of purchase was $10 each. Total Investment = Stock Price * Number of Stocks Purchased = $10 * 100 = $1,000 Now, let's say that the company declares a dividend of $1 per share. Then, Dividend Yield = Dividend/Stock Price = $1/$10 = 10% If one has to draw analogy with other banking products, one can think of stock and dividend as Fixed Deposits (analogous to stock) and the interest earned on the Fixed Deposit (analogous to dividend).",
"qid": 10152,
"docid": "113623",
"rank": 99,
"score": 59025
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The article said it was [gross income, not net income](http://smallbusiness.chron.com/gross-profit-vs-net-profit-4024.html), so her take-home pay was most likely much, much less. A plant nursery business probably doesn't have a big profit margin, especially considering that virtually every big construction retailer (Lowe's, Home Depot, etc) have their own nursery sections.",
"qid": 10152,
"docid": "406490",
"rank": 100,
"score": 58712
}
] |
How are various types of income taxed differently in the USA? | [
{
"content": "Title: Content: I'm not sure where you are, but in the United States capital gains are taxed at a lower rate than other types of income. On the 1040, captial gains income is separated from earned income, and income tax is calculated just on earned income. Then capital gains tax is calculated on capital gains income, and then added to income tax afterward.",
"qid": 10183,
"docid": "558867",
"rank": 1,
"score": 125909
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"US federal tax law distinguishes many types of income. For most people, most of their income is \"\"earned income\"\", money you were paid to do a job. Another category of income is \"\"capital gains\"\", money you made from the sale of an asset. For a variety of reasons, capital gains tax rates are lower than earned income tax rates. (For example, it is common that much of the gain is not real profit but inflation. If you buy an asset for $10,000 and sell it for $15,000, you pay capital gains tax on the $5,000 profit. But what if prices in general since you bought the asset have gone up 50%? Then your entire profit is really inflation, you didn't actually make any money -- but you still have to pay a tax on the paper gain.) So if you make your money by investing in assets -- buying and selling at a profit -- you will pay lower taxes than if you made the same amount of money by receiving a salary from a job, or by running a business where you sell your time and expertise rather than an asset. But money made from assets -- capital gains -- is not tax free. It's just a lower tax. It MIGHT be that when combined with other deductions and tax credits this would result in you paying no taxes in a particular year. Maybe you could avoid paying taxes forever if you can take advantage of tax loopholes. But for most people, making money from capital gains could result in lower taxes per dollar of income than someone doing more ordinary work. Or it could result in higher taxes, if you factor in inflation, net present value of money, and so on. BTW Warren Buffet's \"\"secretary\"\" is not a typist. She apparently makes at least $200,000 a year. http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2012/01/25/warren-buffetts-secretary-likely-makes-between-200000-and-500000year/#ab91f3718b8a. And side note: if Warren Buffet thinks he isn't paying enough in taxes, why doesn't he voluntarily pay more? The government has a web site where citizens can voluntarily pay additional taxes. In 2015 they received $3.9 million in such contributions. http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/gift/gift.htm\"",
"qid": 10183,
"docid": "57263",
"rank": 2,
"score": 119760
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The United States taxes nonresident aliens on two types of income: First, a nonresident alien who is engaged in a trade or business in the United States is taxed on income that is effectively connected with that trade or business. Second, certain types of U.S.-source payments are subject to income tax withholding. The determination of when a nonresident alien is engaged in a U.S. trade or business is highly fact-specific and complex. However, keeping assets in a U.S. bank account should not be treated as a U.S. trade or business. A nonresident alien's interest income is generally subject to U.S. federal income tax withholding at a rate of 30 percent under Section 1441 of the tax code. Interest on bank deposits, however, benefit from an exception under Section 1441(c)(10), so long as that interest is not effectively connected with a U.S. trade or business. Even though no tax needs to be withheld on interest on a bank deposit, the bank should still report that interest each year to the IRS on Form 1042-S. The IRS can then send that information to the tax authority in Brazil. Please keep in mind that state and local tax rules are all different, and whether interest on the bank deposits is subject to state or local tax will depend on which state the bank is in. Also, the United States does tax nonresident aliens on wages paid from a U.S. company, if those wages are treated as U.S.-source income. Generally, wages are U.S.-source income if the employee provides services while physically present in the United States. There are a few exceptions to this rule, but they depend on the amount of wages and other factors that are specific to the employee's situation. This is an area where you should really consult with a U.S. tax advisor before the employment starts. Maybe your company will pay for it?",
"qid": 10183,
"docid": "588327",
"rank": 3,
"score": 111570
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: To your first question: YES. Capital gains and losses on real-estate are treated differently than income. Note here for exact IRS standards. The IRS will not care about percentage change but historical (recorded) amounts. To your second question: NO Are you taxed when buying a new stock? No. But be sure to record the price paid for the house. Note here for more questions. *Always consult a CPA for tax advice on federal tax returns.",
"qid": 10183,
"docid": "75410",
"rank": 4,
"score": 107943
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Be sure to consider the difference between Roth 401K and standard 401K. The Roth 401K is taxed as income then put into your account. So the money you put into the Roth 401K is taxed as income for the current year, however, any interest you accumulate over the years is not taxed when you withdraw the money. So to break it down: You may also want to look into Self Directed 401K, which can be either standard or Roth. Check if your employer supports this type of account. But if you're self employed or 1099 it may be a good option.",
"qid": 10183,
"docid": "505617",
"rank": 5,
"score": 105579
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Lets just get to the point...Ordinary income (gains) earned from S-Corp operations (i.e. income earned after all expenses for providing services or selling products) is passed through to the owners/shareholders and taxed at the owner's personal tax rate. Separately, if an S-Corp earns capital gains (i.e. the S-Corp buys and sells stock, earns dividends from investments, etc), those gains are passed through to the owners and taxed at a capital gains rate Capital gains are not the same as ordinary income (gains). Don't get the two confused, they are as different for S-Corp taxation as they are for personal taxation. In some cases an exception occurs, but only when the S-Corp was formally a C-Corp and the C-Corp had non-distributed earnings or losses. This is a separate issue whereas the undistributed C-Corp gains/losses are treated differently than the S-Corp gains/losses. It takes years of college coursework and work experience to grasp the vast arena of tax. It should not be so complex, but it is this complex. It is not within the scope of the non-tax professional to make sense of this stuff. The CPA exams, although very difficult and thorough, only scrape the surface of tax and accounting. I hope this provides some perspective on any questions regarding business tax for S-Corps and any other entity type. Hire a good CPA... if you can find one.",
"qid": 10183,
"docid": "11401",
"rank": 6,
"score": 105520
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Here are the few scenarios that may be worth noting in terms of using different types of accounts: Traditional IRA. In this case, the monies would grow tax-deferred and all monies coming out will be taxed as ordinary income. Think of it as everything is in one big black box and the whole thing is coming out to be taxed. Roth IRA. In this case, you could withdraw the contributions anytime without penalty. (Source should one want it for further research.) Past 59.5, the withdrawals are tax-free in my understanding. Thus, one could access some monies earlier than retirement age if one considers all the contributions that are at least 5 years old. Taxable account. In this case, each year there will be distributions to pay taxes as well as anytime one sells shares as that will trigger capital gains. In this case, taxes are worth noting as depending on the index fund one may have various taxes to consider. For example, a bond index fund may have some interest that would be taxed that the IRA could shelter to some extent. While index funds can be a low-cost option, in some cases there may be capital gains each year to keep up with the index. For example, small-cap indices and value indices would have stocks that may \"\"outgrow\"\" the index by either becoming mid-cap or large-cap in the case of small-cap or the value stock's valuation rises enough that it becomes a growth stock that is pulled out of the index. This is why some people may prefer to use tax-advantaged accounts for those funds that may not be as tax-efficient. The Bogleheads have an article on various accounts that can also be useful as dg99's comment referenced. Disclosure: I'm not an accountant or work for the IRS.\"",
"qid": 10183,
"docid": "272458",
"rank": 7,
"score": 103914
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: This often occurs because of misrepresentation of the corporation income. Most of the income in the US is payed at or a little below the 35% rate... But when the figure is calculated non-US income is counted alongside US income. For some reason, in the US it makes sense for corporations to pay income taxes in the countries they actually made the income in AND the US. Mind you... Only USA and Eritrea have this sort of backwards thinking. So yeah... If they make $100 worldwide income, out of which $50 is US income, and the company reports $15 in US taxes, they get represented as paying 15% effective tax rate when in reality they payed 30% on US taxes for their US income.",
"qid": 10183,
"docid": "460760",
"rank": 8,
"score": 102914
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I'm answering your second and third point. For first point it depends on case by case basis from which organization you are opening your trust. Trust Account are of different type: To earn interest you account should be of below type. Interest in possession trusts and Income Tax Trustees are responsible for declaring and paying Income Tax on income received by the trust. They do this on a Trust and Estate Tax Return each year. There are different rates depending on the type of income - as shown below. Type of income Income Tax rate 2014 to 2015 tax year Rent, trading and savings 20% (basic rate) UK dividends (such as income from stocks and shares) 10% (dividend ordinary rate)",
"qid": 10183,
"docid": "291214",
"rank": 9,
"score": 102520
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you have income in the US, you will owe US income tax on it, unless there is a treaty with your country that says otherwise.",
"qid": 10183,
"docid": "332314",
"rank": 10,
"score": 102159
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Some more considerations: (1) Tax rates (both ordinary and capital gains) are likely to be different when you retire. (2) Your marginal tax rate may be different when you retire depending on how much income you have at the time. In retirement your income may be structured completely differently than when you are working. For example, you may also have a Roth IRA/401K to pull from.",
"qid": 10183,
"docid": "565410",
"rank": 11,
"score": 101436
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"> Seven U.S. states currently don't have an income tax: Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas, Washington and Wyoming. So to be clear, you were talking about just income tax in your original comment? Or do those states have no other forms of tax whatsoever? I am still confused because you just said \"\"state tax\"\" in your original comment and did not specify a specific type of taxation like \"\"income tax\"\" or \"\"property tax\"\" or \"\"business tax\"\" or \"\"sales tax\"\" within the state.\"",
"qid": 10183,
"docid": "285472",
"rank": 12,
"score": 100615
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Actually, the other answer isn't strictly correct. It's an estimate, giving a lower bound that gets less accurate as income increases. Consider: U.S. income tax is based on a progressive tax system where there are income bracket levels with increasing tax rates. Example: Given U.S. 2009 federal tax rates for an individual filing as \"\"single\"\": Imagine somebody making $100000. Assuming no other credits, deductions, or taxes, then income tax based on the above brackets & rates would be calculated as follows: Meaning the average tax rate for the single individual earning $100,000 is 21.72%. However, a pre-tax deduction from that income actually comes off at the top marginal tax rate. Consider the same calculation but with taxable income reduced to $99,000 instead (i.e. simulating a pre-tax $1000 deduction): That's a difference of $280, which is more than the $217.20 savings that would have been estimated if just using the average tax rate method. Consequently, when trying to determine how much money would be saved by a tax deduction, it makes better sense to estimate using the marginal tax rate, which in this case was 28%. It gets a little trickier if the deduction crosses a bracket boundary. (Left as an exercise to the reader :-) Finally, in the case of the deduction being discussed, it also looks like payroll FICA taxes paid by the employee (Social Security's 6.2%, and Medicare's 1.45%) would be avoided as well; so add that to the marginal tax rate savings. The surest way to know how much would be saved, though, would be to do one's income tax return calculation without the deduction, and then with, and compare the numbers. Tax software can make this very easy to do.\"",
"qid": 10183,
"docid": "105264",
"rank": 13,
"score": 100317
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Its not for US citizens - its for US residents. If the US considers you as a tax resident - you'll be treated the same as a US citizen, regardless of your immigration status. The question is very unclear, since it is not mentioned whether your US sourced income \"\"from the Internet\"\" is sales in the US, sales on-line, services you provide, investments, or what else. All these are treated differently. For some kinds of US-sourced income you should have paid taxes in the US already, regardless of where you physically reside. For others - not. In any case, if you become US tax resident, you'll be taxed on your worldwide income, not only the $10K deposited in the US bank account. ALL of your income, everywhere in the world, must be declared to the US government and will be taxed. You should seek professional advice, before you move to the US, in order to understand your responsibilities, liabilities and rights. I suggest looking for a EA/CPA licensed in California and experienced with taxation of foreigners (look for someone in the SF or LA metropolitan areas). Keep in mind that there may be a tax treaty between the US and your home country that may affect your Federal (but not California) taxes.\"",
"qid": 10183,
"docid": "495827",
"rank": 14,
"score": 100165
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: In both the US and UK you are taxed on your income. Transferring your own money from one country to another does not count as income, so you won't be taxed on it. If it's not your money you are transferring that will be different. You may have to report transfers to comply with money laundering rules. You have to report large amounts of cash you bring with you.",
"qid": 10183,
"docid": "436729",
"rank": 15,
"score": 100095
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Income tax was seen as a way to exploit the revenues available from the rapidly expanding ranks of people with mid to high incomes. It was initially targeted at the very wealthy. Previously, most Federal revenues came from excise taxes and tariffs, both of which have many negative economic effects, leave the government with limited revenue generating ability and bring a host of international and domestic political problems. Since the successful implementation of the income tax required a constitutional amendment, it is very unlikely that anyone at the time seriously considered the income tax a temporary measure.",
"qid": 10183,
"docid": "385514",
"rank": 16,
"score": 99886
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Income code 09 is dividends, so yes - it is the same as line 1 of the US form 1099-DIV. 1a or 1b however depends on whether the requirements for qualified dividends are met. If they're met - its 1b, if not - 1a. These are treated and taxed differently. See here on what are the qualification requirements. Note that Canada has a tax treaty with the US making Canadian corporations \"\"qualified foreign corporations\"\".\"",
"qid": 10183,
"docid": "64672",
"rank": 17,
"score": 99180
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Yes, this extra income would be taxed at your marginal rate because it is increasing your total income. This does not necessarily apply to all income, however. Capital gains are taxed at a different rate. Depending on the amount of extra work, you may wish to consider setting up a corporation. Corporations are taxed entirely differently. This would also give you the opportunity to write off far more of your expenses, but be aware of double taxation. Investopedia has a good article on double taxation. The issue is that the corporation must pay taxes on the revenue and then, when you take out the money either as salary or dividends, you personally will pay tax. It may leave you better off, even with the double taxation. Dividends are taxed at a lower rate than your marginal tax rate, generally. And you can write off much more inside a corporation. If considering this, talk to an accountant and discuss your expected revenue from consulting. The accountant should be able to quantify the costs and benefits.",
"qid": 10183,
"docid": "4992",
"rank": 18,
"score": 98739
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: > they can be taxed at the long term capital gains rate, whereas dividends are subject to a higher tax rate. That's not true, is it? I'm fairly sure they're taxed at the same rate now. Buybacks are still better for shareholders, though, because those who don't want to sell have the option of just holding the stock. With dividends, everyone gets a dividend and the associated tax hit, whether they want it or not. Edit: Oh, right. Ordinary dividends are taxed as ordinary income; qualified dividends are not. But aren't qualified dividends the modal type?",
"qid": 10183,
"docid": "580576",
"rank": 19,
"score": 98725
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I guess the answer lies in your tax jurisdiction (different countries tax capital gains and income differently) and your particular tax situation. If the price of the stock goes up or down between when you buy and sell then this counts for tax purposes as a capital gain or loss. If you receive a dividend then this counts as income. So, for instance, if you pay tax on income but not on capital gains (or perhaps at a lower rate on capital gains) then it would pay you to sell immediately before the stock goes ex-dividend and buy back immediately after thereby making a capital gain instead of receiving income.",
"qid": 10183,
"docid": "263751",
"rank": 20,
"score": 98638
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: This is called imputed income, which is generally not taxed in the US.",
"qid": 10183,
"docid": "291949",
"rank": 21,
"score": 98096
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: It is important to remember that the tax brackets in the U.S. are marginal. This means that the first part of your income is taxed at 10%, the next part at 15%, next at 25%, etc. Therefore, if you find yourself just on the edge of a tax bracket, it really does not make any difference which side of that line you end up falling on. That having been said, of course, reducing your taxable income reduces your taxes. There are lots of deductions you can take, if you qualify. Depending on what type of health insurance coverage you have, a Health Savings Account (HSA) is a great way to shelter some income from taxes. Charitable contributions are also an easy way to reduce your taxes; you don't really personally benefit from them, but if you'd rather send your money to a good cause than to Uncle Sam, that's an easy way to do it.",
"qid": 10183,
"docid": "578317",
"rank": 22,
"score": 97431
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The key there is Large companies. The vast majority of companies in the US are small businesses with little or no international presence, and are taxed at the full 35%. Their very large competitors, however, have the ability to flout US corporate taxes, and therefore keep more of their profits - whether in terms of retained earnings or higher dividends to shareholders.",
"qid": 10183,
"docid": "356003",
"rank": 23,
"score": 97365
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: There's an economic reason you don't want to tax income differently than capital gains. Capital gains are created by taking risk, and encouraging risk is encouraging entrepreneurial spirit, which as a country you want to inncentivize. However, after a certain amount of money is made via capital gains the rate should approach income, but never equal it.",
"qid": 10183,
"docid": "295988",
"rank": 24,
"score": 97170
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: But virtually all Americans pay some form of tax, whether it's sales, payroll, state income, or property tax. I'm glad you mentioned this. When you say something like Romney only paid 14% taxes, I will point you to this as well.",
"qid": 10183,
"docid": "312038",
"rank": 25,
"score": 96962
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: In the United States Short-term capital gains are taxed at rates similar to regular income which is 25% if you make less than $91,000 and 28% if you make more than that but less than $190,000. If you make more than $190,000 then the rate is 33%. If you hold the stock for a year or more than the tax rate is 15%, unless your income is less than $33,000 in which case there is no tax on long-term gains. As a general rule, the way to make money is to stay out of debt, so I cannot advise you to assume a mortgage. Financially you are better off investing your money. Much like you I bought a house with a mortgage using about $30,000 in a down payment about 20 years ago and I paid it off a few years ago. If I had to do it over again, I would have bought a shack (a steel building) for $30,000 and lived in that and invested my income. If I had done that, I would be about $500,000 richer today than I am now.",
"qid": 10183,
"docid": "116017",
"rank": 26,
"score": 96897
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"It is important to remember that the stock price in principle reflects the value of the company, so the market cap should drop upon issuance of the the dividend. However, the above reasoning neglects to consider taxes, which make the question a bit more interesting. The key fact is that different investors are going to get taxed on the dividend to varying degrees, ranging from 20% for qualified dividends in the USA for a high-income individual in a taxable account (and even worse for non-qualified dividends) to 0% for tax-exempt nonprofits, retirement accounts, and low-income individuals. The high-tax investors are going to be a bit averse to paying tax on that dividend, whereas the tax-free investors are not. Hence in a tax-rational market the tax-free investors are going to be the ones buying right before a dividend and the tax-paying investors will be buying right afterwards. Tax-exempt investors could in principle make some amount of money buying dividends to keep them off the tax-paying investors' books. (Of course, the strategy could backfire if too many people did it all at once.) That said, the tax-payers have the tax disincentive to prevent them from fully exploiting the opposite strategy of selling just before a dividend. In particular, they are subject to capital gains tax when they sell at a profit (unless they have enough compensating capital losses), and it is to their after-tax profit to defer taxation by not trading. That said, the stock market has well-known irrationality when it comes to considering tax consequences, so logic based on assumed rationality of the market does not always apply to the extent one would expect. The foremost example of tax-irrationality is the so-called \"\"dividend paradox\"\", which basically states that corporations should favor stock buybacks (or perhaps loan repayment) to the complete exclusion of dividends because capital gains are taxed less harshly than dividends in a variety of ways, some of which are subtle: 1) Historically (although not currently in the USA for qualified dividends) the tax rate was higher for dividends. (In Canada, for example, dividends are taxed at twice the rate of capital gains.) 2) If you die holding appreciated stock then you (meaning your heirs) completely escape US the capital gains tax on the accrual during your lifetime. 3) Capital gains tax can be deferred by simply not selling. In comparison to dividends, this is roughly equivalent to getting a tax-free loan from the government which is invested for profit and paid at a later date after inflation has eaten away at the real value of the loan. For example, if all your stock investments increase by 10%/year but you sell every year, in a high-tax bracket situation you're total after-tax return will be only 8% per year. In contrast, if you hold the same investments for many many years and then sell, your total return will be nearly 10% per year, because you only pay 20% once (at the end). 4) A capital gain can often be neutralized by a capital loss in another stock, so that no tax results. If you loose money on a stock that is paying dividends, you're still going to have to pay tax on that dividend. There are companies that borrow money to pay out that taxable-dividend each quarter, which seems like gross tax malpractice on the part of the CFO. (If the dividend paradox doesn't make sense, first consider the case that you owned ALL the shares of a company. It wouldn't matter to you at all on a pre-tax basis whether you got a $1000 company buyback or a $1000 dividend, because after the buyback/dividend you'd still own the entire company and $1000. The number of shares would be reduced, but objecting that you owned fewer shares after the buyback would be like saying you have become shorter if your height is measured in inches rather than centimeters.) [Of course, in the case of many shareholders you can get burned by failing to sell into the buyback when the share price is too high, but that is another matter.]\"",
"qid": 10183,
"docid": "206442",
"rank": 27,
"score": 95021
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Ugh. Really? I thought this subreddit was smarter than this. 1) You pay taxes on net income, not sales. Expenses are tax deductible. 2) This took place in the UK, which operates on a different set of tax rules than many of us are familiar with. 3) The company still pays other taxes even if they don't pay income tax. In the US, examples would be payroll taxes including the employer portion of things like SS and Medicare, but I'm sure the UK has similar programs funded in a similar manner. To the extent that they own their buildings, they also pay property taxes. They globally source their supplies, which means they also pay import taxes. There are a ton of other taxes that a company pays. 4) Tax laws are complex because business is complex. Inflammatory headlines like this serve no purpose whatsoever.",
"qid": 10183,
"docid": "77171",
"rank": 28,
"score": 94972
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"You have multiple issues buried within this question. First, we don't know your tax bracket. For my answer, I'll assume 25%. This simply means that in 2016, you'll have a taxable $37,650 or higher. The interesting thing is that losses and gains are treated differently. A 25%er's long term gain is taxed at 15%, yet losses, up to $3000, can offset ordinary income. This sets the stage for strategic tax loss harvesting. In the linked article, I offered a look at how the strategy would have resulted in the awful 2000-2009 decade producing a slight gain (1%, not great, of course) vs the near 10% loss the S&P suffered over that time. This was by taking losses in down years, and capturing long term gains when positive (and not using a carried loss). Back to you - a 15%er's long term gain tax is zero. So using a gain to offset a loss makes little sense. Just as creating a loss to offset the gain. The bottom line? Enjoy the loss, up to $3000 against your income, and only take gains when there's no loss. This advice is all superseded by my rule \"\"Don't let the tax tail wag the investing dog.\"\" For individual stocks, I would never suggest a transaction for tax purposes. You keep good stocks, you sell bad ones. Sell a stock to take a short term loss only to have it recover in the 30 day waiting period just once, and you'll learn that lesson. Learn it here for free, don't make that mistake at your own expense.\"",
"qid": 10183,
"docid": "474981",
"rank": 29,
"score": 94810
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Both types of plans offer a tax benefit. A traditional IRA allows you to invest pre-tax money into the account and it grows tax free. Once you withdraw the money it then gets taxed as though it were income based on the amount you withdraw for that calendar year. A Roth IRA has you invest post-tax money and also grows tax free. However, when you make withdraws in retirement that money is then tax free. Neither plan is right for everybody. If you have a very high income now and plan on being in a smaller tax bracket later when you'll be making withdraws then the traditional IRA is better. If you will be in a higher bracket later, then the Roth IRA will serve you more. Depending on the way you manage your retirement investing you can likely invest in both if you are unsure as to which would be better. The same type of investments should be able to be nested within each type.",
"qid": 10183,
"docid": "471204",
"rank": 30,
"score": 94732
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Assuming the United States. This is a loan and not an investment. You report this as income and will pay your tax rate on the 18% of the money that the borrower pays you (any money paid above what was originally lent) for the year in which it was received. You owe taxes on the income even if the borrower does not send you a Form 1099-INT showing the interest you received. For example: If you loan $10,000 and receive $1,800 in interest, and your tax bracket is 25%, then you will owe $450 in tax.",
"qid": 10183,
"docid": "103377",
"rank": 31,
"score": 94644
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: In response to your points #1 and #2: In general, yes it is true that capital gains are only subject to half one's marginal rate of income tax. That doesn't mean 50% of the gain is due as tax... rather, it means that if one's marginal tax rate (tax bracket) on the next $10K would have been, say, 32%, then one is taxed on the gain at 16%. (The percentages are examples, not factual.) However, because these are employee stock options, the tax treatment is different than for a capital gain! Details: On the Federal tax return are lines for reporting Security option benefits (Line 101) and Security options deductions (Line 249). The distinction between a regular capital gain and an employee stock option benefits is important. In many cases the net effect may be the same as a capital gain, but the income is characterized differently and there are cases where it matters. Somebody who is about to or has realized employee stock option benefits should seek professional tax advice. In response to your next two points: No, one cannot transfer a capital gain or other investment income into a TFSA immediately after-the-fact in order to receive the tax-free benefits of the TFSA on that income. Only income and gains earned within a TFSA are free from tax – i.e. The options would have to have been in the TFSA before being exercised. Once a gain or other investment income has been realized in a non-sheltered account, it is considered taxable. The horse has already left the barn, so to speak! However, despite the above, there is another strategy available: One can create an offsetting deduction by contributing some of the realized gain into an RRSP. The RRSP contribution, assuming room is available, would yield a tax deduction to offset some tax due on the gain. However, the RRSP only defers income tax; upon withdrawal of funds, ordinary income tax is due (hopefully, at a lower marginal rate in retirement.) There is no minimum amount of time that money or assets have to be inside a TFSA to benefit from the tax-free nature of the account. However, there are limits on how much money you can move into a TFSA in any given year, and many folks weren't aware of the rules. p.s. Let me add once more that this is a case where I suggest seeking professional tax advice.",
"qid": 10183,
"docid": "175563",
"rank": 32,
"score": 94356
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: One of the main tax loopholes more readily available to the wealthy in the U.S. is the fact that long-term capital gains are taxed at a much lower rate. Certainly, people making less than $250,000/year can take advantage of this as well, but the fact is that people making, say, $60,000/year likely have a much smaller proportion of their income available to invest in, say, indexed mutual funds or ETFs. You may wish to read Wikipedia's article on capital gains tax in the United States. You can certainly make the argument that the preferential tax rate on capital gains is appropriate, and the Wikipedia article points out a number of these. Nevertheless, this is one of the main mechanisms whereby people with higher wealth in the U.S. typically leverage the tax code to their advantage.",
"qid": 10183,
"docid": "18790",
"rank": 33,
"score": 94268
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Revenue does not equal income. Income is, more or less, synonymous with profit. It is the amount of money earned after expenses. A corporation is taxed on its revenue after its deductible expenses have been removed, the same as a person is. It's kind of double taxation, but it's kind of the same argument as saying that payroll taxes in addition to income taxes are double taxation. Also of note: taxes on dividends are lower than normal taxes because of this double taxation.",
"qid": 10183,
"docid": "123170",
"rank": 34,
"score": 93638
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"No, not really. This depends on the situation and the taxing jurisdiction. Different countries have different laws, and some countries have different laws for different situations. For example, in the US, some investments will be taxed as you described, others will be taxed as \"\"mark to market\"\", i.e.: based on the FMV difference between the end of the year and the beginning of the year, and without you actually making any transactions. Depends on the situation.\"",
"qid": 10183,
"docid": "475170",
"rank": 35,
"score": 93602
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you're a US citizen/resident - you pay taxes on your worldwide income regardless of where you live. The logic is that Americans generally don't agree to the view that there's more than one country in the world. If you're non-US person, not physically present in the US, and provide contract work for a US employer - you generally don't pay taxes in the US. The logic is that the US doesn't actually have any jurisdiction over that money, you didn't earn it in the US. That said, your employer might withheld tax and remit it to the IRS, and you'll have to chase them for refund. If you receive income from the US rental property or dividends from a US company - you pay income tax to the US on that income, and then bargain with your home tax authority on refunds of the difference between what you paid in the US and what you should have paid at home. You can also file non-resident tax return in the US to claim what you have paid in excess. The logic is that the money sourced in the US should be taxed in the US. You earned that money in the US. There are additional rules to more specific situation, and there are also bilateral treaties between countries (including a US-Canadian treaty) that supersede national laws. Bottom line, not only that each country has its own laws, there are also different laws for different situations, and if some of the international treaties apply to you - it further complicates the situation. If something is not clear - get a professional advice form a tax accountant licensed in the relevant jurisdictions (in your case - any of the US states, and the Canadian province where you live).",
"qid": 10183,
"docid": "594784",
"rank": 36,
"score": 93460
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Yeah several from bankrate.com: Seven U.S. states currently don't have an income tax: Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas, Washington and Wyoming. And residents of New Hampshire andTennessee are also spared from handing over an extra chunk of their paycheck on April 15, though they do pay tax on dividends and income from investments. It's safe to assume where Amazon will move will need to be a tax Haven or at least get massive multi billion dollar tax breaks like New Jersey has proposed. They aren't opening a second location as much as they are moving out of the high min wage high tax rates state they are currently operating in.",
"qid": 10183,
"docid": "397832",
"rank": 37,
"score": 93442
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The IRS taxes worldwide income of its citizens and green card holders. Generally, for those Americans genuinely living/working overseas the IRS takes the somewhat reasonable position of being in \"\"2nd place\"\" tax-wise. That is, you are expected to pay taxes in the country you are living in, and these taxes can reduce the tax you would have owed in the USA. Unfortunately, all of this has to be documented and tax returns are still required every year. Your European friends may find this quite surprising as I've heard, for instance, that France will not tax you if you go live and work in Germany. A foreign company operating in a foreign country under foreign law is not typically required to give you a W-2, 1099, or any of the forms you are used to. Indeed, you should be paying taxes in the place where you live and work, which is probably somewhat different than the USA. Keep all these records as they may be useful for your USA taxes as well. You are required to total up what you were paid in Euros and convert them to US$. This will go on the income section of a 1040. You should be paying taxes in the EU country where you live. You can also total those up and convert to US$. This may be useful for a foreign tax credit. If you are living in the EU long term, like over 330 days/year or you have your home and family there, then you might qualify for a very large exemption from your income for US tax purposes, called the Foreign Earned Income Exclusion. This is explained in IRS Publication 54. The purpose of this is primarily to avoid double taxation. FBAR is a serious thing. In past years, the FBAR form went to a Financial Crimes unit in Detroit, not the regular IRS address. Also, getting an extension to file taxes does not extend the deadline for the FBAR. Some rich people have paid multi-million dollar fines over FBAR and not paying taxes on foreign accounts. I've heard you can get a $10,000 FBAR penalty for inadvertent, non-willful violations so be sure to send those in and it goes up from there to $250k or half the value of the account, whichever is more. You also need to know about whether you need to do FATCA reporting with your 1040. There are indeed, a lot of obnoxious things you need to know about that came into existence over the years and are still on the law books -- because of the perpetual 'arms race' between the government and would be cheaters, non-payers and their advisors. http://www.irs.gov/publications/p54/ http://americansabroad.org/\"",
"qid": 10183,
"docid": "332626",
"rank": 38,
"score": 93379
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: All States have property tax, all States except 4 have sales tax, and business tax is federal but there are local costs of doing business such as various state required insurances and license and payroll taxes and unemployment insurance for the state etc. What I was talking about is personal income tax there are 2 kinds federal that everyone pays then all the states except those I listed take another 4 or 5% give or take which stays in the state instead of being sent off to the feeding government. From a business perspective if the going rate for paying your employees based on their role was say 100k annually. The employees take home pay would be taxed 5k in a state with income tax. That would mean Amazon would need to offer 5k more pay for an equal job vs an employer in another state. This is just one factor a company this huge would consider when moving.",
"qid": 10183,
"docid": "189851",
"rank": 39,
"score": 92728
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"You mean to tell me that everyone doesn't pay his/her fair share?! Please say it isn't so. :) Therein lies the welfare state: Tax the rich more heavily to subsidize the poor, and hobble the rich's ability to do so on their own accord. In any case, though, in the United States, if you make any money whatsoever, that usually counts as income, and can hence be taxed. Here's the IRS' definition of gross income. Pretty all-inclusive, isn't it? Businesses are allowed to deduct expenses to count against their income, but if one has more expenses than income year after year, (a) this is the road to financial ruin, and (b) the IRS puts an end to the tax losses after enough years of failing to show a profit. So, sure, if a businessperson doesn't have any income, then they're technically using the roads, etc., \"\"for free,\"\" but unless the businessperson wants to live off the land and the kindness of strangers, he'd better turn a profit eventually. Then he'll be taxed.\"",
"qid": 10183,
"docid": "169613",
"rank": 40,
"score": 92688
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Yes, you can still file a 1040nr. You are a nonresident alien and were: engaged in a trade or business in the United States Normally, assuming your withholding was correct, you would get a minimal amount back. Income earned in the US is definitely Effectively Connected Income and is taxed at the graduated rates that apply to U.S. citizens and resident aliens. However, there is a tax treaty between US and India, and it suggests that you would be taxed on the entirety of the income by India. This suggests to me that you would get everything that was withheld back.",
"qid": 10183,
"docid": "353926",
"rank": 41,
"score": 92679
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: For ESPP, the discount that you get is taxed as ordinary income. Capital gains is taxed at the appropriate rate, which is different based on how long you hold it. So, yes, if the stock is going up,",
"qid": 10183,
"docid": "238629",
"rank": 42,
"score": 92637
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I'm going to post this as an answer because it's from the GoFundMe website, but ultimately even they say to speak with a tax professional about it. Am I responsible for taxes? (US Only) While this is by no means a guarantee, donations on GoFundMe are simply considered to be \"\"personal gifts\"\" which are not, for the most part, taxed as income in the US. However, there may be particular, case-specific instances where the income is taxable (dependent on amounts received and use of the monies, etc.). We're unable to provide specific tax advice since everyone's situation is different and tax rules can change on a yearly basis. We advise that you maintain adequate records of donations received, and consult with your personal tax adviser. Additionally, WePay will not report the funds you collect as earned income. It is up to you (and a tax professional) to determine whether your proceeds represent taxable income. The person who's listed on the WePay account and ultimately receives the funds may be responsible for taxes. Again, every situation is different, so please consult with a tax professional in your area. https://support.gofundme.com/hc/en-us/articles/204295498-Am-I-responsible-for-taxes-US-Only- And here's a blurb from LibertyTax.com which adds to the confusion, but enforces the \"\"speak with a professional\"\" idea: Crowdfunding services have to report to the IRS campaigns that total at least $20,000 and 200 transactions. Money collected from crowdfunding is considered either income or a gift. This is where things get a little tricky. If money donated is not a gift or investment, it is considered taxable income. Even a gift could be subject to the gift tax, but that tax applies only to the gift giver. Non-Taxable Gifts These are donations made without the expectation of getting something in return. Think of all those Patriots’ fans who gave money to GoFundMe to help defray the cost of quarterback Tom Brady’s NFL fine for Deflategate. Those fans aren’t expecting anything in return – except maybe some satisfaction -- so their donations are considered gifts. Under IRS rules, an individual can give another individual a gift of up to $14,000 without tax implications. So, unless a Brady fan is particularly generous, his or her GoFundMe gift won’t be taxed. Taxable Income Now consider that same Brady fan donating $300 to a Patriots’ business venture. If the fan receives stock or equity in the company in return for the donation, this is considered an investment and is not taxable . However, if the business owner does not offer stock or equity in the company, the money donated could be considered business income and the recipient would need to report it on a tax return. https://www.libertytax.com/tax-lounge/two-tax-rules-to-know-before-you-try-kickstarter-or-gofundme/\"",
"qid": 10183,
"docid": "401819",
"rank": 43,
"score": 92520
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Income tax wasn't a thing in the states until 1913 and that was by design. Just because a few guys in a room wrote it on a piece of paper doesn't mean it's justifiable and/or moral, in fact it makes it immoral because now millions of people who had no say in the matter are now subject to the consequences of not following the rules these few men wrote. Just as a mental exercise go to Google and type \"\"define taxes\"\" and read that definition I'm willing to bet there's 1 word in that definition that will stick out to you.\"",
"qid": 10183,
"docid": "395834",
"rank": 44,
"score": 92495
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: There are many reasons, which other answers have already discussed. I want to emphasize and elaborate on just one of the reasons, which is that it avoids double taxation, especially on corporate earnings. Generally, for corporations, its earnings are already taxed at around 40% (for the US - including State income taxes). When dividends are distributed out, it is taxed again at the individual level. The effect is the same when equity is sold and the distribution is captured as a capital gain. (I believe this is why the dividend and capital gain rates are the same in the US.) For a simplistic example, say there is a C Corporation with a single owner. The company earns $1,000,000 before income taxes. It pays 400,000 in taxes, and has retained earnings of $600,000. To get the money out, the owner can either distribute a dividend to herself, or sell her stake to another person. Either choice leads to $600,000 getting taxed at another 20%~30% or so at the individual level (depending on the State). If we calculate the effective rate, it is above 50%! Many people invest in stock, including mutual funds, and the dividends and capital gains are taxed at lower rates. Individual tax returns that contain no wage income often have very low average tax rates for this reason. However, the investments themselves are continuously paying out their own taxes, or accruing taxes in the form of future tax liability.",
"qid": 10183,
"docid": "408983",
"rank": 45,
"score": 91923
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: >Corporate taxes as a percentage of federal revenue declined from 27.3 percent in 1955 to 8.9 percent in 2010 If the federal government adds a European-style VAT tax, that would also greatly decrease corporate taxes as a percentage of federal revenue, but it would be because there's more taxes coming in from other sources. Federal income taxes in the United States didn't even *exist* until 1913. Percentage of federal income goes down as income from other sources go up. The United States [currently has the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/30/us-corporate-tax-rate_n_1392310.html).",
"qid": 10183,
"docid": "82460",
"rank": 46,
"score": 91870
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Nothing \"\"happens\"\" to it. It works the same way regardless of whether you are a U.S. citizen or resident or not. Taxes and penalties work the same way on withdrawal. That said, if you are not in the U.S. and don't have any income in the U.S. in a particular year in the future, you can take advantage of the fact that your U.S. tax that year will probably be zero. Then, if you withdraw a little bit, even if they count as taxable income, your U.S. income will still be so low that it may be under your personal exemption, or if not at least it will be taxed in the lowest tax bracket.\"",
"qid": 10183,
"docid": "116009",
"rank": 47,
"score": 91696
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: except that most companies are small companies and most business owners end up as families at some point. I'm starting a business abroad and will be taxed at 35% in the USA even if I don't live there. There's ways to get around it, but I'm not sure exactly how to do it yet nor am I making enough money yet to justify the up front expense of doing this",
"qid": 10183,
"docid": "577937",
"rank": 48,
"score": 91673
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: PSB taxed at higher rates. PSB is taxed at 39.5% in Ontario, as the article mentioned. But if you pay all the net income to yourself as salary, you expense it and zero it out on the corporate level. So who cares what tax rate it is if the taxable income is zero? No-one. Same goes for the US, by the way. Personal Service Corporations are taxed at flat 35% Federal tax rate. But if you pour all the income into your salary - its moot, because there's no net income to pay tax of. If it's too complicated to figure out, maybe it would be wise to hire a tax accountant to provide counsel to you before you make decisions about your business.",
"qid": 10183,
"docid": "507871",
"rank": 49,
"score": 91650
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Generally it is a taxable transaction. Basic principle of taxation everywhere is that the mean of payment doesn't matter. If the income is taxable - it is taxable regardless of the unit of currency you used. It can be a strawberry, a bitcoin, a gold nugget, or a dollar, it doesn't change a thing about how it is taxed. If you look at the United States tax code definition of taxable income, for example, you will find no mention whatsoever of any currency. Similarly with other tax laws I'm familiar with. I'm sure there's no such limitation in Australia.",
"qid": 10183,
"docid": "183506",
"rank": 50,
"score": 91520
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Federal taxes are generally lower in Canada. Canada's top federal income tax rate is 29%; the US rate is 35% and will go to 39.6% when Bush tax cuts expire. The healthcare surcharge will kick in in a few years, pushing the top bracket by a few more points and over 40%. State/provincial taxes are lower in the US. You may end up in the 12% bracket in New York City or around 10% in California or other \"\"bad\"\" income-tax states. But Alberta is considered a tax haven in Canada and has a 10% flat tax. Ontario's top rate is about 11%, but there are surtaxes that can push the effective rate to about 17%. Investment income taxes: Canada wins, narrowly. Income from capital gains counts as half, so if you're very rich and live in Ontario, your rate is about 23% and less than that in Alberta. The only way to match or beat this deal in the US in the long term is to live in a no-income-tax state. Dividends are taxed at rates somewhere between capital gains and ordinary income - not as good a deal as Bush's 15% rate on preferred dividends, but that 15% rate will probably expire soon. Sales taxes: US wins, but the gap is closing. Canada has a national VAT-like tax, called GST and its rate came down from 7% to 5% when Harper became the Prime Minister. Provinces have sales taxes on top of that, in the range of 7-8% (but Alberta has no sales tax). Some provinces \"\"harmonized\"\" their sales taxes with the GST and charge a single rate, e.g. Ontario has a harmonized sales tax (HST) of 13% (5+8). 13% is of course a worse rate than the 6-8% charged by most states, but then some states and counties already charge 10% and the rates have been going up in each recession. Payroll taxes: much lower in Canada. Canadian employees' CPP and EI deductions have a low threshold and top out at about $3,000. Americans' 7.65% FICA rate applies to even $100K, resulting in a tax of $7,650. Property taxes: too dependent on the location, hard to tell. Tax benefits for retirement savings: Canada. If you work in the US and don't have a 401(k), you get a really bad deal: your retirement is underfunded and you're stuck with a higher tax bill, because you can't get the deduction. In Canada, if you don't have an RRSP at work, you take the money to the financial company of your choice, invest it there, and take the deduction on your taxes. If you don't like the investment options in your 401(k), you're stuck with them. If you don't like them in your RRSP, contribute the minimum to get the match and put the rest of the money into your individual RRSP; you still get the same deduction. Annual 401(k) contribution limits are use-it-or-lose-it, while unused RRSP limits and deductions can be carried forward and used when you need to jump tax brackets. Canada used to lack an answer to Roth IRAs, but the introduction of TFSAs took care of that. Mortgage interest deduction: US wins here as mortgage interest is not deductible in Canada. Marriage penalty: US wins. Canadian tax returns are of single or married-filing-separately type. So if you have one working spouse in the family or a big disparity between spouses' incomes, you can save money by filing a joint return. But such option is not available in Canada (there are ways to transfer some income between spouses and fund spousal retirement accounts, but if the income disparity is big, that won't be enough). Higher education: cheaper in Canada. This is not a tax item, but it's a big expense for many families and something the government can do about with your tax dollars. To sum it up, you may face higher or lower or about the same taxes after moving from US to Canada, depending on your circumstances. Another message here is that the high-tax, socialist, investment-unfriendly Canada is mostly a convenient myth.\"",
"qid": 10183,
"docid": "212783",
"rank": 51,
"score": 91301
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"S-Corp are taxed very different. Unlike LLC where you just add the profit to your income with S-Corp you have to pay yourself a \"\"reasonable\"\" salary (on w-2) which of course is a lot more paperwork. I think the advantage (but don't hold me accountable for this) is if your S-Corp makes a lot more than a reasonable salary, then the rest of the money can be passed through on your personal return at a lower (corp) rate.\"",
"qid": 10183,
"docid": "170933",
"rank": 52,
"score": 91098
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"A mutual fund could make two different kinds of distributions to you: Capital gains: When the fund liquidates positions that it holds, it may realize a gain if it sells the assets for a greater price than the fund purchased them for. As an example, for an index fund, assets may get liquidated if the underlying index changes in composition, thus requiring the manager to sell some stocks and purchase others. Mutual funds are required to distribute most of their income that they generate in this way back to its shareholders; many often do this near the end of the calendar year. When you receive the distribution, the gains will be categorized as either short-term (the asset was held for less than one year) or long-term (vice versa). Based upon the holding period, the gain is taxed differently. Currently in the United States, long-term capital gains are only taxed at 15%, regardless of your income tax bracket (you only pay the capital gains tax, not the income tax). Short-term capital gains are treated as ordinary income, so you will pay your (probably higher) tax rate on any cash that you are given by your mutual fund. You may also be subject to capital gains taxes when you decide to sell your holdings in the fund. Any profit that you made based on the difference between your purchase and sale price is treated as a capital gain. Based upon the period of time that you held the mutual fund shares, it is categorized as a short- or long-term gain and is taxed accordingly in the tax year that you sell the shares. Dividends: Many companies pay dividends to their stockholders as a way of returning a portion of their profits to their collective owners. When you invest in a mutual fund that owns dividend-paying stocks, the fund is the \"\"owner\"\" that receives the dividend payments. As with capital gains, mutual funds will redistribute these dividends to you periodically, often quarterly or annually. The main difference with dividends is that they are always taxed as ordinary income, no matter how long you (or the fund) have held the asset. I'm not aware of Texas state tax laws, so I can't comment on your other question.\"",
"qid": 10183,
"docid": "45190",
"rank": 53,
"score": 90927
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Well, that's probably not even all of it. If that stranger did his taxes properly, then he already paid about a third of it to the government because wherever he got it from it was income for him and thus it must have been taxed. Now, the remainder is in your hands and yes, according to US law it is now your income and so now you too, must pay about a third of it to the government, and yes you are supposed to explain where it came from. Be careful giving it to somebody else or it'll be taxed yet again. disclaimer: I am not a US citizen",
"qid": 10183,
"docid": "174099",
"rank": 54,
"score": 90724
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I'll address one part of your question: There are other taxes that companies pay as well, such as income tax, but don't charge to the customer as a fee. So, why are gross receipts taxes charged to the customer? Things like income tax can't be passed on to the consumer in a direct way, because there's no fixed relationship between the amount of the tax and the price of an individual product. Income tax is paid on taxable income, which will incorporate deductions for the costs the company incurred to do business. So the final amount of corporate income tax can depend on things unrelated to the price of goods sold, like whether the business decided to repave their parking lot. Gross receipts taxes, by definition, are charged on the total amount of money taken in, so every dollar you spend on an item at the store will be subject to the gross receipts tax, and hence will cost the business 7 cents (or X% where X is the tax rate). This means there is a direct link between the price you pay for an individual item and the tax they pay on that transaction. The same is true for sales taxes, which are also often added at the time of sale. Of course, businesses could roll all of these into the posted price as well. The reason they don't is to get their foot in the door and make the price seem lower: you're more likely to buy something if you see it for the low, low, one-time-only price of $99.99, act now, save big, and then find out you owe an extra $7 at the register than if you saw $107 on the price tag.",
"qid": 10183,
"docid": "254509",
"rank": 55,
"score": 90574
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: One of the reasons, apart from historical, is that different people have different tax liabilities which the employer may not be aware of. For example, in the US we don't pay taxes in source on investment income, and there are many credits and deductions that we can't take. So if I have a child and some interest income from my savings account - employer's withholding will not match my actual tax liability. There are credits for children, additional taxes for the interest, and the actual tax brackets vary based on my marital status and filing options I chose. So even the same family of two people married will pay different amounts in taxes if they chose to file separate tax returns for each, than if they chose to file jointly on one tax return. For anyone who've lived anywhere else, like you and me, this system is ridiculously complex and inefficient, but for Americans - that works. Mainly for the reason of not knowing anything better, and more importantly - not wanting to know.",
"qid": 10183,
"docid": "347010",
"rank": 56,
"score": 90514
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Your taxable income is your total income from however many sources of income you have. If you are in employment and doing self-employed job at the same time, your taxable income will be a combination of both incomes. For example if in employment you make £10000 and self employed you make another £10000 - your total income is £20000 and this is your taxable income. And even if your self-employed job does not bring you more than personal allowance, how would HMRC know that without you filling-in tax return?",
"qid": 10183,
"docid": "438801",
"rank": 57,
"score": 90504
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: It’s not misleading at all. People making the highest incomes already pay the vast majority of income taxes. Something like 40% of Americans pay zero net federal income tax. These people have ZERO skin in the game and yet they think they should have a seat at the table demanding more! The entitlement is sickening. The current tax regime already soaks the rich. You can play all the mental gymnastics you want, but you can’t change the facts.",
"qid": 10183,
"docid": "212348",
"rank": 58,
"score": 90163
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: This person must pay taxes in both the overseas country and in the U.S. This is unusual; generally, only the U.S. demands this. Depending on the specific country, he would likely not be taxed twice as the U.S. generally recognises tax paid in a different country. Note there are some gotchas, though. For example, although Canada has a generally higher tax scheme than the U.S., you may still end up owing tax if you use the Tax-Free Savings Account system in Canada, as that is not recognised in the U.S. As to whether or not this person should form a company, that is far too broad a question. It's going to depend in large part on the tax situations of the countries involved. This person needs to consult an accountant specialising in this situation. That is, on personal versus business tax and on tax involving U.S. citizens. Yes, this person can and indeed must file and pay taxes in the U.S., from outside the U.S.",
"qid": 10183,
"docid": "172872",
"rank": 59,
"score": 90002
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Do I pay tax to the US and then also pay it in India for my income, or does my American partner, who holds 15% of the monthly income, pay tax in the US for his income? Of course you do, what kind of question is this? You have income earned in the US by a US entity, and the entity is taxed. Since LLC is a disregarded entity - the tax shifts to you personally. You should file form 1040NR. You should also talk to a tax professional who's proficient in the Indo-US tax treaty, since it may affect your situation.",
"qid": 10183,
"docid": "130934",
"rank": 60,
"score": 89978
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Restricted Stock Units are different from stock options because instead of buying them at a particular strike price, you receive the actual shares of stock. They are taxed as ordinary income at the time that the restriction is lifted (you don't have to sell them to be taxed). Usually, you can choose to have a percentage of the stock withheld to cover tax withholding or pay for the withholding out of pocket (so you can retain all of your shares).",
"qid": 10183,
"docid": "104786",
"rank": 61,
"score": 89558
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: From the UK-USA tax treaty.... ARTICLE 1 General Scope 1. Except as specifically provided herein, this Convention is applicable only to persons who are residents of one or both of the Contracting States. 2. This Convention shall not restrict in any manner any benefit now or hereafter accorded: a) by the laws of either Contracting State; or b) by any other agreement between the Contracting States... I'm not an expert but to me that sounds like the tax free advantage of an UK ISA would be respected by the IRS From the UK-USA tax treaty.... ARTICLE 7 7. Where under any provision of this Convention income or gains arising in one of the Contracting States are relieved from tax in that Contracting State and, under the law in force in the other Contracting State, a person, in respect of the said income or gains, is subject to tax by reference to the amount thereof which is remitted to or received in that other Contracting State and not by reference to the full amount thereof, then the relief to be allowed under this Convention in the first-mentioned Contracting State shall apply only to so much of the income or gains as is taxed in the other Contracting State. This is very difficult to comprehend but suggets also that tax free status is upheld in the uSa",
"qid": 10183,
"docid": "85926",
"rank": 62,
"score": 89448
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Governments only have a few ways to get income: tax income, tax consumption, tax property (cars & boats), tax real estate, or tax services (hotel & meals). The National, state, county, city, and town taxing authorities determine what is taxed and what the rate will be to get enough money to run their share of the government. In general the taxing of real estate is done by the local government, but the ability to tax real estate is granted to them by the state. In the United States the local government decides, generally through a public hearing, what the rate will be. You can usually determine the current rate and tax value of the home prior to purchase. Though some jurisdictions limit the annual growth of value of the property, and then catch it up when the property is sold. That information is also in public records. All taxes are used to build roads, pay for public safety, schools, libraries, parks.. the list is very long. Failure to pay the tax will result in a lien on the property, which can result in your losing the property in a tax sale. Most of the time the bank or mortgage company insists that your monthly payment to them includes the monthly portion of the estimated property tax, and the fire insurance on the property. This is called escrow. This makes sure the money is available when the tax is due. In some places is is paid yearly, on other places every six months. With an escrow account the bank will send the money to the government or insurance company. Here is the big secret: you have been indirectly paying property tax. The owner of the apartment , townhouse, or home you have been renting has been paying the tax from your monthly payment to them.",
"qid": 10183,
"docid": "407433",
"rank": 63,
"score": 89355
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Taxes are a tool for achieving social policy goals. While Americans consider \"\"Socialism\"\" to be a curse, the US is in fact quite socialistic. Mostly towards corporations, but sometimes even the normal people, not only the \"\"Corporation are people, my friend\"\" (M. Romney) get some discounts. The tax deduction on mortgage interest comes as a tool to encourage Americans to own their homes. It is important, socially, for people to own their home to be independent, and in general contributes to the stability of the society. As anything, when taken to the extreme, it in fact achieves exactly the opposite, as we've seen in 2008, but when balanced - works well. Capital gain is taxed in the US, because it is income. Generally, any income is taxed. However, gain sourced from the sale of primary residence is excluded, up to a certain (quite large) amount from this tax (if lived in the residence long enough - 3 of the last 5 years prior to sale). This, again, to encourage Americans to upgrade their houses and make it easier for Americans to relocate when needed (sell one house and buy another without losing cash on taxes). As to \"\"asset producing income\"\" - that is true in the US as well. You cannot deduct your personal expenses, in general. Mortgage interest on primary residence is a notable exception, because it serves a social cause. Similarly, medical expenses are allowed as a deduction, if they're above certain limit, and many other things (for example - if a US person totals his car, and insurance doesn't cover the loss - it is tax deductible, above certain limit, the higher the income - the higher the limit). These are purely social policy breaks. Socialism, something Americans like to have, and love to hate. Many \"\"anti-socialists\"\" in the US are in fact taking advantage of these specific tax breaks the most, because for rich folks these are limited or non-existent (mortgage interest limited up to 1 million, medical expenses are allowed only above certain percentage of income, etc).\"",
"qid": 10183,
"docid": "65875",
"rank": 64,
"score": 89338
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: It means you must pay federal (and possibly state) tax on any income you produce in America -- including Internet and mail-order sales. Tax treaties may keep you from having to pay tax on it again in your own country, or may not.",
"qid": 10183,
"docid": "355369",
"rank": 65,
"score": 89203
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Look for states that have no income tax. A lot of these states supplement their revenue with higher property taxes, but if you rent and do not own property in the state, then you will have no state tax liability. Similarly, many states treat capital gains no differently than income tax, so if you make your earnings due to a large nest egg, then way you will still incur no tax liability on the state level Look for \"\"unincorporated\"\" areas, as these are administrative divisions of states that do not have a municipal government, and as such do not collect local taxes. Look for economic development perks of the new jurisdiction. Many states have some kind of formal tax credit for people that start business or buy in certain areas, but MONEY TALKS and you can make an individual arrangement with any agency, municipality etc. If the secretary at city hall doesn't know about a prepackaged formal arrangement that is offered to citizens, then ask for the \"\"expedited development package\"\" which generally has a \"\"processing fee\"\" involved. This is something you make up ie. \"\"What is the processing fee for the expedited development package, quote on quote\"\" States like Maryland and Nevada have formalized this process, but you are generally paying off the Secretary of State for favorable treatment. You'll always be paying off someone.\"",
"qid": 10183,
"docid": "15844",
"rank": 66,
"score": 89119
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You're not paying taxes three times but you are paying three different taxes (or more). Sales tax is a business expense, just like costs of goods sold or interest on a loan. Then, depending on how you structure the business, the net income of the business just hits you personally and you pay income taxes. You can work with a tax person to lend some efficiency to this on a long term basis, but it's not like you pay all the taxes against your gross receipts. Whether or not you can make this profitable is a whole different issue.",
"qid": 10183,
"docid": "566417",
"rank": 67,
"score": 88961
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The short answer is that there is no US tax due if all you are doing is moving assets held abroad to the US. Whether you are a \"\"returning\"\" US citizen (or will continue your residence in the Philippines) is not relevant to this. The long answer is that you may be liable for a lot of other fines and taxes if you have not been doing any of several things correctly. As a US citizen, you are required to declare your worldwide income on your US income tax returns. Have you been filing US income tax returns during your time abroad? and have you been declaring the income that you have received from non-US sources each year? This includes wages, interest, dividends, capital gains, rental income from real estate, gambling income, lottery winnings, Nobel prizes, everything. If you have been paying income tax to other countries on this income, then it is generally possible to get a deduction for this tax payment from the income that will be taxed by the US (or a credit for the tax payment against your US Federal income tax liability) depending on the existence of tax treaties or (when the US Senate refuses to approve a tax treaty) a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between the US and other countries. In some cases, foreign earned income up to a certain limit is not taxed by the US at all. Even if you have been filing US income tax returns correctly, and can thus account for the $45,000 in your savings account, or you received that money as a gift or inheritance and can account for it on that basis, have you been filing reports with the US Treasury since the year when the total value of all your foreign bank accounts and other financial assets (stocks and bonds etc but not real estate) first exceeded $10,000? In prior years, this was a matter of filling out and submitting Form TD F 90-22.1 but more recently (since 2010?), you need to fill out and submit FinCEN Form 114. Have you been submitting the required documentation all along? Note that there are severe penalties for failure to fine FinCEN Form 114, and these penalties do not get waived by tax treaties. In summary, you might (or you might not) have several other tax or legal issues to worry about than just taxes on the transfer of your money from the Philippines to the US.\"",
"qid": 10183,
"docid": "561695",
"rank": 68,
"score": 88842
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Yes, you do. Since you've been a green card holder since the beginning of the year - your whole worldwide income for the whole year is taxable in the US. You can take credit for the taxes paid in the UK (use form 1116) to reduce your US tax liability.",
"qid": 10183,
"docid": "72135",
"rank": 69,
"score": 88839
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I think you're misunderstanding how tax brackets work. If you make $1 more and that bumps you into a higher bracket, only THAT particular dollar will be taxed at the higher tax bracket rate... Not your entire income. Short term capital gains are treated as income. Long term capital gains have a special tax rate currently.",
"qid": 10183,
"docid": "395686",
"rank": 70,
"score": 88771
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: In Canada, it is similarly taxed as CQM states. Mining is considered business income and you need to file a T1 form. Capital appreciation is no different than treating gains from stock.",
"qid": 10183,
"docid": "431676",
"rank": 71,
"score": 88744
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Appreciation of a Capital Asset is a Capital Gain. In the United States, Capital Gains get favorable tax treatment after being held for 12 months. From the IRS newsroom: Capital gains and losses are classified as long-term or short-term, depending on how long you hold the property before you sell it. If you hold it more than one year, your capital gain or loss is long-term. If you hold it one year or less, your capital gain or loss is short-term. The tax rates that apply to net capital gain are generally lower than the tax rates that apply to other income. For 2009, the maximum capital gains rate for most people is15%. For lower-income individuals, the rate may be 0% on some or all of the net capital gain. Special types of net capital gain can be taxed at 25% or 28%. The IRS defines a Capital Asset as \"\"most property you own\"\" with a list of exclusions found in Schedule D Instructions. None of the exclusions listed relate to Bond ETFs.\"",
"qid": 10183,
"docid": "149305",
"rank": 72,
"score": 88706
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"If you have a CPA working for you already - this is a question you should be asking that CPA. Generally, NOL only affects the tax stemming from the Internal Revenue Code (Title 26 Subtitle A of the US Code). Social Security and Medicare, while based on income, are not \"\"income tax\"\", these are different taxes stemming from different laws. Social Security and Medicare withheld from your salary are FICA taxes (Title 26 Subtitle C of the US Code). They're deducted at source and not on your tax return, so whatever changes you have in your taxable income on the tax return - FICA taxes are not affected by it. Self Employment tax (Schedule SE) on your Schedule C earnings in the carry-back years will also not be affected, despite being defined in the IRC, because the basis of the tax is the self-employment income while the carryback reduces the AGI.\"",
"qid": 10183,
"docid": "480005",
"rank": 73,
"score": 88535
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I would suggest to get an authoritative response from a CPA. In any case it would be for your own benefit to have at least the first couple of years of tax returns prepared by a professional. However, from my own personal experience, in your situation the income should not be regarded as \"\"US income\"\" but rather income in your home country. Thus it should not appear on the US tax forms because you were not resident when you had it, it was given to you by your employer (which is X(Europe), not X(USA)), and you should have paid local taxes in your home country on it.\"",
"qid": 10183,
"docid": "183477",
"rank": 74,
"score": 88481
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: My $.02 is that the problem boils down to the disparity in the tax rates. Money is taxed at a lower rate than people---in other words, money made by money (capital gains) is taxed at 15% and money made by people (income) is taxed at 35%. Over time, money will naturally flow to wherever the tax is lowest because tax rates factor heavily into ROI. We should equal the playing field, or even tax people at a lower rate than money. Then there will be job creation, and more money will flow to employee's pockets as income, since it's no longer hugely advantageous to hold the money and invest it. Consider employees to be another investment class, and lower the barriers to investing in that class. Anyone care to opine on this?",
"qid": 10183,
"docid": "179769",
"rank": 75,
"score": 88422
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Meanwhile, income tax is still based on the premise that the government owns your income (property). The government owns all of it and decides how much you get to keep. This is theft based on force. Meanwhile, Gary Johnson wants to end all income taxes including business income taxes and replace it with a federal consumption tax. Doesn't anyone want freedom?",
"qid": 10183,
"docid": "188485",
"rank": 76,
"score": 88417
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: (All for US.) Yes you (will) have a realized long-term capital gain, which is taxable. Long-term gains (including those distributed by a mutual fund or other RIC, and also 'qualified' dividends, both not relevant here) are taxed at lower rates than 'ordinary' income but are still bracketed almost (not quite) like ordinary income, not always 15%. Specifically if your ordinary taxable income (after deductions and exemptions, equivalent to line 43 minus LTCG/QD) 'ends' in the 25% to 33% brackets, your LTCG/QD income is taxed at 15% unless the total of ordinary+preferred reaches the top of those brackets, then any remainder at 20%. These brackets depend on your filing status and are adjusted yearly for inflation, for 2016 they are: * single 37,650 to 413,350 * married-joint or widow(er) 75,300 to 413,350 * head-of-household 50,400 to 441,000 (special) * married-separate 37,650 to 206,675 which I'd guess covers at least the middle three quintiles of the earning/taxpaying population. OTOH if your ordinary income ends below the 25% bracket, your LTCG/QD income that 'fits' in the lower bracket(s) is taxed at 0% (not at all) and only the portion that would be in the ordinary 25%-and-up brackets is taxed at 15%. IF your ordinary taxable income this year was below those brackets, or you expect next year it will be (possibly due to status/exemption/deduction changes as well as income change), then if all else is equal you are better off realizing the stock gain in the year(s) where some (or more) of it fits in the 0% bracket. If you're over about $400k a similar calculation applies, but you can afford more reliable advice than potential dogs on the Internet. (update) Near dupe found: see also How are long-term capital gains taxed if the gain pushes income into a new tax bracket? Also, a warning on estimated payments: in general you are required to pay most of your income tax liability during the year (not wait until April 15); if you underpay by more than 10% or $1000 (whichever is larger) you usually owe a penalty, computed on Form 2210 whose name(?) is frequently and roundly cursed. For most people, whose income is (mostly) from a job, this is handled by payroll withholding which normally comes out close enough to your liability. If you have other income, like investments (as here) or self-employment or pension/retirement/disability/etc, you are supposed to either make estimated payments each 'quarter' (the IRS' quarters are shifted slightly from everyone else's), or increase your withholding, or a combination. For a large income 'lump' in December that wasn't planned in advance, it won't be practical to adjust withholding. However, if this is the only year increased, there is a safe harbor: if your withholding this year (2016) is enough to pay last year's tax (2015) -- which for most people it is, unless you got a pay cut this year, or a (filed) status change like marrying or having a child -- you get until next April 15 (or next business day -- in 2017 it is actually April 18) to pay the additional amount of this year's tax (2016) without underpayment penalty. However, if you split the gain so that both 2016 and 2017 have income and (thus) taxes higher than normal for you, you will need to make estimated payment(s) and/or increase withholding for 2017. PS: congratulations on your gain -- and on the patience to hold anything for 10 years!",
"qid": 10183,
"docid": "453639",
"rank": 77,
"score": 88406
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Yes, it will be taxable in the US. You will report your worldwide income, and will be able to take credit for any Indian tax paid. However, the portions that are tax-free in India will be fully taxable for you in the US. Keep in mind, in addition to the taxes, the FBAR requirements and the FATCA forms you may need to be filing as well. Failure to file (regardless of if any tax is actually owed) will trigger a $10K penalty. I suggest you have a US-licensed EA/CPA (tax adviser) to help you with your US tax return. Keep in mind that a \"\"regular\"\" American tax preparer knows very little of the specific requirements for foreigners and may land you in trouble. Similarly, the \"\"off-the-shelf\"\" tax software or tax preparation outlets (like H&R Block) are ill-suited for foreigners in the US. It would be best to talk to a EA/CPA who is also familiar with Indian financial terms and Indo-US tax treaty.\"",
"qid": 10183,
"docid": "447940",
"rank": 78,
"score": 88288
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: This investment strategy may have tax advantages. In some countries, income received from dividends is taxed as income, whereas profits on share trades are capital gains. If you have already exceeded your tax-free income limit for the year, but not your capital gains tax allowance, it may be preferable to make a dealing profit rather than an investment income. These arrangements are called a bed-and-breakfast.",
"qid": 10183,
"docid": "548705",
"rank": 79,
"score": 88183
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I agree with mhoran_psprep's answer, but would like to add a few additional points to consider. TurboTax and the professional it will send to represent you in case of a tax audit have no more information about your tax return than what you entered into the program. Now, there are three (or four) different kinds of audits. The correspondence audit is the most common kind where IRS sends a letter requesting copies of documents supporting a deduction or tax credit that you have claimed. Representation is hardly necessary in this case. The office audit is more serious where you have to make an appointment and go to the local IRS office with paperwork that the examining agent needs to see physically, and to answer questions, etc. It would be better to be accompanied by a representative at these meetings. But, office audits are not as common as correspondence audits, and, because they are expensive for the IRS, usually occur when the IRS is fairly sure of recovering a substantial sum of money. If you have been cutting corners and pushing the envelope in taking large enough deductions to make it worthwhile for the IRS to go after you, you probably should not have been using TurboTax to file your income tax return but should have been using an accountant or tax preparer, who would be representing you in case of an audit. If the reason that you used TurboTax is that no accountant was willing to prepare a tax return with the deductions that you wished to claim, I doubt that having TurboTax's representative with you when you go to the IRS office will help you all that much. An example of a field audit is when the IRS agent comes to your home to see if you actually have a space set aside to use exclusively as your home office as you claimed you did etc. A Taxpayer Compliance Measurement Program (TCMP) audit is where the IRS randomly chooses returns for statistical checks that taxpayers are complying with the regulations. The taxpayer has to prove every line of the return. You claim to be filing as Married Filing Jointly? Bring in your marriage certificate. Submit birth certificates and Social Security cards of your dependent children. And so on. Yes, having TurboTax represent you for only $49.95 will help, but not if you are not married and cannot provide the IRS with a marriage certificate etc. So, pay the fee for peace of mind if you like, and as insurance as littleadv suggests. But be sure you understand what you might be getting for the money. Most tax returns selected for audit are selected for what the IRS believes are good reasons, not at random. If what you said If my tax return is randomly selected for audit they will represent me. is interpreted literally, TurboTax will represent you only if your return is selected for examination under the TCMP program, not if it is selected for audit because the IRS believes that something is fishy about your return. And as always, you get what you pay for.",
"qid": 10183,
"docid": "169723",
"rank": 80,
"score": 88178
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: > If a business operates in the US, makes money here, has physical infrastructure and employees here, and utilizes our infrastructure I don't see how you can say that the US doesn't deserve any of that. For fuck's sake, this isn't rocket science. Taxes made on profits from goods and services sold in the U.S. are ALREADY taxed in the U.S. We are talking about profits from GE making engines in Germany and selling to the EU.",
"qid": 10183,
"docid": "229061",
"rank": 81,
"score": 88175
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The IRS defines income quite specifically. On the topic What is Taxable and Nontaxable Income, they note: You can receive income in the form of money, property, or services. This section discusses many kinds of income that are taxable or nontaxable. It includes discussions on employee wages and fringe benefits, and income from bartering, partnerships, S corporations, and royalties. Bartering, or giving someone wages (or similar) in something other than currency (or some other specifically defined things, like fringe benefits), is taxed at fair market value: Bartering Bartering is an exchange of property or services. You must include in your income, at the time received, the fair market value of property or services you receive in bartering. For additional information, Refer to Tax Topic 420 - Bartering Income and Barter Exchanges. Bartering is more specifically covered in Topic 420 - Bartering Income: You must include in gross income in the year of receipt the fair market value of goods or services received from bartering. Generally, you report this income on Form 1040, Schedule C (PDF), Profit or Loss from Business (Sole Proprietorship), or Form 1040, Schedule C-EZ (PDF), Net Profit from Business (Sole Proprietorship). If you failed to report this income, correct your return by filing a Form 1040X (PDF), Amended U.S. Individual Income Tax Return. Refer to Topic 308 for information on filing an amended return. More details about income in general beyond the above articles is available in Publication 525, Taxable and Nontaxable Income. It goes into great detail about different kinds of income. In your example, you'd have to calculate the fair market value of an avocado, and then determine how much cash-equivalent you were paid in. The IRS wouldn't necessarily tell you what that value was; you'd calculate it based on something you feel you could justify to them afterwards. The way I'd do it would be to write down the price of avocados at each pay period, and apply a dollar-cost-averaging type method to determine the total pay's fair value. While the avocado example is of course largely absurd, the advent of bitcoins has made this much more relevant. Publication 525 has this to say about virtual currency: Virtual Currency. If your employer gives you virtual currency (such as Bitcoin) as payment for your services, you must include the fair market value of the currency in your income. The fair market value of virtual currency (such as Bitcoin) paid as wages is subject to federal income tax withholding, Federal Insurance Contribution Act (FICA) tax, and Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA) tax and must be reported on Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement. Gold would be fundamentally similar - although I am not sure it's legal to pay someone in gold; assuming it were, though, its fair market value would be again the definition of income. Similarly, if you're paid in another country's currency, the US dollar equivalent of that is what you'll pay taxes on, at the fair market value of that currency in US dollars.",
"qid": 10183,
"docid": "516548",
"rank": 82,
"score": 88147
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: A combination of market research and tax law would likely be the combination used to set the salary. An elaboration of each: Taxes - In Canada and the US there can be differences in how payments are treated if they are salary,e.g. payroll taxes such as CPP, Social Security and others may apply in this case as well as personal income tax rates, or dividends, which may have different treatments in some jurisdictions I believe. If salary above $250,000 is taxed at 40% and dividends are taxed at 15%, which rate would you rather pay? (This is hypothetical as no jurisdiction has been noted here yet.) Most provinces and states in North America will tax the first few dollars at rather low rates and so it isn't bad to take a nominal rate of $1 or so in salary as usually the higher rates exist for higher salaries. Executive Compensation has come under scrutiny in recent years though it is usually a mix of salary, bonuses, and stock either restricted or options. Market Research - Some companies may research what other small public companies would pay executives as the salary may have to be approved by a board of directors in some cases. At least this would be how I remember things being decided in small companies I worked for in Washington State and the province of Alberta. In a lot of company cases, excess earnings are stored and if there is enough of a pile then a special dividend may be given out though some corporate structures like REITs force dividends to maintain their tax status. Note the payment in dividend here requires that the President be able to dictate what happens with the cash in the bank of a company which isn't going to be the case for the regular employee. Also, the dividends here would go to all the shareholders and thus if there are people besides the President owning shares they would also get their portion based on what they own.",
"qid": 10183,
"docid": "285895",
"rank": 83,
"score": 88057
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Currently, the answer is no, you cannot get out of filing a tax return. As noted in the comments, if you want to pay more to get out of the drudgery of working on your return, you can pay an accountant to do it for you. You are not alone in thinking that the current income tax system in the U.S. is overly complicated. What you are essentially describing is a flat tax, a system where there would be a simple tax rate that is paid with no deductions, loopholes, etc., and minimal reporting requirements. Besides flat tax proposals, others have proposed eliminating the income tax altogether and switching to a national sales tax, such as the FairTax proposal. Each of these proposals has pros and cons over the current system, and if you have questions about them, feel free to ask a new question. But what they have in common is that they would drastically simplify the system of taxation in this country. If that sounds good to you, you can learn more about these proposals and support organizations and candidates that advocate these reforms.",
"qid": 10183,
"docid": "211196",
"rank": 84,
"score": 88051
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Here is the solution: any money made inside the United States will be taxed under US tax law. You want to do business here, open up a US headquarters that handles all the sales tracking and reporting. No tax dollars, no operations inside the US. The united states carries such bulk buying power that companies will be forced to abide by its rules.",
"qid": 10183,
"docid": "404056",
"rank": 85,
"score": 88039
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I know that if you make more, you pay more, but do those who have more, not make more, pay higher income tax? In general, no. In most locales, income tax is based on income, not on wealth. I am retired. I have little income but a fair amount of wealth. I play very little income tax. (But I do pay other kinds of taxes.) Here's a scenario. 2 people of average wealth with similar situations have the same job with equal pay. After 5 years, their situations haven't changed and they still earn equal pay, but now one has $40,000 in their account and the other $9,000. Does one now pay higher income tax because he has more in his account or does he pay the same because he makes the same? In most locales, you pay income tax on everything that is counted as income. Your salary is income. In some cases, earned interest is income. But aside from the earned interest from your bank accounts, neither the $40,000 nor the $9,000 is income. Your huge mansion isn't income. Your expensive car isn't income. The huge amount of land you own isn't income. The pricey artwork on your walls isn't income. You don't pay income tax on any of these, but your local may impose other taxes on these (such as property tax, etc.) [Note: consult the tax laws of your specific locale if you want to know details.]",
"qid": 10183,
"docid": "37508",
"rank": 86,
"score": 87998
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Most countries with income tax, including the USA, design their withholding system so that in straightforward cases, tax is withheld from each month's paycheck on an annualized basis: tax for a month is calculated on the assumption that you will keep earning the same monthly amount for the rest of the year, and the withholding is set so that the tax is spread evenly across the year. Another way of putting that is that in practice you only get the tax brackets allocated proportionately throughout the year - so up till the end of August you'll only have been assigned 8/12 of the $37450 bracket, and so on. So if your income doesn't change and your general tax affairs don't change, your paycheck also shouldn't change. If your income is irregular or changes during the year then things can get more complicated. As other answers have noted, withholdings are calculated according to tables that normally just take into account that specific month's income. There are various possible changes to your tax affairs that might cause the withholdings to change. For example there'd be an impact from any change in your contributions to tax advantaged things like health insurance or retirement, health or education savings. You might also use form W-4 to change your withholdings yourself. Note that even with a regular income that doesn't change through the year, you might find yourself either owing money or being owed a refund when you file your taxes after the end of the year. It's worth making sure that your W-4 accurately records the allowances you are entitled to, to minimize or eliminate this adjustment.",
"qid": 10183,
"docid": "134581",
"rank": 87,
"score": 87950
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Outside of a tax sheltered IRA or 401(k) type of account your transactions may trigger tax liability. However, transactions are not taxed immediately at the time of the transaction; and up to a certain limits capital gains can be offset by capital losses which can mitigate your liability at tax time. Also, remember that dividend receipts are taxable income as well. As others have said, this has nothing to do with whether or not money has been moved out of the account.",
"qid": 10183,
"docid": "163836",
"rank": 88,
"score": 87948
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: It seems that you are misunderstanding how your taxes are calculated. You seem to be under the impression that once you pass $37,450 annual income, ALL of your income will be taxed at 25%. However, in reality, only the income you earn above that amount will be taxed at 25%. You can use this chart to determine exactly how much federal tax you will pay; As you can see, if you earned, $37,500 in a year, you would only be charged 25% taxes on $50 (and you will pay 15% on the amount between $9226 and $37450, and 10% on the amount from $0 to $9225, which is $5126.25 when summed together).",
"qid": 10183,
"docid": "496395",
"rank": 89,
"score": 87940
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You're talking about NQO - non-qualified stock options. Even assuming the whole scheme is going to work, the way NQO are taxed is that the difference between the fair market value and the strike price is considered income to you and is taxed as salary. You'll save nothing, and will add a huge headache and additional costs of IPO and SEC regulations.",
"qid": 10183,
"docid": "30201",
"rank": 90,
"score": 87868
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: It essentially works the same. Some states don't have any income taxes at all (like Florida or Wyoming), some only tax income derived in the state, and some tax worldwide income (like New York or California), similarly to the Federal income taxes. However, if you're living abroad (i.e.: you're a citizen or resident of a foreign country and you live there), you're not considered resident by most of the states (check with your state for specific definitions) for most, if not all, the time of your residency abroad. In such case - you don't pay state taxes, only Federal. You have to remember that foreign income exclusion doesn't apply to the income from your 401k, so you pay the taxes as if you're in the US. You can not use foreign taxes credit as well (but depending on the tax treaty with the country you're moving to, your 401k income might not be taxable there). In some cases you may end up with double taxation: US will tax your 401k income as you're a US citizen and the income is derived from the US sources, and the foreign country will tax the income based on its own laws. This is not a tax advice, and this answer was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used by any taxpayer, for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer.",
"qid": 10183,
"docid": "457455",
"rank": 91,
"score": 87844
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: There can be Federal estate tax as well as State estate tax due on an estate, but it is not of direct concern to you. Estate taxes are paid by the estate of the decedent, not by the beneficiaries, and so you do not owe any estate tax. As a matter of fact, most estates in the US do not pay Federal estate tax at all because only the amount that exceeds the Federal exemption ($5.5M) is taxable, and most estates are smaller. State estate taxes might be a different matter because while many states exempt exactly what the Federal Government does, others exempt different (usually smaller) amounts. But in any case, estate taxes are not of concern to you except insofar as what you inherit is reduced because the estate had to pay estate tax before distributing the inheritances. As JoeTaxpayer's answer says more succinctly, what you inherit is net of estate tax, if any. What you receive as an inheritance is not taxable income to you either. If you receive stock shares or other property, your basis is the value of the property when you inherit it. Thus, if you sell at a later time, you will have to pay taxes only on the increase in the value of the property from the time you inherit it. The increase in value from the time the decedent acquired the property till the date of death is not taxable income to you. Exceptions to all these favorable rules to you is the treatment of Traditional IRAs, 401ks, pension plans etc that you inherit that contain money on which the decedent never paid income tax. Distributions from such inherited accounts are (mostly) taxable income to you; any part of post-tax money such as nondeductible contributions to Traditional IRAs that is included in the distribution is tax-free. Annuities present another source of complications. For annuities within IRAs, even the IRS throws up its hands at explaining things to mere mortals who are foolhardy enough to delve into Pub 950, saying in effect, talk to your tax advisor. For other annuities, questions arise such as is this a tax-deferred annuity and whether it was purchased with pre-tax money or with post-tax money, etc. One thing that you should check out is whether it is beneficial to take a lump sum distribution or just collect the money as it is distributed in monthly, quarterly, semi-annual, or annual payments. Annuities in particular have heavy surrender charges if they are terminated early and the money taken as a lump sum instead of over time as the insurance company issuing the annuity had planned on happening. So, taking a lump sum would mean more income tax immediately due not just on the lump sum but because the increase in AGI might reduce deductions for medical expenses as well as reduce the overall amount of itemized deductions that can be claimed, increase taxability of social security benefits, etc. You say that you have these angles sussed out, and so I will merely re-iterate Beware the surrender charges.",
"qid": 10183,
"docid": "17633",
"rank": 92,
"score": 87805
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Technically, if you earn in US (being paid there, which means you have a work visa) and live in other country, you must pay taxes in both countries. International treaties try to decrease the double-taxation, and in this case, you may pay in your country the difference of what you have paid in US. ie. your Country is 20% and USA is 15%, you will pay 5%, and vice-versa. This works only with certain areas. You must know the tax legislation of both countries, and I recommend you seek for advisory. This site have all the basic information you need: http://www.irs.gov/Individuals/International-Taxpayers/Foreign-Earned-Income-Exclusion Good luck.",
"qid": 10183,
"docid": "185384",
"rank": 93,
"score": 87769
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The US is one of the only countries which taxes its citizens on global income. You're ignoring the high fixed costs of compliance with the US tax code, both for individuals and institutions. Compliance is so big an issue that foreign banks are turning away US customers rather than having to comply with FATCA, leaving people unable to open a bank account. Also, renunciations of citizenship are up something like 400%, and they aren't all billionaires.",
"qid": 10183,
"docid": "420360",
"rank": 94,
"score": 87732
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"A tax return is a document you sign and file with the government to self-report your tax obligations. A tax refund is the payment you receive from the government if your payments into the tax system exceeded your obligations. As others have mentioned, if an extra $2K in income generated $5K in taxes, chances are your return was prepared incorrectly. The selection of an appropriate entity type for your business depends a lot on what you expect to see over the next several years in terms of income and expenses, and the extent to which you want or need to pay for fringe benefits or make pretax retirement contributions from your business income. There are four basic flavors of entity which are available to you: Sole proprietorship. This is the simplest option in terms of tax reporting and paperwork required for ongoing operations. Your net (gross minus expenses) income is added to your wage income and you'll pay tax on the total. If your wage income is less than approximately $100K, you'll also owe self-employment tax of approximately 15% in addition to income tax on your business income. If your business runs at a loss, you can deduct the loss from your other income in calculating your taxable income, though you won't be able to run at a loss indefinitely. You are liable for all of the debts and obligations of the business to the extent of all of your personal assets. Partnership. You will need at least two participants (humans or entities) to form a partnership. Individual items of income and expense are identified on a partnership tax return, and each partner's proportionate share is then reported on the individual partners' tax returns. General partners (who actively participate in the business) also must pay self-employment tax on their earnings below approximately $100K. Each general partner is responsible for all of the debts and obligations of the business to the extent of their personal assets. A general partnership can be created informally or with an oral agreement although that's not a good idea. Corporation. Business entities can be taxed as \"\"S\"\" or \"\"C\"\" corporations. Either way, the corporation is created by filing articles of incorporation with a state government (doesn't have to be the state where you live) and corporations are typically required to file yearly entity statements with the state where they were formed as well as all states where they do business. Shareholders are only liable for the debts and obligations of the corporation to the extent of their investment in the corporation. An \"\"S\"\" corporation files an information-only return similar to a partnership which reports items of income and expense, but those items are actually taken into account on the individual tax returns of the shareholders. If an \"\"S\"\" corporation runs at a loss, the losses are deductible against the shareholders' other income. A \"\"C\"\" corporation files a tax return more similar to an individual's. A C corporation calculates and pays its own tax at the corporate level. Payments from the C corporation to individuals are typically taxable as wages (from a tax point of view, it's the same as having a second job) or as dividends, depending on how and why the payments are made. (If they're in exchange for effort and work, they're probably wages - if they're payments of business profits to the business owners, they're probably dividends.) If a C corporation runs at a loss, the loss is not deductible against the shareholders' other income. Fringe benefits such as health insurance for business owners are not deductible as business expenses on the business returns for S corps, partnerships, or sole proprietorships. C corporations can deduct expenses for providing fringe benefits. LLCs don't have a predefined tax treatment - the members or managers of the LLC choose, when the LLC is formed, if they would like to be taxed as a partnership, an S corporation, or as a C corporation. If an LLC is owned by a single person, it can be considered a \"\"disregarded entity\"\" and treated for tax purposes as a sole proprietorship. This option is not available if the LLC has multiple owners. The asset protection provided by the use of an entity depends quite a bit on the source of the claim. If a creditor/plaintiff has a claim based on a contract signed on behalf of the entity, then they likely will not be able to \"\"pierce the veil\"\" and collect the entity's debts from the individual owners. On the other hand, if a creditor/plaintiff has a claim based on negligence or another tort-like action (such as sexual harassment), then it's very likely that the individual(s) involved will also be sued as individuals, which takes away a lot of the effectiveness of the purported asset protection. The entity-based asset protection is also often unavailable even for contract claims because sophisticated creditors (like banks and landlords) will often insist the the business owners sign a personal guarantee putting their own assets at risk in the event that the business fails to honor its obligations. There's no particular type of entity which will allow you to entirely avoid tax. Most tax planning revolves around characterizing income and expense items in the most favorable ways possible, or around controlling the timing of the appearance of those items on the tax return.\"",
"qid": 10183,
"docid": "257168",
"rank": 95,
"score": 87656
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: This will work as intended, but there's another point to consider. In the US, the tax rate on proceeds from stock sales is higher for short term holdings, which are defined as held for less than one year. Both rates vary based on your income. Bracket numbers are for fiscal year 2014, filing as single. The difference between short and long term capital gains tax in the US is a minimum of ten percentage points, and works out to 15 percentage points on average. This is substantial. If you won't be reporting much income the year you move to the US (say because you only worked for a portion of the year) it is decidedly to your advantage to wait and sell the stocks in the US, to get that sweet 0% rate. At a minimum, you should hold the position for a year if you sell and rebuy, from a tax optimization perspective. Two caveats:",
"qid": 10183,
"docid": "501214",
"rank": 96,
"score": 87640
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The prices we pay for goods and services aren't set by our levels of income. Why should the compensation we owe the community in taxes? LVT and rent(along with their capitalisation into selling prices) are economically one and the same thing. The only difference is who collects. If LVT is an \"\"Income Tax\"\", then so is rent or mortgage repayments. In fact paying for anything is an \"\"Income Tax\"\". The LVT is merely the way by which we equally share the value derived from scarce natural resources. If we don't do that then inequality and dysfunction are baked into our economies and societies. LVT doesn't tax the wealth people create from land but taxes the wealth creating potential of land. It is the arbitrariness of taxing incomes, capital and transactions that causes deadweight losses, whereas the LVT has none. This is because it is set by market (not levels of income) as the amount an individual or firm is prepared to pay for exclusive use of that location. So if you cannot pay the LVT then someone else will. That is not only fair, but the optimally efficient way of allocating resources. This is how a capitalist, free market based economy is supposed to work. Those that opposed the LVT are nothing but Blue Socialists.\"",
"qid": 10183,
"docid": "595651",
"rank": 97,
"score": 87573
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I guess. I just think it's stupid to think there's no difference between a corporation and it's owners. Once an organization of any kind reaches a certain size it becomes bigger than any shareholders, and consumes different types of public goods than any individual would. Kleenex uses different public goods than if all the shareholders just owned paper mills and paper stores in local towns, so it has a different kind of public contribution obligation. I understand that principle that corporate income and dividends are theoretically the same thing, so shouldn't be taxed twice. I get the concept. But it just seems like another excuse to shift more income to people who own, rather than people who work. I support more money going to people who work for a living, not invest.",
"qid": 10183,
"docid": "158086",
"rank": 98,
"score": 87314
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Are you in the US? Because if so, there are tax discrepancies. Gains from sale of stocks held for less than one year are subject to ordinary income tax, so probably around 30%. If you hold those stocks for a year or more, gains will be taxed as capital gains tax, 15%. For Forex, taxes on your earnings will be split 60/40. 60% will be traded at the lower 15% rate, while the remaining 40& will be taxed at a higher rate, approximately 30%. So purely short-term, there is a tax advantage to dabbling in Forex. HOWEVER - these are both incredibly risky things to do with your money! I never would recommend anyone invest short-term looking to make quick cash! In fact, the tax code DISCOURAGES people from short-term investments.",
"qid": 10183,
"docid": "413015",
"rank": 99,
"score": 87292
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: From my blog's discussion on 2017 tax rates. This is the final set of numbers. So, if you currently have, say $120K taxable income, every dollar above that starts getting taxed at 25%, until $153K, then 28%. In other words, forecast your taxes based on the day job, but then the 1099 goes on top of that.",
"qid": 10183,
"docid": "1235",
"rank": 100,
"score": 87216
}
] |
Looking for good investment vehicle for seasonal work and savings | [
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Congratulations on a solid start. Here are my thoughts, based on your situation: Asset Classes I would recommend against a long-term savings account as an investment vehicle. While very safe, the yields will almost always be well below inflation. Since you have a long time horizon (most likely at least 30 years to retirement), you have enough time to take on more risk, as long as it's not more than you can live with. If you are looking for safer alternatives to stocks for part of your investments, you can also consider investment-grade bonds/bond funds, or even a stable value fund. Later, when you are much closer to retirement, you may also want to consider an annuity. Depending on the interest rate on your loan, you may also be able to get a better return from paying down your loan than from putting more in a savings account. I would recommend that you only keep in a savings account what you expect to need in the next few years (cushion for regular expenses, emergency fund, etc.). On Stocks Stocks are riskier but have the best chance to outperform versus inflation over the long term. I tend to favor funds over individual stocks, mostly for a few practical reasons. First, one of the goals of investing is to diversify your risk, which produces a more efficient risk/reward ratio than a group of stocks that are highly correlated. Diversification is easier to achieve via an index fund, but it is possible for a well-educated investor to stay diversified via individual stocks. Also, since most investors don't actually want to take physical possession of their shares, funds will manage the shares for you, as well as offering additional services, such as the automatic reinvestments of dividends and tax management. Asset Allocation It's very important that you are comfortable with the amount of risk you take on. Investment salespeople will prefer to sell you stocks, as they make more commission on stocks than bonds or other investments, but unless you're able to stay in the market for the long term, it's unlikely you'll be able to get the market return over the long term. Make sure to take one or more risk tolerance assessments to understand how often you're willing to accept significant losses, as well as what the optimal asset allocation is for you given the level of risk you can live with. Generally speaking, for someone with a long investment horizon and a medium risk tolerance, even the most conservative allocations will have at least 60% in stocks (total of US and international) with the rest in bonds/other, and up to 80% or even 100% for a more aggressive investor. Owning more bonds will result in a lower expected return, but will also dramatically reduce your portfolio's risk and volatility. Pension With so many companies deciding that they don't feel like keeping the promises they made to yesterday's workers or simply can't afford to, the pension is nice but like Social Security, I wouldn't bank on all of this money being there for you in the future. This is where a fee-only financial planner can really be helpful - they can run a bunch of scenarios in planning software that will show you different retirement scenarios based on a variety of assumptions (ie what if you only get 60% of the promised pension, etc). This is probably not as much of an issue if you are an equity partner, or if the company fully funds the pension in a segregated account, or if the pension is defined-contribution, but most corporate pensions are just a general promise to pay you later in the future with no real money actually set aside for that purpose, so I'd discount this in my planning somewhat. Fund/Stock Selection Generally speaking, most investment literature agrees that you're most likely to get the best risk-adjusted returns over the long term by owning the entire market rather than betting on individual winners and losers, since no one can predict the future (including professional money managers). As such, I'd recommend owning a low-cost index fund over holding specific sectors or specific companies only. Remember that even if one sector is more profitable than another, the stock prices already tend to reflect this. Concentration in IT Consultancy I am concerned that one third of your investable assets are currently in one company (the IT consultancy). It's very possible that you are right that it will continue to do well, that is not my concern. My concern is the risk you're carrying that things will not go well. Again, you are taking on risks not just over the next few years, but over the next 30 or so years until you retire, and even if it seems unlikely that this company will experience a downturn in the next few years, it's very possible that could change over a longer period of time. Please just be aware that there is a risk. One way to mitigate that risk would be to work with an advisor or a fund to structure and investment plan where you invest in a variety of sector funds, except for technology. That way, your overall portfolio, including the single company, will be closer to the market as a whole rather than over-weighted in IT/Tech. However, if this IT Consultancy happens to be the company that you work for, I would strongly recommend divesting yourself of those shares as soon as reasonably possible. In my opinion, the risk of having your salary, pension, and much of your investments tied up in the fortunes of one company would simply be a much larger risk than I'd be comfortable with. Last, make sure to keep learning so that you are making decisions that you're comfortable with. With the amount of savings you have, most investment firms will consider you a \"\"high net worth\"\" client, so make sure you are making decisions that are in your best financial interests, not theirs. Again, this is where a fee-only financial advisor may be helpful (you can find a local advisor at napfa.org). Best of luck with your decisions!\"",
"qid": 10213,
"docid": "424247",
"rank": 1,
"score": 117882
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: As others have noted, you can do better than a checking or savings account. If you're going to invest emergency money, the vehicle you put it into should be: Liquid - Wherever you put it, you should be able to quickly cash it out. Highly liquid exchange traded products are good for this. Low volatility/drawdowns - If you need at least 6 months of your paycheck to cover you in the event of an emergency, you don't want to park it in a portfolio that can potentially lose 30% value. Insured - Your investments should have SIPC coverage (protection against losses resulting from failure on part of broker). Moderate/Steady Growth - If the emergency fund doesn't grow, you'll need to continually pump money into it. My 'steady growth' portfolio is majorly allocated to fixed income. Within that, a major portion is allocated to high yielding instruments. Over the past 10 years, it's seen at least a 7% annualized return.",
"qid": 10213,
"docid": "285812",
"rank": 2,
"score": 106914
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"A primary residence can be an admirable investment/retirement vehicle for a number of reasons. The tax savings on the mortgage are negligible compared to these. A $200,000 mortgage might result in a $2000 annual savings on your taxes -- but a $350,000 house might easily appreciate $20,000 (tax free!) in a good year. Some reasons to not buy a larger house. Getting into or out of a house is tremendously expensive and inconvenient. It can make some life-changes (including retirement) more difficult. There is no way to \"\"diversify\"\" a primary residence. You have one investment and you are a hostage to its fortunes. The shopping center down the street goes defunct and its ruins becomes a magnet for criminals and derelicts? Your next-door neighbor is a lunatic or a pyromaniac? A big hurricane hits your county? Ha-ha, now you're screwed. As they say in the Army, BOHICA: bend over, here it comes again. Even if nothing bad happens, you are paying to \"\"enjoy\"\" a bigger house whether you enjoy it or not. Eating spaghetti from paper plates, sitting on the floor of your enormous, empty dining room, may be romantic when you're 27. When you're 57, it may be considerably less fun. Speaking for myself, both my salary and my investment income have varied wildly, and often discouragingly, over my life, but my habit of buying and renovating dilapidated homes in chic neighborhoods has brought me six figures a year, year after year after year. tl;dr the mortgage-interest deduction is the smallest of many reasons to invest in residential real-estate, but there are good reasons not to.\"",
"qid": 10213,
"docid": "317902",
"rank": 3,
"score": 102080
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Waiting for the next economic downturn probably isn't the best plan at this point. While it could happen tomorrow, you may end up waiting a long time. If you would prefer not to think much about your investment and just let them grow then mutual funds are a really good option. Make sure you research them before you buy into any and make sure to diversify, as in buy into a lot of different mutual funds that cover different parts of the market. If you want to be more active in investing then start researching the market and stick to industries you have very good understanding of. It's tough to invest in a market you know nothing about. I'd suggest putting at least some of that into a retirement savings account for long term growth. Make sure you look at both your short term and long term goals. Letting an investment mature from age 20 through to retirement will net you plenty of compound interest but don't forget about your short term goals like possible cars, houses and families. Do as much research as you can and you will be fine!",
"qid": 10213,
"docid": "393009",
"rank": 4,
"score": 101799
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Thank you for your service. My first suggestion since your car is a planned for the near future is keep that amount in savings and just pay cash. There are plenty of attractive offers to entice you to finance your vehicle but there really is no compelling reason to do it considering the savings you have. Second I would keep an additional portion of savings as a rainy day emergency fund. How much is based mostly on what you feel comfortable with. The number of possible emergencies that can come up is limited and your expenses are limited which is normal given your age. This fund might be for something such as emergency travel for a sick family member, cover a deductible for an auto accident, whatever unforseen event might occur (hence the name emergency fund). What investments you are comfortable with will be determined by risk tolerance. While in the military individual stocks that are aggressive risky investments may not be a good idea because of the extra attention they require and you can't really babysit a portfolio while deployed but there are many good low or no cost mutual funds or ETFs that you could get into. I would look into setting up a recurring purchase with a set dollar amount monthly so you will continue to accumulate whatever option you are investing in regularly even if you are deployed. Which fund or ETF you pick will depend on your goals and risk tolerance but you could very easily pick several for diversity. Good luck and thank you again for your service.",
"qid": 10213,
"docid": "386305",
"rank": 5,
"score": 100897
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: No, SPDR ETFs are not a good fit for a novice investor with a low level of financial literacy. In fact, there is no investment that is safe for an absolute beginner, not even a savings account. (An absolute beginner could easily overdraw his savings account, leading to fees and collections.) I would say that an investment becomes a good fit for an investor as soon as said investor understands how the investment works. A savings account at a bank or credit union is fairly easy to understand and is therefore a suitable place to hold money after a few hours to a day of research. (Even after 0 hours of research, however, a savings account is still better than a sock drawer.) Money market accounts (through a bank), certificates of deposit (through a bank), and money market mutual funds (through a mutual fund provider) are probably the next easiest thing to understand. This could take a few hours to a few weeks of research depending on the learner. Equities, corporate bonds, and government bonds are another step up in complexity, and could take weeks or months of schooling to understand well enough to try. Equity or bond mutual funds -- or the ETF versions of those, which is what you asked about -- are another level after that. Also important to understand along the way are the financial institutions and market infrastructure that exist to provide these products: banks, credit unions, public corporations, brokerages, stock exchanges, bond exchanges, mutual fund providers, ETF providers, etc.",
"qid": 10213,
"docid": "406711",
"rank": 6,
"score": 100507
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: re life insurance Multi-purpose vehicles generally don't work as well as just going with single purpose, well except for the person/company selling them. 'whole life' plans are a great deal for the insurance company and agent, not so much for you. The easiest way to prove this to yourself is to get the difference in price between a simple 'term life' product that would be appropriate to provide for your family in the event you die. Then get the price for a 'whole life' product with the same benefits, and what it would be worth after say 20 or 30 years. Take the difference you would have to pay, figure what it would be worth if invested conservatively over the same period, figuring in some conservative figure for compound growth such as 6 percent (what you could get from a good long term savings bond or index based mutual fund). The last time I did this, the pure value of the money alone, without ANY interest was within something like 80 % of the value of the whole life policy.. adding in even a conservative amount of interest turned it into a no brainer. the whole life plan was terrible as in investment vehicle. I was far far better off using term life and investing the difference.",
"qid": 10213,
"docid": "253202",
"rank": 7,
"score": 100257
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: First of all kudos to you for seeing the value in saving at a young age. There are several different things you can mean by this and I'm not sure which is accurate so I am going to address the first two that I thought of. If you are selling your investments because you need the money (emergency expenses, saved enough for a short term goal, whatever the reason) then this may not be the best solution for your savings. Investing in mutual funds, ETFs, stocks, 401k, IRA, etc are typically for longer term goals such as a goal that is 10+ years away (maybe buying a home, paying for college for your children, retirement, etc). If you are selling your investments because you believe that another investment is performing better and you want to get in on that one instead what I would suggest is leaving the money you have invested where it is and starting future investments in the new fund/ETF you are interested in. For example if you have $2000 invested in fund X and now you do some research and fund Q looks more appealing that is great, start investing in fund Q with your next deposit. Any research you do will be based on past results, there is nothing that guarantees that fund Q will continue doing better than the fund X you already have. Trying to time the market rarely ends well for the investor. I would encourage you to continue saving money a bit at a time just like you have been doing. Avoid selling your investments until it is time to sell them for whatever goal you intended them for. Set aside some cash to cover any unexpected expenses so you won't have to sell your investments to cover the costs, even at 18 unplanned things happen.",
"qid": 10213,
"docid": "333004",
"rank": 8,
"score": 100085
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I'm afraid you're mistaking 401k as an investment vehicle. It's not. It is a vehicle for retirement. Roth 401k/IRA has the benefit of tax free distributions at retirement, and as long as you're in the low tax bracket - it is for your benefit to take advantage of that. However, that is not the money you would be using to start a business or buy a home (except for maybe up to $10K you can withdraw without penalty for first time home buyers, but I wouldn't bother with $10k, if that's what will help you buying a house - maybe you shouldn't be buying at all). In addition, you should make sure you take advantage of the employer 401k match in full. That is free money added to your Traditional 401k retirement savings (taxed at distribution). Once you took the full advantage of the employer's match, and contributed as much as you consider necessary for your retirement above that (there are various retirement calculators on line that can help you in making that determination), everything else will probably go to taxable (regular) savings/investments.",
"qid": 10213,
"docid": "130118",
"rank": 9,
"score": 100064
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I mean a checkings/savings combo is fiscally responsible if you're putting a 3-6 month emergency fund in there. Hell, I'd argue that you'd be insanely bad with money not to keep an emergency fund if you got the cash to spare. 401(k),IRAs, and stocks are great investment vehicles, but having a portion of your funds be liquid is important.",
"qid": 10213,
"docid": "237580",
"rank": 10,
"score": 99138
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Because retirement account usually are tax effective vehicles - meaning you will pay less tax on any profits from your investments in a retirement account than you would outside. For example, in my country Australia, for someone on say $60,000 per annum, if you make $10,000 profits on your investments that year you will end up paying 34.5% tax (or $3,450) on that $10,000 profits. If you made the same profits in a retirement account (superannuation fund) you would have only paid 15% tax (or $1,500) on the $10,000 profit. That's less than half the tax. And if you are on a higher income the savings would be even greater. The reason why you can't take the money out of a retirement account is purely because the aim is to build up the funds for your retirement, and not take it out at any time you want. You are given the incentive to pay less tax on any investment profits in order for you to save and grow your funds so that you might have a more comfortable retirement (a time when you might not be able to work any more for your money).",
"qid": 10213,
"docid": "272525",
"rank": 11,
"score": 98889
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: It would seem that you are in a position where you are able to save money and you hope to have your money work for you. From your statement above, it is implied that you are a professional with a steady income not related to the finance field. With that said, it is better to diversify your portfolio and have your money work for you through passive investments rather than an active one, where you actively search for companies that are below market price. That research takes time and much more experience in order to properly execute. Now, if your overall goal is to trade actively, then maybe researching individual companies might be the best way to get your feet wet. But, if your goal is to create a diversified portfolio and make your money work for you, then passive is the way to go. Two passive financial Vehicles: Mutual funds and ETFs. Depending on what you are hoping to accomplish in the future, an ETF or a mutual fund will likely suite your situation. I would encourage you to do your due diligence and find out the weakness and strength of each. From there you are able to make an informed decision.",
"qid": 10213,
"docid": "177912",
"rank": 12,
"score": 98853
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: This advice will be too specific, but... With the non-retirement funds, start by paying off the car loan if it's more than ~3% interest rate. The remainder: looks like a good emergency fund. If you don't have one of those yet, you do now. Store it in the best interest-bearing savings account you can find (probably accessible by online banking). If you wish to grow your emergency fund beyond $14-20,000 you might also consider some bonds, to boost your returns and add a little risk (but not nearly as much risk as stocks). With the Roth IRA - first of all, toss the precious metals. Precious metals are a crisis hedge and an advanced speculative instrument, not a beginner's investment strategy for 40% of the portfolio. You're either going to use this money for retirement, or your down payment fund. If it's retirement: you're 28; even with a kid on the way, you can afford to take risks in the retirement portfolio. Put it in either a targe-date fund or a series of index funds with an asset allocation suggested by an asset-allocation-suggestion calculator. You should probably have north of 80% stocks if it's money for retirement. If you're starting a down-payment fund, or want to save for something similar, or if you want to treat the IRA money like it's a down-payment fund, either use one of these Vanguard LifeStrategy funds or something that's structured to do the same sort of thing. I'm throwing Vanguard links at you because they have the funds with the low expense ratios. You can use Vanguard at your discretion if it's all an IRA (and not a 401(k)). Feel free to use an alternative, but watch the expense ratios lest they consume up to half your returns.",
"qid": 10213,
"docid": "492423",
"rank": 13,
"score": 96778
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: My former accountant, used to provide this service as part of him doing my taxes. During the off season, he would provide a planning session and he would review strategies that I might look into. Since he did not make any money off of providing investments, he was about as unbiased as one could be. However, something like that might not be enough for you guys. You could go with someone online, Scottrade is going into the business of providing advice, as well as Charles Schwab or Fidelity, but you might need someone more personal. In that case, I would use my network. Talk to people, ask who they use, like, and respect. I would say it is very easy to find mediocre investment advisers, the good ones are hard. I would look for one that teaches. It is very easy to tell someone what to do, much harder to teach them what is the right thing. One thing that is easy about your situation: Planning to buy a home. Put money for a down payment in a high interest savings account. What I mean by high interest, is they still pay almost nothing. You can't really make a mistake. If you find one with .5% instead of .85%, what is the real difference after 5 years? About $180?",
"qid": 10213,
"docid": "451794",
"rank": 14,
"score": 96283
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Best is indeed subjective. You could for example, get a Universal Life Policy that pays a guaranteed interest on all monies (even those in excess of what you need to pay to cover the policy). Most people will tell you (probably correctly) that using life insurance as an investment vehicle is a bad idea, however. The growth of the money in a UL policy, however, is usually tax deductible and grows at a guaranteed rate. NWML here in the U.S. pays a guaranteed (unless they go broke I suppose) 4% per year; historically, however, they've been paying 6% per year. That's pretty good, except a lot of your money goes into buying the policy the first few years.",
"qid": 10213,
"docid": "513953",
"rank": 15,
"score": 95272
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Good job. Assuming that you are also contributing to retirement, you are bound to be a wealthy person. I'm not really sure how Australia works as far as retirement, but I am pretty sure you are taking care of that too. Given your time frame (more than 5 years) I would consider investing at least a portion of the money. If I was you, I would tend to make that amount significant, say 75% in mutual funds, 25% in your high interest savings. The ratio you choose is up to you, but I would be heavier in the investment than savings side. As the time for home purchase approaches, you may want more in savings and less in investments. You may want to look at a mutual fund with a low beta. Beta is a measure of the price volatility. I did a google search on low beta funds, and came up with a number of good articles that explains this further. Having a fund with a low beta insulates you, a bit, from radical swings in the market allowing you to count more on the money being there when needed. One way to get to the proper ratio, is to contribute all new money to the mutual fund until it is in proper balance. This way you don't lower your interest rate for a month. Given your time frame, salary, and sense of responsibility you may be able to do the 100% down plan. Again, good work!",
"qid": 10213,
"docid": "75326",
"rank": 16,
"score": 95050
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: A savings account is your best bet. You do not have the time frame to mitigate/absorb risks. The general guideline for investment is 5 years or more. As you state you are no where near close to that time frame.",
"qid": 10213,
"docid": "94680",
"rank": 17,
"score": 94644
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Is investing a good idea with a low amount of money? Yes. I'll take the angle that you CAN invest in penny stocks. There's nothing wrong with that. The (oversimplified) suggestion I would make is to answer the question about your risk aversion. This is the four quadrant (e.g., http://njaes.rutgers.edu:8080/money/riskquiz/) you are introduced to when you first sit down to open your brokerage (stocks) or employer retirement account (401K). Along with a release of liability in the language of \"\"past performance is not an indicator...\"\" (which you will not truly understand until you experience a market crash). The reason I say this is because if you are 100% risk averse, then it is clear which vehicles you want to have in your tool belt; t-bills, CDs, money market, and plain vanilla savings. Absolutely nothing wrong with this. Don't let anyone make you feel otherwise with remarks like \"\"your money is not working for you sitting there\"\". It's extremely important to be absolutely honest with yourself in doing this assessment, too. For example, I thought I was a risk taker except when the market tumbled, I reacted exactly how a knee-jerk investor would. Also, I feel it's not easy to know just how honest you are with yourself as we are humans, and not impartial machines. So the recommendation I would give is to make a strong correlation to casino gambling. In other words, conventional advice is to only take \"\"play money\"\" to the casino. This because you assume you WILL lose it. Then you can enjoy yourself at the casino knowing this is capital that you are okay throwing in the trash. I would strongly caution you to only ever invest capital in the stock market that you characterize as play money. I'm convinced financial advisors, fund managers, friends will disagree. Still, I feel this is the only way you will be completely okay when the market fluctuates -- you won't lose sleep. IF you choose this approach, then you can start investing any time. That five drachma you were going to throw away on lottery tickets? transfer it into your Roth IRA. That twenty yen that you were going to ante in your weekly poker night? transfer it into your index fund. You already got past the investors remorse of (losing) that money. IF you truly accept that amount as play money, then you CAN put it into penny stocks. I'll get lots of criticism here. However, I maintain that once you are truly okay with throwing that cash away (like you would drop it into a slot machine), then it's the same whether you lose it one way or in another investment vehicle.\"",
"qid": 10213,
"docid": "325566",
"rank": 18,
"score": 94512
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"For starting with zero knowledge you certainly did a great job on research as you hit on most of the important points with your question. It seems like you have already saved up around six months of expenses in savings so it is a great time to look into investing. The hardest part of your question is actually one of the most important details. Investing in a way that minimizes your taxes is generally more important, in the end, than what assets you actually invest in (as long as you invest even semi-reasonably). The problem is that the interaction between your home country's tax system and the U.S. tax system can be complex. It's probably (likely?) still worth maxing out your 401(k) (IRA, SEP, 529 accounts if you qualify) to avoid taxes, but like this question from an Indian investor it may be worth seeing an investment professional about this. If you do, see a fee-based professional preferably one familiar with your country. If tax-advantaged accounts are not a good deal for you or if you max them out, a discount broker is probably a good second option for someone willing to do a bit of research like you. With this money investing in broadly-diversified, low fee, index mutual funds or exchange traded funds is generally recommended. Among other benefits, diversified funds make sure that if any particular company fails you don't feel too much pain. The advantages of low fees are fairly obvious and one very good reason why so many people recommend Vanguard on this site. A common mix for someone your age is mostly stocks (local and international) and some bonds. Though with how you talk about risk you may prefer more bonds. Some people recommend spicing this up a bit with a small amount of real estate (REITs), sometimes even other assets. The right portfolio of the above can change a lot given the person. The above mentioned adviser and/or more research can help here. If, in the future, you start to believe you will go back to your home country soon that may throw much of this advice out the window and you should definitely reevaluate then. Also, if you are interested in the math/stats behind the above advice \"\"A Random Walk Down Wall Street\"\" is a light read and a good place to start. Investing makes for a very interesting and reasonably profitable math/stats problem.\"",
"qid": 10213,
"docid": "526664",
"rank": 19,
"score": 94509
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Putting the money in a bank savings account is a reasonably safe investment. Anything other than that will come with additional risk of various kinds. (That's right; not even a bank account is completely free of risk. Neither is withdrawing cash and storing it somewhere yourself.) And I don't know which country you are from, but you will certainly have access to your country's government bonds and the likes. You may also have access to mutual funds which invest in other countries' government bonds (bond or money-market funds). The question you need to ask yourself really is twofold. One, for how long do you intend to keep the money invested? (Shorter term investing should involve lower risk.) Two, what amount of risk (specifically, price volatility) are you willing to accept? The answers to those questions will determine which asset class(es) are appropriate in your particular case. Beyond that, you need to make a personal call: which asset class(es) do you believe are likely to do better or less bad than others? Low risk usually comes at the price of a lower return. Higher return usually involves taking more risk (specifically price volatility in the investment vehicle) but more risk does not necessarily guarantee a higher return - you may also lose a large fraction of or even the entire capital amount. In extreme cases (leveraged investments) you might even lose more than the capital amount. Gold may be a component of a well-diversified portfolio but I certainly would not recommend putting all of one's money in it. (The same goes for any asset class; a portfolio composed exclusively of stocks is no more well-diversified than a portfolio composed exclusively of precious metals, or government bonds.) For some specifics about investing in precious metals, you may want to see Pros & cons of investing in gold vs. platinum?.",
"qid": 10213,
"docid": "280204",
"rank": 20,
"score": 94220
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I have worked for BNP (BNP PARIBAS) a french bank. From my experience it is the easiest sale to make when working for a bank. Because saving is sold as a long term investment your client is not likely to close the account any time soon. From this product on you could open a broker account if the client wants to take more risks ( yhea yet another sale). If the client is very keen on no risks, there are insurance products (they make plenty of money from insurance) or callable investments that you can propose. Retail banking works by attracting a maximum number of people and selling them a maximum amount of product. To answer you question is it profitable? I am sure it is not ( right now your savings account costs the bank money because of super low rates in the EU). I think it is all about increasing or maintaining market-share that you see some banks offering some cash just for opening an account. At the moment we have to sell credit cards to people that is where banks make good money. If you would like me to go more in depth on a specific subject i mentioned here just ask. Hope it helped.",
"qid": 10213,
"docid": "523960",
"rank": 21,
"score": 93803
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I would like to add my accolades in saving $3000, it is an accomplishment that the majority of US households are unable to achieve. source While it is something, in some ways it is hardly anything. Working part time at a entry level job will earn you almost three times this amount per year, and with the same job you can earn about as much in two weeks as this investment is likely to earn, in the market in one year. All this leads to one thing: At your age you should be looking to increase your income. No matter if it is college or a high paying trade, whatever you can do to increase your life time earning potential would be the best investment for this money. I would advocate a more patient approach. Stick the money in the bank until you complete your education enough for an \"\"adult job\"\". Use it, if needed, for training to get that adult job. Get a car, a place of your own, and a sufficient enough wardrobe. Save an emergency fund. Then invest with impunity. Imagine two versions of yourself. One with basic education, a average to below average salary, that uses this money to invest in the stock market. Eventually that money will be needed and it will probably be pulled out of the market at an in opportune time. It might worth less than the original 3K! Now imagine a second version of yourself that has an above average salary due to some good education or training. Perhaps that 3K was used to help provide that education. However, this second version will probably earn 25,000 to 75,000 per year then the first version. Which one do you want to be? Which one do you think will be wealthier? Better educated people not only earn more, they are out of work less. You may want to look at this chart.\"",
"qid": 10213,
"docid": "138102",
"rank": 22,
"score": 93651
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If someone recommends a particular investment rather than a class of investments, assume they are getting a commission and walk away. If someone recommends whole life insurance as an investment vehicle, walk away. Find someone whose fiduciary responsibility is explicitly to you as their client. That legally obligated them to consider your best interests first. It doesn't guarantee they are good, but it's done protection against their being actively evil.",
"qid": 10213,
"docid": "112259",
"rank": 23,
"score": 93632
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Precious metals, treasury bonds, real estate, etc. These are good investments that generally produce low income with low risk. In order to get the economy back to work we need capital to invest in riskier, but more productive endeavors.",
"qid": 10213,
"docid": "196378",
"rank": 24,
"score": 92793
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: To be clear, a 401K is a vehicle, you make investments WITHIN it, if you choose poorly such as say putting all your money into company stock when working for the next Enron, you can still get hurt badly. So it is important to have diversity and an appropriate risk level based on your age, tolerance for risk, etc. That said, as vehicles go it is outstanding, and the 'always max your 401K' is very very common advice for a large number of investing professionals, CFA's, pundits, etc. That said there are a few priorities to consider here. First priority, if there is some level of company matching, grab that, it's hard to beat that kind of 'return' in almost any other case. Second, since you never want to tap into a 401K (if you can at all avoid it) before you are ready to retire, you should first be sure you have a good 'emergency fund' set aside in the event you lose your job, or some other major catastrophy happens. Many recommend setting aside at least 6 months of basic living expenses. Third, if you have any high interest debt (like credit card debt) pay that stuff down as fast as you can. You'll save a ton of interest (it's pretty much the same as investing the money you use to pay it down, and getting a return equal to the interest rate you are paying, with zero risk.. can't be beat. You'll also end up with a lot better cash flow, and the ability to start saving first and spending out of savings, so you earn interest instead of paying it. Once you have those things out of the way, then it is time to think about fully funding the 401K. and keep in mind, since you don't pay taxes on it, the 'felt effect' to you pocket is about 80% or even less, of what goes into the account, so it's not as painful as you might think, and the hit to your take home may be less than you'd expect. Contributing as much as you can, as early as you can also lets you benefit from the effect of compounding, and has a far larger affect on the balance than money put into the account closer to retirement. So if you can afford to max it out, I surely would advise you to do so.",
"qid": 10213,
"docid": "302512",
"rank": 25,
"score": 92730
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The rental industry is seasonal. They purchase additional inventory (vehicles) for their busy seasons and sell the extra inventory afterwards.",
"qid": 10213,
"docid": "195373",
"rank": 26,
"score": 92574
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Investing in the stock market early is a good thing. However, it does have a learning curve, and that curve can, and eventually will, cost you. One basic rule in investing is that risk and reward are proportional. The greater the reward, the higher the risk that you either (a) won't get the reward, or (b) lose your money instead. Given that, don't invest money you can't afford to lose (you mentioned you're on a student budget). If you want to start with short but sercure investments, try finding a high-interest savings account or CD. For example, the bank I use has an offer where the first $500 in your account gets ~6% interest - certainly not bad if you only put $500 in the account. Unfortunately, most banks are offering a pittance for savings rates or CDs. If you're willing to take more risk, you could certainly put money into the stock market. Before you do, I would recommend spending some time learning about how the stock market works, it's flows and ebbs, and how stock valuations work. Don't buy a stock because you hear about it a lot; understand why that stock is being valued as such. Also consider buying index funds (such as SPY) which is like a stock but tracks an entire index. That way if a specific company suddenly drops, you won't be nearly as affected. On the flip side, if only 1 company goes up, but the market goes down, you'll miss out. But consider the odds of having picked that 1 company.",
"qid": 10213,
"docid": "64168",
"rank": 27,
"score": 92519
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I know some companies or entities have large incomes or expenses at certain times of the year, and like to close their books after these large events. For example where I work, the primary seasonal income comes after summer, so our fiscal year ends at the last days of October. This gives the accountants enough time to collect all the funds, reconcile whatever they have to, pay off whatever they have to and get working on a budget for the next year sooner than a calendar year would. There also might be tax reasons. To get all of your income at the beginning of your fiscal year, even if that is in the middle of the calendar year would allow a company to plan large deductible investments with more certainty. I am not to sure of the tax reasons.",
"qid": 10213,
"docid": "153375",
"rank": 28,
"score": 92477
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I have done something similar to this myself. What you are suggesting is a sound theory and it works. The issues are (which is why it's the reason not everyone does it) : The initial cost is great, many people in their 20s or 30s cannot afford their own home, let alone buy second properties. The time to build up a portfolio is very long term and is best for a pension investment. it's often not best for diversification - you've heard not putting all your eggs in one basket? With property deposits, you need to put a lot of eggs in to make it work and this can leave you vulnerable. there can be lots of work involved. Renovating is a huge pain and cost and you've already mentioned tennants not paying! unlike a bank account or bonds/shares etc. You cannot get to your savings/investments quickly if you need to (or find an opportunity) But after considering these and deciding the plunge is worth it, I would say go for it, be a good landlord, with good quality property and you'll have a great nest egg. If you try just one and see how it goes, with population increase, in a safe (respectable) location, the value of the investment should continue to rise (which it doesn't in a bank) and you can expect a 5%+ rental return (very hard to find in cash account!) Hope it goes well!",
"qid": 10213,
"docid": "520763",
"rank": 29,
"score": 91793
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"It really depends a lot on you and how much time you are putting into it. Since you're saying you want your money to work for you I'm going to assume you want as little hassle as possible. A few general tips: Save a fixed percentage of your monthly income Don't try to save \"\"whenever you have money left over\"\", you will just end up spending it somehow. Invest long term - don't trade Don't try to beat the market - it will just take up too much time and statistically you will end up making less. Hedge If you invest in the company/industry you work in, you will be double screwed if the sector drops (lose job + savings at the same time). Optimally you should invest in something that will benefit when the company you work for is doing bad. Pay off high interest debt Usually debt will have a higher interest than any safe investment you can make. Spend money to save/make money Sometimes the best investment you can make is on stuff that will save you money in the long run. Like buy an apartment close to work (less transport costs) or get a more expensive car that will save you money on gas, insurance etc.\"",
"qid": 10213,
"docid": "38269",
"rank": 30,
"score": 91385
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you have money and may need to access it at any time, you should put it in a savings account. It won't return much interest, but it will return some and it is easily accessible. If you have all your emergency savings that you need (at least six months of income), buy index-based mutual funds. These should invest in a broad range of securities including both stocks and bonds (three dollars in stocks for every dollar in bonds) so as to be robust in the face of market shifts. You should not buy individual stocks unless you have enough money to buy a lot of them in different industries. Thirty different stocks is a minimum for a diversified portfolio, and you really should be looking at more like a hundred. There's also considerable research effort required to verify that the stocks are good buys. For most people, this is too much work. For most people, broad-based index funds are better purchases. You don't have as much upside, but you also are much less likely to find yourself holding worthless paper. If you do buy stocks, look for ones where you know something about them. For example, if you've been to a restaurant chain with a recent IPO that really wowed you with their food and service, consider investing. But do your research, so that you don't get caught buying after everyone else has already overbid the price. The time to buy is right before everyone else notices how great they are, not after. Some people benefit from joining investment clubs with others with similar incomes and goals. That way you can share some of the research duties. Also, you can get other opinions before buying, which can restrain risky impulse buys. Just to reiterate, I would recommend sticking to mutual funds and saving accounts for most investors. Only make the move into individual stocks if you're willing to be serious about it. There's considerable work involved. And don't forget diversification. You want to have stocks that benefit regardless of what the overall economy does. Some stocks should benefit from lower oil prices while others benefit from higher prices. You want to have both types so as not to be caught flat-footed when prices move. There are much more experienced people trying to guess market directions. If your strategy relies on outperforming them, it has a high chance of failure. Index-based mutual funds allow you to share the diversification burden with others. Since the market almost always goes up in the long term, a fund that mimics the market is much safer than any individual security can be. Maintaining a three to one balance in stocks to bonds also helps as they tend to move in opposite directions. I.e. stocks tend to be good when bonds are weak and vice versa.",
"qid": 10213,
"docid": "464297",
"rank": 31,
"score": 91322
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: After looking at your profile, I see your age...28. Still a baby. At your age, and given your profession, there really is no need to build investment income. You are still working and should be working for many years. If I was you, I'd be looking to do a few different things: Eliminating debt reduces risk, and also reduces the need for future income. Saving for, and purchasing a home essentially freezes rent increases. If home prices double in your area, in theory, so should rent prices. If you own a home you might see some increases in taxes and insurance rates, but they are minor in comparison. This also reduces the need for future income. Owning real estate is a great way to build residual income, however, there is a lot of risk and even if you employ a management company there is a lot more hands on work and risk. Easier then that you can build an after tax investment portfolio. You can start off with mutual funds for diversification purposes and only after you have built a sizable portfolio should (if ever) make the transition to individual stocks. Some people might suggest DRIPs, but given the rate at which you are investing I would suggest the pain of such accounts is more hassle then it is worth.",
"qid": 10213,
"docid": "80844",
"rank": 32,
"score": 90377
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Answers: 1. Is this a good idea? Is it really risky? What are the pros and cons? Yes, it is a bad idea. I think, with all the talk about employer matches and tax rates at retirement vs. now, that you miss the forest for the trees. It's the taxes on those retirement investments over the course of 40 years that really matter. Example: Imagine $833 per month ($10k per year) invested in XYZ fund, for 40 years (when you retire). The fund happens to make 10% per year over that time, and you're taxed at 28%. How much would you have at retirement? 2. Is it a bad idea to hold both long term savings and retirement in the same investment vehicle, especially one pegged to the US stock market? Yes. Keep your retirement separate, and untouchable. It's supposed to be there for when you're old and unable to work. Co-mingling it with other funds will induce you to spend it (\"\"I really need it for that house! I can always pay more into it later!\"\"). It also can create a false sense of security (\"\"look at how much I've got! I got that new car covered...\"\"). So, send 10% into whatever retirement account you've got, and forget about it. Save for other goals separately. 3. Is buying SPY a \"\"set it and forget it\"\" sort of deal, or would I need to rebalance, selling some of SPY and reinvesting in a safer vehicle like bonds over time? For a retirement account, yes, you would. That's the advantage of target date retirement funds like the one in your 401k. They handle that, and you don't have to worry about it. Think about it: do you know how to \"\"age\"\" your account, and what to age it into, and by how much every year? No offense, but your next question is what an ETF is! 4. I don't know ANYTHING about ETFs. Things to consider/know/read? Start here: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/etf.asp 5. My company plan is \"\"retirement goal\"\" focused, which, according to Fidelity, means that the asset allocation becomes more conservative over time and switches to an \"\"income fund\"\" after the retirement target date (2050). Would I need to rebalance over time if holding SPY? Answered in #3. 6. I'm pretty sure that contributing pretax to 401k is a good idea because I won't be in the 28% tax bracket when I retire. How are the benefits of investing in SPY outweigh paying taxes up front, or do they not? Partially answered in #1. Note that it's that 4 decades of tax-free growth that's the big dog for winning your retirement. Company matches (if you get one) are just a bonus, and the fact that contributions are tax free is a cherry on top. 7. Please comment on anything else you think I am missing I think what you're missing is that winning at personal finance is easy, and winning at personal finance is hard\"",
"qid": 10213,
"docid": "290385",
"rank": 33,
"score": 90286
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: It really is dependent upon your goals. What are your short term needs? Do you need a car/clothing/high cost apartment/equipment when you start your career? For those kinds of things, a savings account might be best as you will need to have quick access to cash. Many have said that people need two careers, the one they work in and being an investor. You can start on that second career now. Open up some small accounts to get the feel for investing. This can be index funds, or something more specialized. I would put money earmarked for a home purchase in funds with a lower beta (fluctuation) and some in index funds. You probably would want to get a feel for what and where you will actually be doing in your career prior to making a leap into a home purchase. So figure you have about 5 years. That gives you time to ride out the waves in the market. BTW, good job on your financial situation. You are set up to succeed.",
"qid": 10213,
"docid": "328691",
"rank": 34,
"score": 90284
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Should I invest the money I don't need immediately and only withdraw it next year when I need it for living expenses or should I simply leave it in my current account? This might come as a bit of a surprise, but your money is already invested. We talk of investment vehicles. An investment vehicle is basically a place where you can put money and have it either earn a return, or be able to get it back later, or both. (The neither case is generally called \"\"spending\"\".) There are also investment classes which are things like cash, stocks, bonds, precious metals, etc.: different things that you can buy within an investment vehicle. You currently have the money in a bank account. Bank accounts currently earn very low interest rates, but they are also very liquid and very secure (in the sense of being certain that you will get the principal back). Now, when you talk about \"\"investing the money\"\", you are probably thinking of moving it from where it is currently sitting earning next to no return, to somewhere it can earn a somewhat higher return. And that's fine, but you should keep in mind that you aren't really investing it in that case, only moving it. The key to deciding about an asset allocation (how much of your money to put into what investment classes) is your investment horizon. The investment horizon is simply for how long you plan on letting the money remain where you put it. For money that you do not expect to touch for more than five years, common advice is to put it in the stock market. This is simply because in the long term, historically, the stock market has outperformed most other investment classes when looking at return versus risk (volatility). However, money that you expect to need sooner than that is often recommended against putting it in the stock market. The reason for this is that the stock market is volatile -- the value of your investment can fluctuate, and there's always the risk that it will be down when you need the money. If you don't need the money within several years, you can ride that out; but if you need the money within the next year, you might not have time to ride out the dip in the stock market! So, for money that you are going to need soon, you should be looking for less volatile investment classes. Bonds are generally less volatile than stocks, with government bonds generally being less volatile than corporate bonds. Bank accounts are even less volatile, coming in at practically zero volatility, but also have much lower expected rates of return. For the money that you need within a year, I would recommend against any volatile investment class. In other words, you might take whichever part you don't need within a year and put in bonds (except for what you don't foresee needing within the next half decade or more, which you can put in stocks), then put the remainder in a simple high-yield deposit-insured savings account. It won't earn much, but you will be basically guaranteed that the money will still be there when you want it in a year. For the money you put into bonds and stocks, find low-cost index mutual funds or exchange-traded funds to do so. You cannot predict the future rate of return of any investment, but you can predict the cost of the investment with a high degree of accuracy. Hence, for any given investment class, strive to minimize cost, as doing so is likely to lead to better return on investment over time. It's extremely rare to find higher-cost alternatives that are actually worth it in the long term.\"",
"qid": 10213,
"docid": "391605",
"rank": 35,
"score": 89825
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The big question is whether you will be flexible about when you'll get that house. The overall best investment (in terms of yielding a good risk/return ratio and requiring little effort) is a broad index fund (mutual or ETF), especially if you're contributing continuously and thereby take advantage of cost averaging. But the downside is that you have some volatility: during an economic downturn, your investment may be worth only half of what it's worth when the economy is booming. And of course it's very bad to have that happening just when you want to get your house. Then again, chances are that house prices will also go down in such times. If you want to avoid ever having to see the value of your investment go down, then you're pretty much stuck with things like your high-interest savings account (which sounds like a very good fit for your requirements.",
"qid": 10213,
"docid": "518664",
"rank": 36,
"score": 89479
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Making these difficult portfolio decisions for you is the point of Target-Date Retirement Funds. You pick a date at which you're going to start needing to withdraw the money, and the company managing the fund slowly turns down the aggressiveness of the fund as the target date approaches. Typically you would pick the target date to be around, say, your 65th birthday. Many mutual fund companies offer a variety of funds to suit your needs. Your desire to never \"\"have to recover\"\" indicates that you have not yet done quite enough reading on the subject of investing. (Or possibly that your sources have been misleading you.) A basic understanding of investing includes the knowledge that markets go up and down, and that no portfolio will always go up. Some \"\"recovery\"\" will always be necessary; having a less aggressive portfolio will never shield you completely from losing money, it just makes loss less likely. The important thing is to only invest money that you can afford to lose in the short-term (with the understanding that you'll make it back in the long term). Money that you'll need in the short-term should be kept in the absolute safest investment vehicles, such as a savings account, a money market account, short-term certificates of deposit, or short-term US government bonds.\"",
"qid": 10213,
"docid": "324661",
"rank": 37,
"score": 89077
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: It's important to consider your Investor Profile when deciding the right kind of vehicle for your finances. You are a young guy, with a considerable earned income and no dependents (sorry, this was not clear from the question.) This means that you are able to take a lot of risks that people who also have a family to think about, might not. == high risk tolerance You should definitely not put your money in a Wealth Management fund or Mutual Fund or any other 'hands-off' vehicle. These typically have worse returns than the FTSE itself. Their popularity is due to an amazing marketing job and the fact that people in general want to believe there is an easy way to grow their money. Probably the best vehicle for your money is property, so the first thing you should do with the money is hire a competent accountant and solicitor.",
"qid": 10213,
"docid": "272198",
"rank": 38,
"score": 88813
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Dude. If there was any farmer offering $30/hr there would be every rig hand in the country beating down his door right now. GTFO of here with this BS. Edit: Actually I know exactly what this guy is talking about. Seasonal harvesting work. So yeah. It's $30/hr for 3 months of work at best. They do have trouble finding people that can afford to get out there because who is doing to give up a decent pay job for only 3 months of work? And who makes minimum wage has the means to up and relocate?",
"qid": 10213,
"docid": "164167",
"rank": 39,
"score": 88515
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: When it comes down to it, long-term investments pay better than short-term ones. If nothing else, there's less administration and less financial risk for the provider. That's why 2, 3 or 5 year savings accounts pay better than instant access ones. Higher-risk investments pay more interest (or dividends) than low-risk ones. They have to, or nobody would invest in them. So by locking yourself out of any long term and/or risky investments, you're stuck with a choice of low-interest short term ones. There are plenty of investment funds that you can sell at short notice if you want to. But they are volatile, and if you cash out at the wrong time, you can get back less than you invested. The way you lower risk is either to invest in a fund that covers a broad range of investments, or invest in several different funds.",
"qid": 10213,
"docid": "140206",
"rank": 40,
"score": 88381
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The expense fees are high, and unfortunate. I would stop short of calling it criminal, however. What you are paying for with your expenses is the management of the holdings in the fund. The managers of the fund are actively, continuously watching the performance of the holdings, buying and selling inside the fund in an attempt to beat the stock market indexes. Whether or not this is worth the expenses is debatable, but it is indeed possible for a managed fund to beat an index. Despite the relatively high expenses of these funds, the 401K is still likely your best investment vehicle for retirement. The money you put in is tax deductible immediately, your account grows tax deferred, and anything that your employer kicks in is free money. Since, in the short term, you have little choice, don't lose a lot of sleep over it. Just pick the best option you have, and occasionally suggest to your employer that you would appreciate different options in the future. If things don't change, and you have the option in the future to rollover into a cheaper IRA, feel free to take it.",
"qid": 10213,
"docid": "30159",
"rank": 41,
"score": 88330
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If your budget allows for it, max out both plans! However, in my opinion, you're on the right path: The advantage of also contributing to the Roth 401(k) in this case would be: This second point is the main reason that you should also invest in a 401(k), using that as a retirement savings vehicle alongside your Roth IRA. One caveat is that you should ensure that you'll have sufficient savings so that you won't need to dip into either plan - it'd be a shame to reduce the investment base from which you can grow your savings tax free. Personally, I'd view my contributions in the Roth IRA as an emergency fund to be used only in the direst circumstances.",
"qid": 10213,
"docid": "424841",
"rank": 42,
"score": 88017
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you are going to live in the house for awhile, you can probably use a regular mortgage. Shop around and look for a mortgage program that works. Look at local banks/credit unions, particularly those with community development programs. Usually an investment mortgage is higher rate, higher payment and has higher underwriting standards.",
"qid": 10213,
"docid": "172722",
"rank": 43,
"score": 87992
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You have a comparatively small sum to invest, and since you're presumably expecting to go to college.university soon, where you may well need the money, you also have a short timescale for your investment. I don't think anything stock-related would be good for you -- you need a longer timescale for stock market investments, at least five years and preferably ten or more. I don't know the details of Australian savings, but I'd suggest just finding a bank that is giving a good interest rate for a one-year fixed-term savings account.",
"qid": 10213,
"docid": "154508",
"rank": 44,
"score": 87844
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You're being too hard on yourself. You've managed to save quite a bit, which is more than most people ever do. You're in a wonderful position, actually -- you have savings and time! You don't mention how long you want/need to continue working, but I'll assume 20 years or so? You don't have to invest it all at once. Like Pete B says, index funds (just read what Mr. Buffett said in recent news: he'd tell his widow to invest in the S&P 500 Index and not Berkshire Hathaway!) should be a decent percentage. You can also pick a target fund from any of the major investment firms (fees are higher than an Index, but it will take care of any asset allocation decisions). Put some in each. Also look at retirement accounts to take advantage of tax-deferred or tax-free growth, but that's another question and country-specific. In any case, don't even blink when the market goes down. And it will go down. If you're still working, earning, and saving, it'll just be another opportunity to buy more at lower prices. As for the house, no reason you can't invest and save for a house. Invest some for the long term and set aside the rest for the house in 1-5 years. If you don't think you'll ever really buy the house, though, invest the majority of it for the long-term: I have a feeling from the tone of your question that you tend to put off the big financial decisions. So if you won't really buy the house, just admit it to yourself now!",
"qid": 10213,
"docid": "123718",
"rank": 45,
"score": 87792
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Couple of factors here to consider: 1) The savings vehicle 2) The investments Savings Vehicle: Roth IRAs allow you the flexibility to save for retirement and/or your house. Each person can save up to $5,500 in a Roth and you can withdraw your principal at anytime without penalty. (There is a special clause for first time home buyers; however, it limits the amount to $10k per person. Given your estimate of $750k and history of putting down 20%. It would require a bit more.) The only thing is that you can't touch the growth or interest. When you do max out your Roth IRA, it may make sense for you to open a brokerage account (401Ks often have multiple steps in order to convert or withdraw money for your down payment) Investments: Given your timeline (5-7 years) your investments would be more conservative. (More fixed income) While you should stay diversified (both fixed income and equity), the conservative portfolio will allow less fluctuation in your portfolio value while allowing some growth potential.",
"qid": 10213,
"docid": "232930",
"rank": 46,
"score": 87653
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"What you're asking for is a short-term, large return investment. When looking for big returns in a short period of time, risk is inevitable. The more risk you are willing to assume, the higher your potential returns. Of course, the flip is is that the higher your risk, the higher the potential to lose all your money! Since this is an exercise for school (and not real money and not your life savings) your best bet is to \"\"go big or go home\"\". You can safely assume 100% risk! Don't look for value stocks, dividend stocks, or anything that pays a steady return over a long period of time. Instead, look for something risky that has the potential of going up, up, up in the next few months. Are you allowed to trade options in your fake portfolio? Options can have big risk and big reward potential. Penny stocks are super volatile, too. Do some research, look for a fad. In other words, you will most likely lose it all. But you get a little lucky, you could win this thing outright by making some risky investments. A 5% chance of winning $3000 vs 95% of going broke may be pretty good odds if everyone else is value investing for just a few months. You will need to get lucky. Go big or go home!\"",
"qid": 10213,
"docid": "102029",
"rank": 47,
"score": 87274
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"An investment in knowledge always pays the best interest, as Ben Franklin said. However, this is not a question I can answer for you, as it depends on the opportunities that are specifically available to you as an individual. Sometimes opportunities will knock on your door and you can take advantage, other times you have to create that door to allow opportunities to knock. Maybe you have a friend that is opening a side business, maybe there is a class you can get into at a trivial cost. What I suggest is to start investing just to get into the habit of it, not so much for the returns. Before you do, however, any financial advisor will advise you to begin with a emergency fund, worth about 3-6 months of your expenses for that time. I wanted to hit the ground running and start investing in stocks, but first things first I guess. \"\"Millionaire Next Door\"\" will help you get into a saving mindset, \"\"I will teach you to be rich\"\" is ok, plenty of other books. My advice is keep doing what you're doing, learn to start saving, and once you have obtained an emergency fund of the amount of your choosing, start looking to invest in Index Funds or ETFs through any platform that has LOW FEES!! I use Betterment, but Vanguard is good too, as they allow you to get your feet wet and it's passive. Hope this helps.\"",
"qid": 10213,
"docid": "339553",
"rank": 48,
"score": 86582
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Explain that you are looking for work that is more fast paced than what you are currently doing. You are obviously very smart and probably good with people as you are on a leadership type career path. If you find you don't have the network to talk to people in the industry, or are concerned about your lack of financial background, you may want to look at the CFA. Although not really quantitative, it would show your commitment to the investment profession, and you could join your local CFA Chapter.",
"qid": 10213,
"docid": "159134",
"rank": 49,
"score": 86471
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"If you are like most people, your timing is kind of awful. What I mean by most, is all. Psychologically we have strong tendencies to buy when the market is high and avoid buying when it is low. One of the easiest to implement strategies to avoid this is Dollar Cost Averaging. In most cases you are far better off making small investments regularly. Having said that, you may need to \"\"save\"\" a bit in order to make subsequent investments because of minimums. For me there is also a positive psychological effect of putting money to work sooner and more often. I find it enjoyable to purchase shares of a mutual fund or stock and the days that I do so are a bit better than the others. An added benefit to doing regular investing is to have them be automated. Many wealthy people describe this as a key to success as they can focused on the business of earning money in their chosen profession as opposed to investing money they have already earned. Additionally the author of I will Teach You to be Rich cites this as a easy, free, and key step in building wealth.\"",
"qid": 10213,
"docid": "24846",
"rank": 50,
"score": 86440
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I think, generally speaking, people who say things like that don't have a firm grasp of their finances. On the other hand, if you take a mortgage as a vehicle for leveraged investment the interest can pay for itself in gains made elsewhere. Paying mortgage interest is otherwise only good for the banks, but our system reinforces the idea that everyone should be in debt instead of profiting from their capital.",
"qid": 10213,
"docid": "45683",
"rank": 51,
"score": 86321
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Comparing retirement savings to ordinary investment is not an apples-to-apples comparison - retirement savings are savings for retirement - if you want to invest in things now and live off of (or reinvest) those earnings, then retirement accounts are not the right vehicle. That said, here are some benefits of the main types of retirement accounts: Benefits of a 401(k): Benefits of a tratitional IRA: Benefits of a ROTH 401(k): Benefits of a ROTH IRA: (the benefits above are not exhaustive, there are other benefits such as using a ROTH IRA for higher ed. expenses, etc. but those are the highlights) If you have a plan for how you hope to use the money now rather than later does it make sense to hold onto it? If your plan is meant to provide income at retirement, and earns returns higher than the returns plus matches and tax benefits you get from retirement accounts, then yes, it may make more sense, but those benefits are generally very hard to beat. Plus, having the money locked away in an account that is painful to tap can be a good thing - you're less tempted to use that money for foolish decisions (which everyone makes at some point).",
"qid": 10213,
"docid": "195515",
"rank": 52,
"score": 86315
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: **I would encourage you to clear all your debts and remain debt free, then you can consult a financial manager-for investing purposes that fits your needs and goals. There are so many investment vehicles out, but the best of all is in real estate which requires lots of money. For your case I would prefer money market funds. If don't have time for a specialist you just walk into any stock broker and invest in those shares from well established companies with strong fundamentals. Buy them when undervalued but with long term goals. Ask the stock broker about bonds and other ways that the government purposes for domestic borrowings. Etc.",
"qid": 10213,
"docid": "331623",
"rank": 53,
"score": 86185
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I think \"\"optimal\"\" is a term that needs to be better qualified - what's optimal investment for one person is not necessary optimal for another, as it depends on the investor's time horizon, risk tolerance, and investment knowledge. I would personally put fix-income (or products that generates incomes that CRA considers as \"\"interest\"\") products in the TFSA so the gains aren't taxed at all. I would consider putting preferred shares in this account as well, since dividend incomes are taxed higher than capital gain and preferred shares don't usually change in price unless the company's ability to pay the dividends are in-doubt. I don't want to put common equities in TFSA as that would take away your ability to leverage past losses to reduce future capital gains. If you are using TFSA as a way to accelerate saving for a near-term purchase, then you definitely want to employ fix-income products as the underlying saving vehicle, since market volatility would be your enemy (unless you are feeling very lucky). If you are using TFSA as a way to supplement your registered retirement saving account, then you can treat it the same way you would invest in your RRSP.\"",
"qid": 10213,
"docid": "176885",
"rank": 54,
"score": 86138
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: At your age (heck, at MY age :-)) I would not think about doing any of those types of investments (not savings) on your own, unless you are really interested in the investment process for its own sake, and are willing to devote a lot of time to investigating companies in order to try to pick good investments. Instead, find a good mutual fund from say Vanguard or TRP, put your money in there, and relax. Depending on your short-term goals (e.g. will you expect to need the money for college?) you could pick either an index fund, or a low-risk, mostly bond fund.",
"qid": 10213,
"docid": "269671",
"rank": 55,
"score": 86100
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Think about it. IF you save $15K by buying a Honda or a Mazda, you can invest those money at modest 5% average, you'll have over 60K before you retire, which allows you to retire at least a year earlier.... So it is worth working an extra year in your life to have a fancier car? And that's a conservative investment.",
"qid": 10213,
"docid": "507875",
"rank": 56,
"score": 85750
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I don't think there exists a guaranteed 5% investment vehicle. You have to decide how much risk you're willing to take. Splitting your $200k between CD's and stocks (or whatever higher yield investment vehicle you've found) is a way to get a higher rate without risking it all. For example if you've got a CD at 3%, and let's say best case is 10% average annual return on stocks, after 10 years here are potential results using various splits from 100% CD to 100% stock: The best case based on 10% average stock return and 3% CD return is the Total line for each split, the worst-case would be the CD amount only. Reality could be almost anywhere, but not below the CD amount.",
"qid": 10213,
"docid": "507755",
"rank": 57,
"score": 85702
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: 529 is good. Though, I would avoid other kinds of investments in kids names and or setting up accounts that are too complex or difficult to use as college costs will come in may aspects starting application fees and travel expenses when looking for college as well as housing and allowance spending.",
"qid": 10213,
"docid": "93219",
"rank": 58,
"score": 85504
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: It's really not possible to know what your best investment strategy is without knowing more about you, which isn't the place of a site like this. However I'll make some general comments about insurance policies as savings. Insurance policies are extremely inflexible. They lay down specific payments, and specific returns that you will get back. However typically if you don't follow the shcedule of payments laid down, you will lose almost all the benefit of the investment. Since you say you are a beginner, I'll assume you are young too. Maybe in a few years you will want to buy a house, or a nice car, or get married, or put money into some other investment opportunity. If you are committed to making insurance policy payments you will have less available for the other things you want to do. Related to this is the 'estimated returns'. You say the 'nonguaranteed bonus is around 3.75%-5.25%'. But because an insurance policy locks you in, if it turns out that it's the low end of that - or worse - you can't get out, even if other investments are outperforming it.",
"qid": 10213,
"docid": "207391",
"rank": 59,
"score": 85426
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Full payment is always better than auto-loan if you are prudent with finances. I.E if you take a loan, you are factoring the EMI hence your savings will remain as is. However if you manage well, you can buy the car with cash and at the same time put aside the notional EMI as savings and investments. The other factor to consider is what return your cash is giving. If this more than auto-loan interest rate post taxes, you should opt for loan. For example if auto-loan is 10% and you are getting a return of 15% after taxes on investment then loan is better. Company Car lease depends on terms. More often you get break on taxes on the EMI component. But you have to buy at the end of lease period and re-register the car in your name, so there is additional cost. Some companies give lease at very favourable rates. Plus if you leave the job lease has to be broken and it becomes more expensive.",
"qid": 10213,
"docid": "179891",
"rank": 60,
"score": 85372
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The advice to \"\"Only invest what you can afford to lose\"\" is good advice. Most people should have several pots of money: Checking to pay your bills; short term savings; emergency fund; college fund; retirement. When you think about investing that is the funds that have along lead time: college and retirement. It is never the money you need to pay your bills. Now when somebody is young, the money they have decided to invest can be in riskier investments. You have time to recover. Over time the transition is made to less risky investments because the recovery time is now limited. For example putting all your college savings for your recent high school graduate into the stock market could have devastating consequences. Your hear this advice \"\"Only invest what you can afford to lose\"\" because too many people ask about hove to maximize the return on the down payment for their house: Example A, Example B. They want to use vehicles designed for long term investing, for short term purposes. Imagine a 10% correction while you are waiting for closing.\"",
"qid": 10213,
"docid": "237189",
"rank": 61,
"score": 85264
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Your approach sounds solid to me. Alternatively, if (as appears to be the case) then you might want to consider devoting your tax-advantaged accounts to tax-inefficient investments, such as REITs and high-yield bond funds. That way your investments that generate non-capital-gain (i.e. tax-expensive) income are safe from the IRS until retirement (or forever). And your investments that generate only capital gains income are safe until you sell them (and then they're tax-cheap anyway). Of course, since there aren't really that many tax-expensive investment vehicles (especially not for a young person), you may still have room in your retirement accounts after allocating all the money you feel comfortable putting into REITs and junk bonds. In that case, the article I linked above ranks investment types by tax-efficiency so you can figure out the next best thing to put into your IRA, then the next, etc.",
"qid": 10213,
"docid": "586756",
"rank": 62,
"score": 85240
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: First of all, make sure you have all your credit cards paid in full -the compounding interests on those can zero out returns on any of your private investments. Fundamentally, there are 2 major parts of personal finance: optimizing the savings output (see frugal blogs for getting costs down, and entrepreneur sites for upping revenues), and matching investment vehicles to your particular taste of risk/reward. For the later, Fool's 13 steps to invest provides a sound foundation, by explaining the basics of stocks, indexes, long-holding strategy, etc. A full list Financial instruments can be found on Wikipedia; however, you will find most of these to be irrelevant to your goals listed above. For a more detailed guide to long-term strategies on portfolio composition, I'd recommend A Random Walk Down Wall Street: The Time-tested Strategy for Successful Investing. One of the most handy charts can be found in the second half of this book, which basically outlines for a given age a recommended asset allocation for wealth creation. Good luck!",
"qid": 10213,
"docid": "30825",
"rank": 63,
"score": 85209
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"If by \"\"investment\"\" you mean something that pays you money that you can spend, then no. But if you view \"\"investment\"\" as something that improves your balance sheet / net worth by reducing debt and reducing how much money you're throwing away in interest each month, then the answer is definitely yes, paying down debt is a good investment to improve your overall financial condition. However, your home mortgage might not be the first place to start looking for pay-downs to save money. Credit cards typically have much higher interest rates than mortgages, so you would save more money by working on eliminating your credit card debt first. I believe Suze Orman said something like: If you found an investment that paid you 25% interest, would you take it? Of course you would! Paying down high interest debt reduces the amount of interest you have to pay next month. Your same amount of income will be able to go farther, do more because you'll be paying less in interest. Pay off your credit card debt first (and keep it off), then pay down your mortgage. A few hundred dollars in extra principal paid in the first few years of a 30 year mortgage can remove years of interest payments from the mortgage term. Whether you plan to keep your home for decades or you plan to move in 10 years, having less debt puts you in a stronger financial position.\"",
"qid": 10213,
"docid": "290434",
"rank": 64,
"score": 85087
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Yes. The investment world is extremely fast-paced and competitive. There are loads of professional traders with supercomputers working day in and day out to make smarter, faster trade decisions than you. If you try to compete with them, there’s a better than fair chance you’ll lose precious time and money, which kind of defeats the purpose. A good wealth manager: In short, they can save you time and money and help you take the most advantage of your current savings. Or, you can think about it in terms of cost. Most wealth managers charge an annual fee (as a % of the amount invested) for their services. This fee can range anywhere from close to zero, to 0.75% depending upon how sophisticated the strategy is that the money will be invested in, and what kind of additional services they have to offer. Investing in the S&P500 on the behalf of the investor shouldn’t need a fee, but investing in a smart beta or an alpha strategy, that generates returns independent of the market’s movement and certainly commands a fee. But how does one figure if that fee is justified? It is really simple. What is the risk-adjusted performance of the strategy? What is the Sharpe ratio? Large successful funds like Renaissance Technologies and Citadel can charge 3% in addition to 30% of profits because even after that their returns are much better than the market. I have this rule of thumb for money-management fees that I am willing to pay:",
"qid": 10213,
"docid": "31574",
"rank": 65,
"score": 85032
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"What do you think is a reasonable rate of return? A reasonable rate really breaks down into three things: opportunity cost, what you need, and risk appetite. Opportunity cost comes into play because whatever returns you make should at least exceed, after expenses, the next best option. Typically the \"\"next best option\"\" is the risk free return you can get somewhere else, which is typically a savings account or some other (safe) investment vehicle (e.g. a guaranteed investment certificate/GIC, bonds, etc). But, this opportunity cost could also be an alternative investment (e.g. an index ETF), which is not necessarily risk free (but it may represent the next best option). Risk appetite comes down to the amount of risk you are willing to take on any investment, and is completely subjective. This is typically \"\"how much can you sleep with losing\"\" amount. What you need is the most subjective element. All things being equal (e.g. identical risk profiles, access to same next-best-thing to invest in), if your cost of living expenses are only expected to go up 2% per year, but mine are expected to go up 3% per year, then my reasonable rate of return must exceed 3%, but yours must only exceed 2%. That said, an appropriate return is whatever works for you, period. Nobody can tell you otherwise. For your own investing, what you can do is measure yourself against a benchmark. E.g. if your benchmark is the S&P 500, then the S&P 500 SPDR ETF is your opportunity cost (e.g. what you would have made if you didn't do your own investing). In that way, you are guaranteed the market return (caveat: the market return is not guaranteed to be positive). As an aside.. Don't ever, ever, ever let someone else handle your money, unless you want somebody else have your money. There is nothing wrong with letting someone else handle your money, provided you can live with the triple constraint above. Investing takes time and effort, and time and effort equals opportunity. If you can do something better with the time and effort you would spend to do your own investing, then by all means, do it. Think about it: if you have to spend 1 day a month managing your own investments, but that day costs you $100 in foregone income (e.g. you are a sole proprietor, so every day is a working day), that is $1,200 per year. But if you can find an investment advisor who will manage your books for you, and costs you only $500 per year, what is the better investment? If you do it yourself, you are losing $1,200. If you pay someone, you are losing $500. Clearly, it is cheaper to outsource. Despite what everyone says, not everyone can be an investor. Not everyone wants to live with the psychological, emotional, and mental effort of looking up stocks, buying them, and then second guessing themselves; they are more than happy to pay someone to do that (which also lets them point the finger at that person later, if things go sideways).\"",
"qid": 10213,
"docid": "554237",
"rank": 66,
"score": 85029
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Your attitude is great, but be careful to temper your (awesome) ambition with a dose of reality. Saving is investing is great, the earlier the better, and seeing retirement at a young age with smooth lots of life's troubles; saving is smart and we all know it. But as a college junior, be honest with yourself. Don't you want to screw around and play with some of that money? Your first time with real income, don't you want to blow it on a big TV, vacation, or computer? Budget out those items with realistic costs. See the pros and cons of spending that money keeping in mind the opportunity cost. For example, when I was in college, getting a new laptop for $2000 (!) was easily more important to me than retirement. I don't regret that. I do regret buying my new truck too soon and borrowing money to do it. These are judgment calls. Here is the classic recipe: Adjust the numbers or businesses to your personal preferences. I threw out suggestions so you can research them and get an idea of what to compare. And most importantly of all. DO NOT GET INTO CREDIT CARD DEBT. Use credit if you wish, but do not carry a balance.",
"qid": 10213,
"docid": "480402",
"rank": 67,
"score": 84686
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I haven't read the book and have no intention of reading it. This definitely looks like a forced savings plan with \"\"Whole Life Insurance\"\" as the theme – which is pretty bad for someone who is able to take care of his finances. It would be good for someone who is not very good with his finances and wants to be forced into savings, but then even for those people it would only help a little; there are enough clauses that would make things more bad for him. i.e. one can choose to take a loan, pay only interest etc. No book is going to help you build a savings habit. One has to realize and spend what is essential (it means not buying or doing tons of things) and putting quite a bit away for a rainy day. After this, comes investing wisely...\"",
"qid": 10213,
"docid": "340371",
"rank": 68,
"score": 84572
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: First off, I would question why do you need a LI policy? While you may be single are you supporting anyone? If not, and you have some money saved to cover a funeral; or, your next of kin would be able to pay for final expenses then you probably don't have a need. In, general, LI is a bad investment vehicle. I do not know hardly anything about the Indian personal finance picture, but here in the US, agents tout LI as a wonderful investment. This can be translated as they make large commissions on such products. Here in the US one is far better off buying a term product, and investing money elsewhere. I image it is similar in India. Next time if you want to help a friend, listen to his sales presentation, give some feedback, and hand him some cash. It is a lot cheaper in the long run.",
"qid": 10213,
"docid": "462440",
"rank": 69,
"score": 84307
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: For an investment to appreciate in value, one of two things needs to happen: 1) Demand for that particular item needs to increase. 2) The supply of that item needs to decrease. Houses are good because everyone needs a place to live, but there is a finite amount of land. No matter how much you invest in Manhatten real estate, Manhatten ain't growin'. The trick there is to find an area that people are going to want to live in when you're ready to sell. Specific vintages of wines and spirits are another good example, because it's literally impossible to create more of that vintage. Cars, and most consumer goods, usually don't appreciate because they don't last long enough. Most cars are resold within three to five years after the initial purchase. This is also why jewelry is a good investment; properly cared for, it can last centuries without wearing out. So, look for something durable that has a limited supply.",
"qid": 10213,
"docid": "271883",
"rank": 70,
"score": 84228
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The power of compounding interest and returns is an amazing thing. Start educating yourself about investing, and do it -- there are great Q&As on this site, numerous books (I recommend \"\"The Intelligent Investor\"\", tools for small investors (like Sharebuilder.com) and other resources out there to get you started. Your portfolio doesn't need to include every dime you have either. But you do need to develop the discipline to save money -- even if that savings is $20 while you're in school. How you split between cash/deposit account savings and other investment vehicles is a decision that needs to make sense to you.\"",
"qid": 10213,
"docid": "213435",
"rank": 71,
"score": 83887
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The big benefit of a health savings account is the savings aspect. HSAs let you save up and invest money for your health care expenses. You don't just pay for medical care with pretax dollars - you get to invest those pretax dollars (possibly until you've retired). If you can afford to put money in the plan now, this can be a pretty good deal, especially if you're in a high tax bracket and expect to remain there after retirement. There are a lot of obnoxious limitations and restrictions, and there's political risk to worry about between now and when you spend the money (mostly uncertainty about what the heck the health insurance system will look like after the fight over ObamaCare and its possible repeal.)",
"qid": 10213,
"docid": "130995",
"rank": 72,
"score": 83699
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Pretty simple: When is Cash Value Life Insurance a good or bad idea? It is never a good idea. How can life insurance possibly work as investment? It can't. Just as car, home, or health insurance is not an investment. Note for counter example providers: intent to commit insurance fraud is not an investment. Why not live your life so in 15 or 20 years you are debt free, have a nice emergency fund built and have a few 100 thousand in investments? Then you can self-insure. If you die with a paid off home, no debt, 20K in a money market, and 550,000 in retirement accounts would your spouse and children be taken care of?",
"qid": 10213,
"docid": "218484",
"rank": 73,
"score": 83556
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"There's several approaches to the stock market. The first thing you need to do is decide which you're going to take. The first is the case of the standard investor saving money for retirement (or some other long-term goal). He already has a job. He's not really interested in another job. He doesn't want to spend thousands of hours doing research. He should buy mutual funds or similar instruments to build diversified holdings all over the world. He's going to have is money invested for years at a time. He won't earn spectacular amazing awesome returns, but he'll earn solid returns. There will be a few years when he loses money, but he'll recover it just by waiting. The second is the case of the day trader. He attempts to understand ultra-short-term movements in stock prices due to news, rumors, and other things which stem from quirks of the market and the people who trade in it. He buys a stock, and when it's up a fraction of a percent half an hour later, sells it. This is very risky, requires a lot of attention and a good amount of money to work with, and you can lose a lot of money too. The modern day-trader also needs to compete with the \"\"high-frequency trading\"\" desks of Wall Street firms, with super-optimized computer networks located a block away from the exchange so that they can make orders faster than the guy two blocks away. I don't recommend this approach at all. The third case is the guy who wants to beat the market. He's got long-term aspirations and vision, but he does a lot more research into individual companies, figures out which are worth buying and which are not, and invests accordingly. (This is how Warren Buffett made it big.) You can make it work, but it's like starting a business: it's a ton of work, requires a good amount of money to get going, and you still risk losing lots of it. The fourth case is the guy who mostly invests in broad market indexes like #1, but has a little money set aside for the stocks he's researched and likes enough to invest in like #3. He's not going to make money like Warren Buffett, but he may get a little bit of an edge on the rest of the market. If he doesn't, and ends up losing money there instead, the rest of his stocks are still chugging along. The last and stupidest way is to treat it all like magic, buying things without understanding them or a clear plan of what you're going to do with them. You risk losing all your money. (You also risk having it stagnate.) Good to see you want to avoid it. :)\"",
"qid": 10213,
"docid": "150692",
"rank": 74,
"score": 83473
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: When you are saving for money you need in 5 years or less the only real option is a savings account. I know the return is nothing at this point, but if you cannot take the risk of losing all of your money that's the only thing I would recommend. Now you could try a good growth stock mutual fund if, when you look up in 2 - 3 years and you have lost money you wait it out until it grows enough to get what you lost back then buy your house. I would not do the second option because I wouldn't want to be stuck renting while waiting for the account to recover, and actually thinking about it that way you have more risk. 3 years from now if you have lost money and don't yet have enough saved you will have to continue paying rent, and no mutual fund will out preform that.",
"qid": 10213,
"docid": "82159",
"rank": 75,
"score": 83383
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Certainly reading the recommended answers about initial investing is a great place to start and I highly recommend reading though that page for sure, but I also believe your situation is a little different than the one described as that person has already started their long-term career while you are still a couple years away. Now, tax-advantaged accounts like IRAs are amazingly good places to start building up retirement funds, but they also lock up the money and have a number of rules about withdrawals. You have fifteen thousand which is a great starting pot of money but college is likely to be done soon and there will likely be a number of expenses with the transition to full-time employment. Moving expenses, first month's rent, nursing exams, job search costs, maybe a car... all of this can be quite a lot especially if you are in a larger city. It sounds like your parents are very helpful though which is great. Make sure you have enough money for that transition and emergency expenses first and if there is a significant pool beyond that then start looking at investments. If you determine now is the best time to start than then above question is has great advice, but even if not it is still well worth taking some time to understand investing through that question, my favorite introduction book on the subject and maybe even a college course. So when you land that first solid nursing job and get situated you can start taking full advantage of the 401K and IRAs.",
"qid": 10213,
"docid": "350669",
"rank": 76,
"score": 83286
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You can invest more that 20,000 in Infrastructure bonds, however the tax benefit is only on 20,000. Further the interest earned is taxable. The best guaranteed post tax returns is on PPF. So invest a substantial sum in this. As your age group low you can afford to take risk and hence could also look at investing in ELSS [Mutual Fund]. A note on each of these investments: LIC: If you have taken any of the endowment / Money Back plan, remember the returns are very low around 5-6%. It would make more sense to buy a pure term plan at fraction of the cost and invest the remaining premium into even PPF or FD that would give you more return. NSC/Postal Savings: They are a good option, however the interest is taxable. There is a locking of 6 years. PPF: The locking is large 15 years although one can do partial withdrawals after 7 years. The interest is not taxable. ULIP: These are market linked plans with Insurance and balance invested into markets. The charges for initial few years is quite high, plus the returns are not comparable to the normal Mutual Funds. Invest in this only if one needs less paper and doesn't want to track things separately. ELSS/Mutual Fund: These offer good market returns, but there is a risk of market. As you are young you can afford to take the risk. Most of the ELSS have given average results that are still higher than FD or PPF. Pension Plan: This is a good way to accumulate for retirement. Invest some small amount in this and do not take any insurance on it. Go for pure equity as you can still take the risk. This ensures that you have a kit for retirement. Check out the terms and conditions as to how you need to purchase annuity at the term end etc.",
"qid": 10213,
"docid": "93073",
"rank": 77,
"score": 83215
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: One possibility would be to invest in a crude oil ETF (or maybe technically they're an ETP), which should be easily accessible through any stock trading platform. In theory, the value of these investments is directly tied to the oil price. There's a list of such ETFs and some comments here. But see also here about some of the problems with such things in practice, and some other products aiming to avoid those issues. Personally I find the idea of putting all my savings into such a vehicle absolutely horrifying; I wouldn't contemplate having more than a small percentage of a much more well diversified portfolio invested in something like that myself, and IMHO it's a completely unsuitable investment for a novice investor. I strongly suggest you read up on topics like portfolio construction and asset allocation (nice introductory article here and here, although maybe UK oriented; US SEC has some dry info here) before proceeding further and putting your savings at risk.",
"qid": 10213,
"docid": "233732",
"rank": 78,
"score": 83157
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Do not borrow to invest in real estate. The interest payments will eat up most of your profit (the property management fees might eat up the rest), and you will have significant risk with tenant issues, property value, etc. Many people have made it work - many also lose everything. Real estate can be a great investment, but you can't even afford a house of your own yet, let alone investment property. Keep saving up until you have 20% down to buy a house of your own (ideally that you can put on a 15% fixed mortgage), and pay it off as quickly as you can. Then you can start saving for your first rental property. If that process isn't fast enough for you, you have two options. Increase your income or reduce your expenses. There's no shortcut to wealth-building without taking significant risks. At most I would scale back the 401(k) to the 5% match you get, but you should scale that back up once you have enough for a down payment.",
"qid": 10213,
"docid": "208783",
"rank": 79,
"score": 83026
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Currency speculation is a very risky investment strategy. But when you are looking for which currency to denote your savings in, looking at the unit value is quite pointless. What is important is how stable the currency is in the long term. You certainly don't want a currency which is prone to inflation, because it means any savings denoted in that currency constantly lose purchasing power. Rather look for a currency which has a very low inflation rate or is even deflating. Another important consideration is how easy it is to exchange between your local currency and the currency you want to own. A fortune in some exotic currency is worth nothing when no local bank will exchange it into your local currency. The big reserve currencies like US Dollar, Euro, Pound Sterling and Japanes yen are usually safe bets, but there are regional differences which can be easily converted and which can't. When the political relations between your country and the countries which manage these currencies is unstable, this might change over night. To avoid these problems, rather invest into a diverse portfolio of commodities and/or stocks. The value of these kinds of investments will automatically adjust to inflation rate, so you won't need to worry about currency fluctuation.",
"qid": 10213,
"docid": "42951",
"rank": 80,
"score": 82953
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The best way to invest 50k Indian rupees is in a 5 Year NSC(National Saving Certificate which can be obtained at the Post Office) yielding interest 8.1% p.a. (at present), which is more than the effective FDR interest rate offered by any bank in India. Investment in an NSC also permits a deduction u/s 80C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. So, investing in an NSC will save tax and get a higher return/benefit for your investment.",
"qid": 10213,
"docid": "175139",
"rank": 81,
"score": 82908
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Assuming you can understand and emotionally handle the volatility, a good indeed fund would be wise. These are low fee funds which perform as well as our better than most managed investments and since they don't cost as much, they typically out perform most other investment vehicles. The S&P 500 is traded as SPDR. Another option is the Dow Jones Industrial Average, which trades as DIA. Average returns over the long term are 10-12%. If you expect to need the money in the short term (5-8 years), you have a non trivial chance of needing to pull the money out when the market is down, so if that's unacceptable to you, choose something with a guarantee. If you're terrified of losing money in the short term, don't think you can handle waiting for the market to go up, especially when every news caster is crying hysterically that the End of Economic Life on Earth is here, then consider a CD at your bank. CDs return much lower rates (around 2% right now) but do not go down in value ever. However, you need to lock your money into them for months to years at a time. Some people might tell you to buy a bond fund. That's horrible advice. Bond funds get lower returns AND have no guarantee that you won't lose money on them, unlike aactual bonds. As you're new to investing, I encourage you to read \"\"The Intelligent Investor\"\" by Benjamin Gramm.\"",
"qid": 10213,
"docid": "11633",
"rank": 82,
"score": 82806
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I take it you have nearly zero expenses, since you don't mention any savings and with your income you wouldn't have much left over for investing. At your level of income, any actual investing is either going to unwisely reduce your cash available should you need it (such as investment in mutual funds, which often have minimum investment periods of 2-6 months or more to avoid fees), or cost you a high percentage of your income in commissions (stock trading). So, I wouldn't recommend investing at all — yet. I find Dave Ramsey's baby steps to be very good general money management advice. Here is how I would adapt the first three steps to your income and stage in life. Beyond this, Dave recommends saving for retirement, college (for kids) and paying off your house early. These things are a little beyond your stage in life, but it would be good to start thinking about them. For you, I recommend following DJClayworth's advice to \"\"invest in yourself\"\". Specifically, plan to get through college debt-free. Put away money so that you have a head start once you do have living expenses — save for a car, save money for rent, etc. so that you don't have to live month to month as most people do starting out. So, what this boils down to: Put away every cent you have, in a savings account.\"",
"qid": 10213,
"docid": "332938",
"rank": 83,
"score": 82778
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Dollar cost averaging is a great strategy to use for investment vehicles where you can't invest it in a lump sum. A 401K is perfect for this. You take a specific amount out of each paycheck and invest it either in a single fund, or multiple funds, or some programs let you invest it in a brokerage account so you can invest in virtually any mutual fund or stock. With annual or semi-annual re-balancing of your investments dollar cost averaging is the way to invest in these programs. If you have a lump sum to invest, then dollar cost averaging is not the best way to invest. Imagine you want to invest 10K and you want to be 50% bonds and 50% stocks. Under dollar cost averaging you would take months to move the money from 100% cash to 50/50 bonds/stocks. While you are slowly moving towards the allocation you want, you will spend months not in the allocation you want. You will spend way too long in the heavy cash position you were trying to change. The problem works the other way also. Somebody trying to switch from stocks to gold a few years ago, would not have wanted to stay in limbo for months. Obviously day traders don't use dollar cost averaging. If you will will be a frequent trader, DCA is not the way to go. No particular stock type is better for DCA. It is dependent on how long you plan on keeping the investment, and if you will be working with a lump sum or not. EDIT: There have be comments regarding DCA and 401Ks. When experts discuss why people should invest via a 401K, they mention DCA as a plus along with the company match. Many participants walk away with the belief that DCA is the BEST strategy. Many articles have been written about how to invest an inheritance or tax refund, many people want to use DCA because they believe that it is good. In fact in the last few years the experts have begun to discourage ever using DCA unless there is no other way.",
"qid": 10213,
"docid": "464264",
"rank": 84,
"score": 82609
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you just want to save for retirement, start with a financial planning book, like this one: http://www.amazon.com/Smart-Simple-Financial-Strategies-People/dp/0743269942 and here's my editorial on the investing part: http://blog.ometer.com/2010/11/10/take-risks-in-life-for-savings-choose-a-balanced-fund/ If you're thinking of spending time stock-picking or trading for fun, then there are lots of options. Web site: Morningstar Premium (http://morningstar.com) has very good information. They analyze almost all large-cap stocks and some small caps too, plus mutual funds and ETFs, and have some good general information articles. It doesn't have the sales-pitch hot-blooded tone of most other sites. Morningstar analyzes companies from a value investing point of view which is probably what you want unless you're day trading. Also they analyze funds, which are probably the most practical investment. Books: If you want to be competent (in the sense that a professional investor trying to beat the market or control risk vs. the market would be) then I thought the CFA curriculum was pretty good: However, this will quickly teach you how much is involved in being competent. The level 1 curriculum when I did it was 6 or 7 thick textbooks, equivalent to probably a college semester courseload. I didn't do level 2 or 3. I don't think level 1 was enough to become competent, it's just enough to learn what you don't know. The actual CFA charter requires all three levels and years of work experience. If you more want to dabble, then Benjamin Graham's The Intelligent Investor certainly isn't a bad place to start, but you'd also want to read some efficient markets stuff (Random Walk Down Wall Street, or something by Bogle, or The Intelligent Asset Allocator http://www.amazon.com/Intelligent-Asset-Allocator-Portfolio-Maximize/dp/0071362363, are some options). It wouldn't be bad to just read a textbook like http://www.amazon.com/Investments-Irwin-Finance-Zvi-Bodie/dp/0256146381 which would be the much-abridged version of the CFA level 1 stuff. If you're into day trading / charting, then I don't know much about that at all, some of the other answers may have some ideas. I've never been able to find info on this that didn't seem like it had a sketchy sales pitch kind of vibe. Honestly in a world of high-frequency trading computers I'm skeptical this is something to get into. Unless you want to program HFT computers: http://howtohft.wordpress.com/",
"qid": 10213,
"docid": "78249",
"rank": 85,
"score": 82400
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You are looking for r/personalfinance. But it'd probably be best to put your excess monies in a savings account, not worrying about 401k/retirement contributions until you get a full time job, post college. Don't listen to the pussies that will tell you to invest it in a vagaurd account or your 401k. The money is more important to you as an emergency fund you can access immediately. At most you'll see a 4-5% return on your meager savings, amounting to less than $100/year.",
"qid": 10213,
"docid": "235653",
"rank": 86,
"score": 82304
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"First of all, congratulations on saving some money. So many people these days do not even get that far. As far as investments, what is best for you depends heavily on your: Here is a quick summary of types of assets that are likely available to you, and my thoughts on why they may or may not be a good fit for your situation. Cash Equivalents Cash Equivalents are highly liquid, meaning you can get cash for them on fairly short notice. In particular, Money Markets and Certificates of Deposit (CDs) are also considered very safe when issued by a bank, as they are often insured against loss by the government up to a certain amount (this varies quite a lot by country within Europe, see the Wikipedia article here for additional detail. Please note that in the case of a CD, you are usually unable to get access to your money for the length of the investment period, which is usually a short period of time such as 3 months, 6 months, or 1 year. This is a good choice if you may need your money back on short notice, and your main goal is to preserve your principal. However, the returns tend to be very low and often do not keep pace with inflation, meaning that over several years, you may lose \"\"real\"\" purchasing power, even if you don't lose nominal value in your account. Special Note on Cash Equivalents If the money you want to invest is also your Emergency Fund, or you do not have an Emergency Fund, I would highly recommend Cash Equivalents. They will provide the highest level of Liquidity along with a short Time Horizon so that you can get your money as needed in the case of unforeseen expenses such as if your car breaks down. Debt Debt investments include government and corporate bonds. They are still considered relatively safe, as the issuer would need to default (usually this means they are in bankruptcy) in order for you not to be paid back. For example, German bonds have been considered safer than Greek bonds recently based on the underlying strength of the government. Unlike Cash Equivalents, these are not guaranteed against loss, which means that if the issuer defaults, you could lose up to 100% of your investment. Bonds have several new features you will need to consider. One is interest rate risk. One reason bonds perform better than cash equivalents is that you are taking on the risk that if interest rates rise, the fixed payments the bond promises will be worth less, and the face value of your bond will fall. While most bonds are still very Liquid, this means that if you need to sell the bond before it matures, you could lose money. As mentioned earlier, some bonds are riskier than others. Given that you are looking for a low-risk investment, you would want to select a bond that is considered \"\"invesment grade\"\" rather than a riskier \"\"junk\"\" bond. Debt investments are a good choice if you can afford to do without this money for a few years, and you want to balance safety with somewhat better returns than Cash Equivalents. Again though, I would not recommend investing in Debt until you have also built up a separate Emergency Fund. If you do choose to invest in bonds, I recommend that you diversify your risks by investing in a bond fund, rather than in just one company's or government's debt. This will reduce the likelihood that you will experience a catastrophic loss. Ownership Ownership assets includes stocks and other assets such as real estate and precious metals such as gold. While these investments can have high returns, in your situation I would strongly recommend that you not invest in these types of investments, for the following reasons: For these reasons, debt is considered a safer investment than equity for any particular company, government, or the market as a whole. Ownership assets are a good choice for people who have a high Risk Tolerance, long Time Horizon, low Liquidity needs, and will not be bothered by larger potential changes in the value of the investment at any given time. Special Note on Gold I would consider Gold a very risky investment and not a good fit for you at the moment based on what you've shared in your question. Gold is considered \"\"safe\"\" in the sense that people believe that if the economy goes into recession, depression, or collapses entirely, gold will continue to be valuable. In a post-apocalyptic world where paper money became worthless, it is still a good bet that gold will always be considered valuable within human society as a store of value. That being said, the price of gold fluctuates almost entirely based on how bad people think things are going to get. Think about the difference between gold and a company like Coca-Cola. Would you like to own 100% of Coca-Cola? Of course, because you know there is a very good chance that people will continue to spend money all over the world on their products. On the other hand, gold itself produces no products, no sales, no profits, and no cash flow. As such, if you buy gold, you are really making a speculative bet that gold will be in higher demand tomorrow than it is today. You are buying an asset (the gold) rather than part of a company's equity or debt that is designed to throw off payments to its investors in the form of bond payments or dividends. So, if people decide next year that things are improving, it is possible that gold could lose value, given that gold prices are at historically high levels. Gold could be a good choice for someone who has a large, well-diversified investment portfolio, and who is looking for a hedge to protect against inflation and other risks that they have taken on via their other investments. I hope that is helpful - best of luck in your choices. Let us know what you decide!\"",
"qid": 10213,
"docid": "285185",
"rank": 87,
"score": 82297
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Congratulations on deciding to save money and choosing to invest it. One thing to know about mutual funds including index funds is that they typically require a minimum investment of a few thousand dollars, $3000 being a typical amount, unless the investment is in an IRA in which case $1000 might be a minimum. In some cases, automated monthly investments of $50 or $100 might need to be set up if you are beginning with a small balance. There is nothing wrong with your approach. You now should go and look at the various requirements for specific index funds. The Fidelity and Vanguard families are good choices and both offer very low-cost index funds to choose from, but different funds can have different requirements regarding minimum investments etc. You also have a choice of which index you want to follow, the S&P 500 Index, MidCap Indexes, Small-Cap Indexes, Total Stock Market Indexes etc., but your choice might be limited until you have more money to invest because of minimum investment rules etc. Most important, after you have made your choice, I urge you to not look every day, or even every month, to see how your investment is doing. You will save yourself a lot of anxiety and will save yourself from making wrong decisions. Far too many investors ignore the maxim \"\"Buy Low, Sell High\"\" and pull money out of what should be long-term investments at the first flicker of a downturn and end up buying high and selling low. Finally, the time is approaching when most stock funds will be declaring dividends and capital gains distributions. If you invest now, you may end up with a paper profit on which you will have to pay taxes (in non-tax-advantaged accounts) on your 2012 tax return (this is called \"\"buying a dividend\"\"), and so you might want to spend some time investigating now, but actually make the investment in late December after your chosen fund has made its distributions (the date for this will be on the fund's web site) or in early 2013.\"",
"qid": 10213,
"docid": "376485",
"rank": 88,
"score": 82219
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"It makes no sense to spend money unnecessarily, just for the purpose of improving your credit score. You have to stop and ask yourself the question \"\"Why do I need a good credit score?\"\" Most of the time, the answer will be \"\"so I can get a lower interest rate on (ABC loan) in the future.\"\" However, if you spend hundreds or even thousands of dollars in the present, just so that you can save a few points on a loan, you're not going to come out ahead. The car question should be considered strictly in the context of transportation expenses: \"\"It cost me $X to get around last year using Lyft. If instead I owned a car, it would have cost me $Y for gas, insurance, depreciation, parking, etc.\"\" If you come out ahead and Y < X, then buy the car. Don't jump into an expensive vehicle (which is never a good investment) or get trapped into an expensive lease which will costs you many times more than the depreciation value of a decent used car, just so that you can save a few points on a mortgage. Your best option moving forward would be to pay off your student loans first, getting rid of that interest expense. Place the remainder in savings, then start to look at a budget. Setting aside a 20% down payment on a home is considered the minimum to many people, and if that is out of reach you might need to consider other neighborhoods (less than 400K!). If you're still concerned about your credit score, a good way to build that up (once you have a budget and spending under control) is to get a credit card with no annual fees. Start putting all of your expenses on the credit card (groceries, etc), and paying off the balance IN FULL every month. By spending only what you need to within a reasonable budget, and making payments on time and in full, your credit rating will begin to gradually improve. If you have a difficult time tracking your expenses or sticking to a budget, then there is potential for danger here, as credit cards are notorious for high interest and penalties. But by keeping it under control and putting the rest toward savings, you can begin to build wealth and put yourself in a much better financial position moving into the future.\"",
"qid": 10213,
"docid": "88942",
"rank": 89,
"score": 82167
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Money you need in the next year should not be invested. It should be in a cash-equivalent account such as a savings or money market account. You might be able to construct a CD ladder but it probably won't be worth the effort. If, per the comments, you don't mind returning back to work sooner than a year, then you could invest the money. You could, for instance, invest in stocks, bonds, and mutual funds which are generally quite liquid and can be sold at a moment's notice. They could drop quite dramatically with little notice, but still should be quickly salable. However you should definitely still keep enough in liquid savings to cover the period before you started working again. This includes the time to find a new job, start, and receive your first paycheck. But it also includes whatever time would be needed to extricate yourself from your current activity, e.g. if you are traveling, enough time to conclude your travels and get back to your home country. You would have to regularly sell a portion of your investments in advance so that your liquid savings account always contains at least the minimum amount above.",
"qid": 10213,
"docid": "446186",
"rank": 90,
"score": 82157
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: After retirement nobody want to get low on cash. So, the best way to stay safe is to make some investments. Compare the saving with regular expenses and invest the rest. You can put some money in short-term reserves such as bank accounts, market funds, and deposit certificates. You will not be able to make much money on it but, it will ensure the financing of at least two to three years. There’s no need to take the money out from stocks but, if the stocks are doing good and there is a possibility that there will be no further profits then you can think of taking them out otherwise leave it alone.",
"qid": 10213,
"docid": "541823",
"rank": 91,
"score": 81903
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: People in the United States in the mid-2000's thought that real estate was safe. Then they discovered that when the bubble burst the value of their house dropped 10 to 50%. Then they realized that they couldn't sell, even if they had the cash to make the lender whole. Some lost their houses to foreclosure, others walked away and took massive hits to their wealth and credit scores. When it is hard or impossible to sell, that means you can't move to where the jobs are. While it is possible to make money in real estate, treating your house as an investment vehicle means that you are putting not only all your eggs into one basket; you are also living in the basket. In general you should assume that all investment involves risk. So if you are trying to avoid all chances of losing money then the safest form of investment is via your bank account and government bonds. Your national government has a program to insure bank accounts, you need to understand the rules for that program, including types of accounts and amounts. You should also look into your national programs for retirement accounts, to make sure you are investing for the long term. Many people invest via the stock market or the bond market. These investments are not guaranteed, though there may be some protection for fraud. The more specific your investments (individual companies) the more time you need to invest in research and tracking. Many investors do so via mutual funds or Exchange Traded Funds, this involves less of a time investment because you are paying the management comp nay for the fund to do that research for all their investors.",
"qid": 10213,
"docid": "80033",
"rank": 92,
"score": 81857
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I've run into two lines of thinking on cars when the 0% option is offered. One is that you should buy the car with cash - always. Car debt is not usually considered \"\"good debt,\"\" as there is no doubt but that your car will depreciate. Unless something very odd happens or you keep the car to antique status (and it's a good one), you won't make money off of it. On the other hand, with 0% interest - if you qualify, and remember that dealer promotions aren't for everyone, just those who qualify - you can invest that money in a savings account, bonds, a mutual fund, or the stock market and theoretically make a lot more over the 5 years while paying down the car. In that case, you really only need to make sure you save enough to make the payment low enough for your comfort zone. Personally I prefer to not be making a car payment. Your personal comfort level may vary. Also, in terms of getting your money's worth a gently used car in good condition is miles better than a new car. Someone else took the hit on the \"\"drive it off the lot\"\" decline in price for you.\"",
"qid": 10213,
"docid": "429153",
"rank": 93,
"score": 81803
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Three things.... First, it sounds like you have gotten incredibly lucky. Maybe you were born into a stable family, and to date haven't had any major medical issues. I know you say likely retire, but what if god forbid you have something medically that comes up which wipes out your savings. What if your investments go south? There are many, many people who made similar choices such as you and it didn't work out for them. Why should they have to work until they are 70 when you get to retire at 40? Second, none of the things you mentioned happened in a vacuum. Society, and yes the government, has support systems in place that made all of this possible for you. Why should then you get to hoard all the wealth from making this possible for others while you get to pat yourself on the back for making \"\"good choices\"\". Third, maybe along the way your investments actually hurt society? Maybe that growing company was able to grow because they invested in a dirty technology, or outsourced a lot of jobs, or compromised peoples privacy in the name of profits. Why should you, just by the amount of your \"\"capital\"\" get to choose how to impact society while the workers at those companies and the people in the surrounding community don't. We are suppose to live in a democracy.....\"",
"qid": 10213,
"docid": "494844",
"rank": 94,
"score": 81774
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I disagree with the selected answer. There's no one rule of thumb and certainly not simple ones like \"\"20 cents of every dollar if you're 35\"\". You've made a good start by making a budget of your expected expenses. If you read the Mr. Money Mustache blogpost titled The Shockingly Simple Math Behind Early Retirement, you will understand that it is usually a mistake to think of your expenses as a fixed percentage of your income. In most cases, it makes more sense to keep your expenses as low as possible, regardless of your actual income. In the financial independence community, it is a common principle that one typically needs 25-30 times one's annual spending to have enough money to sustain oneself forever off the investment returns that those savings generate (this is based on the assumption of a 7% average annual return, 4% after inflation). So the real answer to your question is this: UPDATE Keats brought to my attention that this formula doesn't work that well when the savings rates are low (20% range). This is because it assumes that money you save earns no returns for the entire period that you are saving. This is obviously not true; investment returns should also count toward your 25-times annual spending goal. For that reason, it's probably better to refer to the blog post that I linked to in the answer above for precise calculations. That's where I got the \"\"37 years at 20% savings rate\"\" figure from. Depending on how large and small x and y are, you could have enough saved up to retire in 7 years (at a 75% savings rate), 17 years (at a 50% savings rate), or 37 years! (at the suggested 20% savings rate for 35-year olds). As you go through life, your expenses may increase (eg. starting a family, starting a new business, unexpected health event etc) or decrease (kid wins full scholarship to college). So could your income. However, in general, you should negotiate the highest salary possible (if you are salaried), use the 25x rule, and consider your life and career goals to decide how much you want to save. And stop thinking of expenses as a percentage of income.\"",
"qid": 10213,
"docid": "81343",
"rank": 95,
"score": 81747
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: First of all, I am sorry for your loss. At this time, worrying about money is probably the least of your concerns. It might be tempting to try to pay off all your debts at once, and while that would be satisfying, it would be a poor investment of your inheritance. When you have debt, you have to think about how much that debt is costing you to keep open. Since you have 0%APR on your student loan, it does not make sense to pay any more than the minimum payments. You may want to look into getting a personal loan to pay off your other personal debts. The interest rates for a loan will probably be much less than what you are paying currently. This will allow you to put a payment plan together that is affordable. You can also use your inheritance as collateral for the loan. Getting a loan will most likely give you a better credit rating as well. You may also be tempted to get a brand new sports car, but that would also not be a good idea at all. You should shop for a vehicle based on your current income, and not your savings. I believe you can get the same rates for an auto loan for a car up to 3 years old as a brand new car. It would be worth your while to shop for a quality used car from a reputable dealer. If it is a certified used car, you can usually carry the rest of the new car warranty. The biggest return on investment you have now is your employer sponsored 401(k) account. Find out how long it takes for you to become fully vested. Being vested means that you can leave your job and keep all of your employer contributions. If possible, max out, or at least contribute as much as you can afford to that fund to get employee matching. You should also stick with your job until you become fully vested. The money you have in retirement accounts does you no good when you are young. There is a significant penalty for early withdrawal, and that age is currently 59 1/2. Doing the math, it would be around 2052 when you would be able to have access to that money. You should hold onto a certain amount of your money and keep it in a higher interest rate savings account, or a money market account. You say that your living situation will change in the next year as well. Take full advantage of living as cheaply as you can. Don't make any unnecessary purchases, try to brown bag it to lunch instead of eating out, etc. Save as much as you can and put it into a savings account. You can use that money to put a down payment on a house, or for the security and first month's rent. Try not to spend any money from your savings, and try to support yourself as best as you can from your income. Make a budget for yourself and figure out how much you can spend every month. Don't factor in your savings into it. Your savings should be treated as an emergency fund. Since you have just completed school, and this is your first big job out of college, your income will most likely improve with time. It might make sense to job hop a few times to find the right position. You are much more likely to get a higher salary by changing jobs and employers than you are staying in the same one for your entire career. This generally is true, even if you are promoted at the by the same employer. If you do leave your current job, you would lose what your employer contributed if you are not vested. Even if that happened, you would still keep the portion that you contributed.",
"qid": 10213,
"docid": "340842",
"rank": 96,
"score": 81710
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Having more money than you know what to do with is a good problem to have. :) Congratulations on your early retirement! I'd say this is a good time to start learning about investing, because nobody will look after your money as well as you will. Fund managers and financial advisers may mean well, but they are just salespeople, paid commissions to promote their employers' products. Not that there's anything wrong with that; it's just that their interests are not aligned with yours. They get paid the same, whether you make or lose money. If you want to live off your investments you must invest in your financial education.",
"qid": 10213,
"docid": "554706",
"rank": 97,
"score": 81442
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I'm normally not a fan of partitioning investment money into buckets but your case may be the clearest case for it I've seen in awhile. Your income and saving is good and you have two clearly defined goals of retirement saving and saving for a house each with very different time frames ~30 years and 3-5 years respectively. For medium term money, like saving for a house, just building up cash is not actually a bad idea. This minimizes the chance that a market crash will happen at the same time you need to withdraw the money. However, given you have the means to take more risk a generally smarter scheme would be to invest much of the money in a broad liquid bond funds with a somewhat lower percentage in stocks and then reduce the amount of stock each year as you get closer even moving some into cash. This gives reasonable positive expected return while lowering the risk of having to sell during a crisis as the time to purchase gets shorter and shorter. The retirement money should be invested for the long term as usual. A majority in low-fee index stock funds/etfs is the standard advice for good reason.",
"qid": 10213,
"docid": "219563",
"rank": 98,
"score": 81425
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Annuities are usually not good deals. Commissions to the salesman can be as high as 9% of the initial premium. They're not scams, just not the best deals for most circumstances. Basically, these things are a combination of an investment vehicle and multiple insurance policies, including permanent insurance. The 8.2% \"\"return\"\" is the total cash value of the account, which your heirs get if you die.\"",
"qid": 10213,
"docid": "235700",
"rank": 99,
"score": 81400
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Diversity of risk is always a good idea. The cheapest equity-based investment (in terms of management costs) is some form of tracker or indexed fund. They're relatively low risk and worth putting in a fixed amount for long-term investment. I agree with Ngu Soon Hui, you're going to need a lot of cash if you decide to start your own business. You may have to cover a significant amount of time without an income and you don't want all your cash tied up. However, putting all your money into one business is not good risk management. Keep some savings where they can be a lifeline, should you need it.",
"qid": 10213,
"docid": "278197",
"rank": 100,
"score": 81098
}
] |
Understanding the T + 3 settlement days rule | [
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The T+3 \"\"rule\"\" relates only to accounting and not to trading. It does not prevent you from day trading. It simply means that the postings in you cash account will not appear until three business days after you have executed a trade. When you execute a trade and the order has been filled, you have all of the information you need to know the cash amounts that will hit your account three business days later. In a cash account, cash postings that arise from trading are treated as unsettled (for three days), but this does not mean that these funds are available for further trading. If you have $25,000 in your account on day 1, this does not mean that you will be able to trade more than $25,000 because your cash account has not yet been debited. Most cash accounts will include an item detailing \"\"Cash available for trading\"\". This will net out any unsettled business transacted. For example, if you have a cash account balance of $25,000 on day one, and on the same day you purchase $10,000 worth of shares, then pending settlement in your cash account you will only have $15,000 \"\"Cash available for trading\"\". Similarly, if you have a cash balance of $25,000 on day one, and on the same day you \"\"day trade\"\", purchasing $15,000 and selling $10,000 worth of shares, then you will have the net of $20,000 \"\"Cash available for trading\"\" ($20,000 = $25,000 - $15,000 + $10,000). If by \"\"prop account\"\" you mean an account where you give discretion to a broker to trade on your behalf, then I think the issues of accounting will be the least of your worries. You will need to be worried about not being fleeced out of your hard earned savings by someone far more interested in lining their own pockets than making money for you.\"",
"qid": 10246,
"docid": "176717",
"rank": 1,
"score": 177952
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I would think that a lot of brokers would put the restriction suggested in @homer150mw in place or something more restrictive, so that's the first line of answer. If you did get assigned on your short option, then (I think) the T+3 settlement rules would matter for you. Basically you have 3 days to deliver. You'll get a note from your broker demanding that you provide the stock and probably threatening to liquidate assets in your account to cover their costs if you don't comply. If you still have the long-leg of the calendar spread then you can obtain the stock by exercising your long call, or, if you have sufficient funds available, you can just buy the stock and keep your long call. (If you're planning to exercise the long call to cover the position, then you need to check with your broker to see how quickly the stock so-obtained will get credited to your account since it also has some settlement timeline. It's possible that you may not be able to get the stock quickly enough, especially if you act on day 3.) Note that this is why you must buy the call with the far date. It is your \"\"insurance\"\" against a big move against you and getting assigned on your short call at a price that you cannot cover. With the IRA, you have some additional concerns over regular cash account - Namely you cannot freely contribute new cash any time that you want. That means that you have to have some coherent strategy in place here that ensures you can cover your obligations no matter what scenario unfolds. Usually brokers put additional restrictions on trades within IRAs just for this reason. Finally, in the cash account and assuming that you are assigned on your short call, you could potentially could get hit with a good faith, cash liquidation, or free riding violation when your short call is assigned, depending on how you deliver the stock and other things that you're doing in the same account. There are other questions on that on this site and lots of information online. The rules aren't super-simple, so I won't try to reproduce them here. Some related questions to those rules: An external reference also on potential violations in a cash account: https://www.fidelity.com/learning-center/trading-investing/trading/avoiding-cash-trading-violations\"",
"qid": 10246,
"docid": "273142",
"rank": 2,
"score": 157325
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The T+3 settlement date only affects cash accounts. In a cash account, you need to wait until the T+3 settlement date for your funds to be available to make your next trade. But if you convert your cash account into a margin account, then you do not need to wait until the T+3 settlement date for your next trade - your broker will allow you to make another trade immediately.",
"qid": 10246,
"docid": "327080",
"rank": 3,
"score": 142797
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"This is the sad state of US stock markets and Regulation T. Yes, while options have cleared & settled for t+1 (trade +1 day) for years and now actually clear \"\"instantly\"\" on some exchanges, stocks still clear & settle in t+3. There really is no excuse for it. If you are in a margin account, regulations permit the trading of unsettled funds without affecting margin requirements, so your funds in effect are available immediately after trading but aren't considered margin loans. Some strict brokers will even restrict the amount of uncleared margin funds you can trade with (Scottrade used to be hyper safe and was the only online discount broker that did this years ago); others will allow you to withdraw a large percentage of your funds immediately (I think E*Trade lets you withdraw up to 90% of unsettled funds immediately). If you are in a cash account, you are authorized to buy with unsettled funds, but you can't sell purchases made on unsettled funds until such funds clear, or you'll be barred for 90 days from trading as your letter threatened; besides, most brokers don't allow this. You certainly aren't allowed to withdraw unsettled funds (by your broker) in such an account as it would technically constitute a loan for which you aren't even liable since you've agreed to no loan contract, a margin agreement. I can't be sure if that actually violates Reg T, but when I am, I'll edit. While it is true that all marketable options are cleared through one central entity, the Options Clearing Corporation, with stocks, clearing & settling still occurs between brokers, netting their transactions between each other electronically. All financial products could clear & settle immediately imo, and I'd rather not start a firestorm by giving my opinion why not. Don't even get me started on the bond market... As to the actual process, it's called \"\"clearing & settling\"\". The general process (which can generally be applied to all financial instruments from cash deposits to derivatives trading) is: The reason why all of the old financial companies were grouped on Wall St. is because they'd have runners physically carting all of the certificates from building to building. Then, they discovered netting so slowed down the process to balance the accounts and only cart the net amounts of certificates they owed each other. This is how we get the term \"\"bankers hours\"\" where financial firms would close to the public early to account for the days trading. While this is all really done instantly behind your back at your broker, they've conveniently kept the short hours.\"",
"qid": 10246,
"docid": "293389",
"rank": 4,
"score": 136102
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: According to Regulation T, you can make as many day trade (round trip) stock purchases using a cash account as long as you have the funds to cover each and every round trip sale. However, the funds generated from the sales cannot be used again to purchase new stocks until the settlement period (T-2 or T-3) is over. For example, say you have $10000 dollars in your cash account and no securities. You buy 1000 shares of XYZ stock in the morning at one dollar per share and you sell the stock 30 minutes later because it went up say by 50 cents. According to Regulation T, you cannot use the money generated from the sale of your 1000 shares until after the settlement date. However, you can use the remaining $9000 dollars in your account to execute other trades just as the first trade. You can do this as many times as you want as long as you have funds available to pay for the transaction the same day it's executed. The only thing to worry about and that isn't clear, is, what happens if you perform this action more than 3 times in a week? Does it mean that your cash account now becomes a margin account subject to margin account rules because you executed more than three round trip trades in a five day rolling period?",
"qid": 10246,
"docid": "367873",
"rank": 5,
"score": 132152
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Yes, there is a delay between when you buy a stock and when you actually take ownership of it. This is called the settlement period. The settlement period for US equities is T+2 (other markets have different settlement periods), meaning you don't actually become a shareholder of record until 2 business days after you buy. Conversely, you don't stop being a shareholder of record until 2 business days after you sell. Presumably at some point in the (far) future all public markets will move to same-day changes of ownership, at which point companies will stop making announcements of the form all shareholders of record as of September 22nd and will switch to announcements of the form all shareholders of record as of September 22nd at 13:00 UTC",
"qid": 10246,
"docid": "266767",
"rank": 6,
"score": 131166
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: That is the standard set by most securities exchanges: T+3 : trades complete three days after the bargain has been struck.",
"qid": 10246,
"docid": "156029",
"rank": 7,
"score": 127299
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: No, you cannot withdraw the money until settlement day. Some brokers will allow you to trade with unsettled funds, but you cannot withdraw it until it is settled. Think about it, when you buy stock you have to pay for them by T+3, so if you sell you actually don't receive the funds until T+3.",
"qid": 10246,
"docid": "109422",
"rank": 8,
"score": 125843
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: In India, in the money options get exercised automatically at the end of the day and is settled at T+1(Where T is expiry day). This means, the clearing house takes the closing price of the underlying security while calculating the amount that needs to be credited/debited to its members. Source: - http://www.nseindia.com/products/content/derivatives/equities/settlement_mechanism.htm",
"qid": 10246,
"docid": "505223",
"rank": 9,
"score": 120984
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The American \"\"Security Exchange Commission\"\" has imposed a rule upon all stock trading accounts. This rule is \"\"Regulation-T\"\". This rule specifies that stock trading accounts must be permitted three days after the termination of a trade to settle the account. This is just fancy lingo to justify the guarantee that the funds are either transferred out of your account to another persons (the person that made money), or the money flows into your account. A \"\"Day Trader's\"\" account avoids the hassle because you're borrowing money from your broker to trade with and circumvent Reg-T. It's technically not how long you hold the trade that determines if you're a day trader, or not. It's your accounts liquidity and your credit worthiness.\"",
"qid": 10246,
"docid": "340263",
"rank": 10,
"score": 119332
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Depends on your account. If you have a margin account, then you can \"\"withdraw\"\" the margin, and it will get paid off/settled on T+3. However if it's a cash account then you will most likely need to wait. Call your broker and ask, each broker has different rules.\"",
"qid": 10246,
"docid": "315205",
"rank": 11,
"score": 118316
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Securities clearing and settlement is a complex topic - you can start by browsing relevant Wikipedia articles, and (given sufficient quantities of masochism and strong coffee) progress to entire technical books. You're correct - modern trade settlement systems are electronic and heavily streamlined. However, you're never going to see people hand over assets until they're sure that payment has cleared - given current payment systems, that means the fastest settlement time is going to be the next business day (so-called T+1 settlement), which is what's seen for heavily standardized instruments like standard options and government debt securities. Stocks present bigger obstacles. First, the seller has to locate the asset being sold & make sure they have clear title to it... which is tougher than it might seem, given the layers of abstraction/virtualization involved in the chain of ownership & custody, complicated in particular by \"\"rehypothecation\"\" involved in stock borrowing/lending for short sales... especially since stock borrow/lending record-keeping tends to be somewhat slipshod (cf. periodic uproar about \"\"naked shorting\"\" and \"\"failure to deliver\"\"). Second, the seller has to determine what exactly it is that they have sold... which, again, can be tougher than it might seem. You see, stocks are subject to all kinds of corporate actions (e.g. cash distributions, spin-offs, splits, liquidations, delistings...) A particular topic of keen interest is who exactly is entitled to large cash distributions - the buyer or the seller? Depending on the cutoff date (the \"\"ex-dividend date\"\"), the seller may need to deliver to the buyer just the shares of stock, or the shares plus a big chunk of cash - a significant difference in settlement. Determining the precise ex-dividend date (and so what exactly are the assets to be settled) can sometimes be very difficult... it's usually T-2, except in the case of large distributions, which are usually T+1, unless the regulatory authority has neglected to declare an ex-dividend date, in which case it defaults to standard DTC payment policy (i.e. T-2)... I've been involved in a few situations where the brokers involved were clueless, and full settlement of \"\"due bills\"\" for cash distributions to the buyer took several months of hard arguing. So yeah, the brokers want a little time to get their records in order and settle the trade correctly.\"",
"qid": 10246,
"docid": "121465",
"rank": 12,
"score": 116072
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Brokerage firms must settle funds promptly, but there's no explicit definition for this in U.S. federal law. See for example, this article on settling trades in three days. Wikipedia also has a good write-up on T+3. It is common practice, however. It takes approximately three days for the funds to be available to me, in my Canadian brokerage account. That said, the software itself prevents me from using funds which are not available, and I'm rather surprised yours does not. You want to be careful not to be labelled a pattern day trader, if that is not your intention. Others can better fill you in on the consequences of this. I believe it will not apply to you unless you are using a margin account. All but certainly, the terms of service that you agreed to with this brokerage will specify the conditions under which they can lock you out of your account, and when they can charge interest. If they are selling your stock at times you have not authorised (via explicit instruction or via a stop-loss order), you should file a complaint with the S.E.C. and with sufficient documentation. You will need to ensure your cancel-stop-loss order actually went through, though, and the stock was sold anyway. It could simply be that it takes a full business day to cancel such an order.",
"qid": 10246,
"docid": "119161",
"rank": 13,
"score": 110841
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"In the United States, regulation of broker dealer credit is dictated by Regulation T, that for a non-margin account, 100% of a trade must be funded. FINRA has supplemented that regulation with an anti-\"\"free rider\"\" rule, Rule 4210(f)(9), which reads No member shall permit a customer (other than a broker-dealer or a “designated account”) to make a practice, directly or indirectly, of effecting transactions in a cash account where the cost of securities purchased is met by the sale of the same securities. No member shall permit a customer to make a practice of selling securities with them in a cash account which are to be received against payment from another broker-dealer where such securities were purchased and are not yet paid for. A member transferring an account which is subject to a Regulation T 90-day freeze to another member firm shall inform the receiving member of such 90-day freeze. It is only funds from uncleared sold equities that are prohibited from being used to purchase securities. This means that an equity in one's account that is settled can be sold and can be purchased only with settled funds. Once the amount required to purchase is in excess of the amount of settled funds, no more purchases can be made, so an equity sold by an account with settled funds can be repurchased immediately with the settled funds so long as the settled funds can fund the purchase. Margin A closed position is not considered a \"\"long\"\" or \"\"short\"\" since it is an account with one loan of security and one asset of security and one cash loan and one cash liability with the excess or deficit equity equal to any profit or loss, respectively, thus unexposed to the market, only to the creditworthiness of the clearing & settling chain. Only open positions are considered \"\"longs\"\" or \"\"shorts\"\", a \"\"long\"\" being a possession of a security, and a \"\"short\"\" being a liability, because they are exposed to the market. Since unsettled funds are not considered \"\"longs\"\" or \"\"shorts\"\", they are not encumbered by previous trades, thus only the Reg T rules apply to new and current positions. Cash vs Margin A cash account cannot purchase with unsettled funds. A margin account can. This means that a margin account could theoretically do an infinite amount of trades using unsettled funds. A cash account's daily purchases are restricted to the amount of settled funds, so once those are exhausted, no more purchases can be made. The opposite is true for cash accounts as well. Unsettled securities cannot be sold either. In summation, unsettled assets can not be traded in a cash account.\"",
"qid": 10246,
"docid": "271920",
"rank": 14,
"score": 108974
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: In India, as suggested above, short/long position can be taken either in F&O or Spot market. The F&O segment short/long can be kept open for appx. 3 months by taking position on the far contract. In intra-day/Spot market, usually the position has to be squared at the end of day or the broker will square it during expiry (forcibly). However, having said that, it is a broker specific feature, as per National Stock Exchange (NSE) or Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE) any transaction has to be settled at the end of T+2 days (T being the trade day). Some brokers allow intra-day positions to be open for T+1 or T+2 days as long as the margin is provided. This is a broker specific discretion as the actual settlement is on T+2 (or in some cases as the exchange specifies). So, in general, to short a stock for a longer time, F&O segment should be used.",
"qid": 10246,
"docid": "392037",
"rank": 15,
"score": 105884
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: During the settlement period, the buyer transfers payment to the seller and the seller transfers ownership to the buyer. This is really a holdover from the days when so much of stock trading was done by individual human traders, and computers were still not a huge part of the operation. Back then, paper tickets for trades exchanged hands, and the time period was actually 5 days, so 3 days is an improvement. A settlement period was necessary for everyone to figure out their trades and do what was necessary to make the settlements happen, so it was not always a quick process, mainly because of smaller trading firms that didn't have technology to help them along. Nowadays, technology makes settlements easy, and they usually occur at the end of the trading day. The trading firms sum up their trades, figure out who they owe, and send lump sum settlements to the counterparties to their trades. If anything, the 3-day period may just be used now to let parties verify trades before settling. I hope this helps. Good luck!",
"qid": 10246,
"docid": "370635",
"rank": 16,
"score": 102706
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: A lot of questions, but all it boils down to is: . Banks usually perform T+1 net settlements, also called Global Netting, as opposed to real-time gross settlements. That means they promise the counterparty the money at some point in the future (within the next few business days, see delivery versus payment) and collect all transactions of that kind. For this example say, they will have a net outflow of 10M USD. The next day they will purchase 10M USD on the FX market and hand it over to the global netter. Note that this might be more than one transaction, especially because the sums are usually larger. Another Indian bank might have a 10M USD inflow, they too will use the FX market, selling 10M USD for INR, probably picking a different time to the first bank. So the rates will most likely differ (apart from the obvious bid/ask difference). The dollar rate they charge you is an average of their rate achieved when buying the USD, plus some commission for their forex brokerage, plus probably some fee for the service (accessing the global netting system isn't free). The fees should be clearly (and separately) stated on your bank statement, and so should be the FX rate. Back to the second example: Obviously since it's a different bank handing over INRs or USDs (or if it was your own bank, they would have internally netted the incoming USDs with the outgoing USDs) the rate will be different, but it's still a once a day transaction. From the INRs you get they will subtract the average FX achieved rate, the FX commissions and again the service fee for the global netting. The fees alone mean that the USD/INR sell rate is different from the buy rate.",
"qid": 10246,
"docid": "105714",
"rank": 17,
"score": 102146
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Yes. I heard back from a couple brokerages that gave detailed responses. Specifically: In a Margin account, there are no SEC trade settlement rules, which means there is no risk of any free ride violations. The SEC has a FAQ page on free-riding, which states that it applies specifically to cash accounts. This led me to dig up the text on Regulation T which gives the \"\"free-riding\"\" rule in §220.8(c), which is titled \"\"90 day freeze\"\". §220.8 is the section on cash accounts. Nothing in the sections on margin accounts mentions such a settlement restriction. From the Wikipedia page on Free Riding, the margin agreement implicitly covers settlement. \"\"Buying Power\"\" doesn't seem to be a Regulation T thing, but it's something that the brokerages that I've seen use to state how much purchasing power a client has. Given the response from the brokerage, above, and my reading of Regulation T and the relevant Wikipedia page, proceeds from the sale of any security in a margin account are available immediately for reinvestment. Settlement is covered implicitly by margin; i.e. it doesn't detract from buying power. Additionally, I have personally been making these types of trades over the last year. In a sub-$25K margin account, proceeds are immediately available. The only thing I still have to look out for is running into the day-trading rules.\"",
"qid": 10246,
"docid": "364588",
"rank": 18,
"score": 101079
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: For margin, it is correct that these rules do not apply. The real problem becomes day trading funding when one is just starting out, broker specific minimums. Options settle in T+1. One thing to note: if Canada is anything like the US, US options may not be available within Canadian borders. Foreign derivatives are usually not traded in the US because of registration costs. However, there may be an exception for US-Canadian trade because one can trade Canadian equities directly within US borders.",
"qid": 10246,
"docid": "512984",
"rank": 19,
"score": 100746
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Because it takes 3 business days for the actual transfer of stock to occur after you buy or sell to the next owner, your cash is tied up until that happens. This is called the settlement period. Therefore, brokers offer \"\"margin\"\", which is a form of credit, or loan, to allow you to keep trading while the settlement period occurs, and in other situations unrelated to the presented question. To do this you need a \"\"margin account\"\", you currently have a \"\"cash account\"\". The caveat of having a retail margin account (distinct from a professional margin account) is that there is a limited amount of same-day trades you can make if you have less than $25,000 in the account. This is called the Pattern Day Trader (PDT) rule. You don't need $25k to day trade, you will just wish you had it, as it is easy to get your account frozen or downgraded to a cash account. The way around THAT is to have multiple margin accounts at different brokerages. This will greatly increase the number of same day trades you can make. Many brokers that offer a \"\"solution\"\" to PDT to people that don't have 25k to invest, are offering professional trading accounts, which have additional fees for data, which is free for retail trading accounts. This problem has nothing to do with: So be careful of the advice you get on the internet. It is mostly white noise. Feel free to verify\"",
"qid": 10246,
"docid": "402726",
"rank": 20,
"score": 98803
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Hello, I was curious if anyone had any insight as to why some mutual funds had different settlement dates than others. I've seen many funds that settle T+1 and some that are T+2 and yet others that are even longer than that. Just curious what is going on behind the scenes that could cause the variation in settlement times. I've looked on investopedia, my broker's website and other google related searches and couldn't find an answer. If anyone had a link or experience with this I would appreciate the information.",
"qid": 10246,
"docid": "449623",
"rank": 21,
"score": 95863
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The settlement date for any trade is the date on which the seller gets the buyer's money and the buyer gets the seller's product. In US equities markets the settlement date is (almost universally) three trading days after the trade date. This settlement period gives the exchanges, the clearing houses, and the brokers time to figure out how many shares and how many dollars need to actually be moved around in order to give everyone what they're owed (and then to actually do all that moving around). So, \"\"settling\"\" a short trade is the same thing as settling any other trade. It has nothing to do with \"\"closing\"\" (or covering) the seller's short position. Q: Is this referring to when a short is initiated, or closed? A: Initiated. If you initiate a short position by selling borrowed shares on day 1, then settlement occurs on day 4. (Regardless of whether your short position is still open or has been closed.) Q: All open shorts which are still open by the settlement date have to be reported by the due date. A: Not exactly. The requirement is that all short positions evaluated based on their settlement dates (rather than their trade dates) still open on the deadline have to be reported by the due date. You sell short 100 AAPL on day 1. You then cover that short by buying 100 AAPL on day 2. As far as the clearing houses and brokers are concerned, however, you don't even get into the short position until your sell settles at the end of day 4, and you finally get out of your short position (in their eyes) when your buy settles at the end of day 5. So imagine the following scenarios: The NASDAQ deadline happens to be the end of day 2. Since your (FINRA member) broker has been told to report based on settlement date, it would report no open position for you in AAPL even though you executed a trade to sell on day 1. The NASDAQ deadline happens to be the end of day 3. Your sell still has not settled, so there's still no open position to report for you. The NASDAQ deadline happens to be the end of day 4. Your sell has settled but your buy has not, so the broker reports a 100 share open short position for you. The NASDAQ deadline happens to be the end of day 5. Your sell and buy have both settled, so the broker once again has no open position to report for you. So, the point is that when dealing with settlement dates you just pretend the world is 3 days behind where it actually is.\"",
"qid": 10246,
"docid": "226984",
"rank": 22,
"score": 92204
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: It is a general truism but the reasons are that the rules change dramatically when you simply have more capital. Here are some examples, limited to particular kinds of markets: Under $2,000 in capital Nobody is going to offer you a margin account, and if you do get one it isn't with the best broker on commissions and other capabilities. So this means cash only trading, enjoy your 3 business day settlement periods. This means no shorting, confining a trader to only buy and hold strategies, making them more dependent on luck than a more capable trader. This means it is more expensive to buy stock, since you have to put down 100% of the cash to hold a share, whereas someone with more money puts down less capital to hold the exact same number of shares. This means no covered options strategies or spreads, again limiting the market directions where a trader could earn Under $25,000 in capital In the stock market, the pattern day trader rule applies to retail margin accounts with a balance under $25,000 and this severally limits the kinds of trades you are able to take because of the limit in the number of trades you can take in a given time period. Forget managing a multi-leg option position when the market isn't moving your direction. Under $125,000 in capital Worse margin rules. You excluded portfolio margin from your post, but it is a key part of the answer Over $1,000,000 in capital Participate in private placements, regulation D offerings reserved for accredited investors. These days, as buy and hold investments, these generally have more growth potential than publicly traded offerings. Over $5,000,000 in capital You can easily get the compliance and risk manager to turn the other way on margin rules. This is not conjecture, leverage up to infinity, try not to bankrupt yourself and the trading firm.",
"qid": 10246,
"docid": "46529",
"rank": 23,
"score": 91275
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: No, you cannot. The cash settlement period will lock up your cash depending on the product you trade. Three business days for stocks, 1 business day for options, and you would need waaaaaay more than $5,000 to trade futures.",
"qid": 10246,
"docid": "296475",
"rank": 24,
"score": 91172
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I'm not 100% sure, but I don't think it would be considered a free ride. The idea of a free ride is that you are engaging in a transaction when you do not actually have the money available to cover it, since the broker is technically giving you a 3 day loan whenever you purchase your stock (3 day rule to settle.) However, if you are using a margin account, and you have enough credit available, then you are not actually using unsettled assets, but rather an additional line of credit which was granted to you. You would just need to make sure that your total transactions are less than your purchasing power. That's my take on it anyway. I hope that helps, and hopefully someone can confirm or reject what I have said.",
"qid": 10246,
"docid": "282499",
"rank": 25,
"score": 88119
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payment_gateway There is essentially a lead time between when the transaction is made and when it is settled, 2-3 business days is the lead time for settlement. The link explains the process step-by-step",
"qid": 10246,
"docid": "89506",
"rank": 26,
"score": 83686
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"TLDR: Why can't banks give me my money? We don't have your money. Who has my money? About half a dozen different people all over the world. And we need to coordinate with them and their banks to get you your money. I love how everyone seems to think that the securities industry has super powers. Believe me, even with T+3, you won't believe how many trades fail to settle properly. Yes, your trade is pretty simple. But Cash Equity trades in general can be very complicated (for the layman). Your sell order will have been pushed onto an algorithmic platform, aggregated with other sell order, and crossed with internal buy orders. The surplus would then be split out by the algo to try and get the best price based on \"\"orders\"\" on the market. Finally the \"\"fills\"\" are used in settlement, which could potentially have been filled in multiple trades against multiple counterparties. In order to guarantee that the money can be in your account, we need 3 days. Also remember, we aren't JUST looking at your transaction. Each bank is looking to square off all the different trades between all their counter parties over a single day. Thousands of transactions/fills may have to be processed just for a single name. Finally because, there a many many transactions that do not settle automatically, our settlements team needs to co-ordinate with the other bank to make sure that you get your money. Bear in mind, banks being banks, we are working with systems that are older than I am. *And all of the above is the \"\"simplest\"\" case, I haven't even factored in Dark Pools/Block trades, auctions, pre/post-market trading sessions, Foreign Exchange, Derivatives, KYC/AML.\"",
"qid": 10246,
"docid": "406974",
"rank": 27,
"score": 82887
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: It is possible but unlikely. Securities firms would prefer never to settle externally; rather, they prefer to wait until the liabilities can be netted. They are forced to make and take payment in three business days. The reason why is because settlement is costly in the same way as any other business would prefer to build trade credit instead of taking or making payment rapidly. The only circumstance where a financial firm would wish to take full delivery is when a counterparty is no longer trusted to be solvent.",
"qid": 10246,
"docid": "562458",
"rank": 28,
"score": 82190
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: At the bottom of the page you linked to, NASDAQ provides a link to this page on nasdaqtrader.com, which states Each FINRA member firm is required to report its “total” short interest positions in all customer and proprietary accounts in NASDAQ-listed securities twice a month. These reports are used to calculate short interest in NASDAQ stocks. FINRA member firms are required to report their short positions as of settlement on (1) the 15th of each month, or the preceding business day if the 15th is not a business day, and (2) as of settlement on the last business day of the month.* The reports must be filed by the second business day after the reporting settlement date. FINRA compiles the short interest data and provides it for publication on the 8th business day after the reporting settlement date. The dates you are seeing are the dates the member firms settled their trades. In general (also from nasdaq.com), the settlement date is The date on which payment is made to settle a trade. For stocks traded on US exchanges, settlement is currently three business days after the trade.",
"qid": 10246,
"docid": "36193",
"rank": 29,
"score": 81700
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: No, the 120 days rule only applies in cases of delay or cancellation. If the purchase went through and you got additional money elsewhere - you cannot re-deposit the distribution back. See IRC Sec. 72(t)(8)(E): If any distribution from any individual retirement plan fails to meet the requirements of subparagraph (A) solely by reason of a delay or cancellation of the purchase or construction of the residence, the amount of the distribution may be contributed to an individual retirement plan as provided in section 408 (d)(3)(A)(i) (determined by substituting “120th day” for “60th day” in such section)",
"qid": 10246,
"docid": "408742",
"rank": 30,
"score": 81484
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Option pricing models used by exchanges to calculate settlement prices (premiums) use a volatility measure usually describes as the current actual volatility. This is a historic volatility measure based on standard deviation across a given time period - usually 30 to 90 days. During a trading session, an investor can use the readily available information for a given option to infer the \"\"implied volatility\"\". Presumably you know the option pricing model (Black-Scholes). It is easy to calculate the other variables used in the pricing model - the time value, the strike price, the spot price, the \"\"risk free\"\" interest rate, and anything else I may have forgotten right now. Plug all of these into the model and solve for volatility. This give the \"\"implied volatility\"\", so named because it has been inferred from the current price (bid or offer). Of course, there is no guarantee that the calculated (implied) volatility will match the volatility used by the exchange in their calculation of fair price at settlement on the day (or on the previous day's settlement). Comparing the implied volatility from the previous day's settlement price to the implied volatility of the current price (bid or offer) may give you some measure of the fairness of the quoted price (if there is no perceived change in future volatility). What such a comparison will do is to give you a measure of the degree to which the current market's perception of future volatility has changed over the course of the trading day. So, specific to your question, you do not want to use an annualised measure. The best you can do is compare the implied volatility in the current price to the implied volatility of the previous day's settlement price while at the same time making a subjective judgement about how you see volatility changing in the future and how this has been reflected in the current price.\"",
"qid": 10246,
"docid": "543312",
"rank": 31,
"score": 79767
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If they short the contract, that means, in 5 months, they will owe if the price goes up (receive if the price goes down) the difference between the price they sold the future at, and the 3-month Eurodollar interbank rate, times the value of the contract, times 5. If they're long, they receive if the price goes up (owe if the price goes down), but otherwise unchanged. Cash settlement means they don't actually need to make/receive a three month loan to settle the future, if they held it to expiration - they just pay or receive the difference. This way, there's no credit risk beyond the clearinghouse. The final settlement price of an expiring three-month Eurodollar futures (GE) contract is equal to 100 minus the three-month Eurodollar interbank time deposit rate.",
"qid": 10246,
"docid": "572822",
"rank": 32,
"score": 78174
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: It's important to understand that, in general, security transactions involve you and a relatively unknown entity with your broker standing in the middle. When you sell through Schwab, Schwab needs to receive the funds from the other side of the transaction. If Schwab gave you access to the funds immediately, it would essentially be a loan until the transaction settles after funds and securities change hands. If Schwab made funds available to you as soon as they were received, it might still be two days until the money is received; because the other side also has three days. Guaranteed one day settlement would have to include receipt of funds from the buyer in one day and Schwab can't control that. You need to remember this transaction likely includes at least one party in addition to you and Schwab. Here's the SEC page related to the three day settlement period, About Settling Trades in Three Days: T+3",
"qid": 10246,
"docid": "28314",
"rank": 33,
"score": 77468
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Typically the settlement price for a financial instrument (such as AAPL stock) underlying a derivative contract is determined from the average price of trading in that instrument during some short time window specified by the exchange offering the derivative. (Read the fine print on your contract to learn the exact date and time of that settlement period.) Because it's in an exchange's best interest to appear as fair as possible, the exchange will in general pick a high-volume period of time -- such as the close of trading on the expiry date -- in which to determine the settlement price. Now, the expiry date/time may be different from the last time at which the option can be traded, which may be different from the underlying settlement time. For example, most US equity options currently expire on the Saturday following the third Friday of the month, whereas they can last be traded at end-of-day on the third Friday of the month, and the settlement period may be at a slightly different time on the third Friday of the month. (Again, read the contract to know for sure.) Moreover, your broker may demand to know whether you plan to exercise the option at an even earlier date/time. So, to answer your question: After-hours trading can only affect the settlement price of an underlying instrument if the exchange in question decides that the settlement period should happen during after-hours trading. But since no exchange that wants to stay in business would possibly do that, the answer is no. Contract expiry time, contract exercise time, final contract trading time, and underlying settlement time may all fall at different dates/times. The important one for your question is settlement time.",
"qid": 10246,
"docid": "467463",
"rank": 34,
"score": 76159
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"This is because volatility is cumulative and with less time there is less cumulative volatility. The time value and option value are tied to the value of the underlying. The value of the underlying (stock) is quite influenced by volatility, the possible price movement in a given span of time. Thirty days of volatility has a much broader spread of values than two days, since each day benefits from the possible price change of the prior days. So if a stock could move up to +/- 1% in a day, then compounded after 5 days it could be +5%, +0%, or -5%. In other words, this is compounded volatility. Less time means far less volatility, which is geometric and not linear. Less volatility lowers the value of the underlying. See Black-Scholes for more technical discussion of this concept. A shorter timeframe until option expiration means there are fewer days of compounded volatility. So the expected change in the underlying will decrease geometrically. The odds are good that the price at T-5 days will be close to the price at T-0, much more so than the prices at T-30 or T-90. Additionally, the time value of an American option is the implicit put value (or implicit call). While an \"\"American\"\" option lets you exercise prior to expiry (unlike a \"\"European\"\" option, exercised only at expiry), there's an implicit put option in a call (or an implicit call in a put option). If you have an American call option of 60 days and it goes into the money at 30 days, you could exercise early. By contract, that stock is yours if you pay for it (or, in a put, you can sell whenever you decide). In some cases, this may make sense (if you want an immediate payoff or you expect this is the best price situation), but you may prefer to watch the price. If the price moves further, your gain when you use the call may be even better. If the price goes back out of the money, then you benefited from an implicit put. It's as though you exercised the option when it went in the money, then sold the stock and got back your cash when the stock went out of the money, even though no actual transaction took place and this is all just implicit. So the time value of an American option includes the implicit option to not use it early. The value of the implicit option also decreases in a nonlinear fashion, since the value of the implicit option is subject to the same valuation principles. But the larger principle for both is the compounded volatility, which drops geometrically.\"",
"qid": 10246,
"docid": "350748",
"rank": 35,
"score": 74219
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: This was the day traders dilemma. You can, on paper, make money doing such trades. But because you do not hold the security for at least a year, the earnings are subject to short term capital gains tax unless these trades are done inside a sheltered account like a traditional IRA. There are other considerations as well: wash sale rules and number of days to settle. In short, the glory days of rags to riches by day trading are long gone, if they were ever here in the first place. Edit: the site will not allow me to add a comment, so I am putting my response here: Possibly, yes. One big 'gotcha' is that your broker reports the proceeds from your sales, but does not report your outflows from your buys. Then there is the risk you take by the broker refusing to sell the security until the transaction settles. Not to mention wash sale rules. You are trying to win at the 'buy low, sell high' game. But you have a 25% chance, at best, of winning at that game. Can you pick the low? Maybe, but you have a 50% chance of being right. Then you have to pick the high. And again you have a 50% chance of doing that. 50% times 50% is 25%. Warren Buffet did not get rich that way. Buffet buys and holds. Don't be a speculator, be a 'buy and hold' investor. Buy securities, inside a sheltered account like a traditional IRA, that pay dividends then reinvest those dividends into the security you bought. Scottrade has a Flexible Reinvestment Program that lets you do this with no commission fees.",
"qid": 10246,
"docid": "395783",
"rank": 36,
"score": 73109
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Your question is unanswerable as you haven't provided enough information. I.e. If those shares cost $1000 and you have $50000 ( or any number above $1000) of cash available in the account then you can't possibly free ride. I think your understanding of the free ride rule is incorrect. Basically what this rule is stating is that you have to have the cash when the trade is placed in order to settle the trade. Otherwise you are taking on margin (which you can't do in a cash account). So at order entry you have to have the cash to cover the purchase so it's able to be settled. If you do, no problem and you can sell that stock before trade settlement. There is no law that says you have to hold it past trade settlement. However, you cannot spend the same dollar more than once before it settles. This site does a good job explaining this more throughly with examples: http://www.invest-faq.com/articles/trade-day-free-ride.html",
"qid": 10246,
"docid": "179520",
"rank": 37,
"score": 72552
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You have to wait for three (business) days. That's the time it takes for the settlement to complete and for the money to get to your account. If you don't wait - brokers will still allow you to buy a new stock, but may limit your ability to sell it until the previous sale is settled. Here's a FAQ from Schwab on the issue.",
"qid": 10246,
"docid": "332243",
"rank": 38,
"score": 71999
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Yes, on the settlement the stock is yours to sell with no risk of freeride or day trading applying.",
"qid": 10246,
"docid": "124188",
"rank": 39,
"score": 69964
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The problem is that you don't have the money now; so they can't know with 100% certainty that you will have it on settlement day. What happens if you don't file the paperwork in time? or you change your mind because you think the company stock is going to go through the roof next quarter? They would have to pull the funding for the loan. The seller would be upset, and could even file for damages if the deal falls through. It could even snowball because if they delay the sale then they can't buy the new place, which impacts another closing... Frequently lenders want to see the money for the down payment long before settlement. They want to know the money is there, and it isn't a hidden loan. While you can point to the money in the ESPP, they would still like to see the money in a regular bank account. Even if you do convince them to delay their evaluation you can count on being asked to prove the existence of the funds in the days before closing, or they will delay giving the loan.",
"qid": 10246,
"docid": "98767",
"rank": 40,
"score": 68349
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: NSCC illiquid charges are charges that apply to the trading of low-priced over-the counter (OTC) securities with low volumes. Open net buy quantity represents the total unsettled share amount per stock at any given time during a 3-day settlement cycle. Open net buy quantity must be less than 5,000,000 shares per stock for your entire firm Basically, you can't hold a long position of more than 5 million shares in an illiquid OTC stock without facing a fee. You'll still be assessed this fee if you accumulate a long position of this size by breaking your purchase up into multiple transactions. Open net sell quantity represents the total unsettled share amount per stock at any given time during a 3-day settlement cycle. Open net sell quantity must be less than 10% percent of the 20-day average volume If you attempt to sell a number of shares greater than 10% of the stock's average volume over the last 20 days, you'll also be assessed a fee. The first link I included above is just an example, but it makes the important point: you may still be assessed a fee for trading OTC stocks even if your account doesn't meet the criteria because these restrictions are applied at the level of the clearing firm, not the individual client. This means that if other investors with your broker, or even at another broker that happens to use the same clearing firm, purchase more than 5 million shares in an individual OTC stock at the same time, all of your accounts may face fees, even though individually, you don't exceed the limits. Technically, these fees are assessed to the clearing firm, not the individual investor, but usually the clearing firm will pass the fees along to the broker (and possibly add other charges as well), and the broker will charge a fee to the individual account(s) that triggered the restriction. Also, remember that when buying OTC/pink sheet stocks, your ability to buy or sell is also contingent on finding someone else to buy from/sell to. If you purchase 10,000 shares one day and attempt to sell them sometime in the future, but there aren't enough buyers to buy all 10,000 from you, you might not be able to complete your order at the desired price, or even at all.",
"qid": 10246,
"docid": "593644",
"rank": 41,
"score": 67712
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: For a company listed on NASDAQ, the numbers are published on NASDAQ's site. The most recent settlement date was 4/30/2013, and you can see that it lists 27.5 million shares as held short. NASDAQ gets these numbers from FINRA member firms, which are required to submit them to the exchange twice a month: Each FINRA member firm is required to report its “total” short interest positions in all customer and proprietary accounts in NASDAQ-listed securities twice a month. These reports are used to calculate short interest in NASDAQ stocks. FINRA member firms are required to report their short positions as of settlement on (1) the 15th of each month, or the preceding business day if the 15th is not a business day, and (2) as of settlement on the last business day of the month.* The reports must be filed by the second business day after the reporting settlement date. FINRA compiles the short interest data and provides it for publication on the 8th business day after the reporting settlement date.",
"qid": 10246,
"docid": "14461",
"rank": 42,
"score": 67091
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: No, the dividends can't be exploited like that. Dividends settlement are tied to an ex-dividend date. The ex-dividend, is the day that allows you to get a dividend if you own the stock. Since a buyer of the stock after this date won't get the dividend, the price usually drop by the amount of the dividend. In your case the price of a share would lose $2.65 and you will be credited by $2.65 in cash such that your portfolio won't change in value due to the dividend. Also, you can't exploit the drop in price by short-selling, as you would be owing the dividend to the person lending you the stock for the short sale. Finally, the price of the stock at the ex-dividend will also be affected by the supply and demand, such that you can't be precisely sure of the drop in price of the security.",
"qid": 10246,
"docid": "115553",
"rank": 43,
"score": 66353
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"FINRA Description of Day Trading rules The rules adopt a new term \"\"pattern day trader,\"\" which includes any margin customer that day trades (buys then sells or sells short then buys the same security on the same day) four or more times in five business days, provided the number of day trades are more than six percent of the customer's total trading activity for that same five-day period. So, there's several ways to avoid being labeled a pattern day trader:\"",
"qid": 10246,
"docid": "597401",
"rank": 44,
"score": 65832
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You set it based on liquidity management. Cash drag is one of the reasons actively managed funds underperform. The longer your settlement date, the less cash you have to hold because you can take three days to liquidate positions to redeem. So it's a convenience vs performance question.",
"qid": 10246,
"docid": "11927",
"rank": 45,
"score": 65542
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: quid's answer explains the settlement period well. However, it should be noted that you can avoid the settlement period by opening a margin account. Any specific broker like Schwab may or may not offer margin accounts. Margin accounts allow you to borrow money to avoid the settlement period or to buy more securities than you can actually afford. Note that if you buy more securities than you can afford using margin, you expose yourself to losses potentially larger than your initial investment. If you fund your account with $50,000 and use margin to purchase $80,000 of stock which then drops in value by 80% you will have lost $64,000 and owe the broker $14,000 plus fees.",
"qid": 10246,
"docid": "93231",
"rank": 46,
"score": 65371
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"There's no \"\"183 days\"\" rule. As a US citizen you must pay taxes on all your income, where you live is irrelevant.\"",
"qid": 10246,
"docid": "483704",
"rank": 47,
"score": 65285
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"statement at the end of \"\"Betting On Zero (2017): >To settle the complaint the FTC required Herbalife to pay a $200 million dollar fine and \"\"fundamentally restructure its business\"\". > >Herbalife's CEO Michael Johnson described the TFC settlement as \"\"an acknowledgement that our business model is sound.\"\" > >Four months later he announced he was stepping down as DEO of Herbalife. > >On December 21, 2016, Donald Trump named Carl Icahn *(zillionaire, portrayed in the film as an advocate of Herbalife's deceptive business model)* special advisor to the President on regulatory >reform. [another perspective](http://fortune.com/carl-icahn-bill-ackman-feud/) [my take](http://imgur.com/a/ESRH5)\"",
"qid": 10246,
"docid": "552163",
"rank": 48,
"score": 65274
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: It is also possible that the settlement company didn't tell the local government where to send the new tax bill. This would worry me because what else was missed regarding filing the proper documents with the lenders and the local government. It could also be a problem with the local government. Contact the settlement company or your attorney to get the issue resolved. If you owe the money you want to know; if the new owner owes the money they don't want to face a tax lien because the settlement company made a mistake. Generally this is split between the parties based on the number of days each will own the home. At settlement the money should move from one party to the other based on what has been deposited into escrow and when the actual bills are due. For example the payment for the first half of the year due July 1st may be sent in June. If the settlement was in June The new owner would give money to the old owner. But if settlement was in early July Money would move the other way.",
"qid": 10246,
"docid": "156143",
"rank": 49,
"score": 64373
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"In this scenario the date of income is the date on which the contract has been signed, even if you received the actual money (settlement) later. Regardless of the NY special law for residency termination - that is the standard rule for recognition of income during a cash (not installments) sale. The fact that you got the actual money later doesn't matter, which is similar to selling stocks on a public exchange. When you sell stocks through your broker on a public exchange - you still recognize the income on the day of the sale, not on the day of the settlement. This is called \"\"the Constructive Receipt doctrine\"\". The IRS publication 538 has this to say about the constructive receipt: Constructive receipt. Income is constructively received when an amount is credited to your account or made available to you without restriction. You need not have possession of it. If you authorize someone to be your agent and receive income for you, you are considered to have received it when your agent receives it. Income is not constructively received if your control of its receipt is subject to substantial restrictions or limitations. Once you signed the contract, the money has essentially been credited to your account with the counter-party, and unless they're bankrupt or otherwise insolvent - you have no restrictions over it. And also (more specifically for your case): You cannot hold checks or postpone taking possession of similar property from one tax year to another to postpone paying tax on the income. You must report the income in the year the property is received or made available to you without restriction. Timing wire transfer is akin to holding and not depositing a check, from this perspective. So unless there was a restriction that was lifted after you moved out of New York, I doubt you can claim that you couldn't have received it before moving out, i.e.: you have, in fact, constructively received it.\"",
"qid": 10246,
"docid": "565007",
"rank": 50,
"score": 64305
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Brokerages offer you the convenience of buying and selling financial products. They are usually not exchanges themselves, but they can be. Typically there is an exchange and the broker sends orders to that exchange. The main benefit that brokers offer is a simpler commission structure. Not all brokers have their own liquidity, but brokers can have their own allotment of shares of a stock, for example, that they will sell you when you make an order, so that you get what you want faster. Regarding accounts at the exchanges to track actual ownership and transfer of assets, it is not safe to assume thats how that works. There are a lot of shortcomings in how the actual exchange works, since the settlement time is 1 - 3 business days, depending on the product (so upwards of 5 to 6 actual days). In a fast market, the asset can change hands many many times making the accounting completely incorrect for extended time periods. Better to not worry about that part, but if you'd like to read more about how that is regulated look up \"\"Failure To Deliver\"\" regulations on short selling to get a better understanding of market microstructure. It is a very antiquated system.\"",
"qid": 10246,
"docid": "593445",
"rank": 51,
"score": 64095
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: from what I learnt in au and limited to au banking system ( very much like other western countries), banks settle their transfers ( inter banks) 4pm afternoon. Those transactions are like everyday between accounts, person to person, person to vendor(not credit cards), vendors to vendors( small businesses) etc. as for large transactions banks use check accounts( yes banks themselves have check account for each other). Check accounts are settled in three business days( ex public holidays). When large business deal with large business, they use debentures and corporate bonds which is a business IOU and using banks as mediate to settle. IOUs have up to 60 days settle periods. Some complications unique to au banking system. There are only 4 large banks in au and they and their subsidiaries own 99% of the assets collectively. What gets more interesting is large 4 banks owns each other. Each banks holds significant amount shares of other banks. They are like 4 brothers with different surnames. All of it is to minimise risk and share profit.",
"qid": 10246,
"docid": "206140",
"rank": 52,
"score": 63245
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The second part of your question is the easiest to answer, how much manual work is involved in settlement processes? Payment systems which handle low value (i.e. high volume) transactions work on the basis of net settlement. Each of the individual payments are netted across all of the participant banks, so that only one \"\"real\"\" payment is made by each bank. Some days banks will receive money, others they will pay money. This is arbitrary and depends on whether their outbound payments exceed their inbound payments for that day. The payment system will notify each Bank how much it owes/will receive for the day. The money is then transferred between all of the banks simultaneously by the payment system to remove the risk that some pay and others don't. If you're going to make or receive a very large payment, you're going to want to make certain that its correct. This means that if there's a discrepancy, you need operations people available to find out why its wrong. When dealing with this many payments, answering that question can be hard. Did we miss a payment? Is there a duplicate? Etc. The vast majority of payments will process without any human involvement, but to make the process work, you always need human brains there to fix problems that occur. This brings me to your first question. On every day that settlement happens, a bank will receive (or pay) a very large sum of money. As a settlement bank you must settle that money - the guarantee that every bank will pay is one of the main reasons these systems exist. For settlement to happen, every bank has to agree to participate, and be ready to verify the data on their side and deliver the funds from their account. So there is no particular reason that this doesn't happen on weekends and holidays other than history. But for any payment system to change, it would require the support of (at least) a majority of participants to pay staff to manage the settlement process on weekends. This would increase costs for banks, but the benefits would only really be for you and me (if at all). That means it's unlikely to happen unless a government forces the issue.\"",
"qid": 10246,
"docid": "486440",
"rank": 53,
"score": 63235
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The 'same day rule' in the UK is a rule for matching purposes only. It says that sales on any day are matched firstly with purchases made on the same day for the purposes of ascertaining any gain/loss. Hence the phrase 'bed-and-breakfast' ('b&b') when you wish to crystalise a gain (that is within the exempt amount) and re-establish a purchase price at a higher level. You do the sale on one day, just before the market closes, which gets matched with your original purchase, and then you buy the shares back the next day, just after the market opens. This is standard tax-planning. Whenever you have a paper gain, and you wish to lock that gain out of being taxed, you do a bed-and-breakfast transaction, the idea being to use up your annual exemption each and every year. Of course, if your dealing costs are high, then they may outweigh any tax saved, and so it would be pointless. For the purpose of an example, let's assume that the UK tax year is the same as the calendar year. Scenario 1. Suppose I bought some shares in 2016, for a total price of Stg.50,000. Suppose by the end of 2016, the holding is worth Stg.54,000, resulting in a paper gain of Stg.4,000. Question. Should I do a b&b transaction to make use of my Stg.11,100 annual exemption ? Answer. Well, with transaction costs at 1.5% for a round-trip trade, suppose, and stamp duty on the purchase of 0.5%, your total costs for a b&b will be Stg1,080, and your tax saved (upon some future sale date) assuming you are a 20% tax-payer is 20%x(4,000-1,080) = Stg584 (the transaction costs are deductible, we assume). This does not make sense. Scenario 2. The same as scenario 1., but the shares are worth Stg60,000 by end-2016. Answer. The total transaction costs are 2%x60,000 = 1,200 and so the taxable gain of 10,000-1,200 = 8,800 would result in a tax bill of 20%x8,800 = 1,760 and so the transaction costs are lower than the tax to be saved (a strict analysis would take into account only the present value of the tax to be saved), it makes sense to crystalise the gain. We sell some day before the tax year-end, and re-invest the very next day. Scenario 3. The same as scenario 1., but the shares are worth Stg70,000 by end-2016. Answer. The gain of 20,000 less costs would result in a tax bill for 1,500 (this is: 20%x(20,000 - 2%x70,000 - 11,100) ). This tax bill will be on top of the dealing costs of 1,400. But the gain is in excess of the annual exemption. The strategy is to sell just enough of the holding to crystallise a taxable gain of just 11,100. The fraction, f%, is given by: f%x(70,000-50,000) - 2%xf%x70,000 = 11,100 ... which simplifies to: f% = 11,100/18,600 = 59.68%. The tax saved is 20%x11,100 = 2,220, versus costs of 2%x59.58%x70,000 = 835.52. This strategy of partial b&b is adopted because it never makes sense to pay tax early ! End.",
"qid": 10246,
"docid": "456436",
"rank": 54,
"score": 63177
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"One possibility you may consider is to keep all of your funds in the stocks and shares ISA while investing that proportion you wish to keep in cash into a tradeable \"\"Money Market\"\" ETF. A Money Market ETF will give you rates comparable to interest rates on cash and at the same time it will give you \"\"instant access\"\" subject to normal 3 day settlement of equities. This is not exactly a perfect solution. Most Money Market ETFs will pay monthly dividends, so depending on your timing, you may have to give up some interest. In the worst case, if you were to sell the day before going ex-dividend, then you would be giving up a months interest. In the best case, if you were to sell on the day of going ex-dividend, you would be giving up no interest.\"",
"qid": 10246,
"docid": "89216",
"rank": 55,
"score": 63070
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Yes, an overall $500 loss on the stock can be claimed. Since the day trader sold both lots she acquired, the Wash Sale rule has no net impact on her taxes. The Wash Sale rule would come into play if within thirty days of second sale, she purchased the stock a third time. Then she would have to amend her taxes because claiming the $500 loss would no longer be a valid under the Wash Sale rule. It would have to be added to the cost basis of the most recent purchase.",
"qid": 10246,
"docid": "113948",
"rank": 56,
"score": 62859
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The typical rule in the US is 180 days, but some banks do it differently. However, even if the check is dead, you should be able to call the payroll department for your old job. They can stop payment on the old check and issue you another one.",
"qid": 10246,
"docid": "250285",
"rank": 57,
"score": 61937
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Scenario 1 - When you sell the shares in a margin account, you will see your buying power go up, but your \"\"amount available to withdraw\"\" stays the same until settlement. Yes, you can reallocate the same day, no need to wait until settlement. There is no margin interest for this scenario. Scenario 2 - If that stock is marginable to 50%, and all you have is $10,000 in that stock, you can buy another $10,000. Once done, you are at 50% margin, exactly.\"",
"qid": 10246,
"docid": "292159",
"rank": 58,
"score": 61776
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You should not have to wait 3 days to sell the stock after purchase. If you are trading with a cash account you will have to wait for the sale to settle (3 business days) before you can use those funds to purchase other stock. If you meet the definition of a pattern day trader which is 4 or more day trades in 5 business days then your brokerage will require you to have a minimum of $25,000 in funds and a margin account.",
"qid": 10246,
"docid": "584291",
"rank": 59,
"score": 61208
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: With 30 years until retirement I would not be very concerned about the 3% cash rule. If you do want to follow that advice I would just keep that money in a cash equivalent like a money market fund or short term cd.",
"qid": 10246,
"docid": "216520",
"rank": 60,
"score": 61138
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Short answer: the CD can be considered as part of the down payment calculations. they will want a plan to cash them in the last days or weeks before settlement. When approving you for a mortgage they will be looking at: They now know what you can afford to dedicate to this new property every month. They take into account principal, interest, taxes, insurance and the HOA fee. They will then look at how much money you will use as a down payment. They want this money to exist before applying, and they will check on its existence in the last days before settlement. The best is cash sitting in a bank. But it can also be money in savings bonds, or a CD, but they will want a plan for cashing that in just before settlement. They won't be comfortable with it being in a volatile account such as stocks especially if the current balance is exactly what you need for a mortgage that won't be closed for 3 more months. Because people use money they borrow from their 401K for a home purchase, it is possible to use money from volatile account. They will want to see a plan for getting money from these accounts just before settlement.",
"qid": 10246,
"docid": "116420",
"rank": 61,
"score": 60974
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The deadline for submitting a claim was September 4th, 2016 - therefore you are no longer eligible. That being said, you probably did not miss much. According to the settlement notice you can expect to be paid about 14 cents per share, on claims exceeding $10 (below $10 you don't get paid). Read the settlement notice for more info.",
"qid": 10246,
"docid": "440328",
"rank": 62,
"score": 60839
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The \"\"hold\"\" is just placeholder that prevents you from overspending until the transaction is settled. The merchant isn't \"\"holding\"\" your money, your bank or card provider is protecting itself from you overdrawing. In general, it takes 1-3 days for a credit transaction to settle. With a credit card, this usually isn't an issue, unless you have a very low credit line or other unusual things going on. With pre-paid and debit cards, it is an issue, since your spending power is contingent upon you having an available balance. I'm a contrarian on this topic, but I don't see any compelling reason to use debit or stored value cards, other than preventing yourself from overspending. I've answered a few other questions in detail in this area, if you're interested.\"",
"qid": 10246,
"docid": "384892",
"rank": 63,
"score": 60784
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: SEC Form 3 and SEC Form 4 are filed when insiders make share/derivatives acquisitions, transfers, sells and buys There is a time limit AFTER the action where they can be filed, such as 12 business days, so this can be a substantial amount of time after the effect on the market, depending on your strategy. You can aggregate these forms from SEC sources or from third party websites and services. In some cases, types of insider trading are permissible at certain intervals, so if you learn about when certain shares become unlocked, you can try to predict what insider actions will be and share price movements around those times.",
"qid": 10246,
"docid": "306961",
"rank": 64,
"score": 60607
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Here's how this works in the United States. There's no law regarding your behavior in this matter and you haven't broken any laws. But your broker-dealer has a law that they must follow. It's documented here: The issue is if you buy stock before your sell has settled (before you've received cash) then you're creating money where before none existed (even though it is just for a day or two). The government fears that this excess will cause undue speculation in the security markets. The SEC calls this practice freeriding, because you're spending money you have not yet received. In summary: your broker is not allowed to loan money to an account than is not set-up for loans; it must be a margin account. People with margin account are able to day-trade because they have the ability to use margin (borrow money). Margin Accounts are subject to Pattern Daytrading Rules. The Rules are set forth by FINRA (The Financial Industry Reporting Authority) and are here:",
"qid": 10246,
"docid": "344065",
"rank": 65,
"score": 60547
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I found additional evidence on TDAmeritrade's website that helps confirm that the 3/17/11 prices Jason found are the ones to use since all three were traded on that day. Although GM+A had prices and trading as early as 2/28/11, GM+B's price and trading shows up no earlier than 3/14/11, but there was no trading indicated for GM+A on 3/14 so 3/14 can't be used. The two warrants were not traded every day after they came out. The next date that I found when all three, GM, GM+A and GM+B had trades was 4/11/11. I found Google and Yahoo Finance unable to produce the historical prices for the warrants that far back. Unfortunately, you need to be a TDA accountholder in order to access TDA's historical price information for stocks.",
"qid": 10246,
"docid": "330276",
"rank": 66,
"score": 59953
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"According to Wikipedia, Treasury bills mature in 1 year or less to a fixed face value: Treasury bills (or T-Bills) mature in one year or less. Regular weekly T-Bills are commonly issued with maturity dates of 28 days (or 4 weeks, about a month), 91 days (or 13 weeks, about 3 months), 182 days (or 26 weeks, about 6 months), and 364 days (or 52 weeks, about 1 year). Treasury bills are sold by single-price auctions held weekly. The T-bills (as Wikipedia says, like zero-coupon bonds) are actually sold at a discount to their face value and mature to their face value. They do not return any interest before the date of maturity. Because the amount earned is fixed at purchase, \"\"return\"\" is a more accurate term than \"\"rate\"\" when referring to a specific T-bill. The \"\"rate\"\" is the difference between this return and the discount value you purchased it at. So, yes, your rate of return is guaranteed. T-notes (1-10 year) and T-bonds (20-30 year) also have an interest rate guaranteed, but have coupon payments (usually every 6 months), paying out a fixed amount of interest on the principal. (See more info on the same Wikipedia page.) Because those bonds are not compounding the interest it pays out, but instead paying out every 6 months, you'd have to purchase new securities to create a compound return, changing your rate of return over time slightly as the rates for new treasury securities changes.\"",
"qid": 10246,
"docid": "54638",
"rank": 67,
"score": 59906
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"In summary: In long form: Spreads and shorts are not allowed in cash accounts, except for covered options. Brokers will allow clients to roll option positions in a single transaction, which look like spreads, but these are not actually \"\"sell to open\"\" transactions. \"\"Sell to open\"\" is forbidden in cash accounts. Short positions from closing the long half of a covered trade are verboten. Day-trading is allowed in both margin and cash accounts. However, \"\"pattern day-trading\"\" only applies to margin accounts, and requires a minimum account balance of $25,000. Cash accounts are free to buy and sell the same security on the same day over and over, provided that there is sufficient buying power to pay for opening a new position. Since proceeds are held for both stock and option sales in a cash account, that means buying power available at the start of the day will drop with each purchase and not rise again until settlement. Unsettled funds are available immediately within margin accounts, without restriction. In cash accounts, using unsettled funds to purchase securities will require you to hold the new position until funds settle -- otherwise your account will be blocked for \"\"free-riding\"\". Legally, you can buy securities in a cash account without available cash on deposit with the broker, but most brokers don't allow this, and some will aggressively liquidate any position that you are somehow able to enter for which you didn't have available cash already on deposit. In a margin account, margin can help gloss over the few days between purchase and deposit, allowing you to be somewhat more aggressive in investing funds. A margin account will allow you to make an investment if you feel the opportunity is right before requiring you to deposit the funds. See a great opportunity? With sufficient margin, you can open the trade immediately and then run to the bank to deposit funds, rather than being stuck waiting for funds to be credited to your account. Margin accounts might show up on your credit report. The possibility of losing more than you invested, having positions liquidated when you least expect it, your broker doing possibly stupid things in order to close out an over-margined account, and other consequences are all very serious risks of margin accounts. Although you mentioned awareness of this issue, any answer is not complete with mentioning those risks.\"",
"qid": 10246,
"docid": "300139",
"rank": 68,
"score": 59490
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"To keep it simple, let's say that A shares trade at 500 on average between April 2nd 2014 and April 1st 2015 (one year anniversary), then if C shares trade on average: The payment will be made either in cash or in shares within 90 days. The difficulties come from the fact that the formula is based on an average price over a year, which is not directly tradable, and that the spread is only covered between 1% and 5%. In practice, it is unlikely that the market will attribute a large premium to voting shares considering that Page&Brin keep the majority and any discount of Cs vs As above 2-3% (to include cost of trading + borrowing) will probably trigger some arbitrage which will prevent it to extend too much. But there is no guarantee. FYI here is what the spread has looked like since April 3rd: * details in the section called \"\"Class C Settlement Agreement\"\" in the S-3 filing\"",
"qid": 10246,
"docid": "181985",
"rank": 69,
"score": 59448
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Here is the definition of Ex-dividend date from the SEC: Once the company sets the record date, the stock exchanges or the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. fix the ex-dividend date. The ex-dividend date is normally set for stocks two business days before the record date. If you purchase a stock on its ex-dividend date or after, you will not receive the next dividend payment. Instead, the seller gets the dividend. If you purchase before the ex-dividend date, you get the dividend. The linked document discusses weekend, and holidays involved in the calculation. The difference between the record date and the ex-dividend is to allow for the three days of settlement.",
"qid": 10246,
"docid": "77016",
"rank": 70,
"score": 58865
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"This is an unfortunate situation for you. You have zero chance at your question number 1, if someone was going to bend this rule for you it would have happened already. The answer to question number 2 is pursue solution number 3. The overriding issue is that the IRS makes these rules, not the employer/plan sponsor or the administrator. You can't talk the plan administrator in to reimbursing you, their system likely doesn't even have a function to do so. FSA timing issues can be complex and I think that's the root of your issue because when an expense can be incurred (date of service versus date of payment) and when a claim must be filed are different things. It's really common to bend the rules on when a claim is submitted, but not when it was incurred. It's really common for an exiting employee to have 30 days to submit expenses for reimbursement. FSA expenses must always be incurred within the specified plan year, or within your dates of employment if you weren't employed for the entire plan year, this is specified by the IRS. It seems like some wires were crossed when you asked this question. You were asking \"\"can I still incur claims\"\" and they were hearing \"\"how long do I have to submit an expense that has already been incurred.\"\" Some plans allow COBRA continuation on FSA which generally does not make sense. Your contributions to the plan would use after tax dollars but for folks who know they have an eligible expense coming it can make sense to continue via COBRA in retain your eligibility under the plan so you can incur a claim after your employment termination. Regarding number 3. This sort of reimbursement would be outside the plan, no precedent is necessary. You've gotten them to claim it was their mistake, they're going to reimburse you for their mistake, it has nothing to do with the FSA. Good luck.\"",
"qid": 10246,
"docid": "139998",
"rank": 71,
"score": 58862
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"It's not hard, but it requires effort, and understanding what one is looking at. The social networks aimed at geeks failed or are not exposed to failure (Google+ would be the poster boy) so I assume this network would appeal at general users. The assumption that the general user 1. detects what's happening 2. understands \"\" \"\" 3. cares about \"\" \"\" doesn't hold water. The pool of users with the three characteristics is small, and their attention span is also limited because it's not their own work and they want to be users.\"",
"qid": 10246,
"docid": "297913",
"rank": 72,
"score": 58745
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Given that a mutual fund manager knows, at the end of the day, precisely how many shares/units/whatever of each investment (stock, equity, etc.) they own, plus their bank balance, It is calculating this given. There are multiple orders that a fund manager requests for execution, some get settled [i.e. get converted into trade], the shares itself don't get into account immediately, but next day or 2 days later depending on the exchange. Similarly he would have sold quite a few shares and that would still show shares in his account. The bank balance itself will not show the funds to pay as the fund manager has purchased something ... or the funds received as the fund manager has sold something. So in general they roughly know the value ... but they don't exactly know the value and would have to factor the above variables. That's not a simple task when you are talking about multiple trades across multiple shares.",
"qid": 10246,
"docid": "480489",
"rank": 73,
"score": 58649
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Typically there are several parties involved: (Sometimes one company plays multiple roles; for example AmEx is a network and an issuer.) When a merchant charges a card and the issuer approves it, money is transferred from the issuer to the acquirer to the merchant. This settlement process takes some time, but generally is completed within a day. Of course, most cardholders pay on a monthly basis. The issuer must use their own funds in the mean time. If the cardholder defaults, the issuer takes the loss.",
"qid": 10246,
"docid": "283698",
"rank": 74,
"score": 58640
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I'll extend an olive branch here and concede that we have a lot more luxuries which is why we have more to work and pay for. But my point is we could have more or less the same amount of stuff by working 3 days a week. I've heard that millenials are less materialistic than previous generations, so it will be interesting to see the effects of that. Also, we need to take into account that AI likely will replace a large amount of jobs in the future as well. Maybe it will be even more plausible for most people to only work 3 days a week on average.",
"qid": 10246,
"docid": "253357",
"rank": 75,
"score": 57739
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Disallowed losses due to the wash sale rule are added to the basis of the repurchased shares. In your example, on day two you paid $0.70 per share. Then the disallowed $0.30 loss from the previous day gets added to the basis, making your total basis $1.00 per share. When you sell at the end of the day for $1.00 per share, your net gain/loss is zero. Furthermore, you can recapture disallowed losses by selling the last lot of ABC, completely divesting yourself of all holdings in ABC for at least 31 days. Even if that last lot was a loss, when taking into account the increased basis from previously disallowed wash sale losses, you can claim the loss fully on this last, non-wash sale.",
"qid": 10246,
"docid": "151037",
"rank": 76,
"score": 57708
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"This is not a problem. SWIFT does not need the Beneficiary Account Currency. The settlement account [or the Instruction amount] is of interest to the Banks. As I understand your agreement with client is they pay you \"\"X\"\" EUR. That is what would be specified on the SWIFT along with your details as beneficiary [Account Number etc]. Once the funds are received by your bank in Turkey, they will get EUR. When they apply these funds to your account in USD, they will convert using the standard rates. Unless you are a large customer and have special instructions [like do not credit if funds are received in NON-USD or give me a special rate or Call me and ask me what I want to do etc]. It typically takes 3-5 days for an international wire depending on the countries and currencies involved. Wait for few more days and then if not received, you have to ask your Client to mention to his Bank that Beneficiary is claiming non-receipt of funds. The Bank that initiated the transfer can track the wire not the your bank which is supposed to receive the funds.\"",
"qid": 10246,
"docid": "132167",
"rank": 77,
"score": 57402
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: SPX options are cash settled European style. You cannot exercise European style options before the expiration date. Assuming it is the day of expiration and you own 2,000 strike puts and the index settlement value is 1,950 - you would exercise and receive cash for the in the money amount times the contract multiplier. If instead you owned put options on the S&P 500 SPDR ETF (symbol SPY) those are American style, physically settled options. You can exercise a long American style option anytime between when your purchase it and when it expires. If you exercised SPY puts without owning shares of SPY you would end up short stock at the strike price.",
"qid": 10246,
"docid": "401447",
"rank": 78,
"score": 57376
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: My take on this is that this reduces your liquidity risk. Stocks, bonds and many other investment vehicles on secondary markets you may think of are highly liquid but they still require that markets are open and then an additional 3-5 business days to settle the transaction and for funds to make their way to your bank account. If you require funds immediately because of an emergency, this 3-5 business days (which gets longer as week-ends and holidays are in the way) can cause a lot of discomfort which may be worth a small loss in potential ROI. Think of your car breaking down or a water pipe exploding in your home and having to wait for the stock sale to process before you can make the payment. Admittedly, you have other options such as margin loans and credit cards that can help absorb the shock in such cases but they may not be sufficient or cause you to pay interest or fees if left unpaid.",
"qid": 10246,
"docid": "560391",
"rank": 79,
"score": 56592
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The short float ratio and percent change are all calculated based on the short interest (the total number of shares shorted). The short interest data for Nasdaq and NYSE stocks is published every two weeks. NasdaqTrader.com shows the exact dates for when short interest is published for Nasdaq stocks, and also says the following: FINRA member firms are required to report their short positions as of settlement on (1) the 15th of each month, or the preceding business day if the 15th is not a business day, and (2) as of settlement on the last business day of the month.* The reports must be filed by the second business day after the reporting settlement date. FINRA compiles the short interest data and provides it for publication on the 8th business day after the reporting settlement date. The NYSE also shows the exact dates for when short interest is published for NYSE stocks, and those dates are exactly the same as for Nasdaq stocks. Since the short interest is only updated once every 2 weeks, there is no way to see real-time updating of the short float and percent change. That information only gets updated once every 2 weeks - after each publication of the short interest.",
"qid": 10246,
"docid": "41214",
"rank": 80,
"score": 56485
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Probably not, but they would have to remove old stock from the state after the one year grace period and they may have to entertain suits against them, which would probably end in settlements. In 2016 alone there was over 30 million [paid out in settlements.](https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/prop65/2016-summary-settlements.pdf?) I have read there is somewhat of a cottage industry for those who seek out prop 65 violations just for the purpose of suing the manufacturer. Then there is the cost associated with the maintenance of complying with the ever changing regulations. I'm sure there is more to it but I can see where a company would not want to label there products as cancer causing if it was not necessary. People might also be more hesitant to purchase a product for there household if it's labeled as cancer causing. Additionally, the US has its own hazard communication standards that require manufacturers to label any IARC know carcinogens as such. Edit: Plus Monsanto probably thinks it can do what it wants",
"qid": 10246,
"docid": "189443",
"rank": 81,
"score": 56322
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: >A lot can happen to a stock's price in 1 hour A lot happens to the stock price in one hour because lot of trading takes place in one hour, not because of material news. If 30 days seems excessive, make the rule that the stock should be held for 1 day. Point is, 1 hour seems convenient to small investors because it facilitates day trading and 30 days seems excessive for the same reason. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. I abhor HFT and think the advantage unfair but am opposed to banning it for pecuniary reasons. Such is life in a capitalist economy. We pay the price for our freedoms.",
"qid": 10246,
"docid": "215760",
"rank": 82,
"score": 56277
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: They need to spread the work for all customers over the whole month, and they don't work on weekends. Combine the two, and the rule becomes clear - if months have minimum of N working days, 1/N of all customers gets set on each day. You seem to be on day 5: If the month starts with a Monday, the fifth working day is the 5. (Friday); if there is a Sat or Sun in between, it will be the 6th, and if there is both a Sat and a Sun in there, it will be the 7th. However, the statement itself is not very important at all. It is just the day where they print it on paper (or even only on a PDF). You can see your bank account activity every day 24/7 by checking online, and nothing keeps you from printing it on every 1st of the month if you want (or every day, or whenever you prefer).",
"qid": 10246,
"docid": "560084",
"rank": 83,
"score": 56192
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Robert Kiyosaki's is basically a get-rich quick author. But to answer your question: It is a sales pitch in disguise. See Marketplace's report on a Kiyosaki seminar, which reveals that the free work shop is a sales pitch for a 3-day work shop which costs several hundred dollars. And the 3-day workshop is a sales pitch for \"\"advanced\"\" training which can cost as much as $45,000 (presumably in Canadian dollars, as the report was done in Canada). He does touch on some basic sound principles, but it's mixed with a lot of really bad (and in some cases illegal) advice. You'll do much better to invest your time and money in reading materials that aren't advertised via infomercials. Kiyosaki may well be rich, but it's from selling his Rich Dad-branded material, not from investing in real estate, or any other investment portfolio See also John T. Reed's guru rating, and his review of Kiyosaki's book, Rich Dad, Poor Dad.\"",
"qid": 10246,
"docid": "257417",
"rank": 84,
"score": 56165
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Agreed. What this settlement does is ensure that the people who committed the fraud are safe. The current management, employees, shareholders, and customers have nothing to do with what happened 7-10 years ago, but they are the ones that will end up paying to permanently close any potential liability to the people who commited fraud.",
"qid": 10246,
"docid": "125663",
"rank": 85,
"score": 56156
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: In a perfect the world, the most ideal solution would be to find a way to pay back all of your debt so that your credit will not be affected any further. Unfortunately, it does not work this way most of the time. Debt settlement is where you work with a creditor to settle your a credit card debt for less than the full amount owed. This could be a very viable solution for you instead of filing for bankruptcy. However, there are many scams out there when it applies to debt settlement so you must tread carefully. Debt settlement can only occur when you're behind on your payments. If you are currently paying off your payments successfully, the creditor has no obligation to settle when they think you should be able to pay it fully back.",
"qid": 10246,
"docid": "249643",
"rank": 86,
"score": 55961
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: According to Active Equity Management by Zhou and Jain: When a stock pays dividend, the adjusted price in Yahoo makes the following adjustment: Let T be the ex-dividend date (the first date that the buyers of a stock will not receive the dividend) and T-1 be the last trading day before T. All prices before T are adjusted by a multiplier (C_{T-1} - d_T)/C_{T-1}, where C_{T-1} is the close price at T-1 and d_T is the dividend per share. This, of course means that the price before T decreases.",
"qid": 10246,
"docid": "305983",
"rank": 87,
"score": 55843
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Your ETF will return the interest as dividends. If you hold the ETF on the day before the Ex-Dividend date, you will get the dividend. If you sell before that, you will not. Note that at least one other answer to this question is wrong. You do NOT need to hold on the Record date. There is usually 2 days (or so) between the ex-date and the record date, which corresponds to the number of days it takes for your trade to settle. See the rules as published by the SEC: http://www.sec.gov/answers/dividen.htm",
"qid": 10246,
"docid": "511385",
"rank": 88,
"score": 55810
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: To see a chart with 1-minute data for a stock on a specific date: For example, here is the chart for TWTR on November 7, 2013 - the day of the IPO: Here is the chart for TWTR on November 8, 2013 - its second day of trading: Here is the chart for TWTR on November 11, 2013 - its third day of trading:",
"qid": 10246,
"docid": "542721",
"rank": 89,
"score": 55805
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: TARGET2 is a high value realtime settlement system across Europe and for this to be open on weekends would mean all the Banks including Central Banks in the Euro Zone work. Quite a few times to manage intra day liquidity, banks borrow from each other, hence there is an active monitering of the liquidity by Banks. The borrowing happens over phone and fax and the lending bank sending a high value transaction that credits the borrowing banks. These is the day to day job of treasury group [highly paid individuals] to manage liquidity. Now if on weekends the volume is less, it does not make sense to keep these people, the cost of supporting this for very insiginificant business gain is not driving to build such systems. On the other hand on retail transactions, say Cards [Debit / Credit], ATM, the value is not high and hence there is no treasury function involved and there is a huge need, everything is automated. So no issues.",
"qid": 10246,
"docid": "504999",
"rank": 90,
"score": 55633
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Is wash rule applicable for this? No - because you made a gain on the sale. You paid $13,500 for the stock and sold it for $14,250. The wash rule prevents you from claiming a loss if you buy the same stock again within 30 days. You have no loss to claim, so the rule does not apply.",
"qid": 10246,
"docid": "161155",
"rank": 91,
"score": 55379
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"If you can't find anyone to lend you the shares, then you can't short. You can attempt to raise the interest rate at which you will borrow at, in order to entice others to lend you their shares. In practice, broadcasting this information is pretty convoluted. If there aren't any stocks for you to buy back, then you have to buy back at a higher price. As in, place a limit buy order higher and higher until someone decides to sell to you. This affects your profit. Regarding the public ledger: This functions different in different markets. United States stock markets have an evolving body of regulations to alleviate the exact concerns you detailed, but Canada's or Dubai's stock markets would have different provisions. You make the assumption that it is an efficient process, but it is not and it is indeed ripe for abuse. In US stocks, the public ledger has a 3 business day delay between showing change of ownership. Many times brokers and clearing firms and other market participants allow a customer to go short with fake shares, with the idea that they will find real shares within the 3 business day time period to cover the position. During the time period that there is no real shares hitting the market, this is called a \"\"naked short\"\". The only legal system that attempts to deter this practice is the \"\"fail to deliver\"\" (FTD) list. If someone fails to deliver, that means there is a short position active with fake shares for which no real shares have been borrowed against. Too many FTD's allow for a short selling restriction to be placed, meaning nobody else can be short, and existing short sellers may be forced to cover.\"",
"qid": 10246,
"docid": "458907",
"rank": 92,
"score": 55051
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Indeed the IRS publication references the 3-6 year time span. And no limit for fraud. But. I get a notice that some stock I owned 10 years ago has a settlement pending, and the records of this stock purchase and sale would potentially get me back some money. I get my Social Security statement (the one they stopped sending, but this was before then) and I see the 1995 income shows zero. Both of these were easily resolved with my returns going all the way back, and my brokerage statement as well. For the brokerage, I recently started downloading all statements as PDFs, and storing a copy away from home. Less concerned about the bank statements as I've never had an issue where I'd need them.",
"qid": 10246,
"docid": "458047",
"rank": 93,
"score": 54912
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"As far as I understand, OP seems to be literally asking: \"\"why, regarding the various contracts on various exchanges (CBE, etc), is it that in some cases they are 'cash settled' and in some 'physically settled' -?\"\" The answer is only that \"\"the exchange in question happens to offer it that way.\"\" Note that it's utterly commonplace for contracts to be settled out physically, and happens in the billions as a daily matter. Conversely zillions in \"\"cash settled\"\" contracts play out each day. Both are totally commonplace. Different businesses or entities or traders would use the two \"\"varieties\"\" for sundry reasons. The different exchanges offer the different varieties, ultimately I guess because they happen to think that niche will be profitable. There's no \"\"galactic council\"\" or something that enforces which mode of settlement is available on a given offering - ! Recall that \"\"a given futures contracts market\"\" is nothing more than a product offered by a certain exchange company (just like Burger King sells different products). I believe in another aspect of the question, OP is asking basically: \"\"Why is there not, a futures contract, of the mini or micro variety for extremely small amounts, of currency futures, which, is 'physically' settled rather than cash settled ..?\"\" If that's the question the answer is just \"\"whatever, nobody's done it yet\"\". (Or, it may well exist. But it seems extremely unlikely? \"\"physically\"\" settled currencies futures are for entities operating in the zillions.) Sorry if the question was misunderstood.\"",
"qid": 10246,
"docid": "61985",
"rank": 94,
"score": 54761
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"For 60 days I got $2,958. What you have is how much it would cost you over a 3 month period ASSUMING that ALL of your receivables were paid at 30 days rather than 60. But I'm confused by \"\"our return is 3.6%\"\", is that the interest you're charging the customer for paying late? Would the invoice be 3.6/30 n-60? I'm not sure\"",
"qid": 10246,
"docid": "233253",
"rank": 95,
"score": 54282
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: For Canada No distinction is made in the regulation between “naked” or “covered” short sales. However, the practice of “naked” short selling, while not specifically enumerated or proscribed as such, may violate other provisions of securities legislation or self-regulatory organization rules where the transaction fails to settle. Specifically, section 126.1 of the Securities Act prohibits activities that result or contribute “to a misleading appearance of trading activity in, or an artificial price for, a security or derivative of a security” or that perpetrate a fraud on any person or company. Part 3 of National Instrument 23-101 Trading Rules contains similar prohibitions against manipulation and fraud, although a person or company that complies with similar requirements established by a recognized exchange, quotation and trade reporting system or regulation services provider is exempt from their application. Under section 127(1) of the Securities Act, the OSC also has a “public interest jurisdiction” to make a wide range of orders that, in its opinion, are in the public interest in light of the purposes of the Securities Act (notwithstanding that the subject activity is not specifically proscribed by legislation). The TSX Rule Book also imposes certain obligations on its “participating organizations” in connection with trades that fail to settle (see, for example, Rule 5-301 Buy-Ins). In other words, shares must be located by the broker before they can be sold short. A share may not be locatable because there are none available in the broker's inventory, that it cannot lend more than what it has on the books for trade. A share may not be available because the interest rate that brokers are charging to borrow the share is considered too high by that broker, usually if it doesn't pass on borrowing costs to the customer. There could be other reasons as well. If one broker doesn't have inventory, another might. I recommend checking in on IB's list. If they can't get it, my guess would be that no one can since IB passes on the cost to finance short sales.",
"qid": 10246,
"docid": "179893",
"rank": 96,
"score": 54149
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You have to call Interactive Brokers for this. This is what you should do, they might even have a web chat. These are very broker specific idiosyncrasies, because although margin rules are standardized to an extent, when they start charging you for interest and giving you margin until settlement may not be standardized. I mean, I can call them and tell you what they said for the 100 rep.",
"qid": 10246,
"docid": "338727",
"rank": 97,
"score": 54070
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Source Rule 41 of the AIM Rules sets out the procedure for delisting. In summary, a company that wishes to cancel the right of any of its trading securities must: The notification to the Exchange should be made by the company’s nominated adviser and should be given at least 20 business days prior to the intended cancellation date (the 20 business days’ notice requirement is a minimum). Any cancellation of a company’s securities on AIM will be conditional upon seeking shareholder approval in general meeting of not less than 75% of votes cast by its shareholders present and voting (in person or by proxy) at the meeting. The notification to shareholders should set out the preferred date of cancellation, the reasons for seeking the cancellation (for example annual fees to the Exchange, the cost of maintaining a nominated adviser and broker, professional costs, corporate governance compliance, inability to access funds on the market), a description of how shareholders will be able to effect transactions in the AIM securities once they have been cancelled and any other matters relevant to shareholders reaching an informed decision upon the issue of the cancellation. Cancellation will not take effect until at least 5 business days after the shareholder approval is obtained and a dealing notice has been issued by the Exchange. It should be noted that there are circumstances where the Exchange may agree that shareholder consent is not required for the cancellation of admission of a company’s shares, for example (i) where comparable dealing facilities on an EU regulated market or AIM designated market are put in place to enable shareholders to trade their AIM securities in the future or (ii) where, pursuant to a takeover which has become wholly unconditional, an offeror has received valid acceptances in excess of 75% of each class of AIM securities. The company’s Nominated Adviser will liaise with the Exchange to secure a dispensation if relevant. So you should receive information from the company regarding the due process informing you about your options.",
"qid": 10246,
"docid": "404852",
"rank": 98,
"score": 53940
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Not all futures contracts are deliverable. Some futures are specified as cash settlement only. In the case of deliverable contracts, part of the specification of a futures contract will be the delivery locations. As per my answer to your previous question, please see the CME Rulebook for details of delivery points for the deliverable futures contracts traded on CME, CBOT, NYMEX, and COMEX. Assuming your agreement with your broker allows you to exercise your right to take delivery, your broker will facilitate your delivery. You will be required to pay the contracted amount (your buy price x contract size x number of lots), as well as a delivery fee, insurance, and warehousing fees. In addition, your broker may charge you a fee for facilitating the delivery. You will be required to continue to pay insurance and warehousing fees so long as your holding of the underlying commodity is held in the exchange's designated warehouse. If you wish to take delivery yourself by having the commodity removed from the warehouse and delivered to you personally, then you will need to arrange this delivery yourself. Warehouse/delivery points obviously vary according the contract being exercised. See the CME Rulebook for available delivery points. Some exchanges are more accommodating than others. The practicality of taking delivery very much depends on your personal circumstances. An investment bank taking delivery of treasury bonds would be more practical than an individual investor taking delivery of treasury bonds. This is because the individual investor would be required to deliver the bonds to a brokerage in order to sell them. In the case of non-financial futures deliveries, it is hard to imagine any circumstance where an individual taking delivery would be practical.",
"qid": 10246,
"docid": "514406",
"rank": 99,
"score": 53931
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"In most cases of purchases the general advice is to save the money and then make the purchase. Paying cash for a car is recommended over paying credit for example. For a house, getting a mortgage is recommended. Says who? These rules of thumb hide the actual equations behind them; they should be understood as heuristics, not as the word of god. The Basics The basic idea is, if you pay for something upfront, you pay some fixed cost, call it X, where as with a loan you need to pay interest payments on X, say %I, as well as at least fixed payments P at timeframe T, resulting in some long term payment IX. Your Assumption To some, this obviously means upfront payments are better than interest payments, as by the time the loan is paid off, you will have paid more than X. This is a good rule of thumb (like Newtonian's equations) at low X, high %I, and moderate T, because all of that serves to make the end result IX > X. Counter Examples Are there circumstances where the opposite is true? Here's a simple but contrived one: you don't pay the full timeframe. Suppose you die, declare bankruptcy, move to another country, or any other event that reduces T in such a way that XI is less than X. This actually is a big concern for older debtors or those who contract terminal illnesses, as you can't squeeze those payments out of the dead. This is basically manipulating the whole concept. Let's try a less contrived example: suppose you can get a return higher than %I. I can currently get a loan at around %3 due to good credit, but index funds in the long run tend to pay %4-%5. Taking a loan and investing it may pay off, and would be better than waiting to have the money, even in some less than ideal markets. This is basically manipulating T to deal with IX. Even less contrived and very real world, suppose you know your cash flow will increase soon; a promotion, an inheritance, a good market return. It may be better to take the loan now, enjoy whatever product you get until that cash flows in, then pay it all off at once; the enjoyment of the product will make the slight additional interest worth it. This isn't so much manipulating any part of the equation, it's just you have different goals than the loan. Home Loan Analysis For long term mortgages, X is high, usually higher than a few years pay; it would be a large burden to save that money for most people. %I is also typically fairly low; P is directly related to %I, and the bank can't afford to raise payments too much, or people will rent instead, meaning P needs to be affordable. This does not apply in very expensive areas, which is why cities are often mostly renters. T is also extremely long; usually mortgages are for 15 or 30 years, though 10 year options are available. Even with these shorter terms, it's basically the longest term loan a human will ever take. This long term means there is plenty of time for the market to have a fluctuation and raise the investments current price above the remainder of the loan and interest accrued, allowing you to sell at a profit. As well, consider the opportunity cost; while saving money for a home, you still need a place to live. This additional cost is comparable to mortgage payments, meaning X has a hidden constant; the cost of renting. Often X + R > IX, making taking a loan a better choice than saving up. Conclusion \"\"The general advice\"\" is a good heuristic for most common human payments; we have relatively long life spans compared to most common payments, and the opportunity cost of not having most goods is relatively low. However, certain things have a high opportunity cost; if you can't talk to HR, you can't apply for jobs (phone), if you can't get to work, you can't eat (car), and if you have no where to live, it's hard to keep a job (house). For things with high opportunity costs, the interest payments are more than worth it.\"",
"qid": 10246,
"docid": "543365",
"rank": 100,
"score": 53529
}
] |
How should I prepare for the next financial crisis? | [
{
"content": "Title: Content: Wow, everyone tells you different investment strategies. You have all your life ahead of you. Your main focus should not be getting the best return rate, but ensuring your existence. Who cares if you get 7% if you'll lose all in the next market crash and stand on the street with no education, no job and nothing to fall back on? I would go a completely different route in your place: The best advise given above was to not consider this as an option to never work again. It's not enough money for that, unless you want to live poorly and always be afraid that the next financial crises wipes you out completely.",
"qid": 10267,
"docid": "487348",
"rank": 1,
"score": 129252
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"No you should not borrow money at 44.9%. I would recommend not borrowing money except for a home with a healthy deposit (called down payment outside UK). in December 2016, i had financial crisis So that was like 12 days ago. You make it sound like the crisis was a total random event, that you did nothing to cause it. Financial crises are rarely without fault. Common causes are failure to understand risk, borrowing too much, insuring too little, improper maintenance, improper reserves, improper planning, etc... Taking a good step or two back and really understanding the cause of your financial crisis and how it could be avoided in the future is very useful. Talk to someone who is actually wealthy about how you could have behaved differently to avoid the \"\"crisis\"\". There are some small set of crises that are no fault of your own. However in those cases the recipe to recovery is patience. Attempting to recover in 12 days is a recipe for further disaster. Your willingness to consider borrowing at 44% suggests this crisis was self-inflicted. It also indicates you need a whole lot more education in personal finance. This is reinforced by your insatiable desire for a high credit score. Credit score is no indication of wealth, and is meaningless until you desire to borrow money. From what I read, you should not be borrowing money. When the time comes for you to buy a home with a mortgage, its fairly easy to have a high enough credit score to borrow at a good rate. You get there by paying your bills on time and having a sufficient deposit. Don't chase a high credit score at the expense of building real wealth.\"",
"qid": 10267,
"docid": "230612",
"rank": 2,
"score": 128256
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I bet you also believe that the financial crisis is the fault of people who borrowed more than they could afford. The mortgage brokers and banks are not at fault and its the dumb consumers who should have hired an attorney and an financial planner before singing any paperwork that got us into this mess.",
"qid": 10267,
"docid": "332585",
"rank": 3,
"score": 124416
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Well.... If you have alllll your money invested, and then there's a financial crisis, and there's a personal crisis at the same time (e.g. you lose your job) then you're in big trouble. You might not have enough money to cover your bills while you find a new job. You could lose your house, ruin your credit, or something icky like that. Think 2008. Even if there's not a financial crisis, if the money is in a tax-sheltered retirement account then withdrawing it will incur ugly penalities. Now, after you've got an emergency fund established, things are different. If you could probably ride out six to twelve months with your general-purpose savings, then with the money you are investing for the long term (retirement) there's no reason you shouldn't invest 100% of the money in stocks. The difference is that you're not going to come back for that money in 6 months, you're going to come back for it in 40 years. As for retirement savings over the long term, though, I don't think it's a good idea to think of your money in those terms. If you ever lose 100% of your money on the stock market while you've invested in diversified instruments like S&P500 index funds, you're probably screwed one way or another because that represents the core industrial base of the US economy, and you'll have better things to worry about, like looking for a used shotgun. Myself, I prefer to give the suggestion \"\"don't invest any money in stocks if you're going to need to take it out in the next 5 years or so\"\" because you generally shouldn't be worried about a 100% loss of all the money in stocks your retirement accounts nearly so much as you should be worried about weathering large, medium-term setbacks, like the dot-com bubble crash and the 2008 financial crisis. I save the \"\"don't invest money unless you can afford to lose it all\"\" advice for highly speculative instruments like gold futures or social-media IPOs. Remember also that while you might lose a lot of your money on the stock market, your savings accounts and bonds will earn you pathetic amounts by comparison, which you will slowly lose to inflation. If you've had your money invested for decades then even during a crash you may still be coming out ahead relative to bonds.\"",
"qid": 10267,
"docid": "185123",
"rank": 4,
"score": 119861
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Things earned can be easily taken away in a time of crisis with the flick of a pen, you are probably better off preparing yourself by means of being self-sufficent, independant, capable and skilled in a profession that is likely to be in demand regardless of the crisis at hand. Bad things will happen to you, it might be the stock market or the rise of hyper-intelligent bunnies, a good investor would say diversify your risk and be prepared for anything.",
"qid": 10267,
"docid": "87520",
"rank": 5,
"score": 113303
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Those ‘crises’ are only an issue if you need your savings during the time of crisis. If you have time to sit it out, you should just do that, and come out of the crisis with a gain. People that lose money during a crisis lose it because they sell their investments during the crisis, either because they had to or because they thought they should. If you look at historic values of investments, the market overall always recovers and goes over the orignal value some time after the crisis. Investing even more right in the crisisis the best way to make a lot of money.",
"qid": 10267,
"docid": "457108",
"rank": 6,
"score": 111503
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Are you willing to risk the possibility of investing to prepare for these things and losing money or simply getting meager returns if those crises don't happen? Just invest in a well diversified portfolio both geographically and across multiple sectors and you should be fine.",
"qid": 10267,
"docid": "569632",
"rank": 7,
"score": 110415
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: 1) The risks are that you investing in financial markets and therefore should be prepared for volatility in the value of your holdings. 2) You should only ever invest in financial markets with capital that you can reasonably afford to put aside and not touch for 5-10 years (as an investor not a trader). Even then you should be prepared to write this capital off completely. No one can offer you a guarantee of what will happen in the future, only speculation from what has happened in the past. 3) Don't invest. It is simple. Keep your money in cash. However this is not without its risks. Interest rates rarely keep up with inflation so the spending power of cash investments quickly diminishes in real terms over time. So what to do? Extended your time horizon as you have mentioned to say 30 years, reinvest all dividends as these have been proven to make up the bulk of long term returns and drip feed your money into these markets over time. This will benefit you from what is known in as 'dollar cost averaging' and will negate the need for you to time the market.",
"qid": 10267,
"docid": "144002",
"rank": 8,
"score": 107026
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I'd like to provide ideas other than gold, stocks, property, bonds on how to prepare for a severe crisis. My suggestions below may even make your life more happy now.",
"qid": 10267,
"docid": "178693",
"rank": 9,
"score": 105458
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The financial crisis really started in 2008 with Bear Stearns starting the downfall in March. So it wasn't the 2007 crisis like you posted in your first point. To learn about that, a quick read that explains a lot of it is \"\"The Big Short\"\" by Michael Lewis.\"",
"qid": 10267,
"docid": "549409",
"rank": 10,
"score": 103667
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Less than 2 1/2% of all US currency actually exists. The rest is digital entries. In a financial crisis you'll need lots of rare cash. Twenty dollar bills are the best choice. Stash as many as you can afford to. Best to stash in a anchored security safe. And for goodness sakes, don't tell anyone.",
"qid": 10267,
"docid": "110360",
"rank": 11,
"score": 100949
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you've already done some micro and macro, you are on the right track to learn finance. What you should study next depends on what kind of finance you want to know more about. Is it M&A and corporate finance, more macro would not help much, but maybe some financial accounting. You could see if you could get your hands on a corporate finance text book since they are a good starting place to learn more about finance in general (and such a book is a relatively easy read). Much finance, however, requires good quantitative skills so probability, statistics, linear algebra and calculus, and their applications to finance, is never a bad thing to look into. This would open up for understanding e.g. derivatives that played a huge role in the financial crisis and in financial markets today.",
"qid": 10267,
"docid": "204473",
"rank": 12,
"score": 99658
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"All you have to do is survey the main cast of characters in finance and politics to assess the generational culpability. Dimon, Blankfein, Geithner - all Gen X. This crisis was about Gen X refusing to hold their own accountable so as not to lose face with Baby Boomers. Gen X wasn't raped. The \"\"financial copulation\"\" was consensual\"",
"qid": 10267,
"docid": "378843",
"rank": 13,
"score": 99435
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Alright, a few things: 1. The \"\"crisis\"\" is likely a recession type thing. There are arguments to be made for avoiding debt (less \"\"hurt\"\" from a downturn in sales), or for taking on the debt (rack up the sales early, take the hit, then press on). I'm in the latter category; everyone's going to take a hit, not everyone is going to have the inertia from previous rounds to sustain themselves through it. 2. \"\"In that case I might just hold off until before that date...\"\" This only makes sense if you know exactly when it's going to happen. If you don't, then you're making a large gamble. Even if you do, you're sacrificing growth for security. 3. The balance sheet shouldn't have *too* much of an effect. Debt loads will. Debt coverage and interest coverage will. 4. Debt is a tool. It amplifies losses AND gains. A company with a lot of debt and a good sales year will outperform a company with no debt and an excellent sales year. You're in a closed-system of competition. You need to be hyper-aggressive. 5. **\"\"There are only two things a company does: innovation and marketing. The rest are all cost.\"\"** 6. Assuming this is a manufacturing type of company (i.e. Capsim), pay attention to your R&D acutely, max out your marketing budget, and pay close attention to your capacity and production. Read the rules to ensure they make sense, and make a model/spreadsheet if it makes sense. Coordinate with team members rigorously. 7. **Win.**\"",
"qid": 10267,
"docid": "252894",
"rank": 14,
"score": 98718
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"If you're asking this question, you probably aren't ready to be buying individual stock shares, and may not be ready to be investing in the market at all. Short-term in the stock market is GAMBLING, pure and simple, and gambling against professionals at that. You can reduce your risk if you spend the amount of time and effort the pros do on it, but if you aren't ready to accept losses you shouldn't be playing and if you aren't willing to bet it all on a single throw of the dice you should diversify and accept lower potential gain in exchange for lower risk. (Standard advice: Index funds.) The way an investor, as opposed to a gambler, deals with a stock price dropping -- or surging upward, or not doing anything! -- is to say \"\"That's interesting. Given where it is NOW, do I expect it to go up or down from here, and do I think I have someplace to put the money that will do better?\"\" If you believe the stock will gain value from here, holding it may make more sense than taking your losses. Specific example: the mortgage-crisis market crash of a few years ago. People who sold because stock prices were dropping and they were scared -- or whose finances forced them to sell during the down period -- were hurt badly. Those of us who were invested for the long term and could afford to leave the money in the market -- or who were brave/contrarian enough to see it as an opportunity to buy at a better price -- came out relatively unscathed; all I have \"\"lost\"\" was two years of growth. So: You made your bet. Now you have to decide: Do you really want to \"\"buy high, sell low\"\" and take the loss as a learning experience, or do you want to wait and see whether you can sell not-so-low. If you don't know enough about the company to make a fairly rational decision on that front, you probably shouldn't have bought its stock.\"",
"qid": 10267,
"docid": "138096",
"rank": 15,
"score": 98717
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Borrowing against your retirement is borrowing against your future -- you shouldn't do it expect for the most serious financial crises. The market is down, and 12% is a pretty darn good down payment. You'll hit the threshold where they waive PMI in a few years when you hit 80% LTV, or when you get the house appraised when the market heats up again. Another option is to find a lender that doesn't do PMI. A few local banks and credit unions do this... I managed to find one in my area that doesn't require PMI or escrowed tax/insurance!",
"qid": 10267,
"docid": "499839",
"rank": 16,
"score": 97611
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: This advice will be too specific, but... With the non-retirement funds, start by paying off the car loan if it's more than ~3% interest rate. The remainder: looks like a good emergency fund. If you don't have one of those yet, you do now. Store it in the best interest-bearing savings account you can find (probably accessible by online banking). If you wish to grow your emergency fund beyond $14-20,000 you might also consider some bonds, to boost your returns and add a little risk (but not nearly as much risk as stocks). With the Roth IRA - first of all, toss the precious metals. Precious metals are a crisis hedge and an advanced speculative instrument, not a beginner's investment strategy for 40% of the portfolio. You're either going to use this money for retirement, or your down payment fund. If it's retirement: you're 28; even with a kid on the way, you can afford to take risks in the retirement portfolio. Put it in either a targe-date fund or a series of index funds with an asset allocation suggested by an asset-allocation-suggestion calculator. You should probably have north of 80% stocks if it's money for retirement. If you're starting a down-payment fund, or want to save for something similar, or if you want to treat the IRA money like it's a down-payment fund, either use one of these Vanguard LifeStrategy funds or something that's structured to do the same sort of thing. I'm throwing Vanguard links at you because they have the funds with the low expense ratios. You can use Vanguard at your discretion if it's all an IRA (and not a 401(k)). Feel free to use an alternative, but watch the expense ratios lest they consume up to half your returns.",
"qid": 10267,
"docid": "492423",
"rank": 17,
"score": 96727
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Lots of people make poor decisions in crises. Some panic, and don't make any decision at all. Insurance for affordable things can provide emotional security: If something goes wrong, the purchaser will not have to make a painful financial decision in a crisis. Many people do not want to have the burden of arguing about money, or having to spend precious cash, or borrow money, or raid savings accounts, just at the time they are already reeling from another loss. Having insurance \"\"just take care of it\"\" can save them an emotional double-whammy. Several kinds of insurance fill this perceived need:\"",
"qid": 10267,
"docid": "475452",
"rank": 18,
"score": 96286
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I would apply extra cash left over at the end of the month as follows, in order of priority: Realize, though, that this is my take on priority. My experience has been that a liquidity crisis is much more stressful than having a mortgage or other debt -- illiquid wealth is almost useless when you need cash. So if you still have strong feelings about retiring that debt after considering the liquidity issue, go ahead and swap #3 and #4 above. Make plans to pay off the mortgage over the next 10 years. Find a mortgage payoff calculator and make extra monthly payments that keep you on a 10 year schedule. I'd strongly suggest making sure your retirement savings are on track, though. Time is on your side here, and your required monthly contribution will be low now while you're still in your 20s.",
"qid": 10267,
"docid": "11791",
"rank": 19,
"score": 95795
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I just thought of some of the financial crisis/events of particular significance, and then also just thought of the world over the next ten years. I shouldn't have included the Cuban missile crisis... idk how that slipped in there. It wasn't a well researched comment by any means.",
"qid": 10267,
"docid": "36961",
"rank": 20,
"score": 95376
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Anyone with a background in finance should have been well aware that the government would swoop in with a bailout of the major banks. Such a scenario was even discussed in money and banking textbooks pre financial crisis. Since I have no excess cash, and wad in senior year of college, I was unable to capitalize on that, but I did invest in the banks in market simulating games 😁",
"qid": 10267,
"docid": "68980",
"rank": 21,
"score": 94828
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You need to know loans are not free; and they are not a way to solve budget issues. If you are having problems with making your income last over your expenses, you do not need to add another expense (in the form of a loan) What you really need to do is create a budget, track and understand your expenses, and then decide if you should focus on raising your net income level or cutting down expenses. Keep up with your budget. You can reduce the frequency, but you need to track your spending really for the rest of you life. It is just a good habit, like personal hygiene. Once you understand your money (via your budget), you can start to save money into an emergency fund that will cover you during the times of zig zags. I say it very plainly as if it is super easy; but it requires will power and the foresight to understand that if you don't manage your money, nobody else will. Being sane with your money is one of the most important things you can do now to improve your future. IMPROVEMENT NathanL has an excellent first step with budgeting: Allocate money to be spent for the next month from money made during the previous month. This will build a cushion into your budget and alleviate the fear that the OP mentioned",
"qid": 10267,
"docid": "578508",
"rank": 22,
"score": 94508
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: One of the funnier parts of the finance crisis was seeing just how awful Morgenson could be. Every time she wrote something dumb, she'd manage to one-up herself the next time. It was impressive. (which made me remember that [Calculated Risk even had a tag](http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/search/label/Picking%20On%20Poor%20Gretchen) for posts about her awful stories.)",
"qid": 10267,
"docid": "131193",
"rank": 23,
"score": 94475
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you're referring to investment hedging, then you should diversify into things that would profit if expected event hit. For example alternative energy sources would benefit greatly from increased evidence of global warming, or the onset of peak oil. Preparing for calamities that would render the stock market inaccessible, the answer is quite different. Simply own more of things that people would want than you need. A list of possibilities would include: Precious metals are also a way to secure value outside the financial markets, but would not be readily sellable until the immediate calamity had passed. All this should be balanced on an honest evaluation of the risks, including the risk of nothing happening. I've heard of people not saving for retirement because they don't expect the financial markets to be available then, but that's not a risk I'm willing to take.",
"qid": 10267,
"docid": "436091",
"rank": 24,
"score": 93962
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \">the population is burdened with debt and anxious about job security, and long term security and healthcare (and not sending them into poverty because of it) and the country remaining solvent and what the next financial crisis will be and the terrorist boogymen H. L. Mencken once said, *\"\"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.\"\"* I don't know how imaginary it all is but they sure are menacing the shit out of us with it.\"",
"qid": 10267,
"docid": "22036",
"rank": 25,
"score": 93935
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Since your question was first posted, I happened to watch PBS FRONTLINE's The Retirement Gamble, about \"\"America's Retirement Crisis\"\" and the retirement industry. You can watch the entire episode online at the previous link, and it's also available on DVD. Here's a link to the episode transcript. Here's a partial blurb from a post at PBS that announced the episode: If you’ve been watching any commercial television lately, you are well aware that the financial services industry is very busy running expensive ads imploring us to worry about our retirement futures. Open a new account today, they say. They are not wrong that we should be doing something: America is facing a retirement crisis. One in three Americans has no retirement savings at all. One in two reports that they can’t save enough. On top of that, we are living longer, and health care costs, as we all know, are increasing. But, as I found when investigating the retirement planning and mutual funds industries in The Retirement Gamble, which airs tonight on FRONTLINE, those advertisements are imploring us to start saving for one simple reason. Retirement is big business — and very profitable. (... more... ) There's another related PBS FRONTLINE documentary from back in 2006, Can You Afford To Retire? You'll find a link on that page to watch the program online. Finally, I'm also aware of but haven't yet seen a new documentary called Broken Eggs: The Looming Retirement Crisis in America. Looks like it isn't available for online streaming or on DVD yet, but I expect it would be, eventually.\"",
"qid": 10267,
"docid": "204747",
"rank": 26,
"score": 92983
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: This is my list of emerging markets so far. - Digital cash (cryptocurrencies) Potential triggers: Financial crisis. If there is an other financial crisis, it will probably be triggered by our banking system again. Consumer confidence will drop heavily. As result, people will search for other methods to keep their money stored (as in the greek banking crisis in 2008, where greek residents mass adopted Bitcoin.) - Alternative fuel Potential trigger: Our oil supply isn’t indefinite/endless. Sooner or later there must be an alternative sort of fuel to keep our on-oil-running-systems available. With the rise of demand in durability, this alternative fuel has to be very nature friendly (unlike diesel/oil/gasoline). Potential alternative: Ethanol. - A better way to store power produced by solar power systems. Why? Need for energy will grow because of the increasing amount of people on earth Cities are getting larger + more advanced. This results in an even bigger There is a rise of intrest in green energy because of the world climate change. Potential trigger: Solar power is one of the most emerging markets at the moment.. Unfortunately we are still unable to store 100% of the empowered solarpower. In China only 20% of the electricity created by solar power machines is useable. This is mainly because the power created is way bigger, than the abillity to store and transfer solar power. - Artificial intelligence (robot knowlegde) - An alternative for meat, which tastes just like regular meat - Complete autofunctional busses. Potential trigger: Shortage of busdrivers. Plus the advancements in robot technology will make it possible to put robots in function, on places where there is a shortage of humans. - Biotechnical-healthcare (the interference of robots in our healthsystem) - Alzheimer/Cancer medicine - Legalization of weed Potential trigger: Governance approval - Virtual reality (gaming) Potential trigger: The abillity to make the VR-gear affordable for every consumer. Increasing the amount of games available in VR. - The abillity to print everything with a 3D-printer, to reduce cost/staffexpenses and to increase efficiency - Africa",
"qid": 10267,
"docid": "504672",
"rank": 27,
"score": 92322
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The safest financial decisions that you can make in Greece involve getting your money out of Greece. That said, it depends. If the economy is going to implode and you'll be out of the job with devalued savings -- you'll be bankrupt anyway. You didn't mention enough about your situation for anyone to really answer the question. In a high-inflation environment, *if*you have the assets to weather the storm, holding debt on real property and durable goods is a good thing. The key considerations are: If you have the means, times of crisis are great opportunities.",
"qid": 10267,
"docid": "424744",
"rank": 28,
"score": 91359
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: OCTOBER 18, 2017 by John Gapper Goldman Sachs making too little money is not the worst of the world’s problems. But inside the investment bank’s New York headquarters, it feels like an insult. Goldman is not suffering a financial crisis, as it did in 2008 when it officially converted to being a bank holding company amid panic that the whole of Wall Street could collapse. It faces something deeper: an identity crisis. It used to be the role model for many rival banks — envied even while resented for its single-minded focus on investment banking and trading. But as Tuesday’s disclosure of a 26 per cent fall in its bond trading revenues confirmed, banking has changed. Instead of lenders such as JPMorgan Chase wanting to become as glamorous as Goldman, it needs to be more like them. This is a telling moment, albeit less dramatic than 2008. Investment banking enjoyed a lucrative two decades, spurred by globalisation and financial liberalisation. Goldman’s revenues rose briskly from its initial public offering in 1999 to 2007, and boomed in 2009. It could do no wrong financially, although it turned out to have done wrong to some of its customers. But guess what? Regulation works. Governments and central bank supervisors set out to make complex trading in bonds and derivatives, the securities business in which Goldman specialised, more expensive and less profitable. The rules now favour deposit taking and lending instead of wizardry. No one really planned the second aspect of the bank’s difficulty. The huge dose of monetary easing since the crisis has damped volatility and made markets more predictable. Hedge funds, themselves under pressure, no longer need to reward Goldman and others for taking on financial risk. Goldman’s bond and commodities trading division — from which emerged a cadre of leaders including Lloyd Blankfein, its chairman and chief executive — tells its own story. It used to occupy two floors of the New York office but has shrunk to one as Wall Street’s total bond trading revenues have halved since 2009. More prices are calculated by computers than humans. When you rely heavily on one engine and that engine sputters, you are in trouble. The bank’s financial advisory and capital raising division is performing well and it has an investment management arm. But it lacks a consumer powerhouse like Morgan Stanley’s wealth management operation, or the lending and credit card activities that drive banks such as JPMorgan. The humbling truth for Goldman is that US retail banking has become not only more reliable than investment banking, but more profitable. JPMorgan’s balance sheet is three times the size of Goldman’s and its retail banking arm made a 19 per cent return on equity in the third quarter, compared with Goldman’s 11 per cent. The best historical comparison for Goldman’s predicament is, ironically, the JPMorgan of the 1990s. JPMorgan was a blue-chip corporate bank but found that this business was no longer profitable enough as lending margins fell. It launched an effort to return to investment banking, having been separated from Morgan Stanley in 1935 by the Glass-Steagall Act. JPMorgan had a good stab at it, compensating for the fact that Goldman and others dominated Wall Street’s “bulge bracket” by pioneering credit derivatives (which later turned out badly). But it could not make enough progress alone and settled for being bought by Chase Manhattan in 2000. “Both [banks] have struggled to keep pace with the rapid growth of the leading investment banks, which are in businesses that have been far more lucrative than the lending business at the core of commercial banking,” the New York Times noted in its account of the merger. Seventeen years and one financial crisis later, JPMorgan has reversed this order of profitability. So Goldman is now trying to do the opposite of the old JPMorgan by adding banking to investment banking. JPMorgan’s former dilemma has not gone away — lending to blue-chip companies is not much of a moneymaker. A more tempting target is the high margins that banks make on credit cards. Hence Marcus, Goldman’s online lender (named after its founder Marcus Goldman), which offers loans to prime US consumers as an alternative to credit card debt. Marcus, which will launch next year in the UK, accounts for $12bn of the $28bn in new lending and financing planned by Goldman in the next three years as it diversifies. But it is no simpler for Goldman to break into Main Street than it was for the old JPMorgan to break back into Wall Street: $12bn on a balance sheet of $930bn is an interesting financial experiment, not a revolution. It would need to inflict on consumer banking with technology what Amazon did to the retail industry to rival fully JPMorgan and Bank of America. “We’re a bank and we’re committed to being a bank,” says one partner firmly. But selling personal loans and mortgages, which could be Marcus’s next target, is not a job designed for masters of the universe. This is Goldman’s identity crisis: regulation and economics are rendering it ordinary.",
"qid": 10267,
"docid": "198895",
"rank": 29,
"score": 91179
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The three rating agencies S&P,Moodys & Fitch were the Architects of the 2007-2008 Financial crisis. [Start here ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_rating_agencies_and_the_subprime_crisis ) The Fed is now planning to unwind its [balance sheet](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-26/fed-says-balance-sheet-unwind-to-start-relatively-soon-j5lbf6ik) in October The Feds balance sheet contains the same crap these assholes rated AAA And so now as times come to try and sell that shit, they the rating agencies reappear to create misdirection while this hoax on the Global financial system is perpetrated.",
"qid": 10267,
"docid": "35442",
"rank": 30,
"score": 90874
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-fed-yellen-idUSKBN19I2I5) reduced by 64%. (I'm a bot) ***** > LONDON U.S. Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen said on Tuesday that she does not believe that there will be another financial crisis for at least as long as she lives, thanks largely to reforms of the banking system since the 2007-09 crash. > Yellen said it would &quot;Not be a good thing&quot; if reforms of the financial services industry since the crisis were unwound, and urged those who had helped manage the fallout at the time to be vocal in preventing such a dilution. > Yellen declined to comment when asked about her relationship with Trump but said she had a good working relationship with U.S. Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6jys86/feds_yellen_expects_no_new_financial_crisis_in/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~154464 tl;drs so far.\"\") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") | *Top* *keywords*: **U.S.**^#1 **Yellen**^#2 **bank**^#3 **crisis**^#4 **financial**^#5\"",
"qid": 10267,
"docid": "293173",
"rank": 31,
"score": 90506
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.cityfalcon.com/blog/investments/student-loan-debt-new-mortgage-crisis/?utm_campaign=ao_reddit) reduced by 94%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Costs of living, especially for those attending universities in cities like New York or London, also account for a nontrivial portion of the debt. > Is the student debt bubble in the United States the next mortgage crisis? > One major difference between the student debt problem and the mortgage crisis is the lack of CDOs and CDSs. The thread that connected banks, governments, individuals and economies were the CDO and CDS. With a complex system of mortgage securitization and insurance against those securities, the system effectively collapsed itself. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/79mt1s/student_loan_debt_the_new_mortgage_crisis_in_2018/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~237528 tl;drs so far.\"\") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") | *Top* *keywords*: **debt**^#1 **student**^#2 **education**^#3 **economy**^#4 **borrowed**^#5\"",
"qid": 10267,
"docid": "75418",
"rank": 32,
"score": 90003
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You bet if it was so simple. This is when financial acumen comes into its true form. The bank would never ever want to go insolvent. What it does is, take insurance against the borrower defaulting. Remember the financial crisis of 2008 which was the outcome of borrowers defaulting. The banks had created derivatives based on the loans distributed. CDO, CDS are some of the simple derivatives banks sell to cover their backs in case of defaults. There are derivatives using these derivatives as underlyings which they then sold it across to other buyers including other banks. Google for Fabrice Tourre and you would realise how much deep the banks go to save themselves from defaulters. If everything fails then go to the government for help. That was what happened when the US government doled out $600 billion to save the financial sector.",
"qid": 10267,
"docid": "340436",
"rank": 33,
"score": 89827
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: 1) It sounds like you don't have a credit card, good. Take our ATM card and freeze it in a block of ice. Leave it in the freezer. 2) Get on a budget. A budget is a plan to spend your money. The best plans are those that are made ahead of time. For the record, budgeting is a skill and you will probably be bad at it for the first few times. 3) Withdraw cash from the bank account that you will need for the week. Once that money is gone, you are done spending until the next week. If you are still having trouble with this do it daily. Let's say you budget 300 for the month's spending. Go to the bank, take out 10 each day. You can carry money over from day-to-day, but never take out more. You can never spend more than you have because your ATM is in ice. 4) Find a friend who is good with money. Ask them to help you by giving guidance and oversight.",
"qid": 10267,
"docid": "30477",
"rank": 34,
"score": 89746
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Have to do a presentation for an International Business and Cultures class in about a month and the assigned WSJ article isn't quite clicking with me and looking for a kind soul here to put it into layman's terms I guess. If I am violating any policy or breaking a rule by posting the text from the article, please delete. Thank you for any reply! WASHINGTON--Finance officials trying to avert the next global economic crisis found time at a summit here to worry about something besides Brexit and European banks: China's mounting debts and its flagging economic overhauls. The country's surging credit growth, overcapacity in its steel and metals industries and its bloated housing market drew widespread complaints from finance officials and central bankers attending semiannual meetings of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank. Officials congratulated China for its efforts to get the yuan included in the IMF's international basket of currencies, known as special drawing rights, starting Oct. 1. And despite a couple of scares in the past year or so, the country's markets and economic growth have appeared to stabilize in recent months. But in a sign of how important the world's second-biggest economy is to global growth, China is increasingly being called out. U.S. Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew warned Beijing in unusually candid language about China's overproduction and overbuilding, which he suggested could become the biggest U.S. complaint about the country, as their earlier disputes over the country's exchange rate become less divisive. \"\"I'm talking about steel, I'm talking about aluminum, I'm talking about real estate--when you don't have market forces driving investment, when you don't have bad investments allowed to fail, you end up with resources allocated in a way that ultimately chokes the future of economic growth,\"\" Mr. Lew said at the Peterson Institute for International Economics on Thursday. The IMF zeroed in on a measure called current credit overhang, a widely followed international indicator of potential crises. The deviation of China's credit growth from its long-term trend has surged from zero during the financial crisis to up to 27%. Last year, banks' balance sheets grew to 286% of gross domestic product. \"\"More is needed, especially to curb excess credit growth, reduce the opacity of credit products, and ensure sound interbank funding structures,\"\" said Peter Dattels, deputy director of the fund's monetary and capital-markets department. China's policy makers are caught in a deepening trap, economists say. Dealing with the debt problem would require the country to start deleveraging. But slower credit growth is bound to hamper the overall economy. That could backfire by making it harder for companies to repay existing debt. Clamping down on credit would also raise the prospect of political unrest in a country that has grown accustomed to very rapid growth. Faced with such unappetizing prospects, the country's leaders have largely eschewed credit restraint in the hope that they will be able to deal with its economic problems over time. Part of the problem is the complicated and poorly disclosed structure of the country's swollen banking system, economists say. \"\"The increasing complexity, opaqueness of the shadow banking, both on the asset side, but even more on the funding side where a lot of the funding is short term, is not stable,\"\" Markus Rodlauer, the IMF's Asia-Pacific deputy director, told reporters on Thursday. \"\"It's still of a size that is manageable, but the trajectory is dangerous, and needs to be contained.\"\" China's appetite for steel and aluminum, which shrank abruptly in the past year or so, is of vital interest to commodity-exporting economies such as Russia and Brazil. For now, exporters appear to be confident that demand won't drop off again in the short term. \"\"China's growth is stabilized at a lower level,\"\" Brazilian Finance Minister Henrique Meirelles said in an interview. \"\"I don't see a further collapse coming.\"\" Still, much will depend on China's economic transition. \"\"They are trying to alter their priority from manufacturing to services, from export-oriented to domestic consumption,\"\" said Indian Finance Minister Arun Jaitley in an interview. \"\"In the transformational stage, there will be ripples.\"\" Chinese officials in Washington touted the country's annual GDP of between 6% and 7% and said growth has remained stable as economy transitions. \"\"If that transformation is successful, China will continue to have a stable share of global growth,\"\" People's Bank of China Deputy Governor Yi Gang said on Thursday. Ian Talley and Bob Davis contributed to this article. Credit: By William Mauldin\"",
"qid": 10267,
"docid": "233171",
"rank": 35,
"score": 89274
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you know the market will crash, you could opt for going short. However, if you think this is too risky, not investing at all is probably your best move. In case of crises, correlation go up and almost all assets go down.",
"qid": 10267,
"docid": "66219",
"rank": 36,
"score": 89036
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Yes, I think this is the general idea. We're going through a deleveraging. On the one hand, this isn't entirely a bad thing because the financial crisis showed some people were lending irresponsibly. A lot of bad loans were made and bad loans that don't get repaid cause a lot of havoc. One the down side, like the original poster said this makes it seem like money is drying up. This has been a bigger problem in some places than other. A lot would argue, myself included, that the US has deleveraged relatively--and key word is relatively--smoothly. Other places, like Europe have not been so lucky.",
"qid": 10267,
"docid": "126307",
"rank": 37,
"score": 88961
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you use a financial planner not only should they be a fiduciary but you should just pay them an hourly rate once a year instead of a percentage unless the percentage is cheaper at this time. To find a good one, go to the National Association of Personal Financial Advisers website, NAPFA.org. Another good resource is Garrett Planning Network: GarrettPlanningNetwork.com.",
"qid": 10267,
"docid": "207710",
"rank": 38,
"score": 88897
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: >Which one is Citibank I literally *just* told you retard. >Those CEO's (including this prick) were responsible for it. No they werent. CDO's / MBS's are *not* from depository banks. The financial institutions that are responsible for the financial crisis are primarily Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns and AIG. AKA 2 *investment* banks and an insurance firm. So as I've said, you don't understand the difference between a depository bank and an investment bank. You also have 0 idea on how a collateral works. And again, tax payers didn't lose a single cent. You're brainless.",
"qid": 10267,
"docid": "278405",
"rank": 39,
"score": 88822
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I know that's always going to be the thing that people are talking about when they claim that not enough people go to jail for financial crimes. First, [some did](http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/28/news/companies/bankers-prison/index.html) go to jail. It's arguable that the Feds should have tried harder to find ways to accuse specific people of crimes, but the actual housing price crisis was caused by a widespread belief that housing prices just couldn't collapse as much as they did in any circumstance. That set off a chain reaction that had never happened before in any known modern economy. If you really want to go after everyone involved, it would include everyone from bankers to economists to home buyers who bought more house than they could afford, generally by lying about their income on \"\"stated income\"\" mortgages.\"",
"qid": 10267,
"docid": "599025",
"rank": 40,
"score": 88785
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"An investment in knowledge always pays the best interest, as Ben Franklin said. However, this is not a question I can answer for you, as it depends on the opportunities that are specifically available to you as an individual. Sometimes opportunities will knock on your door and you can take advantage, other times you have to create that door to allow opportunities to knock. Maybe you have a friend that is opening a side business, maybe there is a class you can get into at a trivial cost. What I suggest is to start investing just to get into the habit of it, not so much for the returns. Before you do, however, any financial advisor will advise you to begin with a emergency fund, worth about 3-6 months of your expenses for that time. I wanted to hit the ground running and start investing in stocks, but first things first I guess. \"\"Millionaire Next Door\"\" will help you get into a saving mindset, \"\"I will teach you to be rich\"\" is ok, plenty of other books. My advice is keep doing what you're doing, learn to start saving, and once you have obtained an emergency fund of the amount of your choosing, start looking to invest in Index Funds or ETFs through any platform that has LOW FEES!! I use Betterment, but Vanguard is good too, as they allow you to get your feet wet and it's passive. Hope this helps.\"",
"qid": 10267,
"docid": "339553",
"rank": 41,
"score": 88445
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Aggressiveness in a retirement portfolio is usually a function of your age and your risk tolerance. Your portfolio is usually a mix of the following asset classes: You can break down these asset classes further, but each one is a topic unto itself. If you are young, you want to invest in things that have a higher return, but are more volatile, because market fluctuations (like the current financial meltdown) will be long gone before you reach retirement age. This means that at a younger age, you should be investing more in stocks and foreign/developing countries. If you are older, you need to be into more conservative investments (bonds, money market, etc). If you were in your 50s-60s and still heavily invested in stock, something like the current financial crisis could have ruined your retirement plans. (A lot of baby boomers learned this the hard way.) For most of your life, you will probably be somewhere in between these two. Start aggressive, and gradually get more conservative as you get older. You will probably need to re-check your asset allocation once every 5 years or so. As for how much of each investment class, there are no hard and fast rules. The idea is to maximize return while accepting a certain amount of risk. There are two big unknowns in there: (1) how much return do you expect from the various investments, and (2) how much risk are you willing to accept. #1 is a big guess, and #2 is personal opinion. A general portfolio guideline is \"\"100 minus your age\"\". This means if you are 20, you should have 80% of your retirement portfolio in stocks. If you are 60, your retirement portfolio should be 40% stock. Over the years, the \"\"100\"\" number has varied. Some financial advisor types have suggested \"\"150\"\" or \"\"200\"\". Unfortunately, that's why a lot of baby boomers can't retire now. Above all, re-balance your portfolio regularly. At least once a year, perhaps quarterly if the market is going wild. Make sure you are still in-line with your desired asset allocation. If the stock market tanks and you are under-invested in stocks, buy more stock, selling off other funds if necessary. (I've read interviews with fund managers who say failure to rebalance in a down stock market is one of the big mistakes people make when managing a retirement portfolio.) As for specific mutual fund suggestions, I'm not going to do that, because it depends on what your 401k or IRA has available as investment options. I do suggest that your focus on selecting a \"\"passive\"\" index fund, not an actively managed fund with a high expense ratio. Personally, I like \"\"total market\"\" funds to give you the broadest allocation of small and big companies. (This makes your question about large/small cap stocks moot.) The next best choice would be an S&P 500 index fund. You should also be able to find a low-cost Bond Index Fund that will give you a healthy mix of different bond types. However, you need to look at expense ratios to make an informed decision. A better-performing fund is pointless if you lose it all to fees! Also, watch out for overlap between your fund choices. Investing in both a Total Market fund, and an S&P 500 fund undermines the idea of a diversified portfolio. An aggressive portfolio usually includes some Foreign/Developing Nation investments. There aren't many index fund options here, so you may have to go with an actively-managed fund (with a much higher expense ratio). However, this kind of investment can be worth it to take advantage of the economic growth in places like China. http://www.getrichslowly.org/blog/2009/04/27/how-to-create-your-own-target-date-mutual-fund/\"",
"qid": 10267,
"docid": "418551",
"rank": 42,
"score": 88214
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: In terms of preserving good relationships one approach is to charge a nominal rate of interest. maybe a few percent of the total and agree a time when it should be paid back. This may actually make them feel better about borrowing them money, especially, especially if it is something like business loan or buying a house or car. If they need the money for a real crisis and they have no clear strategy for paying it back then it may just be better all around if you make it clear that it is a gift. What you don't want to do is set up a situation where you are creating unnecessary problems down the road and that will very much depend on your individual relationship and how seriously you take the loan. Here it is important that you are completely open and honest about the arrangement so take the time to make sure that both parties understand exactly what they expect from each other.",
"qid": 10267,
"docid": "316631",
"rank": 43,
"score": 87975
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Congratulations. The first savings goal should be an emergency fund. Think of this not as an investment, but as insurance against life's woes. They happen and having this kind of money earmarked allows one to invest without needing to withdraw at an inopportune time. This should go into a \"\"high interest\"\" savings account or money market account. Figure three to six months of expenses. The next goal should be retirement savings. In the US this is typically done through 401K or if your company does not offer one, either a ROTH IRA or Traditional IRA. The goal should be about 15% of your income. You should favor a 401k match over just about anything else, and then a ROTH over that. The key to transforming from a broke college student into a person with a real job, and disposable income, is a budget. Otherwise you might just end up as a broke person with a real job (not fun). Part of your budget should include savings, spending, and giving. All three areas are the key to building wealth. Once you have all of those taking care of the real fun begins. That is you have an emergency fund, you are putting 15% to retirement, you are spending some on yourself, and giving to a charity of your choice. Then you can dream some with any money left over (after expenses of course). Do you want to retire early? Invest more for retirement. Looking to buy a home or own a bunch of rental property? Start educating yourself and invest for that. Are you passionate about a certain charity? Give more and save some money to take time off in order to volunteer for that charity. All that and more can be yours. Budgeting is a key concept, and the younger you start the easier it gets. While the financiers will disagree with me, you cannot really invest if you are borrowing money. Keep debt to zero or just on a primary residence. I can tell you from personal experience that I did not started building wealth until I made a firm commitment to being out of debt. Buy cars for cash and never pay credit card interest. Pay off student loans as soon as possible. For some reason the idea of giving to charity invokes rancor. A cursory study of millionaires will indicate some surprising facts: most of them are self made, most of them behave differently than pop culture, and among other things most of them are generous givers. Building wealth is about behavior. Giving to charity is part of that behavior. Its my own theory that giving does almost no good for the recipient, but a great amount of good for the giver. This may seem difficult to believe, but I ask that you try it.\"",
"qid": 10267,
"docid": "345403",
"rank": 44,
"score": 87863
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: A financial advisor is a service professional. It is his/her job to do things for you that you could do for yourself, but you're either too busy to do it yourself (and you want to pay somebody else), or you'd rather not. Just like some people hire tax preparers, or maids, or people to change their oil, or re-roof their houses. Me, I choose to self-manage. I get some advise from Fidelity and Vanguard. But we hired somebody this year to re-roof our house and someone else to paint it.",
"qid": 10267,
"docid": "88345",
"rank": 45,
"score": 87770
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The common advice you mentioned is just a guideline and has little to do with how your portfolio would look like when you construct it. In order to diversify you would be using correlations and some common sense. Recall the recent global financial crisis, ones of the first to crash were AAA-rated CDO's, stocks and so on. Because correlation is a statistical measure this can work fine when the economy is stable, but it doesn't account for real-life interrelations, especially when population is affected. Once consumers are affected this spans to the entire economy so that sectors that previously seemed unrelated have now been tied together by the fall in demand or reduced ability to pay-off. I always find it funny how US advisers tell you to hold 80% of US stocks and bonds, while UK ones tell you to stick to the UK securities. The same happens all over the world, I would assume. The safest portfolio is a Global Market portfolio, obviously I wouldn't be getting, say, Somalian bonds (if such exist at all), but there are plenty of markets to choose from. A chance of all of them crashing simultaneously is significantly lower. Why don't people include derivatives in their portfolios? Could be because these are mainly short-term, while most of the portfolios are being held for a significant amount of time thus capital and money markets are the key components. Derivatives are used to hedge these portfolios. As for the currencies - by having foreign stocks and bonds you are already exposed to FX risk so you, again, could be using it as a hedging instrument.",
"qid": 10267,
"docid": "384857",
"rank": 46,
"score": 87724
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You'll likely see several more scary market events before your autumn years. Ahhh, everyone has an opinion on this so here is mine :) If you are constrained to picking canned mutual fund products then I would target something with decent yield for two points. The third is to keep some in cash for an 'event'. I would say 65/35 at this point so invest 65% and have some liquidity for an 'opportunity'. Because the next crisis is right around the corner. But stay invested.",
"qid": 10267,
"docid": "274488",
"rank": 47,
"score": 87721
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Can it be so that these low-interest rates cause investors to take greater risk to get a decent return? With interest rates being as low as they are, there is little to no risk in banking; especially after Dodd-Frank. \"\"Risk\"\" is just a fancy word for \"\"Will I make money in the near/ long future.\"\" No one knows what the actual risk is (unless you can see into the future.) But there are ways to mitigate it. So, arguably, the best way to make money is the stock market, not in banking. There is a great misallocation of resources which at some point will show itself and cause tremendous losses, even maybe cause a new financial crisis? A financial crisis is backed on a believed-to-be strong investment that goes belly-up. \"\"Tremendous Losses\"\" is a rather grand term with no merit. Banks are not purposely keeping interest rates low to cause a financial crisis. As the central banks have kept interest rates extremely low for a decade, even negative, this affects how much we save and borrow. The biggest point here is to know one thing: bonds. Bonds affect all things from municipalities, construction, to pensions. If interest rates increased currently, the current rate of bonds would drop vastly and actually cause a financial crisis (in the U.S.) due to millions of older persons relying on bonds as sources of income.\"",
"qid": 10267,
"docid": "400646",
"rank": 48,
"score": 87499
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Say you have $15,000 of capital to invest. You want to put the majority of your capital into low risk investments that will yield positive gains over the course of your working career. $5,000: Government bonds and mutual funds, split how you want. $9,500: Low risk, trusted companies with positive historical growth. If the stock market is very unfamiliar for you, I recommend Google Finance, Yahoo Finance, and Zack's to learn about smart investments you can make. You can also research the investments that hedge fund managers and top investors are making. Google \"\"Warren Buffett or Carl Icahn portfolio\"\", and this will give you an idea of stocks you can put your money into. Do not leave your money into a certain company for more than 25 years. Rebalance your portfolio and take the gains when you feel you need them. You have no idea when to take your profits now, but 5 years from now, you will be a smart and experienced investor. A safe investment strategy to start is to put your money into an ETF that mimics the S&P 500. Over the past 20 years, the S&P 500 has yielded gains of about 270%. During the financial crisis a few years back, the S&P 500 had lost over 50% of its value when it reached its low point. However, from when it hit rock bottom in 2009, it has had as high percentage gains in six years as it did in 12 years from 1995 to 2007, which about 200%. The market is very strong and will treat your money well if you invest wisely. $500: Medium - High risk Speculative Stocks There is a reason this category accounts for only approximately 3% of your portfolio. This may take some research on the weekend, but the returns that may result can be extraordinary. Speculative companies are often innovative, low priced stocks that see high volatility, gains or losses of more than 10% over a single month. The likelihood of your $500 investment being completely evaporated is very slim, but if you lose $300 here, the thousands invested in the S&P 500, low risk stocks, government bonds, and mutual funds will more than recuperate the losses. If your pick is a winner, however, expect that the $500 investment could easily double, triple, or gain even more in a single year or over the course of just a few, perhaps, 2-4 years will see a very large return. I hope this advice helps and happy investing! Sending your money to smart investments is the key to financial security, freedom, and later, a comfortable retirement. Good luck, Matt McLaughlin\"",
"qid": 10267,
"docid": "171189",
"rank": 49,
"score": 87353
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Wow! First, congratulations! You are both making great money. You should be able to reach your goals. Are we on the right track ? Are we doing any mistakes which we could have avoided ? Please advice if there is something that we should focus more into ! I would prioritize as follows: Get on the same page. My first red flag is that you are listing your assets separately. You and your wife own property together and are raising your daughter together. The first thing is to both be on the same page with your combined income and assets. This is critical. Set specific goals for the future. Dreaming and big-picture life planning will be the foundation for building a detailed plan for reaching your goals. You will see more progress with more sacrifice. If you both are not equally excited about the goals, you will not both be equally willing to sacrifice lifestyle now. You have the income now to be able to set yourselves up to do whatever you want in 10 years, if you can agree on what you want. Hire a financial planner you trust. Interview people, ask someone who is where you want to be in 10 years. You need someone with experience that can guide you through these questions and understands how to manage your income stream. Start saving for retirement in tax-advantaged accounts. This should be as much as 10%-15% of your income combined, so $30k-$45k per year. You need to start diversifying your investments. Real estate is great, but I would never recommend it as this large a percentage of net worth. Start saving for your child's education. Hard to say what you need here, since I don't know your goals. A financial planner should assist you with this. Get rid of your debt. Out of your $2.1M of rental real estate and land, you have $1.4M of debt. It will be difficult to start a business with that much additional debt. It will also put stress on your retirement that you don't need. You are taking on lots of risk here. I would sell all but maybe one of the properties and let it cash flow. This will free up cash to start investing for retirement or future business too. Buy more rental in the future with cash only. You have plenty of income to do it this way, and you will be setting yourself up for a great future. At this point you can continue to pile funds into any/all your investments, with the goal of using the funds to start a business or to live on. If all your investments are tied up in real estate, you wont have anything to draw on if needed for a business opportunity. You need to weigh this out in your goal and planning. What should we do to prepare for a comfortable retirement and safety You cannot plan for or see all scenarios. However, good planning will give you more options and more choices. Investing driven by fear will set you up for failure. Spend less than you make. Be patient. Be generous. Cheers!",
"qid": 10267,
"docid": "568629",
"rank": 50,
"score": 87280
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I'll tackle number 2. It's one which many academics dismissed as an impossibility; after all, how could that be rational? What could cause negative yields (ie effectively giving an entity cash and paying for the privilege of doing so!) is something we've experiencing currently: fear. Back in the financial crisis, investors were actually paying to store their cash in treasuries, because of the fear that if they left it with a bank they might not get it back. What about the FDIC Insurance you may ask quite logically. The problem is that we're talking about massive entities, like pension funds, asset managers, corporations, who normally would store some (think millions - billions) in cash and cash equivalents (bank accounts, money market funds, short-term paper), they really aren't protected. So, they do what turns out to be the rational thing, which is pay a premium on \"\"safe assets\"\" ie US Gov't bills to guarantee you get most of your money back. The same thing is currently happening with German front-end paper, as Europeans pull their money out of banks/periphery assets and search for safety. Hope that helped.\"",
"qid": 10267,
"docid": "423266",
"rank": 51,
"score": 87252
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: When you say that you are not sure 'what amount of money would make a difference in the future', it indicates that you have not clearly identified your long term financial goals. Consider monthly budgeting to be one of the stepping stones to long term financial planning. How much you can 'afford' depends not only on your savings and income, but also your future expenses. If you want to buy a house in 2 years, for example, you may want to scrimp and save just a little longer, to secure a larger down payment. If you want to retire early, then similarly saving money now should bring you not short term financial wealth, but long term security. How much you can 'afford' will depend on how your current financial situation matches up with your future goals. The rules of thumb you listed (ie: % of income) may be good starting places, but that doesn't mean they are the right answer for you, in your current situation.",
"qid": 10267,
"docid": "309520",
"rank": 52,
"score": 87150
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: As October comes and the The Fed Unwind approaches, the Zombies of the Financial crisis rise yet again searching for fresh meet. And what timing for such a thing, with the OrangeNotTan seeking a new personal butt louse. Interesting times with such a potential for disaster, its like watching a nuclear train wreck in slow motion.",
"qid": 10267,
"docid": "184509",
"rank": 53,
"score": 87031
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"It's never too early to start estate planning, and if you already have a family, getting your personal affairs in order is a must. The sooner you start planning, the more prepared you will be for life's unexpected twists and turns. The following tips, aimed at those under 40, can help you approach and simplify the estate planning process: Start now, regardless of net worth. [Estate planning](http://money.usnews.com/money/personal-finance/articles/2013/09/19/estate-planning-tips-for-people-under-40) is a crucial process for everyone, regardless of wealth level, says Marc Henn, a certified financial planner and president of Harvest Financial Advisors. \"\"Many people will say, 'Well, I don't have a lot of assets, therefore I don't need an estate plan,'\"\" he says. \"\"Maybe you only have debt, but it still applies. If you want the people around you to appropriately deal with your finances, a plan is still just as important.\"\" This is especially true if you are responsible for financially dependent individuals, such as young children. \"\"The less you have, the more important every bit you've got is to you and the people you care about,\"\" says Lawrence Lehmann, a partner at Lehmann, Norman and Marcus L.C. in New Orleans. \"\"If you don't have much money, you really can't afford to make a mistake.\"\" Have the \"\"what if?\"\" conversation with friends and family. Before jumping into the estate planning process, it's important to establish exactly what you want, and need, to happen after you die and relay those wishes to those around you. \"\"We find that the best transitions and financial transfers happen when all family members are involved in the [decision making](http://corlisslawgroup.com),\"\" says John Sweeney, executive vice president of retirement and investing strategies at Fidelity Investments. \"\"This way, after a loved one is gone, no one is squabbling over a couch or going, 'Why did person A get more than person B?' If wishes are laid out clearly while the individual is living, they can share the rationale behind the decisions.\"\" Focus on the basic estate plan components. Experts say life insurance, a will, a living will and a durable power of attorney are all important aspects of an estate plan that should be established at the start of the planning process. In the event of an untimely death, life insurance can replace lost earnings, which can be especially beneficial for younger individuals, says Bill Kirchick, a partner with Bingham McCutchen law firm in Boston. \"\"Young people can't afford to die,\"\" he says. \"\"They are going to lose a source of income if something happens to a young couple and they haven't had enough time to accumulate wealth from earnings to put aside in savings or a retirement plan.\"\" Also, the earlier you take out a life insurance policy, the more likely you are to be approved for reduced rates compared to older individuals. Utilize estate planning professionals. To draft these basic estate plans, experts recommend carefully selecting a team of professionals who will educate you and draft what you need based on your individual situation. \"\"Don't feel like you have to jump at the first person whose name is given to you,\"\" Kirchick says. \"\"I think that people should interview two or more attorneys, accountants, trust officers, financial advisors and so on.\"\" According to financial planning experts, the average initial cost for the legal drafting of a will, living will and durable power of attorney documentation is between $500 and $1,200, depending on the family size and location. Continue to review your plan over time. Finally, your estate plan should never be a \"\"one and done thing,\"\" according to Henn. \"\"Every five to seven years, the documents should be readdressed to adapt to significant life events, tax law changes or even the addition of more children,\"\" he says. It is also important to keep tabs on your insurance policies and investments, as they all tie into the estate plan and can fluctuate based on the economic environment. If you have to make revisions, Henn says it will cost as much as it did to create the documents in the first place.\"",
"qid": 10267,
"docid": "166826",
"rank": 54,
"score": 86863
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The finance sector is comprised of such enterprises as banks, investment funds, insurance companies and real estate. It is traditionally contrasted with what has been called the 'real economy' because funds created and utilized in this sector produce neither goods, services or fixed capital. The unproductive nature of transactions can easily be seen in such things as real estate. When a company undertakes to build a house or whatever its input goes directly to the labor and goods necessary for such a project. At its worst the financial sector mobilizes funds not just for production but for simple acquisition. Should a company raise the funds to buy an already existing building or the mortgage on same quite obviously nothing is produced. Same building on day one as when it was owned by another. That, of course, is an extreme example as are corporate takeovers via private equity. In that case the efforts of the financial sector are not just non-productive but are often in fact ''anti-productive'' as they destroy or prevent the use of real factors of production. This 'anti-productive' action was demonstrated on a massive global scale during the last financial crisis. The basically parasitic nature of the financial sector isn't always so blatant. There are some that argue that its 'services' can be valuable to the real economy. Perhaps, but that has to be determined on a case by case examination **and** while keeping the idea ''is there a better way to do this** in one's mind.",
"qid": 10267,
"docid": "483991",
"rank": 55,
"score": 86243
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"One must point out: The Fed has never in their history, correctly \"\"expected\"\" any financial crises. They have been surprised 100% of the time. They weren't even aware of the biggest financial collapse in US history in 2007-8 before it happened -- when rhe blogosphere and so-called \"\"fringe economists\"\" were warning about it daily. The fact that Yellen doesn't \"\"expect it\"\" should be assumed at this point. As should its inevitability.\"",
"qid": 10267,
"docid": "590831",
"rank": 56,
"score": 86231
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I think people naturally overreact to crises. And, like you, I'm not really sure what the answer is. Capital requirements were a good start though. It also makes you wonder what would happen if \"\"mark-to-market\"\" accounting was not necessary, would the severity of the financial crisis have been muted? At the same time, maintaining the value of worthless debt seems equally silly (I'm talking to you, Europe!). Just an interesting time. I don't think things are as broken as people make it seem. 2008-9 was a big check and re-balancing. Unfortunately the consumers haven't been re-balanced like businesses due to poor employment and wages. Sorry, I'm just talking in circles now.\"",
"qid": 10267,
"docid": "318584",
"rank": 57,
"score": 85623
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://voxeu.org/article/credit-growth-and-global-crisis-new-narrative) reduced by 96%. (I'm a bot) ***** > In a new paper, we also examine the evolution of mortgage debt and defaults during the credit boom and throughout the financial crisis and its aftermath, using individual-level data from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York Consumer Credit Panel. > While borrowers with low credit scores typically had higher default rates than those with higher credit scores, default rates for borrowers with higher credit scores rose substantially during the financial crisis. > The investor share of new delinquencies was close to 15% for all credit score quartiles throughout the credit boom and increases to 25%, 35% and 40% between 2006 and 2009 for credit score quartiles 2-4, respectively. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/74jwyc/credit_growth_and_the_global_crisis_a_new/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~222899 tl;drs so far.\"\") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") | *Top* *keywords*: **credit**^#1 **score**^#2 **borrower**^#3 **quartile**^#4 **Mortgage**^#5\"",
"qid": 10267,
"docid": "557247",
"rank": 58,
"score": 85470
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: This should not be taken to be financial advice or guidance. My opinions are my own and do not represent professional advice or consultation on my part or that my employer. Now that we have that clear... Your idea is a very good one. I'm not sure about the benefits of a EBITDA for personal financial planning (or for financial analysis, for that matter, but we will that matter to the side). If you have a moderate (>$40,000) income, then taxes should be one the largest, if not the largest chunk of your paycheck out the door. I personally track my cash flow on a day-by-day basis. That is to say, I break out the actual cash payments (paychecks) that I receive and break them apart into the 14 day increments (paycheck/14). I then take my expenses and do the same. If you organize your expenses into categories, you will receive some meaningful numbers about your daily liquidity (i.e: cash flow before taxes, after taxes, cash flow after house expenses, ect) This serves two purposes. One, you will understand how much you can actually spend on a day-to-day basis. Second, once you realize your flexibility on a day-to-day basis, it is easy to plan and forecast your expenses.",
"qid": 10267,
"docid": "477434",
"rank": 59,
"score": 85425
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: They may have been the least stinky dirty shirt but they would have gone down with every other big bank had the feds not stepped in. Further, they agreed to a 13 billion dollar fine for their role in the financial crisis. An innocent bank doesn't do that.",
"qid": 10267,
"docid": "322099",
"rank": 60,
"score": 85405
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: There is no rule of thumb (although some may suggest there is). Everybody will have different goals, investment preferences and risk tolerances. You need to figure this out by yourself by either education yourself in the type of investments you are interested in or by engaging (and paying for) a financial advisor. You should not be taking advice from others unless it is specifically geared for your goals, investment DNA and risk tolerance. The only advice I would give you is to have a plan (whether you develop it yourself or pay a financial advisor to develop one). Also, don't have all your savings sitting in cash, as long-term you will fall behind the eight ball in real returns (allowing for inflation).",
"qid": 10267,
"docid": "234979",
"rank": 61,
"score": 85312
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Sure of course you can do balance transfers like this but you are way late to the party and it has gotten to be pretty challenging finding new cards to transfer balances to. Before the current financial crisis in the US you could get enormous amounts of credit (2-5 times a person's annual income) and transfer balances to your bank account to collect interest . There were a bunch of ways to the transfer everything from direct deposit to your bank account to a balance transfer check payable to yourself to overpaying another credit card and requesting a refund. Over paying another account sets off a lot of red flags now days but other methods still work. The financial atmosphere has changed a lot and there are very few available cards with no balance transfer fees or capped fees and the interest rates are a lot lower now so it really isn't worth doing.",
"qid": 10267,
"docid": "455005",
"rank": 62,
"score": 85280
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Overoptimism, making mistakes and wrong assumptions, being taken by lies, all of that is legal and, in a lot of ways, very human and forgivable. But when they \"\"buried her findings ... before, during and after the financial crisis, and even into 2012\"\" from senior management whose job it is to look out for bad investments, \"\"buying mortgages from outside lenders with doctored tax forms, phony appraisals and missing signatures\"\", \"\"systematically violating U.S. mortgage regulations\"\", and lying about losses while still taking money from the government, these are illegal and immoral practices with profit as a motive and with the knowledge that what they were doing was wrong. Buying into something with all you've got is any business's prerogative. Lying, manipulating, and willfully breaking the law, especially when the product and means to purchase directly impacts the customer, all to maximize profit is not.\"",
"qid": 10267,
"docid": "88455",
"rank": 63,
"score": 85165
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Weren't they one of the healthy banks during the financial crisis? I wonder what keeps them ahead of the pack or if the actual J. P. Morgan had any advise that they still adhere to today. I'm sure being part of a powerful organization that has shaped the financial industry has it perks in terms of having insider knowledge of how the innards of the industry work.",
"qid": 10267,
"docid": "244079",
"rank": 64,
"score": 85122
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: A short list 1) Inability to survive the financial crisis without government assistance. 2) Underperformance compared to other similar institutions, mostly because of problems relating to point 1 3) Previous work experience 4) Financial products whose value to the consumer is less so than comparable products from similar institutions",
"qid": 10267,
"docid": "490324",
"rank": 65,
"score": 85106
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: In general I'd advise you to do it the other way around in the future: Know what your plan is and what you need for it *before* reaching out publicly. That way you can respond more quickly and answer questions more easily. As for the meeting: you basically need to prepare three things. 1. What do you need to know when the meeting is over? 2. What can you offer the client? 3. What is a fair price for your time? Under 1: What kind of website do they want? Do you have complete freedom, or do you have to work within their existing branding? Can you deliver what they're asking? For example, if they want a CMS to manage their portfolio, can you build that? Under 2: What's your own portfolio like? What can you use to convince the client you have the capabilities to deliver what they're asking? (Note the difference with 1: that's if you can actually do it, this is if you can convince them of that fact). Under 3: Determine what you'd find a fair hourly wage, so that during the meeting you can estimate what the total price should be and when you should consider backing out. Finally you should consider what you'll do if you run into complications. As it's your first client, it's good to give it some thought ahead of time, but it probably won't come up during the meeting. As for being convincing: if you get #2 right you should be confident that you can actually do what you promise. If your portfolio is limited, you can look up websites yourself for other interior designers before the meeting so that you can go over them with the client. Ask which elements the client does and doesn't like, summarize it in the end and affirm you can deliver something combining those things.",
"qid": 10267,
"docid": "381116",
"rank": 66,
"score": 85085
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Edit: This is paywalled so I pasted it here. LONDON—The synthetic CDO, a villain of the global financial crisis, is back. A decade ago, investors’ bad bets on collateralized debt obligations helped fuel the crisis. Billed as safe, they turned out to be anything but. Now, more investors are returning to CDOs—and so are concerns that excess is seeping into the aging bull market. In the U.S., the CDO market sunk steadily in the years after the financial crisis but has been fairly flat since 2014. In Europe, the total size of market is now rising again—up 5.6% annually in the first quarter of the year and 14.4% in the last quarter of 2016, according to the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association. Collateralized debt obligations package a bunch of assets, such as mortgage or corporate loans, into a security that is chopped up into pieces and sold to investors. The assets inside a synthetic CDO aren’t physical debt securities but rather derivatives, which in turn reference other investments such as loans or corporate debt. During the financial crisis, synthetic CDOs became a symbol of the financial excesses of the era. Labelled an “atomic bomb” in the movie “The Big Short,” they ultimately were the vehicle that spread the risks from the mortgage market throughout the financial system. Synthetic CDOs crammed with exposure to subprime mortgages—or even other CDOs—are long gone. The ones that remain contain credit-default swaps referencing a range of European and U.S. companies, effectively allowing investors to bet whether corporate defaults will pick up. Desperate for something that pays better than basic government bonds, insurance companies, asset managers and high-net worth investors are scooping up investments like synthetic CDOs, bankers say, which had largely become the preserve of hedge funds after 2008. Investment banks, which create and sell CDOs, are happy to oblige. Placid markets have made trading revenue weak this year, and such structured products are an increasingly important business line. Synthetic CDOs got “bad press,” says Renaud Champion, head of credit strategies at Paris-based hedge fund La Française Investment Solutions. But “that market has never ceased to fully function,” he added. These days, Mr. Champion still trades synthetic CDOs, receiving a stream of income for effectively insuring against a sharp rise in European corporate defaults. Many investors, though, still view the products as unnecessarily complex and are concerned they may be hard to offload when markets get choppy—as they did in the last crisis. From the DepthsThe amount outstanding of European collateralized debt obligations has been growing again after years of shrinking. “We don’t see that demand from our clients and we wouldn’t recommend it,” said Markus Stadlmann, chief investment officer at Lloyds Private Banking, citing concerns over the products’ lack of transparency and lack of liquidity, meaning it could be hard to offload a position when needed. The return of synthetic CDOs could present other risks. Even if banks are currently less willing to loan money to help clients juice returns, credit default swaps can be very leveraged, potentially allowing investors to make outsize bets. Structured products accounted for nearly all the $2.6 billion year-on-year growth in trading-division revenue at the top 12 global investment banks in the first quarter, according to Amrit Shahani, research director at financial consultancy Coalition. “There has been an uptick in interest in any kind of yield-enhancement structure,” said Kokou Agbo-Bloua, a managing director in Société Générale SA’s investment bank. The fastest growth this year has come in credit—the epicenter of the 2007-08 crisis. The top global 12 investment banks had around $1.5 billion in revenue in structured credit in the first quarter, according to Coalition, more than doubling since the first quarter of 2016. Structured equities are largest overall, a business dominated by sales of derivatives linked to moves in stock prices, with revenue of $5 billion in the first quarter. “The low-yield environment hurts,” said Lionel Pernias, a credit-fund manager at AXA Investment Managers. “So there are a lot of asset owners looking at structured credit.” These days, the typical synthetic CDO involves a portfolio of credit-default swaps on a range of companies. The portfolio is sliced into tranches, and investors receive payouts based on the performance of the swaps. Those investors owning lower tranches tend to get paid more but are subject to higher losses if the swaps sour. Structured GrowthBank revenues from structured products such as collateralized debt obligations are rising faster than conventionaltrading of stocks, bonds and currencies. For instance, an investor can sell insurance against a pick-up in defaults in the lowest—or “equity”—tranche of the iTraxx Europe index, a widely traded CDS benchmark that tracks European investment-grade companies. In return, the investor will receive regular payments, but those will shrink with every company default and stop altogether once 3% of the portfolio has been wiped out through defaults. During the financial crisis, synthetic CDOs based on standardized indexes like iTraxx Europe suffered losses as traders expected defaults to pick up. Investors who held on, though, have since done “great,” says Mr. Champion. Investors who agreed to insure against a rise in defaults for 10 years on the equity tranche of the iTraxx Europe index in March 2008 have made roughly 10% a year, according to an analysis of data from IHS Markit . That’s despite defaults from two companies in the index: Italian lender Monte dei Paschi di Siena and Portugal Telecom International Finance BV. In contrast, investors who sold insurance on tailored CDOs packed with riskier credits—such as Icelandic banks or monoline insurers—would have been on the hook for losses. Synthetic CDOs have evolved since the crisis, bankers say. For instance, most are shorter-dated, running up to around two to three years rather than seven to 10 years. Some banks will only slice and dice standardized CDS indexes that trade frequently in the market rather than craft tailored baskets of credits. There are also fewer banks involved in arranging these trades. Those active include BNP Paribas SA, Citigroup Inc., Goldman Sachs Group Inc., J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. and Société Générale. Postcrisis regulations have forced banks to set aside more capital against these transactions and use less leverage. That has encouraged banks to parcel out the risk to clients rather than keeping it on their own books. “There is a lot more regulation and scrutiny and a lot less leverage,” said Mr. Agbo-Bloua. Mr. Champion says he only trades tranches based on standardized CDS indexes, which he says are easier to buy and sell than more tailored products. Currently, he sees value in selling default protection on super-senior tranches. Mr. Champion said he has to lay down only around $1 million in upfront margin costs on a $100 million trade of this kind. “The cost of leverage in the derivatives space is very low,” he said. Any expectations of default rates picking up could inflict losses on synthetic CDOs, though at the moment analysts forecast they should decline. Still, the memory of how the market behaved in the immediate aftermath of the financial crisis is likely to keep many investors on the sidelines. “If you’re the person responsible for buying the synthetic CDO that suddenly goes wrong, your career risk is bigger than if you’d bought a plain vanilla bond that goes wrong. It has a bad name,” said Ulf Erlandsson, a portfolio manager at start-up hedge fund Glacier Impact, who until recently oversaw credit for one of Sweden’s public pension funds.",
"qid": 10267,
"docid": "594226",
"rank": 67,
"score": 84955
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: No. The above calculation does not hold good. When financial statements are prepared they are prepared on a going concern basis, i.e. a business will run normally in the foreseeable future. Valuation of assets and liabilities is done according to this principle. When a bankruptcy takes places or a business closes down, immediately the valuation method will change. For assets, the realizable value will be more relevant. For example, if you hold 100 computers, in an normal situation, they will depreciated at the normal rate. Every year, some portion of the cost is written off as depreciation. When you actually go to sell these computers you are likely to realize much less than what is shown in the statement. Similarly, for a building, the actual realizable value may be more. For liabilities, they tend to increase in such situation. Hence just a plain computation can give you a very broad idea but the actual figure may be different.",
"qid": 10267,
"docid": "464769",
"rank": 68,
"score": 84949
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: From my Capital Markets and Institutions assignment on 2007 - 2008 Financial Crisis The subprime financial crisis that emerged in the summer of 2007 is much too intricate and interwoven to place the blame solely on one organisation or group of individuals. Each actor involved is responsible for and party to—in varying degrees—the events that transpired. Mortgage brokers (individuals) • First line of contact between an originator and a borrower • Out to get theirs; greedy • Disregard for borrowers, only want to originate as many mortgages as possible • Engaged in controversial practices – confusing, pressuring, lying to borrowers in order to secure a mortgage • Took advantage of 2/28 mortgages in order to collect new origination fees • Offered piggyback mortgages requiring no money down Mortgage originators (organisations) • Began lending to subprime borrowers during the 1990s – done through brokers to whom they paid a commission • Largely supplanted loans made by the FHA through traditional lenders • Many originators acquired by large investment banks • Cashed in on and espoused the “American dream” of home ownership • Different interest rates charged to borrowers • Use of statistical software and credit scores to evaluate borrowers • Popularised 2/28 mortgages • Allowed borrowers to take out mortgages with little or no documentation • Rapidly increased $ amount of mortgages issued • In charge of servicing mortgages issued – making reasonable efforts to collect principal and interest, able to foreclose on properties when delinquent • Profited from massive fees (late and other) added when loans were delinquent • First firms to suffer from the increase in foreclosures Investment banks • Often acquired mortgage originators to gain yet another revenue stream • Responsible for creating CDO entities, often registered in tax havens • CDOs took on large positions in MBSs and created subordinate obligations, also CDOs • CDO entities held assets of other CDOs, creating a complex interwoven situation • CDOs were also involved with positions in other securities • IB-controlled hedge funds often hedged risks through buying highly-rated MBSs • CDOs holding long-term debt were funded through the short-term commercial paper market – high ratings secured through IB lines of credit • Also pioneered SIVs – relied on highly-rated CP market; lines of credit combined with investor equity allowed IBs to keep SIVs off B/S • IBs heavily invested in MBSs/CDOs began to run into liquidity problems • Required capital investment to remain operational – often found abroad (e.g. Abu Dhabi, Chinese, Singaporean governments) • Largely responsible for the monetary policy pursued by the Fed during 2007/2008 • Conduct raised questions as to the regulation of the entire financial industry • Contrast with their responsibility for much innovation and engineering in the financial services industry Credit ratings agencies • Party to major conflicts of interest • Overwhelmingly gave AAA ratings to MBSs • Agencies loosened their rating criteria and perhaps over-rated MBSs in an effort to gain more business from originators • Agencies also rated the debt of institutions that held positions in MBSs • CDOs holding MBSs obtained high ratings as well – statistical models used indicated them to be safe • Based high ratings in the commercial paper market on IB lines of credit – obliged the IBs in order to gain more business • Agency downgrades of MBSs/CDOs resulted in large IB losses, setting in motion further developments • Ratings became less useful as the MBS market froze up, with even AAA-rated MBSs struggling to find a market • Previously championed as an alternative to government intervention in the market • Role of ratings agencies heavily questioned in aftermath • Also questioned was how ratings in general should be used • RAs deflected claims that they acted irresponsibly during the subprime boom • Criticised for the large proportion of AAA-ratings given to MBSs o Argued that historical defaults on MBSs were lower than similar corporate bonds • Conflicts inherent in having issuers pay for ratings o Committees that assigned ratings were separate from negotiations regarding fees • Emphasized benefits of giving all investors free access to ratings rather than them paying for them • Wave of downgrades in 2nd half of 2007 a result of unexpectedly poor performance of subprime mortgages originated in 2006 o Attributed to: laxer underwriting standards, declines in housing prices, more restrictive borrowing standards that prevented borrowers from refinancing Investors • Backbone of many institutions – shareholders • Owned stock in IBs and GSEs, two major players in subprime crisis • Driving force behind institutions taking on riskier investments (e.g. MBSs) • Unwilling to inject more capital/equity into firms required them to turn elsewhere for aid • Worries that the crisis could spread to other markets (e.g. credit cards) added to worries • Grouped with IBs in being seen as responsible for the crisis o US government would not allow higher sale price for Bear Stearns to avoid appearance of bailing out investors",
"qid": 10267,
"docid": "361442",
"rank": 69,
"score": 84551
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Everything post 2009 (actually late 2007 through 2008 since that's when the financial crisis occurred) has also been a \"\"unique once-in-a-lifetime circumstance\"\". QE on this scale is unprecedented. The only time it's been done before is by the Bank of Japan in the early 2000s and that has been proven to be ineffective. Now you've got the US, the UK, and the EU all doing it.\"",
"qid": 10267,
"docid": "293104",
"rank": 70,
"score": 84531
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: From what I can tell, the book talks about the current economic crisis is going to lead to a burst in the dollar market and government debt market. And how the current financial policies and the financial policies enacted by the previous administration, Ben Bernanke, and Alan Greenspan are going to lead to hyperinflation, devaluation of the dollar, and a massive spike in the national debt. And then it is supposed to provide financial strategies and ideas to weather the storm. That's all I can gather without buying the book. Link: http://www.amazon.com/Aftershock-Protect-Yourself-Financial-Meltdown/dp/0470918144/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1323897637&sr=1-1",
"qid": 10267,
"docid": "326398",
"rank": 71,
"score": 84455
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The government started the crisis and the banks concluded it. Barney Frank and the House Committee on Financial Services continually pushed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to issue new mortgages with the intent of increasing home ownership. The House set goals for mortgage issuances; thus Fannie and Freddie lowered the requirements for obtaining a new mortgage. Other banks saw this happening and were forced to lower their requirements for issuing mortgages. Then, the banks realized they were holding a lot of risky mortgages on their books, so they found a way to spread the risk among other banks and investors. Through financial ingenuity to reduce risk and maximize return, they created a new investment (securitized the debt) where risky mortgages were bundled, the earnings tranched, and resold to investors. In this way, they transformed hard-to-sell subprime mortgages into salable AAA and AA debt. This depended on the fact that the risk of default on each mortgage was *independent* of the others. This scheme reduced risk and increased returns for banks and investors. However, the securitized mortgages contributed to a higher overall *system* risk. As long as there weren't mass defaults, everyone was better off. Well, clearly there were mass defaults on risky mortgages, which destroyed the securitization scheme and brought down the banks. The missing element in all this was a strong, competent regulatory body that looked out for the country's welfare. Everyone else was looking out for themselves: Barney Frank & the House looked out for their voters' agenda to push home ownership. Home buyers were taking advantage of the favorable credit. The banks satisfied mortgage demand. The banks also figured out a way to sell risky mortgages to investors so more could be issued. However, no one looked out for the system-wide risk.",
"qid": 10267,
"docid": "273179",
"rank": 72,
"score": 84330
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Emergency fund first. Period. The interest you pay on the HELOC until you have the emergency savings fund is like buying insurance. It's an expense you incur until you can afford to bear the risk yourself (here the risk is of a personal liquidity crisis). When you have enough in your emergency fund to be comfortable, start using whatever amount you were putting into savings to pay down the HELOC. Alex B is right that paying off the HELOC is a guaranteed return, but your emergency fund is not an investment -- it's your safety net.",
"qid": 10267,
"docid": "533649",
"rank": 73,
"score": 84230
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: It will be painful for the world, but not in the same way that the Western financial crisis of '08 was painful. This will mostly hurt China, as well as western companies whose marginal revenue and growth is dependent upon Chinese business.",
"qid": 10267,
"docid": "276846",
"rank": 74,
"score": 84129
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The market moves faster than ratings agencies. Everyday the market is trying to figure out the true value of Assets - Liabilities and thus its overall equity value. The financial crisis illustrated this perfectly when Bear Sterns got stuck in a liquidity trap. It's MBS(CDO) was still highly rated, likewise its overall credit rating was sound, however in reality the value of assets were much higher due to coming default, credit providers realized assets Bear had posted as collateral were falling in value quickly. This started the death spiral, or feedback loop in which it isn't clear if the tail wagged the dog or the dog wagged the tail, but as equity value fell Bear could no longer get access to credit markets to fund daily operations, once it got margin called and couldn't pay, it was all over. When it was sold to JPM, they basically stole the entire company at a fire sale price, everyone knew they were getting a deal, as reflected in the post buyout price jump of JPM stock. So in a technical sense you are right, they have nothing to do with each other. But in a practical sense as we see equity value collapse we are approaching bankruptcy, and thus default, and credit ratings should represent likelihood of default so the two should have a positive correlation to one another, assuming equity value is the 'true value'.",
"qid": 10267,
"docid": "313892",
"rank": 75,
"score": 83988
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"E) Spend a small amount of that money on getting advice from a paid financial planner. (Not a broker or someone offering you \"\"free\"\" advice; their recommendations may be biased toward what makes them the most money). A good financial planner will talk to you about your plans and expectations both short and long term, and about your risk tolerance (would a drop in value panic you even if you know it's likely to recover and average out in the long run, that sort of thing), and about how much time and effort you want to put into actively managing your portfolio. From those answers, they will generate an initial proposed plan, which will be tested against simulations of the stock market to make sure it holds up. Typically they'll do about 100 passes over the plan to get a sense of its probable risk versus growth-potential versus volatility, and tweak the plan until the normal volatility is within the range you've said you're comfortable with while trying to produce the best return with the least risk. This may not be a perfect plan for you -- but at the very least it will be an excellent starting point until you decide (if you ever do decide) that you've learned enough about investing that you want to do something different with the money. It's likely to be better advice than you'll get here simply because they can and will take the time to understand your specific needs rather than offering generalities because we're trying to write something that applies to many people, all of whom have different goals and time horizons and financial intestinal fortitude. As far as a house goes: Making the mistake of thinking of a house as an investment is a large part of the mindset that caused the Great Recession. Property can be an investment (or a business) or it can be something you're living in; never make the mistake of putting it in both categories at once. The time to buy a house is when you want a house, find a house you like in a neighborhood you like, expect not to move out of it for at least five years, can afford to put at least 20% down payment, and can afford the ongoing costs. Owning your home is not more grown-up, or necessarily financially advantageous even with the tax break, or in any other way required until and unless you will enjoy owning your home. (I bought at age 50ish, because I wanted a place around the corner from some of my best friends, because I wanted better noise isolation from my neighbors, because I wanted a garden, because I wanted to do some things that almost any landlord would object to, and because I'm handy enough that I can do a lot of the routine maintenance myself and enjoy doing it -- buy a house, get a free set of hobbies if you're into that. And part of the reason I could afford this house, and the changes that I've made to it, was that renting had allowed me to put more money into investments. My only regret is that I didn't realise how dumb it was not to max out my 401(k) match until I'd been with the company for a decade ... that's free money I left on the table.)\"",
"qid": 10267,
"docid": "578677",
"rank": 76,
"score": 83982
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I think the answers you're going to receive are all going to be a bit subjective. Looking at it from a high-level point of view, having this budget nailed down lets you analyze: Now you've got your budget, stick to it! This is really the most important part. You've done your homework, now make sure you don't exceed it without a good reason. If you're under budget in any given month, have a plan on what to do with the excess funds. If you go over budget on a certain area, you can react accordingly. I, personally, recommend hiring a financial planner. Ours has been a huge help with looking further down the line than we had been originally. If you show up to your first meeting with an FP and have this budgetary breakdown ready to go, you'll probably get a high-five. Well done, you!",
"qid": 10267,
"docid": "118204",
"rank": 77,
"score": 83969
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Personal finance is a fairly broad area. Which part might you be starting with? From the very basics, make sure you understand your current cashflow: are you bank balances going up or down? Next, make a budget. There's plenty of information to get started here, and it doesn't require a fancy piece of software. This will make sure you have a deeper understanding of where your money is going, and what is it being saved for. Is it just piling up, or is it allocated for specific purchases (i.e. that new car, house, college tuition, retirement, or even a vacation or a rainy day)? As part of the budgeting/cashflow exercise, make sure you have any outstanding debts covered. Are your credit card balances under control? Do you have other outstanding loans (education, auto, mortgage, other)? Normally, you'd address these in order from highest to lowest interest rate. Your budget should address any immediate mandatory expenses (rent, utilities, food) and long term existing debts. Then comes discretionary spending and savings (especially until you have a decent emergency fund). How much can you afford to spend on discretionary purchases? How much do you want to be able to spend? If the want is greater than the can, what steps can you take to rememdy that? With savings you can have a whole new set of planning to consider. How much do you leave in the bank? Do you keep some amount in a CD ladder? How much goes into retirement savings accounts (401k, Roth vs. Traditional IRA), college savings accounts, or a plain brokerage account? How do you balance your overall portfolio (there is a wealth of information on portfolio management)? What level of risk are you comfortable with? What level of risk should you consider, given your age and goals? How involved do you want to be with your portfolio, or do you want someone else to manage it? Silver Dragon's answer contains some good starting points for portfolio management and investing. Definitely spend some time learning the basics of investing and portfolio management even if you decide to solicit professional expertise; understanding what they're doing can help to determine earlier whether your interests are being treated as a priority.",
"qid": 10267,
"docid": "481401",
"rank": 78,
"score": 83912
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Oh look, the cockroaches have crawled out of the gutter to wage financial war. Lets just refresh our memories, are you not the fucking assholes who were rating every piece of shit the banks produced AAA, along side the banks you were the core architects of the Global financial crisis and proved unable to rate even a dead cow, if memory serves. And when asked what the fuck you were smoking your answer was \"\"We did not know\"\" The fundamental reason for your existence was to know And inspite of that, the Junk Toxic shit the Fed bought was still rated AAA by you so the Fed paid Top Taxpayer dollar for worthless shit. Yet here you are . . passing sovereign ratings . .well ok The fastest growing debt for China is US treasuries . . .so that would mean US debt is bad and the Orange orangutan is going to, as predicted, Default. I think your time would be better served, evaluating the assets the Fed is going to unwind in October . . .That is US $ 4.5 Trillion of cow shit you help create, how about you get to work and tell us whats what before the only thing America's food stamps can buy is Radio active grass.\"",
"qid": 10267,
"docid": "139635",
"rank": 79,
"score": 83854
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I love how you're being downvoted even though you're providing a very basic answer that is easy to look up and see that you are correct, no the majority of people Linhares just listed aren't \"\"economists\"\" - but then again redditors vote based on they feel, irregardless of the facts. I also love how everyone now feels as though the financial crisis was easy to spot - I bet if we went back and asked them in 2007 they would have all foreseen it as well. Yes, a few exceptionally intelligent people (Roubini, Shiller, Grantham etc.) foresaw it, but then again thousands of intelligent people make forecasts on financial markets every day and the majority fail to outperform it. The survivor bias in action I guess.\"",
"qid": 10267,
"docid": "405584",
"rank": 80,
"score": 83745
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jul/15/top-1-of-households-in-uk-fully-recovered-from-financial-crisis) reduced by 89%. (I'm a bot) ***** > New research from the Resolution Foundation showed that households with incomes of &pound;275,000 or more quickly recovered from the impact of the deep recession and have seen their share of national income return to the level seen before the global banking system froze up in the summer of 2007. > &quot;Adam Corlett, senior economic analyst at the Resolution Foundation, said:&quot;The incomes of the top 1% took a short, sharp hit following the financial crisis. > The share of national disposable income for the richest 1% of households rose steadily after Margaret Thatcher became prime minister in 1979 and reached a peak of 8.5% on the eve of the financial crisis. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6njstj/top_1_of_households_in_uk_fully_recovered_from/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~167774 tl;drs so far.\"\") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") | *Top* *keywords*: **income**^#1 **year**^#2 **election**^#3 **Foundation**^#4 **standards**^#5\"",
"qid": 10267,
"docid": "449367",
"rank": 81,
"score": 83697
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.npr.org/2017/06/08/532036374/house-passes-bill-aimed-at-reversing-dodd-frank-financial-regulations) reduced by 89%. (I'm a bot) ***** > In a near party-line vote, the House approved a bill, dubbed the Financial CHOICE Act, which scales back or eliminates many of the post-crisis banking rules. > Financial reform advocates argue the CHOICE Act would leave the U.S. economy vulnerable to another financial crisis. > &quot;The Wrong Choice Act is a vehicle for Donald Trump&#039;s agenda to get rid of financial regulation and help out Wall Street. It&#039;s an invitation for another Great Recession, or worse,&quot; said California Rep. Maxine Waters, currently the top Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6g6pmq/pendant_ce_tempsla_la_maison_blanche_passe_une/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~139936 tl;drs so far.\"\") | [Theory](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31bfht/theory_autotldr_concept/) | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") | *Top* *keywords*: **bank**^#1 **financial**^#2 **regulation**^#3 **Dodd-Frank**^#4 **bill**^#5\"",
"qid": 10267,
"docid": "246191",
"rank": 82,
"score": 83576
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Are you saying they're all just a bunch of hacks trying to monetize fear instead of actually providing sound financial advice? Are you further suggesting that they were nowhere to be found in 07, yet now that the country is in a poor financial state, they're trying to grab headlines? Are you saying that even though they all claim they \"\"predicted\"\" the housing crisis there is no conclusive evidence suggesting that any of them actually did so? Oh wait, I guess I said that.\"",
"qid": 10267,
"docid": "57671",
"rank": 83,
"score": 83492
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Yeah, it ends up being a bail out. But then again, the tax payers bailed out the banks during the financial crisis (a crisis that was largely perpetuated by them) so should it be okay not to help bail these homeowners out during an actual natural disaster...",
"qid": 10267,
"docid": "31911",
"rank": 84,
"score": 83491
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The statement \"\"Finance is something all adults need to deal with but almost nobody learns in school.\"\" hurts me. However I have to disagree, as a finance student, I feel like everyone around me is sound in finance and competition in the finance market is so stiff that I have a hard time even finding a paid internship right now. I think its all about perspective from your circumstances, but back to the question. Personally, I feel that there is no one-size-fits-all financial planning rules. It is very subjective and is absolutely up to an individual regarding his financial goals. The number 1 rule I have of my own is - Do not ever spend what I do not have. Your reflected point is \"\"Always pay off your credit card at the end of each month.\"\", to which I ask, why not spend out of your savings? plan your grocery monies, necessary monthly expenditures, before spending on your \"\"wants\"\" should you have any leftovers. That way, you would not even have to pay credit every month because you don't owe any. Secondly, when you can get the above in check, then you start thinking about saving for the rainy days (i.e. Emergency fund). This is absolutely according to each individual's circumstance and could be regarded as say - 6 months * monthly income. Start saving a portion of your monthly income until you have set up a strong emergency fund you think you will require. After you have done than, and only after, should you start thinking about investments. Personally, health > wealth any time you ask. I always advise my friends/family to secure a minimum health insurance before venturing into investments for returns. You can choose not to and start investing straight away, but should any adverse health conditions hit you, all your returns would be wiped out into paying for treatments unless you are earning disgusting amounts in investment returns. This risk increases when you are handling the bills of your family. When you stick your money into an index ETF, the most powerful tool as a retail investor would be dollar-cost-averaging and I strongly recommend you read up on it. Also, because I am not from the western part of the world, I do not have the cultural mindset that I have to move out and get into a world of debt to live on my own when I reached 18. I have to say I could not be more glad that the culture does not exist in Asian countries. I find that there is absolutely nothing wrong with living with your parents and I still am at age 24. The pressure that culture puts on teenagers is uncalled for and there are no obvious benefits to it, only unmanageable mortgage/rent payments arise from it with the entry level pay that a normal 18 year old could get.\"",
"qid": 10267,
"docid": "168983",
"rank": 85,
"score": 83439
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I'm normally not a fan of partitioning investment money into buckets but your case may be the clearest case for it I've seen in awhile. Your income and saving is good and you have two clearly defined goals of retirement saving and saving for a house each with very different time frames ~30 years and 3-5 years respectively. For medium term money, like saving for a house, just building up cash is not actually a bad idea. This minimizes the chance that a market crash will happen at the same time you need to withdraw the money. However, given you have the means to take more risk a generally smarter scheme would be to invest much of the money in a broad liquid bond funds with a somewhat lower percentage in stocks and then reduce the amount of stock each year as you get closer even moving some into cash. This gives reasonable positive expected return while lowering the risk of having to sell during a crisis as the time to purchase gets shorter and shorter. The retirement money should be invested for the long term as usual. A majority in low-fee index stock funds/etfs is the standard advice for good reason.",
"qid": 10267,
"docid": "219563",
"rank": 86,
"score": 83400
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: A stopped clock is right two times a day. We may get a market crash similar to the financial crisis or the dot com crash or we may not. What if over the next 10 years rates rise very sluggishly, low inflation, and low growth more or less continues with maybe one brief and shallow recession. In that case I bet US stocks produce 4-5% returns per year and US bonds produce maybe 1-2% per year. European and emerging market stocks should have higher returns because they are in an earlier part of the cycle. I think your baseline has to look something like that. The last two crashes were caused by the tech bubble and the housing bubble - where is the bubble today? US stocks are expensive, but probably not in bubble territory. Bonds worldwide are unattractive with low or negative yields - negative yields maybe a bubble, but central banks will be the most hurt by negative rates and they are in a strong position to take the pain. There could be a crash I just don't see how we get there yet - maybe china?",
"qid": 10267,
"docid": "599420",
"rank": 87,
"score": 83315
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Usually, a financial advisor makes his money by selling financial investments. Thus, almost anyone you talk to is going to try to get you to be investment products, which is not what you need to be doing at this point. You should be focusing on paying off all your debt first, before doing any investment. The interest you are paying on credit cards is most likely much more than the money you could get from any type of investment. However, once you have your consumer debt paid off, I recommend talking to any friends, co-workers, or other professional advisors you have (such as attorneys or accountants). When you ask such people for the referrals, find out how much debt they have, how much they are investing. Pay closer attention to those with a higher net worth. Otherwise, you may be getting advice from someone fooled by the same sort of financial advisor you are trying to avoid.",
"qid": 10267,
"docid": "412114",
"rank": 88,
"score": 83050
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Set up budget categories. Earmark your income as it is paid, for your budget categories. Pay your bills and expenses. For debts, pay the minimum on everything. There will be an amount left once everything is budgeted. That's the 'extra'. Then focus on, in order of priority, the following: So, when your emergency fund is up to an appropriate level (3-6 months of living expenses as a rule of thumb, adjusted according to your comfort level). Once you have your emergency fund started, budget at least enough toward your 401k to capture any matching offered by your employer. Then use the snowball plan to pay off your debts. (From what your post says, this does not apply to you, but you may have some small credit card debts taht were not discussed). Earmark the 'extra' for the smallest debt first. When that debt is paid, the 'extra' grows by the minimum payment of the smallest. Thus the snowball grows as you pay off debts. Once the debts are gone, reward yourself, within reason (and without going into debt). Now shift your extra into fully funding your retirement savings. Consult a financial advisor to help you plan how to distribute your retirement savings across the available retirement savings types. They can explain why it's good to have some of your retirement savings funded from after tax income. They can help you find the balance between pre- and post-tax funded accounts. Eventually, you may come to the point where you're putting the max allowed into your tax advantaged retirement accounts. At your age, this is a significant achievement. Anything left over after retirement savings is funded can be used for whatever you want. If you choose wealth building, it can lead to financial independence. The first two should be a one time thing. You can/should do more than one at a time. The fourth one is optional, and should not be considered until 1 and 2 are completed, and 3 is maxed out. What you achieve is up to you. Look up FIRE, or Financially independent, retire early. There are groups of folks striving for this. They share advice on frugal living and wealth building strategies. The goal is to save enough capital to live off the passive income of interest and dividends. Most of them seem to have pre-50 target ages. At your age and income, you could hit a pre-40 goal. But it takes commitment and a certain type of personality. Not for me but it might be for you.",
"qid": 10267,
"docid": "1315",
"rank": 89,
"score": 82914
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Is my financial status OK? You have money for emergencies in the bank, you spend less than you earn. Yes, your status is okay. You will have a good standard of living if nothing changes from your status quo. How can I improve it? You are probably paying more in taxes than you would if you made a few changes. If you max out tax advantaged retirement accounts that would reduce the up-front taxes you are paying on your savings. Is now a right time for me to see a financial advisor? The best time to see a financial advisor is any time that your situation changes. New job? Getting married? Having a child? Got a big promotion or raise? Suddenly thinking about buying a house? Is it worth the money? How would she/he help me? If you pick an advisor who has incentive to help you rather than just pad his/her own pockets with commissions, then the advice is usually worth the money. If there is someone whose time is already paid for, that may be better. For example, if you get an accountant to help you with your taxes and ask him/her how to best reduce your taxes the next year, the advice is already paid-for in the fee you for the tax help. An advisor should help you minimize the high taxes you are almost certainly paying as a single earner, and minimize the stealth taxes you are paying in inflation (on that $100k sitting in the bank).",
"qid": 10267,
"docid": "76107",
"rank": 90,
"score": 82914
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Your asset mix should reflect your own risk tolerance. Whatever the ideal answer to your question, it requires you to have good timing, not once, but twice. Let me offer a personal example. In 2007, the S&P hit its short term peak at 1550 or so. As it tanked in the crisis, a coworker shared with me that he went to cash, on the way down, selling out at about 1100. At the bottom, 670 or so, I congratulated his brilliance (sarcasm here) and as it passed 1300 just 2 years later, again mentions how he must be thrilled he doubled his money. He admitted he was still in cash. Done with stocks. So he was worse off than had he held on to his pre-crash assets. For sake of disclosure, my own mix at the time was 100% stock. That's not a recommendation, just a reflection of how my wife and I were invested. We retired early, and after the 2013 excellent year, moved to a mix closer to 75/25. At any time, a crisis hits, and we have 5-6 years spending money to let the market recover. If a Japanesque long term decline occurs, Social Security kicks in for us in 8 years. If my intent wasn't 100% clear, I'm suggesting your long term investing should always reflect your own risk tolerance, not some short term gut feel that disaster is around the corner.",
"qid": 10267,
"docid": "424511",
"rank": 91,
"score": 82886
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I think this question is perfectly on topic, and probably has been asked and answered many times. However, I cannot help myself. Here are some basics however: Personal Finance is not only about math. As a guy who \"\"took vector calculus just for fun\"\", I have learned that superior math skills do not translate into superior net worth. Personal finance is about 50% behavior. Take a look at the housing crisis, car loans, or payday lenders and you will understand that the desire to be accepted by others often trumps the math surrounding a transaction. Outline your goals What is it that you want in life? A pile of money or to retire early? What does your business look like? How much cash will you need? Do you want to own a ton of rental properties? How does all this happen (set intermediate goals). Then get on a budget A budget is a plan to spend your money in advance. Stick to it. From there you can see how much money you have to implement various goals. Are your goals to aggressive? This is really important as people have a tendency to spend more money then they have. Often times when people receive a bonus at work, they spend that one bonus on two or three times over. A budget will prevent this from happening. Get an Emergency Fund Without an emergency fund, you be subject to the financial whims of people involved in your own life and that of the broader marketplace. Once you have one, you are free to invest with impunity and have less stress in a world that deals out plenty. Bad things will happen to you financially, protect against them. The best first investments are simple: Invest in yourself. Find a way to make a very healthy income with upward mobility. Also get out and stay out of debt. These things are not sexy, but they pay off in the long run. The next best investment is also simple: Index funds. These become the bench mark for all other investments. If you do not stand a good chance of beating the S&P 500 index fund, why bother? Just dump the money in the fund and sleep well at night.\"",
"qid": 10267,
"docid": "62047",
"rank": 92,
"score": 82706
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The issue is how likely you will have zero income for six months, and what are your monthly expenses. If you know the maximum medical bill you face that may allow you to save a smaller amount. But you still have to protect for that loss of income. The interuption could be because of job loss, medical emergency, or other family crisis. If I told you that the chances you would face a crisis dropped by 50%, would you decide that the need for an emergency fund went away? Or would you still create a fund? I think the need still exists just to avoid the downside if you aren't prepared.",
"qid": 10267,
"docid": "68239",
"rank": 93,
"score": 82633
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Itunes U has some really good online classes on economics. And as with a lot of things check out Khanacademy.org. He has a whole financial section of really well made videos. Good books to read regarding the financial crisis are The Big Short by Lewis and Too Big To Fail by Sorkin.",
"qid": 10267,
"docid": "96017",
"rank": 94,
"score": 82595
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: No. Bank of America helped out during the financial crisis by buying Merrill Lynch (I am not suggesting they did this for altruistic reasons, just trying to describe the position they were in despite already purchasing Countrywide). They were forced to accept TARP but they paid it all back by the end of 2009. If the IRS fucked up their math like BofA is suggesting then they deserve to be compensated. Edit: Countrywide is one word.",
"qid": 10267,
"docid": "574608",
"rank": 95,
"score": 82537
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Gold and silver are for after the crisis, not during. Gold and silver are far more likely to be able to be exchanged for things you need, since they are rare, easily divided, etc. Getting land away from where the crap is happening is also good, but it's more than that. Say you have land somewhere. How will the locals view you if you move there to hunker down only when things go bad? They won't really trust you, and you'll inherit a new set of problems. Building relationships in an off-the-beaten-path area requires a time investment. Investing in lifestyle in general is good. Lifestyle isn't just toys, but it's privacy, peace of mind, relationships with people with whom you can barter skills, as well as the skills you might think you'd need to do more than just get by in whatever scenario you envision. For the immediate crisis, you'd better have the things you'll need for a few months. Stores probably won't be supplied on any regular basis, and the shelves will be bare. Trying to use gold or silver during the crisis just makes you a target for theft. With regard to food, it's best to get acclimated to a diet of what you'd have on hand. If you get freeze-dried food, eat it now, so that it's not a shock to your system when you have to eat it. (Can you tell I've been thinking about this? :) )",
"qid": 10267,
"docid": "302010",
"rank": 96,
"score": 82479
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: First of all, bush was a liberal. He expanded the federal government to a size that had never before been reached. So yes, liberal policies fail. Speaking of which! Glass steagall's repeal was the biggest reason for the financial crisis. Clinton repealed it. Obama didn't reinstate it. Liberal policies never DON'T fail.",
"qid": 10267,
"docid": "56461",
"rank": 97,
"score": 82397
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Investors hungry for returns are piling back into securities once tarnished by the financial crisis. Complex structured investments developed a bad reputation during the credit crunch. Ten years later, investors seeking yield are overcoming their skepticism and buying into securities that rely on financial engineering to juice returns. Volumes of CLOs, or collateralized loan obligations, hit a record $247 billion in the first nine months of the year, according to data from J.P. Morgan Chase JPM 1.59%▲ & Co. Fueled by a wave of refinancings and nearly $100 billion in new deals, that far outpaces their recent full-year high of $151 billion in 2014 and the precrisis peak of $136 billion in 2006. The CLO boom is the latest sign of the ferocious hunt for yield permeating markets. Stellar performance over the past year has made CLOs increasingly hard to ignore for investors like insurance companies and pension funds. CLOs carve up a portfolio of bank loans to highly indebted companies into slices of securities with different levels of risk. The securities at the bottom of the CLO stack offer the highest potential source of returns, but they are also the first to absorb losses if there are defaults in the underlying loan portfolio. The more senior slices offer lower returns but are more insulated from losses. CLOs are often lumped together with other alphabet-soup acronyms of the financial crisis, such as more toxic CDOs, or collateralized debt obligations. But CLOs actually weathered the financial crisis well: Investors who bought at the top of the market in 2007 suffered paper losses, but there were no defaults at all for the highest-rated securities. That track record has helped boost CLOs’ appeal for investors with lingering concerns over scooping up more complex investments. . Taking off / Global CLO volumes “The demand for things like CLOs….is extraordinary,” said Rick Rieder, chief investment officer for global fixed income at BlackRock Inc. CLOs are one of the largest demand sources for the leveraged loan market, which has also been booming this year. Volumes of leveraged loans, often used by private-equity firms to fund buyouts, are on track to surpass their 2007 record, according to LCD, a unit of S&P Global Market Intelligence. At the same time, investors have voiced concerns about companies’ rising leverage level, and weaker creditor protections. Within a CLO are different risk profiles: Investors in the most senior, AAA-rated piece of debt get paid first and are the most insulated from losses if defaults rise in the underlying loan portfolio. They also receive the skinniest returns. Slices of debt further down receive higher returns, but will suffer losses if defaults spike. At the bottom sits the equity tranche, the first loss-absorber and last to get paid, but the highest potential source of returns. A 2014 report from Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services stated that AAA-rated and AA-rated CLO tranches incurred no losses at all between 1994 and 2013. Loss rates for lower-rated tranches, meanwhile, were low—just 1.1% for B-rated securities over that period. . Flying High / Market returns since J.P. Morgan recommended buying CLOs last July That doesn’t prevent some conservative investors from conflating the CLOs with the now-infamous CDOs, many of which were linked to subprime mortgages and spread and amplified losses in the U.S. housing market. One breed of CDOs are on a comeback path of their own, with more investors returning to them during an aging bull market. Many people were “burnt by these acronyms from the crisis,” said Zak Summerscale, head of credit fund management for Europe and Asia Pacific at Intermediate Capital Group . He is currently recommending that clients buy senior CLO tranches over investment-grade bonds. CLOs, like other types of securitizations, have been subject to greater regulation since the financial crisis. That includes forcing funds that manage a CLO to retain 5% of the securities, in an effort to align incentives with investors. That has “attracted additional capital into the market,” said Mike Rosenberg, a principal at alternative investment manager Tetragon. Assets under management in the “loan participation” sector—a proxy for funds that invest in CLOs—have grown 21% this year to $206 billion, according to Thomson Reuters Lipper. The pickup in CLOs has been a boon to banks weathering declines in trading revenues in the current low-volatility environment. Revenue from CLO-related activity at the top 12 global investment banks more than doubled over the first half of 2017 from a year earlier to almost $1 billion, according to financial consultancy Coalition. CLO investors have been handsomely rewarded in recent months. J.P. Morgan strategist Rishad Ahluwalia recommended clients buy CLOs last July as he thought they looked too cheap. Between then and the end of September, BB-rated CLO tranches returned 25.4%, compared with a 25.2% return for the technology-oriented Nasdaq stock index, according to his calculations. “CLOs have been an absolute home run,” said Mr. Ahluwalia, though he added such chunky returns aren’t repeatable. Analysts say CLOs got beaten down last year following a series of troubles in the underlying loan market, including distress in the energy sector. Some analysts think the strong rally in CLO tranches since then should give investors pause; others think the market has further to run. Renaud Champion, head of credit strategies at Paris-based hedge fund La Française Investment Solutions, likes AAA-rated CLO tranches but with a twist: leverage. Mr. Champion says he buys senior European CLO tranches and borrows money against them to increase the size of his position between five and 10 times. That can amplify gains—and losses—significantly. “The difference between now and a year ago is the availability of leverage,” he said. Bankers say only a small proportion of CLO buyers use leverage and emphasize that trades are subject to daily margin calls. That means investors have to post cash to cover mark-to-market losses on a position, which in turn limits how much they are willing to borrow. “The leverage in the system today is a fraction compared to precrisis,” said J.P. Morgan’s Mr. Ahluwalia. Write to Christopher Whittall at christopher.whittall@wsj.com Appeared in the October 23, 2017, print edition as 'Crisis-Era Securities Regain Investors’ Favor.'",
"qid": 10267,
"docid": "274945",
"rank": 98,
"score": 82276
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Keep a list of your accounts, banks, life insurance policies, location of your will, etc, and make sure two people you trust know where you keep that list. Review and update the list at least once a year. This way if something happens to you, your next of kin will have an easier time locating your financial details and final wishes. And having a list also means you won't forget about any of your accounts.",
"qid": 10267,
"docid": "79763",
"rank": 99,
"score": 82151
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"For some people, it should be a top priority. For others, there are higher priorities. What it should be for you depends on a number of things, including your overall financial situation (both your current finances and how stable you expect them to be over time), your level of financial \"\"education\"\", the costs of your mortgage, the alternative investments available to you, your investing goals, and your tolerance for risk. Your #1 priority should be to ensure that your basic needs (including making the required monthly payment on your mortgage) are met, both now and in the near future, which includes paying off high-interest (i.e. credit card) debt and building up an emergency fund in a savings or money-market account or some other low-risk and liquid account. If you haven't done those things, do not pass Go, do not collect $200, and do not consider making advance payments on your mortgage. Mason Wheeler's statements that the bank can't take your house if you've paid it off are correct, but it's going to be a long time till you get there and they can take it if you're partway to paying it off early and then something bad happens to you and you start missing payments. (If you're not underwater, you should be able to get some of your money back by selling - possibly at a loss - before it gets to the point of foreclosure, but you'll still have to move, which can be costly and unappealing.) So make sure you've got what you need to handle your basic needs even if you hit a rough patch, and make sure you're not financing the paying off of your house by taking a loan from Visa at 27% annually. Once you've gotten through all of those more-important things, you finally get to decide what else to invest your extra money in. Different investments will provide different rewards, both financial and emotional (and Mason Wheeler has clearly demonstrated that he gets a strong emotional payoff from not having a mortgage, which may or may not be how you feel about it). On the financial side of any potential investment, you'll want to consider things like the expected rate of return, the risk it carries (both on its own and whether it balances out or unbalances the overall risk profile of all your investments in total), its expected costs (including its - and your - tax rate and any preferred tax treatment), and any other potential factors (such as an employer match on 401(k) contributions, which are basically free money to you). Then you weigh the pros and cons (financial and emotional) of each option against your imperfect forecast of what the future holds, take your best guess, and then keep adjusting as you go through life and things change. But I want to come back to one of the factors I mentioned in the first paragraph. Which options you should even be considering is in part influenced by the degree to which you understand your finances and the wide variety of options available to you as well as all the subtleties of how different things can make them more or less advantageous than one another. The fact that you're posting this question here indicates that you're still early in the process of learning those things, and although it's great that you're educating yourself on them (and keep doing it!), it means that you're probably not ready to worry about some of the things other posters have talked about, such as Cost of Capital and ROI. So keep reading blog posts and articles online (there's no shortage of them), and keep developing your understanding of the options available to you and their pros and cons, and wait to tackle the full suite of investment options till you fully understand them. However, there's still the question of what to do between now and then. Paying the mortgage down isn't an unreasonable thing for you to do for now, since it's a guaranteed rate of return that also provides some degree of emotional payoff. But I'd say the higher priority should be getting money into a tax-advantaged retirement account (a 401(k)/403(b)/IRA), because the tax-advantaged growth of those accounts makes their long-term return far greater than whatever you're paying on your mortgage, and they provide more benefit (tax-advantaged growth) the earlier you invest in them, so doing that now instead of paying off the house quicker is probably going to be better for you financially, even if it doesn't provide the emotional payoff. If your employer will match your contributions into that account, then it's a no-brainer, but it's probably still a better idea than the mortgage unless the emotional payoff is very very important to you or unless you're nearing retirement age (so the tax-free growth period is small). If you're not sure what to invest in, just choose something that's broad-market and low-cost (total-market index funds are a great choice), and you can diversify into other things as you gain more savvy as an investor; what matters more is that you start investing in something now, not exactly what it is. Disclaimer: I'm not a personal advisor, and this does not constitute investing advice. Understand your choices and make your own decisions.\"",
"qid": 10267,
"docid": "589256",
"rank": 100,
"score": 81946
}
] |
What is considered high or low when talking about volume? | [
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Volume is really only valuable when compared to some other volume, either from a historical value, or from some other stock. The article you linked to doesn't provide specific numbers for you to evaluate whether volume is high or low. Many people simply look at the charts and use a gut feel for whether a day's volume is \"\"high\"\" or \"\"low\"\" in their estimation. Typically, if a day's volume is not significantly taller than the usual volume, you wouldn't call it high. The same goes for low volume. If you want a more quantitative approach, a simple approach would be to use the normal distribution statistics: Calculate the mean volume and the standard deviation. Anything outside of 1.5 to 2.0 standard deviations (either high or low) could be significant in your analysis. You'll need to pick your own numbers (1.5 or 2.0 are just numbers I pulled out of thin air.) It's hard to read anything specific into volume, since for every seller, there's a buyer, and each has their reasons for doing so. The article you link to has some good examples of using volume as a basis for strengthening conclusions drawn using other factors.\"",
"qid": 10414,
"docid": "303325",
"rank": 1,
"score": 137735
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Open, high, low, close, volume. The hint is that volume on new years day is 0. DC's comment is actually a better answer than mine - when given any data set, you should really know the meaning of each cell/number.",
"qid": 10414,
"docid": "261802",
"rank": 2,
"score": 120253
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: There are several reasons why this may happen and I will update as I get more information from you. Volumes on that stock look low (supposing that they are either in a factor between 1s and 1000s) so it could well be that there was no volume on that day. If no trades occur then open, high and low are meaningless as they are statistics based on trades that occur that day and no trades occur. Remember that there has to be volume to get a price. The stock may have been frozen by either the exchange or the company for the day. This could be for various reasons including to prevent some illegal activity. In that case no trades were made because the market for that stock was closed. Another possibility is that all trades that day were cancelled by the exchange. The exchange may cancel all trades if there is unusual, potentially fraudulent or other illegal activity on the stock. In this case the last price for that day existed but was rolled back by the exchange and never occurred. This is a rare situation. Although I can't find any holidays on that date it is possible that this is how your data provider marks market holidays. It would be valid to ignore the data in that case as being from a non-market day. I cannot tell if this is possible without knowing exchange information. There is a possibility that some data providers don't receive data for a day or that it gets corrupted. It may be worth checking another source to ensure the integrity of the data that you are receiving. Whichever reason is true, the data provider has made the close equal to the previous day's close as no price movements occurred. Strictly the closing price is the price of the last trade made for that day and so should be null (and open, high and low should be null too and not 0 otherwise the price change on day is very large!). Therefore, to keep integrity, you have a few choices:",
"qid": 10414,
"docid": "127015",
"rank": 3,
"score": 113879
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The daily Volume is usually compared to the average daily volume over the past 50 days for a stock. High volume is usually considered to be 2 or more times the average daily volume over the last 50 days for that stock, however some traders might set the crireia to be 3x or 4x the ADV for confirmation of a particular pattern or event. The volume is compared to the ADV of the stock itself, as comparing it to the volume of other stocks would be like comparing apples with oranges, as difference companies would have different number of total stocks available, different levels of liquidity and different levels of volatility, which can all contribute to the volumes traded each day.",
"qid": 10414,
"docid": "79807",
"rank": 4,
"score": 112943
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Opening - is the price at which the first trade gets executed at the start of the trading day (or trading period). High - is the highest price the stock is traded at during the day (or trading period). Low - is the lowest price the stock is traded at during the day (or trading period). Closing - is the price at which the last trade gets executed at the end of the trading day (or trading period). Volume - is the amount of shares that get traded during the trading day (or trading period). For example, if you bought 1000 shares during the day and another 9 people also bought 1000 shares each, then the trading volume for the day would be 10 x 1000 = 10,000.",
"qid": 10414,
"docid": "468025",
"rank": 5,
"score": 112364
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: One of the most useful ways to depict Open, High, Low, Close, and Volume is with a Candlestick Chart. I like to use the following options from Stockcharts.com: http://stockcharts.com/h-sc/ui?s=SPY&p=D&yr=0&mn=3&dy=0&id=p57211761385",
"qid": 10414,
"docid": "60284",
"rank": 6,
"score": 111177
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: In the scenario you describe, the first thing I would look at would be liquidity. In other words, how easy is it to buy and sell shares. If the average daily volume of one share is low compared to the average daily volume of the other, then the more actively traded share would be the more attractive. Low volume shares will have larger bid-offer spreads than high volume shares, so if you need to get out of position quickly you will be at risk of being forced to take a lowball offer. Having said that, it is important to understand that high yielding shares have high yields for a reason. Namely, the market does not think much of the company's prospects and that it is likely that a cut in the dividend is coming in the near future. In general, the nominal price of a share is not important. If two companies have equal prospect, then the percentage movement in their share price will be about the same, so the net profit or loss you realise will be about the same.",
"qid": 10414,
"docid": "275297",
"rank": 7,
"score": 110879
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You should not look at volume in isolation but look at it together with other indicators and/or the release of news (good or bad). When there is lower than average volume this could be an indication that the stock is in a bit of a holding pattern, possibly waiting for some company or economic news to come out (especially when accompanied by small changes in price). It could also mean that trading in a certain direction is drying up and the trend is about to end (this could be accompanied with a large move in price). When there is higher than average volume (2 to 3 times more or higher), this could be due to the release of company results, company or economic news, or the start or end of a trend (especially if accompanied by a gap). A large increase in volume accompanied by a large fall in price (usually a gap down) may also be an indication the stock has gone ex-dividend. There could be a range of reasons for variations in volume to the average volume. That is why you need to look at other indicators, company reporting and news, and economic news in combination with the volume changes to get a grasp of what is really happening.",
"qid": 10414,
"docid": "10017",
"rank": 8,
"score": 103780
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: There is no direct relationship between volume and stock price. High volume indicates how much stock is changing hands. That can be because people are enthusiastically buying OR enthusiastically selling... and their reasons for doing so may not agree with your own sense of the future value of the stock. Higher volume may mean that the price is more likely to change during the day, but it can be in either direction -- or in no direction at all if there isn't a general agreement on how to react to some piece of news. It's a possibly interesting datum, but it means nothing in isolation.",
"qid": 10414,
"docid": "198583",
"rank": 9,
"score": 102480
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Not an Amazon fanboy by any means, but part of their philosophy is basically that if we don't sell low, somebody else will. The low prices and service ARE the advertising, and the volume helps them push efficiencies further. There isn't anything stopping them from raising prices, but its sort of runs counter to their whole business mantra.",
"qid": 10414,
"docid": "540418",
"rank": 10,
"score": 97621
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Insofar as a 52 week high indicates a peak, yes. However, the truth is that \"\"buying low and selling high\"\" means \"\"Act a Fool!\"\" You see, when you buy low, you are perceived to be buying total garbage - throwing your money away and conversely when selling high you are perceived to be a total idiot - selling a winner. That's how people will see you when you are in fact buying low and/or selling high, right? It's those people that (mis)value the asset, right? An asset is worth what the people will pay for it, right? ...And don't forget that holding a loser is MUCH easier than holding a winner. Good luck!\"",
"qid": 10414,
"docid": "169954",
"rank": 11,
"score": 95432
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Something to consider is that in the case of the company you chose, on the OTC market, that stock is thinly traded and with such low volume, it can be easy for it to fluctuate greatly to have trades occur. This is why volume can matter for some people when it comes to buying shares. Some OTC stocks may have really low volume and thus may have bigger swings than other stocks that have higher volume.",
"qid": 10414,
"docid": "42347",
"rank": 12,
"score": 94566
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Here's a dump from what I use. Some are a bit more expensive than those that you posted. The second column is the expense ratio. The third column is the category I've assigned in my spreadsheet -- it's how I manage my rebalancing among different classes. \"\"US-LC\"\" is large cap, MC is mid cap, SC is small cap. \"\"Intl-Dev\"\" is international stocks from developed economies, \"\"Emer\"\" is emerging economies. These have some overlap. I don't have a specific way to handle this, I just keep an eye on the overall picture. (E.g. I don't overdo it on, say, BRIC + Brazil or SPY + S&P500 Growth.) The main reason for each selection is that they provide exposure to a certain batch of securities that I was looking for. In each type, I was also aiming for cheap and/or liquid like you. If there are substitutes I should be looking at for any of these that are cheaper and/or more liquid, a comment would be great. High Volume: Mid Volume (<1mil shares/day): Low Volume (<50k shares/day): These provide enough variety to cover the target allocation below. That allocation is just for retirement accounts; I don't consider any other savings when I rebalance against this allocation. When it's time to rebalance (i.e. a couple of times a year when I realize that I haven't done it in several months), I update quotes, look at the percentages assigned to each category, and if anything is off the target by more than 1% point I will buy/sell to adjust. (I.e. if US-LC is 23%, I sell enough to get back to 20%, then use the cash to buy more of something else that is under the target. But if US-MC is 7.2% I don't worry about it.) The 1% threshold prevents unnecessary trading costs; sometimes if everything is just over 1% off I'll let it slide. I generally try to stay away from timing, but I do use some of that extra cash when there's a panic (after Jan-Feb '09 I had very little cash in the retirement accounts). I don't have the source for this allocation any more, but it is the result of combining a half dozen or so sample allocations that I saw and tailoring it for my goals.\"",
"qid": 10414,
"docid": "373688",
"rank": 13,
"score": 92007
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Stock B could be considered to be more risky because it seems to be more volatile - sharp rises on large volume increases can easily be followed by sharp drops or by further rises in the start of a new uptrend. However, if both A and B are trading on low volume in general, they can both be more on the risky side due to having relatively low liquidity, especially if you buy a large order compared to the average daily volume. But just looking at the criteria you have included in your question is not enough to determine which stock is riskier than the other, and you should look at this criteria in combination with other indicators and information about each stock to obtain a more complete picture.",
"qid": 10414,
"docid": "565539",
"rank": 14,
"score": 91752
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: For now it could possibly happen, assuming there are that many people wanting to offload their coins and recent charts are showing that trading volume is pretty damn low right now, even with prices being so high. I'm going to guess most people with Bitcoin plan to hold onto it for a while. Considering bitcoin can only be divisible to 8 decimal points (1 bitcoin = 1^8 satoshis), prices will start to skyrocket once supply cedes and (if) demand continues to rise. Or so it should, if it ever reaches that point. Most naysayers believe it'll die before it reaches that point.",
"qid": 10414,
"docid": "575178",
"rank": 15,
"score": 90336
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: First, I want to point out that your question contains an assumption. Does anyone make significant money trading low volume stocks? I'm not sure this is the case - I've never heard of a hedge fund trading in the pink sheets, for example. Second, if your assumption is valid, here are a few ideas how it might work: Accumulate slowly, exit slowly. This won't work for short-term swings, but if you feel like a low-volume stock will be a longer-term winner, you can accumulate a sizable portion in small enough chunks not to swing the price (and then slowly unwind your position when the price has increased sufficiently). Create additional buyers/sellers. Your frustration may be one of the reasons low-volume stock is so full of scammers pumping and dumping (read any investing message board to see examples of this). If you can scare holders of the stock into selling, you can buy significant portions without driving the stock price up. Similarly, if you can convince people to buy the stock, you can unload without destroying the price. This is (of course) morally and legally dubious, so I would not recommend this practice.",
"qid": 10414,
"docid": "506460",
"rank": 16,
"score": 89400
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If the stock has low liquidity, yes there could be times when there are no buyers or sellers at a specific price, so if you put a limit order to buy or sell at a price with no other corresponding sellers or buyers, then your order may take a while to get executed or it may not be executed at all. You can usually tell if a stock has low liquidity by the small size of the average daily volume, the lack of order depth and the large size of the gap between bids and offers. So if a stock for example has last sale price of $0.50, has a highest bid price of $0.40 and a lowest offer price of $0.60, and an average daily volume of 10000 share, it is likely to be very illiquid. So if you try to buy or sell at around the $0.50 mark it might take you a long time to buy or sell this stock at this price.",
"qid": 10414,
"docid": "443804",
"rank": 17,
"score": 89237
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Consider the case where a stock has low volume. If the stock normally has a few hundred shares trade each minute and you want to buy 10,000 shares then chances are you'll move the market by driving up the price to find enough sellers so that you can get all those shares. Similarly, if you sell way more than the typical volume, this can be an issue.",
"qid": 10414,
"docid": "541730",
"rank": 18,
"score": 88143
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: It may have some value! Investopedia has a well-written quick article on how stock holders may still get some portion of the liquidated assets. While there is generally little left for common shareholders if the price of those shares is tiny and some money does come back to shareholders there can still be significant profit to be made. As to why the trading volume is so high... there are many firms and hedge funds that specialize in calculating the value of and buying distressed debt and stock. They often compete with each other to by the stock/debt that common shareholders are trying to get rid of. In this particular case, there is a lot of popular interest, intellectual property at stake and pending lawsuits that probably boosts volume.",
"qid": 10414,
"docid": "597346",
"rank": 19,
"score": 88052
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Most of the time* you're selling to other investors, not back to the company. The stock market is a collection of bid (buy offers) and asks (sell offers). When you sell your stock as a retail investor at the \"\"market\"\" price you're essentially just meeting whatever standing bid offers are on the market. For very liquid stocks (e.g. Apple), you can pretty much always get the displayed price because so many stocks are being traded. However during periods of very high volatility or for low-volume stocks, the quoted price may not be indicative of what you actually pay. As an example, let's say you have 5 stocks you're trying to sell and the bid-side order book is 2 stocks for $105, 2 for $100, and 5 for $95. In this scenario the quoted price will be $105 (the best bid price), but if you accept market price you'll settle 2 for 105, 2 for 100, and 1 for 95. After your sell order goes through, the new quoted price will be $95. For high volume stocks, there will usually be so many orders near the midpoint price ($105, in this case) that you won't see any price slippage for small orders. You can also post limit orders, which are essentially open orders waiting to be filled like in the above example. They ensure you get the price you want, but you have no way to guarantee they'll be filled or not. Edit: as a cool example, check out the bitcoin GDAX on coinbase for a live example of what the order book looks like for stocks. You'll see that the price of bitcoin will drift towards whichever direction has the less dense order book (e.g. price drifts upwards when there are far more bids than asks.)\"",
"qid": 10414,
"docid": "317365",
"rank": 20,
"score": 87990
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Each candlestick in a candlestick chart represents the open, close, high and low for a period of time. If you are looking at a daily chart it represents the open price, close price, high price and low price for that day. If you are looking at an hourly chart, then a single candlestick represents the open, close, high and low prices for an hour. If looking at a weekly chart, then a single candlestick will represent the opening price on Monday morning, the closing price on Friday afternoon, and the highest and lowest price for that week. The diagram below represents the two main types of candle sticks. When the price closes higher than they open for the period of the candlestick it is called a bullish candle and the main body is usually represented in green. When the price closes lower than they open for the period of the candlestick it is called a bearish candle and the main body is usually represented in red. In a bullish candle with a large real body and small shadows or wicks, where prices open near the low of the period and close near the top of the period, it represents a very bullish period (especially if volume is high). An example of this situation could be when good news is released to the market and most market participants want to buy the shares driving prices higher during the period. An example of a bullish candle with a small real body and a large upper shadow or wick could be when market participants start buying early during the period, then some negative news comes out or prices reach a major resistance level, then prices drop from their highs but still close higher than the open. The large upper shadow represents some indecision in prices moving higher. In a bearish candle with a large real body and small shadows or wicks, where prices open near the high of the period and close near the low of the period, it represents a very bearish period (especially if volume is high). An example of this situation could be when bad news is released to the market and most market participants want to sell the shares driving prices lower during the period. An example of a bearish candle with a small real body and a large lower shadow or wick could be when market participants start selling early during the period, then some positive news comes out or prices reach a major support level, then prices move up from their lows but still close lower than the open. The large lower shadow represents some indecision in prices moving lower. These are just some examples of what can be derived from looking at candlestick charts. There are plenty more and too much to include in this answer. Another type of candle is the Doji, represented in the diagram below. The Doji Candle represents indecision in the market. Prices open then move up to the high of the period then start falling past the open before reversing again and closing either at the open or very close to the open. The market participants can't decide whether the price should move up or down, so prices end up closing very close to where they opened. A doji Candle close to a market high or low could represent a turning point in the short term trend and could mean that over the next period or two prices could reverse and go in the opposite direction. There are many more definitions for candlestick charts, and I would recommend an introductory book on candlestick charting, like one from the \"\"Dummies\"\" series. The main things to keep in mind as a beginner it that a strong bullish candle with small shadows and large real body could represent further price movement upwards, a strong bearish candle with small shadows and large real body could represent further movement downwards, and any candle with large shadows could represent indecision and a reversal from the direction of the large shadow.\"",
"qid": 10414,
"docid": "58882",
"rank": 21,
"score": 86989
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Just as a matter of research, apparently there is a way to find high option volumes such as a site here: https://www.barchart.com/options/volume-leaders/stocks However, that information is going to be heavily skewed by \"\"underlying security that moved a lot more than expected and probably got a lot of positions filled incidentally today\"\", but I think it is a good place to start building up a list of securities with a lot of option interest. There is also a tab there for ETFs. This will not tell you exactly that a particular stock always has high option volume, but most of the ones that show up there repeatedly and across multiple strike prices will meet your criteria.\"",
"qid": 10414,
"docid": "399885",
"rank": 22,
"score": 85923
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Market price simply depends on your order side. If you are placing a buy order the market price is the lowest ask, if you are placing a sell order the market price is the highest bid. If your order is larger than the volume then you'd need to also consider the next lowest ask or next highest bid until you've fulfilled your order volume.",
"qid": 10414,
"docid": "427747",
"rank": 23,
"score": 85122
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: After a certain point it's just monkey see, monkey do. Right. If I have a high volume account and I request that no packages be left in the walkway and every delivery is left with a person I can guarantee they'll do their best to oblige by that before they lose the account. That's all I'm saying.",
"qid": 10414,
"docid": "498714",
"rank": 24,
"score": 84244
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I was meaning to say that lower cost will equal lower priced products, at least on products that are already low margin and high volume (like most tech products). I agree that nice stuff/crap stuff can come from anywhere; we're in a very global economy.",
"qid": 10414,
"docid": "552819",
"rank": 25,
"score": 84176
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: How I understand it is: supply/demand affect price of stock negatively/positively, respectively. Correct. Volume is the amount of buying/selling activity in these stocks (more volume = more fluctuation, right?). Sort of. Higher volume means higher liquidity. That is, a stock that is traded more is easier to trade. It doesn't necessarily mean more fluctuation and in the real world, it often means that these are well-understood stocks with a high amount of analyst coverage. This tends towards these stocks not being as volatile as smaller stocks with less liquidity. Company revenue (and profit) will help an investor predict company growth. That is one factor in a stock price. There are certain stocks that you would buy without them making a profit because their future revenue looks potentially explosive. However, these stocks are very risky and are bubble-prone. If you're starting out in the share market, it's generally a good idea to invest in index funds (I am not a broker, my advice should not be taken as financial advice). These funds aggregate risk by holding a lot of different companies. Also, statistics have shown that over time, buying and holding index funds long term tends to dramatically outperform other investment strategies, particularly for people with low amounts of capital.",
"qid": 10414,
"docid": "115134",
"rank": 26,
"score": 84143
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: yes you are right as per my understanding while doing trade you must consider fol (specially for starters like me) The volume of the stock you are trading in should be high enough to keep you secure for quick in and out Whenever the bid volume is more than the ask volume the prices will move up and vice versa. to give an example if a stock is at 100 points and there are fol bids: The transaction will occur when either the bidder agrees to pay the ask price (case 1. he pays 101 . his bid offer will disappear and the next best ask will be 102. and the current price will be 101 which was the last transaction.) or when the person giving ask price agrees to deal at best bid which was 99 in which case the share will go down.",
"qid": 10414,
"docid": "175831",
"rank": 27,
"score": 83748
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Be wary of pump and dump schemes. This scheme works like this: When you observe that \"\"From time to time the action explodes with 100 or 200% gains and volumes exceeding one million and it then back down to $ 0.02\"\", it appears that this scheme was performed repeatedly on this stock. When you see a company with a very, very low stock price which claims to have a very bright future, you should ask yourself why the stock is so low. There are professional stock brokers who have access to the same information you have, and much more. So why don't they buy that stock? Likely because they realize that the claims about the company are greatly exaggerated or even completely made up.\"",
"qid": 10414,
"docid": "183999",
"rank": 28,
"score": 83521
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Stocks with a low average daily trading volume (\"\"thinly traded stocks\"\") will also tend to have higher spreads. So you'll tend to pay more when you buy and get less when you sell.\"",
"qid": 10414,
"docid": "302372",
"rank": 29,
"score": 83229
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Disregarding the particular example and focusing on the actual questions: YES, definitely, the whole concept of \"\"pump and dump scheme\"\" refers to the many cases when this was intentionally done; Everything has a limit, but the limit can be quite high, especially if starting from a low value (a penny stock) and if the stock is low volume, then inflating ten or hundred times over a real value may be possible; and any value might be infinitely times overvalued for a company that turns out to have a value of zero. Yes, unless it's done very blatantly, you should expect that the \"\"inflator\"\" has much more experience in hiding the signs of inflation than the skill of average investor to notice them.\"",
"qid": 10414,
"docid": "363204",
"rank": 30,
"score": 81164
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"High liquidity doesn't necessarily mean that \"\"everybody is getting rid of the stock\"\", since somebody is obviously buying whatever stock that is being sold. Also, as mentioned, low liquidity may mean that you would have trouble selling the stock in the future.\"",
"qid": 10414,
"docid": "230343",
"rank": 31,
"score": 81076
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You can't tell for sure. If there was such a technique then everyone would use it and the price would instantly change to reflect the future price value. However, trade volume does say something. If you have a lemonade stand and offer a large glass of ice cold lemonade for 1c on a hot summer day I'm pretty sure you'll have high trading volume. If you offer it for $5000 the trading volume is going to be around zero. Since the supply of lemonade is presumably limited at some point dropping the price further isn't going to increase the number of transactions. Trade volumes reflect to some degree the difference of valuations between buyers and sellers and the supply and demand. It's another piece of information that you can try looking at and interpreting. If you can be more successful at this than the majority of others on the market (not very likely) you may get a small edge. I'm willing to bet that high frequency trading algorithms factor volume into their trading decisions among multiple other factors.",
"qid": 10414,
"docid": "503025",
"rank": 32,
"score": 80680
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: All the time. For high volume stocks, it may be tough to see exactly what's going on, e.g. the bid/ask may be moving faster than your connection to the broker can show you. What I've observed is with options. The volume on some options is measured in the 10's or 100's of contracts in a day. I'll see a case where it's $1.80/$2.00 bid/ask, and by offering $1.90 will often see a fill at that price. Since I may be the only trade on that option in the 15 minute period and note that the stock wasn't moving more than a penny during that time, I know that it was my order that managed to fill between the bid/ask.",
"qid": 10414,
"docid": "442048",
"rank": 33,
"score": 80543
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"You have heard the old adage \"\"Buy low, sell high\"\", right? That sounds so obvious that you'd have to wonder why they would ever bother coining such an expression. It should rank up there with \"\"Don't walk in front of a moving car\"\" on the Duh scale of advice. Well, your question demonstrates exactly why it isn't quite so obvious in the real world and that people need to be reminded of it. So, in your example, the stock prices are currently low (relative to what they have been). So per that adage, do you sell or buy when prices are low? Hint: It isn't sell. Yes. Your gut is going to tell you the exact opposite thanks to the fact that our brains are unfortunately wired to make us susceptible to the loss aversion fallacy. When the market has undergone a big drop is the WORST time to stop contributing (buying stocks). This example might help get your brain and gut to agree a little more easily: If you were talking about any other non-investment commodity, cars for instance. Your question equates to.. I really need a car, but the prices have been dropping like crazy lately. Maybe I should wait until the car dealers start raising their prices again before I buy one. Dollar Cost Averaging As littleadv suggested, if you have an automatic payroll deduction for your retirement account, you are getting the benefit of Dollar Cost Averaging. Because you are investing the same amount on a scheduled interval, you are buying more shares when they are cheap and fewer when they are expensive. It is like an automatic buy low strategy is built into the account. The alternative, which you are implying, is a market timing strategy. Under this strategy, instead of investing regularly you try to get in and out of investments right before they go up/drop. There are two MAJOR flaws with this approach: 1) Your brain will work against you (see above) and encourage you to do the exact opposite of what you should be doing. 2) Unless you are clairvoyant, this strategy isn't much better than gambling. If you are lucky it can work, but because of #1, the odds are stacked against you.\"",
"qid": 10414,
"docid": "109455",
"rank": 34,
"score": 79176
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Given your premise is correct: How do you cash in a large sum of YetAnotherCryptoCoin shortly after it´s ICO? The crypto-exchanges take some time to add a new currency, if they do at all. And even if they already have, trading volume is usually low. I think that´s what really makes it unattractive for Investors as opposed to tec-enthusiasts (aside from the high volatility). Total lack of any reliable trading capability.",
"qid": 10414,
"docid": "160965",
"rank": 35,
"score": 78915
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Volume is measured in the number of shares traded in a given day, week, month, etc. This means that it's not necessarily a directly-comparable measure between stocks, as there's a large difference between 1 million shares traded of a $1 stock ($1 million total) and 1 million shares traded of a $1000 stock ($1 billion total). Volume as a number on its own is lacking in context; it often makes more sense to look at it as an overall dollar amount (as in the parentheses above) or as a fraction of the total number of shares in the marketplace. When you see a price quoted for a particular ticker symbol, whether online, or on TV, or elsewhere, that price is typically the price of the last trade that executed for that security. A good proxy for the current fair price of an asset is what someone else paid for it in the recent past (as long as it wasn't too long ago!). So, when you see a quote labeled \"\"15.5K @ $60.00\"\", that means that the last trade on that security, which the service is using to quote the security's price, was for 15500 shares at a price of $60 per share. Your guess is correct. The term \"\"institutional investor\"\" often is meant to include many types of institutions that would control large sums of money. This includes large banks, insurance companies, pooled retirement funds, hedge funds, and so on.\"",
"qid": 10414,
"docid": "173836",
"rank": 36,
"score": 78621
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Volumes are used to predict momentum of movement, not the direction of it. Large trading volumes generally tend to create a price breakout in either positive or negative direction. Especially in relatively illiquid stocks (like small caps), sudden volume surges can create sharp price fluctuations.",
"qid": 10414,
"docid": "569627",
"rank": 37,
"score": 78125
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Umm no. 2.14 B Shares outstanding... First day had a peak to low of (41.68-38.27) of 3.41. Unless UBS got over 100M shares and roundtriped them 200m of volume. This number is not possible as FB had 580,587,742 of total volume. It's highly unrealistic that UBS accounted for about 35% of volume in one day. UBS would have to have longed a large holding in FB for some time to have lost this much.",
"qid": 10414,
"docid": "393936",
"rank": 38,
"score": 78009
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"You seem to prefer to trade like I do: \"\"Buy low, sell high.\"\" But there are some people that prefer a different way: \"\"Buy high, sell higher.\"\" A stock that has \"\"just appreciated\"\" is \"\"in motion.\"\" That is a \"\"promise\"\" (not always kept) that it will continue to go higher. Some people want stocks that not only go higher, but also SOON. The disadvantage of \"\"buy low, sell high\"\" is that the stock can stay low for some time. So that's a strategy for patient investors like you and me.\"",
"qid": 10414,
"docid": "428117",
"rank": 39,
"score": 77960
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: It could be that the contracts were bought at cheaper prices such as $.01 earlier in the day. What you see there with the bid and ask is the CURRENT bid and CURRENT ask. The high ask price means there is no current liquidity, as someone is quoting a very high ask price just in case someone really wants to trade that price. But as you said, no one would buy this with a better price on a closer strike price. The volume likely occurred at a different price than listed on the current ask.",
"qid": 10414,
"docid": "5018",
"rank": 40,
"score": 77912
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I was the one who made the beating you to the punch comment. That liquidity is worthless without an active market. That's the whole point of liquidity. An ability to sell back when needed. High volume means nothing when the fucking HFT buys all the stock and holds you hostage to his sell price. The only thing raising the price of pineapples is high speed trading. They only buy OR sell **when they see a bid.** That is not a traditional market maker. Please, tell me how that is wrong. That is not a rhetorical question. edit: If a pineapple is listed at 6.00 let's say you decide to buy and throw it in your cart. A store employee overhears you saying \"\"I'd be willing to pay 6.02 for this\"\". The employee tells the cashier to raise the price to 6.02 right before you get to the register. This is HFT in a nutshell. It doesn't provide an active pineapple market because the pineapple was only being offered once a buyer was lined up.\"",
"qid": 10414,
"docid": "314698",
"rank": 41,
"score": 77723
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The shortest-hand yet most reliable metric is daily volume / total shares outstanding. A security with a high turnover rate will be more efficient than a lower one, ceteris paribus. The practical impacts are tighter spread and lower average percentage change between trades. A security with a spread of 0% and an average change of 0% between trades is perfectly efficient.",
"qid": 10414,
"docid": "93814",
"rank": 42,
"score": 77552
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Their reasoning is probably that by eliminating the option for company stock, employees now are exposed to less risk. That is, if the company goes bk, they're only exposed to the company through their paycheck and not their paycheck plus retirement savings. In reality, it's probably a classic case of buy high and sell low. That is, your plan admin (HR or legal, probably) thinks that since the price went down, they should sell.",
"qid": 10414,
"docid": "448789",
"rank": 43,
"score": 77463
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I hovered over the label for trading volume and the following message popped up: Volume / average volume Volume is the number of shares traded on the latest trading day. The average volume is measured over 30 days.",
"qid": 10414,
"docid": "418124",
"rank": 44,
"score": 77240
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The last column in the source data is volume (the number of stocks that was exchanged during the day), and it also has a value of zero for that day, meaning that nobody bought or sold the stocks on that day. And since the prices are prices of transactions (the first and the last one on a particular day, and the ones with the highest/lowest price), the prices cannot be established, and are irrelevant as there was not a single transaction on that day. Only the close price is assumed equal to its previous day counterpart because this is the most important value serving as a basis to determine the daily price change (and we assume no change in this case). Continuous-line charts also use this single value. Bar and candle charts usually display a blank space for a day where no trade occurred.",
"qid": 10414,
"docid": "378994",
"rank": 45,
"score": 76278
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: My guess is that both the blue and pinkish lines are hand drawn by someone. The blue line indicates 'higher lows' while the pinkish line represents 'higher highs'. Together they form a trading channel in which you can expect future prices to be (unless there is some unanticipated event that occurs). Edit: since the price broke out above the trading channel at the start of the year (and is verified by the increase in volume at that time) something must have occurred to increase the value of the stock. Edit2: this news likely explains the breakout in price. Edit3: this chart shows that the stock price is now 'seeking equilibrium'. The price will, likely, be volatile over the next few days or weeks.",
"qid": 10414,
"docid": "596355",
"rank": 46,
"score": 76178
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The tricky part is that it's NAV is quite high these days, almost close to its 52 week high You will find, if you look historically, most markets are often close to their 52 week or even historical highs. This is an important consideration. \"\"The markets are at their all-time high!\"\" has been true a large percentage of the past decades. Everyone wants to buy low, sell high. But the reality is, buying low often will be \"\"buying at close to the highest point\"\" as no one has a crystal ball.\"",
"qid": 10414,
"docid": "236594",
"rank": 47,
"score": 75982
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Yahoo Finance's Historical Prices section allows you to look up daily historical quotes for any given stock symbol, you don't have to hit a library for this information. Your can choose a desired time frame for your query, and the dataset will include High/Low/Close/Volume numbers. You can then download a CSV version of this report and perform additional analysis in a spreadsheet of your choice. Below is Twitter report from IPO through yesterday: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=TWTR&a=10&b=7&c=2013&d=08&e=23&f=2014&g=d",
"qid": 10414,
"docid": "535343",
"rank": 48,
"score": 75928
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The difference between the provincial/territorial low and high corporate income tax rates is clear if you read through the page you linked: Lower rate The lower rate applies to the income eligible for the federal small business deduction. One component of the small business deduction is the business limit. Some provinces or territories choose to use the federal business limit. Others establish their own business limit. Higher rate The higher rate applies to all other income. [emphasis mine] Essentially, you pay the lower rate only if your income qualifies for the federal small business deduction (SBD). If you then followed the small business deduction link in the same page, you'd find the SBD page describing \"\"active business income\"\" from a business carried on in Canada as qualifying for the small business deduction. If your corporation is an investment vehicle realizing passive investment income, generally that isn't considered \"\"active business income.\"\" Determining if your business qualifies for the SBD isn't trivial — it depends on the nature of your business and the kind and amount of income it generates. Talk to a qualified corporate tax accountant. If you're looking at doing IT contracting, also pay close attention to the definition of \"\"personal services business\"\", which wouldn't qualify for the SBD. Your accountant should be able to advise you how best to conduct your business in order to qualify for the SBD. Don't have a good accountant? Get one. I wouldn't operate as an incorporated IT contractor without one. I'll also note that the federal rate you would pay would also differ based on whether or not you qualified for the SBD. (15% if you didn't qualify, vs. 11% if you qualify.) The combined corporate income tax rate for a Canadian-controlled private corporation in Ontario that does qualify for the small business deduction would be 11% + 4.5% = 15.5% (in 2013). Additional reading:\"",
"qid": 10414,
"docid": "519473",
"rank": 49,
"score": 75706
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The study of technical analysis is generally used (sometimes successfully) to time the markets. There are many aspects to technical analysis, but the simplest form is to look for uptrends and downtrends in the charts. Generally higher highs and higher lows is considered an uptrend. And lower lows and lower highs is considered a downtrend. A trend follower would go with the trend, for example see a dip to the trend-line and buy on the rebound. A simple strategy for this is shown in the chart below: I would be buying this stock when the price hits or gets very close to the trendline and then it bounces back above it. I would then have sold this stock once it has broken through below the trendline. This may also be an appropriate time if you were looking to short this stock. Other indicators could also be used in combination for additional confirmation of what is happening to the price. Another type of trader is called a bottom fisher. A bottom fisher would wait until a break above the downtrend line (second chart) and buy after confirmation of a higher high and possibly a higher low (as this could be the start of a new uptrend). There are many more strategies dealing with the study of technical analysis, and if you are interested you would need to find and learn about ones that suit your investment styles, whether you prefer short term trading or longer term investing, and your appetite for risk. You can develop strategies using various indicators and then paper trade or backtest these strategies. You can also manually backtest a strategy in most charting packages. You can go back in time on the chart so that the right side of the chart shows a date in the past (say one year ago or 10 years ago), then you can click forward one day at a time (or one week at a time if using weekly charts). With your indicators on the chart you can do virtual trades to buy or sell whenever a signal is given as you move forward in time. This way you may be able to check years of data in a day to see if your strategy works. Whatever you do, you need to document your strategies in writing in a written trading or investment plan together with a risk management strategy. You should always follow the rules in your written plan to avoid you making decisions based on emotions. By backtesting or paper trading your strategies it will give you confidence that they will work over the long term. There is a lot of work involved at the start, but once you have developed a documented strategy that has been thoroughly backtested, it will take you minimal time to successfully manage your investments. In my shorter term trading (positions held from a couple of days to a few weeks) I spend about half an hour per night to manage my trades and am up about 50% over the last 7 months. For my longer term investing (positions held from months to years) I spend about an hour per week and have been averaging over 25% over the last 4 years. Technical Analysis does work for those who have a documented plan, have approached it in a systematic way and use risk management to protect their existing and future capital. Most people who say that is doesn't work either have not used it themselves or have used it ad-hock without putting in the initial time and work to develop a documented and systematic approach to their trading or investing.",
"qid": 10414,
"docid": "396657",
"rank": 50,
"score": 75437
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Theoretically, it's a question of rate of return. If a desired or acceptable rate of return for market makers' capital is X, and X is determined by the product of margin & turnover then higher turnover means lower margin for a constant X. Margin, in the case of trading, is the bid/ask spread, and turnover, in the case of trading, is volume. Empirically, it has been noted in the last markets still offering such wide-varying evidence, equity options: http://faculty.baruch.cuny.edu/lwu/890/mayhew_jf2002.pdf",
"qid": 10414,
"docid": "508144",
"rank": 51,
"score": 75137
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Volume and prices are affected together by how folks feel about the stock; there is no direct relationship between them. There are no simple analysis techniques that work. Some would argue strongly that there are few complex analysis techniques that work either, and that for anyone but full-time professionals. And there isn't clear evidence that the full-time professionals do sufficiently better than index funds to justify their fees. For most folks, the best bet is to diversify, using low-overhead index funds, and simply ride with the market rather than trying to beat it.",
"qid": 10414,
"docid": "112701",
"rank": 52,
"score": 75075
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Kek. > Amazon is big enough to take full advantage of “postal injection,” and that has tipped the scales in the internet giant’s favor. **Select** high-volume shippers are able to drop off presorted packages at the local Postal Service depot for “last mile” delivery at cut-rate prices. With high volumes and warehouses near the local depots, Amazon enjoys low rates unavailable to its competitors.",
"qid": 10414,
"docid": "379392",
"rank": 53,
"score": 75063
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The advice I have is short and sweet. Be an investor, not a speculator. Adopt the philosophy of Warren Buffet which is the 'buy and hold' philosophy. Avoid individual stocks and buy mutual funds or ETFs. Pick something that pays dividends and reinvest those dividends. Don't become a speculator, meaning avoid the 'buy low, sell high' philosophy. EDIT:For some reason I cannot add a comment, so I am putting my response here. @jad The 'buy low, sell high' approach makes money for the stock broker, not necessarily you. As we learn in the movie Trading Places, each buy or sell creates a commission for the broker. It is those commission expenses that eat away at your nestegg. Just don't sell. If a security is trading at $10 a share and pays $0.25 a share each quarter then you are getting 10% ROI if you buy that security (and if it continues to pay $0.25 a share each quarter). If the price goes up then the ROI for new buyers will go down, but your ROI will still be the same. You will continue to get 10% for as long as you hold that security. A mutual fund buys the individual stocks for you. The value of the fund is only calculated at the end of the day. An ETF is like a mutual fund but the value of the ETF is calculated moment by moment.",
"qid": 10414,
"docid": "299284",
"rank": 54,
"score": 74998
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"This is a great question precisely because the answer is so complicated. It means you're starting to think in detail about how orders actually get filled / executed rather than looking at stock prices as a mythical \"\"the market\"\". \"\"The market price\"\" is a somewhat deceptive term. The price at which bids and asks last crossed & filled is the price that prints. I.e. that is what you see on a market price data feed. ] In reality there is a resting queue of orders at various bids & asks on various exchanges. (source: Larry Harris. A size of 1 is 1H = 100 shares.) So at first your 1000H order will sweep through the standing queue of fills. Let's say you are trading a low-volume stock. And let's say someone from another brokerage has set a limit order at a ridiculous price. Part of your order may sweep through and part of it get filled at a ridiculously high price. Or maybe either the exchange or your broker / execution mechanism somehow will protect you against the really high fill. (Let's say your broker hired GETCO, who guarantees a certain VWAP.) Also people change their bids & asks in response to what they see others do. Your 1000H size will likely be marked as a human counterparty by certain players. Other players might see that order differently. (Let's say it was a 100 000H size. Maybe people will decide you must know something and decide they want to go the same direction as you rather than take the opportunity to exit. And maybe some super-fast players will weave in and out of the filling process itself.) There is more to it because, what if some of the resting asks are on other venues? What if both you and some of the asks match with someone who uses the same broker as you? Not only do exchange rules come into play, but so do national regulations. tl;dr: You will get filled, with price slippage. If you send in a big buy order, it will sweep through the resting asks but also there are complications.\"",
"qid": 10414,
"docid": "459650",
"rank": 55,
"score": 74639
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Well the thing to understand about HFT is that the volume levels heavily affect not just the earnings but also the ecosystem. HFT is almost always liquidity constrained so the volume and volatility is going to affect the overall profitability of the strategy since less of these things means fewer and smaller trading opportunities. Since 2008 volume and volatility have been heavily negatively correlated with risk-on/risk-off. During risk-off periods investors seem to panic and trading hits a frentic pace. This describes late 2008 and more recently August 2011. Even in 2012 the highest volume/volatility period was in May when the Euro deals were in danger. Risk-on environments tend to be marked be calm, orderly buying. Second the dark pool issue is bringing liquidity out of the lit markets where HFT normally makes its money. The primary reason for this trend is that dark pools are allowed to offer sub-penny quotes whereas lit exchanges are not. Because of this arbitrary regulatory constraint most of the time dark pools are going to offer better prices, especially on thick book securities. But beyond that the level of volume effects some HFT players more heavily then others. Imagine all the HFT firms as a pride of lions. When volume is high and liquidity is flowing it's like the pride has brought in a giant water buffalo. The biggest, baddest cats eat first, but there's still food left for the cubs after they're finished feeding. But if the pride only brings in say a baby gazelle the alpha cats will eat everything and the runts will go hungry. That basically describes what's happening now. A firm like RennTech or GETCO will make less money in a low volume environment, but still do fine. Marginal firms like Eladian will lose the ability to make any money. Since the marginal firms need the press and the dominant firms tend to be more secretive than the NSA, you'll tend to read more about the former than the latter.",
"qid": 10414,
"docid": "171709",
"rank": 56,
"score": 74205
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Stock price is set to the price with the highest transaction volume at any given time. The stock price you cited was only valid in the last transaction on a specific stock exchange. As such it is more of an \"\"historic\"\" value. Next trade will be done with the next biggest volume. Depending on the incoming bids and asks this could be higher or lower, but you can assume it will not be too far off if there is no crash underway. Simple example stock exchange:\"",
"qid": 10414,
"docid": "138830",
"rank": 57,
"score": 74081
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You just disclosed that you are new investor to the stock market. I'd advise that you first understand investing a bit better, as most will advise that investors need to be above a certain level before picking individual stocks. That said, most stocks trade in high enough volume and have low enough short interest that they don't fall under the category you seek. You want to first ask your broker if they have such a process, not all do. If so, they would need to provide you with the stocks that fall into this odd situation, specifically, the shares that have traders seeking to short the stock, but the stock is unavailable. Even then, the broker may have requirements that you don't fall into, minimum history with broker, minimum size account, etc. Worse, they are not likely to offer this for 100 shares, but may have a 1000 or higher share requirement. Are you willing to buy some obscure $50/sh priced stock to lend out at 1%/mo? The guy trying to short it is far smarter than both you and I, at least regarding this particular stock. This strategy is more appropriate for the 7 figure net worth investor. If any reader has actual experience with this, I'm happy to hear it. This response is from my recollection of two articles I read about 3 years ago, coincidence they both were published within weeks of each other.",
"qid": 10414,
"docid": "356726",
"rank": 58,
"score": 73978
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You need a source of delisted historical data. Such data is typically only available from paid sources. According to my records 20 Feb 2006 was not a trading day - it was Preisdent's Day and the US exchanges were closed. The prior trading date to this was 17 Feb 2006 where the stock had the following data: Open: 14.40 High 14.46 Low 14.16 Close 14.32 Volume 1339800 (consolidated volume) Source: Symbol NVE-201312 within Premium Data US delisted stocks historical data set available from http://www.premiumdata.net/products/premiumdata/ushistorical.php Disclosure: I am a co-owner of Norgate / Premium Data.",
"qid": 10414,
"docid": "225818",
"rank": 59,
"score": 73970
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Prop (proprietary) traders trade using huge amounts of a bank's money (i.e. other people's money) so the reason why they have such low commissions (and they certainly do) is that the firms for which they work negotiate low commissions as the quantities and volumes (as they also trade very frequently) will be high and so the total commission will be very high. There is no such thing as a prop trading account unless you are a big bank with a very large bank roll (tens of millions of USD) so you cannot open one to enjoy those benefits unless you have enough money that you can negotiate your commission with brokers. 25k CAD is definitely not enough money to even start a conversation about those sorts of commissions. note: prop traders are generally banned from trading intraday with their own money by their employers and the law as it is a massive conflict of interests. Those who do and get caught face lengthy prison sentences.",
"qid": 10414,
"docid": "268966",
"rank": 60,
"score": 73842
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: To optimize your return on investment, you need to buy low and sell high. If you knew that one stock had hit rock bottom, and the others had not, buying the low stock would be the best. However, unless you can predict the future, you don't know if any individual stock has hit the bottom, or if it will continue to drop. If you decide to spend the same amount of money each month on stock purchases, then when the price is low, you will automatically buy more shares, and when the price is high, you will buy fewer shares. This strategy is sometimes called dollar cost averaging. It eliminates the need to predict the future to optimize your buying. All that having been said, I agree with @Powers that at the investment amount that you are talking about and the per transaction fee you listed, a monthly investment in several stocks will cause you to lose quite a bit to transaction fees. It sounds like you need a different strategy.",
"qid": 10414,
"docid": "278607",
"rank": 61,
"score": 73839
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: A day is a long time and the rate is not the same all day. Some sources will report a close price that averages the bid and ask. Some sources will report a volume-weighted average. Some will report the last transaction price. Some will report a time-weighted average. Some will average the highest and lowest prices for the interval. Different marketplaces will also have slightly different prices because different traders are present at each marketplace. Usually, the documentation will explain what method they use and you can choose the source whose method makes the most sense for your application.",
"qid": 10414,
"docid": "173986",
"rank": 62,
"score": 73628
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Buy low, sell high - the problem, of course, finding a crystal ball that will tell you when the highs and lows are going to happen :-) You could, for instance, save your money in cash and wait for the occasional sharp drop, but then you've lost profits & dividends from having that cash under the mattress all those years you were waiting. About the closest I've ever gotten to market timing, and I think the closest anyone can get in real life, is that I cut personal spending to the bone from 2008 to 2011, and invested every spare cent. But such opportunities only come along a few times in a lifetime. The other thing is to avoid what a lot of people do, which you might call anti-timing. When the market is high, they jump on the bandwagon, then when it drops they panic-sell, and lose money.",
"qid": 10414,
"docid": "320778",
"rank": 63,
"score": 73322
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: That's a great article. It covered the viewpoints of the exchanges and high frequency traders in more depth than most of the other articles I've read. The balance between the volume HFT provides an exchange versus the resources and strain they put on exchanges is a precarious situation.",
"qid": 10414,
"docid": "510196",
"rank": 64,
"score": 73065
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Extremely low volume and market cap is a big problem, especially when the information about the company is well hidden. Most penny stocks are shell corps with someone manipulating the prices. Although there are some big companies that sell different kind of shares on the otc market which might be worth looking into",
"qid": 10414,
"docid": "515095",
"rank": 65,
"score": 72898
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The study of technical analysis is generally used (sometimes successfully) to time the markets. There are many aspects to technical analysis, but the simplest form is to look for uptrends and downtrends in the charts. Generally higher highs and higher lows is considered an uptrend. And lower lows and lower highs is considered a downtrend. A trend follower would go with the trend, for example see a dip to the trend-line and buy on the rebound. Whilst a bottom fisher would wait until a break in the downtrend line and buy after confirmation of a higher high (as this could be the start of a new uptrend). There are many more strategies dealing with the study of technical analysis, and if you are interested you would need to find and learn about ones that suit your investment styles and your appetite for risk.",
"qid": 10414,
"docid": "185809",
"rank": 66,
"score": 72669
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: While volume per trade is higher at the open and to a lesser extent at the close, the overall volume is actually lower, on average. Bid ask spreads are widest at the open and to a lesser extent at the close. Generally, bid ask spreads are inversely proportional to overall volumes. Why this is the case hasn't been sufficiently clearly answered by academia yet, but some theories are that",
"qid": 10414,
"docid": "351011",
"rank": 67,
"score": 72387
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Yep, you have it pretty much right. The volume is the number of shares traded that day. The ticker is giving you the number of shares bought at that price in a given transaction, the arrow meaning whether the stock is up or down on the day at that price. Institutional can also refer to pensions, mutuals funds, corporates; generally any shareholder that isn't an individual person.",
"qid": 10414,
"docid": "372153",
"rank": 68,
"score": 71613
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Large volume just means a lot of market participants believe they know where the stock price will be (after some amount of time). The fact that the price is not moving just means that about 50% of those really confident traders think the stock will be moving up, and about 50% of those really confident traders think the stock will be moving down.",
"qid": 10414,
"docid": "78816",
"rank": 69,
"score": 71484
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: TIL there are no jobs in high wage countries >These automatable jobs include positions like supermarket check-out clerks, who can be replaced by self-service checkout cashiers, and assembly-line workers in manufacturing plants, who can be replaced by robotic arms. Low-skilled workers, for the study, are defined as those who have a high school diploma or less. If what the article is saying is true then the answer is compulsory higher education.",
"qid": 10414,
"docid": "584577",
"rank": 70,
"score": 71341
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Basically the first thing you should do before you invest your money is to learn about investing and learn about what you want to invest in. Another thing to think about is that usually low risk can also mean low returns. As you are quite young and have some savings put aside you should generally aim for higher risk higher return investments and then when you start to reach retirement age aim for less risky lower return investments. In saying that, just because an investment is considered high risk does not mean you have to be exposed to the full risk of that investment. You do this by managing your risk to an acceptable level which will allow you to sleep at night. To do this you need to learn about what you are investing in. As an example about managing your risk in an investment, say you want to invest $50,000 in shares. If you put the full $50,000 into one share and that share price drops dramatically you will lose a large portion of your money straight away. If instead you spent a maximum of $10,000 on 5 different shares, even if one of them falls dramatically, you still have another 4 which may be doing a lot better thus minimising your losses. To take it one step further you might say if anyone of the shares you bought falls by 20% then you will sell those shares and limit your losses to $2000 per share. If the worst case scenario occurred and all 5 of your shares fell during a stock market crash you would limit your total losses to $10,000 instead of $50,000. Most successful investors put just as much if not more emphasis on managing the risk on their investments and limiting their losses as they do in selecting the investments. As I am not in the US, I cannot really comment whether it is the right time to buy property over there, especially as the market conditions would be different in different states and in different areas of each state. However, a good indication of when to buy properties is when prices have dropped and are starting to stabilise. As you are renting at the moment one option you might want to look at is buying a place to live in so you don't need to rent any more. You can compare your current rent payment with the mortgage payment if you were to buy a house to live in. If your mortgage payments are lower than your rent payments then this could be a good option. But whatever you do make sure you learn about it first. Make sure you spend the time looking at for sale properties for a few months in the area you want to buy before you do buy. This will give you an indication of how much properties in that area are really worth and if prices are stable, still falling or starting to go up. Good luck, and remember, research, research and more research. Even if you are to take someone elses advice and recommendations, you should learn enough yourself to be able to tell if their advice and recommendations make sense and are right for your current situation.",
"qid": 10414,
"docid": "226053",
"rank": 71,
"score": 70874
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: First, If you buy $10K of a penny stock and try to sell it that afternoon, you probably won't get your money back. The bid/ask spread may cost you dearly. On the shady side, if you are able to afford to trade enough shares to attract attention, the interest of those who believe the volume is an indication of some real event happening, you may pump it high enough to make some nice money, selling into the ensuing rise. This is a classic pump and dump (which often but not always, includes posts on message boards) and it is illegal. The same way this volume attracts traders, it can also attract the attention of the SEC. This should be read as a narrative, not as advice. If anything, it's advice on what not to do.",
"qid": 10414,
"docid": "151723",
"rank": 72,
"score": 70457
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Trading volumes are higher at the end of the day as many traders close their open positions. In the morning however, traders incorporate various factors like performance of worldwide markets overnight, any corporate or government announcements, global macro events, etc.",
"qid": 10414,
"docid": "348886",
"rank": 73,
"score": 69811
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The one thing that people really want to go see or try out before they buy are TVs and home audio. But those are very low volume sales that can't sustain a business. It's like how Radio Shack found their weird cell phone niche which quickly collapsed recently. Traditional brick and mortar can't be sustained on niche items, while the rest of everything is sold on Amazon. They've got to come up with another business plan that has room for growth. They had over a decade to get into the online game but they're still miles behind.",
"qid": 10414,
"docid": "508845",
"rank": 74,
"score": 69645
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"You need \"\"the list\"\". Write down EVERYONE you know. EVERYONE. Like, EVERYONE. Then categorise their potential as a customer as \"\"high\"\" \"\"avg\"\" or \"\"low\"\". Then make contact with all the low hanging fruit. Most will naturally ask what you're doing, you'll tell them, and you'll plant a lot of seeds. Some will germinate soon, some will take years, some will refer, some will not. People need to know what you can offer and the best place to start is with people you know.\"",
"qid": 10414,
"docid": "415962",
"rank": 75,
"score": 69593
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: A possibility could be real estate brokerage firms such as Realogy or Prudential. Although a brokerage commission is linked to the sale prices it is more directly impacted by sales volume. If volume is maintained or goes up a real estate brokerage firm can actually profit rather handsomely in an up market or a down market. If sales volume does go up another option would be other service markets for real estate such as real estate information and marketing websites and sources i.e. http://www.trulia.com. Furthermore one can go and make a broad generalization such as since real estate no longer requires the same quantity of construction material other industries sensitive to the price of those commodities should technically have a lower cost of doing business. But be careful in the US much of the wealth an average american has is in their home. In this case this means that the economy as a whole takes a dive due to consumer uncertainty. In which case safe havens could benefit, may be things like Proctor & Gamble, gold, or treasuries. Side Note: You can always short builders or someone who loses if the housing market declines, this will make your investment higher as a result of the security going lower.",
"qid": 10414,
"docid": "341399",
"rank": 76,
"score": 69487
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Buy low and sell high. Right now stocks are cheap (or at least cheapish). If you wait for better forecasts, the price will be higher. They might go down still farther, but no one knows for sure when that will happen, or where the bottom is -- despite what the talking heads on TV say. Remember that what you really care about is sell price minus purchase price (plus dividends, but I'll ignore that). What happens between the time you buy and the time you sell is irrelevant financially, but can be important psychologically. If it was me, and you are sure you won't need the money for at least 10 years, or better still 15-20, I would buy some index funds. Pick something that you are comfortable with (some are more aggressive/risky than others), and then only look at it a few times a year, if that much. Only do this as long as you are sure that you won't sell if the market drops further. That is a guaranteed way to lose money. This is what I've been doing for my retirement funds for 15 years, and its worked well so far.",
"qid": 10414,
"docid": "560447",
"rank": 77,
"score": 69400
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"You should establish a strategy -- eg a specific mix of investments/funds which has the long-term tradeofv of risk, returns, and diversification you want -- and stick to that strategy, rebalancing periodically to maintain your strategic ratios betwedn those investments. Yes, that means you will somettimes sell things that have been doing well and buy others that have been doing less well -- but that's to be expected; it's exactly what happens when you \"\"buy low, sell high\"\".\"",
"qid": 10414,
"docid": "83807",
"rank": 78,
"score": 68991
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: At any given time there's always going to be people talking about crazy highs and lows. Like all the people predicting a Trump blowout based on yard signs and stupid stuff like that. They were right, but it had nothing to do with yard signs.",
"qid": 10414,
"docid": "376791",
"rank": 79,
"score": 68870
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"If the balance on the low rate loan is very high (say, an IBR student loan at 6% that accumulates interest every year), and the balance on the high rate loan (say, a CC at 18%) is comparatively very small, then you'd want to make sure that you've at least \"\"stopped the bleeding\"\" on the high balance loan before starting to pay off the CC.\"",
"qid": 10414,
"docid": "63501",
"rank": 80,
"score": 68761
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Sure the LBTA has outperformed LVOL recently but they are very similar (Just look at their underlying indices going back to 2007) - they underperform in good markets and tend to outperform more than they underperformed in down markets. The article should be saying something more like: \"\"Recent outperformance of LBTA is due to sector specific bets of the ETF\"\" And the article fails to point out that LBTA is so low volume that it even has trouble tracking its underlying index on a day to day basis. (LVOL is also very low volume, but it's still significantly better than LBTA).\"",
"qid": 10414,
"docid": "14440",
"rank": 81,
"score": 68308
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: One of the key things to look for is trading volume. I think the price spread will be better on high volume ETFs, which means you'll be able to sell for more when the time comes. Check Google or Yahoo finance for those stats.",
"qid": 10414,
"docid": "324697",
"rank": 82,
"score": 68219
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Well I'm not going to advise whether it's a good idea to invest in this company (though often OTC is pretty scary), but it DOES have a product (vivio, an ad blocker), it did post financials and it's trading on the OTC-QB (which is better than the pink sheets), so you need to look these over and study up on the product to decide if it is overpriced or not. What might have occurred (viz the Patriot Berry Farm becoming Cyberfort) is that the latter bought up the stock of the former (this is, I believe, called using a shell, which is not necessarily a bad thing) and is using this as a way to be registered, i.e. sell to non-accredited investors via the OTC market. So I'm really just answering your third question: yes, you have to do a lot of due diligence to see if buying this stock is a good deal or not. It might be the next big thing. Or it might not. It certainly is the case that low trading volume allows a relatively small trade to really change the stock price, so the penny stocks do tend to be easier to 'inflate'. Side comment: the bid/ask spreads are pretty big, with a best bid of 0.35 and best ask of 0.44.",
"qid": 10414,
"docid": "319599",
"rank": 83,
"score": 67694
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The second part of your question is the easiest to answer, how much manual work is involved in settlement processes? Payment systems which handle low value (i.e. high volume) transactions work on the basis of net settlement. Each of the individual payments are netted across all of the participant banks, so that only one \"\"real\"\" payment is made by each bank. Some days banks will receive money, others they will pay money. This is arbitrary and depends on whether their outbound payments exceed their inbound payments for that day. The payment system will notify each Bank how much it owes/will receive for the day. The money is then transferred between all of the banks simultaneously by the payment system to remove the risk that some pay and others don't. If you're going to make or receive a very large payment, you're going to want to make certain that its correct. This means that if there's a discrepancy, you need operations people available to find out why its wrong. When dealing with this many payments, answering that question can be hard. Did we miss a payment? Is there a duplicate? Etc. The vast majority of payments will process without any human involvement, but to make the process work, you always need human brains there to fix problems that occur. This brings me to your first question. On every day that settlement happens, a bank will receive (or pay) a very large sum of money. As a settlement bank you must settle that money - the guarantee that every bank will pay is one of the main reasons these systems exist. For settlement to happen, every bank has to agree to participate, and be ready to verify the data on their side and deliver the funds from their account. So there is no particular reason that this doesn't happen on weekends and holidays other than history. But for any payment system to change, it would require the support of (at least) a majority of participants to pay staff to manage the settlement process on weekends. This would increase costs for banks, but the benefits would only really be for you and me (if at all). That means it's unlikely to happen unless a government forces the issue.\"",
"qid": 10414,
"docid": "486440",
"rank": 84,
"score": 67598
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: That is mostly true, in most situations when there are more buy orders than sell orders (higher buy volume orders than sell volume orders), the price will generally move upwards and vice versa, when there are more sell orders than buy orders (higher sell volume orders than buy volume orders), the price will generally move downwards. Note that this does not always happen, but usually it does. You are also correct that for a trade to take place a buyer has to be matched with a seller (or the buy volume matched with the sell volume). But not all orders get executed as trades. Say there are 50 buy orders in the order book with a total volume of 100,000 shares and the highest buy order is currently at $10.00. On the other side there are only 10 sell orders in the order book with total volume of 10,000 shares and the lowest sell order is currently $10.05. At the moment there won't be a trade unless a new buyer or seller enters the market to match the opposing side, or an existing order gets amended upper or lower to match the opposing side. With more demand than supply in the order books what will be the most likely direction that this stock moves in? Most likely the price will move upwards. If a new buyer sees the price moving higher and then looks at the market depth, they would most likely place an order closer to the lowest sell order than the current highest buy order, say $10.01, to be first in line in case a market sell order is placed on the market. As new buy orders enter the market it drives the price higher and higher until the buy orders dry up.",
"qid": 10414,
"docid": "208907",
"rank": 85,
"score": 67361
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Assuming you are referring to macro corrections and crashes (as opposed to technical crashes like the \"\"flash crash\"\") -- It is certainly possible to sell stocks during a market drop -- by definition, the market is dropping not only because there are a larger number of sellers, but more importantly because there are a large number of transactions that are driving prices down. In fact, volumes are strongly correlated with volatility, so volumes are actually higher when the market is going down dramatically -- you can verify this on Yahoo or Google Finance (pick a liquid stock like SPY and look at 2008 vs recent years). That doesn't say anything about the kind of selling that occurs though. With respect to your question \"\"Whats the best strategy for selling stocks during a drop?\"\", it really depends on your objective. You can generally always sell at some price. That price will be worse during market crashes. Beyond the obvious fact that prices are declining, spreads in the market will be wider due to heightened volatility. Many people are forced to sell during crashes due to external and / or psychological pressures -- and sometimes selling is the right thing to do -- but the best strategy for long-term investors is often to just hold on.\"",
"qid": 10414,
"docid": "99857",
"rank": 86,
"score": 67320
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"1) Usually, the choice between Traditional vs. Roth is whether you believe that your tax rate will be higher or lower in the future than it is now. Your income is probably in the 25% bracket now. It's hard to say whether that should be considered \"\"high\"\" or \"\"low\"\". Some people advocate Roth only for 15% bracket; but your income would probably go into higher brackets in the future, so Roth may be preferable from this point of view. Roth IRA also has another advantage that the principal of contributions can be taken out at any time without tax or penalty, so it can serve as an emergency fund just as well as money in taxable accounts. Given that you may not have a lot of money saved up right now, this is useful. 2) In a sense, it's nice to have a mix of Traditional and Roth when you withdraw to hedge against uncertainty in future tax rates and have the option of choosing whichever one is advantageous to withdraw when you need to withdraw. That said, you will likely have many years of access to a 401k and high income in your future working years, in which you can contribute to a Traditional 401k (or if no access to 401k, then Traditional IRA), so a mix will almost certainly happen even if you go all Roth IRA now. 3) I think that depends on you, whether you are a hands-on or hands-off kind of investor.\"",
"qid": 10414,
"docid": "41417",
"rank": 87,
"score": 66922
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: >If it leads to lower employment (for example by destroying most independent coffee shops) and the expatriation of profits then how is it good for a country? Automation/efficiency are destroying low-skilled jobs (food service), but create many more high-skilled jobs (software engineering). This sort of destroying low-skilled/creating high-skilled jobs cycle has been going on since the industrial revolution. By automating low-skilled jobs and producing cheaper goods/services businesses have created our high standard of living which is generally deemed a good thing for society. It's just a fact, that the evolution of our economy 'forces' people (who might not desire/be capable of) improving their education/skills to do so. It is a process that has been going on for quite some time, and if anything is accelerating.",
"qid": 10414,
"docid": "168989",
"rank": 88,
"score": 66808
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Standard deviation from Wikipedia : In statistics and probability theory, the standard deviation (represented by the Greek letter sigma, σ) shows how much variation or dispersion from the average exists.1 A low standard deviation indicates that the data points tend to be very close to the mean (also called expected value); a high standard deviation indicates that the data points are spread out over a large range of values. In the case of stock returns, a lower value would indicate less volatility while a higher value would mean more volatility, which could be interpreted as high much change does the stock's price go through over time. Mean would be interpreted as if all the figures had to be the same, what would they be? So if a stock returns 10% each year for 3 years in a row, then 10% would be the mean or average return. Now, it is worth noting that there are more than a few calculations that may be done to derive a mean. First, there is the straight forward sum and division by the number of elements idea. For example, if the returns by year were 0%, 10%, and 20% then one may take the sum of 30% and divide by 3 to get a simple mean of 10%. However, some people would rather look at a Compound Annual Growth Rate which in this case would mean multiplying the returns together so 1*(1+.1)*(1+.2)=1.1*1.2=1.32 or 32% since there is some compounding here. Now, instead of dividing a cubic root is taken to get approximately 9.7% average annual return that is a bit lower yet if you compound it over 3 years it will get up to 32% as 10% compounded over 3 years would be 33.1% as (1.1)^3=1.331. Sharpe Ratio from Investopedia: A ratio developed by Nobel laureate William F. Sharpe to measure risk-adjusted performance. The Sharpe ratio is calculated by subtracting the risk-free rate - such as that of the 10-year U.S. Treasury bond - from the rate of return for a portfolio and dividing the result by the standard deviation of the portfolio returns. Thus, this is a way to think about given the volatility how much better did the portfolio do than the 10 year bond. R-squared, Alpha and Beta: These are all around the idea of \"\"linear regression\"\" modelling. The idea is to take some standard like say the \"\"S & P 500\"\" in the case of US stocks and see how well does the portfolio follow this and what if one were to use a linear model are the multipliers and addition components to it. R-squared can be thought of it as a measure as to how good is the fit on a scale of 0 to 1. An S & P 500 index fund may well have an R-squared of 1.00 or 0.99 to the index as it will track it extremely closely while other investments may not follow that well at all. Part of modern portfolio theory would be to have asset classes that move independently of each other and thus would have a lower R-squared so that the movement of the index doesn't indicate how an investment will do. Now, as for alpha and beta, do you remember the formula for a line in slope-intercept form, where y is the portfolio's return and x is the index's return: y=mx+b In this situation m is beta which is the multiple of the return, and b is the alpha or how much additional return one gets without the multiple. Going back to an index fund example, m will be near 1 and b will be near 0 and there isn't anything being done and so the portfolio's return computed based on the index's return is simply y=x. Other mutual funds may try to have a high alpha as this is seen as the risk-free return as there isn't the ups and downs of the market here. Other mutual funds may go for a high beta so that there is volatility for investors to handle.\"",
"qid": 10414,
"docid": "450949",
"rank": 89,
"score": 66706
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"You might consider learning how the \"\"matching\"\" or \"\"pairing\"\" system in the market operates. The actual exchange only happens when both a buyer and a seller overlap their respect quotes. Sometimes orders \"\"go to market\"\" for a particular volume. Eg get me 10,000 Microsoft shares now. which means that the price starts at the current lowest seller, and works up the price list until the volume is met. Like all market it trades, it has it's advantages, and it's dangers. If you are confident Microsoft is going to bull, you want those shares now, confident you'll recoup the cost. Where if you put in a priced order, you might get only none or some shares. Same as when you sell. If you see the price (which is the price of the last completed \"\"successful\"\" trade. and think \"\"I'm going to sell 1000 shares\"\". then you give the order to the market (or broker), and then the same as what happened as before. the highest bidder gets as much as they asked for, if there's still shares left over, they go to the next bidder, and so on down the price... and the last completed \"\"successful\"\" trade is when your last sale is made at the lowest price of your batch. If you're selling, and selling 100,000 shares. And the highest bidder wants 1,000,000 shares you'll only see the price drop to that guys bid. Why will it drop (off the quoted price?). Because the quoted price is the LAST sale, clearly if there's someone still with an open bid on the market...then either he wants more shares than were available (the price stays same), or his bid wasn't as high as the last bid (so when you sale goes through, it will be at the price he's offering). Which is why being able to see the price queues is important on large traders. It is also why it can be important put stops and limits on your trades, een through you can still get gapped if you're unlucky. However putting prices (\"\"Open Orders\"\" vs \"\"(at)Market Orders\"\") can mean that you're sitting there waiting for a bounce/spike while the action is all going on without you). safer but not as much gain (maybe ;) ) that's the excitement of the market, for every option there's advantages...and risks... (eg missing out) There are also issues with stock movement, shadowing, and stop hunting, which can influence the price. But the stuff in the long paragraphs is the technical reasons.\"",
"qid": 10414,
"docid": "471978",
"rank": 90,
"score": 66684
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Buy low, sell high. I think a lot of people apply that advice wrongly. Instead of using this as advice about when to buy and when to sell, you should use it as advice about when not to buy and when not to sell. Don't buy when P/Es cannot support the current stock price. Don't sell when stocks have already fallen due to a market panic. Don't follow the herd or you will get trampled when they reverse direction in a panic. If you are smart enough to sell ahead of the panics, more power to you, but you should be using more than a 52-week high on a graph to make that decision.",
"qid": 10414,
"docid": "88813",
"rank": 91,
"score": 66593
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"For stock options, where I'm used to seeing these terms: Volume is usually reported per day, whereas open interest is cumulative. In addition, some volume closes positions and some opens positions. For example, if I am long one contract and sell it to someone who was short one contract, then that adds to volume and reduces open interest. If I hold no contracts and sell (creating a short position) to someone who also had no contracts, then I add to volume and I increase open interest. EDIT: With the clarification in your comment, then I would say some people opened and closed positions in that one day. Their opening and closing trades both contribute to \"\"volume\"\" but they have not net position in the \"\"open interest.\"\"\"",
"qid": 10414,
"docid": "73846",
"rank": 92,
"score": 66580
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The fallacy in your question is in this statement: \"\"The formulas must exist, because prices can be followed real time.\"\" What you see are snapshots of the current status of the stock, what was the last price a stock was traded at, what is the volume, is the price going up or down. People who buy and hold their stock look at the status every few days or even every few months. Day traders look at the status every second of the trading day. The math/formula comes in when people try to predict where the stock is going based on the squiggles in the line. These squiggles move based on how other people react to the squiggles. The big movements occur when big pieces of news make large movements in the price. Company X announces the release of the key product will be delayed by a year; the founder is stepping down; the government just doubled the order for a new weapon system; the insiders are selling all the shares they can. There are no formulas to determine the correct price, only formulas that try to predict where the price may go.\"",
"qid": 10414,
"docid": "57516",
"rank": 93,
"score": 66525
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"That amount of shares is too low to create \"\"ripples\"\" in the market. Usually you don't specify the price to sell the stock, unless you are personally on the floor trading the securities. And even then, with a volume of $50,000 it would just mean you threw away $45,000. For most people it would mean setting a $5 sell order, and the broker would understand that as \"\"sell this security so long the price is above $5\"\". When you get to the trading volume required to influence the price, usually you are also bound by some regulations banning some moves. One of them is the Pump and Dump, and even if you are suggesting the opposite, it might be in preparation of this scam. Also, the software used for High Frequency Trading (what all the cool kids[a] in Wall Street are using these days) employ advanced (and proprietary) heuristics to analyze the market and make thousands of trades in a short interval of time. On HTF's speed: Decisions happen in milliseconds, and this could result in big market moves without reason. So a human trader attempting to manipulate the market versus these HTF setups, would be like a kid in a tricile attempting to outrun the Flash (DC comics). [a] Cool Kid: not really kids, more like suited up sharks. Money-eating sharks.\"",
"qid": 10414,
"docid": "189920",
"rank": 94,
"score": 66393
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Assuming the data you're referring to is this line: the difference might be related to the different exchanges on which the stock trades. FINRA could be listing the reported volume from one exchange, while the NASDAQ data might be listing the volume on all exchanges. This is an important distinction because AAV is a Canadian company that is listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange and the NYSE. The Q at the end of the line stands for NASDAQ, according to FINRA's codebook for those data. My guess is that the FINRA data is only reporting the volume for the NASDAQ exchange and not the total volume for all exchanges (Toronto, NASDAQ, NYSE, etc.) while the data straight from NASDAQ, oddly enough, is reporting the total volume. However, FINRA could also face reporting discrepancies, since it's a regulatory body and therefore might not have the most up-to-date volume data that the various exchanges can access. I don't know if it's related or not, but looking at the NASDAQ historical data, it looks like the volume on March 6, the day you're asking about, was much lower than the volume in most of the days immediately before or after it. For all I know, something might have happened that day concerning that particular stock or the market as a whole. I don't remember anything in particular, but you never know.",
"qid": 10414,
"docid": "533075",
"rank": 95,
"score": 66370
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The first statement is talking about a sudden sharp increase in volume (double or more of average volume) with a sudden increase in price. In other words, there has been a last rush to buy the stock exhausting all the current bulls (buyers), so the bears (sellers) take over, at least temporarily. Whilst the second statement is talking about a gradual increase in volume as the price up trends (thus the use of a volume oscillator). In other words (in an uptrend), the bulls (buyers) are gradually increasing in numbers sending the price higher, and new buyers keep entering the market. (The opposite is the case for a down-trend).",
"qid": 10414,
"docid": "293484",
"rank": 96,
"score": 66195
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I think you're over complicating it! There is the market maker in the pure sense as what chilldontkill said - a bookie, a middleman. They are just the brokers in between the buyers and sellers, and they simply make profit off of the spread differential. But market maker is also used to refer to large, high volume buyers and sellers that can influence the price because they control a larger % of volume. These only really exist on low volume products, and they slowly ween out the larger the volume. On higher volume products, I like to refer to them as institutions - that is, well informed, large pockets - whether is be central banks, clearing houses, hedge funds, boutique firms. These are the people who are generally in the know and they often bet against eachother.hope this helps ...",
"qid": 10414,
"docid": "58565",
"rank": 97,
"score": 65887
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You can buy anything low and sell high. I've been buying hype sneakers, clothes, and popular concert tickets and selling them for more on apps like GOAT, StockX, StubHub, or on local Facebook groups! Buying stuff from yard sales can be useful too! If you have some around you, sometimes they'll have BRAND NEW stuff that you can sell on eBay or something similar! I've made a goal for myself to hit $10k by flipping stuff, and I'm currently at $6k!",
"qid": 10414,
"docid": "294598",
"rank": 98,
"score": 65831
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"It's a form of market manipulation. It makes it look like there is high trading volume, which gets attention from speculators and technical traders who see a ton of volume and think that there is some kind of news announcement or something. People start buying it so they don't miss out on whatever it is that \"\"everyone else\"\" is doing, and the price goes up.\"",
"qid": 10414,
"docid": "514271",
"rank": 99,
"score": 65745
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I think the advice Bob is being given is good. Bob shouldn't sell his investments just because their price has gone down. Selling cheap is almost never a good idea. In fact, he should do the opposite: When his investments become cheaper, he should buy more of them, or at least hold on to them. Always remember this rule: Buy low, sell high. This might sound illogical at first, why would someone keep an investment that is losing value? Well, the truth is that Bob doesn't lose or gain any money until he sells. If he holds on to his investments, eventually their value will raise again and offset any temporary losses. But if he sells as soon as his investments go down, he makes the temporary losses permanent. If Bob expects his investments to keep going down in the future, naturally he feels tempted to sell them. But a true investor doesn't try to anticipate what the market will do. Trying to anticipate market fluctuations is speculating, not investing. Quoting Benjamin Graham: The most realistic distinction between the investor and the speculator is found in their attitude toward stock-market movements. The speculator's primary interest lies in anticipating and profiting from market fluctuations. The investor's primary interest lies in acquiring and holding suitable securities at suitable prices. Market movements are important to him in a practical sense, because they alternately create low price levels at which he would be wise to buy and high price levels at which he certainly should refrain from buying and probably would be wise to sell. Assuming that the fund in question is well-managed, I would refrain from selling it until it goes up again.",
"qid": 10414,
"docid": "137852",
"rank": 100,
"score": 65719
}
] |
Is there an advantage to a traditional but non-deductable IRA over a taxable account? [duplicate] | [
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"As other people have indicated, traditional IRAs are tax deductable for a particular year. Please note, though, that traditional IRAs are tax deferred (not tax-free) accounts, meaning that you'll have to pay taxes on any money you take out later regardless of why you're making the withdrawal. (A lot of people mistakenly call them tax free, which they're not). There is no such thing as a \"\"tax-free\"\" retirement account. Really, in terms of Roth vs. Traditional IRAs, it's \"\"pay now or pay later.\"\" With the exception of special circumstances like this, I recommend investing exclusively in Roth IRAs for money that you expect to grow much (or that you expect to produce substantial income over time). Just to add a few thoughts on what to actually invest in once you open your IRA, I strongly agree with the advice that you invest mostly in low-cost mutual funds or index funds. The advantage of an open-ended mutual fund is that it's easier to purchase them in odd increments and you may be able to avoid at least some purchase fees, whereas with an ETF you have to buy in multiples of that day's asking price. For example, if you were investing $500 and the ETF costs $200 per share, you could only purchase 2 shares, leaving $100 uninvested (minus whatever fee your broker charged for the purchase). The advantage of an ETF is that it's easy to buy or sell quickly. Usually, when you add money to a mutual fund, it'll take a few days for it to hit your account, and when you want to sell it'll similarly take a few days for you to get your money; when I buy an ETF the transaction can occur almost instantly. The fees can also be lower (if the ETF is just a passive index fund). Also, there's a risk with open-ended mutual funds that if too many people pull money out at once the managers could be forced to sell stocks at an unfavorable price.\"",
"qid": 10447,
"docid": "299690",
"rank": 1,
"score": 161157
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"There's currently not much reason to keep around a long-term non-deductible Traditional IRA in my opinion -- a Roth IRA is almost strictly better. Think about it: a non-deductible Traditional IRA vs. a Roth IRA of the same amount. In both cases, contributions are after-tax (so no tax deduction). But when you withdraw, for the Roth IRA you don't have to pay tax, and for the non-deductible Traditional IRA, you have to pay tax on the \"\"earnings\"\". A Roth IRA can be contributed to at pretty much any income level, thanks to the backdoor Roth IRA process (which uses a temporary non-deductible Traditional IRA in the process). So there is not much reason for a long-term non-deductible Traditional IRA. As for your question, a non-deductible Traditional IRA vs. a taxable account. Well, a non-deductible Traditional IRA is contributed to with after-tax money, and taxed on the earnings only on withdrawal. So the taxation is almost identical to things like stocks and homes, where the gain is not realized until the thing is sold. However, compared to things like savings accounts and bonds, where you get taxed on the interest yearly, it is much better. Every time you get taxed on gains like this, it is taxing gains earned from after-tax money, so if you think of an amount of money as being equivalent to the amount of money it grows to over time (time value of money), then it is taxing money that is (or grown from money that is) already taxed. So it is better to have this only happen at the end at withdrawal than every year.\"",
"qid": 10447,
"docid": "144751",
"rank": 2,
"score": 151036
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"You ask about \"\"traditional IRA VS taxable (non-retirement) investment account.\"\" You already know about tax deductible IRAs, which are similar, mostly, to your 401(k). A Traditional IRA can have a non-deducted component. In a sense, it then functions similar to the fully pre-tax IRA as it grows tax free, but then withdrawals are made and taxes paid on the pro-rated not-yet-taxed money. It also offers the simple conversion to a Roth IRA. For those who have no current IRA with pre-tax money, a conversion will be tax free, for those with an existing pretax IRA, conversions are prorated for tax due, if the account had say $10,000, and $5,000 was post-tax, any conversion will have half taxed at your marginal rate.\"",
"qid": 10447,
"docid": "500175",
"rank": 3,
"score": 150869
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The advantage of a Traditional IRA is: tax deduction today. The advantage of a Roth IRA: no tax on withdrawal. Both types are tax-deferred, and have no bearing on the question.",
"qid": 10447,
"docid": "259150",
"rank": 4,
"score": 150188
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The primary advantage of an IRA or 401k is you get taxed effectively one time on the money (when you contribute for Roth, or when you withdraw for Traditional), whereas you get taxed effectively multiple times on some of the money in a taxable account (on all the money when you contribute, plus on the earnings part when you withdraw). Of course, you have to be able to withdraw without penalty for it to be optimally advantageous. And you said you want to retire decades early, so that is probably not retirement age. However, withdrawing early does not necessarily mean you have a penalty. For example: you can withdraw contributions to a Roth IRA at any time without tax or penalty; Roth 401k can be rolled over into Roth IRA; other types of accounts can be converted to Roth IRA and the principal of the conversion can be withdrawn after 5 years without penalty.",
"qid": 10447,
"docid": "403103",
"rank": 5,
"score": 143683
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: First of all, there are some differences between the retirement accounts that you mentioned regarding taxes. Traditional IRA and 401(k) accounts allow you to make pre-tax contributions, giving you an immediate tax deduction when you contribute. Roth IRA, Roth 401(k) are funded with after tax money, and a non-retirement account is, of course, also funded with after tax money. So if you are looking for the immediate tax deduction, this is a point in favor of the retirement accounts. Roth IRA & Roth 401(k) accounts allow the investment to grow tax-free, which means that the growth is not taxed, even when taking the investment out at retirement. With Traditional IRA and 401(k) accounts, you need to pay tax on the gains realized in the account when you withdraw the money, just as you do with a non-retirement account. This is a point in favor of the Roth retirement accounts. To answer your question about capital gains, yes, it is true that you do not have a capital gain until an investment is sold. So, discounting the contribution tax deductions of the retirement accounts, if you only bought individual stocks that never paid a dividend, and never sold them until retirement, you are correct that it really wouldn't matter if you had it in a regular brokerage account or in a traditional IRA. However, even people dedicated to buy-and-hold rarely actually buy only individual stocks and hold them for 30 years. There are several different circumstances that will generally happen in the time between now and when you want to withdraw the money in retirement that would be taxable events if you are not in a retirement account: If you sell an investment and buy a different one, the gains would be taxable. If you want to rebalance your holdings, this also involves selling a portion of your investments. For example, if you want to maintain an 80% stock/20% bond ratio, and your stock values have gone up to 90%, you might want to sell some stock and buy bonds. Or if you are getting closer to retirement, you might decide to go with a higher percentage of bonds. This would trigger capital gains. Inside a mutual fund, anytime the management sells investments inside the fund and realizes capital gains, these gains are passed on to the investors, and are taxable. (This happens more often with managed funds than index funds, but still happens occasionally with index funds.) Dividends earned by the investments are taxable. Any of these events in a non-retirement account would trigger taxes that need to be paid immediately, even if you don't withdraw a cent from your account.",
"qid": 10447,
"docid": "94496",
"rank": 6,
"score": 143439
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: if you have a work-sponsored retirement plan A 401k plan counts as a work-sponsored retirement plan. If you are a highly compensated employee (this is $115,000 for 2012), even your 401k contributions are limited. Given that, is there any difference at all between having a traditional IRA and a normal, taxable (non-retirement) investment account? You should consider a Roth IRA if you are making too much for a traditional IRA. When you make even more, then you can't contribute to a Roth, but can only contribute post-tax money to a traditional IRA. Use Form 8606 to keep track of non-deductable contributions over the years. Publication 590 is the official IRS explanation of what is deductable or not.",
"qid": 10447,
"docid": "447482",
"rank": 7,
"score": 142678
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Yes, you may make non-deductible contributions to an IRA. The main benefit of a non-deductible IRA is tax-deferred earnings. If the investment pays out dividends, they will be kept in the IRA (whether you take them in cash and put them in a Cash Management Account, or you automatically reinvest them). You do not get taxed on these earnings until you withdraw from the IRA during retirement. If your income at that time is significantly lower than your income while you're working, you will be in a lower tax bracket (unless tax rates change drastically between now and then), so the taxes you pay on these earnings will be lower than if you'd invested outside the IRA and paid taxes along the way. You also get the benefit of compounding of the tax-deferred earnings. There's one caveat -- when you withdraw from the IRA, all the growth is treated as ordinary income. Even if some of it is capital gains, it will be taxed at your ordinary income rate, not your capital gains rate. So this is most beneficial for investments that produce dividends. If you have a mix of deductible and non-deductible contributions to your IRA, the tax on the principle portion of your withdrawals is pro-rated based on the ratio of deductible to total contributions. This ensures that you eventually get taxed for the deductible portion (it's not really tax-free, it's tax-deferred), but don't get taxed twice for the non-deductible portion. Another option, if your 401(k) plan allows it, is to make after-tax contributions to the 401(k). At the end of the year, you can make an in-service distribution of these contributions and their earnings from the 401(k) to a Roth Conversion IRA. This allows you to contribute to a Roth IRA even if you're above the income limit for normal Roth IRA contributions. You can also do this even if you're also making non-deductible contributions to your regular IRA.",
"qid": 10447,
"docid": "459589",
"rank": 8,
"score": 140749
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The advantage of an IRA (or 401k) is you get taxed effectively one time on your income, whereas you get taxed effectively multiple times on some of the money in a taxable account. You have to consider it from the perspective of time value of money -- the concept that an amount of money now is the same value as a greater amount of money in the future. And in fact, if you put your money in an investment, the principal at the start can be considered the same value as the principal + earnings at the end. In both Traditional and Roth IRA, you pay taxes on the entire value of money once (remember that the principal when depositing is the same value as the principal + earnings when withdrawing). The only difference is when (year deposited or year withdrawn), so the main difference between the two is the tax rate when depositing vs. tax rate when withdrawing. I'll give you an example to demonstrate. We will assume you invest $1000 of pre-tax wages, it grows at 5% per year, there's a 25% flat tax now and in the future, you withdraw it after 20 years, and withdrawals are not subject to any penalty.",
"qid": 10447,
"docid": "419160",
"rank": 9,
"score": 139824
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: There is no segregation of amounts that you have in Rollover (Traditional) IRAs when it comes to figuring out how much of your basis is being converted from your Traditional IRA into a Roth IRA. So, yes, you will lose the benefit of being able to make nondeductible contributions to your Traditional IRA each year and rolling them over into a Roth IRA without tax consequences. Since your 401k amount may be substantially more than the $5K basis you create each year, converting the 401k amount into a Traditional IRA will mean that most of the money converted to the Roth IRA is pre-tax money, and so you end up paying tax on most of the converted amount.",
"qid": 10447,
"docid": "187975",
"rank": 10,
"score": 137492
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The most common use of non-deductible Traditional IRA contributions these days, as JoeTaxpayer mentioned, is as an intermediate step in a \"\"backdoor Roth IRA contribution\"\" -- contribute to a Traditional IRA and then immediately convert it to a Roth IRA, which, if you had no previous pre-tax money in Traditional or other IRAs, is a tax-free process that achieves the same result as a regular Roth IRA contribution except that there are no income limits. (This is something you should consider since you are unable to directly contribute to a Roth IRA due to income limits.) Also, I want to note that your comparison is only true assuming you are holding tax-efficient assets, ones where you get taxed once at the end when you take it out. If you are holding tax-inefficient assets, like an interest-bearing CD or bond or a stock that regularly produces dividends, in a taxable account you would be taxed many times on that earnings, and that would be much worse than with the non-deductible Traditional IRA, where you would only be taxed once at the end when you take it out.\"",
"qid": 10447,
"docid": "382236",
"rank": 11,
"score": 136478
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"IRA is a tax-deferred account. I.e.: you're not paying any taxes on the income within the account (as long as you don't withdraw it) and you can deduct the investment (with certain limitation on how much, depending on your total AGI). It is taxed when you withdraw it - at ordinary rates for the \"\"traditional\"\" IRA and with 0% rate for ROTH, as long as the withdrawal is qualified (if not qualified - you pay ordinary rate tax for ROTH and additional 10% tax for both on the taxable amounts). The details are a bit complicated (there's deductible IRA, non-deductible IRA, roll-overs, etc etc), but that's the basic. Regular investment accounts are taxed currently on any income, but you get the \"\"better\"\" capital gains rates on many things. So which one is better depends how long your investment is going to be, what is your tax situation now, and what you anticipate it to be later when you retire.\"",
"qid": 10447,
"docid": "109305",
"rank": 12,
"score": 135354
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Broadly speaking, a traditional account is better if you will be in a lower tax bracket in retirement (see for instance here). When you put the money in now, you pay no taxes on it at your current (high) rate; when you take it out, you will pay taxes at your future (low) rate. You push the taxes onto your future, lower-rate self. This is, crucially, assuming you can deduct the contribution on the traditional IRA. If you can't (e.g., because you have an employer-sponsored plan and make too much money), the traditional IRA doesn't really gain you anything (see here). That is the basic story, but there are some other differences to consider as well. For instance, if your income is too high, you cannot contribute to a Roth at all. Also, with a traditional IRA you're required to start taking money out at a certain age, whereas with a Roth you never have to; this can make a difference if you have other retirement income and want to leave the money in the Roth (e.g., to pass on to your heirs without having to pay an intermediate tax at withdrawal). On a more speculative level, there is the possibility that tax rates may change between now and your retirement; some people try to hedge against this possibility by strategically allocating their retirement assets based on whether they think tax rates will rise or fall.",
"qid": 10447,
"docid": "26652",
"rank": 13,
"score": 134667
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The main reasons are that investment are deducted from your gross income and earnings are not taxed until withdrawal. This applies to both traditional IRAs and 401Ks. Roth accounts have different rules but valuable benefits. My effective income tax rate is around 35%. This means that for every $1000 I earn in wage I only get to keep $650. Since my 401K contributions are deferred reductions from my income I can invest 35% more money into my 401K than I would be able to invest in a non-tax-advantaged account. Where I can invest $1000 into my 401K I would only be able to invest $650 into a non-advantaged account with the same wages. If I put $650 into an account yielding 10% then my one-year return on my income is $65 The 10% return on my $1000 is $100. Compared to what I would have been able to take home in the first place this makes my ROI $100/$650 = 15.3% Interest earned in non-advantaged accounts incurs taxes every year. Interest earned in advantaged accounts does not incur taxes until withdrawn. Compounding 10% annually for 20 years is significantly more than 6.5% compounded annually for 20 years. Imagine 10% on a 1000 investment with no additional cash flows over 20 year. The result is $6727, or 672%. Imagine your income tax rate does not reduce below 35%, your after-tax return is 4372, or %437 return. Now imagine you pay taxes every year on 10% take, so your take annually is only 6.5%... Now over 20 years you have $3523 (but you've already paid all taxes on this) and your return is %352 You have earned 24% more money because taxes were deferred until withdrawal! EDIT: Some tabular info for the commenters Your take home from the investment is $3752 because you have diligently paid your taxes every year on the earnings. Now, with the tax deferred until withdrawal! You then owe 35% tax on the withdrawal so you keep 7400 * .65 = $4810 $4810 versus $3750 means you have made an additional $1060, or 28%, from the compounding against tax-advantaged earnings. But Matthew! you say... Annual proceeds from your investments are not taxed at your income tax rate. This is true for now but the political winds are pushing this direction. However, even if you use a reduced rate in the first situation (let's say 30% instead of 35%, if you're a California resident) then the effect is $4140 rather than $3750. Less of a gain, but still a gain. In fact your capital-gains rate would have to be as low as 22% to even this difference out (versus a 35% income tax rate).... And remember that this assumes you're in the same bracket at retirement (which more people are not) You may also note that I used $1000 as the principle in both calculations. This was intentional to show the effects of compounding the taxable earnings alone. If you replace the taxable principle with $650 instead of $1000 then the effect is even more pronounced and only balanced out if your capital gains rate is actually zero!",
"qid": 10447,
"docid": "126756",
"rank": 14,
"score": 133657
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"IRAs have huge tax-advantages. You'll pay taxes when you liquidate gold and silver. While volatile, \"\"the stock market has never produced a loss during any rolling 15-year period (1926-2009)\"\" [PDF]. This is perhaps the most convincing article for retirement accounts over at I Will Teach You To Be Rich. An IRA is just a container for your money and you may invest the money however you like (cash, stocks, funds, etc). A typical investment is the purchase of stocks, bonds, and/or funds containing either or both. Stocks may pay dividends and bonds pay yields. Transactions of these things trigger capital gains (or losses). This happens if you sell or if the fund manager sells pieces of the fund to buy something in its place (i.e. transactions happen without your decision and high turnover can result in huge capital gains). In a taxable account you will pay taxes on dividends and capital gains. In an IRA you don't ever pay taxes on dividends and capital gains. Over the life of the IRA (30+ years) this can be a huge ton of savings. A traditional IRA is funded with pre-tax money and you only pay tax on the withdrawal. Therefore you get more money upfront to invest and more money compounds into greater amounts faster. A Roth IRA you fund with after-tax dollars, but your withdrawals are tax free. Traditional versus Roth comparison calculator. Here are a bunch more IRA and 401k calculators. Take a look at the IRA tax savings for various amounts compared to the same money in a taxable account. Compounding over time will make you rich and there's your reason for starting young. Increases in the value of gold and silver will never touch compounded gains. So tax savings are a huge reason to stash your money in an IRA. You trade liquidity (having to wait until age 59.5) for a heck of a lot more money. Though isn't it nice to be assured that you will have money when you retire? If you aren't going to earn it then, you'll have to earn it now. If you are going to earn it now, you may as well put it in a place that earns you even more. A traditional IRA has penalties for withdrawing before retirement age. With a Roth you can withdraw the principal at anytime without penalty as long as the account has been open 5 years. A traditional IRA requires you take out a certain amount once you reach retirement. A Roth doesn't, which means you can leave money in the account to grow even more. A Roth can be passed on to a spouse after death, and after the spouse's death onto another beneficiary. more on IRA Required Minimum Distributions.\"",
"qid": 10447,
"docid": "587727",
"rank": 15,
"score": 133084
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Your math is correct. As you point out, because of the commutative property of multiplication, Roth and traditional IRAs offer the same terminal wealth if your tax rate is the same when you pull it out as when you put it in. Roth does lock in your tax rate as of today as you point out, which is why it frequently does not maximize wealth (most of us have a higher tax bracket when we are saving than when we are withdrawing from savings). There are a few other potential considerations/advantages of a Roth: Roth and traditional IRAs have the same maximum contribution amount. This means the effective amount you can contribute to a Roth is higher ($5,500 after tax instead of before). If this constraint is binding for you and you don't expect your tax rate to change, Roth is better. Roth IRAs allow you to withdraw your contributed money (not the gains) at any time without any tax or penalty whatsoever. This can be an advantage to some who would like to use it for something like a down payment instead of keeping it all the way to retirement. In this sense the Roth is more flexible. As your income becomes high, the deductibility of traditional IRA contributions goes to zero if you have a 401(k) at work (you can still contribute but can't deduct contributions). At high incomes you also may be disallowed from contributing to a Roth, but because of the backdoor Roth loophole you can make Roth contributions at any income level and preserve the full Roth tax advantage. Which type of account is better for any given person is a complex problem with several unknowns (like future tax rates). However, because tax rates are generally higher when earning money, for most people who can contribute to them, traditional IRAs maximize your tax savings and therefore wealth. Edit: Note that traditional IRA contributions also reduce your AGI, which is used to compute eligibility for other tax advantages, like the child care tax credit and earned income credit. AGI is also often used for state income tax calculation. In retirement, traditional IRA distributions may or may not be state taxable, depending on your state and circumstances.",
"qid": 10447,
"docid": "53996",
"rank": 16,
"score": 132400
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"What you're describing is a non-deductible traditional IRA. That is what happens when your employer 401K or your high income disqualifies gou from using a traditional IRA the normal way. Yes, non-deductible traditional IRAs are stupid.** Now let's be clear on the mechanism behind the difference. There's an axiom of tax law that the same money can't be taxed twice. This is baked so deep into tax law that it often isn't even specified particularly. The IRS is not allowed to impose tax on money already taxed, i.e. The original contribution on an ND Trad IRA. So this is not a new kind of IRA, it is simply a Trad IRA with an asterisk. **But then, some say so are deductible traditional IRAs when compared to the Roth. The real power of an ND Trad IRA is that it can be converted to Roth at all income levels. This is called the \"\"Roth Backdoor\"\". It combines three factors. Contribute to an ND Trad IRA, stick it in a money market/sweep fund, and a week later convert to Roth, pay taxes on the 17 cents of growth in the sweep fund since the rest was already taxed. The net effect is to work the same as a Roth contribution - not tax deductible, becomes a Roth, and is not taxed on distribution. If you already have traditional IRA money that you contributed that wasn't taxed, this really screws things up. Because you can't segment or LIFO your IRA money, the IRS considers it one huge bucket, and requires you draw in proportion. EEK! Suppose you contribute $5000 to an IRA in a non-deductible mode. But you also have a different IRA funded with pretax money that now has $45,000. As far as IRS is concerned, you have one $50,000 IRA and only $5000 (10%) is post-tax. You convert $5000 to Roth and IRS says 90% of that money is taxable, since it's the same pool of money. You owe taxes on all of it less the $500 fraction that was pre-taxed, and $4500 of already-taxed IRA remains in the account. The math gets totally out-of-hand after just a couple of conversions. Your best bet is to convert the whole shebang at one time -- and to avoid a monstrous tax hit, do this in a gap year.\"",
"qid": 10447,
"docid": "540389",
"rank": 17,
"score": 131736
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"In a Traditional IRA contributions are often tax-deductible. For instance, if a taxpayer contributes $4,000 to a traditional IRA and is in the twenty-five percent marginal tax bracket, then a $1,000 benefit ($1,000 reduced tax liability) will be realized for the year. So that's why they tax you as income, because they didn't tax that income before. If a taxpayer expects to be in a lower tax bracket in retirement than during the working years, then this is one advantage for using a Traditional IRA vs a Roth. Distributions are taxed as ordinary income. So it depends on your tax bracket UPDATE FOR COMMENT: Currently you may have heard on the news about \"\"the fiscal cliff\"\" - CNBC at the end of the year. This is due to the fact that the Bush tax-cuts are set to expire and if they expire. Many tax rates will change. But here is the info as of right now: Dividends: From 2003 to 2007, qualified dividends were taxed at 15% or 5% depending on the individual's ordinary income tax bracket, and from 2008 to 2012, the tax rate on qualified dividends was reduced to 0% for taxpayers in the 10% and 15% ordinary income tax brackets. After 2012, dividends will be taxed at the taxpayer's ordinary income tax rate, regardless of his or her tax bracket. - If the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire. - Reference - Wikipedia Capital Gains tax rates can be seen here - the Capital Gains tax rate is relative to your Ordinary Income tax rate For Example: this year long term gains will be 0% if you fall in the 15% ordinary tax bracket. NOTE: These rates can change every year so any future rates might be different from the current year.\"",
"qid": 10447,
"docid": "60929",
"rank": 18,
"score": 130547
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you want to 'offset' current (2016) income, only deductible contribution to a traditional IRA does that. You can make nondeductible contributions to a trad IRA, and there are cases where that makes sense for the future and cases where it doesn't, but it doesn't give you a deduction now. Similarly a Roth IRA has possible advantages and disadvantages, but it does not have a deduction now. Currently he maximum is $5500 per person ($6500 if over age 50, but you aren't) which with two accounts (barely) covers your $10k. To be eligible to make this deductible traditional contribution, you must have earned income (employment or self-employment, but NOT the distribution from another IRA) at least the amount you want to contribute NOT have combined income (specifically MAGI, Modified Adjusted Gross Income) exceeding the phaseout limit (starts at $96,000 for married-joint) IF you were covered during the year (either you or your spouse) by an employer retirement plan (look at box 13 on your W-2's). With whom. Pretty much any bank, brokerage, or mutual fund family can handle IRAs. (To be technical, the bank's holding company will have an investment arm -- to you it will usually look like one operation with one name and logo, one office, one customer service department, one website etc, but the investment part must be legally separate from the insured banking part so you may notice a different name on your legal and tax forms.) If you are satisified with the custodian of the inherited IRA you already have, you might just stay with them -- they may not need as much paperwork, you don't need to meet and get comfortable with new people, you don't need to learn a new website. But if they sold you an annuity at your age -- as opposed to you inheriting an already annuitized IRA -- I'd want a lot of details before trusting they are acting in your best interests; most annuities sold to IRA holders are poor deals. In what. Since you want only moderate risk at least to start, and also since you are starting with a relatively small amount where minimum investments, expenses and fees can make more of an impact on your results, I would go with one or a few broad (= lower risk) index (= lower cost) fund(s). Every major fund familly also offers at least a few 'balanced' funds which give you a mixture of stocks and bonds, and sometimes some 'alternatives', in one fund. Remember this is not committing you forever; any reasonable custodian will allow you to move or spread to more-adventurous (but not wild and crazy) investments, which may be better for you in future years when you have some more money in the account and some more time to ponder your goals and options and comfort level.",
"qid": 10447,
"docid": "111350",
"rank": 19,
"score": 129481
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Tax-advantaged accounts mean you pay less tax. You fundamentally pay less tax on IRAs and 401ks than other accounts. That's their benefit. You keep more money at the expense of the government. It makes sense for the government to limit it. If you don't understand why you pay less tax, you must consider the time value of money -- the principal now is the same value of money as the principal + earnings later. With IRAs and 401ks, you only pay income tax once: with Roth IRAs and 401ks, you pay tax on the entire amount of money once when you earn it; with pre-tax Traditional IRAs and 401ks, you pay tax on the entire amount of money once when withdraw it. However, with outside accounts, you have to pay tax more than once: you pay once when you earn it, and pay tax again on the earnings later, earnings that grew from money that was already taxed (which, when considering time value, means that the earnings have already been taxed), but is taxed again. For things like savings in a bank, it's even worse: interest (which grew from money already taxed) is taxed every year, which means some money you pay tax on n times, if you have it in there n years. If you don't understand the above, you can see with an example. We start with $1000 pre-tax wages and for simplicity will assume a flat 25% income tax rate, and a growth rate of 10% per year, and get the cash (assume it's a qualified withdrawal) in 10 years.",
"qid": 10447,
"docid": "265099",
"rank": 20,
"score": 129475
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"There are ways to mitigate, but since you're not protected by a tax-deferred/advantaged account, the realized income will be taxed. But you can do any of the followings to reduce the burden: Prefer selling either short positions that are at loss or long positions that are at gain. Do not invest in stocks, but rather in index funds that do the rebalancing for you without (significant) tax impact on you. If you are rebalancing portfolio that includes assets that are not stocks (real-estate, mainly) consider performing 1031 exchanges instead of plain sale and re-purchase. Maximize your IRA contributions, even if non-deductible, and convert them to Roth IRA. Hold your more volatile investments and individual stocks there - you will not be taxed when rebalancing. Maximize your 401K, HSA, SEP-IRA and any other tax-advantaged account you may be eligible for. On some accounts you'll pay taxes when withdrawing, on others - you won't. For example - Roth IRA/401k accounts are not taxed at all when withdrawing qualified distributions, while traditional IRA/401k are taxed as ordinary income. During the \"\"low income\"\" years, consider converting portions of traditional accounts to Roth.\"",
"qid": 10447,
"docid": "257274",
"rank": 21,
"score": 129211
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You are missing something very significant. The money in a traditional IRA (specifically, a deductible traditional IRA; there is not really any reason to keep a nondeductible traditional IRA anymore) is pre-tax. That means when you pay tax on it when you take it out, you are paying tax on it for the first time. If you take ordinary money to invest it in stocks, and then pay capital gains tax on it when you take it out, that is post-tax money to begin with -- meaning that you have already paid (income) tax on it once. Then you have to pay tax again on the time-value growth of that money (i.e. that growth is earned from money that is already taxed). That means you are effectively paying tax twice on part of that money. If that doesn't make sense to you, and you think that interest, capital gains, etc. is the first time you're paying tax on the money because it's growth, then you have a very simplistic view of money. There's something called time value of money, which means that a certain amount of money is equivalent to a greater amount of money in the future. If you invest $100 now and end up with $150 in the future, that $150 in the future is effectively the same money as the $100 now. Let's consider a few examples. Let's say you have $1000 of pre-tax income you want to invest and withdraw a certain period of time later in retirement. Let's say you have an investment that grows 100% over this period of time. And let's say that your tax rate now and in the future is 25% (and for simplicity, assume that all income is taxed at that rate instead of the tax bracket system). And capital gains tax is 15%. You see a few things: Traditional IRA and Roth IRA are equivalent if the tax rates are the same. This is because, in both cases, you pay tax one time on the money (the only difference between paying tax now and later is the tax rate). It doesn't matter that you're paying tax only on the principal for the Roth and on the principal plus earnings for Traditional, because the principal now is equivalent to the principal plus earnings in the future. And you also see that investing money outside fares worse than both of them. That is because you are paying tax on the money once plus some more. When you compare it against the Roth IRA, the disadvantage is obvious -- in both cases you pay income tax on the principal, but for Roth IRA you pay nothing on the earnings, whereas for the outside stock, you pay some tax on the earnings. What may be less obvious is it is equally disadvantageous compared to a Traditional IRA; Traditional and Roth IRA are equivalent in this comparison. 401(k)s and IRAs have a fundamental tax benefit compared to normal money investment, because they allow money to be taxed only one time. No matter how low the capital gains tax rate it, it is still worse because it is a tax on time-value growth from money that is already taxed.",
"qid": 10447,
"docid": "159462",
"rank": 22,
"score": 128524
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: All money distributed from a Traditional IRA to which no nondeductible contributions have been made is taxed as ordinary income. It does not matter if you think of the money as the original contribution or gains; the taxation is the same. Money distributed from a Roth IRA is tax-free. In either case, penalties apply if the distribution is premature.",
"qid": 10447,
"docid": "575833",
"rank": 23,
"score": 127347
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Both types of plans offer a tax benefit. A traditional IRA allows you to invest pre-tax money into the account and it grows tax free. Once you withdraw the money it then gets taxed as though it were income based on the amount you withdraw for that calendar year. A Roth IRA has you invest post-tax money and also grows tax free. However, when you make withdraws in retirement that money is then tax free. Neither plan is right for everybody. If you have a very high income now and plan on being in a smaller tax bracket later when you'll be making withdraws then the traditional IRA is better. If you will be in a higher bracket later, then the Roth IRA will serve you more. Depending on the way you manage your retirement investing you can likely invest in both if you are unsure as to which would be better. The same type of investments should be able to be nested within each type.",
"qid": 10447,
"docid": "471204",
"rank": 24,
"score": 126989
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I know in the instance that if my MAGI exceeds a certain point, I can not contribute the maximum to the Roth IRA; a traditional IRA and subsequent backdoor is the way to go. My understanding is that if you ever want to do a backdoor Roth, you don't want deductible funds in a Traditional account, because you can't choose to convert only the taxable funds. From the bogleheads wiki: If you have any other (non-Roth) IRAs, the taxable portion of any conversion you make is prorated over all your IRAs; you cannot convert just the non-deductible amount. In order to benefit from the backdoor, you must either convert your other IRAs as well (which may not be a good idea, as you are usually in a high tax bracket if you need to use the backdoor), or else transfer your deductible IRA contributions to an employer plan such as a 401(k) (which may cost you if the 401(k) has poor investment options).",
"qid": 10447,
"docid": "123027",
"rank": 25,
"score": 126745
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The simplest explanation is that a traditional IRA is a method of deferring taxes. That is, normally you pay taxes on money you earn at the ordinary rate then invest the rest and only pay the capital gains rate. However, with a traditional IRA you don't pay taxes on the money when you earn it, you defer the payment of those taxes until you retire. So in the end it ends up being treated the same. That said, if you are strategic about it you can wind up paying less taxes with this type of account.",
"qid": 10447,
"docid": "114912",
"rank": 26,
"score": 126658
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Whether you contribute to an IRA (Traditional or Roth) and whether you contribute to a 401k (Traditional or Roth) are independent. IRAs have one contribution limit, and 401ks have another contribution limits, and these limits are independent. I see no reason why you wouldn't maximize the amount of money in tax-advantaged accounts, if you can afford to. In your first year of work, especially if you only work for part of the year, you're likely in a lower tax bracket than in the future, so Roth is better than Traditional. Another thing to note is that the money in the Roth IRA can be part of your \"\"safety net\"\" -- contributions to a Roth IRA (but not earnings) can be withdrawn at any time without tax or penalty. So if there is an emergency you can withdraw it, and it wouldn't be any worse than in a taxable account. And if you don't need it, then it will enjoy the tax benefits of being in the IRA.\"",
"qid": 10447,
"docid": "492971",
"rank": 27,
"score": 126417
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"From the way you frame the question it sounds like you more or less know the answer already. Yes - you can make a non-deductable contribution to a traditional IRA and convert it to a Roth IRA. Here is Wikipedia's explanation: Regardless of income but subject to contribution limits, contributions can be made to a Traditional IRA and then converted to a Roth IRA.[10] This allows for \"\"backdoor\"\" contributions where individuals are able to avoid the income limitations of the Roth IRA. There is no limit to the frequency with which conversions can occur, so this process can be repeated indefinitely. One major caveat to the entire \"\"backdoor\"\" Roth IRA contribution process, however, is that it only works for people who do not have any pre-tax contributed money in IRA accounts at the time of the \"\"backdoor\"\" conversion to Roth; conversions made when other IRA money exists are subject to pro-rata calculations and may lead to tax liabilities on the part of the converter. [9] Do note the caveat in the second paragraph. This article explains it more thoroughly: The IRS does not allow converters to specify which dollars are being converted as they can with shares of stock being sold; for the purposes of determining taxes on conversions the IRS considers a person’s non-Roth IRA money to be a single, co-mingled sum. Hence, if a person has any funds in any non-Roth IRA accounts, it is impossible to contribute to a Traditional IRA and then “convert that account” to a Roth IRA as suggested by various pundits and the Wikipedia piece referenced above – conversions must be performed on a pro-rata basis of all IRA money, not on specific dollars or accounts. Say you have $20k of pre-tax assets in a traditional IRA, and make a non-deductable contribution of $5k. The account is now 80% pre-tax assets and 20% post-tax assets, so if you move $5k into a Roth IRA, $4k of it would be taxed in the conversion. The traditional IRA would be left with $16k of pre-tax assets and $4k of post-tax assets.\"",
"qid": 10447,
"docid": "61022",
"rank": 28,
"score": 126078
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Anybody can contribute to a traditional ira up to the maximum limit. Does it make sense to contribute to a non-deductible IRA? There are a couple of cases where it does: If you're 59 1/2 or older, you're old enough to make IRA withdrawals without penalty. If you choose investments that maximize the value of tax deferral, you can use the nondeductible IRA to manage your tax burden. If you're aware of an upcoming change in tax law that will benefit high earning individuals, it might be beneficial to use a nondeductible IRA. For example - you know that income limits for converting a traditional to a Roth are going to change in the coming year. You set up a nondeductible IRA with the intention of converting it the next year, so you can get around Roth contribution rules. Beyond these cases, the main argument for contributing to a non-deductible IRA is -- compounded returns. If your IRA has a strong, steady growth rate, compounded returns can work wonders for your contributions. Let's take a hypothetical... You are 35. You contribute the max amount of $5,500 every year until you retire at 70. With a modest growth rate of 9.5%, your total contribution of 193K would become 1.46M. The compounded returns are 7.6 times your contributions.",
"qid": 10447,
"docid": "588134",
"rank": 29,
"score": 125711
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The benefit is that your earnings in the 401k are not subject to income tax until you make withdrawals. This allows you to grow your money faster than if you made equivalent investments in a taxable account and had to pay taxes on dividends and capital gains along the way. Also, the theory is that you will be in a lower tax bracket in retirement and thus you will pay lower taxes overall. If this is not true (especially if you will be in a higher tax bracket in retirement), then there may not be any advantage for you to contribute to a 401k. One advantage over the Traditional IRA is the higher contribution limit. Some 401k plans also allow you to take loans from the plan, I don't think this is possible with a Traditional IRA. An alternative to both the 401k and Traditional IRA is the Roth version of either plan. With a Roth, you pay taxes up front, but your withdrawals during retirement are tax free.",
"qid": 10447,
"docid": "406239",
"rank": 30,
"score": 125391
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Click on the ? icon next to \"\"Employer Plan\"\". This is used to determine if you can deduct your annual contributions from your taxes. For more information on how an employer plan can affect your IRA tax deduction, see the definition for non-deductible contributions. So, we look there: The total of your Traditional IRA contributions that were deposited without a tax deduction. Traditional IRA contributions are normally tax deductible. However, if you have an employer-sponsored retirement plan, such as a 401(k), your tax deduction may be limited. The $20K difference between $272K and $252K just happens to be $15% of $132,500 which is the amount of your non-deductible contributions.\"",
"qid": 10447,
"docid": "62281",
"rank": 31,
"score": 124853
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Both of the other answers are correct and good answers, but I think neither directly answers your question. No, you do not need to pay additional taxes on the wedding gifts simply because of the fact that they are going into a Roth IRA. Similarly, if you put them into a traditional IRA, that amount would be deductible (assuming you met the other criteria, including minimums and maximums of earned income, in both cases). The act of putting money into a Roth IRA is not what makes it taxable; its original source is. Roth simply does not reduce your current taxes any, whereas a traditional IRA would. The seeming exception to this is when rolling money from a tax-deductible source to a non-tax-deductible destination, such as transferring money from a Traditional IRA or 401(k) to a Roth IRA or 401(k). Then, the taxable event is really the distribution from the Traditional IRA or 401(k), not the deposit into a Roth IRA or 401(k), though of course if you rolled a 401(k) over to a traditional IRA it would not be taxable.",
"qid": 10447,
"docid": "542166",
"rank": 32,
"score": 124311
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Summary: It's because you are effectively contributing more money in the second case, so you have more money at the end. The effect of being covered by an employer retirement plan (in the case of a 401(k), that means either you or your employer contributed to it during the year) is that it prevents you from deducting Traditional IRA contributions unless your income is below a very low level (for Single filing status, it phases out at an MAGI of between $62k and $72k). Since you are unable to deduct the Traditional IRA contribution, but you entered that you are still making the full $5500 contribution every year, that means you are making a non-deductible contribution of $5500 every year instead of a deductible contribution. Nondeductible contributions are \"\"after-tax\"\", whereas deductible contributions are \"\"pre-tax\"\" (because your taxable income is reduced by the amount of the contribution, so you effectively don't pay income tax on the income you used to contribute). $1 of pre-tax money is not the same as $1 of after-tax money. If your marginal tax rate is 25%, then $1 of pre-tax money is equivalent to $0.75 of after-tax money. However, since in both cases you are putting in the same nominal amount of contribution ($5500), but one is pre-tax and one is after-tax, in the after-tax case you are effectively contributing more money, i.e. more money is taken out from your bank account that year. The $5500 pre-tax contribution is equivalent to only $5500 * 0.75 = $4125 after-tax, i.e. you are only short $4125 from your bank account at the end of the year after making a $5500 deductible contribution, whereas you are short $5500 after making a $5500 non-deductible contribution, so it's not a fair comparison. The non-deductible Traditional IRA contributions are not taxed when withdrawn (though the earnings earned from those contributions are still taxed), so that's why you are left with a greater amount. This is a similar situation to what happens when you try to compare a $5500 deductible Traditional IRA contribution to a $5500 Roth IRA contribution -- it will look like the Roth IRA case leaves you with much more money, but that's again because you are effectively contributing more money, because the Roth IRA contribution is after-tax, so it's not a fair comparison. (The Roth IRA case will produce a much greater \"\"advantage\"\" than the non-deductible Traditional IRA contribution case, because for a Roth IRA, both the contributions and earnings will not be taxed at withdrawal.)\"",
"qid": 10447,
"docid": "139059",
"rank": 33,
"score": 124174
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"This seems like a huge advantage for a Roth to the point where I can't figure out why anyone would choose a traditional. You are missing something called the time value of money. This is the concept that a certain amount of money now has the same value as a bigger amount of money later. Basically, you wouldn't be willing to give up an amount of money now and get the same amount of money later -- you need to get a larger amount later to be willing to exchange it for a certain amount now. So that larger amount later has the same value to you than that smaller amount now. This is the idea behind interest and investment returns. When you make an investment, and it earns interest or gains over a period of time, in effect that final amount of money (principal + interest) has the same value as the principal when you started, because that final amount was grown from the original principal. So whether you are taxed on the principal in the beginning (as in Roth IRA) or on the principal + interest at the end (as in Traditional IRA), you are still taxed on the same value of money. And if the tax rates are the same between now and in the future, then you pay the same value in taxes in both cases. Roth would only be better than Traditional if the tax rates are lower now than when you take it out; and Traditional would only be better than Roth if the tax rates are higher now than when you take it out. Let's consider a simple example to demonstrate that the two are equivalent if the tax rates (assuming a flat tax, because tax brackets introduce other complications) are the same now and when you take it out. In both cases, you start with $1000 pre-tax wages, you invest it for 10 years in a place with guaranteed 5% returns per year adn then take it out, there are no penalties for withdrawal, and there is a flat 25% tax now and in the future. Note that you are left with the same amount of money in both cases. This arises from the associativity of multiplication. Note that Roth IRA has a higher effective \"\"limit\"\" than Traditional IRA, because the nominal limit is the same for both, but Roth is post-tax. So if you contribute to near the limit, where Traditional can no longer match the value that Roth can contribute, then the comparison no longer applies. The $1000 in this example is below the limit for both.\"",
"qid": 10447,
"docid": "546979",
"rank": 34,
"score": 123244
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: MB's math is right, but I can describe it in a short sentence. All Traditional accounts are combined, 401(k) rollover is no different from other IRA money. You should have been tracking your non-deducted money via form 8606 so you know this figure. The non-deducted money as a percent of your total balance is the percent of conversion that's not taxed. (To be clear, deducted contributions and growth are not tracked separately, one only tracks the non-deducted deposits.)",
"qid": 10447,
"docid": "32781",
"rank": 35,
"score": 122613
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"So many complicated answers for a straight forward question. First to this point \"\"I am failing to see why would a person get an IRA, instead of just putting the same amount of money into a mutual fund...\"\" An IRA can be invested in a mutual fund. The IRA benefit over standard mutual fund is pre-tax contribution lowering your current tax liability. The advantage of an IRA over a 401k is control. Your employer controls where the 401k is invested, you control where your IRA is invested. Often employers have a very small number of options, because this keeps their costs with the brokerage low. 401k is AMAZING if you have employer matched contributions. Use them to the maximum your employer will match. After that OWN your IRA. Control is key when it comes to your money. On IRA's. Buy ROTH first. Contribute the calendar maximum. Then get a traditional. The benefit of ROTH is that you already paid taxes on the contribution so your withdrawal is not taxed AND they do not tax the interest earned like they do on a standard mutual fund.\"",
"qid": 10447,
"docid": "32009",
"rank": 36,
"score": 122541
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You have two questions - first - no, if you are above the deduction limit, then you still have a traditional IRA deposit but with post tax money, tracked via form 8606. Second - If I read this right, if you cannot take the deduction, but can do the Roth, by all means, this is the 'no-brainer' decision. Makes no sense to deposit non-deducted to a traditional IRA if you can do Roth. But - for sake of the full picture - if above the Roth limit, you still should make the post tax deposit (to the traditional.) If you have no pretax IRA at all, you can convert immediately. If you have a mix, you have the option to convert piecemeal paying the tax on the pro-rated amount the pretax represents.",
"qid": 10447,
"docid": "511096",
"rank": 37,
"score": 121505
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: There is no advantage to using one type of account or the other if you are in the same tax bracket at retirement that you are in during your working years. However, for tax planning reasons, it is good to have some money in both a Roth and a traditional IRA plan. JoeTaxpayer has often advocated a good rule of thumb to use a Roth when your tax bracket is 15% or lower, and use a traditional account when in the 25% bracket or above. The reason for this rule of thumb is that you are less likely to be in the higher tax bracket when you are living off retirement savings unless you put away an awful lot of money between now and then. If you are making enough money to be paying a 25% marginal rate on some of the money you would be putting away for retirement, then by all means, put all of that money in a traditional 401k. If after contributing that portion of your savings taxed at the higher rate, you still have money to put away for retirement, put the rest in a Roth and pay the 15% taxes on it. When you are younger, it is likely that you are making less than you will a few years hence, and it is also likely that a larger portion of your income will be paying tax deductible interest on a mortgage. If those are true for you, then by all means, use the Roth. That was true of me when I was single and just getting started. When you do finally retire, it is possible that the tax brackets will be increased to match inflation, and if so, then there is no benefit to having tax free money at retirement vs. paying taxes on deferred accounts, but there is also usually more flexibility in when to spend money. You may find that you have a year where you have to spend a lot, so it is good to be able to pull money out without it increasing your marginal rate for that year, and other years where you spend relatively smaller amounts, and you can withdraw taxable money and pay a lower rate on that money. No one knows what the tax code will look like in 40 years, but having some money in each type of account will give you flexibility to minimize your tax bill at retirement.",
"qid": 10447,
"docid": "475397",
"rank": 38,
"score": 120899
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: First of all an IRA is a type of account that says nothing about how your money is invested. It seems like you are trying to compare an IRA with a market ETF (like Vanguard Total Market Admiral VTSAX), but the reality is that you can have both. Depending on your IRA some of the investment options may be limited, but you will probably be able to find some version of a passive fund following an index you are interested in. The IRA account is tax advantaged, but you may invest the money in your IRA in an ETF. As for how often a non-IRA account is taxed and how much, that depends on how often you sell. If you park your money in an ETF and do not sell, the IRS will not claim any taxes from it. The taxable event happens when you sell. But if you gain $1000 in a year and a day and you decide to sell, you will owe $150 (assuming 15% capital gains tax), bringing your earnings down to $850. If your investments go poorly and you lose money, there will be no capital gains tax to pay.",
"qid": 10447,
"docid": "240651",
"rank": 39,
"score": 120746
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You can contribute to a Traditional IRA instead of a Roth. The main difference is a contribution to a Roth is made with after tax money but at retirement you can withdraw the money tax free. With a Traditional IRA your contribution is tax-deductible but at retirement the withdrawal is not tax free. This is why most people prefer a Roth if they can contribute. You can also contribute to your work's 401k plan assuming they have one. And you can always save for retirement in a regular account.",
"qid": 10447,
"docid": "1219",
"rank": 40,
"score": 120425
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"All transactions within an IRA are irrelevant as far as the taxation of the distributions from the IRA are concerned. You can only take cash from an IRA, and a (cash) distribution from a Traditional IRA is taxable as ordinary income (same as interest from a bank, say) without the advantage of any of the special tax rates for long-term capital gains or qualified dividends even if that cash was generated within the IRA from sales of stock etc. In short, just as with what is alleged to occur with respect to Las Vegas, what happens within the IRA stays within the IRA. Note: some IRA custodians are willing to make a distribution of stock or mutual fund shares to you, so that ownership of the 100 shares of GE, say, that you hold within your IRA is transferred to you in your personal (non-IRA) brokerage account. But, as far as the IRS is concerned, your IRA custodian sold the stock as the closing price on the day of the distribution, gave you the cash, and you promptly bought the 100 shares (at the closing price) in your personal brokerage account with the cash that you received from the IRA. It is just that your custodian saved the transaction fees involved in selling 100 shares of GE stock inside the IRA and you saved the transaction fee for buying 100 shares of GE stock in your personal brokerage account. Your basis in the 100 shares of GE stock is the \"\"cash_ that you imputedly received as a distribution from the IRA, so that when you sell the shares at some future time, your capital gains (or losses) will be with respect to this basis. The capital gains that occurred within the IRA when the shares were imputedly sold by your IRA custodian remain within the IRA, and you don't get to pay taxes on that at capital gains rates. That being said, I would like to add to what NathanL told you in his answer. Your mother passed away in 2011 and you are now 60 years old (so 54 or 55 in 2011?). It is likely that your mother was over 70.5 years old when she passed away, and so she likely had started taking Required Minimum Distributions from her IRA before her death. So, You should have been taking RMDs from the Inherited IRA starting with Year 2012. (The RMD for 2011, if not taken already by your mother before she passed away, should have been taken by her estate, and distributed to her heirs in accordance with her will, or, if she died intestate, in accordance with state law and/or probate court directives). There would not have been any 10% penalty tax due on the RMDs taken by you on the grounds that you were not 59.5 years old as yet; that rule applies to owners (your mom in this case) and not to beneficiaries (you in this case). So, have you taken the RMDs for 2012-2016? Or were you waiting to turn 59.5 before taking distributions in the mistaken belief that you would have to pay a 10% penalty for early wthdrawal? The penalty for not taking a RMD is 50% of the amount not distributed; yes, 50%. If you didn't take RMDs from the Inherited IRA for years 2012-2016, I recommend that you consult a CPA with expertise in tax law. Ask the CPA if he/she is an Enrolled Agent with the IRS: Enrolled Agents have to pass an exam administered by the IRS to show that they really understand tax law and are not just blowing smoke, and can represent you in front of the IRS in cases of audit etc,\"",
"qid": 10447,
"docid": "76530",
"rank": 41,
"score": 120222
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Is investing in a Roth retirement account only better if you will be in a higher tax bracket in retirement? If you are pushing up against the contribution limits, a Roth account may allow you to save more money in tax-advantaged accounts. In your example, you are putting $100 pre-tax in a traditional account vs $85 post-tax in a Roth account. But if there are limits, and the limits are the same for traditional or Roth accounts (as they currently are for US 401(k) accounts), you can effectively put more into a Roth account, where the limit applies to the post-tax amount, than a traditional account, where the limit applies to the pre-tax amount. If so, is there any case in which a traditional retirement account is better than a Roth account? It is smart to have some money in a traditional account, because the first amount of money you earn or withdraw each year (up to the standard deduction) is taxed at 0%, which is probably less than your current rate. And the next bit of money is taxed at only 10%, which may also be less than your current marginal rate. Of course, things may change by the time you retire, but it is probably safe to assume that we will still have some kind of progressive (income bracketed) tax structure.",
"qid": 10447,
"docid": "84250",
"rank": 42,
"score": 120178
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"To keep it simple, I will keep the focus between a Trad IRA and a normal Taxable account (Roth's and 401(k) add more complications that make another problem). I will also assume, based on the question, that you aren't able to deduct the IRA contributions. Also, a Roth is better in every way than a non-deductible Trad IRA so the \"\"backdoor Roth\"\" mentioned in other answers is probably the way to go and this is more of an academic exercise. Ok, so why bother with the IRA if you're taxed anyway? Because you aren't taxed as you go! With a normal non-tax-advantaged account you have to pay taxes every year on any realized capital gains and dividends (including fund distributions). Because of the compounding nature of savings, delaying paying taxes is in your best interest. Simple example: Taxable Account: IRA Account: Now, this is a very simplified example. If you're more tax-conscious (i.e. more buy-and-holding), you can delay paying some of the long-term cap gains in the taxable account, but any short-term cap gains (including distributions from the underlying funds) will be at your marginal income tax rate. A few other observations: EDIT: I set up a spreadsheet where each year I deposited $1000 for 35 years. Each year, the balance in the IRA account grows by 5%, but the taxable only by 5%*(1-0.15) = 4.25% due to the effect of taxes. At the end of 35 years, my simulation assumes you pay 15% on all the gains in the IRA, which would likely not be the case, but easier than forecasting through retirement and demonstrates what I'm trying to show. Here's plot showing the balance in the various accounts, the blue is the IRA account, orange the taxable account, and grey is the effective balance of the IRA, after paying taxes on the gains: And here's a plot of the advantage of the IRA (after paying taxes on the gains), vs the taxable account: Whether that's worth it to you or anyone depends on some the assumptions in the simulation, especially effective tax rates, and growth rates, as well as any personal issues. Some people may be less likely to raid an IRA account, for example, than a normal account. Conversely, if you have a project coming up, you may need something a bit more liquid than an IRA.\"",
"qid": 10447,
"docid": "532657",
"rank": 43,
"score": 119972
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Yes, if you can split your income up over multiple years it will be to your advantage over earning it all in one year. The reasons are as you mentioned, you get to apply multiple deductions/credits/exemptions to the same income. Rather than just 1 standard deduction, you get to deduct 2 standard deductions, you can double the max saved in an IRA, you benefit more from any non-refundable credits etc. This is partly due to the fact that when you are filing your taxes in Year 1, you can't include anything from Year 2 since it hasn't happened yet. It doesn't make sense for the Government to take into account actions that may or may not happen when calculating your tax bill. There are factors where other year profit/loss can affect your tax liability, however as far as I know these are limited to businesses. Look into Loss Carry Forwarded/Back if you want to know more. Regarding the '30% simple rate', I think you are confusing something that is simple to say with something that is simple to implement. Are we going to go change the rules on people who expected their mortgage deduction to continue? There are few ways I can think of that are more sure to cause home prices to plummet than to eliminate the Mortgage Interest Deduction. What about removing Student Loan Interest? Under a 30% 'simple' rate, what tools would the government use to encourage trade in specific areas? Will state income tax deduction also be removed? This is going to punish those in a state with a high income tax more than those in states without income tax. Those are all just 'common' deductions that affect a lot of people, you could easily say 'no' to all of them and just piss off a bunch of people, but what about selling stock though? I paid $100 for the stock and I sold it for $120, do I need to pay $36 tax on that because it is a 'simple' 30% tax rate or are we allowing the cost of goods sold deduction (it's called something else I believe when talking about stocks but it's the same idea?) What about if I travel for work to tutor individuals, can I deduct my mileage expenses? Do I need to pay 30% income tax on my earnings and principal from a Roth IRA? A lot of people have contributed to a Roth with the understanding that withdrawals will be tax free, changing those rules are punishing people for using vehicles intentionally created by the government. Are we going to go around and dismantle all non-profits that subsist entirely on tax-deductible donations? Do I need to pay taxes on the employer's cost of my health insurance? What about 401k's and IRA's? Being true to a 'simple' 30% tax will eliminate all 'benefits' from every job as you would need to pay taxes on the value of the benefits. I should mention that this isn't exactly too crazy, there was a relatively recent IRS publication about businesses needing to withhold taxes from their employees for the cost of company supplied food but I don't know if it was ultimately accepted. At the end of the day, the concept of simplifying the tax law isn't without merit, but realize that the complexities of tax law are there due to the complexities of life. The vast majority of tax laws were written for a reason other than to benefit special interests, and for that reason they cannot easily be ignored.",
"qid": 10447,
"docid": "396066",
"rank": 44,
"score": 119358
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The idea behind a Roth IRA is taxes will go up in the future so you are best off paying less in taxes now than in the future, which is why Roth IRAs are contributed to with post-tax dollars whereas traditional IRAs are contributed to with pre-tax dollars. The theoritical advantage comes when you want to withdrawal your money. With the traditional IRA, when you withdrawal money, you pay ordinary income tax on all withdrawals. With a Roth IRA, all withdrawals (after the age of 59 1/2) are tax free, including any gains you may have made. To illistrate, with a very simple example, assume you make $50,000 and your IRA grows at 5% for 40 years. Traditional IRA - $5,000 Roth IRA - $3,750 ($5,000 after taxes) Traditional IRA - $604,000 Roth IRA - $453,000 Traditional IRA - $604,000 / 15 = $40,266 * 75% (25% tax) = $30,200 / year Roth IRA - $453,000 / 15 = $30,200/ year First, this was not a contrived example and I was surprised the numbers worked out this way. Second, as you can see with this example there is really no advantage either way unless you by into the theory of higher taxes in the future.",
"qid": 10447,
"docid": "364056",
"rank": 45,
"score": 119336
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: To your question. Yes. What you propose is typically called the back door Roth. You make the (non-deductible) IRA deposit, and soon after, convert to Roth. As long as you have no other existing IRA, the process is simple, and actually a loophole that's still open. If you have an existing IRA, the conversion may be partially taxed based on untaxed balance. As comments frequently get overlooked, I'm adding @DilipSarwate excellent warning regarding this - Depending on the value of the existing Traditional IRA and its pre-existing basis, if any, the backdoor Roth conversion might be almost completely taxable. Example: Traditional IRA worth $250K with zero basis. New nondeductible contribution increase value to $255.5K and basis $5.5K. Converting $5.5K into a Roth IRA leaves $250K in the Traditional IRA with basis $5381.60. That is, of that $5500 conversion, only $118.40 was nontaxable and so, not only is the original $5500 taxable income to the OP but he also owes taxes on $5381.60 of that $5.5K conversion. In short, discussions of backdoor Roth conversions as a great idea should always be tempered with an acknowledgement that it does not work very well if there is any other money in the Traditional IRA. Once that nondeductible contribution enters a Traditional IRA, it does not come out completely until all your Traditional IRA accounts are drained of all money. All your Traditional IRA money is considered by the IRS to be in a single pot, and you can't set up a Traditional IRA (possibly with a new custodian) via nondeductible contribution, convert just that Traditional IRA account into a Roth IRA account, and claim that the whole conversion amount is nontaxable because all the tax-deferred money is in the other IRAs that you haven't touched at all. Last - you disclosed that you are depositing to a Roth 401(k) to the match. Which prompts me to ask if this is best. If your marginal rate is 25% or higher, you are missing the opportunity to save 'off the top', at that rate, and 'fill the lower brackets' at retirement, or, via conversion, any year before then when you are in a lower bracket for whatever reason. See my answer for Saving for retirement: How much is enough? which addresses this further. From new comments - Won't his Roth 401k contributions max out his overall Roth contributions? No. They are separate numbers, each with own annual limits. Wouldn't this prevent any back-door Roth conversions? The 401(k) has no effect on back door Roth, except for the fact that the 401(k) and high income make the Roth IRA unavailable by normal deposit. Back door is the only door. At the end are you encouraging him to look for a Traditional 401(k) at work to max out, then contributing to a Roth? Yes! Read the linked SE article, and consider the annual withdrawal that would get you to 25%. As I wrote, it would take $2M+ to 'fill' the 15% bracket at retirement.",
"qid": 10447,
"docid": "216243",
"rank": 46,
"score": 119265
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: According to Publication 590, broker's commissions for stock transactions within an IRA cannot be paid in addition to the IRA contribution(s), but they are deductible as part of the contribution, or add to the basis if you are making a nondeductible contribution to a Traditional IRA. (Top of Page 10, and Page 12, column 1, in the 2012 edition of Pub 590). On the other hand, trustees' administrative fees can be paid from outside the IRA if they are billed separately, and are even deductible as a Miscellaneous Deduction on Schedule A of your income tax return (subject to the 2% of AGI threshold). A long time ago, when my IRA account balances were much smaller, I used to get a bill from my IRA custodian for a $20 annual administrative fee which I paid separately (but never got to deduct due to the 2% threshold). My custodian also allowed the option of doing nothing in which case the $20 would be collected from (and thus reduce) the amount of money in my IRA. Note that this does not apply to the expenses charged by the mutual funds that you might have in your IRA; these expenses are treated the same as brokerage commissions and must be paid from within the IRA.",
"qid": 10447,
"docid": "569953",
"rank": 47,
"score": 119127
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Investopedia probably should change the wording to \"\"tax free\"\" since all of the gains in a Roth IRA can be withdrawn without any additional taxes at retirement time. Tax deferred should only refer to the gains in a traditional IRA. \"\"Tax advantaged\"\" might be a reasonable term to use in both cases.\"",
"qid": 10447,
"docid": "112182",
"rank": 48,
"score": 118471
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"One difference is in the ability to split the pre-tax and after-tax portions of the Traditional account. (Note that earnings in a Traditional IRA or Traditional 401(k) are always pre-tax, even if it was earned from after-tax money, so if you left the money for some amount of time after an after-tax contribution, chances are it's a mix of pre-tax and after-tax money.) When you take money out of a Traditional IRA, including for conversion to a Roth IRA, you are generally subject to the \"\"pro-rata rule\"\", which means that your withdrawal will consist of pre-tax and after-tax amounts in the same proportion as in your whole Traditional IRA. This means that a conversion of a Traditional IRA with any mix of pre-tax and after-tax amounts, will always be taxed on a portion of the withdrawal (the pre-tax portion), and it will leave some after-tax amounts in the Traditional IRA unless you take everything out. The only way to separate the pre-tax and after-tax amounts is to roll over to a Traditional 401(k) (if you have a 401(k) plan that allows this); rules say that only pre-tax amounts can be rolled over into a 401(k), so only pre-tax amounts are rolled over, and if you roll over all the pre-tax amounts, only after-tax amounts will remain. On the other hand, when you rollover your entire Traditional 401(k) to IRAs, you can choose to have the pre-tax portion rolled over to a Traditional IRA and the after-tax portion rolled over to a Roth IRA, separating them, due to IRS Notice 2014-54.\"",
"qid": 10447,
"docid": "237457",
"rank": 49,
"score": 118406
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I'll add this to others: Having non-deductible portion in your IRA requires additional tax forms to be attached to your tax return, and tracking. If you plan to have long-term investments in your non-deductible IRA (such as, say, target funds or long-term stock positions that you expect to hold till retirement) it may be better to keep them in a non-IRA account. This is because the income tax on the withdrawals from the IRA is at ordinary rates, and from the regular investment account is at capital gains rate. While the rates can definitely change, traditionally capital gains rates are significantly lower than the ordinary income bracket rates. So generally I think that having non-deductible IRA deposits is only useful if you're planning a ROTH conversion in a near future.",
"qid": 10447,
"docid": "382894",
"rank": 50,
"score": 118207
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: First of all, it's pretty rare that would cash out your entire Traditional IRA at once when you retire. That would incur major taxes and negate much of the tax deductibility benefit. Instead, you'd want to take distributions of just what you want to live on, which are taxed at income rates, and let the rest continue to grow tax free until you need/want it. As to your main question, if you don't expect to be in a lower tax bracket in retirement, then yes, Roth makes sense. But this is a pretty major assumption. When you're working, your salary pushes you into higher tax brackets. Once you're retired, you don't have as many sources of income. It could be mostly distributions from retirement accounts, and even coming from a Traditional IRA a lot of that will be tax free or taxed at a low rate (e.g. 15%). If when it was earned it would have been taxed at a higher marginal rate (e.g. 25%), then the Traditional IRA was a better choice than the Roth. Traditional versus Roth, if both are options to you (with deductibility for the Traditional), all comes down to tax rate now versus what you expect your tax rate to be in retirement. There is no universal answer.",
"qid": 10447,
"docid": "277915",
"rank": 51,
"score": 117526
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You have many options, and there is no one-size-fits-all recommendation. You can contribute to your IRA in addition to your 401(k), but because you have that 401(k), it is not tax-deductable. So there is little advantage in putting money in the IRA compared to saving it in a personal investment account, where you keep full control over it. It does, however, open the option to do a backdoor-rollover from that IRA to a Roth IRA, which is a good idea to have; you will not pay any taxes if you do that conversion, if the money in the IRA was not tax deducted (which it isn't as you have the 401(k)). You can also contribute to a Roth IRA directly, if you are under the income limits for that (193k$ for married, I think, not sure for single). If this is the case, you don't need to take the detour through the IRA with the backdoor-rollover. Main advantage for Roth is that gains are tax free. There are many other answers here that give details on where to save if you have more money to save. In a nutshell, In between is 'pay off all high-interest debt', I think right after 1. - if you have any. 'High-Interest' means anything that costs more interest than you can expect when investing.",
"qid": 10447,
"docid": "48203",
"rank": 52,
"score": 117303
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"There is not a special rate for short-term capital gains. Only long-term gains have a special rate. Short-term gains are taxed at your ordinary-income rate (see here). Hence if you're in the 25% bracket, your short-term gain would be taxed at 25%. The IRA withdrawal, as you already mentioned, would be taxed at 25%, plus a 10% penalty, for 35% total. Thus the bite on the IRA withdrawal is larger than that on a non-IRA withdrawal. As for the estimated tax issue, I don't think there will be a significant difference there. The reason is that (traditional) IRA withdrawals count as ordinary taxable income (see here). This means that, when you withdraw the funds from your IRA, you will increase your income. If that increase pushes you too far beyond what your withholding is accounting for, then you owe estimated tax. In other words, whether you get the money by selling stocks in a taxable account or by withdrawing them from an IRA, you still increase your taxable income, and thus potentially expose yourself to the estimated tax obligation. (In fact, there may be a difference. As you note, you will pay tax at the capital gains rate on gains from selling in a taxable account. But if you sell the stocks inside the IRA and withdraw, that is ordinary income. However, since ordinary income is taxed at a higher rate than long-term capital gains, you will potentially pay more tax on the IRA withdrawal, since it will be taxed at the higher rate, if your gains are long-term rather than short term. This is doubly true if you withdraw early, incurring the extra 10% penalty. See this question for some more discussion of this issue.) In addition, I think you may be somewhat misunderstanding the nature of estimated tax. The IRS will not \"\"ask\"\" you for a quarterly estimated tax when you sell stock. The IRS does not monitor your activity and send you a bill each quarter. They may indeed check whether your reported income jibes with info they received from your bank, etc., but they'll still do that regardless of whether you got that income by selling in a taxable account or withdrawing money from an IRA, because both of those increase your taxable income. Quarterly estimated tax is not an extra tax; it is just you paying your normal income tax over the course of the year instead of all at once. If your withholdings will not cover enough of your tax liability, you must figure that out yourself and pay the estimated tax (see here); if you don't do so, you may be assessed a penalty. It doesn't matter how you got the money; if your taxable income is too high relative to your withheld tax, then you have to pay the estimated tax. Typically tax will be withheld from your IRA distribution, but if it's not withheld, you'll still owe it as estimated tax.\"",
"qid": 10447,
"docid": "155053",
"rank": 53,
"score": 116697
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: They're wrong, and it's easy to show that if you pay the same % in taxes then you end up the same either way. If you have an initial investment of 10k, an effective tax rate of 25%, and gains of 10% a year, here are the numbers: You invest 10k into a traditional. After 50 years, you have $1,173,908. After paying taxes, you end up with $880,431. You invest 10k into a Roth. After paying the taxes, your initial investment is $7500. After 50 years, you have $880,431 - the same you have with the traditional. The advantage from the Roth comes from two things - the assumption that taxes are lower now for you than they will be in the future (a good bet, given that taxes are relatively low in the US) and the ability to have a mix of taxable and non-taxable income to draw from in retirement to lower your effective tax rate (draw down the taxable up to a certain tax bracket then use your non-taxable above that).",
"qid": 10447,
"docid": "265973",
"rank": 54,
"score": 116471
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Whether or not you can deposit to a Roth IRA, you are able to convert those deposits to A Roth account. In effect, you pay the tax going in (as with the regular brokerage account) but no tax on growth when withdrawn. The non-deductible IRA, on its own, holds little appeal, in comparison.",
"qid": 10447,
"docid": "237336",
"rank": 55,
"score": 115546
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"In a Roth IRA scenario, this $5,000 would be reduced to $3,750 if we assume a (nice and round) 25% tax rate. For the Traditional IRA, the full $5,000 would be invested. No, that's not how it works. Taxes aren't removed from your Roth account. You'll have $5,000 invested either way. The difference is that you'll have a tax deduction if you invest in a traditional IRA, but not a Roth. So you'll \"\"save\"\" $1,250 in taxes up front if you invest in a traditional IRA versus a Roth. The flip side is when you withdraw the money. Since you've already paid tax on the Roth investment, and it grows tax free, you'll pay no tax when you withdraw it. But you'll pay tax on the investment and the gains when you withdraw from a traditional IRA. Using your numbers, you'd pay tax on $2.2MM from the traditional IRA, but NO TAX on $2.2MM from the Roth. At that point, you've saved over $500,000 in taxes. Now if you invested the tax savings from the traditional IRA and it earned the same amount, then yes, you'd end up in the same place in the end, provided you have the same marginal tax rate. But I suspect that most don't invest that savings, and if you withdraw significant amount, you'll likely move into higher tax brackets. In your example, suppose you only had $3,750 of \"\"discretionary\"\" income that you could put toward retirement. You could put $5,000 in a traditional IRA (since you'll get a $1,250 tax deduction), or $3,750 in a Roth. Then your math works out the same. If you invest the same amount in either, though, the math on the Roth is a no-brainer.\"",
"qid": 10447,
"docid": "175968",
"rank": 56,
"score": 115429
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Is that basically it? Trading off between withdrawing-anytime vs paying-capital-gain-tax? No. Another significant factor is dividends. In an IRA they incur no immediate tax and can be reinvested. This causes the account value to compound over the years. Historically, this compounding of dividends provides about half of the total return on investments. In a non-IRA account you have to pay taxes each year on all dividends received, whether you reinvest them or not. So outside of an IRA you have a tax drag on both capital gains and dividends.",
"qid": 10447,
"docid": "199544",
"rank": 57,
"score": 115004
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"If you have already maxed your TSP contributions, the \"\"401k\"\" for military folks, you could consider a Traditional IRA contribution. They are tax-deductible, based on some limits, so it may reduce your tax liability. Many online services (Vanguard, Fidelity, etc.) offer quick and free setup of Traditional IRA accounts. If you have already maxed the Traditional IRA as well, you could look at making taxable investments through an online service. Like homer150mw, I would recommend low-cost funds. For reasons why, see this article by John Bogle.\"",
"qid": 10447,
"docid": "225282",
"rank": 58,
"score": 114512
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: As you point out, the main benefits of a pension/retirement account over a traditional cash/taxable account are the legal and tax benefits. Most Western countries establish a specific legal definition for an account which is often taxed less or not at all relative to taxable accounts and which contains some protection for the owner in case of a bankruptcy. The typical drawbacks for investing within such structures are limited investment choice, limited withdrawal rights (either in terms of age or rate of withdrawal), and maximum contributions. The benefits are usually very clear, and your decision whether or not to open a pension/retirement account should depend on a careful weighing of the benefits and drawbacks. As to whether you may end up with less than you started, that depends on what you invest in. As with all of finance, you must take more risk to get more return. Although the choices inside a pension/retirement account may be worded somewhat differently, they are usually fundamentally no different than some of the most popular investments available for ordinary taxable accounts.",
"qid": 10447,
"docid": "486367",
"rank": 59,
"score": 114299
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You might be confusing two different things. An advantage of investing over a long term is the compounding of returns. Those returns can be interest, dividends, or capital gains. The mix between them depends on what you invest it and how you invest in it. This advantage applies whether your investment is in a taxable brokerage account or in a tax-advantaged 401K or IRA. So, start investing early so that you have longer for this compounding of returns to happen. The second thing is the tax deferral you get from 401(k) or IRAs. If you invest in a ordinary taxable account, then you have to pay taxes on your interest and dividends for the year in which they occur. You also have to pay taxes on any capital gains which you realize during the year. These yearly tax payments are then money that you don't get the benefit of compounding on. With 401(k) and IRAs, you don't have to pay taxes during these intermediate years.",
"qid": 10447,
"docid": "396097",
"rank": 60,
"score": 113936
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I remember reading in an earlier version of Pub 590 (or possibly the Instructions for Form 8606) that timely contributions for Year X to an IRA are deemed to have been made on January 1 of Year X regardless of when they were actually made, but I don't seem to be able to find it now in current versions of Pubs 590a or 590b and so cannot include a citation of chapter and verse. Be that as it may, the calculations on on Form 8606 Part I effectively track basis on an annual basis rather than on a daily basis, and so the fact that the Traditional IRA has a zero balance (and basis 0 too) at some time during the year doesn't matter in the least. In detail (though you didn't ask for it) Note that the whole $6500 that you put in remains non-deductible in its entirety, but you owe taxes on only $93,900 of that $100K that you rolled over into a Roth IRA and not on the whole $100K as you were assuming would have been the case. So, in effect, of that $6500 nondeductible contribution to your Traditional IRA, you did really get to deduct $6100 from your taxable income for 2016, and make only a $400 nondeductible contribution, exactly equal to your basis in your Traditional IRA as per the Form 8606 calculations. I can only assume that the software package that you are using reproduces the above calculations exactly and does what the IRS says you must do on Form 8606 rather than what you get by tracking the basis on a daily basis. IRS regulations and instructions are not necessarily the same as what the tax law says; they are interpretations of the tax law based on what the IRS understands the tax law to say. People have challenged various specific IRS regulations and interpretations as being different from what the law says in Tax Court and been successful in some cases and failed in others. If you believe that tracking basis on a daily basis is what the law says (instead of just being reasonable and rational: reasonableness and rationality are not required either of Congress in the laws that they write or the IRS regulations that interpret the laws), you should take up the matter with the IRS or the Tax Court.",
"qid": 10447,
"docid": "407591",
"rank": 61,
"score": 113385
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: All the answers that show the equivalency of 401(k) pre-tax and Roth 401(k) post-tax using equivalent contributions are correct assuming equivalent tax rates upon withdrawal. There is some potential gain if your tax rate upon retirement is higher than your working tax rate, but often people calculate a smaller percentage of their working income for their retirement income, which may offset a higher tax-rate anyway. In my mind, the primary advantage of a Roth 401(k) is that it effectively allows you to contribute more for retirement if you are currently maxing out your contributions in a regular 401(k) and IRA and want to contribute more. Doing so can be a big advantage when you are young and can benefit from those additional dollars being put into your retirement account early. This is effectively what is illustrated by the Fidelity calculation, and is something to consider if you are of the mind to aggressively save early for retirement. The reason Roth allows you to contribute more is because traditional IRA contributions are capped. Suppose the cap is $5500. Suppose also you immediately rollover your traditional IRA to a Roth IRA. This is a post-tax contribution, and growth on that is tax-free. If you maxed out your employer pre-tax 401(k) to $17500 and maxed out your IRA, you have maxed out your retirement contributions to $23000. Suppose two doublings, then the 401(k) has grown to $70000, and the IRA has grown to $22000. However, the withdrawal from the 401(k) is taxed, so assuming 25%, the total is $74500 after tax. Now, suppose instead you maxed out your employer Roth 401(k) post-tax instead, so you have put in $17500 post tax. And now, also max out your IRA. Now, all of your $23000 grows tax-free. So upon two doublings, you walk away with $92000. This is because you maxed out your contribution post-tax, meaning it was as if you were allowed to contribute $23333 to your pre-tax 401(k). So if you intend to max out your retirement account contributions, and are looking to contribute even more to retirement accounts, one way is two change over to contributing into the employer Roth 401(k).",
"qid": 10447,
"docid": "396257",
"rank": 62,
"score": 112916
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"1) Usually, the choice between Traditional vs. Roth is whether you believe that your tax rate will be higher or lower in the future than it is now. Your income is probably in the 25% bracket now. It's hard to say whether that should be considered \"\"high\"\" or \"\"low\"\". Some people advocate Roth only for 15% bracket; but your income would probably go into higher brackets in the future, so Roth may be preferable from this point of view. Roth IRA also has another advantage that the principal of contributions can be taken out at any time without tax or penalty, so it can serve as an emergency fund just as well as money in taxable accounts. Given that you may not have a lot of money saved up right now, this is useful. 2) In a sense, it's nice to have a mix of Traditional and Roth when you withdraw to hedge against uncertainty in future tax rates and have the option of choosing whichever one is advantageous to withdraw when you need to withdraw. That said, you will likely have many years of access to a 401k and high income in your future working years, in which you can contribute to a Traditional 401k (or if no access to 401k, then Traditional IRA), so a mix will almost certainly happen even if you go all Roth IRA now. 3) I think that depends on you, whether you are a hands-on or hands-off kind of investor.\"",
"qid": 10447,
"docid": "41417",
"rank": 63,
"score": 112846
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"If I understand correctly, the Traditional IRA, if you have 401k with an employer already, has the following features: Actually, #1 and #2 are characteristics of Roth IRAs, not Traditional IRAs. Only #3 is a characteristic of a Traditional IRA. Whether you have a 401(k) with your employer or not makes absolutely no difference in how your IRAs are taxed for the vast majority of people. (The rules for IRAs are different if you have a very high income, though). You're allowed to have and contribute to both kinds of accounts. (In fact, I personally have both). Traditional IRAs are tax deferred (not tax-free as people sometimes mistakenly call them - they're very different), meaning that you don't have to pay taxes on the contributions or profits you make inside the account (e.g. from dividends, interest, profits from stock you sell, etc.). Rather, you pay taxes on any money you withdraw. For Roth IRAs, the contributions are taxed, but you never have to pay taxes on the money inside the account again. That means that any money you get over and above the contributions (e.g. through interest, trading profits, dividends, etc.) are genuinely tax-free. Also, if you leave any of the money to people, they don't have to pay any taxes, either. Important point: There are no tax-free retirement accounts in the U.S. The distinction between different kinds of IRAs basically boils down to \"\"pay now or pay later.\"\" Many people make expensive mistakes in their retirement strategy by not understanding that point. Please note that this applies equally to Traditional and Roth 401(k)s as well. You can have Roth 401(k)s and Traditional 401(k)s just like you can have Roth IRAs and Traditional IRAs. The same terminology and logic applies to both kinds of accounts. As far as I know, there aren't major differences tax-wise between them, with two exceptions - you're allowed to contribute more money to a 401(k) per year, and you're allowed to have a 401(k) even if you have a high income. (By way of contrast, people with very high incomes generally aren't allowed to open IRAs). A primary advantage of a Traditional IRA is that you can (in theory, at least) afford to contribute more money to it due to the tax break you're getting. Also, you can defer taxes on any profits you make (e.g. through dividends or selling stock at a profit), so you can grow your money faster.\"",
"qid": 10447,
"docid": "308150",
"rank": 64,
"score": 112552
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Conversions are done on a pro-rata basis. If you haven't yet paid tax on the money, you need to do so in the process of converting. Let's say you have a total of $50k in your account: If you decide to convert half of this to a Roth ($25k), you'd owe tax on $20k of that, because 80% of your holdings in the traditional IRA have not been taxed yet. The non-deductible contributions have been taxed, so you don't need to pay tax again on that part. More information is here.",
"qid": 10447,
"docid": "365521",
"rank": 65,
"score": 112140
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: For #1, I see no advantage in putting money from your non-retirement savings into a Roth just for the purpose of using it as a down payment on your house. Why not just put the $5.5K directly toward the down payment? For #2, dollars converted from a traditional 401K or IRA to a Roth are considered income, and will be taxed at your marginal rate. So if your marginal tax rate is 25%, you will need to pay $5K in order to convert the $20K. Usually this payment is done independent of the conversion amount--in other words, you would convert the full $20K but pay the $5K in taxes out of other funds (checking/savings). Based on your stated goals of using the money for a down payment on a house, I don't see any advantage to contributing (or converting) to a Roth IRA.",
"qid": 10447,
"docid": "196653",
"rank": 66,
"score": 111494
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I think others have made the key points. Let me just add: As others have pointed out, the traditional IRA is better if your tax rate in retirement is lower than it is when you are building the account. The Roth IRA is better if your tax rate in retirement is higher. For most people, your income in retirement will be lower than your income in most of your working years. On top of that, a significant percentage of your income will come from Social Security, which is generally not taxed, and so the tax rate you pay on the remaining income will be lower still. If you're just starting out, if you're in your 20s, it's likely that your income will go up significantly in the next couple of decades and so you might be making more in retirement that you are now, and so the Roth is probably your better bet. But if you're in your 40s or 50s you are probably making your peak income, you will have much less in retirement, and the traditional IRA is likely better. If your income is well above average and you are saving enough to have a retirement income well above average, then social security may be a very small part of your retirement and my comments on that may not be relevant to you. It's true that tax rates could change in the future. But will they go up or down? It's also possible that the laws about retirement accounts will change. If you think you have some insight into what will happen in the future you may want to take that into account when making plans. But politics is very hard to predict.",
"qid": 10447,
"docid": "500294",
"rank": 67,
"score": 111311
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: It sounds like you're comparing (1) the backdoor Roth IRA and (2) the mega backdoor Roth. Although the names are similar they are considerably different, and not mutually exclusive. The goal of the backdoor Roth IRA is to contribute to a Roth IRA even if you are over the income limits. This is accomplished by contributing to a non-deductible Traditional IRA and then converting to Roth. Both of these steps have no income limit (unlike a direct Roth IRA contribution, which does), and only the earnings (which should be minimal) will be taxed. More info here (mirror). The goal of the mega backdoor Roth is to get a lot of money into Roth accounts through salary deferral. This is accomplished by making non-Roth after-tax contributions to your 401(k) after exhausting the $18,000 limit (in 2017) for pre-tax + Roth employee contributions. The after-tax contributions (potentially up to $36,000 for 2017) can be rolled over to the Roth 401(k) or to a Roth IRA, while the earnings can be rolled over to the pre-tax 401(k) or a Traditional IRA, or taxed like regular income and converted to Roth along with the contributions. More info here (mirror).",
"qid": 10447,
"docid": "222836",
"rank": 68,
"score": 111191
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: There is nothing wrong with self directed IRA's the problem is that most of the assets they specialize in are better done in other ways. Real estate is already extremely tax advantaged in the US. Buying inside a Traditional IRA would turn longterm capital gains (currently 15%) into ordinary income taxed at your tax rate when you withdraw this may be a plus or minus, but it is more likely than not that your ordinary income tax rate is higher. You also can't do the live in each house for 2 years before selling plan to eliminate capital gains taxes (250k individual 500k married couple). The final problem is that you are going to have problems getting a mortgage (it won't be a conforming loan) and will likely have to pay cash for any real estate purchased inside your IRA. Foreign real estate is similar to above except you have additional tax complexities. The key to the ownership in a business is that there are limits on who can control the business (you and maybe your family can't control the business). If you are experienced doing angel investing this might be a viable option (assuming you have a really big IRA you want to gamble with). If you want to speculate on precious metals you will probably be better offer using ETF's in a more traditional brokerage account (lower transactions costs more liquidity).",
"qid": 10447,
"docid": "573935",
"rank": 69,
"score": 110595
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Your tax bracket is determined by your total taxable income in a given year, where money drawn from a traditional-style deferred-tax 401k or IRA is taxable income. (Money drawn from a Roth account was taxed before deposit and is not taxed when withdrawn after the relevant date.) Your recent salary history has no effect on this, except salary in the same year -- and there is no advantage to be gained by taking a deliberate pay cut for its own sake.",
"qid": 10447,
"docid": "9845",
"rank": 70,
"score": 110258
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: There are a few incorrect assumptions in your question but the TL;DR version is: All, or most, of the withdrawal is taxable income that is reported on Lines 15a (total distribution) and 15b (taxable amount) of Form 1040. None of the distribution is given special treatment as Qualified Dividends or Capital Gains regardless of what happened inside the IRA, and none of the distribution is subject to the 3.8% Net Investment Income Tax that some high-income people need to compute on Form 8960. If the withdrawal is not a Qualified Distribution, it will be subject to a 10% excise tax (tax penalty on premature withdrawal). Not all contributions to Traditional IRAs are deductible from income for the year for which the contribution was made. People with high income and/or coverage by a workplace retirement plan (pension plan, 401(k) plan, 403(b) plan, etc) cannot deduct any contributions that they choose to make to a Traditional IRA. Such people can always make a contribution (subject to them having compensation (earned income such as salary or wages, self-employment income, commissions on sales, etc), but they don't get a tax deduction for it (just as contributions to Roth IRAs are not deductible). Whether it is wise to make such nondeductible contributions to a Traditional IRA is a question on which reasonable people can hold different opinions. Be that as it may, nondeductible contributions to a Traditional IRA create (or add to) what is called the basis of an IRA. They are reported to the IRS on Form 8606 which is attached to the Federal Form 1040. Note that the IRA custodian or trustee is not told that the contributions are not deductible. Earnings on the basis accumulate tax-deferred within the IRA just as do the earnings on the deductible contributions. Now, when you make a withdrawal from your Traditional IRA, no matter which of your various IRA accounts you take the money from, part of the money is deemed to be taken from the basis (and is not subject to income tax) while the rest is pure taxable income. That is, none of the rest is eligible for the reduced taxation rates for Qualified Dividends or Capital Gains and since it does not count as investment income, it is not subject to the 3.8% Net Investment Tax of Form 8960 either. Computation of how much of your withdrawal is nontaxable basis and how much is taxable income is done on Form 8606. Note that you don't get to withdraw your entire basis until such time as when you close all your Traditional IRA accounts. How is all this reported? Well, your IRA custodian(s) will send you Form 1099-R reporting the total amount of the withdrawal, what income tax, if any, was withheld, etc. The custodian(s) don't know what your basis is, and so Box 2b will say that the taxable amount is not determined. You need to fill out Form 8606 to figure out what the taxable amount is, and then report the taxable amount on Line 15b of Form 1040. (The total withdrawal is reported on Line 15a which is not included in the AGI computations). Note that as far as the IRS is concerned, you have only one Traditional IRA. The A in IRA stands for Arrangement, not Account as most everybody thinks, and your Traditional IRA can invest in many different things, stocks, bonds, mutual funds, etc with different custodians if you choose, but your basis is in the IRA, not the specific investment that you made with your nondeductible contribution. That's why the total IRA contribution is limited, not the per-account contribution, and why you need to look that the total value of your IRA in determining the taxable portion, not the specific account(s) from which you withdrew the money. So, how much basis did you withdraw? Well, if you withdrew $W during 2016 and the total value of all your Traditional IRA accounts was $X at the end of 2016 and your total basis in your Traditional IRA is $B, then (assuming that you did not indulge in any Traditional-to-Roth rollovers for 2016), multiply W by B/(W+X) to get the amount of nontaxable basis in the withdrawal. B thus gets reduced for 2017 by amount of basis withdrawal. What if you never made a nondeductible contribution to your Traditional IRA, or you made some nondeductible contributions many years ago and have forgotten about them? Well, you could still fill out Form 8606 reporting a zero basis, but it will just tell you that your basis continues $0. Or, you could just enter the total amount of your withdrawal in Lines 15a and 15b, effectively saying that all of the withdrawal is taxable income to you. The IRS does not care if you choose to pay taxes on nontaxable income.",
"qid": 10447,
"docid": "482768",
"rank": 71,
"score": 110162
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: One big pie chart. Traditional (pretax) 401(k) and IRA, Roth 401(k) and IRA, and non-tax favored accounts. All of these need to be viewed holistically, the non-favored money is where I'd keep cash/low return safe instruments, Roth IRA for highest growth.",
"qid": 10447,
"docid": "541783",
"rank": 72,
"score": 110144
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You won't get taxed twice because it's different money going into each account type. In the Roth you've put after tax earnings and those will continue to grow tax free (assuming you wait til 59.5 to start your withdraws). The traditional IRA is going to be funded with your old 401k, which was funded with pre-tax dollars they took from your paycheck. So you'll still pay taxes on the back end for the traditional IRA (money you've never been taxed on) but your Roth has money where tax has already been taken out so no extra tax there. You can have both types of accounts, it's pretty common considering most 401k plans are pre tax but many people see the benefit of a Roth as greater than the tax write off you get from the 401k, but if your company matches you're not gonna leave free money on the table. Hope that helps.",
"qid": 10447,
"docid": "287391",
"rank": 73,
"score": 110130
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Your best bets are a Roth IRA or traditional IRA. If you roll it to a Roth, you will have to pay taxes on the amount you roll over (unless it was a Roth 401k), however what is in the Roth will grow tax free and it will be tax free when you withdraw. With a traditional IRA, you won't owe taxes on the money now but will pay taxes when you withdraw. You won't be able to withdraw this money until 59 1/2 years of age without paying a penalty, the same goes for your current 401k. If you take the money (for mortgage, other investment, etc.) and don't roll it over to a qualified account, you will owe taxes on it plus a 10% penalty. So you will only get between 60% and 70% of its value.",
"qid": 10447,
"docid": "399564",
"rank": 74,
"score": 110100
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Your approach sounds solid to me. Alternatively, if (as appears to be the case) then you might want to consider devoting your tax-advantaged accounts to tax-inefficient investments, such as REITs and high-yield bond funds. That way your investments that generate non-capital-gain (i.e. tax-expensive) income are safe from the IRS until retirement (or forever). And your investments that generate only capital gains income are safe until you sell them (and then they're tax-cheap anyway). Of course, since there aren't really that many tax-expensive investment vehicles (especially not for a young person), you may still have room in your retirement accounts after allocating all the money you feel comfortable putting into REITs and junk bonds. In that case, the article I linked above ranks investment types by tax-efficiency so you can figure out the next best thing to put into your IRA, then the next, etc.",
"qid": 10447,
"docid": "586756",
"rank": 75,
"score": 109888
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: In a traditional IRA (or 401k or equivalent), income tax is not taken on the money when it is deposited or when dividends are reinvested, but money you take out (after you can do do without penalty) is taxed as if it were ordinary income. (I believe that's true; I don't think you get to take the long-term investment rate.) Note that Roth is the opposite: you pay income tax up front before putting money into the retirement account, but you will eventually withdraw without paying any additional tax at that time. Unlike normal investments, neither of these requires tracking the details to know how much tax to pay. There are no taxes due on the reinvested dividends, and you don't need to track cost basis.",
"qid": 10447,
"docid": "583230",
"rank": 76,
"score": 109765
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: There is a process called a backdoor IRA. You now have effectively made a Roth IRA contribution in a year where technically you aren't eligible. You do not have to pay taxes on earnings with a Roth IRA. You are limited to the normal annual contribution to the IRA (Roth or traditional). If you don't convert your traditional IRA contribution to a Roth IRA, then you are right. That gains nothing except enhanced protection in bankruptcy. Only do this if you are taking advantage of the Roth rollover. I'm ignoring rolling over a 401k into an IRA, as that doesn't increase the amount you can contribute. This does. You can contribute the full $18,000 to the 401k and still make a full contribution to the backdoor IRA. This is the tax advantaged form of an IRA. This avoids double taxation. Let's assume that your investment can go into something with a 5% annual return and you pay a 25% tax rate (doesn't matter as it drops out). You are going to invest for thirty years and then withdraw. You initially have $1000 before taxes. With a regular investment: You now have $2867.74. With a pre-tax IRA. You now have $3241.45 (it is not an accident that this is almost the same as the amount before the capital gains tax in the example without an IRA). You avoided the $373.72 capital gains tax. Even though you paid a lot more tax, you paid it out of the gains from investing the original $250 that you would have paid in tax. This helps you even more if the capital gains tax goes up in the future. Or if your tax bracket changes. If you currently are in the 25% bracket but retire in the 15% bracket, these numbers will get even better in your favor. If you currently are in the 15% bracket and worry that you might retire in the 25% bracket, consider a Roth instead. It also avoids double taxation but its single taxation is at your current rate rather than your future rate.",
"qid": 10447,
"docid": "258658",
"rank": 77,
"score": 109701
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"While I can appreciate you're coming from a strongly held philosophy, I disagree strongly with it. I do not have any 401k or IRA I don't like that you need to rely on government and keep the money there forever. A 401k and an IRA allows you to work within the IRS rules to allow your gains to grow tax free. Additionally, traditional 401ks and IRAs allow you to deduct income from your taxes, meaning you pay less taxes. Missing out on these benefits because the rules that established them were created by the IRS is very very misguided. Do you refuse to drive a car because you philosophically disagree with speed limits? I am planning on spending 20k on a new car (paying cash) Paying cash for a new car when you can very likely finance it for under 2% means you are loosing the opportunity to invest that money which can conservatively expect 4% returns annually if invested. Additionally, using dealership financing can often be additional leverage to negotiate a lower purchase price. If for some reason, you have bad credit or are unable to secure a loan for under 4%, paying cash might be reasonable. The best thing you have going for you is your low monthly expenses. That is commendable. If early retirement is your goal, you should consider housing expenses as a part of your overall plan, but I would strongly suggest you start investing that money in stocks instead of a single house, especially when you can rent for such a low rate. A 3 fund portfolio is a classic and simple way to get a diverse portfolio that should see returns in good years and stability in bad years. You can read more about them here: http://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Three-fund_portfolio You should never invest in individual stocks. People make lots of money to professionally guess what stocks will do better than others, and they are still very often wrong. You should purchase what are sometimes called \"\"stocks\"\" but are really very large funds that contain an assortment of stocks blended together. You should also purchase \"\"bonds\"\", which again are not individual bonds, but a blend of the entire bond market. If you want to be very aggressive in your portfolio, go with 100-80% Stocks, the remainder in Bonds. If you are nearing retirement, you should be the inverse, 100-80% bonds, the remainder stocks. The rule of thumb is that you need 25 times your yearly expenses (including taxes, but minus pension or social security income) invested before you can retire. Since you'll be retiring before age 65, you wont be getting social security, and will need to provide your own health insurance.\"",
"qid": 10447,
"docid": "149357",
"rank": 78,
"score": 109633
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: There are a couple reasons for having a Traditional or Roth IRA in addition to a 401(k) program in general, starting with the Traditional IRA: With regards to the Roth IRA: Also, both the Traditional and Roth IRA allow you to make a $10,000 withdraw as a first time home buyer for the purposes of buying a home. This is much more difficult with the 401(k) and generally you end up having to take a loan against the 401(k) instead. So even if you can't take advantage of the tax deductions from contributions to a Traditional IRA, there are still good reasons to have one around. Unless you plan on staying with the same company for your entire career (and even if you do, they may have other plans) the Traditional IRA tends to be a much better place to park the funds from the 401(k) than just rolling them over to a new employer. Also, don't forget that just because you can't take deductions for the income doesn't mean that you might not need the income that savings now will bring you in retirement. If you use a retirement savings calculator is it saying that you need to be saving more than your current monthly 401(k) contributions? Then odds are pretty good that you also need to be adding additional savings and an IRA is a good location to put those assets because of the other benefits that they confer. Also, some people don't have the fiscal discipline to not use the money when it isn't hard to get to (i.e. regular savings or investment account) and as such it also helps to ensure you aren't going to go and spend the money unless you really need it.",
"qid": 10447,
"docid": "27495",
"rank": 79,
"score": 109538
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You're ignoring the fact that you still had the taxes from the $5500 (so $1375) left over when making the traditional IRA contribution. So yes, the Roth IRA grew without further taxing more than the Traditional IRA did; but you could've just as easily invested that $1375 in the same investments. While you'd owe taxes on them, true, you'd still earn a boatload of money. That's another $10,607 you've earned, not tax-free, but with gains at the 15% CGR is still $9170. So you now have $60,627 in the Roth, available tax-free, or you have $60,627 available at a 10% or so average rate (12% if you like, though I think you'll find it's more like 10%). Say $53351, plus $9170 from the not-sheltered income after taxes, for $62,521 after taxes. So you make about $2000 more by using the traditional IRA for $5500 and then just investing the rest in a long term account. The math might be slightly worse if you invest in something that has regular dividend taxes due, but if you're careful to use tax-favored investments you should be okay, and even if you don't you'll still end up ahead in the end if you make the same exact investment as your tax-sheltered account. Ultimately the question is: are you paying more in taxes now, or later, comparing now marginal rate to later average rate. If you are paying more in taxes now, then traditional IRA plus invest the rest unsheltered. If you're paying more later, then Roth IRA.",
"qid": 10447,
"docid": "165549",
"rank": 80,
"score": 109430
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The law says that you cannot make a contribution (whether tax-deductible or not) to a Traditional IRA for any year unless you (or your spouse if you are filing a joint tax return) have taxable compensation (income earned from the sweat of your brow such as wages, salary, self-employment income, commissions on sales, and also alimony or separate maintenance payments received under a divorce decree, etc) during that year, and you will not be 70.5 years old by the end of the year for which you are making the contribution. The contribution, of course, can be made up to Tax Day of the following year, and is limited to the lesser of the total compensation and $5500 ($6500 for people over 50). Assuming that you are OK on the compensation and age issue, yes, you can make a contribution to a Traditional IRA for an year in which you take a distribution from a Roth IRA. Whether you can deduct the Traditional IRA contribution depends on other factors such as your income and whether or not you or your spouse is covered by a workplace retirement plan.",
"qid": 10447,
"docid": "500913",
"rank": 81,
"score": 109402
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: As you already mentioned, a traditional 401K is tax-deferred, so you don't pay any taxes on the money in the account until you retire. A Roth 401K has already been taxed, so you don't pay taxes on withdrawal (assuming you withdrawal after 59 1/2 years of age) The Roth 401K is advantageous if you believe you'll be in a higher tax bracket than you are currently. This applies more so if you're out of school and your income is relatively small, but you think in 10-15 years you'll be making enough money to fall into the next tax bracket. In essence, you can use a Roth 401K as a way of diversifying your retirement money across different tax structures. References: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/roth401k.asp http://www.marketwatch.com/story/is-a-roth-ira-better-than-a-roth-401k-2014-03-21",
"qid": 10447,
"docid": "221050",
"rank": 82,
"score": 109345
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The first problem with your analysis is that you are not comparing equivalent contributions. The deductible Traditional IRA contribution is in terms of pre-tax money, whereas the Roth IRA contribution is in terms of post-tax money. A certain nominal amount of pre-tax money is equivalent to a smaller nominal amount of post-tax money, because taxes are taken out of it. For a fair comparison, you need to start with the same amount of pre-tax money being taken out of your wages. If you start with $1000 being taken out of your pre-tax wages, the deductible Traditional IRA contribution will be $1000, but your Roth IRA contribution will be $750, because 25% of it went to paying taxes. If you go through the calculation, you will see that after you withdraw it (and 25% taxes are paid in the Traditional case), you will be left with the exact same amount of money in your hand at the end in both cases. Even though you see that you end up with the same amount of money, you may still be confused because you paid different nominal amounts in taxes. That's the second problem with your analysis -- you are comparing the nominal amounts of taxes paid at different times. You are missing the time value of money. Would you rather pay $1000 of taxes today or $1001 of taxes in 10 years? Of course you would rather the latter, even though it is a higher nominal amount. A given amount of money now has the same value to you now as a bigger amount of money later. If I invest a given amount of money now, and it grows in to a bigger amount of money later, then that bigger amount of money later has the same value as the original contribution now. So the 25% tax on the contribution now is equivalent to the 25% tax on the total value later, even though the latter is a much bigger nominal amount. Another way to think about it is that you could have taken that 25% tax you paid now, and instead invest it, let it grow, and pay that result (which will still be 25% of the total later) in taxes later. You get to keep the remaining 75% of your investment either way. You are simply investing on behalf of the government the part of the money you would have paid them, and paying them the result of investing that portion of the money later.",
"qid": 10447,
"docid": "259766",
"rank": 83,
"score": 109070
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Luke, I'd like to point out some additional benefits of the Roth IRA accounts 1) Going Roth, you can effectively increase the amount of your contribution to your IRA account. In your example, you are assuming that your contribution to Roth IRA is in fact $ 85 ($100 less $ 15 tax paid). In reality, albeit more costly, Roth IRA allows you to contribute full $ 100 ($117.65 less $ 17.65 tax incurred.) Using this method you can in fact grow your tax-free funds to $ 1.006.27 over 30 years. The larger you effective tax rate is, the larger will be the difference between your maximum effective Traditional vs Roth IRA contribution will be. 2) Should you need to access your IRA funds in case of emergency (unqualified event of not buying your first home, nor paying for your college education), Roth IRA account contributions can be withdrawn without incurring the 10% penalty charge, that would be imposed on your unqualified Traditional IRA distribution. 3) As other contributors noted it's hard to believe that lower US tax rates would prevail. Chances are you will be contributing to Traditional 401k later throughout your work life. Having a Roth IRA account would afford you a tax diversification needed to hedge against possible tax rate hikes coming in the future. Considering the gloomy future of the Social Security funding, and ever-growing US national debt, can we really expect for there to not be any tax rate increases in the next 20-40 years?! By the way, as others pointed out your effective tax rate will always be lower than your marginal tax bracket.",
"qid": 10447,
"docid": "436884",
"rank": 84,
"score": 108962
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Something that's come up in comments and been alluded to in answers, but not explicit as far as I can tell: Even if your marginal tax rate now were equal to your marginal tax rate in retirement, or even lower, a traditional IRA may have advantages. That's because it's your effective tax rate that matters on withdrawls. (Based on TY 2014, single person, but applies at higher numbers for other arrangements): You pay 0 taxes on the first $6200 of income, and then pay 10% on the next $9075, then 15% on $27825, then 25% on the total amount over that up to $89530, etc. As such, even if your marginal rate is 25% (say you earn $80k), your effective rate is much less: for example, $80k income, you pay taxes on $73800. That ends up being $14,600, for an effective rate in total of 17.9%. Let's say you had the same salary, $80k, from 20 to 65, and for 45 years saved up 10k a year, plus earned enough returns to pay you out $80k a year in retirement. In a Roth, you pay 25% on all $10k. In a traditional, you save that $2500 a year (because it comes off the top, the amount over $36900), and then pay 17.9% during retirement (your effective tax rate, because it's the amount in total that matters). So for Roth you had 7500*(returns), while for Traditional the correct amount isn't 10k*(returns)*0.75, but 10k*(returns)*0.821. You make the difference between .75 and .82 back even with the identical income. [Of course, if your $10k would take you down a marginal bracket, then it also has an 'effective' tax rate of something between the two rates.] Thus, Roth makes sense if you expect your effective tax rate to be higher in retirement than it is now. This is very possible, still, because for people like me with a mortgage, high property taxes, two kids, and student loans, my marginal tax rate is pretty low - even with a reasonably nice salary I still pay 15% on the stuff that's heading into my IRA. (Sadly, my employer has only a traditional 401k, but they also contribute to it without requiring a match so I won't complain too much.) Since I expect my eventual tax rate to be in that 18-20% at a minimum, I'd benefit from a Roth IRA right now. This matters more for people in the middle brackets - earning high 5 figure salaries as individuals or low 6 figure as a couple - because the big difference is relevant when a large percentage of your income is in the 15% and below brackets. If you're earning $200k, then so much of your income is taxed at 28-33% it doesn't make nearly as much of a difference, and odds are you can play various tricks when you're retiring to avoid having as high of a tax rate.",
"qid": 10447,
"docid": "109982",
"rank": 85,
"score": 108607
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I may be missing something here, but I don't think this is a disadvantage. The fact that the employer contribution will be taxed is the same as it would be if it were a match in a traditional account, so the amount you lose to taxes on it is a wash. The employer contribution is only smaller if you can't afford to contribute as much to the Roth because it's post-tax, and therefore your contribution is under the cap for the match. If you're contributing the maximum the employer will match or higher, then I don't think there's any disadvantage on the match portion. First, the 5% cap on employer contributions is calculated on the gross, even in a Roth account. Second, the taxing of the amount contributed to a Roth does not reduce the dollar amount that goes into the Roth account, it just reduces your net pay. So if your contribution is $100 to a Traditional account, your gross pay is reduced by $100 and your Traditional account gains $100. In the Roth, your gross pay is still taxed as though that $100 were included, but the $100 is put into the Roth. The tax portion of that \"\"after tax\"\" money does not reduce the amount of the contribution.\"",
"qid": 10447,
"docid": "529543",
"rank": 86,
"score": 108578
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Your math is correct. If you take the same amount of pre-tax wages (assuming that that amount can be fully contributed in both Traditional and Roth cases), and assuming the same flat tax rate when contributing and withdrawing, then the two are the same. However, we don't have a flat tax, and due to the way our tax brackets work, there is often a slight advantage to Traditional accounts. Recall that not every dollar of your income is taxed at the same rate; the tax bracket only describes the rate that the last dollar of your income is taxed at. But some of your income will be taxed at lower brackets. No matter what your income is, your first $x of income will be taxed at 10%, then $y at 15%, etc. So what is the tax rate of the dollars of income that you used to contribute to a retirement account? Is it the first dollars of income? The last dollars of income? or what? Since we are comparing an after-tax contribution (Roth) versus a pre-tax contribution (Traditional) whose income doesn't show up in taxable income, and all other income is equal, the dollars contributed is considered to come from the top in the Roth case. Similarly, when you withdraw in the Traditional case, the withdrawal counts as income; is it the first dollar of income or the last dollar of income? Again, since we are comparing the situation where the withdrawal counts as income (Traditional) with the one where it doesn't (Roth), all other income being equal, the taxable income is considered to be added to the top. The difference is that when you contribute to a retirement account, you contribute a very small percentage of your income every year, probably no more than 5-10%. If we count down from the top, this small percentage of your income probably falls wholly within a bracket (in other words, the taxable income in Traditional and Roth cases are likely in the same bracket), so the entire contribution is at the same rate -- your marginal rate, the rate you cite as your tax bracket. However, when you withdraw in retirement, it is likely that every year, the retirement account withdrawals account for a large percentage of your income, maybe even half or more. If we count down from the top, this large percentage of your income probably crosses into lower brackets (in other words, the taxable income in Traditional and Roth cases are likely to be in different brackets), so the withdrawal is partly taxed at one rate, partly taxed at another. So if your tax bracket is 15% in the Traditional case, it's likely that your withdrawal is taxed partly at 15% and partly at 10%. So in this case, the average tax rate on the withdrawal is lower than your \"\"bracket\"\".\"",
"qid": 10447,
"docid": "457276",
"rank": 87,
"score": 108539
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: As far as I know, there is no direct equivalent. An IRA is subject to many rules. Not only are there early withdrawal penalties, but the ability to deduct contributions to an IRA phases out with one's income level. Qualified withdrawals from an IRA won't have penalties, but they will be taxed as income. Contributions to a Roth IRA can be made post-tax and the resulting gains will be tax free, but they cannot be withdrawn early. Another tax-deductable investment is a 529 plan. These can be withdrawn from at any time, but there is a penalty if the money is not used for educational purposes. A 401K or similar employer-sponsored fund is made with pre-tax dollars unless it is designated as a Roth 401K. These plans also require money to be withdrawn specifically for retirement, with a 10% penalty for early withdrawal. Qualifying withdrawals from a regular retirement plan are taxed as income, those from a Roth plan are not (as with an IRA). Money can be made harder to get at by investing in all of the types of funds you can invest in using an IRA through the same brokers under a different type of account, but the contribution will be made with post-tax, non-deductable dollars and the gains will be taxed.",
"qid": 10447,
"docid": "545184",
"rank": 88,
"score": 108476
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I'm not sure why you want to put this into a traditional IRA. Variable annuities are already tax-deferred so you're not gaining any tax advantage there. Depending on your tax situation you could claim a loss if you sell.",
"qid": 10447,
"docid": "327113",
"rank": 89,
"score": 108211
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: 3 Yes, a big yes, it cannot go into the account it came from. Then both accounts >can't be touched for a year. 3) Actually it looks like you can reinvest it in the same IRA account. Based on IRS publication 590 http://www.irs.gov/publications/p590/ch01.html You can withdraw, tax free, all or part of the assets from one traditional IRA if you reinvest them within 60 days in the same or another traditional IRA. Because this is a rollover, you cannot deduct the amount that you reinvest in an IRA.",
"qid": 10447,
"docid": "83996",
"rank": 90,
"score": 108198
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I think you may be drawing the wrong conclusion about why you put what type of investment in a taxable vs. tax-advantaged account. It is not so much about risk, but type of return. If you're investing both tax-advantaged and taxable accounts, you can benefit by putting more tax-inefficient investments inside your tax-advantaged accounts. Some aggressive asset types, like real estate, can throw off a lot of taxable income. If your asset allocation calls for investing in real estate, holding it in a 401k or IRA can allow more of your money to remain invested, rather than having to use it to pay for taxes. And if you're holding in a Roth IRA, you get that tax free. But bonds, a decidedly non-aggressive asset, also throw off a lot of taxable income. You're able to hold them in a tax-advantaged account and not pay taxes on the income until you withdraw it from the account (or tax free in the case of a Roth account.) An aggressive stock fund that is primarily expected to provide returns via price appreciation would do well in a taxable account because there's likely little tax consequence to you until it is sold.",
"qid": 10447,
"docid": "187571",
"rank": 91,
"score": 107853
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Assuming that the conversion was completely non-taxable (i.e. your Traditional IRA was 100% basis), then the converted money can be taken out at any time whatsoever (no 5 year or age stuff), without tax or penalty, similar to directly contributed money. For withdrawing conversions and rollovers within 5 years of the conversion or rollover, the penalty only applies to the part of the conversion or rollover that was taxable. Since in this case the conversion was completely non-taxable, there is no penalty on the withdrawal. However, note that the ordering of the conversion money is not the same as for contribution money, and this may be significant in some cases. When you take money out of Roth IRA, it goes 1) contributions, 2) rollovers and conversions, and 3) earnings. However, money within (2) is then further divided by year, with rollovers and contributions for earlier years ordered before rollovers and contributions for later years, and then within each year, the taxable rollover and conversion money are ordered first, before the non-taxable money. So what does that mean? Well, suppose you made a Roth IRA conversion that was taxable one year, and then the next year you make a contribution. If you withdraw a little bit, it comes from the contribution which is ordered first, which means no penalty. Now suppose in that second year you had a backdoor Roth IRA contribution instead of a regular contribution. If you withdraw, the first year's conversion is ordered first, and since it's within 5 years, there's a penalty. It's still true that withdrawing the backdoor Roth IRA has no penalty; but, you don't get to that money until you finish the other one. If you've never made a taxable conversion before, then this issue doesn't exist.",
"qid": 10447,
"docid": "538462",
"rank": 92,
"score": 106499
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Here are the few scenarios that may be worth noting in terms of using different types of accounts: Traditional IRA. In this case, the monies would grow tax-deferred and all monies coming out will be taxed as ordinary income. Think of it as everything is in one big black box and the whole thing is coming out to be taxed. Roth IRA. In this case, you could withdraw the contributions anytime without penalty. (Source should one want it for further research.) Past 59.5, the withdrawals are tax-free in my understanding. Thus, one could access some monies earlier than retirement age if one considers all the contributions that are at least 5 years old. Taxable account. In this case, each year there will be distributions to pay taxes as well as anytime one sells shares as that will trigger capital gains. In this case, taxes are worth noting as depending on the index fund one may have various taxes to consider. For example, a bond index fund may have some interest that would be taxed that the IRA could shelter to some extent. While index funds can be a low-cost option, in some cases there may be capital gains each year to keep up with the index. For example, small-cap indices and value indices would have stocks that may \"\"outgrow\"\" the index by either becoming mid-cap or large-cap in the case of small-cap or the value stock's valuation rises enough that it becomes a growth stock that is pulled out of the index. This is why some people may prefer to use tax-advantaged accounts for those funds that may not be as tax-efficient. The Bogleheads have an article on various accounts that can also be useful as dg99's comment referenced. Disclosure: I'm not an accountant or work for the IRS.\"",
"qid": 10447,
"docid": "272458",
"rank": 93,
"score": 106235
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you made a contribution to a Traditional IRA for Year X (whether made during Year X or made in Year X+1 before the due date of your tax return for Year X), then you can withdraw the contribution and any gains on that contribution by the due date of your tax return. If the contribution was deductible, then of course you must not take a deduction for it in on your tax return for Year X (or any other year for that matter). As for the gains (if any) that were withdrawn, they are taxable income to you for Year X (not X+1, even if the withdrawal occurred in Year X+1). Publication 590a says You generally can make a tax-free withdrawal of contributions if you do it before the due date for filing your tax return for the year in which you made them. This means that, even if you are under age 59-1/2, the 10% additional tax may not apply. and later in the same Publication If you have an extension of time to file your return, you can withdraw them tax free by the extended due date. You can do this if, for each contribution you withdraw, both of the following conditions apply. - You did not take a deduction for the contribution. - You withdraw any interest or other income earned on the contribution. You can take into account any loss on the contribution while it was in the IRA when calculating the amount that must be withdrawn. If there was a loss, the net income earned on the contribution may be a negative amount. Later, the document says You must include in income any earnings on the contributions you withdraw. Include the earnings in income for the year in which you made the contributions, not the year in which you withdraw them. and The 10% additional tax on distributions made before you reach age 59-1/2 does not apply to these tax-free withdrawals of your contributions. However, the distribution of interest or other income must be reported on Form 5329 and, unless the distribution qualifies as an exception to the age 59-1/2 rule, it will be subject to this tax. Since you have a loss on the contributions that you are withdrawing, there is no interest or other income that needs to be reported.",
"qid": 10447,
"docid": "415815",
"rank": 94,
"score": 106112
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Why shouldn't I just keep my money in the savings account and earn the same amount (both accounts have the same APY in this case)? I will assume that you are transferring money from your savings account into a Traditional IRA and deducting the contribution from your income. While you may think that the money that is being transferred is yours already -- it is sitting in your savings account, for Pete's sake! -- you are deducting that amount in getting to your taxable income, and so you are effectively contributing it from current income and not paying taxes on the amount contributed. So, consider the same amount of money sitting in your savings account versus the same amount of money sitting in your Traditional IRA account. While you will earn the same amount of interest in both accounts, you will have to pay taxes each year on the interest earned in the savings account. You might choose, as most people do, to not take money out of the savings account to pay theses taxes but just pay them from ready cash/checking account/current income etc., or these taxes might just reduce the refund that you will getting from the IRS and your State income tax authority, but in either case, you have paid taxes on the interest earned in your non-IRA savings account, and of course, long ago, you also paid taxes on the original amount in the non-IRA savings account. So, if you take any money out of the non-IRA savings account, you don't pay any taxes on the amount withdrawn except possibly for the interest earned from January 1 till the date of withdrawal (which you are paying from ready cash). On the other hand, consider the Traditional IRA. The original deposit was not taxed in the sense that you got a deduction (reduced tax or increased refund) when you made the contribution. The annual interest earned was not taxed each year either. So when you make a qualified withdrawal (after age 59.5 or by meeting one of the other exceptions allowing withdrawal before age 59.5), you are taking money on which you have not paid any taxes at all, and the IRS wants its cut. The money withdrawn is taxable income to you. Furthermore, the money withdrawn is not eligible for any kind of favorable treatment such as having it count as qualified dividends or as long-term capital gains even if your IRA was invested in stocks and the money in the account is all qualified dividends or long-term capital gains. If you make an unqualified withdrawal, you owe a penalty (technically named an excise tax) in addition to income tax on the amount withdrawn. If you are investing in a Roth IRA, you will not be getting a deduction when you make the contribution, and qualified withdrawals are completely tax-free, and so the answer is completely different from the above.",
"qid": 10447,
"docid": "461084",
"rank": 95,
"score": 106035
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Yes, you can withdraw the excess contribution (or actually any amount you contributed for 2015, not necessarily an excess), plus earnings from that withdrawn contribution, by April 15, and not incur a penalty for the excess contribution. It would count as if you did not contribute that amount at all. The earnings would be taxed as regular income, and the earnings may incur a penalty. Yes, you can \"\"recharacterize\"\" (all or part of) your Roth IRA contribution as a Traditional IRA contribution (or vice versa) by April 15. Recharacterization means you pretend the contribution was originally made as a Traditional IRA contribution, and did not involve Roth IRA at all. (\"\"Conversion\"\" is something very different and can only go from Traditional to Roth, not the other way around.) You are likely not eligible to deduct that Traditional IRA contribution, so you will have to report it as a non-deductible Traditional IRA contribution on a 2015 Form 8606 Part 1. Note that after you've recharacterized it as a Traditional IRA contribution, you can also then \"\"convert\"\" that Traditional IRA money to a Roth IRA if you want, achieving the same state as what you have now. Contributing to a Traditional IRA and then converting to a Roth IRA is called a \"\"backdoor Roth IRA contribution\"\"; if you don't have any existing pre-tax money in Traditional IRA or other IRAs, then this achieves the same as a regular Roth IRA contribution except with no income limits. When you convert, the earnings you have made since contributing will be taxed as income. If you had done the backdoor originally to begin with (convert right after contributing), you would have had no earnings in between and no tax to pay, but since if you do the conversion now you have waited so long, you are disadvantaged by having to pay tax on the earnings in between. If you convert, you will have to fill out Form 8606 Part 2 for the year you convert (2016).\"",
"qid": 10447,
"docid": "311884",
"rank": 96,
"score": 106003
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: What you should do is re-characterize contributions from being a Traditional IRA contributions to Roth IRA contributions. Call your broker that holds the account and ask how to do that. Note: re-characterize means you don't move the money to Roth account, you retroactively say that it was a Roth account to begin with. By re-characterization you're saying that your contribution, and all the earnings on it, are Roth from the start. This is different from moving (rolling over), and moving is not advised if you have significant Rollover IRA sums. If your MAGI is over the limit for Roth IRA as well (see table 2-1 in pub 590) then you keep it as non-deductible IRA contribution and report it on form 8606. In this case your wife's Roth IRA contribution should be recharacterized as traditional and reported as non-deductible on form 8606 as well.",
"qid": 10447,
"docid": "482137",
"rank": 97,
"score": 105397
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Lots of good answers. I'll try and improve by being more brief. For each option you will pay different taxes: Index Fund: Traditional IRA Roth IRA You can see that the Roth IRA is obviously better than investing in a taxable account. It may not be as obvious that the traditional IRA is better as well. The reason is that in the traditional account you can earn returns on the money that otherwise would have gone to the government today. The government taxes that money at the end, but they don't take all of it. In fact, for a given investment amount X and returns R, the decision of Roth vs Traditional depends only on your tax rate now vs at retirement because X(1-tax)(1+R_1)(1+R_2)...(1+R_n) = X(1+R_1)(1+R_2)...(1+R_n)(1-tax) The left hand side is what you will have at retirement if you do a Roth and the right hand side is what you will have at retirement if you do traditional. Only the tax rate differences between now and retirment matter here. An index fund investment is like the left hand side but has some additional tax terms on your capital gains. It's clearly worse than either.",
"qid": 10447,
"docid": "422119",
"rank": 98,
"score": 105162
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You asked specifically about the ROTH IRA option and stated you want to get the most bang for your buck in retirement. While others have pointed out the benefits of a tax deduction due to using a Traditional IRA instead, I haven't seen anyone point out some of the other differences between ROTH and Traditional, such as: I agree with your thoughts on using an IRA once you maximize the company match into a 401k plan. My reasoning is: I personally prefer ETFs over mutual funds for the ability to get in and out with limit, stop, or OCO orders, at open or anytime mid-day if needed. However, the price for that flexibility is that you risk discounts to NAV for ETFs that you wouldn't have with the equivalent mutual fund. Said another way, you may find yourself selling your ETF for less than the holdings are actually worth. Personally, I value the ability to exit positions at the time of my choosing more highly than the impact of tracking error on NAV. Also, as a final comment to your plan, if it were me I'd personally pay off the student loans with any money I had after contributing enough to my employer 401k to maximize matching. The net effect of paying down the loans is a guaranteed avg 5.3% annually (given what you've said) whereas any investments in 401k or IRA are at risk and have no such guarantee. In fact, with there being reasonable arguments that this has been an excessively long bull market, you might figure your chances of a 5.3% or better return are pretty low for new money put into an IRA or 401k today. That said, I'm long on stocks still, but then I don't have debt besides my mortgage at the moment. If I weren't so conservative, I'd be looking to maximize my leverage in the continued low rate environment.",
"qid": 10447,
"docid": "182305",
"rank": 99,
"score": 104957
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: There are 3 account types your question discusses and each has its good/bad points. The above is a snapshot of these account types. IRAs have income restrictions that may disallow a deduction on the traditional, or any deposit to Roth, etc. If this does not address your question, please comment, and I'll edit for better clarity.",
"qid": 10447,
"docid": "89868",
"rank": 100,
"score": 104644
}
] |
Is it okay to be married, 30 years old and have no retirement? | [
{
"content": "Title: Content: I'd try to (gently) point out to your husband that what he thinks he wants to do now and what he might want to do in 20 or 30 years are not necessarily the same thing. When I was 40 I was thinking that I would work until I died. Now I'm 58 and have health problems and I'm counting down the days until I can retire. Even if your husband is absolutely certain that he will not change his mind about retiring in the next 20+ years, maybe something will happen that puts things beyond his control. Like medical problems, or simply getting too old to be able to work. Is he sure that he will be able to continue to put in 40 hour weeks when he's 80? 90? 100? Just because you put money away for retirement doesn't mean that you are required to retire. If you put money away, and when the time comes you don't want to retire, great! Now you can collect the profits on your investments in addition to collecting your salary and live very well. Or have a nice nest egg to leave to your children. Putting money away for retirement gives you options. Retirement doesn't necessarily mean sitting around the house doing nothing until you waste away and die of boredom. My parents were busier after they retired then when they were working. They spent a lot of time on charity work, visiting people in the hospital, working with their church, that sort of thing. Some people start businesses. As they have retirement income coming in, they don't have to worry about the business earning enough to provide a living, so they can do something they want to do because they think it's fun or contributes to society or whatever. Etc.",
"qid": 10462,
"docid": "66376",
"rank": 1,
"score": 135960
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Here is something that should help your decision: Currently you are 57, suppose that means that you will still work for 10 years, and then be retired for another 20 before you sell the house. Your retirement account is nearly flat, so you will have to support yourself with your own income. If there are no surprises, you and your wife could expect to earn 1.16 million over the next 10 years. There will be interest on your savings, but also inflation, so to simplify I will ignore both. That means you will have an average of 40k (gross?) per year available to live from during the next 30 years. If you get a mortgage where you only pay nett 3% interest (no payback of the loan), that would cost you 6k per year on interest (based on 350k-150k), if you also want to pay back the 200k difference within 30 years, it would totally be close to 13k in annual interest+payback. Now consider whether you would rather live on 40k per year in your current place, or on a lower amount in a bigger place. Personally I would not choose to make a 200k investment at this point, perhaps after trying to live on a budget for a while. (This has the additional benefit that you can even build some cash reserve before buying anything.)",
"qid": 10462,
"docid": "361126",
"rank": 2,
"score": 133740
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You are only 33, with plenty of time to generate long-term returns. A correction is an opportunity for you to buy more at a lower price. My advice: invest about half in an index fund (S&P 500, for example) and half in a target fund (pick your retirement age), keep saving regularly, and in 30 years you'll be very happy you did. 5-10K a month is fine until all of the money is invested. (You said this is a retirement account, so invest the entire amount. Keep a rainy day fund in your non-retirement savings.) You can fiddle around with how you invest the money and I'm sure you'll get variations on my answer. My above suggestions may not be the absolute best option, but they are certainly not the worst option. Given that you are very risk-averse, keep in mind that you are in this for the long term and should be investing in something where you can safely ignore short-term downswings.",
"qid": 10462,
"docid": "579848",
"rank": 3,
"score": 126832
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Ok, since you asked, I'll explain. If you are middle class in the US, that means you make more money than 90% of the world's population (maybe even more than 90%). You just have to save more than what you spend and invest instead of spending on credit. In 30 years you will have enough money to live very comfortably. You just have to have the commitment and the focus to do it. When you reach 50 you'll have enough money to be considered rich, ie. your house paid for, a nice savings account, investments, retirement accounts and no debt. I've been \"\"preaching\"\" this for a long time and none of my friends/family wanted to listen. Read \"\"[The Wealthy Barber](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wealthy_Barber)\"\" for more if you are curious. ***Edit, provided a link.\"",
"qid": 10462,
"docid": "188750",
"rank": 4,
"score": 126611
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I think you're really underestimating the degree of ageism that occurs in hiring and just how much youth is favoured in the job markets. Experience costs more and it depreciates quickly. In most case employers will prefer someone less experienced who comes across as mature and less expensive than someone who is more experienced but has been our of the industry for a year or more. The attitude of \"\"you can't teach an old job new tricks\"\" rules. Your 30s represent the ideal sweet spot: you are still young and you have some experience. If you're not in full preparing for retirement mode by 40 or 45, you're going to have a bad time. GenXers have lost most of their sweet spot and if the recovery doesn't happen, they will have lost all of it. Yes, Millenials have it pretty bad too -- no one is disputing that -- but GenX was screwed from the start. We have larger generations on either side of us. We are a transitional generation that started out before computers went mainstream but ended after, so we have a hard time competing with Millenials who have lived with technology all their life. The whole structure of the world changed right under us, i.e., the end of the cold war. And this change significantly increased available labour. Even before 2008 the talk was all about how screwed the GenXers where because of the power of Boomers and the dominance of the Millenials. We already had our backs up against the wall then 2008 struck. Also, I'd much rather be 28 and looking for a job than 40+ and looking for one. It's so much easier to jump industries or cites or countries when younger and you don't have children to look after. The 28 year old is not locked a career path and has lost a ton of political capital and credibility for having lost their job. The 40+ year old will always have to face questions: why wasn't he/she one of the one the company kept during the layoffs? will he/she be able to learn and adapt to the new job? will he/she be comfortable reporting to someone younger? will he/she be will to sacrifice time away from kids to work longer hours to compete with younger employees?\"",
"qid": 10462,
"docid": "274962",
"rank": 5,
"score": 126442
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"To summarize your starting situation: You want to: Possible paths: No small business Get a job. Invest the 300K in safe liquid investments then move the maximum amount each year into your retirement accounts. Depending on which company you work for that could include 401K (Regular or Roth), deductible IRA, Roth IRA. The amount of money you can transfer is a function of the options they give you, how much they match, and the amount of income you earn. For the 401K you will invest from your paycheck, but pull an equal amount from the remainder of the 300K. If you are married you can use the same procedure for your spouse's account. You current income funds any vacations or splurges, because you will not need to put additional funds into your retirement plan. By your late 30's the 300K will now be fully invested in retirement account. Unfortunately you can't touch much of it without paying penalties until you are closer to age 60. Each year before semi-retirement, you will have to invest some of your salary into non-retirement accounts to cushion you between age 40 and age 60. Invest/start a business: Take a chunk of the 300K, and decide that in X years you will use it to start a small business. This chunk of money must be liquid and invested safely so that you can use it when you want to. You also don't want to invest it in investments that have a risk of loss. Take the remaining funds and invest it as described in the no small business section. You will completely convert funds to retirement funds earlier because of a smaller starting amount. Hopefully the small business creates enough income to allow you to continue to fund retirement or semi-retirement. But it might not. Comment regarding 5 year \"\"rules\"\": Roth IRA: you have to remain invested in the Roth IRA for 5 years otherwise your withdrawal is penalized. Investing in stocks: If your time horizon is short, then stocks are too volatile. If it drops just before you need the money, it might not recover in time. Final Advice: Get a financial adviser that will lay out a complete plan for a fixed fee. They will discuss investment options, types not particular funds. They will also explain the tax implications of investing in various retirement accounts, and how that will impact your semi-retirement plans. Review the plan every few years as tax laws change.\"",
"qid": 10462,
"docid": "259227",
"rank": 6,
"score": 126137
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"A 30-yr mortgage IS a committment. So, you are willing to commit to a place, but not your long-term girlfriend??? Either you don't do this \"\"cheap\"\" scheme idea, or you set up as a business arrangement, or you get married. This is quite a laissez-faire statement you make... \"\"Maybe we will eventually get married, maybe we will eventually break up, who knows.\"\" Anything or anyone that is a \"\"who knows\"\" is not what you make a 30-yr committment on. I mean, unless you just want to risk throwing your money away. Now, man up, hire the lawyer to do official paperwork or else get a legal certificate of civil union or marriage or whatever you want to call it. If you try to do your cockamamie scheme \"\"on the cheap\"\" now, it will most surely cost you dearly in the future! Mixing money (particulary huge sums of 200,000 $!) when there is no legal obligation like marriage or a business contract, is a fool's errand! Now, grow up and do it the right way if you want to help her - and yourself too.\"",
"qid": 10462,
"docid": "147422",
"rank": 7,
"score": 122546
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Last question first: The amount borrowed will not transfer to your loved ones upon death. Even if you were age 50, it is somewhat unlikely you will die in 30 years. First question: Are you okay with having a student loan that long? Keep in mind that making payments for that long will hinder your ability to build wealth, buy a home, and have disposable income. Presumably you are used to living like a college student. If you continue to do so, and maybe take on another job (for the time you used to spend in school), you could be done with this much sooner. 2k/month is doable and retires this in 5 years, but I would shoot for a shorter time frame than that. Hopefully by purposely incurring that much debt you bought yourself a high paying career.",
"qid": 10462,
"docid": "59683",
"rank": 8,
"score": 122315
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: While this is a totally personal decision, I still think it would be a good idea to have some life insurance simply because you have someone that is currently dependent on your income. Yes you have about 22 years in retirement, but if you consider taxes and market risk, there's still some uncertainty there. Also, while your wife may be willing and able to work now, will she want to do that for years just to earn living expenses? I would look at the costs on 10-year term life insurance and see if it's worth the extra peace of mind to you and your wife. If your wife is fine with using your retirement as life insurance, then you can probably be OK without it. So to answer the question, it may be acceptable, but it's generally a very cheap way to get a lot of peace. I would not worry too much about the opinions of your parents - unless they are going to pay for the insurance, it's your decision.",
"qid": 10462,
"docid": "326761",
"rank": 9,
"score": 121566
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Saving for retirement is important. So is living within one's means. Also--wear your sunscreen every day, rain or shine, never stop going to the gym, stay the same weight you were in high school, and eat your vegetables if you want to pass for 30 when you are 50.",
"qid": 10462,
"docid": "398731",
"rank": 10,
"score": 119686
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Not to pick your words apart, but I'm used to the word laddering as used with CDs or bonds, where one buys a new say, 7 year duration each year with old money coming due and, in effect, is always earning the longer term rate, while still having new funds available each year. So. The article you link suggests that there's money to be saved by not taking a long term policy on all the insurance you buy. They split $250K 30 year / $1M 20 year. The money saved by going short on the bigger policy is (they say) $11K. It's an interesting idea. Will you use the $11K saved to buy a new $1M 10 year policy in 20 years, or will you not need the insurance? There are situations where insurance needs drop, e.g. 20 years into my marriage, college fully funded as are retirement accounts. I am semi-retired and if I passed, there's enough money. There are also situations where the need runs longer. The concept in the article works for the former type of circumstance.",
"qid": 10462,
"docid": "83572",
"rank": 11,
"score": 118526
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I can understand your nervousness being 40 and no retirement savings. Its understandable especially given your parents. Before going further, I would really recommend the books and seminars on Love and Respect. The subject matter is Christian based, but it based upon a lot of secular research from the University of Washington and some other colleges. It sounds like to me, this is more of a relationship issue than a money issue. For the first step I would focus on the positive. The biggest benefit you have is: Your husband is willing to work! Was he lazy, there would be a whole different set of issues. You should thank him for this. More positives are that you don't have any credit card debt, you only have one car payment (not two), and that you are paying additional payments on each. I'd prefer that you had no car payment. But your situation is not horrible. So how do you improve your situation? In my opinion getting your husband on board would be the first priority. Ask him if he would like to get the car paid off as fast as possible, or, building an emergency fund? Pick one of those to focus on, and do it together. Having an emergency fund of 3 to 6 months of expense is a necessary precursor to investing, anyway so you from the limited info in your post you are not ready to pour money into your 401K. Have you ever asked what his vision is for his family financially? Something like: \"\"Honey you care for us so wonderfully, what is your vision for me and our children? Where do you see us in 5, 10 and 20 years?\"\" I cannot stress enough how this is a relationship issue, not a math issue. While the problems manifests themselves in your balance sheet they are only a symptom. Attempting to cure the symptom will likely result in resentment for both of you. There is only one financial author that focuses on relationships and their effect on finances: Dave Ramsey. Pick up a copy of The Total Money Makeover, do something nice for him, and then ask him to read it. If he does, do something else nice for him and then ask him what he thinks.\"",
"qid": 10462,
"docid": "441400",
"rank": 12,
"score": 118485
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I would focus first on maxing out your RRSPs (or 401k) each year, and once you've done that, try to put another 10% of your income away into unregistered long term growth savings. Let's say you're 30 and you've been doing that since you graduated 7 years ago, and maybe you averaged 8% p.a. return and an average of $50k per year salary (as a round number). I would say you should have 60k to 120k in straight up investments around age 30. If that's the case, you're probably well on your way to a very comfortable retirement.",
"qid": 10462,
"docid": "591705",
"rank": 13,
"score": 117667
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"What percent of my salary should I save? is tightly coupled with its companion, What size “nest egg” should my husband and I have, and by what age? Interestingly, Mr.Christer's answer, 10%, is the number that plugs into the equation that I reference. Jay's 25X rule is part of this. We start with the assumption that one's required income at retirement will be 80% of their pre-retirement income. That's high by some observations, low by others. A quick look at the expenses that go away in retirement - The above can total 35-40% It would be great if it ended there, but there are costs that go up. The above extra spending is tough to nail down, after all, you knew what you spent, and what's going away, but the new items? Crapshoot. (For non-native speakers - this refers to a game with dice, meaning a random event) Again, referencing Mr Christer's answer \"\"financial planners whom you could pay to give you a very accurate number,\"\" I'm going to disagree with that soundbyte. Consider, when retirement is 30 years away, you don't know much If I can offer an analogy. I once had the pleasure of hearing Jim Lovell (The astronaut played by Tom Hanks in Apollo 13) give a speech. He said that for the first 99% of the trip to the moon, they simply aimed ahead of their target, never directly at the moon. In this manner, I suggest that with so many variables, accuracy is impossible, it's a moving target. Start young, take the 10% MrC offered, and keep saving. Every few years, stop and see if you are on target, if not, bump the number a bit. Better to turn 50 and find that after a good decade you've reached your number and can drop your savings to a minimum, perhaps just to capture a 401(k) match, than to turn 50 and realize you've undersaved and need to bump to an unsustainable level. Imagine planning ahead in 1999. You've seen 2 great decades of returns, and even realizing that 18%/yr couldn't continue, you plan for a below average 7%, this would double your 1999 balance in 10 years. Instead you saw zero return. For a decade. In sum, when each variable has an accuracy of +/-50% you are not going to combine them all and get a number with even 10% accuracy (as if MrC were wrong, but the pro would tell you 11% is right for you?). This is as absurd as packaging up a bunch of C rated debt, and thinking that enough of this paper would yield a final product that was AAA.\"",
"qid": 10462,
"docid": "524912",
"rank": 14,
"score": 117590
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I think not. I think a discussion of optimum mix is pretty independent of age. While a 20 year old may have 40 years till retirement, a 60 year old retiree has to plan for 30 years or more of spending. I'd bet that no two posters here would give the same optimum mix for a given age, why would anyone expect the Wall Street firms to come up with something better than your own gut suggests?",
"qid": 10462,
"docid": "268023",
"rank": 15,
"score": 117260
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The law says that you cannot make a contribution (whether tax-deductible or not) to a Traditional IRA for any year unless you (or your spouse if you are filing a joint tax return) have taxable compensation (income earned from the sweat of your brow such as wages, salary, self-employment income, commissions on sales, and also alimony or separate maintenance payments received under a divorce decree, etc) during that year, and you will not be 70.5 years old by the end of the year for which you are making the contribution. The contribution, of course, can be made up to Tax Day of the following year, and is limited to the lesser of the total compensation and $5500 ($6500 for people over 50). Assuming that you are OK on the compensation and age issue, yes, you can make a contribution to a Traditional IRA for an year in which you take a distribution from a Roth IRA. Whether you can deduct the Traditional IRA contribution depends on other factors such as your income and whether or not you or your spouse is covered by a workplace retirement plan.",
"qid": 10462,
"docid": "500913",
"rank": 16,
"score": 116733
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I didn't even have access to a 401(k) at age 24. You're starting early and that's good. You're frugal and that's good too. Retirement savings is really intended to be a set it and forget it kind of arrangement. You check in on it once a year, maybe adjust your contributions. While I applaud your financial conservatism, you're really hamstringing your retirement if you're too conservative. At age 24 you have a solid 30 years before retirement will even approach your radar and another 10 years after that before you have to plan your disbursements. The daily, monthly, quarterly movements of your retirement account will have literally zero impact on your life. There will be money market type savings accounts, bond funds, equity funds, and lifecycle funds. The lifecycle fund rolls your contributions to favor bonds and other \"\"safer\"\" investments as you age. The funds available in retirement accounts will all carry something called an expense ratio. This is the amount of money that the fund manager keeps for maintaining the fund. Be mindful of the expense ratios even more than the published performance of the fund. A low fee fund will typically have an expense ratio around 0.10%, or $1 per $1,000 per year in expense. There will be more exotic funds targeting this or that segment, they can carry expense ratios nearing 1% and some even higher. It's smart to take advantage of your employer's match. Personally, at age 24, at a minimum I would contribute the match to a low-fee S&P index fund.\"",
"qid": 10462,
"docid": "327925",
"rank": 17,
"score": 116299
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I have had pension programs with two companies. The first told you what your benefit would be if you retired at age X with Y years of service. Each year of service got you a percentage of your final years salary. There was a different formula for early retirement, and there was an offset for social security. They were responsible for putting enough money away each year to meet their obligations. Just before I left they did add a new feature. You could get the funds in the account in a lump sum when you left. If you left early you got the money in the account. If you left at retirement age you got the money that was needed to produce the benefit you were promised. Which was based on current interest rates. The second company had a plan where they published the funding formula. You knew with every quarterly statement how much was in your account, and what interest it had earned, and what benefit they estimated you would receive if you stayed until retirement age. This fund felt almost like a defined contribution, because the formula was published. If most people took the lump sum that was the only part that mattered. Both pension plans had a different set of formulas based on marriage status and survivor rules. The interest rates are important because they are used to determine how much money is needed to produce the promised monthly benefit. They are also used to determine how much they need to allocate each year to cover their obligations. If you can't make the math work you need to keep contacting HR. You need to understand how much should be flowing into the account each month.",
"qid": 10462,
"docid": "481475",
"rank": 18,
"score": 115562
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Thirty thousand in credit card debt is a \"\"big elephant to eat\"\" so to speak. But you do it by taking a bite at a time. One positive is that you do not want to borrow from your 401K. Doing so is a horrible idea. The first question you have to ask yourself and understand, is how you accumulated 30K in credit card debt in the first place? Most people get there by running up a relatively small amount, say 5K, and playing the zero transfer game a few times. Then add in a late payment, and a negative event or two (like the car breaking down or a trip to the emergency room) and poof a large amount of credit card debt. Obviously, I have no idea if this is how you got there, and providing some insight might help. Also, your age, approximate income, and other debts might also help provide more insight. I assume you are still working and under age 59.5 as you are talking about borrowing from your 401K. Where I come from is that my wife (then girlfriend) found ourselves under stifling debt a few years ago. When we married, we became very intentional and focused on ridding ourselves of debt and now sit completely debt free (including the house). During our debt payoff time, we lived off of less than 25% of our salary. We both took extra jobs when we were able. Intensity was our key. If I were you, I would not refi the house. There are costs associated with this and why would you put more debt on your home? I might cash out the annuity provided that there are no negative tax consequences and depending on how much you can get for it. Numbers are the key here. However, I feel like doing so will not retire this debt. The first thing you need to do is get on a written budget. A game plan for spending and stick to it. If you are married, your spouse has to be part of this process. The budget has to be fresh each month, and each month you and your wife should meet. To deviate from the budget, you will also need to have a meeting. My wife and I still do this despite being debt free and enjoying very healthy incomes. Secondly, it is about cutting expenses. Cable: off. No eating out or vacations. Cut back on cell phone plans, only basic clothing. Gift giving is of the $5 variety and only for those very close to you. Forget lattes, etc. Depending on your income I would cut 401K contributions to zero or only up to the company match (if your household income is above 150K/year). Third, it is about earning more. Ebay, deliver pizzas, cut grass, overtime, whatever. All extra dollars go to credit card balance reduction. At a minimum, you should find an extra $1000/month; however, I would shoot for 2K. If you can find 2K, you will be done with this in 13 months. I know the math doesn't work out for that, but once you get momentum, you find more. How good will it feel to be out from under this oppression next March? I know you can do this without cashing in the annuity or refinancing. Do you believe it?\"",
"qid": 10462,
"docid": "297288",
"rank": 19,
"score": 114837
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Is it safe? No in general. Are there any other safe \"\"paper\"\" ways to invest money let's say for 30 years and be sure nothing will happen to them and you will end your life without relying on pension? No. In these times only real properly gives you some sort of warranty in 5-30 years term. Land, buildings, production lines. Not necessary in US - lots of countries have 0 or fairly low property tax. Some gold, platinum, silver and other rare elements to diversify. - This is the only way you can be sure you will not suddenly loose everything.\"",
"qid": 10462,
"docid": "175442",
"rank": 20,
"score": 113151
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: the problem for millenials, is that even if the economy DOES return in a few years, they will largely looked over in favor of the fresher generation Z [or whatever it is called] graduates. Why hire a 30 year old with no professional experience when you can hire a brand new graduate with no professional experience?",
"qid": 10462,
"docid": "349901",
"rank": 21,
"score": 113074
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Invest in kids, not pension - they never inflate. Without kids your retirement will be miserable anyway. And with them you'll be good. Personally, I do not believe that that our current savings will be worth it in 30 years in these times.",
"qid": 10462,
"docid": "280967",
"rank": 22,
"score": 112473
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Thank you for this. Very grounding advice. I'm about 30 years from retirement and I am indeed trying to time the market. Your advice was just what I needed. Thanks for telling me what I should have already known (stay calm and bugger on). Also, a good night sleep and a run helped clear my head. But seriously, thx.",
"qid": 10462,
"docid": "484493",
"rank": 23,
"score": 111746
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: As boomers retire there'll be a lot smaller workforce to go along with a potential smaller employment force. Also as far as having fewer jobs in any particular career path, ask yourself what you think is easier to do, completely change careers in your 20s or 30s or in your 40s or 50s? Fact remains those with less working time left have a harder time adjusting to the new economy because they have less opportunity to change careers or make up their retirement losses.",
"qid": 10462,
"docid": "393602",
"rank": 24,
"score": 111436
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I am a retired Air Traffic Controller of 30 years. There is no way a computer could contend with every contingency that comes up in the air. Yes, Flight management systems do take over in most cases for efficiency purposes but there is no way I would board an aircraft with no one up in the front office.",
"qid": 10462,
"docid": "334380",
"rank": 25,
"score": 111028
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I would like to buy hubby a beer and talk some sense into him. Do you have 2 years gross income saved as your retirement balance? That's about where he should be at age 30. I wrote about this in an article Retirement Savings Ratio. Blowing the 401(k) for anything less than an extreme emergency is downright foolish. The decision whether to roll it to an IRA or the new account isn't so simple. If you roll it to new plan, yes you can borrow, up to 60 months at a low rate, 4% or so. Taking the cash and then making an IRA deposit just means paying the penalty for nothing, unless you manage it just right, depositing the amount within 60 day, etc. You don't mention what he wants to do with it. You need to sit down and have a long \"\"money talk.\"\" Keep in mind, if you oversave, it's easy to retire early, or at 50 just stop saving, spend every new dime. But it's something else to turn 50 and realize you will have to work till you die. I've seen both situations. (I am 48, the Mrs, 54 our multiple is now 13. The target is 20 to retire. The house is not counted as it can't be spent. The mortgage IS counted as it must be paid) Edit - as I read this again, I see the OP asked about opening an IRA in the same year they withdraw the 401(k) and pay tax and penalty. Wow. I also see her user reverted to generic, which means, I think, she's never returned. I hope they made the right decision, to keep the money in retirement accounts. Hubby never even said what he wanted the money for.\"",
"qid": 10462,
"docid": "127825",
"rank": 26,
"score": 110835
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Term life insurance for a healthy 30 year old is a heck of a lot cheaper than for a 40 year old who's starting to break down (and who needs the coverage since he's got a spouse and kids). So, get a long term policy now while it's cheap.",
"qid": 10462,
"docid": "402852",
"rank": 27,
"score": 110788
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Interesting, I know a fair few doctors and lawyers (heck my fiance is a doctor) and it's not that common to earn more than $300k at 30 years old. Maybe it's more common at 50+? I know for doctors it's all dependent on your specialty, for example it's pretty common for surgeons to earn more than $300k but not so much for specialists in other fields such as palliative care or general practitioners. Then again I don't live in America so maybe it's different there.",
"qid": 10462,
"docid": "212471",
"rank": 28,
"score": 110249
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: With 30 years until retirement I would not be very concerned about the 3% cash rule. If you do want to follow that advice I would just keep that money in a cash equivalent like a money market fund or short term cd.",
"qid": 10462,
"docid": "216520",
"rank": 29,
"score": 110154
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You're extremely fortunate to have $50k in CDs, no debt, and $3800 disposable after food and rent. Congrats. Here's how I would approach it. If you see yourself getting into a home in the next couple of years, stay safe and liquid. CDs (depending on the duration) fit that description. Because you have disposable income and you're young, you should be contributing to a Roth IRA. This will build in value and compound over your lifetime, so that when you're in your 70s you'll actually have a retirement. Financial planners love life insurance because that's how they make all their money. I have whole life insurance because its cash value will be part of my retirement. It may also cover my wife if I ever decide to get married. It may or may not make sense for you now depending on how soon you want to buy a home and home expensive they are in your zip code. Higher risk, higher reward- you can count on that. Keep the funds in the United States and don't try to get into any slick financial moves. If you have a school in town, see if you can take an Intro to Financial Planning class. It's extremely helpful for anyone with these kinds of questions.",
"qid": 10462,
"docid": "459906",
"rank": 30,
"score": 109809
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If it's either/or, I'd pay down the mortgage, no question. I know I'm in the minority, but I'm not a fan of tax-advantaged retirement accounts. There are too many things that can change between now and the next 30 years (the time frame that you'll be able to withdraw from your IRA account without penalty). The rules governing these accounts can change at any time, and I don't think they'll be changes for the better. Putting the money toward your mortgage will relieve you of that monthly payment faster. The benefits of IRAs come retirement age are too uncertain for my taste.",
"qid": 10462,
"docid": "400567",
"rank": 31,
"score": 109530
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: To be honest, if it's a home all of you share you should try and save the home for your parents. your 26, you will have plenty of time to make 30k again. Having a home headquarters will bring some security to the family. Not only that your parents are old now, it could be hard for them to get another home. They have sacrificed for you, so maybe you should sacrifice for them? Thank god i have no family.",
"qid": 10462,
"docid": "539475",
"rank": 32,
"score": 109514
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Sorry to hear about your spouse's health issues. May he have a speedy and, as far as possible, full recovery. The Patient Protectection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA, aka Obamacare) is now the law of the land. Among its many provisions are that insurers may no longer deny coverage for pre-existing conditions, they may not put lifetime caps on benefits, and they may not charge different premiums based on any criteria except age cohort and geographic area (i.e. rates may be higher for 50 year olds than 30 year olds, but sick and healthy 50 year olds living in the same area pay the same). If he gets government health coverage because he's on disability, this may not matter. On the other hand, you might find it better to put him on your employer's policy, because you like the coverage better, the employer covers part of the dependent premium, or some other reason. In any case, they can't discriminate against him or you based on his condition. ETA: Rates may vary by geography as well as age.",
"qid": 10462,
"docid": "352851",
"rank": 33,
"score": 109214
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you set a savings amount now and leave it totally fixed you're likely to massively undershoot or overshoot. What is more likely is that you will adjust either your savings or your retirement expectations as things go along. If it turns out you have $10M (2010 dollars) at age 50 perhaps you'll retire early, and if you have $10k perhaps you'll buckle down and work much longer or save much more. So I think what you are looking for is an assurance that if you budget to save x% of your salary over n years, and you get an after-inflation after-tax return of y% pa, you will eventually be able to retire on an income equivalent to z% of your working income. It's pretty easy to calculate that through a future-value formula. For instance, one set of values that works is saving 20% of income, 5% real return, 30 years = final income of 66% of working income. Or save half your income and within 14 years you can retire and keep spending the amount you were previously spending. Resist the temptation to crank up the assumed return until you get the value you want. I think it would be great hubris to try to make this very precise. Yes, probably you will get raises, of course there are taxes to take into account (probably higher while you're saving), inflation and returns will vary from year to year, et. You can guess at them. But they'll change, and there are bigger things that are unpredictable: your personal life, your health, the economic future of your career or industry. I reckon this simple formula is about as good as you will get.",
"qid": 10462,
"docid": "26487",
"rank": 34,
"score": 108711
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I have to disagree. Millenials still have time for it to get better. We Gen Xers are losing our highest earning years of our lives while the Millenials are losing the lowest. Most people spend their 20s figuring out their lives and their 30s and 40s building their family and retirement. The Millenials simply have less to lose and have suffered far less of an impact.",
"qid": 10462,
"docid": "179931",
"rank": 35,
"score": 108679
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: No, don't bother. You need to decide what you are saving for, and how much risk you are prepared to take. It would make sense if you wanted the money only in x years, and couldn't afford to lose say 20% or more if the stock market crashed the day before you needed the cash. Typically if you are about to retire and buy an annuity, you want to protect your capital. This isn't you. At 28, you might be saving for a wedding, a deposit on a house, possibly for school fees, or for eventual retirement. It doesn't sound like you need to get back exactly 24k in July 2022. Keep the 6 months expenses in accounts that you can withdraw from at short notice. Some of this in a current account, some might be in a savings account that doesn't pay interest if you make withdrawals. After that, I'd stick most of the rest in stock market tracker funds, but you might go for actively managed funds instead (ask another question and take professional advice, there will presumably be local tax considerations too), and add in most of your monthly savings too. These should beat the 2.3% over the 5 years, and you can liquidate them easily if you want to buy a house. If there is a recession and a stock market dip, you presumably have the flexibility to hold on to them longer for the economy to recover. And if you are intending to buy a house, then a recession will probably also involve a fall in house prices, so the loss in your savings will be somewhat balanced by the drop in the purchase price of your house. Of course, the worst case scenario is a severe downturn where you lose your job, are unemployed for a considerable period of time, burn through your emergency fund, and need to sell shares at a considerable loss to meet your expenses. You might have family or dependents that you can borrow from or would need to support, which would change your tolerance for risk. Having money locked away for 5 years in this scenario is even worse. So if you don't want to put all your non-emergency savings into the stock market, you still want to choose something that is accessible at a slightly lower interest rate. But ultimately it sounds like you can afford to lose some of your savings, and the probability is that you will be rewarded with much better returns than 2.3% over 5 years.",
"qid": 10462,
"docid": "362250",
"rank": 36,
"score": 108544
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: One opinion related to savings is to save 30% of your take home salary every month, split the amount into two parts depending on your age (29) one part would be 30% of 30% and another 70% of 30%. Take the 70% and buy blue chip stock and take the 30% and buy govt. bonds. Each 10 years adjust the percentages at 40, 40% on bonds and 60% on stock. Only cash out on the day you retire, otherwise ignore all market/economic movements. With this and the statutory savings (employment retirement) you should be ok.",
"qid": 10462,
"docid": "519856",
"rank": 37,
"score": 108192
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The really simple answer is that compound interest is compound not linear. Money invested for longer earns more interest, and the sooner you start investing, the longer it has to earn interest. These ideas come out of pension investment where 65 is the usual retirement age and what you invest in the 1st ten years of your pension (or any other compound interest fund) accounts for over 50% of what you will get out. 25 to 65 is forty years and $100 invested at 7% for 40 years is $1400. $100 invested every year for 40 years the pot would be worth just under $20,000. At 30 years, it would be worth under $10,000, and at 20 years it would be worth only $4099. If you double your investment amount every 10 years you would have invested $15700, and the pot would be worth $45,457. Do exactly the same but starting at 35 instead of 25 and your pot would only be worth $14,200.",
"qid": 10462,
"docid": "496899",
"rank": 38,
"score": 108159
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Then: (do these in whatever order) 35 is not mid-life. You're on the tail end of the age to get started on retirement planning. Being single, relatively young, and a great income level, you are ideally situated to consider FIRE'ing yourself. (Financial Independent, Retire Early). The basic idea is to invest a large chunk of your income and establish your comfort level balancing frugality and comfort. There's a table on one of the FIRE websites that shows a graph between % of income saved and the number of years it takes to save enough to be financially independent. If you can go over 50% savings, you can get down to about 10 years. In this case, financially independent is where you can live on a safe percentage of withdrawal from your savings without depleting the savings. At that point, you no longer need to work for a paycheck. You would only do so to extend the savings, increase the safe withdraw rate, or because you want to do something that makes you feel productive.",
"qid": 10462,
"docid": "152478",
"rank": 39,
"score": 107925
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The stock market at large has about a 4.5% long-term real-real (inflation-fees-etc-adjusted) rate of return. Yes: even in light of the recent crashes. That means your money invested in stocks doubles every 16 years. So savings when you're 25 and right out of college are worth double what savings are worth when you're 41, and four times what they're worth when you're 57. You're probably going to be making more money when you're 41, but are you really going to be making two times as much? (In real terms?) And at 57, will you be making four times as much? And if you haven't been saving at all in your life, do you think you're going to be able to start, and make the sacrifices in your lifestyle that you may need? And will you save enough in 10 years to live for another 20-30 years after retirement? And what if the economy tanks (again) and your company goes under and you're out of a job when you turn 58? Having tons of money at retirement isn't the only worthy goal you can pursue with your money (ask anyone who saves money to send kids to college), but having some money at retirement is a rather important goal, and you're much more at risk of saving too little than you are of saving too much. In the US, most retirement planners suggest 10-15% as a good savings rate. Coincidentally, the standard US 401(k) plan provides a tax-deferred vehicle for you to put away up to 15% of your income for retirement. If you can save 15% from the age of 20-something onward, you probably will be at least as well-off when you retire as you are during the rest of your life. That means you can spend the rest on things which are meaningful to you. (Well, you should also keep around some cash in case of emergencies or sudden unemployment, and it's never a good idea to waste money, but your responsibilities to your future have at least been satisfied.) And in the UK you get tax relief on your pension contribution at your income tax rate and most employers will match your contributions.",
"qid": 10462,
"docid": "59965",
"rank": 40,
"score": 107370
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: >Most people spend their 20s figuring out their lives and their 30s and 40s building their family and retirement. The Millenials simply have less to lose and have suffered far less of an impact. Totally disagree with the assumption you are making here, that millenials will all of a sudden start making a shitload of money in 10-20 years. When a lot of them can't get jobs after graduation, it prevents them from ever climbing the ladder at all. They can't get a professional job, so they take a menial job, and the longer they aren't in a professional job, the harder it becomes to GET a professional job. Many will be stuck in menial jobs their entire lives, simply because noone would ever give them the experience needed.",
"qid": 10462,
"docid": "192270",
"rank": 41,
"score": 106890
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you want to retire in 7 years at age 35 and only currently have 150k, and you need to ask this question of how to invest your money (risk free), then you will not be retiring at age 35 nor buying your house. It is possible to do (but not risk free - in fact you will need to take quite a bit of risk) but you would need to have a detailed plan about how you would go about to achieve this goal, what assets you would be investing in, and what risk management you would have in place. If you have to ask this question all you have is a goal but no plan. You probably will need to do plenty of research in the types of investment you prefer and develop a plan to take you to your destination. This could take you a year or 10 years, depending on how motivated you are in acheiving your goals.",
"qid": 10462,
"docid": "228315",
"rank": 42,
"score": 106500
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Since you're 20-30 years out of retirement, you should be 90% to 100% in stocks, and in one or two broad stock market funds likely. I'm not sure about the minimums at TD Ameritrade, but at Vanguard even $3k will get you into the basic funds. One option is the Targeted Retirement Year funds, which automatically rebalance as you get closer to retirement. They're a bit higher expense usually than a basic stock market fund, but they're often not too bad. (Look for expenses under 0.5% annually, and preferably much lower - I pay 0.05% on mine for example.) Otherwise, I'd just put everything into something simple - an S&P500 tracker for example (SPY or VOO are two examples) that has very low management fees. Then when your 401(k) gets up and running, that may have fewer options and thus you may end up in something more conservative - don't feel like you have to balance each account separately when they're just starting, think of them as one whole balancing act for the first year or two. Once they're each over $10k or so, then you can balance them individually (which you do want to do, to allow you to get better returns).",
"qid": 10462,
"docid": "167194",
"rank": 43,
"score": 106397
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Yes please! Or maybe 6 months on, 6 months off. I'd be happy doing that until age 70, whereas right now working 12 months a year with only a little vacation here and there ... I just can't wait to be able to retire, keep doing the math every week or two - \"\"can I live on X for Y years\"\". I have tons of friends that age as well that are all really disenfranchised by work and dying to retire. This would make life SO much more worthwhile. Problem with retirement being 65+ is that by then you're no where near as able to enjoy the world (imho and just stating the facts, not a diss, and heck this starts happening when you hit 45...).\"",
"qid": 10462,
"docid": "51914",
"rank": 44,
"score": 106346
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I was going to ask, \"\"Do you feel lucky, punk?\"\" but then it occurred to me that the film this quote came from, Dirty Harry, starring Clint Eastwood, is 43 years old. And yet, the question remains. The stock market, as measured by the S&P has returned 9.67% compounded over the last 100 years. But with a standard deviation just under 20%, there are years when you'll do better and years you'll lose. And I'd not ignore the last decade which was pretty bad, a loss for the decade. There are clearly two schools of thought. One says that no one ever lost sleep over not having a mortgage payment. The other school states that at the very beginning, you have a long investing horizon, and the chances are very good that the 30 years to come will bring a return north of 6%. The two decades prior to the last were so good that these past 30 years were still pretty good, 11.39% compounded. There is no right or wrong here. My gut says fund your retirement accounts to the maximum. Build your emergency fund. You see, if you pay down your mortgage, but lose your job, you'll still need to make those payments. Once you build your security, think of the mortgage as the cash side of your investing, i.e. focus less on the relatively low rate of return (4.3%) and more on the eventual result, once paid, your cash flow goes up nicely. Edit - in light of the extra information you provided, your profile reads that you have a high risk tolerance. Low overhead, no dependents, and secure employment combine to lead me to this conclusion. At 23, I'd not be investing at 4.3%. I'd learn how to invest in a way I was comfortable with, and take it from there. Disclosure (Updated) - I am older, and am semi-retired. I still have some time left on the mortgage, but it doesn't bother me, not at 3.5%. I also have a 16 year old to put through college but her college account i fully funded.\"",
"qid": 10462,
"docid": "160105",
"rank": 45,
"score": 106227
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"If I were you, I would rent. Wait to buy a home. Here is why: When you say that renting is equal in cost to a 30-year mortgage, you are failing to consider several aspects. See this recent answer for a list of things that need to be considered when comparing buying and renting. You have no down payment. Between the two of you, you have $14,000, but this money is needed for both your emergency fund and your fiancée's schooling. In your words: \"\"we can’t reeaallllly afford a home.\"\" A home is a big financial commitment. If you buy a home before you are financially ready, it will be continuous trouble. If you need a cosigner, you aren't ready to buy a home. I would absolutely advise whoever you are thinking about cosigning for you not to do so. It puts them legally on the hook for a house that you can't yet afford. You aren't married yet. You should never buy something as big as a home with someone you aren't married to; there are just too many things that can go wrong. (See comments for more explanation.) Wait until you are married before you buy. Your income is low right now. And that is okay for now; you've been able to avoid the credit card debt that so many people fall into. However, you do have student loans to pay, and taking on a huge new debt right now would be potentially disastrous for you. Your family income will eventually increase when your fiancée gets her degree and gets a job, and at that time, you will be in a much better situation to consider buying a house. You need to move \"\"ASAP.\"\" Buying a house when you are in a hurry is a generally a bad idea. When you look for a home, you need to take some time looking so you aren't rushed into a bad deal that you will regret. Even if you decide you want to buy, you should first find a place to rent; then you can take your time finding the right house. To answer your question about escrow: When you own a house, two of the required expenses that you will have besides the mortgage payment are property taxes and homeowner's insurance. These are large payments that are only due once a year. The bank holding the mortgage wants to make sure that they get paid. So to help you budget for these expenses and to ensure that these expenses are paid, the bank will add these to your monthly mortgage payment, and set them aside in a savings account (called an escrow account). Then when these bills come due once a year, they are paid for out of the escrow account.\"",
"qid": 10462,
"docid": "596111",
"rank": 46,
"score": 106215
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Look through the related questions. Make sure you fund the max your tax advantaged retirement funds will take this year. Use the 30k to backstop any shortfalls. Invest the rest in a brokerage account. In and out of your tax advantaged accounts, try to invest in index funds. Your feeling that paying someone to manage your investments might not be the best use is shared by many. jlcollinsnh is a financial independence blogger. He, and many others, recommend the Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Admiral Shares. I have not heard of a lower expense ratio (0.05%). Search for financial independence and FIRE (Financial Independence Retire Early). Use your windfall to set yourself on that road, and you will be less likely to sit where I am 25 years from now wishing you had done things differently. Edit: Your attitude should be that the earliest money in your portfolio is in there the longest, and earns the most. Starting with a big windfall puts you years ahead of where you'd normally be. If you set your goal to retire at 40, that money will be worth significantly more in 20 years. (4x what you start with, assuming 7% average yearly return).",
"qid": 10462,
"docid": "343206",
"rank": 47,
"score": 104181
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: They start at six figures with just a bachelor's, and their raises tend to be pretty substantial. Many of them will earn more than $200k before they are age 30. Basically, if they were to live relatively normal lifestyles (many do not), save and invest most of their earnings, then they should be able to become a millionaire at around age 30 while just following their career path, without taking big risks such as starting a business.",
"qid": 10462,
"docid": "434972",
"rank": 48,
"score": 104064
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Lets say that college costs 100K per kid and they you have 3 (ages 8,9,10) and expect tuition and fees inflation of 8% per year; you are 40 and want to retire at age 65, and would have to replace 80% of you final years salary and expect your salary to increase 2% above inflation, but you do have a pension that based on the number of years of service you will have if you don't switch companies will replace 40% of you final salary, but if you leave now will only cover 15%; the equivalent of social security will replace 10%; your spouse works part time and has no company provided pension; your big single bucket of long term savings has 123,456. Are you on target? You can't answer the question without first determining how much money each of those individual buckets (kid 1, kid 2, kid 3, pension, social security and retirement) needs to have today and in the future. Then you take the money you do have and assign it to the buckets. Of course different accounts have different tax, age, deposit and use rules. Also what happens after the last child graduates, so the amount of money available each year will change significantly. The key to not stealing money from long term savings goals is to realize you also need an emergency fund and a life happens fund. That way an engine repair does require you to pull money from the education fund.",
"qid": 10462,
"docid": "54377",
"rank": 49,
"score": 104033
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Your question is very broad. Whole books can and have been written on this topic. The right place to start is for you and your wife to sit down together and figure out your goals. Where do you want to be in 5 years, 25 years, 50 years? To quote Yogi Berra \"\"If you don't know where you are going, you'll end up someplace else.\"\" Let's go backwards. 50 Years I'm guessing the answer is \"\"retired, living comfortably and not having to worry about money\"\". You say you work an unskilled government job. Does that job have a pension program? How about other retirement savings options? Will the pension be enough or do you need to start putting money into the other retirement savings options? Career wise, do you want to be working as in unskilled government jobs until you retire, or do you want to retire from something else? If so, how do you get there? Your goals here will affect both your 25 year plan and your 5 year plan. Finally, as you plan for death, which will happen eventually. What do you want to leave for your children? Likely the pension will not be transferred to your children, so if you want to leave them something, you need to start planning ahead. 25 Years At this stage in your life, you are likely talking, college for the children and possibly your wife back at work (could happen much earlier than this, e.g., when the kids are all in school). What do you want for your children in college? Do you want them to have the opportunity to go without having to take on debt? What savings options are there for your children's college? Also, likely with all your children out of the house at college, what do you and your wife want to do? Travel? Give to charity? Own your own home? 5 Years You mention having children and your wife staying at home with them. Can your family live on just your income? Can you do that and still achieve your 50 and 25 year goals? If not, further education or training on your part may be needed. Are you in debt? Would you like to be out of debt in the next 5-10 years? I know I've raised more questions than answers. This is due mostly to the nature of the question you've asked. It is very personal, and I don't know you. What I find most useful is to look at where I want to be in the near, mid and long term and then start to build a plan for how I get there. If you have older friends or family who are where you want to be when you reach their age, talk to them. Ask them how they got there. Also, there are tons of resources out there to help you. I won't suggest any specific books, but look around at the local library or look online. Read reviews of personal finance books. Read many and see how they can give you the advice you need to reach your specific goals. Good luck!\"",
"qid": 10462,
"docid": "86304",
"rank": 50,
"score": 103889
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I know an old retired Asian couple that each have 2 pensions. They worked from their teens and worked their asses off. The wife still works as a part time consultant because her second job was so specialized and she gets bored at home very easy. I saw their finances once and its just on a level I've never seen before or since. It's like they planned ~6 decades of their lives as teens and they stuck with the plan",
"qid": 10462,
"docid": "122333",
"rank": 51,
"score": 103717
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I don't understand the worker mentality of accepting to be part of pension plans. The downside risk to you is ridiculously high -- you're basically making an investment that the next 30 years of corporate management and the company as a whole are going to be good. Pension plans are among the first to go.. employees that retired 20-30 years ago add no current value to the company, unless you consider that current employees are motivated by the idea of a pension or working for a company that \"\"takes care\"\" of its employees. Also, part of the reason pension funds are blowing up is that the risk-free return rate is less than 1%. I don't know who to blame or thank for that, but with government bonds now trading at negative yields in real and sometimes even absolute terms (see: Swiss yields), what else are you supposed to do?\"",
"qid": 10462,
"docid": "4180",
"rank": 52,
"score": 103300
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Yeah, that's what I do, just buy the indices and forget it. My portfolio is so boring it's elegant, and makes money too. 4.5% YTD and 5.9% in 2016, not bad for a 30/70 stock bond split for this 70-year-old. Oh, did I tell you my costs are .06%! I am enjoying the freedom of my retirement.",
"qid": 10462,
"docid": "135646",
"rank": 53,
"score": 102618
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: According to my reading, the Trinity study says you can withdraw 4% a year for 30 years without exhausting your nest egg, not necessarily that it won't shrink. In most cases, your nest egg will indeed grow. But unfortunately you can't plan to leave no estate while simultaneously preparing for worst-case scenarios in case you happen to pick a bad year to stop working. You can run simulations based on historical data on sites like cFIREsim. And once you're retired, you could potentially increase your spending if simulations show that you're likely to leave behind a large estate. You also probably want to look into things like charitable remainder trusts.",
"qid": 10462,
"docid": "281456",
"rank": 54,
"score": 102413
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"It is difficult to become a millionaire in the short term (a few years) working at a 9-to-5 job, unless you get lucky (win the lottery, inheritance, gambling at a casino, etc). However, if you max out your employer's Retirement Plan (401k, 403b) for the next 30 years, and you average a 5% rate of return on your investment, you will reach millionaire status. Many people would consider this \"\"easy\"\" and \"\"automatic\"\". Of course, this assumes you are able to max our your retirement savings at the start of your career, and keep it going. The idea is that if you get in the habit of saving early in your career and live modestly, it becomes an automatic thing. Unfortunately, the value of $1 million after 30 years of inflation will be eroded somewhat. (Sorry.) If you don't want to wait 30 years, then you need to look at a different strategy. Work harder or take risks. Some options:\"",
"qid": 10462,
"docid": "434869",
"rank": 55,
"score": 101909
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"> The longer you are unemployed, the less likely companies want to hire you, it's a vicious circle. This circle is even more vicious when you're older. When you're under 30, you can still write off that time as \"\"you were trying to find your passion.\"\" When you're 45 with kids, a year being unemployed is like 5 years of unemployment for a 28 year old. Employers really wonder.\"",
"qid": 10462,
"docid": "302174",
"rank": 56,
"score": 101840
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If I was bank, I certainly wouldn't give a **30 year** mortgage to a **57 year old** with a property which is worth less than the mortgage! And I don't see why a bank should. I get that it sucks for him to have a 6.35% interest mortgage, but that situation sucks for the bank as well. I wouldn't offer a lower interest to someone in that sort of situation.",
"qid": 10462,
"docid": "127165",
"rank": 57,
"score": 101694
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: It's important to have both long term goals and milestones along the way. In an article I wrote about saving 15% of one's income, I offered the following table: This table shows savings starting at age 20 (young, I know, so shift 2 years out) and ending at 60 with 18-1/2 year's of income saved due to investment returns. The 18-1/2 results in 74% of one's income replaced at retirement if we follow the 4% rule. One can adjust this number, assuming Social Security will replace 30%, and that spending will go down in retirement, you might need to save less than this shows. What's important is that as a starting point, it shows 2X income saved by age 30. Perhaps 1X is more reasonable. You are at just over .5X and proposing to spend nearly half of that on a single purchase. Financial independence means to somehow create an income you can live on without the need to work. There are many ways to do it, but it usually starts with a high saving rate. Your numbers suggest a good income now, but maybe this is only recently, else you'd have over $200K in the bank. I suggest you read all you can about investments and the types of retirement accounts, including 401(k) (if you have that available to you), IRA, and Roth IRA. The details you offer don't allow me to get much more specific than this.",
"qid": 10462,
"docid": "374266",
"rank": 58,
"score": 101666
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Statistics are often tough to grasp. Specifically, we need to understand the exact context and implication of the data and how it's presented. An example - I look at real estate sales data for a given town, and find that for the last 10 years, the average sale price has dropped, 3%/yr, every year for these 10. What can I conclude? Now, to your data. You don't mention age. When we look at this chart, combined with the next - The picture, while still bleak, is at least more clear. Nearly half of pre-retirees have no \"\"retirement\"\" savings. If that lower half is running close to zero, the average for the upper half is nearly twice the reported $164K. Even now, there are important bits going unaddressed. People who have had no access to retirement accounts, either through lack of company availability, or self-employeds who just ignored them, may very well have saved outside of retirement-labled accounts. You can see these graphs are tracking only 401(k), IRA, and Keogh accounts. Last, social security for the $30K earner will replace nearly half their working income at retirement, almost 65% if they work till 70. I don't advocate counting on SS for the entirety of one's retirement income, but the way SS benefits are structured, replacement benefits are far higher (as a percent) for lower wage workers, as the system intended. To conclude, median alone is too small a data point to be useful, in my opinion. This kind of information presented in these charts is far more preferable to get a fuller picture.\"",
"qid": 10462,
"docid": "481028",
"rank": 59,
"score": 101116
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: nearly 30 percent of households headed by someone 55 or older have neither a pension nor any retirement savings. I don’t know what these people are going to do or what our country is able to do about it, but this is a black swan that’s staring us right in the face. Hundreds of thousands of Americans are going to run out of money. Try millions. We are headed back to the days before the New Deal.",
"qid": 10462,
"docid": "24907",
"rank": 60,
"score": 100775
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: As a 19 year old if she can get SSDI instead of SSI her benefit amount will be calculated by her parents' contributions ... if either parent is deceased or over 62 then she qualifies for SSDI instead of SSI and I believe she would receive the full benefit amount. I'd guess that would be something in the $1400+ range. I see no reason why you couldn't get married either way ... at least not from a financial perspective. I'd be worried about being on the hook for her medical expenses. Therapy, meds, hospital visits, side-effects, etc ... that's a good way to spend the rest of your life owing millions.",
"qid": 10462,
"docid": "15322",
"rank": 61,
"score": 100726
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Well said, but I disagree with this: >All natural means having no teeth and dying in your 20s-30s. That depends entirely upon the era and civilization. Also, many of the chemical 'enhancements' you mention are really just to allow you to function given an unhealthy diet. They're just bringing you to a level of function that's less below what it would have been had you lived a healthy lifestyle (and not been unlucky to get some horrible disease).",
"qid": 10462,
"docid": "577443",
"rank": 62,
"score": 100711
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"In my opinion, you can't save too much for retirement. An extra $3120/yr invested at 8% for 30 years would give you $353K more at retirement. If your \"\"good amount in my 401k\"\" is a hint that you don't want us to go in that direction, then how about saving for the child's college education? 15 years' savings, again at 8% will return $85K, which feels like a low number even in today's dollars, 15 years of college inflation and it won't be much at all. Not sure why there's guilt around spending it. If one has no debt, good retirement savings level, and no pressing need to save for something else, enjoying one's money is an earned reward. Even so, if you want a riskless 'investment' just prepay the mortgage. You'll see an effective return of the mortgage rate, 4%(?) or so, vs the .001% banks are paying. Of course, this creates a monthly windfall once the mortgage is paid off, but it buys you time to make this ultimate decision. In the end, I'd respond that similar to Who can truly afford luxury cars?, one should produce a budget. I don't mean a set of constraints to limit spending in certain categories, but rather, a look back at where the money went last year and even the year before that. What will emerge are the things that are normal, the utility bills, tax bill, mortgage, etc, as well as the discretionary spending. If all your current saving is on track, the investment may be in experiences, not financial products.\"",
"qid": 10462,
"docid": "53200",
"rank": 63,
"score": 100651
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The thing you appear to neglect is that: Many people don't have a choice of when they retire. Another issue is that \"\"work 'til I die\"\" people are often 20-50 years old. If they changed their minds or were forced to retire (see above) or came to a realization later in life that they would like to retire, they've missed their chance. They've lost decades of compounding interest because they thought they knew everything in the world when they were 23. Forced retire savings hedges this 'common' mistake.\"",
"qid": 10462,
"docid": "171741",
"rank": 64,
"score": 100340
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: So if my father signed up for the military at age 18, became an officer, worked 30 years and spent very little (buying used cars eating in & having roommates) to afford to buy me a car and pay for my education. An education Where I worked worked extremely hard at to become a civil engineer with a high GPA and spent at least 100 hours perfecting my resume and interview skills to get a high paying entry level job where I replicate my fathers habits while being single, choosing to not have children until I build capital, learn to invest in my free time, and live off of 35% of my income by leveraging wealth and having roommates. Your telling me that since I am able to retire at age 35 on my current plan it is all due to luck? Luck? Sure I'm thankful that my dad sacrificed and gave me a privileged life with free education but that wasn't luck, that's hard god damn work and I thank him everyday what he did for me. To tell me it's luck is borderline crazy. If you didn't have what I stated above be the person who works his ass off so your kids can have the privilege to retire at 40 if they make SMART choices. Or better yet, borrow capital to get an education that pays you 60,000 pay it back and retire at 40? Stop trying to act like it's impossible. Investing isn't gambling, it's foolish to think so. If you invest in index funds it will grow over a long period of time. The medical scenario is completely different and is mostly caused due to a lack of a free market and insurance system. This is effed and should be fixed as a wealthy society. ^^^^there are ways to ensure you have medical coverage but again, it's difficult and should be made easier.",
"qid": 10462,
"docid": "23172",
"rank": 65,
"score": 100137
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I am in the process of writing an article about how to maximize one's Social Security benefits, or at least, how to start the analysis. This chart, from my friends at the Social Security office shows the advantage of waiting to take your benefit. In your case, you are getting $1525 at age 62. Now, if you wait 4 years, the benefit jumps to $2033 or $508/mo more. You would get no benefit for 4 years and draw down savings by $73,200, but would get $6,096/yr more from 64 on. Put it off until 70, and you'd have $2684/mo. At some point, your husband should apply for a spousal benefit (age 66 for him is what I suggest) and collect that for 4 years before moving to his own benefit if it's higher than that. Keep in mind, your generous pensions are likely to push you into having your social security benefit taxed, and my plan, above will give you time to draw down the 401(k) to help avoid or at least reduce this.",
"qid": 10462,
"docid": "2648",
"rank": 66,
"score": 99806
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"If you want to be really \"\"financially smart,\"\" buy a used good condition Corolla with cash (if you want to talk about a car that holds re-sale value), quit renting and buy a detached house close to the city a for about $4,000/month (to build equity. It's NYC the house will appreciate in value). Last but not the least, DO NOT get married. Retire at 50, sell the house (now paid after 25-years). Or LEASE a nice brand new car every year and have a good time! You're 25 and single!\"",
"qid": 10462,
"docid": "532787",
"rank": 67,
"score": 99770
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The screen copy talks about disablity, so if you want to cut your leg off or so, this would work. Otherwise, yes, you can retire anytime now. However, you can only get social security benefits after you turn 60, and it will not be much. So if you have enough money around to feed yourself till you turn 60, and thereafter want to live on the meager benefits, then you can retire now.",
"qid": 10462,
"docid": "168136",
"rank": 68,
"score": 99681
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I want to know ideally how much should a person save for retirement funds? A person should save enough such that your total retirement resources will equal the amount you personally need for a comfortable retirement at the point in time when the person desires to retire. If you want to retire at 40, you may need to save quite a lot each year. If you want to retire at 70, you may need to save less each year. If you will have a pension, you may wish to save somewhat less than someone who won't have a pension. The same is true for Social Security (or your local equivalent). I am getting a feeling retirement funds is equal to financial independence because one can live without needing to borrow money from anyone. Sort of, but it depends on your goals. Some who are financially independent never choose to retire, but choose jobs without regard to financial need.",
"qid": 10462,
"docid": "91911",
"rank": 69,
"score": 99271
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: That's up to you, but I wouldn't play around with my retirement money if I was in your situation. Your earning potential during your retirement years will likely be at its nadir. Do you really want to risk being forced to be a Wal-Mart greeter when you are 80? Also, considering your earning potential now is probably at or near the peak, your opportunity cost for each hour of your life is much higher now than it will be later. So ultimately you'd be working a little harder now or a lot harder later for less money.",
"qid": 10462,
"docid": "91215",
"rank": 70,
"score": 99198
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Definitely not. You are too young. Let me explain: Your money will be locked up for at least 40 years, and you will have to navigate some really quirky and trap-laden rules in order to get money for simple things. Let's say you want to buy a house. You won't be able to leverage the 401K for that. College Tuition? Limits. Your money is locked in and you may get some match, but that assumes your smartest decision at your age is to save money for retirement. At your age, you should be investing in your career, and that requires cash at hand. If you want to withdraw early you pay more of a penalty than just the tax rate. Put differently: investing in your human capital, at a young age, can yield stronger results than just squirreling money. I'd say don't worry until you are 30. BTW: I'm 24 now. I used to save money in a 401K for a few months, before I understood the rules. Since then, I decided against 401K and just saved the money in a bank. After a few years, I had enough to start my business :) the 401K couldn't give me that opportunity. Further Explanation: I am in the NYC area. Many of my friends and I had to decide between living in manhattan or choosing to live in the outer boroughs or NJ. One thing I noticed was that, while the people in manhattan were burning much more money (to the tune of 1500 per month), they were actually much more productive and were promoted more often. Having lived in brooklyn and in manhattan, even though it is less expensive, you actually lose at least an hour a day thanks to the commute (and have to deal with crap like the 6 train). Personally, after moving in, I invested the extra time in myself (i.e. sleeping more, working longer hours, side projects). Now, when all is said and done, the people who decided to invest in themselves in the short term are financially more secure (both job-wise and economically, thanks to a few bonus cycles) than those who decided to save on rent and put it in a 401K. As far as the traps are concerned, my dad tried to take out a student loan and was denied thanks to a Vanguard quirk which didnt allow more than 50K to be borrowed (even though the account had over 500K to begin with).",
"qid": 10462,
"docid": "199970",
"rank": 71,
"score": 99192
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Other people have belabored the point that you will get a better rate on a 15 year mortgage, typically around 1.25 % lower. The lower rate makes the 15 year mortgage financially wiser than paying a 30 year mortgage off in 15 years. So go with the 15 year if your income is stable, you will never lose your job, your appliances never break, your vehicles never need major repairs, the pipes in your house never burst, you and your spouse never get sick, and you have no kids. Or if you do have kids, they happen to have good eyesight, straight teeth, they have no aspirations for college, don't play any expensive sports, and they will never ask for help paying the rent when they get older and move out. But if any of those things are likely possibilities, the 30 year mortgage would give you some flexibility to cover short term cash shortages by reverting to your normal 30 year payment for a month or two. Now, the financially wise may balk at this because you are supposed to have enough cash in reserves to cover stuff like this, and that is good advice. But how many people struggle to maintain those reserves when they buy a new house? Consider putting together spreadsheet and calculating the interest cost difference between the two strategies. How much more will the 30 year mortgage cost you in interest if you pay it off in 15 years? That amount equates to the cost of an insurance policy for dealing with an occasional cash shortage. Do you want to pay thousands in extra interest for that insurance? (it is pretty pricey insurance) One strategy would be to go with the 30 year now, make the extra principal payments to keep you on a 15 year schedule, see how life goes, and refinance to a 15 year mortgage after a couple years if everything goes well and your cash reserves are strong. Unfortunately, rates are likely to rise over the next couple years, which makes this strategy less attractive. If at all possible, go with the 15 year so you lock in these near historic low rates. Consider buying less house or dropping back to the 30 year if you are worried that your cash reserves won't be able to handle life's little surprises.",
"qid": 10462,
"docid": "233472",
"rank": 72,
"score": 99192
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: As others have said, this opinion is predicated on an assumption that early in your life you have no need to actually USE the money, so you are able to take advantage of compounding interest (because the money is going to be there for many many years) and you are far more tolerant of loss (because you can simply wait for the markets to recover). This is absolutely true of a pension pot, which is locked away for a great many years. But it is absolutely NOT true of general investments. Someone in the mid-20s to mid-30s is very likely to want to spend that money on, say, buying a house. In which case losing 10% of your deposit 3 months before you start looking for a house could potentially be a disaster. Liekwise, in your mid-40s if your child's school/college fund goes up in smoke that's a big deal. It is a very commonly espoused theory, but I think it is also fundamentally flawed in many scenarios.",
"qid": 10462,
"docid": "397846",
"rank": 73,
"score": 99168
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: When you say: I am 48 and my husband is 54. We have approx. 60,000.00 left in our retirement accounts. We want to move our money into something so our money will grow. We've been looking at annunities. We've talked to 4 different advisors about what is best for us. Bad mistake, I am so overwhelmed with the differences they all have til I can't even think straight anymore. @Havoc P is correct: ...It's very likely that 60k is not nearly enough, and that making the right investment choices will make only a small difference. You could invest poorly and maybe end up with 50K when you retire, or invest well and maybe end up with 80-90k. But your goal is probably more like a million dollars, or more, and most of that will come from future savings. This is what a planner can help you figure out in detail. TL; DR Here is my advice:",
"qid": 10462,
"docid": "180185",
"rank": 74,
"score": 98990
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I'd say that because you are young, even the 'riskier' asset classes are not as risky as you think, for example, assuming conservatively that you only have 30 years to retirement, investing in stocks index might be a good option. In short term share prices are volatile and prone to bull and bear cycles but given enough time they have pretty much always outperformed any other asset classes. The key is not to be desperate to withdraw when an index is at the bottom. Some cycles can be 20 years, so when you need get nearer retirement you will need to diversify so that you can survive without selling low. Just make sure to pick an index tracker with low fees and you should be good to go. A word of warning is of course past performance is no indication of a future one, but if a diversified index tracker goes belly up for 20+ years, we are talking global calamity, in which case buy a shotgun and some canned food ;)",
"qid": 10462,
"docid": "115378",
"rank": 75,
"score": 98886
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You may withdraw penalty-free from a 401(k) if you separate from service at 55 or later. This may make the rolling to any IRA not a good idea. You can withdraw penalty free if you are disabled. You can withdraw penalty free if you take the withdrawal using a process called Section 72t which basically means a steady withdrawal for either 5 years or until age 59-1/2 whichever is second. Aside from these exceptions, the concept is to be allowed to take withdrawals after 59-1/2, but you must start to take withdrawals starting at 70-1/2. These are called RMDs (required minimum distributions) and represent a small fraction of the account, 1/27.4 at 70, 1/18.7 at 80, 1/11.4 at 90. Each year, you take a minimum of this fraction of the account value and pay the tax. If you had a million dollars, your first withdrawal would be $36,496, you'd be in the 15% marginal rate with this income. In general, it's always a good idea to be aware of your marginal tax rate. For example, a married filing joint couple would be in the 15% bracket up to a taxable $74,900 in 2015. At withdrawal time, and as the year moves along, if they are on track to have a taxable $64,900 (for example), it would be wise to take the extra $10,000, either as a withdrawal to put aside for the next year, or as a Roth conversion. This way, as the RMDs increase, they have a reduced chance to push the couple to the next tax bracket.",
"qid": 10462,
"docid": "384693",
"rank": 76,
"score": 98785
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I love how this probably won't get many replies because your in the trenches doing it, keep up the hard work. I graduated high school with 1k in savings and dropped out of college to help support my depressed and unemployed mother with some help from my Father. I am now a married new construction homeowner and we take home enough money to have new cars, save for retirement, and enjoy life with no college degrees. I went from 8 an hour to over 35 now in 4-5 years. We both had to get off social media because of all our old high school friends who went to college for garbage degrees, never tried to get entry level jobs in their industry while in school or network, and now cry all day about how Bernie sanders didn't win the election and why school should be free so they don't have to pay off debt for a worthless degree as they wait tables. No sympathy",
"qid": 10462,
"docid": "113660",
"rank": 77,
"score": 98597
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: At retirement age, your life priorities are somewhat different, and two key items come to mind. Your social circle, community and extended family contacts are highly related with your lifespan at retirement age. Loneliness kills, literally. Long distance relocation would weaken those ties exactly at the time when you most need and want them. You are also likely to need at least occasional physical assistance at random times, so living in a spot where none your friends&family can visit at a day's notice is hard. Cheaper living locations tend to have worse healthcare. Again, this doesn't matter much for a 25 year old expat, but at an age where you likely have one or multiple chronic diseases, general frailty and a very frequent need for healthcare this is a priority. This might work if you can do it as a family. I met a retired British couple in southern India, and they had a nice system where they were living in UK during the (UK) summer, and in India for the rest of the year. However, the above concerns don't disappear - when at a later time their health deterioates and one of them dies, then it would probably be better for the widow[er] to stay in UK permanently closer to their extended family and with the local healthcare system.",
"qid": 10462,
"docid": "335982",
"rank": 78,
"score": 98385
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: This is a partial answer. Coverdell ESA must be withdrawn when the beneficiary turns 30. The 529 has no such age restriction. A decent comparison is at Coverdell Education Savings Accounts a wiki entry at the Bogleheads site. To add another point, the Coverdell limit is $2000 per year deposit, the 529 is subject only to the rules of gift taxation, so a couple can deposit up to $140K this year, taking advantage of the ability to gift ahead, and while paperwork is due to declare the gift, no tax is assessed.",
"qid": 10462,
"docid": "586035",
"rank": 79,
"score": 97995
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: IMHO your thinking is spot on. More than likely, you are years away from retirement, like 22 if you retire somewhat early. Until you get close keep it in aggressive growth. Contribute as much as you can and you probably end up with 3 million in today's dollars. Okay so what if you were retiring in a year or two from now, and you have 3M, and have managed your debt well. You have no loans including no mortgage and an nice emergency fund. How much would you need to live? 60 or 70K year would provide roughly the equivalent of 100K salary (no social security tax, no commute, and no need to save for retirement) and you would not have a mortgage. So what you decide to do is move 250K and move it to bonds so you have enough to live off of for the next 3.5 years or so. That is less than 10% of your nest egg. You have 3.5 years to go through some roller coaster time of the market and you can always cherry pick when to replenish the bond fund. Having a 50% allocation for bonds is not very wise. The 80% probably good for people who have little or no savings like less than 250k and retired. I think you are a very bright individual and have some really good money sense.",
"qid": 10462,
"docid": "108845",
"rank": 80,
"score": 97881
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Getting to know business associates, family members, and friends of your those 30 high net-worth clients would be a good way to go. I feel mid-career folks are an untapped market. Consider the present value of any younger clients before you dismiss them because they are below the threshold. A 30 year old professional with only $100k may be more valuable than a 75 year old with $250k. Good luck.",
"qid": 10462,
"docid": "168344",
"rank": 81,
"score": 97845
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: My observations is that this seems like hardly enough to kill inflation. Is he right? Or are there better ways to invest? The tax deferral part of the equation isn't what dominates regarding whether your 401k beats 30 years of inflation; it is the return on investment. If your 401k account tanks due to a prolonged market crash just as you retire, then you might have been better off stashing the money in the bank. Remember, 401k money at now + 30 years is not a guaranteed return (though many speak as though it were). There is also the question as to whether fees will eat up some of your return and whether the funds your 401k invests in are good ones. I'm uneasy with the autopilot nature of the typical 401k non-strategy; it's too much the standard thing to do in the U.S., it's too unconscious, and strikes me as Ponzi-like. It has been a winning strategy for some already, sure, and maybe it will work for the next 30-100 years or more. I just don't know. There are also changes in policy or other unknowns that 30 years will bring, so it takes faith I don't have to lock away a large chunk of my savings in something I can't touch without hassle and penalty until then. For that reason, I have contributed very little to my 403b previously, contribute nothing now (though employer does, automatically. I have no match.) and have built up a sizable cash savings, some of which may be used to start a business or buy a house with a small or no mortgage (thereby guaranteeing at least not paying mortgage interest). I am open to changing my mind about all this, but am glad I've been able to at least save a chunk to give me some options that I can exercise in the next 5-10 years if I want, instead of having to wait 25 or more.",
"qid": 10462,
"docid": "552887",
"rank": 82,
"score": 97637
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Congratulations on a solid start. Here are my thoughts, based on your situation: Asset Classes I would recommend against a long-term savings account as an investment vehicle. While very safe, the yields will almost always be well below inflation. Since you have a long time horizon (most likely at least 30 years to retirement), you have enough time to take on more risk, as long as it's not more than you can live with. If you are looking for safer alternatives to stocks for part of your investments, you can also consider investment-grade bonds/bond funds, or even a stable value fund. Later, when you are much closer to retirement, you may also want to consider an annuity. Depending on the interest rate on your loan, you may also be able to get a better return from paying down your loan than from putting more in a savings account. I would recommend that you only keep in a savings account what you expect to need in the next few years (cushion for regular expenses, emergency fund, etc.). On Stocks Stocks are riskier but have the best chance to outperform versus inflation over the long term. I tend to favor funds over individual stocks, mostly for a few practical reasons. First, one of the goals of investing is to diversify your risk, which produces a more efficient risk/reward ratio than a group of stocks that are highly correlated. Diversification is easier to achieve via an index fund, but it is possible for a well-educated investor to stay diversified via individual stocks. Also, since most investors don't actually want to take physical possession of their shares, funds will manage the shares for you, as well as offering additional services, such as the automatic reinvestments of dividends and tax management. Asset Allocation It's very important that you are comfortable with the amount of risk you take on. Investment salespeople will prefer to sell you stocks, as they make more commission on stocks than bonds or other investments, but unless you're able to stay in the market for the long term, it's unlikely you'll be able to get the market return over the long term. Make sure to take one or more risk tolerance assessments to understand how often you're willing to accept significant losses, as well as what the optimal asset allocation is for you given the level of risk you can live with. Generally speaking, for someone with a long investment horizon and a medium risk tolerance, even the most conservative allocations will have at least 60% in stocks (total of US and international) with the rest in bonds/other, and up to 80% or even 100% for a more aggressive investor. Owning more bonds will result in a lower expected return, but will also dramatically reduce your portfolio's risk and volatility. Pension With so many companies deciding that they don't feel like keeping the promises they made to yesterday's workers or simply can't afford to, the pension is nice but like Social Security, I wouldn't bank on all of this money being there for you in the future. This is where a fee-only financial planner can really be helpful - they can run a bunch of scenarios in planning software that will show you different retirement scenarios based on a variety of assumptions (ie what if you only get 60% of the promised pension, etc). This is probably not as much of an issue if you are an equity partner, or if the company fully funds the pension in a segregated account, or if the pension is defined-contribution, but most corporate pensions are just a general promise to pay you later in the future with no real money actually set aside for that purpose, so I'd discount this in my planning somewhat. Fund/Stock Selection Generally speaking, most investment literature agrees that you're most likely to get the best risk-adjusted returns over the long term by owning the entire market rather than betting on individual winners and losers, since no one can predict the future (including professional money managers). As such, I'd recommend owning a low-cost index fund over holding specific sectors or specific companies only. Remember that even if one sector is more profitable than another, the stock prices already tend to reflect this. Concentration in IT Consultancy I am concerned that one third of your investable assets are currently in one company (the IT consultancy). It's very possible that you are right that it will continue to do well, that is not my concern. My concern is the risk you're carrying that things will not go well. Again, you are taking on risks not just over the next few years, but over the next 30 or so years until you retire, and even if it seems unlikely that this company will experience a downturn in the next few years, it's very possible that could change over a longer period of time. Please just be aware that there is a risk. One way to mitigate that risk would be to work with an advisor or a fund to structure and investment plan where you invest in a variety of sector funds, except for technology. That way, your overall portfolio, including the single company, will be closer to the market as a whole rather than over-weighted in IT/Tech. However, if this IT Consultancy happens to be the company that you work for, I would strongly recommend divesting yourself of those shares as soon as reasonably possible. In my opinion, the risk of having your salary, pension, and much of your investments tied up in the fortunes of one company would simply be a much larger risk than I'd be comfortable with. Last, make sure to keep learning so that you are making decisions that you're comfortable with. With the amount of savings you have, most investment firms will consider you a \"\"high net worth\"\" client, so make sure you are making decisions that are in your best financial interests, not theirs. Again, this is where a fee-only financial advisor may be helpful (you can find a local advisor at napfa.org). Best of luck with your decisions!\"",
"qid": 10462,
"docid": "424247",
"rank": 83,
"score": 97614
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.richmondfed.org/publications/research/econ_focus/2016/q3-4/profession) reduced by 88%. (I'm a bot) ***** > A 2014 working paper by several German and Swiss researchers, &quot;Happiness of Economists,&quot; concluded on the basis of a large-scale survey that economists are &quot;Highly happy with life&quot;; moreover, those in North America are the happiest. > If working as an economist is so much fun, why do they retire at all? Although mandatory retirement at age 70 was once nearly universal in universities, where most research economists are employed, Congress abolished mandatory retirement for faculty starting in 1994. > Even if a retired economist no longer participates in the profession in any form - no research, no writing, no consulting, no advising students - he or she may well continue to be an economist. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6zjx0h/do_economists_ever_really_retire/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~208272 tl;drs so far.\"\") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") | *Top* *keywords*: **economist**^#1 **retirement**^#2 **retire**^#3 **economic**^#4 **work**^#5\"",
"qid": 10462,
"docid": "643",
"rank": 84,
"score": 97404
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"At 50 years old, and a dozen years or so from retirement, I am close to 100% in equities in my retirement accounts. Most financial planners would say this is way too risky, which sort of addresses your question. I seek high return rather than protection of principal. If I was you at 22, I would mainly look at high returns rather than protection of principal. The short answer is, that even if your investments drop by half, you have plenty of time to recover. But onto the long answer. You sort of have to imagine yourself close to retirement age, and what that would look like. If you are contributing at 22, I would say that it is likely that you end up with 3 million (in today's dollars). Will you have low or high monthly expenses? Will you have other sources of income such as rental properties? Let's say you rental income that comes close to covering your monthly expenses, but is short about 12K per year. You have a couple of options: So in the end let's say you are ready to retire with about 60K in cash above your emergency fund. You have the ability to live off that cash for 5 years. You can replenish that fund from equity investments at opportune times. Its also likely you equity investments will grow a lot more than your expenses and any emergencies. There really is no need to have a significant amount out of equities. In the case cited, real estate serves as your cash investment. Now one can fret and say \"\"how will I know I have all of that when I am ready to retire\"\"? The answer is simple: structure your life now so it looks that way in the future. You are off to a good start. Right now your job is to build your investments in your 401K (which you are doing) and get good at budgeting. The rest will follow. After that your next step is to buy your first home. Good work on looking to plan for your future.\"",
"qid": 10462,
"docid": "140738",
"rank": 85,
"score": 96948
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Yes you can do the withdraw if you turned 55 during the year you separated from service. http://www.401khelpcenter.com/401k_education/Early_Dist_Options.html#.VdMrqPlVhBc Leaving Your Job On or After Age 55 The age 59½ distribution rule says any 401k participant may begin to withdraw money from his or her plan after reaching the age of 59½ without having to pay a 10 percent early withdrawal penalty. There is an exception to that rule, however, which allows an employee who retires, quits or is fired at age 55 to withdraw without penalty from their 401k (the \"\"rule of 55\"\"). There are three key points early retirees need to know. First, this exception applies if you leave your job at any time during the calendar year in which you turn 55, or later, according to IRS Publication 575. Second, if you still have money in the plan of a former employer and assuming you weren't at least age 55 when you left that employer, you'll have to wait until age 59½ to start taking withdrawals without penalty. Better yet, get any old 401k's rolled into your current 401k before you retire from your current job so that you will have access to these funds penalty free. Third, this exception only applies to funds withdrawn from a 401k. IRAs operate until different rules, so if you retire and roll money into an IRA from your 401k before age 59½, you will lose this exception on those dollars.\"",
"qid": 10462,
"docid": "128451",
"rank": 86,
"score": 96837
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: First let's define some terms. Your accrued benefit is a monthly benefit payable at your normal retirement age (usually 65). It is usually a life-only benefit but may have a number of years guaranteed or may have a survivor piece. It is defined by a plan formula (ie, it is a defined benefit). A lump sum is how much that accrued benefit is worth right now. Lump sums are based on applicable interest rates and mortality tables specified by the IRS (interest rates are released monthly, mortality annually). Your plan can either use the same interest rates for a whole year, or they can use new ones each month. Affecting your lump sum is whether your accrued benefit is payable now (immediately, you are age 65), or later (deferred, you are now age 30). For example, instead of being paid an annuity assume you are paid just one payment of $1,000 on your 65th birthday. The lump sum of that for a 65 year old would be $1,000 since there would be no interest discount, and no chance of dying before payment. For a 30 year old, at 4% interest the lump sum would be about $237 (including mortality discount). At age 36 the lump sum is $246. So the lump sum will get bigger just because you get older. Very important is the interest discount. At age 30 in the example, 2% interest would produce a $467 lump sum. And at 6% $122. The bigger the rate, the smaller the lump sum because interest helps an amount now grow bigger in the future. To complicate things, since 2008 the IRS bases lump sums on 3 different interest rates. The monthy annuity payments made within 5 years of the lump sum date use the 1st rate, past 5 and within 20 years use the 2nd rate, and past that use the 3rd rate. Since you are age 30, all of your monthly annuity payments would be made after 20 years, so that makes it simple since we'll only have to look at the 3rd rate. When you reach age 45 the 2nd rate will kick in. Here is the table of interest rates published by the IRS: http://www.irs.gov/Retirement-Plans/Minimum-Present-Value-Segment-Rates You'll find your rates above on the 2013 line for Aug-12. That means your lump sum is being made in 2013 and it is being based on the month August 2012. Most likely your plan will use the same rates for its entire plan year. But what is your plan year? If it is the calendar year, then you would have a 5 month lookback for the rates. But if is a September to August plan year with a 1 month lookback, the rates would have changed between August and September. Your August lump sum would be based on 4.52%, your September on would be based on 5.58% (see the All line for Aug-13). For comparison, a 30 year old with a $100 annuity payable at age 65 would have a lump sum value of $3,011 at 4.52%, but a lump sum value of $1,931 at 5.58%. The change in your accrued benefit by month will obviously have some impact on the lump sum value, but not as much as the change in interest rates if there is one. The amount they actually contribute to the plan has nothing to do with the value of the lump sum though.",
"qid": 10462,
"docid": "4734",
"rank": 87,
"score": 96583
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"More costs are going to be put on the consumer. But that is something that would happen all the time. Originally those systems were not built with the expectation that average life expectancy would jump from almost a factor of a third (60 to 80 years, if you wonder why the age of retirement is 65 and not more or less, check out Bismark and Kaiser Wilhelm on that subject). Additionally, the current age population pyramid of the west (and asian soon to come) is put an increasing pressure on the cost of healthcare. Now, to me the biggest issue with the US is the belief that market driven economies will always lower prices. The problem is that the insurance companies in this country form an oligopoly with the goal to make profits. Now, here is the important question: is healthcare a \"\"need\"\" or a \"\"want\"\"? If it is a \"\"want\"\" then someone can live without it but if you have an accident or anything of that type, then is it still a \"\"want\"\" or a \"\"need\"\". You can live without TV all your life and nothing bad may happen to you. No healthcare and then you can get screwed for your life. Because people will feel compelled to save themselves and be brought to the hospital, those who can afford it or need it will pay for it. Thus you have an automatic pressure on prices as it is used by a smaller pool of people than if everyone in the country was paying for it independent of income. And because the people buying health insurance feel they need to have insurance, their price elasticity of demand will become inelastic (the price may change a lot but the amount of demand won't change much). So, if i'm a private insurance company, I will charge as much as I can because I know that people will be willing to pay more for the same healthcare cost. The European system will simply be a cheaper option than the US because it concentrates a larger pool of payers and is not aimed at profits. Additionally, if there were quality issues in the healthcare provided this would have been seen long ago if you compare the amount of money spent in the US and Europe on healthcare. In Europe the cost of healthcare is theoretically only the government spending. In the US it is both gvt and private spending. Tell me what you think\"",
"qid": 10462,
"docid": "36240",
"rank": 88,
"score": 96248
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Imagine a married couple without a mortgage, but live in a house fully paid for. They pay state income taxes, and property tax, and make charitable deductions that together total $12,599. That is $1 below the standard deduction for 2015, therefore they don't itemize. Now they decide to get a mortgage: $100,000 for 30 years at 4%. That first year they pay about $4,000 in interest. Now it makes sense to itemize. That $4,000 in interest plus their other deductions means that if they are in the 25% bracket they cut their tax bill by $1,000. These numbers will decrease each year. If they have a use for that pile of cash: such as a new roof, or a 100% sure investment that is guaranteed make more money for them then they are losing in interest it makes sense. But spending $4,000 to save $1,000 doesn't. Using the pile of cash to pay off the new mortgage means that the bank is collecting $4,000 a year so you can send $1,000 less to Uncle Sam.",
"qid": 10462,
"docid": "42430",
"rank": 89,
"score": 96089
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Aggressiveness in a retirement portfolio is usually a function of your age and your risk tolerance. Your portfolio is usually a mix of the following asset classes: You can break down these asset classes further, but each one is a topic unto itself. If you are young, you want to invest in things that have a higher return, but are more volatile, because market fluctuations (like the current financial meltdown) will be long gone before you reach retirement age. This means that at a younger age, you should be investing more in stocks and foreign/developing countries. If you are older, you need to be into more conservative investments (bonds, money market, etc). If you were in your 50s-60s and still heavily invested in stock, something like the current financial crisis could have ruined your retirement plans. (A lot of baby boomers learned this the hard way.) For most of your life, you will probably be somewhere in between these two. Start aggressive, and gradually get more conservative as you get older. You will probably need to re-check your asset allocation once every 5 years or so. As for how much of each investment class, there are no hard and fast rules. The idea is to maximize return while accepting a certain amount of risk. There are two big unknowns in there: (1) how much return do you expect from the various investments, and (2) how much risk are you willing to accept. #1 is a big guess, and #2 is personal opinion. A general portfolio guideline is \"\"100 minus your age\"\". This means if you are 20, you should have 80% of your retirement portfolio in stocks. If you are 60, your retirement portfolio should be 40% stock. Over the years, the \"\"100\"\" number has varied. Some financial advisor types have suggested \"\"150\"\" or \"\"200\"\". Unfortunately, that's why a lot of baby boomers can't retire now. Above all, re-balance your portfolio regularly. At least once a year, perhaps quarterly if the market is going wild. Make sure you are still in-line with your desired asset allocation. If the stock market tanks and you are under-invested in stocks, buy more stock, selling off other funds if necessary. (I've read interviews with fund managers who say failure to rebalance in a down stock market is one of the big mistakes people make when managing a retirement portfolio.) As for specific mutual fund suggestions, I'm not going to do that, because it depends on what your 401k or IRA has available as investment options. I do suggest that your focus on selecting a \"\"passive\"\" index fund, not an actively managed fund with a high expense ratio. Personally, I like \"\"total market\"\" funds to give you the broadest allocation of small and big companies. (This makes your question about large/small cap stocks moot.) The next best choice would be an S&P 500 index fund. You should also be able to find a low-cost Bond Index Fund that will give you a healthy mix of different bond types. However, you need to look at expense ratios to make an informed decision. A better-performing fund is pointless if you lose it all to fees! Also, watch out for overlap between your fund choices. Investing in both a Total Market fund, and an S&P 500 fund undermines the idea of a diversified portfolio. An aggressive portfolio usually includes some Foreign/Developing Nation investments. There aren't many index fund options here, so you may have to go with an actively-managed fund (with a much higher expense ratio). However, this kind of investment can be worth it to take advantage of the economic growth in places like China. http://www.getrichslowly.org/blog/2009/04/27/how-to-create-your-own-target-date-mutual-fund/\"",
"qid": 10462,
"docid": "418551",
"rank": 90,
"score": 95483
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: http://www.myretirementblog.com/average-retirement-savings-by-age.html For ages 25-34: Obviously that's a huge range, and a 26 year old would at the very low end, but I would say anywhere near $25,000 is a ton.",
"qid": 10462,
"docid": "160530",
"rank": 91,
"score": 95443
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You can withdraw from CPP as early as 60. However, by doing so, you will permanently reduce the payments. The reduction is calculated based on average life expectancies. If you live for an average amount of time, that means you'll receive approximately the same total amount (after inflation adjustments) whether you start pulling from CPP at 60, 65, or even delay your pension later. People may have pensions through systems other than CPP. This is often true for big business or government work. They may work differently. People who retire at 55 with a pension are not getting their pension through CPP. A person retiring at 55 would need to wait at least five years to draw from the CPP, and ten years before he or she was eligible for a full pension through CPP. Canada also offers Old Age Security (OAS). This is only available once you are 65 years old or older, though this is changing. Starting in 2023, this will gradually change to 67 years or older. See this page for more details. As always, it's worth pointing out that the CPP and OAS will almost certainly not cover your full retirement expenses and you will need supplementary funds.",
"qid": 10462,
"docid": "108672",
"rank": 92,
"score": 95132
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: This is a somewhat complicated question because it really depends on your personal situation. For example, the following parameters might impact your optimal asset allocation: If you need the money before 3 years, I would suggest keeping almost all of it in cash, CDs, Treasuries, and ultra safe short-term corporate bonds. If however, you have a longer time horizon (and since you're in your 30s you would ideally have decades) you should diversify by investing in many different asset classes. This includes Australian equity, international equity, foreign and domestic debt, commodities, and real estate. Since you have such a long time horizon market timing is not that important.",
"qid": 10462,
"docid": "365479",
"rank": 93,
"score": 94758
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I know a guy who retired with a full pension from Sears after 20 years employment. It was in 1996 and he had worked there since 1976..... when he was 15 years old. Not sure how that would be sustainable anyway.",
"qid": 10462,
"docid": "492589",
"rank": 94,
"score": 94643
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The long term view you are referring to would be over 30 to 40 years (i.e. your working life). Yes in general you should be going for higher growth options when you are young. As you approach retirement you may change to a more balanced or capital guaranteed option. As the higher growth options will have a larger proportion of funds invested into higher growth assets like shares and property, they will be affected by market movements in these asset classes. So when there is a market crash like with the GFC in 2007/2008 and share prices drop by 40% to 50%, then this will have an effect on your superannuation returns for that year. I would say that if your fund was invested mainly in the Australian stock market over the last 7 years your returns would still be lower than what they were in mid-2007, due to the stock market falls in late 2007 and early 2008. This would mean that for the 7 year time frame your returns would be lower than a balanced or capital guaranteed fund where a majority of funds are invested in bonds and other fixed interest products. However, I would say that for the 5 and possibly the 10 year time frames the returns of the high growth options should have outperformed the balanced and capital guaranteed options. See examples below: First State Super AMP Super Both of these examples show that over a 5 year period or less the more aggressive or high growth options performed better than the more conservative options, and over the 7 year period for First State Super the high growth option performed similar to the more conservative option. Maybe you have been looking at funds with higher fees so in good times when the fund performs well the returns are reduced by excessive fees and when the fund performs badly in not so good time the performance is even worse as the fees are still excessive. Maybe look at industry type funds or retail funds that charge much smaller fees. Also, if a fund has relatively low returns during a period when the market is booming, maybe this is not a good fund to choose. Conversely, it the fund doesn't perform too badly when the market has just crashed, may be it is worth further investigating. You should always try to compare the performance to the market in general and other similar funds. Remember, super should be looked at over a 30 to 40 year time frame, and it is a good idea to get interested in how your fund is performing from an early age, instead of worrying about it only a few years before retirement.",
"qid": 10462,
"docid": "47795",
"rank": 95,
"score": 94417
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"**The 25% is an utterly meaningless statistic absent the age-demographic breakdown.** One would easily expect the 18 to ~30 year age group to have little in the way of savings (and the 18 to 30 year age group is > 20% of the population by itself). This is (like the \"\"upper X% have more net worth than the lower YY%\"\") yet another one of these idiotic/inane/misleading abuses of aggregate statistics. Also, this really isn't \"\"news\"\" in that it isn't anything *new* -- for the majority of Americans \"\"savings\"\" pretty much disappeared a couple of decades ago.\"",
"qid": 10462,
"docid": "279677",
"rank": 96,
"score": 94403
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: There is another factor to consider when refinancing is the remaining term left on your loan. If you have 20 years left, and you re-fi into another 30 year loan that extends the length that you will be paying off the house for another 10 years. You are probably better off going with 20, or even 15. If this is a new loan, that is less of an issue, although if you moving and buying a house in a similar price range it is still something to consider. My goal is to have my house paid off before I retire (hopefully early semi-retirement around 55).",
"qid": 10462,
"docid": "139559",
"rank": 97,
"score": 94379
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I'd suggest you avoid the Roth for now and use pretax accounts to get the greatest return. I'd deposit to the 401(k), enough to get as much match as permitted, then use a traditional IRA. You should understand how tax brackets work, and aim to use pre-tax to the extent it helps you avoid the 25% rate. If any incremental deposit would be 15% money, use Roth for that. Most discussions of the pre-tax / post tax decision talk about 2 rates. That at the time of deposit and time of withdrawal. There are decades in between that shouldn't be ignored. If you have any life change, a marriage, child, home purchase, etc, there's a chance your marginal bracket drops back down to 15%. That's the time to convert to Roth, just enough to \"\"top off\"\" the 15% bracket. Last, I wouldn't count on that pension, there's too much time until you retire to count on that income. Few people stay at one job long enough to collect on the promise of a pension that takes 30+ years to earn, and even if you did, there's the real chance the company cancels the plan long before you retire.\"",
"qid": 10462,
"docid": "267998",
"rank": 98,
"score": 94302
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: After more than 30 years of married life the only thing that has worked is to partner with someone who is your opposite. I am a saver, my wife is a spender. Each pay period we establish a budget. Only those things to which we both agree go into the budget. If we violate the budget the other one holds the violator accountable. Be sure to put some 'slop' into the budget, you cannot perfectly predict the future. The budget can, and will, change throughout the pay period, but only if both agree to the change.",
"qid": 10462,
"docid": "334574",
"rank": 99,
"score": 94288
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: It would be quite the miracle if you found that you know, now, just graduating college, what your tax rate would be at retirement. But, it's fair to say that chances are that you'll be in a higher tax bracket in years to come due to promotions,better job, or he joy of dual income after marriage. So, I'd suggest Roth for now, with an eye towards pretax savings as your income and bracket rises. Ideally, a retiree finds himself in a bracket no higher than while working, but also not lower. You see, saving in Roth 100% and missing the ability to withdraw at 0, 10, and 15%, is as bad as saving 100% in pretax, and fining you retire in a higher bracket. No one can tell you the best path, but at any given moment, the highest probability outcome may be visible.",
"qid": 10462,
"docid": "589714",
"rank": 100,
"score": 94023
}
] |
Rollover into bond fund to do dollar cost averaging [duplicate] | [
{
"content": "Title: Content: Dollar cost averaging is a great strategy to use for investment vehicles where you can't invest it in a lump sum. A 401K is perfect for this. You take a specific amount out of each paycheck and invest it either in a single fund, or multiple funds, or some programs let you invest it in a brokerage account so you can invest in virtually any mutual fund or stock. With annual or semi-annual re-balancing of your investments dollar cost averaging is the way to invest in these programs. If you have a lump sum to invest, then dollar cost averaging is not the best way to invest. Imagine you want to invest 10K and you want to be 50% bonds and 50% stocks. Under dollar cost averaging you would take months to move the money from 100% cash to 50/50 bonds/stocks. While you are slowly moving towards the allocation you want, you will spend months not in the allocation you want. You will spend way too long in the heavy cash position you were trying to change. The problem works the other way also. Somebody trying to switch from stocks to gold a few years ago, would not have wanted to stay in limbo for months. Obviously day traders don't use dollar cost averaging. If you will will be a frequent trader, DCA is not the way to go. No particular stock type is better for DCA. It is dependent on how long you plan on keeping the investment, and if you will be working with a lump sum or not. EDIT: There have be comments regarding DCA and 401Ks. When experts discuss why people should invest via a 401K, they mention DCA as a plus along with the company match. Many participants walk away with the belief that DCA is the BEST strategy. Many articles have been written about how to invest an inheritance or tax refund, many people want to use DCA because they believe that it is good. In fact in the last few years the experts have begun to discourage ever using DCA unless there is no other way.",
"qid": 10482,
"docid": "464264",
"rank": 1,
"score": 135166
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: At 22 years old, you can afford to be invested 100% in the stock market. Like many others, I recommend that you consider low cost index funds if those are available in your 401(k) plan. Since your 401(k) contributions are usually made with each paycheck this gives you the added benefit of dollar cost averaging throughout your career. There used to be a common rule that you should put 100 minus your age as the percentage invested in the stock market and the rest in bonds, but with interest rates being so low, bonds have underperformed, so many experts now recommend 110 or even 120 minus your age for stocks percentage. My recommendation is that you wait until you are 40 and then move 25% into bonds, then increase it to 40% at 55 years old. At 65 I would jump to a 50-50 stock/bonds mix and when you start taking distributions I would move to a stable-value income portfolio. I also recommend that you roll your funds into a Vanguard IRA when you change jobs so that you take advantage of their low management fee index mutual funds (that have no fees for trading). You can pick whatever mix feels best for you, but at your age I would suggest a 50-50 mix between the S&P 500 (large cap) and the Russell 2000 (small cap). Those with quarterly rebalancing will put you a little ahead of the market with very little effort.",
"qid": 10482,
"docid": "216365",
"rank": 2,
"score": 124373
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You are right about the stock and index funds, with dollar cost averaging over several years, the daily price of the security (especially a dividend paying security) will not matter* because your position will have accumulated larger over several entry points, some entries with cheaper shares and some entries with more expensive shares. In the future your position will be so large that any uptick will net you large gains on your original equity. *not matter being a reference to even extreme forms of volatility. But if you had all your equity in a poor company and tanked, never to rise again, then you would still be in a losing position even with dollar cost averaging. If your only other holdings are bonds, then you MAY want to sell those to free up capital.",
"qid": 10482,
"docid": "127401",
"rank": 3,
"score": 123652
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: There have been studies which show that Dollar Cost Averaging (DCA) underperforms Lump Sum Investing (LSI). Vanguard, in particular, has published one such study. Of course, reading about advice in a study is one thing; acting on that advice can be something else entirely. We rolled over my wife's 401(k) to an IRA back in early 2007 and just did it as a lump sum. You know what happened after that. But our horizon was 25+ years at that time, so we didn't lose too much sleep over it (we haven't sold or gone to cash, either).",
"qid": 10482,
"docid": "535732",
"rank": 4,
"score": 116016
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Dollar cost averaging is a fancy name someone came up with to say \"\"Invest all of the time\"\". I would not bother with spreading out purchases. If the market is too expensive right now ...so what? The items you sell will bring top dollar. The fund you buy will cost top dollar. It all evens out. You could sell your assets and just sit on cash, but that would require knowing when the next market drop is coming..which no one knows. Also, it never really is cash; it goes into a money market fund which is not guaranteed. I would rather own companies(VSTAX) and collect the dividend.\"",
"qid": 10482,
"docid": "330023",
"rank": 5,
"score": 113628
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Dollar cost averaging is a method of regularly investing money as it is available. For example, $100 from each paycheck. It has been shown to bet better, on average, than collecting the money and investing it all at once. It is not intended to be used when you have the entire amount up front. See this link. Dollar cost averaging a lump sum would only be beneficial if the market was just as likely to go up as is to go down. Since, over time, the market (historically) has always gone up, your best bet is to invest all of your money right away. Anything else is just trying to time the market.",
"qid": 10482,
"docid": "361010",
"rank": 6,
"score": 112506
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Dollar cost averaging is an great way to diversify your investment risk. There's mainly 2 things you want to achieve when you're saving for retirement: 1) Keep your principal investment; 2) Grow it. The best methods recommended by most financial institutions are as follows: 1) Diversification; 2) Re-balance. There are a lot of additional recommendations, but these are my main take away. When you dollar cost average, you're essentially diversifying your exchange risk between the value of the funds you're investing. Including the ups and downs of the value of the underlying asset, may actually be re-balancing. Picking your asset portfolio: 1) You generally want to include within your 401k or any other invest, classes of investments that do not always move in total correlation as this allows you to diversify risk; 2) I'm making a lot of assumptions here - since you may have already picked your asset classes. Consider utilizing the following to tell you when to buy or sell your underlying investment: 1) Google re-balance excel sheet to find several examples of re-balance tools to help you always buy low and sell high; 2) Enter your portfolio investment; 3) Utilize the movement to invest in the underlying assets based on market movement; and 4) Execute in an emotionless way and stick to your plan. Example - Facts 1) I have 1 CAD and 1 USD in my 401k. Plan I will invest 1 dollar in the ratio of 50/50 - forever. Let's start in 2011 since we were closer to par: 2010 - 1 CAD (value 1 USD) and 1 USD (value 1 USD) = 50/50 ratio 2011 start - 1 CAD ( value .8 USD) and 1 USD (value 1 USD) = 40/60 ratio 2011 - rebalance - invest 1 USD as follows purchase .75 CAD (.60 USD) and purchase .40 USD = total of 1 USD reinvested 2011 end - 1.75 CAD (value 1.4USD) and 1.4 USD (value 1.4 USD) - 50/50 ratio As long as the fundamentals of your underlying assets (i.e. you're not expecting hyperinflation or your asset to approach 0), this approach will always build value over time since you're always buying low and selling high while dollar averaging. Keep in mind it does reduce your potential gains - but if you're looking to max gain, it may mean you're also max potential loss - unless you're able to find A symmetrical investments. I hope this helps.",
"qid": 10482,
"docid": "18436",
"rank": 7,
"score": 112146
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Personally, I think you are approaching this from the wrong angle. You're somewhat correct in assuming that what you're reading is usually some kind of marketing material. Systematic Investment Plan (SIP) is not a universal piece of jargon in the financial world. Dollar cost averaging is a pretty universal piece of jargon in the financial world and is a common topic taught in finance classes in the US. On average, verified by many studies, individuals will generate better investment returns when they proactively avoid timing the market or attempting to pick specific winners. Say you decide to invest in a mutual fund, dollar cost averaging means you invest the same dollar amount in consistent intervals rather than buying a number of shares or buying sporadically when you feel the market is low. As an example I'll compare investing $50 per week on Wednesdays, versus 1 share per week on Wednesdays, or the full $850 on the first Wednesday. I'll use the Vanguard Large cap fund as an example (VLCAX). I realize this is not really an apples to apples comparison as the invested amounts are different, I just wanted to show how your rate of return can change depending on how your money goes in to the market even if the difference is subtle. By investing a common dollar amount rather than a common share amount you ultimately maintain a lower average share price while the share price climbs. It also keeps your investment easy to budget. Vanguard published an excellent paper discussing dollar cost averaging versus lump sum investing which concluded that you should invest as soon as you have funds, rather than parsing out a lump sum in to smaller periodic investments, which is illustrated in the third column above; and obviously worked out well as the market has been increasing. Ultimately, all of these companies are vying to customers so they all have marketing teams trying to figure out how to make their services sound interesting and unique. If they all called dollar cost averaging, \"\"dollar cost averaging\"\" none of them would appear to be unique. So they devise neat acronyms but it's all pretty much the same idea. Trickle your money in to your investments as the money becomes available to you.\"",
"qid": 10482,
"docid": "544070",
"rank": 8,
"score": 111470
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"You have a good thing going. One of the luxuries of being invested in an index fund for the long term is that you don't have to sweat the inevitable short term dips in the market. Instead, look at the opportunity that presents itself on market dips: now your monthly investment is getting in at a lower price. \"\"Buy low, sell high.\"\" \"\"Don't lose money.\"\" These are common mantras for long term investment mentality. 5-8 years is plenty of time -- I'd call it \"\"medium-term\"\". As you get closer to your goals (~2-3 years out) you should start slowly moving money out of your index fund and start dollar cost averaging out into cash or short-term bonds (but that's another question). Keep putting money in, wait, and sell high. If it's not high, wait another year or two to buy the house. A lot of people do the opposite for their entire lives: buying high, panic selling on the dips, then buying again when it goes up. That's bad! I recommend a search on \"\"dollar cost averaging\"\", which is exactly what you are doing right now with your monthly investments.\"",
"qid": 10482,
"docid": "106128",
"rank": 9,
"score": 109094
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: As mentioned by others, dollar cost averaging is just a fancy term for how many shares your individual purchases get when you are initially adding money to your investment accounts. Once the money is invested, annual or quarterly rebalancing serves the purpose of taking advantage of higher rates of growth in particular market sectors. You define the asset allocation based on your risk profile, time to retirement, etc., then you periodically sell the shares of the investments that have grown faster than the rest and buy more shares of the investments that are relatively cheaper.",
"qid": 10482,
"docid": "406192",
"rank": 10,
"score": 107854
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you define dollar cost cost averaging as investing a specific dollar amount over a certain fixed time frame then it does not work statistically better than any other strategy for getting that money in the market. (IE Aunt Ruth wants to invest $60,000 in the stock market and does it $5000 a month for a year.) It will work better on some markets and worse on others, but on average it won't be any better. Dollar cost averaging of this form is effectively a bet that gains will occur at the end of the time period rather than the beginning, sometimes this bet will pay off, other times it won't. A regular investment contribution of what you can afford over an indefinite time period (IE 401k contribution) is NOT Dollar Cost Averaging but it is an effective investment strategy.",
"qid": 10482,
"docid": "237052",
"rank": 11,
"score": 107643
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The optimal time period is unambiguously zero seconds. Put it all in immediately. Dollar cost averaging reduces the risk that you will be buying at a bad time (no one knows whether now is a bad or great time), but brings with it reduction in expected return because you will be keeping a lot of money in cash for a long time. You are reducing your risk and your expected return by dollar cost averaging. It's not crazy to trade expected returns for lower risk. People do it all the time. However, if you have a pot of money you intend to invest and you do so over a period of time, then you are changing your risk profile over time in a way that doesn't correspond to changes in your risk preferences. This is contrary to finance theory and is not optimal. The optimal percentage of your wealth invested in risky assets is proportional to your tolerance for risk and should not change over time unless that tolerance changes. Dollar cost averaging makes sense if you are setting aside some of your income each month to invest. In that case it is simply a way of being invested for as long as possible. Having a pile of money sitting around while you invest it little by little over time is a misuse of dollar-cost averaging. Bottom line: forcing dollar cost averaging on a pile of money you intend to invest is not based in sound finance theory. If you want to invest all that money, do so now. If you are too risk averse to put it all in, then decide how much you will invest, invest that much now, and keep the rest in a savings account indefinitely. Don't change your investment allocation proportion unless your risk aversion changes. There are many people on the internet and elsewhere who preach the gospel of dollar cost averaging, but their belief in it is not based on sound principles. It's just a dogma. The language of your question implies that you may be interested in sound principles, so I have given you the real answer.",
"qid": 10482,
"docid": "224782",
"rank": 12,
"score": 106994
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Dollar cost averaging doesn't (or shouldn't) apply here. DCA is the natural way we invest in the market, buying in by a steady dollar amount each pay period, so over time we can buy more shares when the market is down, and fewer when it's higher. It's more psychological than financial. The fact is that given the market rises, on average, over time, if one has a lump sum to invest, it should be deployed based on other factors, not just DCA'd in. As I said, DCA is just how we all naturally invest from our income. The above has nothing to do with your situation. You are invested and wish to swap funds. If the funds are with the same broker, you should be able to execute this at the closing price. The sell and buy happen after hours and you wake up the next day with the newly invested portfolio. If funds are getting transferred from broker to broker, you do have a risk. The risk that they take time, say even 2 days when funds are not invested. A shame to lose a 2% market move as the cost of moving brokers. In this case, I'd do mine and my wife's at different times. To reduce that risk.",
"qid": 10482,
"docid": "374284",
"rank": 13,
"score": 106792
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Dollar Cost Averaging would be the likely balanced approach that I'd take. Depending on the size of the sum, I'd likely consider a minimum of 3 and at most 12 points to invest the funds to get them all working. While the sum may be large relative to my net worth, depending on overall scale and risk tolerance I could see doing it in a few rounds of purchasing or I could see taking an entire year to deploy the funds in case of something happening. I'd likely do monthly investments myself though others may go for getting more precise on things.",
"qid": 10482,
"docid": "244455",
"rank": 14,
"score": 106291
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"How often should one use dollar-cost averaging? Trivially, a dollar cost averaging (DCA) strategy must be used at least twice! More seriously, DCA is a discipline that people (typically investors with relatively small amounts of money to invest each month or each quarter) use to avoid succumbing to the temptation to \"\"time the market\"\". As mhoran_psprep points out, it is well-suited to 401k plans and the like (e.g. 403b plans for educational and non-profit institutions, 457 plans for State employees, etc), and indeed is actually the default option in such plans, since a fixed amount of money gets invested each week, or every two weeks, or every month depending on the payroll schedule. Many plans offer just a few mutual funds in which to invest, though far too many people, having little knowledge or understanding of investments, simply opt for the money-market fund or guaranteed annuity fund in their 4xx plans. In any case, all your money goes to work immediately since all mutual funds let you invest in thousandths of a share. Some 401k/403b/457 plans allow investments in stocks through a brokerage, but I think that using DCA to buy individual stocks in a retirement plan is not a good idea at all. The reasons for this are that not only must shares must be bought in whole numbers (integers) but it is generally cheaper to buy stocks in round lots of 100 (or multiples of 100) shares rather than in odd lots of, say, 37 shares. So buying stocks weekly, or biweekly or monthly in a 401k plan means paying more or having the money sit idle until enough is accumulated to buy 100 shares of a stock at which point the brokerage executes the order to buy the stock; and this is really not DCA at all. Worse yet, if you let the money accumulate but you are the one calling the shots \"\"Buy 100 shares of APPL today\"\" instead of letting the brokerage execute the order when there is enough money, you are likely to be timing the market instead of doing DCA. So, are brokerages useless in retirement fund accounts? No, they can be useful but they are not suitable for DCA strategies involving buying stocks. Stick to mutual funds for DCA. Do people use it across the board on all stock investments? As indicated above, using DCA to buy individual stocks is not the best idea, regardless of whether it is done inside a retirement plan or outside. DCA outside a retirement plan works best if you not trust yourself to stick with the strategy (\"\"Ooops, I forgot to mail the check yesterday; oh, well, I will do it next week\"\") but rather, arrange for your mutual fund company to take the money out of your checking account each week/month/quarter etc, and invest it in whatever fund(s) you have chosen. Most companies have such programs under names such as Automatic Investment Program (AIP) etc. Why not have your bank send the money to the mutual fund company instead? Well, that works too, but my bank charges me for sending the money whereas my mutual fund company does AIP for free. But YMMV. Dollar-cost averaging generally means investing a fixed amount of money on a periodic basis. An alternative strategy, if one has decided that owning 1200 shares of FlyByKnight Co is a good investment to have, is to buy round lots of 100 shares of FBKCO each month. The amount of money invested each month varies, but at the end of the year, the average cost of the 1200 shares is the average of the prices on the 12 days on which the investments were made. Of course, by the end of the year, you might not think FBKCO is worth holding any more. This technique worked best in the \"\"good old days\"\" when blue-chip stocks paid what was for all practical purposes a guaranteed dividend each year, and people bought these stocks with the intention of passing them on to their widows and children.\"",
"qid": 10482,
"docid": "186538",
"rank": 15,
"score": 106289
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Dollar cost averaging moderates risk. But you pay for this by giving up the chance for higher gains. If you took a hundred people and randomly had them fully buy into the market over a decade period, some of those people will do very well (relative to the rest) while others will do very poorly (relatively). If you dollar cost average, your performance would fall into the middle so you don't fall into the bottom (but you won't fall into the top either).",
"qid": 10482,
"docid": "439757",
"rank": 16,
"score": 106069
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you have a lump sum, you could put it into a low risk investment (which should also have low fluctuations) right away to avoid the risk of buying at a down point. Then move it into a higher risk investment over a period of time. That way you'll buy more units when the price is lower than when it's higher. Usually I hear dollar cost averaging applied to the practice of purchasing a fixed dollar amount of an investment every week or month right out of your salary. The effect is pretty minimal though, except on the highest growth portfolios, and is generally just used as a sales tool by investment councilors (in my opinion).",
"qid": 10482,
"docid": "175576",
"rank": 17,
"score": 106060
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: In general, lump sum investing will tend to outperform dollar cost averaging because markets tend to increase in value, so investing more money earlier will generally be a better strategy. The advantage of dollar cost averaging is that it protects you in times when markets are overvalued, or prior to market corrections. As an extreme example, if you done a lump-sum investment in late 2008 and then suffered through the subsequent market crash, it may have taken you 2-3 years to get back to even. If you began a dollar cost averaging investment plan in late 2008, it may have only taken you a 6 months to get back to even. Dollar cost averaging can also help to reduce the urge to time the market, which for most investors is definitely a good thing.",
"qid": 10482,
"docid": "252677",
"rank": 18,
"score": 105500
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Dollar cost averaging works if the stuff you're buying goes up within your time horizon. It won't protect you from losing money if it doesn't. Also consider that the person (or company, or industry) that suggests dollar-cost averaging might want you to start up a regular investment program and put it on auto-pilot, which subsequently increases the chance that you won't give due attention to the fact that you're sending them money every paycheck to buy an investment that make them money regardless of whether you make money or not.",
"qid": 10482,
"docid": "265817",
"rank": 19,
"score": 105362
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The fact that you are choosing index fund means you are surely not one of those investors who can correctly judge dips. But buying on dips is still important. You can use a method called Dollar Value Averaging. It is better than Dollar Cost Averaging. Just make sure you apply a lower limit and an upper limit to be more predictable. Suppose you have 10000 to invest. Use limits like minimum 200 investment when index is high, maximum 600 investment when index is down and when index gives normal returns, invest 400. Do this for about 2 years. More than 2 years is not recommended. I myself use this method and benefit a lot.",
"qid": 10482,
"docid": "384893",
"rank": 20,
"score": 104453
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I assume by that you mean gradually buying the same mix of funds over time. If that's the case, there is no rational reason to do this. Dollar-cost averaging is an artifact of the way most people fund their 401(k). I would not consider it a viable \"\"strategy\"\". (Neither does Wikipedia) Let's say you have $100,000 that you add $10,000 at a time. When you add money, one of three things can happen: Since you can't predict the future, there's no mathematical justification for buying in segments. There's just as much chance that your funds will be worth more or less, so on average it should make little to no difference. In fact, given the time value of money there is a slight advantage to investing it all now so you can capture any future returns. You can always rebalance later to capture gains on some funds and purchase funds that are down to (hopefully) catch them on a rebound.\"",
"qid": 10482,
"docid": "434466",
"rank": 21,
"score": 104104
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Dollar-Cost averaging will allow you to reduce your risk while the stock prices falls provided: You must invest a fixed amount $X on a fixed time scale (i.e. every Y days). By doing this you will be able to take advantage of the lowering price by obtaining more shares per period as the price falls. But at the same time, if it starts to rise, you will already have your pig in the race. Example: Suppose you wanted to invest $300 in a company. We will do so over 3 periods. As the price falls, your average dollar cost will as well. But since you don't know where the bottom is, you cannot wait until the bottom. By trying to guess the bottom and dumping all of your investment at once you expose yourself to a higher level of risk.",
"qid": 10482,
"docid": "229364",
"rank": 22,
"score": 103317
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Vanguard released an analysis paper in 2013 titled \"\"Dollar-cost averaging just means taking risk later.\"\" This paper explores the performance difference(s) between a dollar-cost averaging strategy and a lump sum strategy when you already possess the funds. This paper is an excellent read but the conclusion from the executive summary is: We conclude that if an investor expects such trends to continue, is satisfied with his or her target asset allocation, and is comfortable with the risk/return characteristics of each strategy, the prudent action is investing the lump sum immediately to gain exposure to the markets as soon as possible. The caveat to the conclusion is weighing your emotions. If you are primarily concerned with minimizing the possibility of a loss then you should use a dollar cost averaging strategy with the understanding that, on a purely mathematical basis, the dollar cost averaging strategy is likely to under-perform a lump sum investment of the funds. The paper explores a 10 year holding period with either: The analysis includes various portfolio blends and is backtested against the United States, United Kingdom and Australian markets. Based on this, as far as I'm concerned, the rule of thumb is invest the lump sum if you're going to invest at all.\"",
"qid": 10482,
"docid": "134005",
"rank": 23,
"score": 102248
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I have been considering a similar situation for a while now, and the advice i have been given is to use a concept called \"\"dollar cost averaging\"\", which basically amounts to investing say 10% a month over 10 months, resulting in your investment getting the average price over that period. So basically, option 3.\"",
"qid": 10482,
"docid": "564787",
"rank": 24,
"score": 101171
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Dollar cost averaging is beneficial if you don't have the money to make large investments but are able to add to your holding over time. If you can buy the same monetary amount at regular intervals over time, your average cost per share will be lower than the stock's average value over that time. This won't necessarily get you the best price, but it will get you, on the whole, a good price and will enable you to increase your holdings over time. If you're doing frequent trading on a highly volatile stock, you don't want to use this method. A better strategy is to buy the dips: Know the range, and place limit orders toward the bottom of the range. Then place limit orders to sell toward the high end of the range. If you do it right, you might be able to build up enough money to buy and sell increasing numbers of shares over time. But like any frequent trader, you'll have to deal with transaction fees; you'll need to be sure the fees don't eat all your profit.",
"qid": 10482,
"docid": "41905",
"rank": 25,
"score": 100980
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Sounds like you're doing fine, though somewhat fuzzy: how are you allocating the $500/month? Are you doing dollar cost averaging into funds, accumulating enough $$ to buy round lots of individual stocks, market timing, etc. The summary suggestion: max out the ROTH first, then with $$$ left over, do the after tax, low-cost fund, monthly dollar cost averaging approach.",
"qid": 10482,
"docid": "525089",
"rank": 26,
"score": 100493
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I believe that the Wikipedia article is attempting to draw a difference between dollar cost averaging as a result of investing when money becomes available (i.e. 401k contributions from your paycheck) and spreading out a lump sum investment. For the former you want to continuously invest as the money becomes available following your predetermined plan for allocation. For the later it may be reasonable to consider the market as you decide how and the timing for investing.",
"qid": 10482,
"docid": "341102",
"rank": 27,
"score": 100332
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you are investing for 10 years, then you just keep buying at whatever price the fund is at. This is called dollar-cost averaging. If the fund is declining in value from when you first bought it, then when you buy more, the AVERAGE price you bought in at is now lower. So therefore your losses are lower AND when it goes back up you will make more. Even if it continues to decline in value then you keep adding more money in periodically, eventually your position will be so large that on the first uptick you will have a huge percent gain. Anyway this is only suggested because you are in it for 10 years. Other people's investment goals vary.",
"qid": 10482,
"docid": "145458",
"rank": 28,
"score": 98983
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: That doesn't sound like dollar cost averaging. That sounds like a form of day trading. Dollar cost averaging is how most people add money to their 401K, or how they add money to some IRA accounts. You are proposing a form of day trading.",
"qid": 10482,
"docid": "447567",
"rank": 29,
"score": 98793
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The standard low-risk/gain very-short-term parking spot these days tends to be a money market account. However, you have only mentioned stock. For good balance, your portfolio should consider the bond market too. Consider adding a bond index fund to diversify the basic mix, taking up much of that 40%. This will also help stabilize your risk since bonds tend to move opposite stocks (prperhaps just because everyone else is also using them as the main alternative, though there are theoretical arguments why this should be so.) Eventually you may want to add a small amount of REIT fund to be mix, but that's back on the higher risk side. (By the way: Trying to guess when the next correction will occur is usually not a winning strategy; guesses tend to go wrong as often as they go right, even for pros. Rather than attempting to \"\"time the market\"\", pick a strategic mix of investments and rebalance periodically to maintain those ratios. There has been debate here about \"\"dollar-cost averaging\"\" -- see other answers -- but that idea may argue for investing and rebalancing in more small chunks rather than a few large ones. I generally actively rebalance once a year or so, and between those times let maintainng the balance suggest which fund(s) new money should go into -- minimal effort and it has worked quite well enough.,)\"",
"qid": 10482,
"docid": "551719",
"rank": 30,
"score": 98786
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"If you are like most people, your timing is kind of awful. What I mean by most, is all. Psychologically we have strong tendencies to buy when the market is high and avoid buying when it is low. One of the easiest to implement strategies to avoid this is Dollar Cost Averaging. In most cases you are far better off making small investments regularly. Having said that, you may need to \"\"save\"\" a bit in order to make subsequent investments because of minimums. For me there is also a positive psychological effect of putting money to work sooner and more often. I find it enjoyable to purchase shares of a mutual fund or stock and the days that I do so are a bit better than the others. An added benefit to doing regular investing is to have them be automated. Many wealthy people describe this as a key to success as they can focused on the business of earning money in their chosen profession as opposed to investing money they have already earned. Additionally the author of I will Teach You to be Rich cites this as a easy, free, and key step in building wealth.\"",
"qid": 10482,
"docid": "24846",
"rank": 31,
"score": 97957
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Dollar cost averaging can be done in a retirement plan, and can be done for individual stock purchases, as this will increase your returns by reducing your risk, especially if you are buying a particular stock for the first time. How many time have I purchased a stock, bottom fishing, thinking I was buying at the low, only to find out there was a new low. Sitting with a thousand shares that are now down $3-$4K. I have a choice to sell at a loss, hold what I've got or double down. I usually add more shares if I'm thinking I'll recover, but at that time I'd wished I'd eased into my investment. That way I would have owned more shares at a smaller cost basis. Anything can happen in the market, not knowing whether the price will increase or decrease. In the example above a $3,000 loss is equal to the brokerage cost of about 300 trades, so trading cost should not be a factor. Now I'm not saying to slowly get into the market and miss the bull, like we're having today with Trump, but get into individual stocks slowly, being fully invested in the market. Also DCA means you do not buy equal number of shares per period, say monthly, but that you buy with the same amount of money a different number of shares, reducing your total costs. Let's say you spend $2000 on a stock trading at $10 (200 shares), if the stock rose to $20 you would spend $2000 and buy 100 shares, and if the stock dropped to $5 you would spend $2000 and buy 400 shares, by now having amassed 700 shares for $6,000. On the other hand and in contrast to DCA had you purchased 200 shares for $2000 at $10/share, then 200 shares for $4000 at $20/share, and finally 200 more shares for $1000 at $5/share, you would have amassed only 600 shares for $7000 investment.",
"qid": 10482,
"docid": "135031",
"rank": 32,
"score": 97444
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You should consider dollar cost averaging your investments. Retirement account is perfect for that - it's long term with periodic deposits. Overall, by investing in stocks now for a long term, you'll benefit more because the stocks are at their low(er) point.",
"qid": 10482,
"docid": "133000",
"rank": 33,
"score": 97369
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Dollar Cost Averaging isn't usually the best idea for lump sum investment unless your risk tolerance is very low or your time horizons are low (in which case is the stock market the right place for your money). Usually you will do better by investing immediately. There are lots of articles around on the web about why DCA doesn't work over the long term. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dollar_cost_averaging http://www.efmoody.com/planning/dollarcost.html",
"qid": 10482,
"docid": "291015",
"rank": 34,
"score": 97132
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: That depends whether you're betting on the market going up, or down, during the year. If you don't like to bet (and I don't), you can take advantage of dollar cost averaging by splitting it up into smaller contributions throughout the year.",
"qid": 10482,
"docid": "376967",
"rank": 35,
"score": 96269
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: There was a time that a rule of thumb stated your stock allocation should be 100-your age. That rule suggests that you are at 65%stock/35% bond/cash. If you are comfortable having this money 100% invested, the best advice would be dollar cost averaging, anything more specific would suggest market timing.",
"qid": 10482,
"docid": "473042",
"rank": 36,
"score": 95782
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"There are certain allowable reasons to withdraw money from a 401K. The desire to free your money from a \"\"bad\"\" plan is not one of them. A rollover is a special type of withdrawal that is only available after one leaves their current employer. So as long as you stay with your current company, you cannot rollover. [Exception: if you are over age 59.5] One option is to talk to HR, see if they can get a expansion of offerings. You might have some suggestions for mutual funds that you would like to see. The smaller the company the more likely you will have success here. That being said, there is some research to support having few choices. Too many choices intimidates people. It's quite popular to have \"\"target funds\"\" That is funds that target a certain retirement year. Being that I will be 50 in 2016, I should invest in either a 2030 or 2035 fund. These are a collection of funds that rebalances the investment as they age. The closer one gets to retirement the more goes into bonds and less into stocks. However, I think such rebalancing is not as smart as the experts say. IMHO is almost always better off heavily invested in equity funds. So this becomes a second option. Invest in a Target fund that is meant for younger people. In my case I would put into a 2060 or even 2065 target. As JoeTaxpayer pointed out, even in a plan that has high fees and poor choices one is often better off contributing up to the match. Then one would go outside and contribute to an individual ROTH or IRA (income restrictions may apply), then back into the 401K until the desired amount is invested. You could always move on to a different employer and ask some really good questions about their 401K. Which leads me back to talking with HR. With the current technology shortage, making a few tweaks to the 401K, is a very cheap way to make their employees happy. If you can score a 1099 contracting gig, you can do a SEP which allows up to a whopping 53K per year. No match but with typically higher pay, sometimes overtime, and a high contribution limit you can easily make up for it.\"",
"qid": 10482,
"docid": "554739",
"rank": 37,
"score": 94905
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You will maximize your expected wealth by investing all the money you intend to invest, as soon as you have it available. Don't let the mythos of dollar cost averaging induce you to allocate more much money to a savings account than is optimal. If you want the positive expected return of the market, don't put your money in a savings account. That's especially true now, when you are certainly earning a negative real interest rate on your savings account. Dollar cost averaging and putting all your money in at the beginning would have the same expected return except that if you put all your money in earlier, it spends more time in the market, so your expected return is higher. Your volatility is also higher (because your savings account would have very low volatility) but your preference for investment tells me that you view the expected return and volatility tradeoff of the stock market as acceptable. If you need something to help you feel less stress about investing right away, think of it as dollar cost averaging on a yearly basis instead of monthly. Further, you take take comfort in knowing that you have allocated your wealth as you can instead of letting it fizzle away in real terms in a bank account.",
"qid": 10482,
"docid": "201495",
"rank": 38,
"score": 94308
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Trying to \"\"time the market\"\" is usually a bad idea. People who do this every day for a living have a hard time doing that, and I'm guessing you don't have that kind of time and knowledge. So that leaves you with your first and third options, commonly called lump-sum and dollar cost averaging respectively. Which one to use depends on where your preferences lie on the risk/reward scpectrum. Dollar cost averaging (DCA) has lower risk and lower reward than lump sum investing. In my opinion, I don't like it. DCA only works better than lump sum investing if the price drops. But if you think the price is going to drop, why are you buying the stock in the first place? Example: Your uncle wins the lottery and gives you $50,000. Do you buy $50,000 worth of Apple now, or do you buy $10,000 now and $10,000 a quarter for the next four quarters? If the stock goes up, you will make more with lump-sum(LS) than you will with DCA. If the stock goes down, you will lose more with LS than you will with DCA. If the stock goes up then down, you will lose more with DCA than you will with LS. If the stock goes down then up, you will make more with DCA than you will with LS. So it's a trade-off. But, like I said, the whole point of you buying the stock is that you think it's going to go up, which is especially true with an index fund! So why pick the strategy that performs worse in that scenario?\"",
"qid": 10482,
"docid": "333961",
"rank": 39,
"score": 94076
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Value averaging has you shift the balance of your portfolio over time, not the amount of contributions. So you can only do it if you have a portfolio holding both risky assets (shares etc) and some cash. You start out by making a plan about how much you will contribute every month and at what rate you expect the share part of the portfolio to grow. Perhaps based on 20th century data you think an 8% growth rate is reasonable. Or alternatively if you know your desired final amount obviously you can work backwards to a desired rate from that. If in any month the share part is falling below its expected growth path, you would put more money into it: possibly your whole paycheck contribution plus some from the savings cash account. On the other hand if the share component is growing \"\"too fast\"\" you would put all your additional savings into cash. So if your investments are doing well, you're not supposed to spend the excess money, but rather to put it aside into a dedicated cash account to top up your share component when prices fall. In theory, this has the auto-levelling benefit of Dollar Cost Averaging, but even better: when prices are high, you'll automatically buy fewer shares, or even sell some; conversely when prices are low you'll buy extra shares from your reserve account. If it turns out your estimate was unreasonably optimistic, and over your lifetime shares only ever average 3%, you'll end up with an entirely share portfolio, and a bumpier ride than you might have liked. If you have horrible luck and over your entire investing life shares return less than cash (which has happened, though not yet in the USA), then this will be worse than a standard balanced portfolio. The original book Value Averaging by Edelson has a pretty good explanation of various cases, though I would say some of the examples are worked in excessive detail. I have not implemented this myself, one reason being that the amount I'm able to save from year to year varies, as it probably does for you, and so predicting a path is not quite so simple as he assumes. You could still do it I suppose. I think you could get a very crude approximation to this by simply directing your savings into cash when the share market's rate of growth over the last several years is above what you think is the long term average.\"",
"qid": 10482,
"docid": "71510",
"rank": 40,
"score": 93640
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You are suggesting something called dollar cost averaging (or its cousin, dollar value averaging) - http://www.investopedia.com/articles/stocks/07/dcavsva.asp This is certainly a valid investment strategy, although personally, I feel that for long term investment, it is not necessary unless you plan on being an active trader. I still strongly encourage you to research these two methods and see if they would work well for your personal investment strategy and goals. As far as what sorts of investments for a taxable account, I have three general recommendations: As far as which company to use for your brokerage, I personally have accounts at Voya, TRowe Price and Fidelity. I would strongly recommend Fidelity out of those three, mostly due to customer service and quality and ease of use of their website. Vanguard is a great brokerage, but you don't have to choose them just because you plan to mostly invest in Vanguard funds. I also recommend you research how capital gains and dividend taxing works (and things like lost harvesting), so that you can structure your investments with taxes in mind. Do this ahead of time, don't wait until April of 2016 because it will be too late to save on taxes by then.",
"qid": 10482,
"docid": "397976",
"rank": 41,
"score": 93347
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Are there other options I haven't thought of? Mutual funds, stocks, bonds. To buy and sell these you don't need a lawyer, a real-estate broker and a banker. Much more flexible than owning real estate. Edit: Re Option 3: With no knowledge of investing the first thing you should do is read a few books. The second thing you should do is invest in mutual funds (and/or ETFs) that track an index, such as the FTSE graph that was posted. Index funds are the safest way to invest for those with no experience. With the substantial amount that you are considering investing it would also be wise to do it gradually. Look up \"\"dollar cost averaging.\"\"\"",
"qid": 10482,
"docid": "503261",
"rank": 42,
"score": 92613
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"A bond fund will typically own a range of bonds of various durations, in your specific fund: The fund holds high-quality long-term New York municipal bonds with an average duration of approximately 6–10 years So through this fund you get to own a range of bonds and the fund price will behave similar to you owning the bonds directly. The fund gives you a little diversification in terms of durations and typically a bit more liquidity. It also may continuously buy bonds over time so you get some averaging vs. just buying a bond at a given time and holding it to maturity. This last bit is important, over long durations the bond fund may perform quite differently than owning a bond to maturity due to this ongoing refresh. Another thing to remember is that you're paying management fees for the fund's management. As with any bond investment, the longer the duration the more sensitive the price is to change in interest rates because when interest rates change the price will track it. (i.e. compare a change of 1% for a one year duration vs. 1% yearly over 10 years) If I'm correct, why would anyone in the U.S. buy a long-term bond fund in a market like this one, where interest rates are practically bottomed out? That is the multi-trillion dollar question. Bond prices today reflect what \"\"people\"\" are willing to pay for them. Those \"\"people\"\" include the Federal Reserve which through various programs (QE, Operate Twist etc.) has been forcing the interest rates to where they want to see them. If no one believed the Fed would be able to keep interest rates where they want them then the prices would be different but given that investors know the Fed has access to an infinite supply of money it becomes a more difficult decision to bet against that. (aka \"\"Don't fight the Fed\"\"). My personal belief is that rates will come up but I haven't been able to translate that belief into making money ;-) This question is very complex and has to do not only with US policies and economy but with the status of the US currency in the world and the world economy in general. The other saying that comes to mind in this context is that the market can remain irrational (and it certainly seems to be that) longer than you can remain solvent.\"",
"qid": 10482,
"docid": "481312",
"rank": 43,
"score": 91680
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systematic_Investment_Plan it's nothing but a fancy term for plain old dollar cost averaging.",
"qid": 10482,
"docid": "481859",
"rank": 44,
"score": 91223
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"From http://blog.ometer.com/2008/03/27/index-funds/ , Lots of sensible advisers will tell you to buy index funds, but importantly, the advice is not simply \"\"buy index funds.\"\" There are at least two other critical details: 1) asset allocation across multiple well-chosen indexes, maintained through regular rebalancing, and 2) dollar cost averaging (or, much-more-complex-but-probably-slightly-better, value averaging). The advice is not to take your single lump sum and buy and hold a cap-weighted index forever. The advice is an investment discipline which involves action over time, and an initial choice among indexes. An index-fund-based strategy is not completely passive, it involves some active risk control through rebalancing and averaging. If you'd held a balanced portfolio over the last ten years and rebalanced, and even better if you'd dollar cost averaged, you'd have done fine. Your reaction to the last 10 years incidentally is why I don't believe an almost-all-stocks allocation makes sense for most people even if they're pretty young. More detail in this answer: How would bonds fare if interest rates rose? I think some index fund advocacy and books do people a disservice by focusing too much on the extra cost of active management and why index funds are a good deal. That point is true, but for most investors, asset allocation, rebalancing, and \"\"autopilotness\"\" of their setup are more important to outcome than the expense ratio.\"",
"qid": 10482,
"docid": "551590",
"rank": 45,
"score": 91210
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Here is a deliberately simple example of Dollar Cost averaging: Day 1: Buy 100 shares at $10. Total value = $1,000. Average cost per share = $10.00/share (easy). Day 2: Buy 100 more shares at $9. Total value = $1,900. Average cost per share = $9.50/share (1,900/200). Notice how your average cost per share went from $10.00 to $9.50. Now instead of hoping the stock rises above $10.00 a share to make a profit, you only need it to go to $9.50 a share (assuming no commissions or transaction fees). It's easy to see how this could work to your advantage. The only catch is that you need buy more of a stock that is dropping (people might think you're crazy). This could easily backfire if the stock continues to drop.",
"qid": 10482,
"docid": "280992",
"rank": 46,
"score": 91208
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Most articles on investing recommend that investors that are just starting out to invest in index stock or bonds funds. This is the easiest way to get rolling and limit risk by investing in bonds and stocks, and not either one of the asset classes alone. When you start to look deeper into investing there are so many options: Small Cap, Large Cap, technical analysis, fundamental analysis, option strategies, and on and on. This can end up being a full time job or chewing into a lot of personal time. It is a great challenge to learn various investment strategies frankly for the average person that works full time it is a huge effort. I would recommend also reading \"\"The Intelligent Asset Allocator\"\" to get a wider perspective on how asset allocation can help grow a portfolio and reduce risk. This book covers a simple process.\"",
"qid": 10482,
"docid": "142320",
"rank": 47,
"score": 90295
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The answer may be a compromise... if your goal is to make bonds a larger part of your portfolio, sell both stocks and bonds in a 4:1 ratio. or (3:1 or whatever works for you) Also, just as you dollar-cost-average purchases of securities, you can do the same thing on the way out. Plan your sales and spread them over a period of time, especially if you have mutual funds.",
"qid": 10482,
"docid": "510268",
"rank": 48,
"score": 90212
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Keep it simple: mutual funds (preferably index, low fee or ETF linked funds) do make a nice start for your little princess college fund. You dont need a real fortune to offset the trading cost of an online broker but if your really going to take advantage of dollar cost averaging, you might want to invest into a trusted fund company. Do your research, it is worth it. Ignore what the investment salesman is saying, he works for his wealth, not yours. A good DIY strategy, either joint with your own retirement account agregate or on a low cost index fund will make wonders. Keep in mind to be resilient: you will cash out when the princess will be in college in 20 yerars. Make sure to make proper time horizon investment and allocation. Cheers, All the best. Feel free to edit",
"qid": 10482,
"docid": "541054",
"rank": 49,
"score": 89466
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The Vanguard Emerging Market Bond Index has a SEC yield of 4.62%, an expense ratio of 0.34%, a purchase fee of 0.75%, and an average duration of 6.7 years. The Vanguard Emerging Market Bond Index only invests in US Dollar denominated securities, so it is not exposed to currency risk. The US Intermediate Term Bond Index Fund has a SEC yield of 2.59%, an expense ratio of 0.1% and an average duration of 6.5 years. So after expenses, the emerging market bond fund gives you 1.04% of extra yield (more in subsequent years as the purchase fee is only paid once). Here are the results of a study by Vanguard: Based on our findings, we believe that most investors should consider adding [currency risked] hedged foreign bonds to their existing diversified portfolios. I think a globally diversified bond portfolio results in a portfolio that's more diversified.",
"qid": 10482,
"docid": "83860",
"rank": 50,
"score": 88277
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I up voted JoeTaxpayer but i would like add a couple of things. Dollar Cost averaging over a 5 day period is in no way practical. If you get a 1% swing in that time that would be quite a lot. Personally I think 5 years is way to long. When markets go down they go down fast. I would suggest 1 to 2 years investing quarterly. I would hate seeing you miss out on market gains for a 5 year period on the last of your money. The whole point of Dollar Cost averaging instead of market timing is the mantra \"\"Its about time in the market not timing the market\"\" So if you have money on the sidelines for years you are missing out on your time in the market.\"",
"qid": 10482,
"docid": "598478",
"rank": 51,
"score": 87902
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Canadian Couch Potato has an article which is somewhat related. Ask the Spud: Can You Time the Markets? The argument roughly boils down to the following: That said, I didn't follow the advice. I inherited a sum of money, more than I had dealt with before, and I did not feel I was emotionally capable of immediately dumping it into my portfolio (Canadian stocks, US stocks, world stocks, Canadian bonds, all passive indexed mutual funds), and so I decided to add the money into my portfolio over the course of a year, twice a month. The money that I had not yet invested, I put into a money market account. That worked for me because I was purchasing mutual funds with no transaction costs. If you are buying ETFs, this strategy makes less sense. In hindsight, this was not financially prudent; I'd have been financially better off to buy all the mutual funds right at the beginning. But I was satisfied with the tradeoff, knowing that I did not have hindsight and I would have been emotionally hurt had the stock market crashed. There must be research that would prove, based on past performance, the statistically optimal time frame for dollar-cost averaging. However, I strongly suppose that the time frame is rather small, and so I would advise that you either invest the money immediately, or dollar-cost average your investment over the course of the year. This answer is not an ideal answer to your question because it is lacking such a citation.",
"qid": 10482,
"docid": "250530",
"rank": 52,
"score": 87215
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: There are a number of scholarly articles on the subject including a number at the end of the Vanguard article you reference. However, unfortunately like much of financial research you can't look at the articles without paying quite a bit. It is not easy to make a generic comparison between lump-sum and dollar cost averaging because there are many ways to do dollar cost averaging. How long do you average over? Do you evenly average or exponentially put the money to work? The easiest way to think about this problem though is does the extra compounding from investing more of the money immediately outweigh the chance that you may have invested all the money when the market is overvalued. Since the market is usually near the correct value investing in lump sum will usually win out as the Vanguard article suggests. As a side note, while using DCA on a large one time sum of money is generally not optimal, if you have a consistent salary DCA by frequently investing a portion of your salary has been frequently shown to be a very good idea of long periods over saving up a bunch of money and investing it all at once. In this case you get the compounding advantage of investing early and you avoid investing a large chunk of money when the market is overvalued.",
"qid": 10482,
"docid": "497281",
"rank": 53,
"score": 86708
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The simplest way to consolidate the funds your old 401(k) plans is by doing what's called a Direct Rollover (whereby the funds go directly into the new plan and skips you completely) from each of the old plans into either an IRA that you establish with a provider of your choice or even into your current employer's 401(k) plan if that is available. That way, the funds are in one central account and available to invest. Plus it eliminates the mandatory 20% withholding if the rollover is indirect and is sent to you first before the deposit into the new plan. It is important to bear in mind that you have 60 calendar days from the date of distribution to get the full amount into the new plan and a rollover is considered a tax reportable, but not necessarily a taxable event provided you deposit the funds within the time frame allotted.",
"qid": 10482,
"docid": "42537",
"rank": 54,
"score": 86325
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you were to stick to your guns, then yes, that's what you'd need to do. In practice, that kind of a hit should get your attention, and you'd be wise to look at why your investment dropped 10% in a month. Value averaging, dollar-cost averaging, or any other investment strategy needs to be done with eyes open and ears to the ground. At least with value averaging you need to look at your valuation each month! From my own experience, dollar-cost averaging breeds laziness and I ended up not paying much attention to what I was investing in, and lost a fair bit of money. Bottom line is you still have to think about what you're doing, and adjust.",
"qid": 10482,
"docid": "57293",
"rank": 55,
"score": 86146
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I think you're not applying the right time scale here. ESPP (Employee Stock Purchase Plan) is usually vesting every 6 months. So every half a year you receive a chunk of stocks based on your salary deduction, with the 15% discount. Every half a year you have a chunk of money from the sale of these stocks that you're going to put into your long term investment portfolio. That is dollar cost averaging. You're investing periodically (every 6 months in this case), same (based on your salary deferral) amount of money, regardless of the stock market behavior. That is precisely what dollar cost averaging is.",
"qid": 10482,
"docid": "193396",
"rank": 56,
"score": 85894
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Option 1 is out. There are no \"\"safe returns\"\" that make much money. Besides, if a correction does come along how will you know when to invest? There is no signal that says when the bottom is reached, and you emotions could keep you from acting. Option 2 (dollar cost averaging) is prudent and comforting. There are always some bargains about. You could start with an energy ETF or a few \"\"big oil\"\" company stocks right now.\"",
"qid": 10482,
"docid": "349621",
"rank": 57,
"score": 85605
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: rollover funds only mean the funds one was foolish enough to first roll into this 401(k). With no matching, and need for cash, I'd stop depositing to that account. But, from details you gave, you can't withdraw that money.",
"qid": 10482,
"docid": "67220",
"rank": 58,
"score": 83619
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: First, i think you're doing awesomely for your age. Here's what i'd do in your situation (disclaimer: These are just my personal opinions from experience with my own finances.): I'd do all those things and partition the money so that i ensure i do them all. That may mean not dollar cost averaging monthly but rather quarterly to keep fees-percentages down, but i think that's reasonable for your age. Something i don't think you should overlook with regard to your mortgage is the freedom afforded you by paying off a home. It provides you with the freedom to be out of work, between work, or take an extended leave without the fear of how to pay your bills, the mortgage tending to be a significant percentage of the monthly bills. If that's not something you've considered, not a concern, or not something you care about, then paying off your home probably isn't a priority so I'd drop that step and put more money into investments.",
"qid": 10482,
"docid": "111492",
"rank": 59,
"score": 83534
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"1. Interest rates What you should know is that the longer the \"\"term\"\" of a bond fund, the more it will be affected by interest rates. So a short-term bond fund will not be subject to large gains or losses due to rate changes, an intermediate-term bond fund will be subject to moderate gains or losses, and a long-term bond fund will be subject to the largest gains or losses. When a book or financial planner says to buy \"\"bonds\"\" with no other qualification, they almost always mean investment-grade intermediate-term bond funds (or for individual bonds, the equivalent would be a bond ladder averaging an intermediate term). If you want technical details, look at the \"\"average duration\"\" or \"\"average maturity\"\" of the bond fund; as a rough guide, if the duration is 10, then a 1% change in interest rates would be a 10% gain or loss on the fund. Another thing you can do is look at long-term (10 years or ideally longer) performance history on some short, intermediate, and long term bond index funds, and you can see how the long term funds bounced around more. Non-investment-grade bonds (aka junk bonds or high yield bonds) are more affected by factors other than interest rates, including some of the same factors (economic booms or recessions) that affect stocks. As a result, they aren't as good for diversifying a portfolio that otherwise consists of stocks. (Having stocks, investment grade bonds, and also a little bit in high-yield bonds can add diversification, though. Just don't replace your bond allocation with high-yield bonds.) A variety of \"\"complicated\"\" bonds exist (convertible bonds are an example) and these are tough to analyze. There are also \"\"floating rate\"\" bonds (bank loan funds), these have minimal interest rate sensitivity because the rate goes up to offset rate rises. These funds still have credit risks, in the credit crisis some of them lost a lot of money. 2. Diversification The purpose of diversification is risk control. Your non-bond funds will outperform in many years, but in other years (say the -37% S&P 500 drop in 2008) they may not. You will not know in advance which year you'll get. You get risk control in at least a few ways. There's also an academic Modern Portfolio Theory explanation for why you should diversify among risky assets (aka stocks), something like: for a given desired risk/return ratio, it's better to leverage up a diverse portfolio than to use a non-diverse portfolio, because risk that can be eliminated through diversification is not compensated by increased returns. The theory also goes that you should choose your diversification between risk assets and the risk-free asset according to your risk tolerance (i.e. select the highest return with tolerable risk). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_portfolio_theory for excruciating detail. The translation of the MPT stuff to practical steps is typically, put as much in stock index funds as you can tolerate over your time horizon, and put the rest in (intermediate-term investment-grade) bond index funds. That's probably what your planner is asking you to do. My personal view, which is not the standard view, is that you should take as much risk as you need to take, not as much as you think you can tolerate: http://blog.ometer.com/2010/11/10/take-risks-in-life-for-savings-choose-a-balanced-fund/ But almost everyone else will say to do the 80/20 if you have decades to retirement and feel you can tolerate the risk, so my view that 60/40 is the max desirable allocation to stocks is not mainstream. Your planner's 80/20 advice is the standard advice. Before doing 100% stocks I'd give you at least a couple cautions: See also:\"",
"qid": 10482,
"docid": "599436",
"rank": 60,
"score": 83454
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Forecasts of stock market direction are not reliable, so you shouldn't be putting much weight on them. Long term, you can expect to do better in stocks, but obtaining this better expected return has the danger of \"\"buying in\"\" to the market at a particularly bad moment, leading to a substantially lower return. So mitigate that risk while moving in a big piece of cash by \"\"dollar cost averaging\"\". An example would be to divide your cash hoard (conceptually) into say six pieces, and invest each piece in the index fund two months apart. After a year you will have invested the whole sum at about the average of the index for the year.\"",
"qid": 10482,
"docid": "248019",
"rank": 61,
"score": 83175
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The obvious risk is that you might buy at a time when the market is particularly high. Of course, you won't know that is the case until afterwards. A common way to reduce that risk is dollar cost averaging, where you buy gradually over a period of time.",
"qid": 10482,
"docid": "67022",
"rank": 62,
"score": 82980
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Rebalancing is, simply, a way of making sure your risk/reward level is where you want it to be. Let's say you've decided that your optimal mix is 50% stocks and 50% bonds (or 50% US stocks, 50% international, or 30/30/30 US large-cap/US small-cap/US midcap...). So you buy $100 of each, but over time, the prices will of course fluctuate. At the end of the year, the odds that the ratio of the value of your investments is equal to the starting ratio is nil. So you rebalance to get your target mix again. Rebalance too often and you end up paying a lot in transaction fees. Rebalance not often enough and you end up running outsize risk. People who tell you that you should rebalance to make money, or use \"\"dollar cost averaging\"\" or think there is any upside to rebalancing outside of risk management are making assumptions about the market (mean regressing or some such thing) that generally you should avoid.\"",
"qid": 10482,
"docid": "117696",
"rank": 63,
"score": 82282
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The best advice I've heard regarding market conditions is: Buy into fear, and sell into greed. That is, get in when everyone is a bear and predicting economic collapse. Start selling when you hear stock picks at parties and family functions. That said. You are better off in the long term not letting emotion (of you or the market) control your investing decisions). Use dollar cost averaging to put a fixed amount in at fixed intervals and you will most likely end up better off for it.",
"qid": 10482,
"docid": "228889",
"rank": 64,
"score": 81991
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Its best to dollar cost average adding say 5%-10% a quarter into the fund. That's what Clark Howard would suggest. Also make sure you do not need the money for 5 years, then you should be okay. Its tough to lose money if you keep your money there for a long period of time.",
"qid": 10482,
"docid": "153178",
"rank": 65,
"score": 81401
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I think the list could have added: - Save in regular intervals using the same strategy. Just to make sure that good old dollar cost averaging is thrown in. That's probably where most people go way wrong. Save money all year, dump it on a stock they like because some family friend investment expert said that 'apple prices will go up' with out explaining that you need to take advantage of mean reversion to help spread the risk.",
"qid": 10482,
"docid": "288073",
"rank": 66,
"score": 80885
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: A mutual fund that purchases bonds is a bond fund. Bond funds are considered to be less risk than a traditional stock mutual fund. The cost of this less risk is that they have earned (on average) less than mutual funds investing in stocks. Sometimes, bonds have different tax consequences than stocks.",
"qid": 10482,
"docid": "569948",
"rank": 67,
"score": 80499
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you are making regular periodic investments (e.g. each pay period into a 401(k) plan) or via automatic investment scheme in a non-tax-deferred portfolio (e.g. every month, $200 goes automatically from your checking account to your broker or mutual fund house), then one way of rebalancing (over a period of time) is to direct your investment differently into the various accounts you have, with more going into the pile that needs bringing up, and less into the pile that is too high. That way, you can avoid capital gains or losses etc in doing the selling-off of assets. You do, of course, take longer to achieve the balance that you seek, but you do get some of the benefits of dollar-cost averaging.",
"qid": 10482,
"docid": "441176",
"rank": 68,
"score": 80364
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"A big part of the answer depends on how \"\"beaten down\"\" the stock is, how long it will take to recover from the drop, and your taste for risk. If you honestly believe the drop is a temporary aberration then averaging down can be a good strategy to lower your dollar-cost average in the stock. But this is a huge risk if you're wrong, because now you're going to magnify your losses by piling on more stock that isn't going anywhere to the shares you already own at a higher cost. As @Mindwin pointed out correctly, the problem for most investors following an \"\"average down\"\" strategy is that it makes them much less likely to cut their losses when the stock doesn't recover. They basically become \"\"married\"\" to the stock because they've actualized their belief the stock will bounce back when maybe it never will or worse, drops even more.\"",
"qid": 10482,
"docid": "71924",
"rank": 69,
"score": 80175
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"As other responders said, you can certainly roll over multiple 401(k) into a single account. An added benefit of such rollover (besides the ease of tracking) is that you can shop around for your Rollover IRA provider and find the one that gives you the specific mutual funds that you want to invest in, the lowest expenses, etc. - in short, find the best fit to your priorities. There are also \"\"lemon\"\" 401(k) plans and if you are in one of them, get out! And rollover is the way out. There is also one possibility to keep an eye on as it happens rarely, but it does happen - rolling a 401(k) over into another 401(k). I've done it once when I started a job at a company that had a great 401(k) with a good selection of low-cost mutual funds. I rolled the 401(k) from one previous job in to this 401(k) to take advantage of it. At the same time I kept a Rollover IRA, combining the 401(k) from all other jobs; it had more investment options and provided some flexibility.\"",
"qid": 10482,
"docid": "4181",
"rank": 70,
"score": 79877
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I would check to see what the fee schedule is on your previous employer's 401k. Depending on how it was setup, the quarterly/annual maintenance fee may be lower/higher than your current employer. Another reason to rollover/not-rollover is that selection of funds available is better than the other plan. And of course always consider rolling over your old plan into a standard custodial rollover IRA where the management company gives you a selection of investment options. At least look at the fees and expense ratios of your prior employer's plan and see if anything reaches a threshold of what you consider actionable and worth your time. Note: removed reference to self directed IRA as vehicle is more complicated account type allowing for more than just stocks, bonds, and mutual funds. Not for your typical retail investor.",
"qid": 10482,
"docid": "518379",
"rank": 71,
"score": 78866
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: To optimize your return on investment, you need to buy low and sell high. If you knew that one stock had hit rock bottom, and the others had not, buying the low stock would be the best. However, unless you can predict the future, you don't know if any individual stock has hit the bottom, or if it will continue to drop. If you decide to spend the same amount of money each month on stock purchases, then when the price is low, you will automatically buy more shares, and when the price is high, you will buy fewer shares. This strategy is sometimes called dollar cost averaging. It eliminates the need to predict the future to optimize your buying. All that having been said, I agree with @Powers that at the investment amount that you are talking about and the per transaction fee you listed, a monthly investment in several stocks will cause you to lose quite a bit to transaction fees. It sounds like you need a different strategy.",
"qid": 10482,
"docid": "278607",
"rank": 72,
"score": 78826
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The following advice assumes that you have a significant amount already in the account in cash equivalents. If you are only talking a few hundred bucks or so, then just jump in at the next dip (like today's). If you have a larger amount to move into equities, the safest approach is to gradually move it into investments over some period of time at regular intervals regardless of what is going on in the market. This mitigates the risk of investing it all into an fund that is peaking at the exact moment you buy. So, for example, you might invest 20% of the total amount each month for 5 months to gradually get into the market. The larger the amount you are investing, the more you probably want to spread it out, but don't spread it out much further than a year or you are losing opportunity cost by leaving your money in cash-type investments with likely a very poor rate of return. This strategy is called dollar-cost averaging if you want to research it more.",
"qid": 10482,
"docid": "458843",
"rank": 73,
"score": 78796
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Why do people keep talking about 401K's at work? That is NOT dollar cost averaging. DCA refers to when you have a large sum of money. Do you invest it all at once or spread it out over several smaller purchases over a period of time? There really isn't a \"\"when\"\" should I use it. It is simply a matter of where your preferences lie on the risk/reward scpectrum. DCA has lower risk and lower reward than lump sum investing. In my opinion, I don't like it. DCA only works better than lump sum investing if the price drops. But if you think the price is going to drop, why are you buying the stock in the first place? Example: Your uncle wins the lottery and gives you $50,000. Do you buy $50,000 worth of Apple now, or do you buy $10,000 now and $10,000 a quarter for the next four quarters? If the stock goes up, you will make more with lump-sum(LS) than you will with DCA. If the stock goes down, you will lose more with LS than you will with DCA. If the stock goes up then down, you will lose more with DCA than you will with LS. If the stock goes down then up, you will make more with DCA than you will with LS. So it's a tradeoff. But, like I said, the whole point of you buying the stock is that you think it's going to go up! So why pick the strategy that performs worse in that scenario?\"",
"qid": 10482,
"docid": "194030",
"rank": 74,
"score": 77978
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If the ship is sinking, switching cabins with your neighbor isn't necessarily a good survival strategy. Index funds have sucked, because frankly just about everything has sucked lately. I still think it is a viable long term strategy as long as you are doing some dollar cost averaging. You can't think about long term investing as a steady climb up a hill, markets are erratic, but over long periods of time trend upwards. Now is your chance to get in near the ground floor. I can completely empathize that it is painful right now, but I am a believer in market efficiency and that over the long haul smart money is just more expensive (in terms of fees) than set-it-and-forget it diversified investments or target funds.",
"qid": 10482,
"docid": "9465",
"rank": 75,
"score": 77978
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"You asked 3 questions here. It's best to keep them separate as these are pretty distinct, different answers, and each might already have a good detailed answer and so might be subject to \"\"closed as duplicate of...\"\" That said, I'll address the JAGLX question (1). It's not an apples to apples comparison. This is a Life Sciences fund, i.e. a very specialized fund, investing in one narrow sector of the market. If you study market returns over time, it's easy to find sectors that have had a decade or even two that have beat the S&P by a wide margin. The 5 year comparison makes this pretty clear. For sake of comparison, Apple had twice the return of JAGLX during the past 5 years. The advisor charging 2% who was heavy in Apple might look brilliant, but the returns are not positively correlated to the expense involved. A 10 or 20 year lookback will always uncover funds or individual stocks that beat the indexes, but the law of averages suggests that the next 10 or 20 years will still appear random.\"",
"qid": 10482,
"docid": "578314",
"rank": 76,
"score": 77896
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you're worried about investing all at once, you can deploy your starting chunk of cash gradually by investing a bit of it each month, quarter, etc. (dollar-cost averaging). The financial merits and demerits of this have been debated, but it is unlikely to lose you a lot of money, and if it has the psychological benefit of inducing you to invest, it can be worth it even if it results in slightly less-than-optimal gains. More generally, you are right with what you say at the end of your question: in the long run, when you start won't matter, as long as you continue to invest regularly. The Boglehead-style index-fund-based theory is basically that, yes, you might save money by investing at certain times, but in practice it's almost impossible to know when those times are, so the better choice is to just keep investing no matter what. If you do this, you will eventually invest at high and low points, so the ups and downs will be moderated. Also, note that from this perspective, your example of investing in 2007 is incorrect. It's true that a person who put money in 2007, and then sat back and did nothing, would have barely broken even by now. But a person who started to invest in 2007, and continued to invest throughout the economic downturn, would in fact reap substantial rewards due to continued investing throughout the post-2007 lows. (Happily, I speak from experience on this point!)",
"qid": 10482,
"docid": "567608",
"rank": 77,
"score": 77689
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: With $800/month extra? Do both. (I am ethnocentric enough to assume you live in the same country as me) First, figure out what your emergency fund should look like. Put this money in a high yield checking or savings account. Add to it monthly until you reach your goal. It should be 3 to 6 months of your total monthly expenses. It will be a lot more than $2k I suspect. You will earn bubkis in interest, but the point of the emergency fund is a highly liquid asset for emergencies so you can choose cheaper car insurance and not buy warranties on stuff. With your $800/month, split it up this way: $416/month into a Roth IRA account at Vanguard (or Schwab or Fidelity) in the Star Fund (or similar low cost, diversified fund). The star is $1000 to open, pretty diversified. $416 is a lazy number that comes close to the $5000 annual limit for a Roth IRA in the US. Contribute like clockwork, directly from your paycheck if you can. This will make it easy to do and get you the benefit of dollar cost averaging. $200 or $300 into your savings account until you reach your emergency fund goal. $85 - $100. Live a little. Speculate in stocks with your vanguard account. Or rent fancy cars. Or taken a vacation or go party. If you are saving $800/month in your early 20 be proud of yourself, but have a little fun too so you can let off steam. It isn't much but you know you can play with it. Once you reach your emergency fund, save up for your future house or car or plane tickets to Paris. Ask another question for how to save up for these kinds of goals.",
"qid": 10482,
"docid": "70730",
"rank": 78,
"score": 76820
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: It would be preferable to purchase a bond with a negative yield if the negative yield was the smallest compared to similar financial securities. The purchase or sale of a security is rarely a mutually exclusive event. An individual may have personal reasons or a desire to contribute to the activity the bond is financing. To an entity, the negative yield bond may be part of a cost averaging plan, diversification strategy, a single leg of a multi-leg transaction, or possibly to aid certainty as a hedge in a pairs trade. And of course there may be other unique situations specific to the entity. Said another way, is the Queen of Spades a good card? It depends on the game being played and what is in your hand.",
"qid": 10482,
"docid": "439010",
"rank": 79,
"score": 76669
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Your chance of even correctly recognizing the actual lowest point of a dip are essentially zero, so if you try to time the market, you'll most likely not get the \"\"buy cheap\"\" part perfectly right. And as you write yourself, while you wait for the dip, you have an ongoing opportunity cost. Cost averaging is by far the best strategy for non-professional and risk averse investors to deal with this. And yes, over the long run, it's far more important to invest at all than when you do it.\"",
"qid": 10482,
"docid": "175821",
"rank": 80,
"score": 76484
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: No that is not a rollover. Many employees have experienced a change of management companies. Sometimes these switches are due to a merger, an acquisition, or just to save money. It is understandable that the old employer would like to see you transfer your funds to either your new employer, or roll them over into a IRA/Roth IRA. So it is not unexpected that they will take this opportunity to nudge you. The thing that congress was trying to prevent were serial rollovers of IRAs. These people would use the 60 day window to have in essence a loan. Some would do this multiple times a year; always making sure they replaced the money in time. The IRA One-Rollover-Per-Year Rule Beginning in 2015, you can make only one rollover from an IRA to another (or the same) IRA in any 12-month period, regardless of the number of IRAs you own (Announcement 2014-15 and Announcement 2014-32). The limit will apply by aggregating all of an individual’s IRAs, including SEP and SIMPLE IRAs as well as traditional and Roth IRAs, effectively treating them as one IRA for purposes of the limit. Direct transfers of IRA money are not limited This change won’t affect your ability to transfer funds from one IRA trustee directly to another, because this type of transfer isn’t a rollover (Revenue Ruling 78-406, 1978-2 C.B. 157). The one-rollover-per-year rule of Internal Revenue Code Section 408(d)(3)(B) applies only to rollovers. Note that the law doesn't mention 401K/403B or the federal TSP. When the 401K changes management companies that is not a rollover.",
"qid": 10482,
"docid": "217661",
"rank": 81,
"score": 76059
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Fire your fund manager. There are several passive funds that seek to duplicate the S&P 500 Index returns. They have lower management fees, which will make returns lower than S&P, and they have less risk by following a broadly diversified strategy (versus midcap growing stocks). There's also ETFs, but evidence is growing that they're not as safe as hoped. But here's the deal: the S&P has been on a tear lately. It could be overvalued and what looks like a good investment could start falling again. A possible alternative would be one of the Lifetime funds that seek to perform portfolio adjustment with a retirement decade target; they're fairly new which mostly means nobody knows how they screw you over yet. In theory, this decade structure means the brokerage can execute trading cash for stocks, stocks for bonds, and bonds for cash in house.",
"qid": 10482,
"docid": "545760",
"rank": 82,
"score": 75982
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Wow this is a bad article. This is a notional amount.... Eg. $500M US equity fund in Australia wants to hedge their US exposure. They buy a $500M forward contract and roll it over quarterly. Each quarter they settle on the difference (let's say $50 - 500k +/- depending on the way FX moves). What matters is the amount owed...not the notional value. Same goes for interest rates. $1B bond fund could short the 10yr to lower interest rate sensitivity...the end value isn't $1B. It's whatever they owe on the difference at settlement. The issue of swap spreads or settlement/liquidity is so much more important!",
"qid": 10482,
"docid": "285605",
"rank": 83,
"score": 75363
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I assume that with both companies you can buy stock mutual funds, bonds mutual funds, ETFs and money market accounts. They should both offer all of these as IRAs, Roth IRAs, and non-retirement accounts. You need to make sure they offer the types of investments you want. Most 401K or 403b plans only offer a handful of options, but for non-company sponsored plans you want to have many more choices. To look at the costs see how much they charge you when you buy or sell shares. Also look at the annual expenses for those funds. Each company website should show you all the fees for each fund. Take a few funds that you are likely to invest in, and have a match in the other fund family, and compare. The benefit of the retirement accounts is that if you make a less than perfect choice now, it is easy to move the money within the family of funds or even to another family of funds later. The roll over or transfer doesn't involve taxes.",
"qid": 10482,
"docid": "434734",
"rank": 84,
"score": 75073
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: From the etoro website: In the financial trading industry, rollover is the interest paid or earned for holding currency overnight. Each currency has an interest rate associated with it, and because currencies are traded in pairs, every trade involves two different interest rates. If the interest rate on the currency you bought is lower than the interest rate on the currency you sold, then you will pay rollover fees. If the interest rate on the currency you bought is higher than the interest rate of the currency/commodity you sold, then you will earn rollover fees. http://www.etoro.com/blog/product-updates/05062014/important-upcoming-change-fee-structure/",
"qid": 10482,
"docid": "523933",
"rank": 85,
"score": 74248
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I would create a \"\"Rollover IRA\"\". These IRAs are designed to take funds from a 401k and allow you to invest them without incurring a cash out penalty nor a tax due. You will have more choices than if you leave it at your old 401k. If you cash out the 401k, you'll have much less to invest ($1500 - penalty - taxes) vs. doing a rollover 401k where you'll still have $1500 to invest. Then, once the money is inside the new Rollover IRA you can invest in whatever you please. If you want to invest in Vanguard funds, I recommend opening the Rollover IRA at Vanguard. Here is Vanguard's information page about rollovers from 401ks: https://investor.vanguard.com/what-we-offer/401k-rollovers/401k-403b-to-ira-rollover-benefits When you next change jobs and have another 401k with funds in it, you can roll it into the same Rollover IRA.\"",
"qid": 10482,
"docid": "550083",
"rank": 86,
"score": 73608
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I found that an application already exists which does virtually everything I want to do with a reasonable interface. Its called My Personal Index. It has allowed me to look at my asset allocation all in one place. I'll have to enter: The features which solve my problems above include: Note - This is related to an earlier post I made regarding dollar cost averaging and determining rate of returns. (I finally got off my duff and did something about it)",
"qid": 10482,
"docid": "51721",
"rank": 87,
"score": 73560
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The other obvious suggestion I guess is to buy cheap stocks and bonds (maybe in a dollar denominated fund). If the US dollar rises you'd then get both the fund's US gains plus currency gains. However, no guarantee the US dollar will rise or when. Perhaps a more prudent approach is to simply diversify. Buy both domestic and foreign stocks and bonds. Rebalance regularly.",
"qid": 10482,
"docid": "399234",
"rank": 88,
"score": 73249
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"It's impossibly difficult to time the market. Generally speaking, you should buy low and sell high. Picking 25% as an arbitrary ceiling on your gains seems incorrect to me because sometimes you'll want to hold a stock for longer or sell it sooner, and those decisions should be based on your research (or if you need the money), not an arbitrary number. To answer your questions: If the reasons you still bought a stock in the first place are still valid, then you should hold and/or buy more. If something has changed and you can't find a reason to buy more, then consider selling. Keep in mind you'll pay capital gains taxes on anything you sell that is not in a tax-deferred (e.g. retirement) account. No, it does not make sense to do a wash sale where you sell and buy the same stock. Capital gains taxes are one reason. I'm not sure why you would ever want to do this -- what reasons were you considering? You can always sell just some of the shares. See above (and link) regarding wash sales. Buying more of a stock you already own is called \"\"dollar cost averaging\"\". It's an effective method when the reasons are right. DCA minimizes variance due to buying or selling a large amount of shares at an arbitrary single-day price and instead spreads the cost or sale basis out over time. All that said, there's nothing wrong with locking in a gain by selling all or some shares of a winner. Buy low, sell high!\"",
"qid": 10482,
"docid": "66834",
"rank": 89,
"score": 73164
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: This should be posted in /r/Personalfinance. Also, do not do what /u/BlitheCalamity is suggesting. 1. If it is an IRA, simply do an ACAT transfer. No taxes will be incurred if the paperwork is filed correctly. Additionally, there is a 60 rollover provision for IRA accounts... another way to get out of a tax penalty for an IRA account. 2. Check the internal fees for your mutual funds. You may have purchased A shares, which I am guessing is the case since your advisor was an Ed Jones advisor. The ongoing internal expense ratio should be rather low so you might want to consider keeping these funds. An ACAT will allow you to transfer your investments to your new account if you want to keep them. (A shares have a onetime high upfront charge, but low ongoing fee. If you've already paid for the fund, why ditch it for another fund that charges a higher ongoing fee but not an upfront fee? Evaluate your costs.) 3. If this is a non-IRA account, still file an ACAT. It is the easiest way to transfer your account. Edit: Silly me, this is clearly a question regarding an IRA. In that case, there is no tax penalty for selling anything and buying within your IRA as long as you do not take the money out. Like I said, please file an ACAT with the new company otherwise you will have to prove to the IRS that you completed the rollover in 60 days. If not, you will pay income tax and a 10% penalty.",
"qid": 10482,
"docid": "549767",
"rank": 90,
"score": 73014
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"As Michael Pryor answered, a bond fund is a mutual fund that invests in bonds. I'd also consider an ETF based on bonds to be a bond fund, but I'm not sure that all investors would consider these as \"\"bond funds\"\". Not all bond funds are the same -- just like stock funds. You can classify bond funds based on the issuer of the bonds: You can also classify funds based on the time to maturity: In general, bond funds have lower risk and lower expected return than stock funds. Sometimes bond funds have price movements that are not tightly correlated to the price movements in the equity markets. This can make them a decent hedge against declines in your equity investments. See Michal Pryor's answer for some info on how you can get tax free treatment for your bond fund investments.\"",
"qid": 10482,
"docid": "5710",
"rank": 91,
"score": 72486
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: No, they do not. Stock funds and bonds funds collect income dividends in different ways. Stock funds collect dividends (as well as any capital gains that are realized) from the underlying stocks and incorporates these into the funds’ net asset value, or daily share price. That’s why a stock fund’s share price drops when the fund makes a distribution – the distribution comes out of the fund’s total net assets. With bond funds, the internal accounting is different: Dividends accrue daily, and are then paid out to shareholders every month or quarter. Bond funds collect the income from the underlying bonds and keep it in a separate internal “bucket.” A bond fund calculates a daily accrual rate for the shares outstanding, and shareholders only earn income for the days they actually hold the fund. For example, if you buy a bond fund two days before the fund’s month-end distribution, you would only receive two days’ worth of income that month. On the other hand, if you sell a fund part-way through the month, you will still receive a partial distribution at the end of the month, pro-rated for the days you actually held the fund. Source Also via bogleheads: Most Vanguard bond funds accrue interest to the share holders daily. Here is a typical statement from a prospectus: Each Fund distributes to shareholders virtually all of its net income (interest less expenses) as well as any net capital gains realized from the sale of its holdings. The Fund’s income dividends accrue daily and are distributed monthly. The term accrue used in this sense means that the income dividends are credited to your account each day, just like interest in a savings account that accrues daily. Since the money set aside for your dividends is both an asset of the fund and a liability, it does not affect the calculated net asset value. When the fund distributes the income dividends at the end of the month, the net asset value does not change as both the assets and liabilities decrease by exactly the same amount. [Note that if you sell all of your bond fund shares in the middle of the month, you will receive as proceeds the value of your shares (calculated as number of shares times net asset value) plus a separate distribution of the accrued income dividends.]",
"qid": 10482,
"docid": "110856",
"rank": 92,
"score": 72471
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: As others said, there is no recovery from that being late. However, to fix your situation: You can do a Rollover of Funds from HSA 1 to HSA 2. Both my HSAs have that option right on their website; I log on to HSA 2 (the target), and request a rollover from HSA 1 (the source), for the desired amount (3000 for you); I guess most HSAs offer that; if not you can call them to start it. This has no tax or limit implications; it just moves money between equally qualified HSAs. You could also consider - while you do that - to roll over the complete content of HSA 1 and get rid of it (as it is 'hard to access'). There is no limit (so you can move a million if you have it there), and as said above, no tax implication, no limit violations, as long as the money goes from one HSA into another HSA with the same ownership.",
"qid": 10482,
"docid": "273447",
"rank": 93,
"score": 72386
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Im not sure if its normal/sensical/healthy, and that is kind of opinion based. But there is a reason for it. Certain rules and regulations passed recently are causing companies or institutions to shift to bonds from cash. Fidelity, for example, is completely converting its $100 billion dollar cash fund to short term bills. Its estimated that over $2 trillion that is now in cash may be converted to bills, and that will obviously put upward preasure on the price of them. The treasury is trying to issue more short term debt to balance out the demand. read more here: http://www.wsj.com/articles/money-funds-clamor-for-short-term-treasurys-1445300813",
"qid": 10482,
"docid": "364411",
"rank": 94,
"score": 72352
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The net return reported to you (as a percentage) by a mutual fund is the gross return minus the expense ratio. So, if the gross return is X% and the expense ratio is Y%, your account will show a return of (X-Y)%. Be aware that X could be negative too. So, with Y = 1, If X = 10 (as you might get from a stock fund if you believe historical averages will continue), then the net return is 9% and you have lost (Y/X) times 100% = 10% of the gross return. If X = 8 (as you might get from a bond fund if you believe historical averages will continue), then the net return is 7% and you have lost (Y/X) times 100% = 12.5% of the gross return. and so on and so forth. The numbers used are merely examples of the returns that have been obtained historically, though it is worth emphasizing that 10% is an average return, averaged over many decades, from investments in stocks, and to believe that one will get a 10% return year after year is to mislead oneself very badly. I think the point of the illustrations is that expense ratios are important, and should matter a lot to you, but that their impact is proportionately somewhat less if the gross return is high, but very significant if the gross return is low, as in money-market funds. In fact, some money market funds which found that X < Y have even foregone charging the expense ratio fee so as to maintain a fixed $1 per share price. Personally, I would need a lot of persuading to invest in even a stock fund with 1% expense ratio.",
"qid": 10482,
"docid": "361013",
"rank": 95,
"score": 72133
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"My question to you would be \"\"When is the market down?\"\" I know that a lot of people attempt to do this and never get close. With 40 years left to retirement, I would have you consider to just invest in the manner that you are most comfortable and let dollar cost averaging do the rest.\"",
"qid": 10482,
"docid": "541421",
"rank": 96,
"score": 71998
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Yep, most 401k options suck. You'll have access to a couple dozen funds that have been blessed by the organization that manages your account. I recently rolled my 401k over into a self-directed IRA at Fidelity, and I have access to the entire mutual fund market, and can trade stocks/bonds if I wish. As for a practical solution for your situation: the options you've given us are worryingly vague -- hopefully you're able to do research on what positions these funds hold and make your own determination. Quick overview: Energy / Utilities: Doing good right now because they are low-risk, generally high dividends. These will underperform in the short-term as the market recovers. Health Care: riskier, and many firms are facing a sizable patent cliff. I am avoiding this sector. Emerging Markets: I'm also avoiding this due to the volatility and accounting issues, but it's up to you. Most large US companies have \"\"emerging markets\"\" exposure, so not necessary for to invest in a dedicated fund in my unprofessional opinion. Bonds: Avoid. Bonds are at their highest levels in decades. Short-term they might be ok; but medium-term, the only place to go is down. All of this depends on your age, and your own particular investment objectives. Don't listen to me or anyone else without doing your own research.\"",
"qid": 10482,
"docid": "225395",
"rank": 97,
"score": 71906
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Wells Fargo. They have an account called PMA, an umbrella account for checking, savings, mortgage, and brokerage accounts. It would cost $30/month, but I never had to pay because I have a rollover retirement account that is enough to waive the fees. They count all accounts, including mortgage, which I used to have. Oh, and no restrictions. An added advantage is there are no fees for any of the accounts, nor for some other things, like bank checks, outside ATM fees, etc. I'm in California, so I don't know if the same deal exists in other states. But if you qualify for the free account, it's pretty good. Actually, most of my investments are Vanguard funds. And I have another rollover account with Vanguard, and never pay fees, but I only buy or sell from one Vanguard fund to another, and rarely since I have targeted retirement funds that are designed to be no maintenance. For some reason, I trust Vanguard more than most other funds; maybe because I like their philosophy on low-cost funds, which they started but are now getting more popular.",
"qid": 10482,
"docid": "482385",
"rank": 98,
"score": 71795
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: As to the rollover question. Only rollover to a ROTH if you have other funds you can use to pay the taxes you will be hit with if you do that. DO NOT pay the taxes out of the funds in the 401k. If you don't have a way to pay the taxes, then roll it to a traditional IRA. You never want to pay the government any taxes 'early' and you don't want to reduce the balance. beyond that, A lot depends on how long you figure you will be with that company. If it's only a few years, or if you and other employees can make enough of a fuss that they move the fund to someplace decent (any of the big no-load companies such as Vanguard would be a better custodian), then I'd go ahead and max it out. If you figure to be there for a long while, and it looks like someone is in bed with the custodian and there's no way it will be changed, then maybe look to max out a Roth IRA instead.",
"qid": 10482,
"docid": "505943",
"rank": 99,
"score": 71709
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: This is more than likely a thing about your financial institution and the exchanges where they trade shares. Some exchanges cannot/will not handle odd lot transactions. Most established brokerages have software and accounting systems that will deal in round lots with the exchanges, but can track your shares individually. Sometimes specific stocks cannot be purchased in odd lots due to circumstances specific to that stock (trading only on a specific exchange, for example). Most brokerages offer dollar-cost averaging programs, but may limit which stocks are eligible, due to odd lot and partial share purchases. Check with your brokerage to see if they can support odd lot and/or DCA purchases. You may find another similar ETF with similar holdings that has better trading conditions, or might consider an open-end mutual fund with similar objectives. Mutual funds allow partial share purchases (you have $100 to invest today, and they issue you 35.2 shares, for example).",
"qid": 10482,
"docid": "349668",
"rank": 100,
"score": 71608
}
] |
Why would you elect to apply a refund to next year's tax bill? | [
{
"content": "Title: Content: There actually are legitimate reasons, but they don't apply to most people. Here are a few that I know of: You're self-employed and have to pay quarterly estimated taxes. Rather than wait for the refund when you already have to pay 1/4 of next year's taxes at the same time, you just have the IRS apply to refund forward. (so you're not out the money you owe while waiting for your refund). You're filing an amended or late return, and so you're already into the next year, and have a similar situation as #1, where your next year's taxes have already come due. You're planning on declaring bankruptcy, and you're under the Tenth Circuit, those credits might be safe from creditors For almost any other situation, you're better off taking the money, and using it to pay down debt, or put it somewhere to make interest (although, at the current rates, that might not be very much).",
"qid": 10497,
"docid": "147765",
"rank": 1,
"score": 153745
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The refund may offset your liability for the next year, especially if you are a Schedule \"\"C\"\" filer. By having your refund applied to the coming year's taxes you are building a 'protection' against a potentially high liability if you were planning to sell a building that was a commercial building and would have Capital Gains. Or you sold stock at a profit that would also put you in the Capital Gain area. You won a large sum in a lottery, the refund could cushion a bit of the tax. In short, if you think you will have a tax liability in the current year then on the tax return you are filing for the year that just past, it may be to your benefit to apply the refund. If you owe money from a prior year, the refund will not be sent to you so you will not be able to roll it forward. One specific example is you did qualify in the prior year for the ACA. If in the year you are currently in- before you file your taxes-- you realize that you will have to pay at the end of the current year, then assigning your refund will pay part or all of the liability. Keep in mind that the 'tax' imposed due to ACA is only collected from your refunds. If you keep having a liability to pay or have no refunds due to you, the liability is not collected from you.\"",
"qid": 10497,
"docid": "159880",
"rank": 2,
"score": 132247
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: >OK, great, where do I apply for my refund? An odd question, but I'll answer it if you really don't know. Tax credits will only likely be a refund if you pay too much tax during the year, otherwise they will be reductions in your yearly tax bill. In most countries, tax credits are awarded when paying taxes. Assuming you are from the United States, that would likely be in April on your individual income tax form. Tax credits can be earned for doing anything the government deems desirable or worthy of exception. Examples include buying a first house, having children, starting or running a business, paying tuition, adopting a child, caring for an elderly or disabled person, earning money overseas, paying certain types of medical insurance, and being married in addition to purchasing a zero emission or low emission vehicle.",
"qid": 10497,
"docid": "46902",
"rank": 3,
"score": 131913
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: sometimes we advise very old or incapacitated people to apply the refund to the next year as check writing from time to time & mailing may be a hassle for them.",
"qid": 10497,
"docid": "445230",
"rank": 4,
"score": 131147
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"It depends on when you can get the money, not when you know that you won or when you choose to take the ticket in. If you can present your ticket this year and get paid this year, the taxes are due this year, whether or not you actually choose to claim the prize this year. If you cannot receive payment until next year, then taxes will be due next year. This is \"\"constructive receipt,\"\" which applies to most individual tax situations. This assumes that you chose to receive a lump sum. If you get installments, then your taxes would be due as the installments are available, but the constructive receipt still applies.\"",
"qid": 10497,
"docid": "94088",
"rank": 5,
"score": 111621
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: In general, you are expected to pay all the money you owe in taxes by the end of the tax year, or you may have to pay a penalty. But you don't have to pay a penalty if: The amount you owe (i.e. total tax due minus what you paid in withholding and estimated taxes) is less than $1000. You paid at least 90% of your total tax bill. You paid at least 100% of last year's tax bill. https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc306.html I think point #3 may work for you here. Suppose that last year your total tax liability was, say, $5,000. This year your tax on your regular income would be $5,500, but you have this additional capital gain that brings your total tax to $6,500. If your withholding was $5,000 -- the amount you owed last year -- than you'll owe the difference, $1,500, but you won't have to pay any penalties. If you normally get a refund every year, even a small one, then you should be fine. I'd check the numbers to be sure, of course. If you normally have to pay something every April 15, or if your income and therefore your withholding went down this year for whatever reason, then you should make an estimated payment. The IRS has a page explaining the rules in more detail: https://www.irs.gov/help-resources/tools-faqs/faqs-for-individuals/frequently-asked-tax-questions-answers/estimated-tax/large-gains-lump-sum-distributions-etc/large-gains-lump-sum-distributions-etc",
"qid": 10497,
"docid": "267466",
"rank": 6,
"score": 110498
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"J - Approaching the answer from the W4 perspective (for calculation purposes) may be more trouble that it's worth. I'd strongly suggest you use tax software, whether it's the 2016 SW or a current year one, on line, to get an estimate of your total tax bill for the year. You can then look at your current run rate of tax paid in to see if you are on track. If you have a large shortfall, you can easily adjust your withholdings. If you are on track to get a large refund, make the adjustment so next year will track better. Note, a withholding allowance is equal to a personal exemption. Some think that \"\"4\"\" means 4 people in the house, but it actually means \"\"don't tax 4 x $4050\"\" as I have $16200 in combined people or tax deductions.\"",
"qid": 10497,
"docid": "246453",
"rank": 7,
"score": 106567
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"You don't \"\"need\"\" your refund to be as small as possible, but you usually would want it to be as small as possible. The reason people say you should aim for a small refund is that getting a big refund means you paid more in taxes than you had to. This means you gave away money that you could have done something else with. You get the money back later as a tax refund, but you lost the ability to use it during the time the government had it. For instance, if as you say you are getting a $1000 tax refund, that's $1000 that you are giving to the government over the course of the year. At the end of the year, you get it back, so you end the year with $1000. If you instead kept the money, (by paying only exactly as much tax as you owe throughout the year) you could invest it somehow, so that by the end of the year it could potentially have grown to, say, $1050. Thus at the end of the year you would have $1050 instead of $1000. Ideally you would have zero refund and owe zero extra at the end of the year. However, since it is often difficult to make things work out so exactly, people often say you should aim for a small refund. Assuming you are in the USA, if your income is only $9000 you will likely not owe any federal income tax at all, so you could claim exemption from withholding and avoid paying any tax ahead of time. You could check this when you file your taxes by seeing if the refund you get is equal to the total of taxes withheld from your paychecks over the course of last year.\"",
"qid": 10497,
"docid": "252237",
"rank": 8,
"score": 106394
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Your question begins with a misunderstanding. When you prepare your tax return (Form 1040/1040A/1040EZ) you always try to minimize your total tax bill. When you fill out form W4 you trying to estimate how much tax will be shown on next years tax return. The penalty for having too much tax withheld is not having the use of the money until you get a tax refund. At the moment interest rates are very low and your economic loss is the temporary loss of access to the money. One exception would be if you are carrying credit card debt. In that case you are, in effect, paying 20-30% interest to borrow money you lending to the US Treasury for 0% interest. The penalty for having too little tax withheld is having to make a large payment with your tax return. If your pre-payments aren't at least as much as your total income tax from last year there may also be modest underpayment penalty based on the difference between your pre-payments and your total income tax from last year or this year whichever is less. A large underpayment will trigger a different larger underpayemnt penalty. The W4 combined with the withholding rates tends to over-withhold income tax for most, but not all, taxpayers. Most people don't have enough savings to pay a large tax due, which leads to more penalties and an even larger bill. Over-witholding protects the overall tax system from the consequences of those events. People tend to be very unhappy, not quietly. On balance your greatest economic benefit depends on whether or not you have high interest debt. If you do, then accurate and even slightly under-withholding will probably work to your advantage as long as you can pay next 4/15. If not, avoiding the chance of having any unexpected balance due next year may be more important.",
"qid": 10497,
"docid": "80994",
"rank": 9,
"score": 106105
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Yes, if you can split your income up over multiple years it will be to your advantage over earning it all in one year. The reasons are as you mentioned, you get to apply multiple deductions/credits/exemptions to the same income. Rather than just 1 standard deduction, you get to deduct 2 standard deductions, you can double the max saved in an IRA, you benefit more from any non-refundable credits etc. This is partly due to the fact that when you are filing your taxes in Year 1, you can't include anything from Year 2 since it hasn't happened yet. It doesn't make sense for the Government to take into account actions that may or may not happen when calculating your tax bill. There are factors where other year profit/loss can affect your tax liability, however as far as I know these are limited to businesses. Look into Loss Carry Forwarded/Back if you want to know more. Regarding the '30% simple rate', I think you are confusing something that is simple to say with something that is simple to implement. Are we going to go change the rules on people who expected their mortgage deduction to continue? There are few ways I can think of that are more sure to cause home prices to plummet than to eliminate the Mortgage Interest Deduction. What about removing Student Loan Interest? Under a 30% 'simple' rate, what tools would the government use to encourage trade in specific areas? Will state income tax deduction also be removed? This is going to punish those in a state with a high income tax more than those in states without income tax. Those are all just 'common' deductions that affect a lot of people, you could easily say 'no' to all of them and just piss off a bunch of people, but what about selling stock though? I paid $100 for the stock and I sold it for $120, do I need to pay $36 tax on that because it is a 'simple' 30% tax rate or are we allowing the cost of goods sold deduction (it's called something else I believe when talking about stocks but it's the same idea?) What about if I travel for work to tutor individuals, can I deduct my mileage expenses? Do I need to pay 30% income tax on my earnings and principal from a Roth IRA? A lot of people have contributed to a Roth with the understanding that withdrawals will be tax free, changing those rules are punishing people for using vehicles intentionally created by the government. Are we going to go around and dismantle all non-profits that subsist entirely on tax-deductible donations? Do I need to pay taxes on the employer's cost of my health insurance? What about 401k's and IRA's? Being true to a 'simple' 30% tax will eliminate all 'benefits' from every job as you would need to pay taxes on the value of the benefits. I should mention that this isn't exactly too crazy, there was a relatively recent IRS publication about businesses needing to withhold taxes from their employees for the cost of company supplied food but I don't know if it was ultimately accepted. At the end of the day, the concept of simplifying the tax law isn't without merit, but realize that the complexities of tax law are there due to the complexities of life. The vast majority of tax laws were written for a reason other than to benefit special interests, and for that reason they cannot easily be ignored.",
"qid": 10497,
"docid": "396066",
"rank": 10,
"score": 105605
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"If you're referring to times when they pay nothing (or receive a refund) at the end of the year, it's because they're paying taxes throughout the year. At the end of the year, the accountants find that they paid exactly what they needed to (or more), so they don't have to pay anything (or get money back) on their yearly forms. I don't think there's a US corporation paying \"\"almost zero tax\"\" in the US.\"",
"qid": 10497,
"docid": "270417",
"rank": 11,
"score": 105603
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you have non-salary income, you might be required to file 1040ES estimated tax for the next year on a quarterly basis. You can instead pay some or all in advance from your previous year's refund. In theory, you lose the interest you might have made by holding that money for a few months. In practice it might be worth it to avoid needing to send forms and checks every quarter. For instance if you had a $1000 estimated tax requirement and the alternative was to get 1% taxable savings account interest for six months, you'd make about $3 from holding it for the year. I would choose to just pay in advance. If you had a very large estimation, or you could pay off a high-rate debt and get a different effective rate of return, the tradeoff may be different.",
"qid": 10497,
"docid": "31483",
"rank": 12,
"score": 104223
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: There are some circumstances in which it is a good idea. Chris W Rea has already mentioned the case where you expect your marginal tax rate to decrease. But there is also the case where lack of contributions might cause your marginal rate to increase. Assume your income is $20,000 over the 46% threshold, and you normally contribute $20,000 to RRSP. However this year you have only been able to contribute $10,000. If you wait until next year and contribute an extra $10,000 (making $30,000) the extra $10,000 will only bring 35% tax back. If you can borrow the money and make the contribution this year it will get 46% tax back. That makes the loan worth taking. Making the contribution now can also get you a larger rebate this year. You will have that money for twelve extra months and you can invest it. That probably isn't enough to make it worthwhile alone, but it certainly makes the damage less. However I would always recommend taking out an RRSP loan for as short a time as possible. My recommendation would always be to make the contribution as late in the period as possible, apply for your tax refund as soon as you can, and then pay off the loan with the refund. You shoulod be able to get away with having the loan only for a couple of months.",
"qid": 10497,
"docid": "545873",
"rank": 13,
"score": 103450
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Aside from the fear that you or a loved one will spend it frivolously, I'm hard pressed to come up with another reason. If you'll owe money in the next tax year, you have the rest of the year to adjust your withholdings and/or make quarterly payments. As both my fellow PFers state, you're better off getting your money back. Better still, use it to pay off a high interest debt.",
"qid": 10497,
"docid": "304284",
"rank": 14,
"score": 102655
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"This election only applies to payments that you make within 120 days of your having received loan money. These wouldn't be required payments, which is why they are called \"\"early\"\" payments. For example, let's say that you've just received $10,000 from your lender for a new loan. One month later, you pay $500 back. This election decides how that $500 will be applied. The first choice, \"\"Apply as Refund,\"\" means that you are essentially returning some of the money that you initially borrowed. It's like you never borrowed it. Instead of a $10,000 loan, it is now a $9,500 loan. The accrued interest will be recalculated for the new loan amount. The second choice, \"\"Apply as Payment,\"\" means that your payment will first be applied to any interest that has accrued, then applied to the principal. While you are in school, you don't need to make payments on student loans. However, interest is accruing from the day you get the money. This interest is simple interest, which means that the interest is only based on the loan principal; the interest is not compounding, and you are not paying interest on interest. After you leave school and your grace period expires, you enter repayment, and you have to start making payments. At this point, all the interest that has accrued from the time you first received the money until now is capitalized. This means that the interest is added to your loan principal, and interest will now be calculated on this new, larger amount. To avoid this, you can pay the interest as you go before it is capitalized, which will save you from having to pay even more interest later on. As to which method is better, just as they told you right on the form, the \"\"Apply as Refund\"\" method will save you the most money in the long run. However, as I said at the beginning, this election only applies if you make a payment within 120 days from receiving loan funds. Since you are already out of school and in repayment, I don't think it matters at all what you select here. For any students reading this and thinking about loans, I want to issue a warning. Student loans can ruin people later in life. If you truly feel that taking out a loan is the only way you'll be able to get the education you need, minimize these as much as possible. Borrow as little as possible, pay as much as you can as early as you can, and plan on knocking these out ASAP. Great Lakes has a few pages that discuss these topics:\"",
"qid": 10497,
"docid": "444941",
"rank": 15,
"score": 102424
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"One of my New Year's resolutions a few years ago was to give up New Year's resolutions. It's the only resolution I've kept. Why wait until Jan. 1 to do something? Jan. 1 is just another day of the year. I'm thinking of going lightly into treasury bills next year. Never mind the small returns, at least I won't be spending the money unwisely. You will be giving your money to the government so they can spend it unwisely. I don't think there is anything wise about that. You are also implicitly lobbying for future taxes since the government will have to tax people to pay back your treasuries. Surely there are \"\"wiser\"\" places to put your money.\"",
"qid": 10497,
"docid": "392585",
"rank": 16,
"score": 102411
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The IRS can direct your refund towards repayment of your unpaid taxes either on Federal or State/Local level. Whether it will depends on whether the State of New York will ask for it. Generally, if you owe taxes to New York for this year only, you would expect them to wait for you to file your State tax return and pay the taxes owed. If you don't - I'm pretty sure that the next year refund from the IRS will go directly to them.",
"qid": 10497,
"docid": "187695",
"rank": 17,
"score": 102287
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: As was once famously said, Our new Constitution is now established, and has an appearance that promises permanency; but in this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes. — Benjamin Franklin, 1789 It's very likely that either the company or you personally is going to have to pay taxes on that money. Really the only way to avoid it would be if the company spent that money on next year's expenses, and paid the bill before the end of this year. Of course you can only do that if the recipient is willing to receive their money so far in advance, which isn't necessarily the case since they would pay more taxes this year as a result. As for whether it's better to have the company pay the tax or for you to do as your accountant suggests, there are a lot of factors that go into that equation, and my gut feeling is that your accountant already ran it both ways and is suggesting the better choice.",
"qid": 10497,
"docid": "415179",
"rank": 18,
"score": 101713
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If your refunds are subject to seizure because of certain debt arrears, it makes sense to let the IRS hold onto them until next year.",
"qid": 10497,
"docid": "575729",
"rank": 19,
"score": 101658
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Hearing somewhere is a level or two worse than \"\"my friend told me.\"\" You need to do some planning to forecast your full year income and tax bill. In general, you should be filing a quarterly form and tax payment. You'll still reconcile the year with an April filing, but if you are looking to save up to pay a huge bill next year, you are looking at the potential of a penalty for under-withholding. The instructions and payment coupons are available at the IRS site. At this point I'm required to offer the following advice - If you are making enough money that this even concerns you, you should consider starting to save for the future. A Solo-401(k) or IRA, or both. Read more on these two accounts and ask separate questions, if you'd like.\"",
"qid": 10497,
"docid": "208216",
"rank": 20,
"score": 101625
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If your refund is so small (like $20 - $25), and it's not worth receiving, it can be put towards next years just to give you a slight edge.",
"qid": 10497,
"docid": "71898",
"rank": 21,
"score": 100866
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"So after a great deal of clarification, it appears that your question is how to adjust your withholding such that you'll have neither a refund, or a balance due, when you do your 2016 taxes next year. First, a little terminology. The more you have withheld, the more money will be taken out of your check to cover your estimated tax liability. Confusingly, the more allowances you select on your W-4, the less money you will have withheld (more allowances means more dependents/deductions/other reasons why you will owe less tax). When you go to file your 2015 tax return next year, you'll figure out exactly how much you owe. If you had too little tax withheld, you'll have to pay the difference. If you had too much tax withheld, you'll get a refund back. Given your situation, simply following the instructions on the W-4 should work pretty well. If you want to be more precise, you can use the IRS Withholding Calculator to figure the number of allowances and submit a new W-4 to your employer. It's a little hard to tell whether \"\"paying this much/year in taxes seem steep?\"\" because you've lumped all the taxes together in one big bucket. Does the $543.61 in taxes per paycheck include Social Security (OASDI) and Medicare taxes? Whatever you do, it's not going to be an exact science. Come tax time, you'll figure out exactly what you owe and either pay the balance or get a refund back. As long as you're relatively close, that's fine. You can always adjust your withholding again next year after you've done your taxes.\"",
"qid": 10497,
"docid": "552810",
"rank": 22,
"score": 99788
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If they know/agree that they owe you money, they will send it to you, unless you explicitly told them to apply it to next year's taxes.",
"qid": 10497,
"docid": "391596",
"rank": 23,
"score": 98952
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you ended at your second paragraph, no. It's simply a refund of your own money. Same as any time I get any cash back, whether due to a credit card reward program or price match. But. Your 4th paragraph changes this. Yes, you owe tax, as it's clearly not your own money coming back. Even barter income is taxable. Per the new comments appearing, this is not a case of bartering. I cited bartering as an understandable example of when there's no cash and yet, tax is owed. In this situation, value is received, and it counts as income similar to the barter situations. Just because the value isn't in cash doesn't negate the tax due. I'd rhetorically ask how OP pays his rent/mortgage, utilities, cell phone bill, etc. The answer is simple, non-traditional income, as OP puts it, has a tax due.",
"qid": 10497,
"docid": "410038",
"rank": 24,
"score": 98041
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If the correction results in you owing them money, you typically just need to pay them the appropriate amount. I believe they charge back-dated interest on the amount if it was supposed to have been paid in the past, but if it's for this year's taxes then payment isn't due until the end of April and so interest would not apply. In some circumstances, they may apply fines or press charges for tax evasion, but only if they have reason to believe you intentionally/knowingly attempted to misrepresent your tax return in order to avoid paying taxes. You can challenge their decision to fine you, but you are considered guilty until proven innocent. Obviously that's the opposite for any criminal charges. The good news is, lots of people accidentally enter the wrong numbers and the CRA is aware of this and rarely takes action against them, other than making them pay what they owe. They have ways to look for suspicious behavior and differentiate that from innocent mistakes. So don't worry, you should be fine, not fined.",
"qid": 10497,
"docid": "445770",
"rank": 25,
"score": 97530
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: 1) When you apply for insurance you indicate your expected income, they figure the subsidy based on this. Note that while this data isn't checked it's only an estimate, any errors will be fixed at tax time so lying is just going to gain you an unpleasant tax bill come April 15. 2) It's not paid in installments, it's just a monthly premium. It's quite possible for someone to be on the ACA for only part of a year. 3) I can't address the issue of the fines. However, you are wrong on who it's for--it's for anyone who doesn't have employer-provided insurance, whatever the reason. I've been on it since it's inception because I have been self employed for most of that time--there's no employer to even offer me insurance.",
"qid": 10497,
"docid": "553993",
"rank": 26,
"score": 96539
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Federal tax refund is taxes you've overpaid. What you're saying is that this year you overpaid less than before. I don't understand why you see this is as a bad thing. Optimal situation is when you have no refunds and no taxes due on tax day, but it is really hard to get there. But the closer you can get - the better, which means that reducing your refund should be your goal. In any case, \"\"Federal Tax Refund\"\" is meaningless, what you need to look at is your actual taxes due. This is the number you should be working to reduce. Is it possible to shift the amounts on a W-2 (with correct adjustments) to tax all of your wages, instead of leaving some of it deducted pre-tax? Why would you want to pay more tax? If your goal is to have a refund (I.e.: it is your way of forcing yourself to save), then you need to recalculate the numbers and adjust your W4 taking the (pre-tax) FSA into account. If it is not the goal, then you should be looking at the total taxes owed, not the refund, and adjust your W4 so that your withholding would cover the taxes owed as closely as possible. And to answer your question, after all this - of course it is possible. But it is wrong, and will indeed likely to trigger an audit. You can write whatever you want on your tax return, but in the end of it, you sign under the penalty of perjury that what you filled is the correct information. Perjury is a Federal felony, and knowingly filing incorrect tax return is fraud (especially since your motive is to gain, even though you're not actually gaining anything). Fraudulent tax returns can be audited any time (no statute of limitations).\"",
"qid": 10497,
"docid": "517748",
"rank": 27,
"score": 96531
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: First, we need to be clear about what the allowances on your W-4 mean. The more allowances you claim, the lower tax liability it is assumed that you have, and they will take less tax out of your check. So claiming 2 allowances will result in a bigger paycheck and less tax withholding than claiming 0 allowances would. If you claim 0 allowances, you are in no danger of having too little tax withheld; instead, that would result in the maximum tax withheld. So 0 allowances is certainly an option, if you want to play it safe. This being your first year with these jobs, it's hard to know what to claim on your W-4. When you do your taxes next year, you can see if the withholding was too much or just right; if your refund is too big, you can increase your allowances for next year. That having been said, I don't like getting big refunds; I'd rather have a bigger paycheck all year. If I were you, I'd probably claim 1 or 2 allowances at the new job, and adjust it next year if needed. At your income level, you aren't really in any danger of getting in trouble for having too little withheld. Good luck with the new job. Game testing has always seemed like a dream job to me. :)",
"qid": 10497,
"docid": "577200",
"rank": 28,
"score": 95630
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Someone messed up here. My tax accountant says she is supposed to enter the values as they are on the W2 and CompanyB said they will not issue a new W2 because they were not involved in the refund of the money. Correct. We decided that we will enter a value different from 12b-d, subtract the money that was refunded to me because it's already on the 1099. Incorrect. Is there an alternative to avoid paying taxes twice on the 401k overages? If not, is there a better way to do this to minimize the risk of an audit? You should enter the amounts in W2 as they are. Otherwise things won't tie at the IRS and they will come back asking questions. The amount in box 12-D was deducted from your wages pre-tax, so you didn't pay tax on it. The distribution is taxable, and if it was made before the tax day next year - only taxable once. So if you withdrew the same year of the contribution, as it sounds like you did, you will only pay tax on it once because the amounts were not included in your salary. If the 1099-R is marked with the correct code, the IRS will be able to match the excess contribution (box 12-D) and the removal of the excess contribution (1099-R with the code) and it will all tie, no-one will audit you. The accountant is probably clueless as to how her software works. By default, the accounting software will add the excess contribution on W2 box 12-D back into wages, and it will be added to taxable income on your tax return. However, when you type in the 1099 with the proper code, this should be reversed by the software, and if it is not - should be manually overridden. This should be done at the adjustment entry, not the W2 entry screen, since a copy of the W2 will be transmitted with your tax return and should match the actual W2 transmitted by your employer. If she doesn't know what she's doing, find someone who does.",
"qid": 10497,
"docid": "357340",
"rank": 29,
"score": 95555
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Your CPA doesn't need to file anything, so don't worry about him being sidetracked. You are the one doing the filing. Since the amended returns have to be filed on paper, you'll actually go and mail a package to the IRS (each return in a separate envelope). The reason the CPA suggests to file the amended returns after the current one, is to ensure the NOL is registered in the system before the amended returns are processed. The IRS doesn't have to automatically accept the amended returns, and if there's no NOL on the current year they may just bounce the amended returns back to you. Keep in mind that since you haven't filed your return by the due date (including extensions), you're now unable to forego the carry-back. I don't know if you discussed this with your CPA, but you're allowed, if you chose so, to not apply the NOL to prior years, and instead to apply it forward for the next 20 years (or until it runs out). Depending on your income pattern, that might have been something you could have considered, but you can only chose this if you file a statement before the due date (with extensions), which is now passed.",
"qid": 10497,
"docid": "427024",
"rank": 30,
"score": 95167
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Let's say you should have paid $4000 in taxes in a year, but you paid $5000, so you get a tax return of $1000. \"\"Somebody\"\" thinks that you should have tried to only pay $4000 in the year and get zero tax return. I hope he or she doesn't think you should pay $5000 and mess up your tax return so you get no refund. Once the end of the tax year is there, you should do what you can to get as much tax returned as possible. On the other hand, you should also have tried to pay less during the year - obviously every dollar you paid less is a dollar less refund.\"",
"qid": 10497,
"docid": "400271",
"rank": 31,
"score": 94664
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"If you file the long-form Form 2210 in which you have to figure out exactly how much you should have had withheld (or paid via quarterly payments of estimated tax), you might be able to reduce the underpayment penalty somewhat, or possibly eliminate it entirely. This often happens because some of your income comes late in the year (e.g. dividend and capital gain distributions from stock mutual funds) and possibly because some of your itemized deductions come early (e.g. real estate tax bills due April 1, charitable deductions early in the year because of New Year resolutions to be more philanthropic) etc. It takes a fair amount of effort to gather up the information you need for this (money management programs help), and it is easy to make mistakes while filling out the form. I strongly recommend use of a \"\"deluxe\"\" or \"\"premier\"\" version of a tax program - basic versions might not include Form 2210 or have only the short version of it. I also seem to remember something to the effect that the long form 2210 must be filed with the tax return and cannot be filed as part of an amended return, and if so, the above advice would be applicable to future years only. But you might be able to fill out the form and appeal to the IRS that you owe a reduced penalty, or don't owe a penalty at all, and that your only mistake was not filing the long form 2210 with your tax return and so please can you be forgiven this once? In any case, I strongly recommend paying the underpayment penalty ASAP because it is increasing day by day due to interest being charged. If the IRS agrees to your eloquent appeal, they will refund the overpayment.\"",
"qid": 10497,
"docid": "46737",
"rank": 32,
"score": 94654
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: They will not send a bill, though there's a chance they will eventually send an accusatory letter. You must proactively pay your taxes. The simplest route is to send a check to each taxing authority with the respective full amounts due. I wouldn't bother calling them. You could also file amended returns with each containing the correct information. As a general rule, tax advisors tend to counsel against giving bank account information to the IRS for payment purposes (as opposed to refund purposes), both to protect the timing of payment and to make it slightly more difficult for them to seize or lien your account. If you choose to send a check, you can use Form 1040-V and NY Form IT-201-V. Please triple check your Social Security Number matches your tax return SSN, so they correctly credit you for payment. You may include an explanation of the closed account if you are feeling either fearful or contrite, but if the amount due is paid in full, then neither taxing authority should really care about your error.",
"qid": 10497,
"docid": "529455",
"rank": 33,
"score": 94598
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you return the money in the same tax year - it will not appear on your W2 and you will not be taxed on it. Whatever was withheld - you'll get it refunded when you file your annual tax return. If you return it in a different tax year - it becomes a miscellaneous deduction reported on your Schedule A. If the amount is less than $3000 - then this deduction is subject to the 2% AGI threshold, if the amount is more than that - it is not subject to threshold. Bottom line, you're probably going to lose money, unless you're already itemizing and the amount is above $3K. There's also a credit that you can take instead of deduction. See publication 525 for details.",
"qid": 10497,
"docid": "449544",
"rank": 34,
"score": 94492
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc503.html says you can deduct \"\"Any prior year's state or local income tax you paid during the year.\"\" So I would say as long as you have good records, you can deduct the excess refund you had to pay back in the year in which you paid it. Whether or not your return was amended shouldn't affect whether or not it is deductible.\"",
"qid": 10497,
"docid": "33602",
"rank": 35,
"score": 94301
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you take the profit or loss next year, it counts on next year's taxes. There's no profit or loss until that happens.",
"qid": 10497,
"docid": "477597",
"rank": 36,
"score": 93914
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Long term capital gains are taxed at 15% this year, so the most you stand to save is $150. I wouldn't sell anything at a loss just to offset that, unless you planned on selling anyways. A few reasons: The Long term capital gains rate will go up to 20% next year, so your losses will be \"\"worth more\"\" next year than this year. Short term capital gains rates will go up next year as well, so again, better off saving your losses for next year. You must use capital losses to offset capital gains if you have them, but if you don't have any capital gains, you can use capital losses to offset ordinary income (up to a limit - $3,000 a year IIRC). So, if you just bite the bullet and pay the 15% on your gains this year, you could use your losses to offset your (likely higher rate) ordinary income next year. FYI, complete chart for capital gains tax rates is here. I also posted another answer about capital gains to this question a while back that might be useful.\"",
"qid": 10497,
"docid": "403608",
"rank": 37,
"score": 93837
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: As you're working, you and your spouse were probably born after 1935, so I'll assume that Marriage Allowance is relevant to you rather than Married Couple's Allowance. The allowance applies if your husband or wife earns less than the personal allowance in salary (£10,600/year), and less than £5,000/year in savings interest. For example it's likely this will apply if he or she's not working. Also, you need to be only a basic rate taxpayer, earning less than £42,385/year. In that case they can register online to transfer £1,060 of their personal allowance to you, which will reduce your tax bill by £212/year if you yourself earn more than £1,060 above the personal allowance. This will usually work by HMRC issuing a new tax code to your employer who will then automatically withhold less of your salary. You can't get your employer to do this directly, you have to go via HMRC. The allowance change will be effective as if from the start of the curren tax year in April 2015, so you will probably end up getting the proportion of the £212 that you could have had up till now (from April to August) back all at once in your next pay cheque, or possibly spread out over the rest of the tax year. Apart from that you'll get it spread out evenly over the year - i.e. about £17/month.",
"qid": 10497,
"docid": "497946",
"rank": 38,
"score": 93146
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I can make that election to pay taxes now (even though they aren't vested) based on the dollar value at the time they are granted? That is correct. You must file the election with the IRS within 30 days after the grant (and then attach a copy to that year's tax return). would I not pay any taxes on the gains because I already claimed them as income? No, you claim income based on the grant value, the gains after that are your taxable capital gains. The difference is that if you don't use 83(b) election - that would not be capital gains, but rather ordinary salary income. what happens if I quit / get terminated after paying taxes on un-vested shares? Do I lose those taxes, or do I get it back in a refund next year? Or would it be a deduction next year? You lose these taxes. That's the risk you're taking. Generally 83(b) election is not very useful for RSUs of established public companies. You take a large risk of forfeited taxes to save the difference between capital gains and ordinary gains, which is not all that much. It is very useful when you're in a startup with valuations growing rapidly but stocks not yet publicly trading, which means that if you pay tax on vest you'll pay much more and won't have stocks to sell to cover for that, while the amounts you put at risk are relatively small.",
"qid": 10497,
"docid": "250500",
"rank": 39,
"score": 92803
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Not a financially sound decision in my humble opinion. Basically, you are prepaying your taxes and the only reason you want to do that is if you don't have the discipine to save that money for when it is time to pay next year (assuming you will have to).",
"qid": 10497,
"docid": "196423",
"rank": 40,
"score": 92450
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: It is true that with a job that pays you via payroll check that will result in a W-2 because you are an employee, the threshold that you are worried about before you have to file is in the thousands. Unless of course you make a lot of money from bank interest or you have income tax withheld and you want it refunded to you. Table 2 and table 3 in IRS pub 501, does a great job of telling you when you must. For you table 3 is most likely to apply because you weren't an employee and you will not be getting a W-2. If any of the five conditions listed below applied to you for 2016, you must file a return. You owe any special taxes, including any of the following. a. Alternative minimum tax. (See Form 6251.) b. Additional tax on a qualified plan, including an individual retirement arrangement (IRA), or other taxfavored account. (See Pub. 590A, Contributions to Individual Retirement Arrangements (IRAs); Pub. 590B, Distributions from Individual Retirement Arrangements (IRAs); and Pub. 969, Health Savings Accounts and Other TaxFavored Health Plans.) But if you are filing a return only because you owe this tax, you can file Form 5329 by itself. c. Social security or Medicare tax on tips you didn't report to your employer (see Pub. 531, Reporting Tip Income) or on wages you received from an employer who didn't withhold these taxes (see Form 8919). d. Writein taxes, including uncollected social security, Medicare, or railroad retirement tax on tips you reported to your employer or on groupterm life insurance and additional taxes on health savings accounts. (See Pub. 531, Pub. 969, and the Form 1040 instructions for line 62.) e. Household employment taxes. But if you are filing a return only because you owe these taxes, you can file Schedule H (Form 1040) by itself. f. Recapture taxes. (See the Form 1040 instructions for lines 44, 60b, and 62.) You (or your spouse if filing jointly) received Archer MSA, Medicare Advantage MSA, or health savings account distributions. You had net earnings from selfemployment of at least $400. (See Schedule SE (Form 1040) and its instructions.) You had wages of $108.28 or more from a church or qualified churchcontrolled organization that is exempt from employer social security and Medicare taxes. (See Schedule SE (Form 1040) and its instructions.) Advance payments of the premium tax credit were made for you, your spouse, or a dependent who enrolled in coverage through the Health Insurance Marketplace. You should have received Form(s) 1095A showing the amount of the advance payments, if any. It appears that item 3: You had net earnings from selfemployment of at least $400. (See Schedule SE (Form 1040) and its instructions.) would most likely apply. It obviously is not too late to file for 2016, because taxes aren't due for another month. As to previous years that would depend if you made money those years, and how much.",
"qid": 10497,
"docid": "29300",
"rank": 41,
"score": 92214
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Yes, you do. You also need to file a tax return every year, and if you have more than $50k of total savings you need to declare this every year.",
"qid": 10497,
"docid": "170430",
"rank": 42,
"score": 92047
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Source on GOV.UK You may be able to get tax back for some of the bills you have to pay because you have to work at home on a regular basis. You can only claim for things to do with your work, eg business telephone calls or the extra cost of gas and electricity for your work area. You can’t claim for things that you use for both private and business use, eg rent or broadband access. You don’t need to provide records for claims of up to £4 per week (£18 per month). For claims over £4 per week you’ll need to provide evidence of what you’ve spent. Claims up to £2,500 You must claim using a Self Assessment tax return if you already fill one in. If you don’t already fill in a Self Assessment tax return, and your allowable expenses are under £2,500 for the tax year, fill in form P87 and send it to the address on the form. If you’ve made a successful claim in a previous tax year and your expenses are less than £1,000 (or £2,500 for professional fees and subscriptions), you may be able to make your claim by phone. Claims over £2,500 You must claim using a Self Assessment tax return.",
"qid": 10497,
"docid": "5587",
"rank": 43,
"score": 91813
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Suppose you have been paying interest on previous charges in the past. Your monthly statement is issued on April 12, and (since you just received your income tax refund), you pay it off in full on April 30. You don't charge anything to the card at all after April 12. Thus, on April 30, your credit card balance shows as zero since you just paid it off. But your April 12 statement billed you for interest only till April 12. So, on May 12, your next monthly bill will be for the interest for your nonzero balance from April 13 through April 30. Assuming that you still are not making any new charges on your card and pay off the May 12 bill in timely fashion, you will finally have a zero bill on June 12. What if you charge new items to your credit card after April 12? Well, your balance stopped revolving on April 30, and that's when interest is no longer charged on the new charges. But you do owe interest for a charge on April 13 (say) until April 30 when your balance is no longer revolving, and this will be added to your bill on May 12. Purchases made after April 30 will not be charged interest unless you fall off the wagon again and don't pay your May 12 bill in full by the due date of the bill (some time in early June).",
"qid": 10497,
"docid": "533589",
"rank": 44,
"score": 91790
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Yes, You will have to pay the taxes at least initially but you'll most probably get a refund when you will file returns depending upon the amount and tax brackets in the UK.",
"qid": 10497,
"docid": "245753",
"rank": 45,
"score": 91728
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I believe you have to file a tax return, because state tax refund is considered income effectively connected with US trade or business, and the 1040NR instructions section \"\"Who Must File\"\" includes people who were engaged in trade or business in the US and had a gross income. You won't end up having to pay any taxes as the income is less than your personal exemption of $4050.\"",
"qid": 10497,
"docid": "5762",
"rank": 46,
"score": 91455
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Set aside any perceived positive aspects of being owed a refund and weigh those with the negatives. What are the reasons you should not have your money tied up with the IRS? You'll see that Uncle Sam does not have a good track record as a financial institution: Many thousands of refunds every year are delayed for many months due to IRS systems glitches. Yet, many people count on that refund which is not always guaranteed within the stated time-frame. You have no legal recourse. You cannot sue the federal government for the money you lent them when they decide not to pay you back for an extended period of time. Yet, if you decide to delay paying them, they have all the power and will use it to charge you fee's that no corporate / private institution would get away with. \"\"owing some tax money is better than having a refund from a ID theft/fraud/security aspect\"\" Again, there is zero financial incentive to lend free money to Uncle Sam, he is not a bank. The only time interest comes into play is when the refund is overdue. Even then, it is not an incentive / doesn't come close to the penalty burden on you if you don't pay your taxes on time. I would ask the followup question: What sane person would engage in business with such a financial institution?\"",
"qid": 10497,
"docid": "511521",
"rank": 47,
"score": 91381
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You're partially correct, at least in my understanding of this. Yes, the tax credit can be carried forward to future years, but since it is non-refundable it will reduce your tax liability solely. Depending on your tax situation this may result in a bigger refund or it may not. In an example, If you've had $3K withheld from your paycheck toward your income tax and this is also an accurate reflection if your tax liability then taking the NRTC would reduce your tax liability enabling you to be eligible for a refund (due to having already pre-paid more tax than you're liable for).",
"qid": 10497,
"docid": "48274",
"rank": 48,
"score": 91111
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The government wants money and isn't particularly interested in you getting your deductions right. Doing the worksheet on the back of the W-4 will give you a much better idea of how many deductions you can take. While many people are excited to get a tax refund, a refund means you loaned the government money all year long without getting paid interest for your generosity. The IRS will penalize you for underpaying your taxes in amounts larger than $1000 or 10% of your income, but a good ballpark estimate aiming for about ~$100 in payment at tax time is a relatively safe way to get all your money sooner than later.",
"qid": 10497,
"docid": "103771",
"rank": 49,
"score": 91018
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Years ago, a coworker bragged to me how his \"\"tax guy\"\" got him a huge refund. I told him my goal was to owe a couple thousand dollars, and that I'm glad I didn't have his guy. In the end, your return should reflect the truth, and a good tax guy will be little better than good tax software. The bottom line is that a refund is money you lend the government, interest free. If you can owe a bit of money but avoid paying a penalty, you'll have gotten a free loan from Uncle Sam. Given the fact that most (it seems that way, someone tell me if I'm wrong) families carry some balance on their credit cards, they are paying out 12% or more on their highest interest debt. Lending the government even $1000 for the year comes at a cost, if you file in time to get your refund by the end of March, that's an average 9 months you are out your money. 12%/yr is $90. Scale that up to $3000, the average refund, and the max 24% rate I've seen, $540 lost. Better to adjust your withholding, and get the extra money each paycheck to pay off other debt. Obviously, for those with no debt, their cost is minimal, perhaps 1%, but still better in your pocket for the year. If you pay in this money every paycheck, only to feel good getting it back every March or April, while paying 18% card interest every month, that's your choice. And Stevej will support that decision, or so it seems. EDIT - The Huffpost article Steve linked titled \"\"Big Tax Refunds Really Are Good\"\" ignores this debt, only focusing on the near zero rate banks offer now. The article listed 8 reasons the author felt this way. By the way, the author is the \"\"Chief Tax Officer, Jackson Hewitt Tax Service Inc\"\" which makes him a bit less than a disinterested third party. And all 8 of his reasons are far from compelling. \"\"In my opinion, getting a $3,000 check is never a bad thing.\"\" This was #1, and by now you know why I disagree. Next, \"\"More than 75 percent of all individual taxpayers get refunds year after year. It has been this way for decades.... It is unlikely that 75 percent of all taxpayers are all making bad financial decisions every year.\"\" That's enough. Rhetorical nonsense. Read the rest for yourself and decide if the next 6 reasons are any more compelling. Keep in mind, sellers of tax software or services have backed themselves into a corner with the \"\"largest refund\"\" claims. I'm sympathetic to the fact that \"\"we'll shoot for no refund at all, in fact, our goal is for you to owe just $100\"\" will not be their next campaign. EDIT 2 - I gave this more thought as I started to write a near 1000 word post on this topic. I came to find that 1 in 4 employees did not deposit enough in their 401(k) to capture the full match. This is the highest lost opportunity as the potential return is an instant 100% for matched deposits. Again, it's easy to dismiss the near zero bank rates, but that's not the alternative best use for the money.\"",
"qid": 10497,
"docid": "19272",
"rank": 50,
"score": 90889
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: When you itemize your deductions, you get to deduct all the state income tax that was taken out of your paycheck last year (not how much was owed, but how much was withheld). If you deducted this last year, then you need to add in any amount that you received in state income tax refunds last year to your taxes this year, to make up for the fact that you ended up deducting more state income tax than was really due to the state. If you took the standard deduction last year instead of itemizing, then you didn't deduct your state income tax withholding last year and you don't need to claim your refund as income this year. Also, if you itemized, but chose to take the state sales tax deduction instead of the state income tax deduction, you also don't need to add in the refund as income. For whatever reason, Illinois decided that you don't get a 1099-G. It might be that the amount of the refund was too small to warrant the paperwork. It might be that they screwed up. But if you deducted your state income tax withholding on last year's tax return, then you need to add the state tax refund you got last year on line 10 of this year's 1040, whether or not the state issued you a form or not. Take a look at the Line 10 instructions starting on page 22 of the 1040 instructions to see if you have any unusual situations covered there that you didn't mention here. (For example, if you received a refund check for multiple years last year.) Then check your tax return from last year to verify that you deducted your state income tax withholding on Schedule A. If you did, then this year add the refund you got from the state to line 10 of this year's 1040.",
"qid": 10497,
"docid": "312493",
"rank": 51,
"score": 90804
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: We need more info to give a better answer, but in short: if you assume you will make $0 in other employment income next year, there is a HUGE tax benefit in deferring 50k until next year. Total tax savings would probably be something like $15k [rough estimate]. If you took the RRSP deduction this year, you would save something like 20k this year, but then you would be taxed on it next year if you withdraw it, probably paying another 5k the year after. ie: you would get about the same net tax savings in both years, if you contributed to your RRSP and withdrew next year, vs deferring it to next year. On a non-tax basis, you would benefit by having the cash today, so you could earn investment income on your RRSP, but you would want to go low-risk as you need the money next year, so the most you could earn would be something like 1.5k @ 3%. The real benefit to the RRSP contribution is if you defer your withdrawal into your retirement, because you can further defer your taxes into the future, earning investment income in the meantime. But if you need to withdraw next year, you won't get that opportunity.",
"qid": 10497,
"docid": "363026",
"rank": 52,
"score": 90456
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: It sounded an interesting question, so I looked it up. The reason I asked about the tax years is because it matters. If the bonus was paid, and then returned in the same year - it should not appear on your W2 at all, and your taxes would be calculated accordingly. You might end up with overpayment of FICA taxes, but you can get that credited on your tax return. If, however, the repayment is not in the same year as the payment, it becomes more complicated. The code section that deals with it is 26 USC § 1341. What it says, in short, is this: you can deduct the repaid amount from your current taxable income, but only if its more than $3000. The tax benefit of such deduction cannot exceed the actual tax paid on this in the year when you got the bonus (i.e.: you need to calculate that year with the amount, and without the amount - the credit cannot exceed the difference). But it can also not exceed the amount you would be paying on that amount in the current year (i.e.: if current taxes are less than that year - you lost the difference). If the signing bonus is less than $3000 and it spans across tax years - you cannot deduct it. Bummer.",
"qid": 10497,
"docid": "221247",
"rank": 53,
"score": 90132
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"No to both. The deposit refund is not taxable, but in states where security must earn interest, that small amount is subject to tax. I just returned a $750 deposit to a tenant, and after a year, it accrued $0.24. A rebate of fees you pay such as ATM fees is just you getting back your own money. As is \"\"cash back\"\" on credit card purchases. Not taxable.\"",
"qid": 10497,
"docid": "453784",
"rank": 54,
"score": 89923
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"This is called \"\"Net Operating Loss\"\", and it is in fact applicable for individuals as well. You can, under certain circumstances, have NOL even as an individual. But it is far more common in the corporate world. What happens is that you can carry it back or forward, and get refund on taxes paid or adjust income for taxes to pay. In your example, you could carry the $75 NOL back and deduct it from the prior year earnings, reducing the taxable income from $100 to $25, getting $18.75 of the $25 paid as taxes - back. The link is for individual NOL, corporate rules are different, but the principle is the same.\"",
"qid": 10497,
"docid": "298387",
"rank": 55,
"score": 89792
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"So, if I understand the investment program here: You have $100 of tax withheld from your salary at the end of Jan, Feb, Mar... until December. This withholding is in excess of the expected tax for the year. You use the appropriate H&R Block product to file your taxes, and H&R Block gets your refund of $1200 on March 1st. H&R Block adds 10& and give you e-cards for $1320 On the face of it, this represents a return of 15.19% per year, compounded monthly. However, there are a few wrinkles that might make the scheme less inviting: You'll get a receipt for miscellaneous income from H&R Block, and pay tax on the \"\"earnings\"\". The quoted return is only realized if you can use the e-cards immediately. If they sit around for a while, then they aren't earning any interest. If you sell them for cash at a discount (if you even can!) then this reduces the return. If you don't cash them at all, they're a total loss. This offer was announced on Jan 15, 2015. So you can't go back and put it in place for 2014. And if you set it up for withholding in 2015, is there any guarantee that it the same offer will be in place when filing in 2016?\"",
"qid": 10497,
"docid": "35153",
"rank": 56,
"score": 89194
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Yes. But once you chose the method (on your first tax return), you cannot change it without the IRS approval. Similarly the fiscal year. For individuals, I can't think of any reason why would accrual basis be better than cash, or why would an individual use a fiscal year other than the calendar year.",
"qid": 10497,
"docid": "449387",
"rank": 57,
"score": 88867
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you expect your taxes to be higher next year, it saves you the trouble of sending estimates or changing the withholding levels. But yes, its basically a free loan you're giving to the government.",
"qid": 10497,
"docid": "398622",
"rank": 58,
"score": 88798
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You pay it this tax year. Whether that's now due to W-2 withholding, or later with your 1040 next year, or with your 1040-ES all depends on your particular situation.",
"qid": 10497,
"docid": "446889",
"rank": 59,
"score": 88766
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The pure numbers answer says you want the refund to be close to $0. You can even argue, as some answers have, that you want to try to maximize the payment without receiving any sanctions for underpaying during the year. If you trace the money, it's easy to see why. Let's say you get a paycheck. Tag some of the dollars for Uncle Sam. These are the dollars that, eventually, will be given to the IRS. Now consider the following scenarios: From the raw numbers like this, its clear that you lose utility by setting yourself up for a large refund check. The money was yours the entire time, but you chose to give it to Uncle Sam instead. However, the raw numbers are only part of the puzzle. If you're a cold steely-gazed numbers person, they're the part that matters. When the billionares are playing their tax evasion games, this is the only thing they are paying attention to. However, real humans have a few psychological reasons they may choose to lose utility in terms of raw dollars in exchange for psychological assistance: These attitudes exist, and may be ideal for any one person. Obviously the financially savvy answer of \"\"minimize your refund\"\" is the ideal answer from a dollars and cents perspective, but its up to you to see whether that attitude is right when you account for all of the non-measurable things, like stress. In general, I would lead anyone to \"\"minimize your refund,\"\" but I would be remiss if I didn't include the very real psychological reasons people choose to deviate from it.\"",
"qid": 10497,
"docid": "464593",
"rank": 60,
"score": 88750
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: ADP does not know your full tax situation and while the standard exemption system (actually designed by the IRS not ADP) works fairly well for most people it is an approximation. This system is designed so most people will end up with a small refund while some people will end up owing small amounts. So, while it is possible that ADP has messed up the calculations it is unlikely this is the cause. The most likely cause is that approximation ends ups making you pay less tax during the year than you actually owe. A few people like your friend may end up owing large amounts due to various circumstances. It is always your responsibility to make sure you pay enough tax throughout the year. While this technically means that you need to do your taxes every quarter during the year to make sure you pay the correct tax during the year, for most people this ends up being unnecessary as the approximation works fine. It is possible the exemption system failed your friend, but much more commonly people owe penalties because they put the wrong number of exemptions or had other side income. On a related note, most people in finance would argue that your situation where you owe some money at tax time, but not so much that you have to pay a penalty, is actually the best way to go. Getting a tax refund actually means you paid more tax than you needed to. This is similar to giving an interest-free loan to the government.",
"qid": 10497,
"docid": "261003",
"rank": 61,
"score": 88490
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Everything is fine. If line 77 from last year is empty, you should leave this question blank. You made estimated tax payments in 2015. But line 77 relates to a different way to pay the IRS. When you filed your 2014 taxes, if you were owed a refund, and you expected to owe the IRS money for 2015, line 77 lets you say \"\"Hey IRS, instead of sending me a refund for 2014, just keep the money and apply it to my 2015 taxes.\"\" You can also ask them to keep a specified amount and refund the rest. Either way this is completely optional. It sounds like you didn't do that, so you don't fill in anything here. The software should ask you in a different question about your estimated tax payments.\"",
"qid": 10497,
"docid": "332447",
"rank": 62,
"score": 88441
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Yes. There are a number of reasons for this, most notably some form of tax credits transfer over from year to year IF you file your taxes, and the CRA will only pay you deductions if all your taxes have been filed. If you don't owe them anything you won't necessarily get in trouble, but don't expect to get any money back from them until you file! Also, while it's probably much too late for this, if you have a partner, you can transfer a certain amount of tax deductions to them, and save them some money. The site is here: http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/formspubs/t1gnrl/llyrs-eng.html",
"qid": 10497,
"docid": "591636",
"rank": 63,
"score": 88370
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you get 1099-G for state tax refund, you need to declare it as income only if you took deduction on state taxes in the prior year. I.e.: if you took standard deductions - you don't need to declare the refund as income. If you did itemize, you have to declare the refund as income, and deduct the taxes paid last year on your schedule A. If this year you're not itemizing - you lost the tax benefit. If it was not clear from my answer - the taxes paid and the refund received are unrelated. The fact that you paid tax and received refund in the same year doesn't make them in any way related, even if both refer to the same taxable year.",
"qid": 10497,
"docid": "419768",
"rank": 64,
"score": 88369
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"In the U.S., Form 1040 is known as the tax return. This is the form that is filed annually to calculate your tax due for the year, and you either claim a refund if you have overpaid your taxes or send in a payment if you have underpaid. The form is generally due on April 15 each year, but this year the due date is April 18, 2016. When it comes to filing your taxes, there are two questions you need to ask yourself: \"\"Am I required to file?\"\" and \"\"Should I file?\"\" Am I required to file? The 1040 instructions has a section called \"\"Do I have to file?\"\" with several charts that determine if you are legally required to file. It depends on your status and your gross income. If you are single, under 65, and not a dependent on someone else's return, you are not required to file if your 2015 income was less than $10,300. If you will be claimed as a dependent on someone else's return, however, you must file if your earned income (from work) was over $6300, or your unearned income (from investments) was over $1050, or your gross (total) income was more than the larger of either $1050 or your earned income + $350. See the instructions for more details. Should I file? Even if you find that you are not required to file, it may be beneficial to you to file anyway. There are two main reasons you might do this: If you have had income where tax has been taken out, you may have overpaid the tax. Filing the tax return will allow you to get a refund of the amount that you overpaid. As a student, you may be eligible for student tax credits that can get you a refund even if you did not pay any tax during the year. How to file For low income tax payers, the IRS has a program called Free File that provides free filing software options.\"",
"qid": 10497,
"docid": "585356",
"rank": 65,
"score": 88321
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The money in the checking account was already taxed. It was income this year or last, or a gift from somebody, or earned interest that will be taxed. If it was a deductible IRA you would declare it next April and get a refund from the government.",
"qid": 10497,
"docid": "535705",
"rank": 66,
"score": 88313
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"It depends on when you're setting the goal. 1) When you have finished the year and you are filling out tax forms, your goal is to get as large of a refund as possible. 2) When the year begins afresh and you are earning money and paying taxes, your goal should be roughly to pay exactly the amount of tax owed so that at the end of the year you don't have any refund or tax owed - it's the same as getting your tax refund right away rather than waiting until after you file taxes. So you want your W4 set up appropriately (assuming you're talking about the US). I think (1) is obvious. For (2), imagine you start the year with the goal to get the largest possible tax refund at the end. Well that's simple - fill out the W4 and on line 6 (\"\"Additional amount, if any, you want withheld from each paycheck\"\") tell them to withhold everything. Then at the end of the year you'll get a huge refund. Of course in the meantime, you've made an interest-free loan to the government, and you've probably had to take out a high-interest rate loan from your bank or credit card. Obviously this is bad. An argument could be made that it would be even better to slightly underpay your taxes (but not enough to owe a penalty). Ignoring human weakness, this is correct. If you have the discipline to set that money aside in a safe place, that's okay. If this would cause you to spend that money (or even save less of your other money), then this is a bad idea. So I'd really want to highlight some of this depends on your own financial discipline - is it better for you to have the money right away so that you can make good choices with how to use it now, or is it better for you to put the money somewhere out of reach so that you won't spend it on impulse purchases? (and recognize that there are ways to put it out of reach and earn interest on it rather than spending it - one good choice for you would be a Roth IRA)\"",
"qid": 10497,
"docid": "113960",
"rank": 67,
"score": 88244
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Another way to delay receipt is to delay billing. To be safe you will have to wait until the new year to send the bill, because if you do it in late December they could be super efficient and send it to you with just a few days turn around. They may being trying to spend money before the end of the year. Long ago there was a year where there were tax cuts starting January 1st. I new of companies who allowed their employees to defer receiving their December paychecks until January. For families with two income this made a difference because they moved a month worth of one of their incomes into the cheaper year. If they weren't living month to month they could easily absorb the delay. Of course if you already sent the invoice....",
"qid": 10497,
"docid": "531488",
"rank": 68,
"score": 88042
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: No, you cannot. The FICA taxes paid are not refunded if you're not reaching the benefits threshold. They're gone. That is why foreigners who are not tax residents (mainly students) are not required to pay them. If your home country has a social security reciprocity agreement with the US - you can have a credit in your home country.",
"qid": 10497,
"docid": "540394",
"rank": 69,
"score": 88025
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Will the taxpayers be given a refund on their tax bills if this deal goesn't through? What else will the tax dollars be spent on ? The reality is, either the state can invest in things that create jobs, or they can spend on things that create nothing.",
"qid": 10497,
"docid": "362076",
"rank": 70,
"score": 87886
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Your calculations look correct in that they will be withholding taxes at the full year income rate even though you will only have 1/3 of that income which will put you in a lower tax bracket. There are online sites where you can fill out a return for free. You can estimate your return by filling out a return using the numbers on your paystub (you will have to add in your last paystub manually). In regards to when you will get your refund check? I believe it comes within a month or so of filing.",
"qid": 10497,
"docid": "502875",
"rank": 71,
"score": 87821
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Yes -- you can refund the sales tax and adjust your return. Make sure you have a copy of your customer's reseller permit on file. If the item sold was for their own use (instead of resale), then sales tax is due, so you might want to check with the customer and ask them what they want to do.",
"qid": 10497,
"docid": "17759",
"rank": 72,
"score": 87807
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You pay in advance - and there are no refunds. I bought a van last fall, and paid no property tax on it, because it was already covered through whatever end date the registration had. I will pay taxes on it this year, though (presuming I still have it).",
"qid": 10497,
"docid": "484278",
"rank": 73,
"score": 87803
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Yes, provided you're not over the IRA deductibility limit as well. – JoeTaxpayer♦ Aug 4 at 18:02 Note that if you get refunded for excess contributions, it usually happens in the following year, in which case it doesn't affect the year where these contributions occured -- rather, the refund counts as taxable income in the year you received the refund. – user102008 Aug 11 at 8:11",
"qid": 10497,
"docid": "316286",
"rank": 74,
"score": 87409
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Is Jim right to be worries? Yes, since the statute of limitations for refunds for 2012 is close and he might lose any tax refunds he might be entitled to for that year. Also, the pattern itself may raise some flags of suspicion and trigger audits, both because of such a variance in income and because of the medical expenses (which are generally considered a red flag). So he might get audited. However, if all the income and expenses are properly documented, audit itself should not be a problem.",
"qid": 10497,
"docid": "200914",
"rank": 75,
"score": 87084
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you have a relatively stable income and deductions you can get a fairly good estimate using last year's tax bill. Suppose you paid $12000 of actual taxes last year and you are paid once a month. If you plan to make a similar amount of money with similar deductions, you need each monthly paycheck to have $1000 of federal income taxes withheld. I go to a paycheck calculator and find the withholding required to make sure I have that amount withheld every paycheck.",
"qid": 10497,
"docid": "59843",
"rank": 76,
"score": 87071
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The only way you will incur underpayment penalties is if you withhold less than 90% of the current year's tax liability or 100% of last years tax liability (whichever is smaller). So as long as your total tax liability last year (not what you paid at filing, but what you paid for the whole year) was more than $1,234, you should not have any penalty. What you pay (or get back) when you file will be your total tax liability less what was withheld. For example, you had $1,234 withheld from your pay for taxes. If after deduction and other factors, your tax liability is $1,345, you will owe $111 when you file. On the other hand, if your tax liability is only $1,000, you'll get a refund of $234 when you file, since you've had more withheld that what you owe. Since your income was only for part of the year, and tax tables assume that you make that much for the whole year, I would suspect that you over-withheld during your internship, which would offset the lack of withholding on the other $6,000 in income.",
"qid": 10497,
"docid": "594652",
"rank": 77,
"score": 87015
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The plumber will apply for and receive a refund of the amount of VAT he paid on the purchase amount. That's the cornerstone of how VAT works, as opposed to a sales tax. So for example: (Rounded approximate amounts for simplicity) Now, at each point, the amount between (original cost VAT) and (new VAT) is refunded. So by the end, a total of £3 VAT is paid on the pipe (not £6.2); and at each point the business 'adding value' at that stage pays that much. The material company adds £1 value; the producer adds £4 value; the supplier adds £5 value; the plumber adds £5 value. Each pays some amount of VAT on that amount, typically 20% unless it's zero/reduced rated. So the pipe supplier pays £1 but gets a £0.2 refund, so truly pays £0.8. The plumber pays £3 (from your payment) but gets a £2 refund. So at each level somebody paid a bit, and then that bit is then refunded to the next person up the ladder, with the final person in the chain paying the full amount. The £0.2 is refunded to the producer, the £1 is refunded to the supplier, the £2 is refunded to the plumber.",
"qid": 10497,
"docid": "475607",
"rank": 78,
"score": 86976
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"There are two different issues that you need to consider: and The answers to these two questions are not always the same. The answer to the first is described in some detail in Publication 17 available on the IRS website. In the absence of any details about your situation other than what is in your question (e.g. is either salary from self-employment wages that you or your spouse is paying you, are you or your spouse eligible to be claimed as a dependent by someone else, are you an alien, etc), which of the various rule(s) apply to you cannot be determined, and so I will not state a specific number or confirm that what you assert in your question is correct. Furthermore, even if you are not required to file an income-tax return, you might want to choose to file a tax return anyway. The most common reason for this is that if your employer withheld income tax from your salary (and sent it to the IRS on your behalf) but your tax liability for the year is zero, then, in the absence of a filed tax return, the IRS will not refund the tax withheld to you. Nor will your employer return the withheld money to you saying \"\"Oops, we made a mistake last year\"\". That money is gone: an unacknowledged (and non-tax-deductible) gift from you to the US government. So, while \"\"I am not required to file an income tax return and I refuse to do voluntarily what I am not required to do\"\" is a very principled stand to take, it can have monetary consequences. Another reason to file a tax return even when one is not required to do so is to claim the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) if you qualify for it. As Publication 17 says in Chapter 36, qualified persons must File a tax return, even if you: (a) Do not owe any tax, (b) Did not earn enough money to file a return, or (c) Did not have income taxes withheld from your pay. in order to claim the credit. In short, read Publication 17 for yourself, and decide whether you are required to file an income tax return, and if you are not, whether it is worth your while to file the tax return anyway. Note to readers preparing to down-vote: this answer is prolix and says things that are far too \"\"well-known to everybody\"\" (and especially to you), but please remember that they might not be quite so well-known to the OP.\"",
"qid": 10497,
"docid": "413438",
"rank": 79,
"score": 86971
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"A tax return is a document you sign and file with the government to self-report your tax obligations. A tax refund is the payment you receive from the government if your payments into the tax system exceeded your obligations. As others have mentioned, if an extra $2K in income generated $5K in taxes, chances are your return was prepared incorrectly. The selection of an appropriate entity type for your business depends a lot on what you expect to see over the next several years in terms of income and expenses, and the extent to which you want or need to pay for fringe benefits or make pretax retirement contributions from your business income. There are four basic flavors of entity which are available to you: Sole proprietorship. This is the simplest option in terms of tax reporting and paperwork required for ongoing operations. Your net (gross minus expenses) income is added to your wage income and you'll pay tax on the total. If your wage income is less than approximately $100K, you'll also owe self-employment tax of approximately 15% in addition to income tax on your business income. If your business runs at a loss, you can deduct the loss from your other income in calculating your taxable income, though you won't be able to run at a loss indefinitely. You are liable for all of the debts and obligations of the business to the extent of all of your personal assets. Partnership. You will need at least two participants (humans or entities) to form a partnership. Individual items of income and expense are identified on a partnership tax return, and each partner's proportionate share is then reported on the individual partners' tax returns. General partners (who actively participate in the business) also must pay self-employment tax on their earnings below approximately $100K. Each general partner is responsible for all of the debts and obligations of the business to the extent of their personal assets. A general partnership can be created informally or with an oral agreement although that's not a good idea. Corporation. Business entities can be taxed as \"\"S\"\" or \"\"C\"\" corporations. Either way, the corporation is created by filing articles of incorporation with a state government (doesn't have to be the state where you live) and corporations are typically required to file yearly entity statements with the state where they were formed as well as all states where they do business. Shareholders are only liable for the debts and obligations of the corporation to the extent of their investment in the corporation. An \"\"S\"\" corporation files an information-only return similar to a partnership which reports items of income and expense, but those items are actually taken into account on the individual tax returns of the shareholders. If an \"\"S\"\" corporation runs at a loss, the losses are deductible against the shareholders' other income. A \"\"C\"\" corporation files a tax return more similar to an individual's. A C corporation calculates and pays its own tax at the corporate level. Payments from the C corporation to individuals are typically taxable as wages (from a tax point of view, it's the same as having a second job) or as dividends, depending on how and why the payments are made. (If they're in exchange for effort and work, they're probably wages - if they're payments of business profits to the business owners, they're probably dividends.) If a C corporation runs at a loss, the loss is not deductible against the shareholders' other income. Fringe benefits such as health insurance for business owners are not deductible as business expenses on the business returns for S corps, partnerships, or sole proprietorships. C corporations can deduct expenses for providing fringe benefits. LLCs don't have a predefined tax treatment - the members or managers of the LLC choose, when the LLC is formed, if they would like to be taxed as a partnership, an S corporation, or as a C corporation. If an LLC is owned by a single person, it can be considered a \"\"disregarded entity\"\" and treated for tax purposes as a sole proprietorship. This option is not available if the LLC has multiple owners. The asset protection provided by the use of an entity depends quite a bit on the source of the claim. If a creditor/plaintiff has a claim based on a contract signed on behalf of the entity, then they likely will not be able to \"\"pierce the veil\"\" and collect the entity's debts from the individual owners. On the other hand, if a creditor/plaintiff has a claim based on negligence or another tort-like action (such as sexual harassment), then it's very likely that the individual(s) involved will also be sued as individuals, which takes away a lot of the effectiveness of the purported asset protection. The entity-based asset protection is also often unavailable even for contract claims because sophisticated creditors (like banks and landlords) will often insist the the business owners sign a personal guarantee putting their own assets at risk in the event that the business fails to honor its obligations. There's no particular type of entity which will allow you to entirely avoid tax. Most tax planning revolves around characterizing income and expense items in the most favorable ways possible, or around controlling the timing of the appearance of those items on the tax return.\"",
"qid": 10497,
"docid": "257168",
"rank": 80,
"score": 86870
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you're getting the same total amount of money every year, then the main issue is psychological. I mean, you may find it easier to manage your money if you get it on one schedule rather than another. It's generally better to get money sooner rather than later. If you can deposit it into an account that pays interest or invest it between now and when you need it, then you'll come out ahead. But realistically, if we're talking about getting money a few days or a week or two sooner, that's not going to make much difference. If you get a paycheck just before the end of the year versus just after the end of the year, there will be tax implications. If the paycheck is delayed until January, then you don't have to pay taxes on it this year. Of course you'll have to pay the taxes next year, so that could be another case of sooner vs later. But it can also change your total taxes, because, in the US and I think many other countries, taxes are not a flat percentage, but the more you make, the higher the tax rate. So if you can move income to a year when you have less total income, that can lower your total taxes. But really, the main issue would be how it affects your budgeting. Others have discussed this so I won't repeat.",
"qid": 10497,
"docid": "140055",
"rank": 81,
"score": 86711
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Unfortunately, the tax system in the U.S. is probably more complicated than it looks to you right now. First, you need to understand that there will be taxes withheld from your paycheck, but the amount that they withhold is simply a guess. You might pay too much or too little tax during the year. After the year is over, you'll send in a tax return form that calculates the correct tax amount. If you have paid too little over the year, you'll have to send in the rest, but if you've paid too much, you'll get a refund. There are complicated formulas on how much tax the employer withholds from your paycheck, but in general, if you don't have extra income elsewhere that you need to pay tax on, you'll probably be close to breaking even at tax time. When you get your paycheck, the first thing that will be taken off is FICA, also called Social Security, Medicare, or the Payroll tax. This is a fixed 7.65% that is taken off the gross salary. It is not refundable and is not affected by any allowances or deductions, and does not come in to play at all on your tax return form. There are optional employee benefits that you might need to pay a portion of if you are going to take advantage of them, such as health insurance or retirement savings. Some of these deductions are paid with before-tax money, and some are paid with after tax money. The employer will calculate how much money they are supposed to withhold for federal and state taxes (yes, California has an income tax), and the rest is yours. At tax time, the employer will give you a form W-2, which shows you the amount of your gross income after all the before-tax deductions are taken out (which is what you use to calculate your tax). The form also shows you how much tax you have paid during the year. Form 1040 is the tax return that you use to calculate your correct tax for the year. You start with the gross income amount from the W-2, and the first thing you do is add in any income that you didn't get a W-2 for (such as interest or investment income) and subtract any deductions that you might have that are not taxable, but were not paid through your paycheck (such as moving expenses, student loan interest, tuition, etc.) The result is called your adjusted gross income. Next, you take off the deductions not covered in the above section (property tax, home mortgage interest, charitable giving, etc.). You can either take the standard deduction ($6,300 if you are single), or if you have more deductions in this category than that, you can itemize your deductions and declare the correct amount. After that, you subtract more for exemptions. You can claim yourself as an exemption unless you are considered a dependent of someone else and they are claiming you as a dependent. If you claim yourself, you take off another $4,000 from your income. What you are left with is your taxable income for the year. This is the amount you would use to calculate your tax based on the bracket table you found. California has an income tax, and just like the federal tax, some state taxes will be deducted from your paycheck, and you'll need to fill out a state tax return form after the year is over to calculate the correct state tax and either request a refund or pay the remainder of the tax. I don't have any experience with the California income tax, but there are details on the rates on this page from the State of California.",
"qid": 10497,
"docid": "175951",
"rank": 82,
"score": 86513
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Your tax return will be due on April 18th of 2017 for the amounts made in 2016. Based on the figures that you have provided, assuming you are 18, and assuming you are a single taxpayer your total tax will be around $2600.00 ($2611.25 to be exact, without additional credits or deductions to AGI accounted for). The $1,234 in fed. inc. tax that you have already paid is considered to be a prepaid by the government. If at year-end you have provided more than you have made the government will refund you the excess (federal tax return).",
"qid": 10497,
"docid": "299579",
"rank": 83,
"score": 86427
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Having a large state return also means that there is a potential income tax liability created at the federal level for the following year, as the situation resulted from the deduction of more on one's federal return than should have been deducted. The state refund is treated as federal income in the year it is refunded. http://blog.turbotax.intuit.com/tax-tips/is-my-state-tax-refund-taxable-and-why-90/",
"qid": 10497,
"docid": "103590",
"rank": 84,
"score": 86159
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: A simplistic answer would be that it's a multiplier on how much money per paycheck to subtract from your tax withholding (taxes per paycheck), then at the end of the year you will have paid taxes on your income minus the amount of your withholding allowances. If you get a decent (roughly 3% or more of your gross annual salary) refund you are letting the government withhold too much (and should increase your allowances), if you have to pay a decent amount of taxes at the end of the year then the amount withheld is not high enough (and should decrease your allowances). I definitely recommend using the calculator that Stephen Cleary mentions, but I think it's just as easy to adjust it up or down by 1 or 2 each year based on whether you got a large refund, no refund, or paid taxes. If you are disciplined with your money many experts advise to increase withholding allowances, save the extra in a safe short term interest account so that you earn money on your money and not the government.",
"qid": 10497,
"docid": "532629",
"rank": 85,
"score": 86031
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: It depends on the finances involved, but particularly if you're not billing anything right now and may have no revenue this year, it's probably a good idea to bill his company. This is in part because some deductions or other tax treatments are only allowed if you have revenue and/or income. The biggest example I can think of is the Solo 401k - you can only contribute up to your self employed income. If you're planning to contribute to one (and you should, they're amazingly powerful tools for saving for retirement and for reducing your tax burden), you will have to have some revenue in order to have something to pay yourself with. I don't believe you have to charge him, though, if it makes more tax sense not to (for example, if his business is operating at a loss and cannot benefit from expensing it, but you'd then have to pay taxes on your own income from it).",
"qid": 10497,
"docid": "108062",
"rank": 86,
"score": 86007
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You're interpreting this correctly. Furthermore, if your total tax liability is less than $1000, you can not pay estimates at all, just pay at the tax day. See this safe harbor rule in the IRS publication 17: General rule. In most cases, you must pay estimated tax for 2016 if both of the following apply. You expect to owe at least $1,000 in tax for 2016, after subtracting your withholding and refundable credits. You expect your withholding plus your refundable credits to be less than the smaller of: 90% of the tax to be shown on your 2016 tax return, or 100% of the tax shown on your 2015 tax return (but see Special rules for farmers, fishermen, and higher income taxpayers , later). Your 2015 tax return must cover all 12 months.",
"qid": 10497,
"docid": "191965",
"rank": 87,
"score": 85911
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Assuming you are being charged sales tax, it all depends on where you take possession of the shipment. Are your suppliers shipping to a US address, say your freight forwarder, from where you handle the ongoing shipment, or directly to you in South America? If the latter, per Michael Pryor's answer, you should not be charged sales tax. If the former, if the address is in a state in which your supplier has a physical location they will have to charge sales tax. That said, your freight forwarder should be able to furnish your supplier with a letter stating that the goods have been exported (with a copy of the relevant Bill of Lading) which will allow your supplier to refund you the taxes (a company I was at before would allow refunds up to two years past the date of sale per various tax regulations). Alternatively, you could see if just a letter of intent from your freight forwarder is enough to not charge you in the first place, but that's technically not proof of exportation. You might be able to get a refund or an exception from the state's tax department directly, but I would recommend going through your supplier - much less hassle.",
"qid": 10497,
"docid": "585454",
"rank": 88,
"score": 85787
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Federal income tax refunds received during 2016 are not taxable income for 2016 (or any other year) on either the Federal or the State tax return. The State income tax refund for 2015 received during 2016 is not taxable income on the State tax return for 2016. It is taxable income on the Federal tax return for 2016 only to the extent that you received a tax benefit (reduction in Federal income tax due) from deducting State income tax as an Itemized Deduction on your 2015 Federal return. If you didn't deduct State income tax because you deducted State sales tax instead, then the State income tax refund is not taxable income on the Federal tax return.",
"qid": 10497,
"docid": "216892",
"rank": 89,
"score": 85774
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Since you aren't contributing enough to count your parent as a dependent, there is no tax benefit to you for helping them. Gift tax is paid by the giver when total gifts to an individual exceed $14k/year and the lifetime exclusion of $5.49M has been exceeded. If your annual gifts exceed $14k (subject to change, as is the lifetime exclusion amount) then you have to file Form 709 with your return, but you will not pay gift tax unless you've both exhausted the lifetime exclusion and gift over $14k/year. If you pay medical bills directly, that amount does not count toward the $14k/year limit, so you could likely assist in excess of $14k/year and still avoid having to file the extra form. Most assistance programs are income-based, and gifts do not count toward income, but you'll want to check on the specific requirements for programs they are enrolled in.",
"qid": 10497,
"docid": "212091",
"rank": 90,
"score": 85708
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"After much research, the answer is \"\"a\"\": recompute the tax return using the installment sales method because (1) the escrow payment was subject to \"\"substantial restrictions\"\" by virtue of the escrow being structured to pay buyer's indemnification claims and (2) the taxpayer did not correctly elect out of the installment method by reporting the entire gain including the escrow payments on the return in the year of the transaction.\"",
"qid": 10497,
"docid": "554784",
"rank": 91,
"score": 85678
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The tax year will be determined by the date on the check from Lottery and they will withhold estimated taxes for federal, and for most state, incomes taxes. Just remember if the ticket is claimed in January, then you will have to wait until the following year to get any possible refund.",
"qid": 10497,
"docid": "383832",
"rank": 92,
"score": 85579
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: It is also possible that the settlement company didn't tell the local government where to send the new tax bill. This would worry me because what else was missed regarding filing the proper documents with the lenders and the local government. It could also be a problem with the local government. Contact the settlement company or your attorney to get the issue resolved. If you owe the money you want to know; if the new owner owes the money they don't want to face a tax lien because the settlement company made a mistake. Generally this is split between the parties based on the number of days each will own the home. At settlement the money should move from one party to the other based on what has been deposited into escrow and when the actual bills are due. For example the payment for the first half of the year due July 1st may be sent in June. If the settlement was in June The new owner would give money to the old owner. But if settlement was in early July Money would move the other way.",
"qid": 10497,
"docid": "156143",
"rank": 93,
"score": 85248
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"It is not allowed to pay refunds to anyone other than the taxpayer. This is due to various tax return fraud schemes that were running around. Banks are required to enforce this. If the direct deposit is denied, a check will be issued. In her name, obviously. What she does with it when she gets it is her business - but I believe that tax refund checks may not be just \"\"endorsed\"\", the bank will likely want to see her when you deposit it to your account, even if it is endorsed. For the same reason.\"",
"qid": 10497,
"docid": "590837",
"rank": 94,
"score": 85245
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: This is a topic you need to sit down and discuss with your parents. Income taxes probably aren't going to be a big issue, and will be refunded in April. Social Security and Medicare will not be refunded, but start you on the road to qualifying for them in the future. How much of you expenses you will now cover will be a family decision; how much of your college expenses you will be responsible for will also need to be discussed. These topics need to be understood before it is time to apply to schools in the fall of your senior year of high school. It is nice to know that you are at least thinking about saving money for your future and for emergencies.",
"qid": 10497,
"docid": "185077",
"rank": 95,
"score": 85197
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: 1040ES uses the smaller number because that's what triggers the penalties. (That is, you are penalized if what you prepay is less than your total 2013 liability and less than 90% of your 2014 liability.) However, estimated taxes are just estimates. If you pay too little, you could face a penalty, but there's no penalty for paying too much -- you'll just get a refund as usual. It seems that your concern stems from the fact that this is the first year you're in this tax situation and so you're unsure if your estimates are accurate. In your comment to Pete Belford's answer, you also indicated you aren't worried about being unable to pay, but only about accidentally underpaying. In this case, you could just err on the side of caution and pay more than 1040ES says you owe. (You don't actually file the 1040ES, the calculations are just for your own use.) For instance, you could prepay based on the higher of your two estimates, if you can afford it; or, if you can't afford that much, hedge the estimate payments up a bit to an amount you can afford that is closer to the higher estimate. At the end of the year if you paid too much you can get a refund as usual. After this year, you will presumably have a better sense of your income and your tax liability, and can make more accurate estimates for next year.",
"qid": 10497,
"docid": "274937",
"rank": 96,
"score": 85007
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"This comment is too long to put in comments. Sorry. I suggest you also do a dry run of your taxes with the rental as part of it. When you rent a house, you take depreciation each year. This means that even if you are breaking even, the rent paying the mortgage, property tax, etc, you may still show a \"\"tax loss.\"\" In which case, planning and knowing this, might suggest you adjust your withholding so instead of a large refund, you get better cash flow each month. Also, pull a copy of Schedule E and the Instructions. You'll be wiser for having read them. Last. If you have decent equity in the existing house, it may pay to refinance to save a bit there, or even pull some cash out. When you buy the new one, you want to be in the best position you can be, and not risk cutting it too close.\"",
"qid": 10497,
"docid": "231999",
"rank": 97,
"score": 84907
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Unless you're running a self-employed business with a significant turnover (more than £150k), you are entitled to use cash basis accounting for your tax return, which means you would put the date of transactions as the payment date rather than the billing date or the date a debt is incurred. For payments which have a lag, e.g. a cheque that needs to be paid in or a bank transfer that takes a few days, you might also need to choose between multiple payment dates, e.g. when you initiated the payment or when it took effect. You can pick one as long as you're consistent: You can choose how you record when money is received or paid (eg the date the money enters your account or the date a cheque is written) but you must use the same method each tax year.",
"qid": 10497,
"docid": "457013",
"rank": 98,
"score": 84735
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"This is ridiculous. Of course some companies don't pay taxes each year. Off the top of my head, NOL's (net operating losses) can be carried forward 20 years and will definitely reduce tax liability. For that matter, a loss during any year prevents paying income tax (though sales, property, ad valorem and other taxes may apply). Other companies may get capital credits, green credits, or other subsidies that might prevent a tax liability. None of these indicate that a corporation is getting away with anything. The IRS is a lot better at its job than most people think. The point is, you can't look at any individual year and make an accurate assessment of a company's (or even an individual's) tax burden. It's completely dishonest reporting. Source: I'm a state tax auditor, and my job is to make sure corporations pay what they are supposed to. EDIT: additionally, 2010 was the heart of the recession for a lot of companies. There were a LOT of corporations that took losses that year. So to say that \"\"GE took in 14.2 billion and paid no taxes\"\" is misleading: you have to say WHY they paid no taxes or you're just blowing hot air. Taxes are assessed on **income**, not **revenue**. There is a big difference.\"",
"qid": 10497,
"docid": "49557",
"rank": 99,
"score": 84588
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I edited my W4 over several years, trying to get rid of my refund. It's a balancing act, just be careful to not owe more than about $1000 each year. They can hit you with a small penalty. It's never been enough to concern me, but it's there. It's also a balancing act if you get a raise, a bonus, any kind of differences in pay...",
"qid": 10497,
"docid": "408181",
"rank": 100,
"score": 84525
}
] |
What extra information might be obtained from the next highest bids in an order book? | [
{
"content": "Title: Content: In order to see whether you can buy or sell some given quantity of a stock at the current bid price, you need a counterparty (a buyer) who is willing to buy the number of stocks you are wishing to offload. To see whether such a counterparty exists, you can look at the stock's order book, or level two feed. The order book shows all the people who have placed buy or sell orders, the price they are willing to pay, and the quantity they demand at that price. Here is the order book from earlier this morning for the British pharmaceutical company, GlaxoSmithKline PLC. Let's start by looking at the left-hand blue part of the book, beneath the yellow strip. This is called the Buy side. The book is sorted with the highest price at the top, because this is the best price that a seller can presently obtain. If several buyers bid at the same price, then the oldest entry on the book takes precedence. You can see we have five buyers each willing to pay 1543.0 p (that's 1543 British pence, or £15.43) per share. Therefore the current bid price for this instrument is 1543.0. The first buyer wants 175 shares, the next, 300, and so on. The total volume that is demanded at 1543.0p is 2435 shares. This information is summarized on the yellow strip: 5 buyers, total volume of 2435, at 1543.0. These are all buyers who want to buy right now and the exchange will make the trade happen immediately if you put in a sell order for 1543.0 p or less. If you want to sell 2435 shares or fewer, you are good to go. The important thing to note is that once you sell these bidders a total of 2435 shares, then their orders are fulfilled and they will be removed from the order book. At this point, the next bidder is promoted up the book; but his price is 1542.5, 0.5 p lower than before. Absent any further changes to the order book, the bid price will decrease to 1542.5 p. This makes sense because you are selling a lot of shares so you'd expect the market price to be depressed. This information will be disseminated to the level one feed and the level one graph of the stock price will be updated. Thus if you have more than 2435 shares to sell, you cannot expect to execute your order at the bid price in one go. Of course, the more shares you are trying to get rid of, the further down the buy side you will have to go. In reality for a highly liquid stock as this, the order book receives many amendments per second and it is unlikely that your trade would make much difference. On the right hand side of the display you can see the recent trades: these are the times the trades were done (or notified to the exchange), the price of the trade, the volume and the trade type (AT means automatic trade). GlaxoSmithKline is a highly liquid stock with many willing buyers and sellers. But some stocks are less liquid. In order to enable traders to find a counterparty at short notice, exchanges often require less liquid stocks to have market makers. A market maker places buy and sell orders simultaneously, with a spread between the two prices so that they can profit from each transaction. For instance Diurnal Group PLC has had no trades today and no quotes. It has a more complicated order book, enabling both ordinary buyers and sellers to list if they wish, but market makers are separated out at the top. Here you can see that three market makers are providing liquidity on this stock, Peel Hunt (PEEL), Numis (NUMS) and Winterflood (WINS). They have a very unpalatable spread of over 5% between their bid and offer prices. Further in each case the sum total that they are willing to trade is 3000 shares. If you have more than three thousand Dirunal Group shares to sell, you would have to wait for the market makers to come back with a new quote after you'd sold the first 3000.",
"qid": 10526,
"docid": "251100",
"rank": 1,
"score": 108493
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: In the stock market many participants enter orders that are not necessarily set at the current market price of the stock (i.e. they are not market orders, they are limit orders). They can be lower than the market price (if they want to buy) or they can be higher than the market price (if they want to sell). The set of orders at each point of time for a security is called the order book. The lowest selling price of the order book is the offer or ask, the higher buying price is the bid. The more liquid is a security, the more orders will be in the order book, and the narrower will be the bid-ask spread. The depth of the order book is the number of units that the order book can absorb in any direction (buy or sell). As an example: imagine I want to buy 100 units at the lowest offer, but the size of the lowest offer is only 50 units, and there is not any further order, that means the stock has little depth.",
"qid": 10526,
"docid": "177926",
"rank": 2,
"score": 106285
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"You're confusing a specific visual representation of the top bid & ask orders selected from the order book with the actual \"\"top of the book\"\". \"\"Top\"\" in the sense of the \"\"top of the book\"\" is a ranking (by order of \"\"best\"\", different for bids vs. asks) and not meant to be strictly a visual positioning on a page or screen. The data in the visual representation comes from the top of the order book (the best bids, and the best asks), but that visual representation is choosing to present it in a specific way. Think of the \"\"book\"\" as the model, the abstract collection of outstanding bid and ask order data. When people talk about the \"\"top of the book\"\", they're talking about the best bids (higher being better), and the best asks (lower being better). The visual representation above is but one possible way to render a tip-of-the-iceberg view of the best orders in the \"\"book\"\". The advantage of that particular visual representation is that one can see the asks & bids converging towards the center. The spread is visible as the difference between the two middle elements – being the lowest row in the blue \"\"Asks\"\" area, and the highest row in the green \"\"Bids\"\" area. The up-arrow they had included in the \"\"Asks\"\" area was perhaps meant to provide a clue about how the data was sorted contrary to expectations of descending order of \"\"bestness\"\", and/or to imply there is further depth to the book data in the indicated direction. If the bids & asks had been oriented side-by-side instead, they might have chosen to represent it as below, re-arranging the rows in the \"\"Asks\"\" in the opposite order (i.e. in the order you had expected) so that the \"\"bests\"\" are both in the top row:\"",
"qid": 10526,
"docid": "546493",
"rank": 3,
"score": 99125
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Market price simply depends on your order side. If you are placing a buy order the market price is the lowest ask, if you are placing a sell order the market price is the highest bid. If your order is larger than the volume then you'd need to also consider the next lowest ask or next highest bid until you've fulfilled your order volume.",
"qid": 10526,
"docid": "427747",
"rank": 4,
"score": 95845
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Not all limit orders add liquidity, but all market orders remove liquidity presuming there is liquidity to remove. A liquidity providing order is one that is posted to the limit book. If an order, even a limit order, is filled before being posted to the limit book, it removes liquidity. Liquidity is measured by a balance and abundance of quantities posted on the limit book and the best spread between the lowest ask and the highest bid.",
"qid": 10526,
"docid": "486692",
"rank": 5,
"score": 93306
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"There are two distinct questions that may be of interest to you. Both questions are relevant for funds that need to buy or sell large orders that you are talking about. The answer depends on your order type and the current market state such as the level 2 order book. Suppose there are no iceberg or hidden orders and the order book (image courtesy of this question) currently is: An unlimited (\"\"at market\"\") buy order for 12,000 shares gets filled immediately: it gets 1,100 shares at 180.03 (1,100@180.03), 9,700 at 180.04 and 1,200 at 180.05. After this order, the lowest ask price becomes 180.05 and the highest bid is obviously still 180.02 (because the previous order was a 'market order'). A limited buy order for 12,000 shares with a price limit of 180.04 gets the first two fills just like the market order: 1,100 shares at 180.03 and 9,700 at 180.04. However, the remainder of the order will establish a new bid price level for 1,200 shares at 180.04. It is possible to enter an unlimited buy order that exhausts the book. However, such a trade would often be considered a mis-trade and either (i) be cancelled by the broker, (ii) be cancelled or undone by the exchange, or (iii) hit the maximum price move a stock is allowed per day (\"\"limit up\"\"). Funds and banks often have to buy or sell large quantities, just like you have described. However they usually do not punch through order book levels as I described before. Instead they would spread out the order over time and buy a smaller quantity several times throughout the day. Simple algorithms attempt to get a price close to the time-weighted average price (TWAP) or volume-weighted average price (VWAP) and would buy a smaller amount every N minutes. Despite splitting the order into smaller pieces the price usually moves against the trader for many reasons. There are many models to estimate the market impact of an order before executing it and many brokers have their own model, for example Deutsche Bank. There is considerable research on \"\"market impact\"\" if you are interested. I understand the general principal that when significant buy orders comes in relative to the sell orders price goes up and when a significant sell order comes in relative to buy orders it goes down. I consider this statement wrong or at least misleading. First, stocks can jump in price without or with very little volume. Consider a company that releases a negative earnings surprise over night. On the next day the stock may open 20% lower without any orders having matched for any price in between. The price moved because the perception of the stocks value changed, not because of buy or sell pressure. Second, buy and sell pressure have an effect on the price because of the underlying reason, and not necessarily/only because of the mechanics of the market. Assume you were prepared to sell HyperNanoTech stock, but suddenly there's a lot of buzz and your colleagues are talking about buying it. Would you still sell it for the same price? I wouldn't. I would try to find out how much they are prepared to buy it for. In other words, buy pressure can be the consequence of successful marketing of the stock and the marketing buzz is what changes the price.\"",
"qid": 10526,
"docid": "525231",
"rank": 6,
"score": 91580
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Orders large enough to buy down the current Bid and Ask Book are common. This is the essential strategy through which larger traders \"\"Strip\"\" the Bid or Ask in order to excite motion in a direction that is favorable to their interests. Smaller traders will often focus on low float/small cap tickers, as both conditions tend to favor volatility on relatively small volume.\"",
"qid": 10526,
"docid": "251813",
"rank": 7,
"score": 87774
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: My broker collates the order book by price and marketplace, displaying the number of shares available at each level, sorted as in Victor's screencap. You can glean information from not just a snapshot of the order book but also by watching how it changes over time. Although it's not always a complete picture -- many brokers hold limit orders internally until the market is close, at which point they'll route to an exchange or trade internally. And of course skilled market participants know that there's people out there looking to glean information from the order book and will act to confuse the picture. The order book can show you: Combined with a list of trades (price & size, and whether it was a buy or sell), you can get a much more complete picture of what's going on with a stock than by looking at charts alone.",
"qid": 10526,
"docid": "283008",
"rank": 8,
"score": 87171
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: This is copying my own answer to another question, but this is definitely relevant for you: A bid is an offer to buy something on an order book, so for example you may post an offer to buy one share, at $5. An ask is an offer to sell something on an order book, at a set price. For example you may post an offer to sell shares at $6. A trade happens when there are bids/asks that overlap each other, or are at the same price, so there is always a spread of at least one of the smallest currency unit the exchange allows. Betting that the price of an asset will go down, traditionally by borrowing some of that asset and then selling it, hoping to buy it back at a lower price and pocket the difference (minus interest). Going long, as you may have guessed, is the opposite of going short. Instead of betting that the price will go down, you buy shares in the hope that the price will go up. So, let's say as per your example you borrow 100 shares of company 'X', expecting the price of them to go down. You take your shares to the market and sell them - you make a market sell order (a market 'ask'). This matches against a bid and you receive a price of $5 per share. Now, let's pretend that you change your mind and you think the price is going to go up, you instantly regret your decision. In order to pay back the shares, you now need to buy back your shares as $6 - which is the price off the ask offers on the order book. Similarly, the same is true in the reverse if you are going long. Because of this spread, you have lost money. You sold at a low price and bought at a high price, meaning it costs you more money to repay your borrowed shares. So, when you are shorting you need the spread to be as tight as possible.",
"qid": 10526,
"docid": "307155",
"rank": 9,
"score": 85512
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: At any point of time, buyer wants to purchase a stock at lesser price and seller wants to sell the stock at a higher price. Let's consider this scenario Company XYZ is trading at 100$, as stated above buyer wants to purchase at lower price and seller at higher price, this information will be available in Market depth, let's consider there are 5 buyers and 5 sellers, below are the details of their orders Buyers List Sellers List Highest order in buyers list will contain the bid price and bid quantity, Lowest order in Sellers list will contain the offer price and offer quantity. Now, if I want to buy 50 Stocks of company XYZ, need to place an order first, it can be either limit or Market. Limit Order : In this order, I will mention the price(buy price) at which I wish to buy, if there is any seller selling the stock less than or equal to price I have mentioned, then the order will be executed else it will be added to buyers list Market Order : In this order, I will not mention the price, if I wish to purchase 50 Stocks, then it will find the lowest offer price and buy stocks, in our case it will be 101. if I wish to purchase 200 Stocks, then it will find the lowest offer price and buy stocks, in our case it will be 2 transactions, since entire request cannot be accommodated in single order Usually the volume(Ask Volume and Offer Volume) being displayed are all Limit orders and not Market orders, Market orders are executed immediately. This is just an example, However several transactions are executed within a second, hence we will get to know the exact value only after the order is completed(executed)",
"qid": 10526,
"docid": "212685",
"rank": 10,
"score": 84743
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: A bid is an offer to buy something on an order book, so for example you may post an offer to buy one share, at $5. An ask is an offer to sell something on an order book, at a set price. For example you may post an offer to sell shares at $6. A trade happens when there are bids/asks that overlap each other, or are at the same price, so there is always a spread of at least one of the smallest currency unit the exchange allows. Betting that the price of an asset will go down, traditionally by borrowing some of that asset and then selling it, hoping to buy it back at a lower price and pocket the difference (minus interest). So, let's say as per your example you borrow 100 shares of company 'X', expecting the price of them to go down. You take your shares to the market and sell them - you make a market sell order (a market 'ask'). This matches against a bid and you receive a price of $5 per share. Now, let's pretend that you change your mind and you think the price is going to go up, you instantly regret your decision. In order to pay back the shares, you now need to buy back your shares as $6 - which is the price off the ask offers on the order book. Because of this spread, you have lost money. You sold at a low price and bought at a high price, meaning it costs you more money to repay your borrowed shares. So, when you are shorting you need the spread to be as tight as possible.",
"qid": 10526,
"docid": "412223",
"rank": 11,
"score": 84432
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"A market sell order will be filled at the highest current \"\"bid\"\" price. For a reasonably liquid stock, there will be several buy orders in line, and the highest bid must be filled first, so there should a very short time between when you place the order and when it is filled. What could happen is what's called front running. That's when the broker places their own order in front of yours to fulfill the current bid, selling their own stock at the slightly higher price, causing your sale to be filled at a lower price. This is not only unethical but illegal as well. It is not something you should be concerned about with a large broker. You should only place a market order when you don't care about minute differences between the current ask and your execution price, but want to guarantee order execution. If you absolutely have to sell at a minimum price, then a limit order is more appropriate, but you run the risk that your limit will not be reached and your order will not be filled. So the risk is a tradeoff between a guaranteed price and a guaranteed execution.\"",
"qid": 10526,
"docid": "418937",
"rank": 12,
"score": 84411
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The best ask is the lowest ask, and the best bid is the highest bid. If the ask was lower than the bid then they crossed, and that would be a crossed market and quickly resolved. So the bid will almost always be cheaper than the ask. A heuristic is that a bid is the revenue of the stock at any given time while the ask is the cost, so the market will only ever offer a profit to itself not to the liquidity seeker. If examining the book vertically, all orders are usually sorted descending. Since the best ask is the lowest ask, it is on the bottom of the asks, and vice versa for the best bid. The best bid & best ask will be those closest since that's the narrowest spread and price-time priority will promise that a bid that crosses the asks will hit the lowest ask, the best possible price for the bidder and vice versa for an ask that crosses the best bid.",
"qid": 10526,
"docid": "146125",
"rank": 13,
"score": 84026
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you are buying your order will be placed in Bid list. If you are selling your order will be placed in the Ask list. The highest Bid price will be placed at the top of the Bid list and the lowest Ask price will be placed at the top of the Ask list. When a Bid and Ask price are matched a transaction will take place and it will the last traded price. If you are looking to buy at a lower price, say $155.01, your Bid price will be placed 3rd in the Bid list, and unless the Ask prices fall to that level, your order will remain in the list until it trades, it expires or you cancel it. If prices don't fall to you Bid price you will not get a trade. If you wanted your trade to go through you could either place a limit buy order closer to the lowest Ask price (however this is still not a certainty), or to be certain place a market buy order which will trade at the lowest Ask price.",
"qid": 10526,
"docid": "137175",
"rank": 14,
"score": 83952
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I think for this a picture is worth a thousand words. This is a \"\"depth chart\"\" that I pulled from google images, specifically because it doesn't name any security. On the left you have all of the \"\"bids\"\" to buy this security, on the right you have the \"\"asks\"\" to sell the security. In the middle you have the bid/ask spread, this is the space between the highest bid and the lowest ask. As you can see you are free to place you order to the market to buy for 232, and someone else is free to place their order to the market to sell for 234. When the bid and the ask match there's a transaction for the maximum number of available shares. Alternatively, someone can place a market order to buy or sell and they'll just take the current market price. Retail investors don't really get access to this kind of chart from their brokers because for the most part the information isn't terribly relevant at the retail level.\"",
"qid": 10526,
"docid": "322798",
"rank": 15,
"score": 83374
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The options market requires much more attention to avoid the situation you're describing. An overnight $10 ask will remain on the books most likely as Good-Til-Canceled. The first to bid the low order gets it. If traders are paying attention, which they probably are then they will bid at $10. If not, they will bid immediately at $20. If they crossed the order, it would be filled at their higher than $10 bid. This is all governed by the exchange where the ask is posted, and most implement price-time priority.",
"qid": 10526,
"docid": "551463",
"rank": 16,
"score": 82632
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Obvious answer but the limit order should be set at the price that you are willing to pay :). More usefully, if you want a decent chance of the order filling in short notice you should place the order one price tick above the current highest buyer (bid price). As long as high frequency trading remains alive I would advise against ever using market orders, these algorithmic trades can occasionally severely distort the price of a security in a fraction of a second. So if your market order happens to fill in during such a distortion you might end up massively overpaying/underselling.",
"qid": 10526,
"docid": "155151",
"rank": 17,
"score": 82231
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The order book looks fine, if it were a liquid market. However, a bid that matches with an ask will always be met on a first come first serve basis. There's no other way to do it. Most traders don't like doing that because they want to try to get a lower price. HFT don't have to worry about meeting the ask because they're just going to pass that cost on to the guy on the hook. By the time the HFT makes the buy they already know the guy wants to buy at 70.00 They did not know that at the time they placed the buy order. If the buy order from the HFT hasn't been cancelled it means they already found someone. How? By testing the market with sell orders at the same time they were sending buy orders. They keep a little bit of stock in reserve to perform these tests.",
"qid": 10526,
"docid": "413132",
"rank": 18,
"score": 80732
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Firstly, if a stock costs $50 this second, the bid/ask would have to be 49/50. If the bid/ask were 49/51, the stock would cost $51 this second. What you're likely referring to is the last trade, not the cost. The last trading price is history and doesn't apply to future transactions. To make it simple, let's define a simple order book. Say there is a bid to buy 100 at $49, 200 at $48, 500 at $47. If you place a market order to sell 100 shares, it should all get filled at $49. If you had placed a market order to sell 200 shares instead, half should get filled at $49 and half at $48. This is, of course, assuming no one else places an order before you get yours submitted. If someone beats you to the 100 share lot, then your order could get filled at lower than what you thought you'd get. If your internet connection is slow or there is a lot of latency in the data from the exchange, then things like this could happen. Also, there are many ECNs in addition to the exchanges which may have different order books. There are also trades which, for some reason, get delayed and show up later in the \"\"time and sales\"\" window. But to answer the question of why someone would want to sell low... the only reason I could think is they desire to drive the price down.\"",
"qid": 10526,
"docid": "557961",
"rank": 19,
"score": 79902
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"EVERYONE buys at the ask price and sells at the bid price (no matter who you are). There are a few important things you need to understand. Example: EVE bid: 16.00 EVE ask: 16.25 So if your selling EVE at \"\"market price\"\" you are entering an ask equal to the highest bid ($16.00). If you buy EVE at \"\"market price\"\" you are entering a bid equal to the lowest ask price ($16.25). Its key to understand this rule: \"\"An order executes ONLY when both bid and ask meet. (bid = ask).\"\" So a market maker puts in a bid when he wants to buy but the trade only executes when an ASK price meets his BID price. When you see a quote for a stock it is the price of the last trade. So it is possible to have a quote higher or lower then both the bid and the ask.\"",
"qid": 10526,
"docid": "284235",
"rank": 20,
"score": 79176
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: This sometimes happens to me. It depends on how liquid the option is. Normally what I see happening is that the order book mutates itself around my order. I interpret this to mean that the order book is primarily market makers. They see a retail investor (me) come in and, since they don't have any interest in this illiquid option, they back off. Some other retail investor (or whatever) steps in with a market order, and we get matched up. I get a fill because I become the market maker for a brief while. On highly liquid options, buy limits at the bid tend to get swallowed because the market makers are working the spread. With very small orders (a contract or two) on very liquid options, I've had luck getting quick fills in the middle of the spread, which I attribute to MM's rebalancing their holdings on the cheap, although sometimes I like to think there's some other anal-retentive like me out there that hates to see such a lopsided book. :) I haven't noticed any particular tendency for this to happen more with puts or calls, or with buy vs sell transactions. For a while I had a suspicion that this was happening with strikes where IV didn't match IV of other strikes, but I never cared enough to chase it down as it was a minor part of my overall P/L.",
"qid": 10526,
"docid": "306783",
"rank": 21,
"score": 78544
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"What if everyone decided to sell all the shares at a given moment, let's say when the stock is trading at $40? It would fall to the lowest bid price, which could be $0.01 if someone had that bid in place. Here is an example which I happened to find online: Notice there are orders to buy at half the market price and lower... probably all the way down to pennies. If there were enough selling activity to fill all of those bids you see, then the market price would be the lowest bid on the screen. Alternatively, the bid orders could be pulled (cancelled), which would also let the price free-fall to the lowest bid even if there were few actual sellers. Bid-stuffing is what HFT (high frequency trading) algorithms sometimes do, which some say caused the Flash Crash of May 2010. The computers \"\"stuff\"\" bids into the order book, making it look like there is demand in order to trigger a market reaction, then they pull the bids to make the market fall. This sort of thing happens all the time and Nanex documents it http://www.nanex.net/FlashCrash/OngoingResearch.html Quote stuffing defined: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/q/quote-stuffing.asp I remember the day of the Flash Crash very well. I found this video on youtube of CNBC at that time. Watch from the 5:00 min mark on the video as Jim Crammer talks about PG easily not being worth the price of the market at that time. He said \"\"Who cares?\"\", \"\"Its not a real price\"\", \"\"$49.25 bid for 50,000 shares if I were at my hedge fund.\"\" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86g4_w4j3jU You can value a stock how you want, but its only actually worth what someone will give you for it. More examples: Anadarko Petroleum, which as we noted in today's EOD post, lost $45 billion in market cap in 45 milliseconds (a collapse rate of $1 billion per millisecond), flash crashing from $90 all the way to an (allegedly illegal) stub quote of $0.01. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-05-17/how-last-second-flash-crash-pushed-sp-500-1667-1666 How 10,000 Contracts Crashed The Market: A Visual Deconstruction Of Last Night's E-Mini Flash Crash http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-12-21/how-10000-contracts-crashed-market-visual-deconstruction-last-nights-e-mini-flash-cr Symantec Flash-Crash Destroys Over $1.5 Billion In Less Than A Second http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-04-30/symantec-flash-crash-destroys-over-15-billion-less-second This sort of thing happens so often, I don't pay much attention anymore.\"",
"qid": 10526,
"docid": "386225",
"rank": 22,
"score": 78254
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"You can choose to place successively lower buy limit orders, but whether they get filled or not is not a given; it depends on whether sellers care to accept your bid. In your example of a 49.98 / 50.01 spread, if you place a buy with limit of 49.99, it won't get filled (if the order reaches the market while still at 49.98 / 50.01) immediately, but will be added to the order book. By being added to the order book, the markets bid and ask become 49.99 / 50.01. Your order won't get filled until some seller places a market order or a sell limit order of 49.99 or less. No guarantee that that will happen, and even if it does, there's nothing to say that your follow-up buy at 49.98 will ever be filled. In fact, your 49.98 buy order queues up at the \"\"end of the line\"\" behind all previously pending 49.98 bids, since your order arrived after those other bids. Since the initial conditions you supposed had a 49.98 bid, such an order exists (or at least did exist; it might have been cancelled in the intervening moment. Basically, your first buy at 49.99, if it happens, has essentially no influence on whether your second buy at 49.98 will happen. You can't expect to move the market lower by making a bid that is higher (49.99) than the existing best bid (49.98). Whatever influence your 49.99 order has is to raise the market's price, not lower it.\"",
"qid": 10526,
"docid": "260153",
"rank": 23,
"score": 77979
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: At any given time there are buy orders and there are sell orders. Typically there is a little bit of space between the lowest sell order and the highest buy order, this is known as the bid/ask spread. As an example say person A will sell for $10.10 but person B will only buy at $10.00. If you have a billion shares outstanding just the space between the bid and ask prices represents $100,000,000 of market cap. Now imagine that the CEO is in the news related to some embezzlement investigation. A number of buyers cancel their orders. Now the highest buy order is $7. There isn't money involved, that's just the highest offer to buy at the time; but that's a drop from $10 to $7. That's a change in market cap of $3,000,000,000. Some seller thinks the stock will continue to fall, and some buyer thinks the stock has reached a fair enterprise value at $7 billion ($7 per share). Whether or not the seller lost money depends on where the seller bought the stock. Maybe they bought when it was an IPO for $1. Even at $7 they made $6 per share. Value is changing, not money. Though it would be fun, there's no money bonfire at the NYSE.",
"qid": 10526,
"docid": "65147",
"rank": 24,
"score": 77717
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Most of the time* you're selling to other investors, not back to the company. The stock market is a collection of bid (buy offers) and asks (sell offers). When you sell your stock as a retail investor at the \"\"market\"\" price you're essentially just meeting whatever standing bid offers are on the market. For very liquid stocks (e.g. Apple), you can pretty much always get the displayed price because so many stocks are being traded. However during periods of very high volatility or for low-volume stocks, the quoted price may not be indicative of what you actually pay. As an example, let's say you have 5 stocks you're trying to sell and the bid-side order book is 2 stocks for $105, 2 for $100, and 5 for $95. In this scenario the quoted price will be $105 (the best bid price), but if you accept market price you'll settle 2 for 105, 2 for 100, and 1 for 95. After your sell order goes through, the new quoted price will be $95. For high volume stocks, there will usually be so many orders near the midpoint price ($105, in this case) that you won't see any price slippage for small orders. You can also post limit orders, which are essentially open orders waiting to be filled like in the above example. They ensure you get the price you want, but you have no way to guarantee they'll be filled or not. Edit: as a cool example, check out the bitcoin GDAX on coinbase for a live example of what the order book looks like for stocks. You'll see that the price of bitcoin will drift towards whichever direction has the less dense order book (e.g. price drifts upwards when there are far more bids than asks.)\"",
"qid": 10526,
"docid": "317365",
"rank": 25,
"score": 77510
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"You might consider learning how the \"\"matching\"\" or \"\"pairing\"\" system in the market operates. The actual exchange only happens when both a buyer and a seller overlap their respect quotes. Sometimes orders \"\"go to market\"\" for a particular volume. Eg get me 10,000 Microsoft shares now. which means that the price starts at the current lowest seller, and works up the price list until the volume is met. Like all market it trades, it has it's advantages, and it's dangers. If you are confident Microsoft is going to bull, you want those shares now, confident you'll recoup the cost. Where if you put in a priced order, you might get only none or some shares. Same as when you sell. If you see the price (which is the price of the last completed \"\"successful\"\" trade. and think \"\"I'm going to sell 1000 shares\"\". then you give the order to the market (or broker), and then the same as what happened as before. the highest bidder gets as much as they asked for, if there's still shares left over, they go to the next bidder, and so on down the price... and the last completed \"\"successful\"\" trade is when your last sale is made at the lowest price of your batch. If you're selling, and selling 100,000 shares. And the highest bidder wants 1,000,000 shares you'll only see the price drop to that guys bid. Why will it drop (off the quoted price?). Because the quoted price is the LAST sale, clearly if there's someone still with an open bid on the market...then either he wants more shares than were available (the price stays same), or his bid wasn't as high as the last bid (so when you sale goes through, it will be at the price he's offering). Which is why being able to see the price queues is important on large traders. It is also why it can be important put stops and limits on your trades, een through you can still get gapped if you're unlucky. However putting prices (\"\"Open Orders\"\" vs \"\"(at)Market Orders\"\") can mean that you're sitting there waiting for a bounce/spike while the action is all going on without you). safer but not as much gain (maybe ;) ) that's the excitement of the market, for every option there's advantages...and risks... (eg missing out) There are also issues with stock movement, shadowing, and stop hunting, which can influence the price. But the stuff in the long paragraphs is the technical reasons.\"",
"qid": 10526,
"docid": "471978",
"rank": 26,
"score": 77199
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"When you place a limit sell order of $10.00 (for a stock on an option) you are adding your order to the book. Anyone who places a buy at-the-market or with a limit price over $10.00 will have that order immediately fulfilled through the offer you have placed on the book. On the other hand, if that other person places a buy for $8.00, then the spread will now be \"\"$8.00 bid, $10.00 ask\"\". Priority is based on first the price (all $9.99 asks will clear before $10.00) and within each bucket this is based on the time your order was submitted. This is why in bidding markets (including eBay) buying at $x.01 is way better than $x.00 and selling at $x.99 is better than $(x+1).00. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_(exchange) under \"\"first-come-first-served\"\"\"",
"qid": 10526,
"docid": "525603",
"rank": 27,
"score": 76439
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: For starters, that site shows the first 5 levels on each side of the book, which is actually quite a bit of information. When traders say the top of the book, they mean just the first level. So you're already getting 8 extra levels. If you want all the details, you must subscribe to the exchange's data feeds (this costs thousands of dollars per month) or open an account with a broker who offers that information. More important than depth, however, is update frequency. The BATS site appears to update every 5 seconds, which is nowhere near frequently enough to see what's truly going on in the book. Depending on your use case, 2 levels on each side of the book updated every millisecond might be far more valuable than 20 levels on each side updated every second.",
"qid": 10526,
"docid": "485973",
"rank": 28,
"score": 76178
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: There are a couple of things you could do, but it may depend partly on the type of orders your broker has available to you. Firstly, if you are putting your limit order the night before after close of market at the top of the bids, you may be risking missing out if bid & offer prices increase by the time the market opens the next day. On the other hand, if bid & offer prices fall at the open of the next day you should get your order filled at or below your limit price. Secondly, you could be available at the market open to see if prices are going up or down and then work out the price you want to buy at then and work out the quantity you can buy at that price. I personally don't like this method because you usually get too emotional, start chasing the market if prices start rising, or start regretting buying at a price and prices fall straight afterwards. My preferred method is this third option. If your broker provides stop orders you can use these to both get into and out of the market. How they work when trying to get into the market is that once you have done your analysis and picked a price that you would want to purchase at, you put a stop buy order in. For example, the price closed at $9.90 the previous day and there has been resistance at $10.00, so you would put a stop buy trigger if the price goes over $10, say $10.01. If your stop buy order gets triggered you can have either a buy market order or a limit order above $10.01 (say $10.02). The market order would go through immediately whilst the limit order would only go through if the price continues going to $10.02 or above. The advantage of this is that you don't get emotional trying to buy your securities whilst sitting in front of the screen, you do your analysis and set your prices whilst the market is closed, you only buy when the security is rising (not falling). As your aim is to be in long term you shouldn't be concerned about buying a little bit higher than the previous days close. On the other hand if you try and buy when the price is falling you don't know when it will stop falling. It is better to buy when the price shows signs of rising rather than falling (always follow the trend).",
"qid": 10526,
"docid": "494295",
"rank": 29,
"score": 75382
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You don't see Buying and Selling. You see Bid and Ask. Best Bid--Highest Price someone is willing to pay to buy a stock. Best Ask - Lowest price someone is willing to accept to sell a stock. As for your second question, if you can look up Accumulation/Distribution Algorithm and Iceberg Order, you will get basic idea.",
"qid": 10526,
"docid": "294867",
"rank": 30,
"score": 74814
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Ya, that's a lot of data - especially considering your relative lack of experience and the likely fact that you have no idea what to do with what you're given. How do you even know you need minute or tick-based bid-ask data? You can get a lot more than OHLC/V/Split/Dividend. You can get: * Book Value; * Dividend information (Amount, yield, ex date, pay date); * EBITDA; * EPS (current AND estimates); * Price/sales ratio; * Price/book value; * Price/earnings ratio; * PEG ratio; * Short ratio; * Market cap. Among other things, all for free.",
"qid": 10526,
"docid": "487074",
"rank": 31,
"score": 74303
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Feel free to educate man. Everything I can find says the same thing. [Investopedia](http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/100314/what-are-key-factors-cause-market-go-and-down.asp) >If there are a greater number of buyers than sellers (more demand), the buyers bid up the prices of the stocks to entice sellers to get rid of them. Conversely, a larger number of sellers bids down the price of stocks hoping to entice buyers to purchase. Yes, if a company is performing well, you might find that more people want to buy then sale. That would cause it to go up. But if no one wants to buy, it doesn't matter how well the company is doing. I mean really, how would that work? Someone in the company notices they had more sales today then yesterday, email someone on wallstreet and they just mouse wheel the stock price up to something higher? Say the stock is $1.00 right now. But the lowest buy order is $.90. and the highest sale order is $1.10. (I guess there is some math there making is $1.) As soon as someone says, yeah. I'll sale at 90 cents, it'll go down. If someone says yeah, I'll buy at $1.10 it'll go up. I'm sure there is more to it than that. But everything I can find. It 100% has to have people more people wanting to buy then sale for it to go up. If more want to sale then buy, it'll go down. But hey, if this is way off base. Go ahead and fill me in. I'm open to CMV. This was all found after a short amount of time researching [\"\"What makes stock prices go up?\"\"](https://www.google.com/search?q=What+makes+stock+prices+go+up%3F&oq=What+makes+stock+prices+go+up%3F&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i71k1l4.43421.43421.0.43882.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..0.0.0....0.6Crfejzb3XY)\"",
"qid": 10526,
"docid": "363421",
"rank": 32,
"score": 73436
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Sounds like an illiquid option, if there are actually some bidders, market makers, then sell the option at market price (market sell order). If there are not market makers then place a really low limit sell order so that you can sit at the ask in the order book. A lot of time there is off-book liquidity, so there may be a party looking for buy liquidity. You can also exercise the option to book the loss (immediately selling the shares when they get delivered to you), if this is an American style option. But if the option is worthless then it is probably significantly underwater, and you'd end up losing a lot more as you'd buy the stock at the strike price but only be able to sell at its current market value. The loss could also be increased further if there are even MORE liquidity issues in the stock.",
"qid": 10526,
"docid": "339419",
"rank": 33,
"score": 73252
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: It is possible to figure out the next price. Just not for Joe Average. A stock exchange has a orderbook. This has two sides. One side has alle the buyers, how many shares they want, and what they are willing to pay. The other side has all the sellers, how many shares they got, and what price they are willing to accept. If any buyers and sellers match up, their orders are executed, money and shares are exchanged, everyone is happy. So the current asking price (the price you have to pay, to get some shares) is currently 12.46$. Let's say you want 6000 shares, for any price. The orderbook now looks like this: Your order is executed, you get 6000 shares for a total of 74,761$ (5900 * 12,46 + 100 * 12,47$). The order book now looks like this: The new asking price is 12.47$. Congrats, you knew the price in advance. Of course this is simplified, there are millions of entries on both sides, thousands of trades happen every millisecond and you'll have to pay the stock exchange a lot of money to give you all this information in real time. That's what high frequency traders are doing. They use highly specialised computer systems to exploit differences in stock exchanges all over the world. It's called arbitage. They have to be faster than the other guy. This race has gone on for a few years now, so that the limiting factor starts to become the speed of light. YOU are not going to benefit, or else you would not be asking questions on PERSONAL finance :)",
"qid": 10526,
"docid": "467852",
"rank": 34,
"score": 73168
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The everyday investor buys at the ask and sells at the bid but the market maker does the opposite This is misleading; it has nothing to do with being either an investor or a market maker. It is dependent on the type of order that is submitted. When a market trades at the ask, this means that a buy market order has interacted with a sell limit order at the limit price. When a market trades at the bid, this means that a sell market order has interacted with a buy limit order at the limit price. An ordinary investor can do exactly the same as a market maker and submit limit orders. Furthermore, they can sit on both sides of the bid and ask exactly as a market maker does. In the days before high frequency trading this was quite common (an example being Daytek, whose traders were notorious for stepping in front of the designated market maker's bid/ask on the Island ECN). An order executes ONLY when both bid and ask meet. (bid = ask) This is completely incorrect. A transaction occurs when an active (marketable) order is matched with a passive (limit book) order. If the passive order is a sell limit then the trade has occurred at the ask, and if it is a buy limit the trade has occurred at the bid. The active orders are not bids and asks. The only exception to this would be if the bid and ask have become crossed. When a seller steps in, he does so with an ask that's lower than the stock's current ask Almost correct; he does so with an order that's lower than the stock's current ask. If it's a marketable order it will fill the front queued best bid, and if it's a limit order his becomes the new ask price. A trade does not need to occur at this price for it to become the ask. This is wrong, market makers are the opposite party to you so the prices are the other way around for them. This is wrong. There is no distinction between the market maker and yourself or any other member of the public (beside the fact that designated market makers on some exchanges are obliged to post both a bid and ask at all times). You can open an account with any broker and do exactly the same as a market maker does (although with nothing like the speed that a high frequency market-making firm can, hence likely making you uncompetitive in this arena). The prices a market maker sees and the types of orders that they are able to use to realize them are exactly the same as for any other trader.",
"qid": 10526,
"docid": "164008",
"rank": 35,
"score": 73093
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The Limit Order are matched based on amount and time. The orders are listed Highest to Lowest on the Buy Side. The orders are listed Lowest to Highest on the Sell Side. If there are 2 Sell orders for same amount the order which is first in time [fractions of milliseconds] is first. The about is the example as to how the orders would look like on any exchange. Now the highest price the buyer is ready to pay is 20.21 and the lowest price a seller is ready to sell for is 20.25. Hence there is no trade. Now if a new Buy order comes in at 20.25, it matches with the sell and the deal is made. If a new Buy order comes in at 20.30, it still matches at 20.25. Similarly if a Sell order come in at 20.21, it matches and a deal is made. If a Sell order come in at 20.11, it still matches 20.21. Incase of market order, with the above example if there is a Buy order, it would match with the lowest sell order at 20.25, if there is not enough quantity , it would match the remaining quantity to the next highest at 20.31 and continue down. Similarly if there is a Sell market order, the it would match to the maximum a seller is ready to buy, ie 20.21, if there is not sufficient buy quantity at 20.21, it will match with next for 20.19 If say there are new buy order at 20.22 and sell orders at 20.24, these will sit first the the above queue to be matched. In your above example the Lowest Sell order was at 20.10 at time t1 and hence any buy order after time t1 for amount 20.10 or greater would match to this and the price would be 20.10. However if the Buy order was first ie at t1 there was a buy order for 20.21 and then at time later than t1, there is a sell order for say 20.10 [amount less than or equal to 20.21] it would match for 20.21. Essentially the market looks at who was the first to sell at lower price or who was the first to buy at higher price and then decide the trade. Edit [To Clarify xyz]: Say if there is an Sell order at $10 Qty 100. There is a buyer who is willing to pay Max $20 and is looking for Qty 500. Your key assumption that the Buyer does not know the current SELL price of $10 is incorrect. Now there are multiple things, the Buyer knows the lowest Sell order is at $10, he can put a matching Buy order at $10 Qty 100, and say $11 Qty 100 etc. This is painful. Second, lets say he puts a Buy order at $10 Qty 100, by the time the order hits the system someone else has put the trade at $10 and his order is fulfilled. So this buyer has to keep looking at booking and keep making adjustments, if its a large order, it would be extremely difficult and frustrating for this Buyer. Hence the logic of giving preference. The later Buy order says ... The Max I can pay is $20, match eveything at the current price and get the required shares.",
"qid": 10526,
"docid": "31933",
"rank": 36,
"score": 73060
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Bid and ask prices are the reigning highest buy price and lowest sell price in the market which doesn't mean one must only buy/sell at thise prices. That said one can buy/sell at whatever price they so wish although doing it at any other price than the bid/ask is usually harder as other market participants will gravitate to the reigning bid/ask price. So in theory you can buy at ask and sell at bid, whether or not your order will be filled is another matter altogether.",
"qid": 10526,
"docid": "394244",
"rank": 37,
"score": 72913
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: That's true. So instead, they brute force the exchange with buy orders before they know if there's even any demand for the equity. Most of these get cancelled. If they see someone else placing a large buy order, they let theirs go through and do not cancel. They meet the ask and get the order because they don't care about getting the best deal. The buy order the HFT sent through is for the entire book. The HFT can then demand the highest price possible. After that, they dump the unsought portion of the book back into the market. Regulation have cracked down on this practice. However, that just means HFT have decided to build their own exchanges. The HFT buy order was placed before they even knew there was anyone else looking for the same buy.",
"qid": 10526,
"docid": "202375",
"rank": 38,
"score": 72494
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: When you place a bid between the bid/ask spread, that means you are raising the bid (or lowering the ask, if you are selling). The NBBO (national best bid and offer) is now changed because of your action, and yes, certain kinds of orders may be set to react to that (a higher bid or lower ask triggering them), also many algorithms (that haven't already queued an order simply waiting for a trigger, like in a stop limit) read the bid and ask and are programmed to then place an order at that point.",
"qid": 10526,
"docid": "281844",
"rank": 39,
"score": 72338
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: It looks more like someone is trying to pocket the spread. The trades are going off at the bid then the ask (from what I can tell without any L1 and L2 data, but the spread could be bigger than what the prices show, since the stock looks pretty volatile given the difference between current price and VWAP...). Looking through the JSE rule books I didn't find any special provisions on how they handle odd lots in their Central Order Book, but the usual practice in other markets is to display only round lot orders. So these 4 share orders would remain hidden from book participants and could be set there to trigger executions from those who are probing for limit orders. Or to make a market with very limited risk.",
"qid": 10526,
"docid": "325393",
"rank": 40,
"score": 72142
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I understand the question, I think. The tough thing is that trades over the next brief time are random, or appear so. So, just as when a stock is $10.00 bid / $10.05 ask, if you place an order below the ask, a tick down in price may get you a fill, or if the next trades are flat to higher, you might see the close at $10.50, and no fill as it never went down to your limit. This process is no different for options than for stocks. When I want to trade options, I make sure the strike has decent volume, and enter a market order. Edit - I reworded a bit to clarify. The Black–Scholes is a model, not a rigid equation. Say I discover an option that's underpriced, but it trades under right until it expires. It's not like there's a reversion to the mean that will occur. There are some very sophisticated traders who use these tools to trade in some very high volumes, for them, it may produce results. For the small trader you need to know why you want to buy a stock or its option and not worry about the last $0.25 of its price.",
"qid": 10526,
"docid": "433471",
"rank": 41,
"score": 71886
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: [Brute Force](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brute-force_attack) Sending random hits to a server over and over again. Three order books. One happens earlier, the other two simultaneously. Bid ABT 105.00x1000 **Cancelled** Bid APPL 105.00x1000 **Cancelled** Bid AET 105.00x1000 **Cancelled** Bid ACT 105.00x1000 **Filled** The aforementioned happens before all else. Act's current value is 100.01.* Ask Act 100.00x1000 **Limit order denied** Ask Act 109.00x1000 **Filled** The third order book is simply testing the waters to see what the guy making the ask is willing to pay. *As well as all the cancelled orders, for the illustration.",
"qid": 10526,
"docid": "9683",
"rank": 42,
"score": 71830
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"It depends on many factors, but generally, the bid/ask spread will give you an idea. There are typically two ways to buy (or sell) a security: With a limit order, you would place a buy for 100 shares at $30-. Then it's easy, in the worst case you will get your 100 shares at $30 each exactly. You may get lucky and have the price fall, then you will pay less than $30. Of course if the price immediately goes up to say $35, nobody will sell at the $30 you want, so your broker will happily sit on his hands and rake in the commission while waiting on what is now a hail Mary ask. With a market order, you have the problem you mention: The ticker says $30, but say after you buy the first 5 shares at $30 the price shoots up and the rest are $32 each - you have now paid on average $31.9 per share. This could happen because there is a limit order for 5 at $30 and 200 at $32 (you would have filled only part of that 200). You would be able to see these in the order book (sometimes shown as bid/ask spread or market depth). However, the order book is not law. Just because there's an ask for 10k shares at $35 each for your $30 X stock, doesn't mean that by the time the price comes up to $35, the offer will still be up. The guy (or algorithm) who put it up may see the price going up and decide he now wants $40 each for his 10k shares. Also, people aren't obligated to put in their order: Maybe there's a trader who intends to trade a large volume when the price hits a certain level, like a limit order, but he elected to not put in a limit order and instead watch the ticker and react in real time. Then you will see a huge order suddenly come in out of nowhere. So while the order book is informative, what you are asking is actually fundamentally impossible to know fully, unless you can read the minds of every interested trader. As others said, in \"\"normal\"\" securities (meaning traded at a major exchange, especially those in the S&P500) you simply can't move the price, the market is too deep. You would need millions of dollars to budge the price, and if you had that much money, you wouldn't be asking here on a QA site, you would have a professional financial advisor (or even a team) that specializes in distributing your large transaction over a longer time to minimize the effect on the market. With crazier stocks, such as OTC and especially worthless penny stocks with market caps of $1 mil or less, what you say is a real problem (you can end up paying multiples of the last ticker if not careful) and you do have to be careful about it. Which is why you shouldn't trade penny stocks unless you know what you're doing (and if you're asking this question here, you don't).\"",
"qid": 10526,
"docid": "78138",
"rank": 43,
"score": 71433
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The principle of demand-supply law will not work if spoofing (or layering, fake order) is implemented. However, spoofing stocks is an illegal criminal practice monitored by SEC. In stock market, aggressive buyer are willing to pay for a higher ask price pushing the price higher even if ask size is considerably larger than bid size, especially when high growth potential with time is expected. Larger bids may attract more buyers, further perpetuating a price increase (positive pile-on effect). Aggressive sellers are willing to accept a lower bid price pushing the price lower even if ask size is considerably smaller than bid size, when a negative situation is expected. Larger asks may attract more sellers, further perpetuating a price fall (negative pile-on effect). Moreover, seller and buyers considers not only price but also size of shares in their decision-making process, along with marker order and/or limit order. Unlike limit order, market order is not recorded in bid/ask size. Market order, but not limit order, immediately affects the price direction. Thus, ask/bid sizes alone do not give enough information on price direction. If stocks are being sold continuously at the bid price, this could be the beginning of a downward trend; if stocks are being sold continuously at the ask price, this could be the beginning of a upward trend. This is because ask price is always higher than bid price. In all the cases, both buyers and sellers hope to make a profit in a long-term and short-term view",
"qid": 10526,
"docid": "19196",
"rank": 44,
"score": 70766
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I don't have enough reputation in this community to comment yet, so this \"\"answer\"\" is really just a minor furtherance of JoeTaxpayer's comment... THe only thing I might add to this great answer - make all minimum payments, and send all extra available cash to the highest interest card. If OP will pay in full after 6 month, this may make little difference, but it will be a few dollars in his pocket instead of the bank. – JoeTaxpayer♦ Dec 2 at 17:42 ...on Ben Miller's excellent answer. Once you have taken JoeTaxpayer's advice and ordered your cards by interest rate and have paid off the highest interest card first, take that same payment and add it to your next-highest card's minimum payment. Once THAT is payed off, take the combined amounts that you were paying to cards one and two and apply it all to card three along with its minimum payment. You see where this is going. By aggregating your payments thusly, each card will get paid off successively more quickly than the previous one, without increasing your overall payments to the cards, and you are retiring the highest-interest debt first. Your last card will then be paid off in record time, because you have combined all of the payments for cards 1-4. One other amplification: Since we don't know which account has which interest rate, it may be more advantageous to order them by balance, with the smallest first. That way you retire the first card quickly, which gives you a sense of accomplishment, and by the time you reach your highest balance card, you have snowballed all of your payments and are now throwing boulders instead of pebbles at it. You'll have to do that math to see which method has the most benefit. Then roll it all into the car payment. Then roll it into your student debt. Etc.\"",
"qid": 10526,
"docid": "463085",
"rank": 45,
"score": 70756
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Bookstores don't need their own warehouses to do that. They just order it from the big suppliers. I can order any book I want to be delivered to the next bookstore, and it will be there the next day at the latest, sometimes even within hours.",
"qid": 10526,
"docid": "548666",
"rank": 46,
"score": 69557
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You can make a purchase at the after market price by sending an order that gets executed in after market. Often times these are called Extended orders, or EXT. With an EXT limit order it will place the bid on the after market hours order book. If you get filled, then you have the shares. This is the answer.",
"qid": 10526,
"docid": "516113",
"rank": 47,
"score": 69554
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Traders sometimes look at the depth of the book (number of outstanding limit orders) to try and gauge the sentiment of the market or otherwise use this information to formulate their strategy. If there was a large outstanding buy order at $49.50, there's a decent chance this could increase the price by influencing other traders. However, a limit order at $2 is like an amazon.com price of $200,000 for a book. It's so far away from realistic that it is ignored. People would think it is an error. Submitting this type of order is perfectly legal. If the stock is extremely thinly traded, it might even be encouraged because if someone wanted to sell a bunch and did a really bad job of it, the price could conceivably fall that far and the limit order would be adding liquidity. I guess. Your example is pretty extreme. It is not uncommon for there to be limit orders on the book that are not very close to the trading price. They just sit around. The majority of trades are done by algorithmic traders and institutional traders and they don't tend to do this, but a retail investor may choose to submit an order like that, just hoping against hope. Also, buy orders are not likely to push prices down, no matter what their price is. A sell order, yes (even if it isn't executed).",
"qid": 10526,
"docid": "109345",
"rank": 48,
"score": 68728
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: * In the 70's, 80's and early 90's there were pinstriped brokers who took orders over the phone from people who wanted to buy and sell. They had a huge competitive advantage over the rest of the market due to the lack of transparency in the market's order book. Therefore you got screwed every time you wanted to trade, ie the markets were less efficient because transaction cost was high. Transaction cost is = bid-ask spread + how much you get screwed by the market insiders. * In the 90's and early 00's there were automated trading systems that allowed people to conduct trades directly with computers, aka Algorithmic Trading. The markets were more efficient, because spreads became tighter as more people were able to enter the market on this platform (e.g. [Lightspeed](http://lightspeed.com)). The ability for market insiders to screw the general market was lessened because the exclusive access to the market's order book was eroded. Of course some Algorithmic Trading operations had a huge competitive advantage because they had great systems and great people. However it wasn't talked about because those who new about it were making a killing and keeping their mouths shut. * Then in the mid to late 00's there was co-located algorithmic trading on very fast systems, aka HFT, a natural evolution of Algorithmic Trading. Now market insiders (= people with enough resources to field co-located machines and the the engineer/traders to manage them) expanded their competitive advantage by discovering the market's order book (as they are able to see orders in a fraction of a second and then act on those orders). However to retract this natural efficiency in the markets you would need to create some kind of set of rules to even out the playing field. How can that be done? ** Option 1) Transaction tax would just make the markets less efficient by increasing the cost of buying and selling. A generally bad thing because it discourages traders (to put money into stocks), which is of course how the capital markets are supported. ** Option 2) Create rules to ensure everyone sees the same information at the same time and then permit anyone to use whatever technology they want to act on that information, so that the most efficient trading operations win. ** Option 3) Create some artificial environment where no-one is allowed to have an advantage: ensure everyone sees the same information at the same time, ensure everyone has the same technology, and ensure that the people who manage the systems have the exact same experience and intelligence etc... Of course #2 is how it works, and it is the meritocratic basis which underpins Capitalism. I don't see why people have a problem with it.",
"qid": 10526,
"docid": "231098",
"rank": 49,
"score": 68640
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"In a sense, yes. There's a view in Yahoo Finance that looks like this For this particular stock, a market order for 3000 shares (not even $4000, this is a reasonably small figure) will move the stock past $1.34, more than a 3% move. Say, on the Ask side there are 100,000 shares, all with $10 ask. It would take a lot of orders to purchase all these shares, so for a while, the price may stay right at $10, or a bit lower if there are those willing to sell lower. But, say that side showed $10 1000, $10.25 500, $10.50 1000. Now, the volume is so low that if I decided I wanted shares at any price, my order, a market order will actually drive the market price right up to $10.50 if I buy 2500 shares \"\"market\"\". You see, however, even though I'm a small trader, I drove the price up. But now that the price is $10.50 when I go to sell all 2500 at $10.50, there are no bids to pay that much, so the price the next trade will occur at isn't known yet. There may be bids at $10, with asking (me) at $10.50. No trades will happen until a seller takes the $10 bid or other buyers and sellers come in.\"",
"qid": 10526,
"docid": "228983",
"rank": 50,
"score": 68543
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: From the non-authoritative Investopedia page: A stop-limit order will be executed at a specified price, or better, after a given stop price has been reached. Once the stop price is reached, the stop-limit order becomes a limit order to buy or sell at the limit price or better. So once the stop price has been breached, your limit order is placed and will be on the order books as a $9 ask. For a vanilla stop order, a market order will be placed and will be filled using the highest active bid(s).",
"qid": 10526,
"docid": "251596",
"rank": 51,
"score": 68305
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The total limit book is a composite of all the orders on all of the exchanges. While it's uncommon for a limit order posted beyond the NBBO to fill outside of the NBBO, it does occur. For example, the best ask may be on exchange X, but for some reason the smart order routing algorithm may select exchange Y if it judges the net trade to be less costly, malfunctions, etc, and HFTs will immediately arbitrage the order between two exchanges, or the best order on exchange X disappears causing the order to fill above the NBBO. The system isn't perfect because there are multiple exchanges, but that eventuality is extremely rare with equities since nearly every exchange will have orders posted at the NBBO because exchange equity fee and rebate schedules are extremely competitive, nearly identical. It is however more common with options since less exchanges as a percentage of the total will have orders posted at the NBBO because of very wide exchange rebate and fee schedules. How a single exchange handles a new order that crosses an existing limit order is already addressed here: How do exchanges match limit orders?",
"qid": 10526,
"docid": "599109",
"rank": 52,
"score": 68136
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If the stock has low liquidity, yes there could be times when there are no buyers or sellers at a specific price, so if you put a limit order to buy or sell at a price with no other corresponding sellers or buyers, then your order may take a while to get executed or it may not be executed at all. You can usually tell if a stock has low liquidity by the small size of the average daily volume, the lack of order depth and the large size of the gap between bids and offers. So if a stock for example has last sale price of $0.50, has a highest bid price of $0.40 and a lowest offer price of $0.60, and an average daily volume of 10000 share, it is likely to be very illiquid. So if you try to buy or sell at around the $0.50 mark it might take you a long time to buy or sell this stock at this price.",
"qid": 10526,
"docid": "443804",
"rank": 53,
"score": 68090
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Because in the case for 100/101, if you wanted to placed a limit buy order at top of the bid list you would place it at 101 and get filled straight away. If placing a limit buy order at the top of 91 (for 90/98) you would not get filled but just be placed at the top of the list. You might get filled at a lower price if an ask comes in matching your bid, however you might never get filled. In regards to market orders, with the 100/101 being more liquid, if your market order is larger than the orders at 101, then the remainder of your order should still get filled at only a slightly higher price. In regards to market orders with the 90/98, being less liquid, it is likely that only part of your order gets filled, and any remained either doesn't get filled or gets filled at a much higher price.",
"qid": 10526,
"docid": "65120",
"rank": 54,
"score": 67923
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Reading Great Lakes' page How Payments Are Applied, I think you are probably correct about how the payments are applied: Interest first, minimum on each loan next, then any extra is applied to the highest interest loan. If I were you, I would make one payment a month, and I would make that payment as large as I possibly could. Trying to make more than one payment in a month is too complicated (and you aren't sure exactly how those payments get credited), and saving up for a big payment every few months is pointless and will cost you interest.",
"qid": 10526,
"docid": "192594",
"rank": 55,
"score": 67650
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: It's done by Opening Auction (http://www.advfn.com/Help/the-opening-auction-68.html): The Opening Auction Between 07.50 and a random time between 08.00 and 08.00.30, there will be called an auction period during which time, limit and market orders are entered and deleted on the order book. No order execution takes place during this period so it is possible that the order book will become crossed. This means that some buy and sell orders may be at the same price and some buy orders may be at higher prices than some sell orders. At the end of the random start period, the order book is frozen temporarily and an order matching algorithm is run. This calculates the price at which the maximum volume of shares in each security can be traded. All orders that can be executed at this price will be filled automatically, subject to price and priorities. No additional orders can be added or deleted until the auction matching process has been completed. The opening price for each stock will be either a 'UT' price or, in the event that there are no transactions resulting form the auction, then the first 'AT' trade will be used.",
"qid": 10526,
"docid": "114319",
"rank": 56,
"score": 67574
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Many of the Bitcoin exchanges mimic stock exchanges, though they're much more rudimentary offering only simple buy/sell/cancel orders. It's fairly normal for retail stock brokerage accounts to allow other sorts of more complex orders, where once a certain criteria is met, (the price falls below some $ threshold, or has a movement greater than some %) then your order is executed. The space between the current buy order and the current sell order is the bid/ask spread, it's not really about timing. Person X will buy at $100, person Y will sell at $102. If both had a price set at $101, they would just transact. Both parties think they can do a little bit better than the current offer. The width of the bid/ask spread is not universal by any means. The current highest buy order and the current lowest sell order, are both the current price. The current quoted market price is generally the price of the last transaction, whether it's buy or sell.",
"qid": 10526,
"docid": "507357",
"rank": 57,
"score": 67491
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The Bid price is simply the highest buy price currently being offered and the Ask price simply the lowest sell price being offered. The list of Bid and Ask prices is called the market depth. When the Bid and Ask prices match then a sale goes through. When looking to sell you would generally look at both the Bid and Ask prices. As a seller you want to be matched with the Bid price to get a sale, but you also need to check the current list of Ask prices. If the price you want to sell at is too high you will be placed down the Ask price list, and unless the price moves up to match your sell price you will not end up selling. On the other-hand, if your price to sell is too low and in fact much lower than the current lowest sell price you may get a quick sale but maybe at a lower price than you could have gotten. Similarly, when looking to buy, you would generally also look at both the Bid and Ask prices. As a buyer you want to be matched with the Ask price to get a sale, but you also need to check the current list of Bid prices. If the price you want to buy at is too low you will be placed down the Bid price list, and unless the price moves down to match your buy price you will no end up buying. On the other-hand, if your price to buy is too high and in fact much higher than the current highest buy price you may get a quick purchase but maybe at a higher price than you could have gotten. So, whether buying or selling, it is important to look at and consider both the Bid and Ask prices in the market depth.",
"qid": 10526,
"docid": "87065",
"rank": 58,
"score": 67464
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"For every buyer there is a seller. That rule refers to actual (historical) trades. It doesn't apply to \"\"wannabees.\"\" Suppose there are buyers for 2,000 shares and sellers for only 1,000 at a given price, P. Some of those buyers will raise their \"\"bid\"\" (the indication of the price they are willing to pay) above P so that the sellers of the 1000 shares will fill their orders first (\"\"sold to the highest bidder\"\"). The ones that don't do this will (probably) not get their orders filled. Suppose there are more sellers than buyers. Then some sellers will lower their \"\"offer\"\" price to attract buyers (and some sellers probably won't). At a low enough price, there will likely be a \"\"match\"\" between the total number of shares on sale, and shares on purchase orders.\"",
"qid": 10526,
"docid": "224672",
"rank": 59,
"score": 67367
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: That is mostly true, in most situations when there are more buy orders than sell orders (higher buy volume orders than sell volume orders), the price will generally move upwards and vice versa, when there are more sell orders than buy orders (higher sell volume orders than buy volume orders), the price will generally move downwards. Note that this does not always happen, but usually it does. You are also correct that for a trade to take place a buyer has to be matched with a seller (or the buy volume matched with the sell volume). But not all orders get executed as trades. Say there are 50 buy orders in the order book with a total volume of 100,000 shares and the highest buy order is currently at $10.00. On the other side there are only 10 sell orders in the order book with total volume of 10,000 shares and the lowest sell order is currently $10.05. At the moment there won't be a trade unless a new buyer or seller enters the market to match the opposing side, or an existing order gets amended upper or lower to match the opposing side. With more demand than supply in the order books what will be the most likely direction that this stock moves in? Most likely the price will move upwards. If a new buyer sees the price moving higher and then looks at the market depth, they would most likely place an order closer to the lowest sell order than the current highest buy order, say $10.01, to be first in line in case a market sell order is placed on the market. As new buy orders enter the market it drives the price higher and higher until the buy orders dry up.",
"qid": 10526,
"docid": "208907",
"rank": 60,
"score": 67318
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You can always trade at bid or ask price (depending if you are selling or buying). Market price is the price the last transaction was executed at so you may not be able to get that. If your order is large then you may not even be able to get bid/ask but should look at the depth of the order book (ie what prices are other market participants asking for and what is the size of their order). Usually only fast traders will trade at bid/ask, those who believe the price move is imminent. If you are a long term trader you can often get better than bid or ask by placing a limit order and waiting until a market participant takes your offer.",
"qid": 10526,
"docid": "402482",
"rank": 61,
"score": 67012
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Assuming you are executing your order on a registered exchange by a registered broker, your order will be filled at the best bid price available. This is because brokers are legally obliged to get the best price available. For example, if the market is showing a bid of 49.99 and an offer of 50.01 and you submit an order to offer 1000 shares at 5.00, your order will be filled at 49.99. This is assuming the existing bids are for enough shares to fill all of the 1000 shares being offered. If the share you are offering lacks the necessary liquidity to fill the order - i.e., the 49.99 bid is for less than 1000 shares and the \"\"level two\"\" bids are not enough to fill the remaining shares, then the order would be posted in the market as an offer to sell the balance (1000 - shares filled at 49.99 and those filled at level two bids) at 5.00. I'm pretty sure that the scenario you are describing would be described as market manipulation and it would be against the law.\"",
"qid": 10526,
"docid": "136822",
"rank": 62,
"score": 66350
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: There's only one real list that states what people think stock prices should be, and that's the stocks order book. That lists the prices at which stock owners are willing to buy stocks now, and the price that buyers are willing to pay. A secondary measure is the corresponding options price. Anything else is just an opinion and not backed by money.",
"qid": 10526,
"docid": "522813",
"rank": 63,
"score": 66106
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: In practice, it would not work. If you put a bid in that was really out of line, even if it got filled, the exchange would reverse it. Other than that it really depends on what the current bid/ask spread it, and what volume its trading, as well as how the market feels. Say the current bid is 11 and you put an order in with bid 11.5, it would soak up all the orders on the market up to the volume your buying. But once your order is filled the market will be determined by what the next order's bid/ask is. It might stay where you moved it too if others feels thats a fair price. But if every other order on the market is still at 11, then the price isnt gonna move. tl;dl unless your a market maker, you could not realistically affect the price.",
"qid": 10526,
"docid": "343558",
"rank": 64,
"score": 66078
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I can't say I know everything about the underlying details, but from what I understand, your limit buy adds to the bid side of open orders, and one possibility is that someone placed a market order to sell when the bid price for the stock fell to $10 which was matched to your open limit order. So using your terminology, I would say the spot bid price is what fell to $10, even if for a brief moment. Whether or not it is possible for your order to be filled when the limit buy price is deeper than the current bid price is beyond me. It may have something to do with lot sizes.",
"qid": 10526,
"docid": "286698",
"rank": 65,
"score": 65947
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: There are people whose strategy revolves around putting orders at the bid and ask and making money off people who cross the spread. If you put an order in between the current bid/ask, people running that type of strategy will usually pick it off, viewing it as a discount to the orders that they already have on the bid/ask. Often these people are trading by computer, so your limit order may get hit so quickly that it appears instantaneous to you. In reality, you were probably hit by a limit order placed specifically to fill against yours.",
"qid": 10526,
"docid": "15917",
"rank": 66,
"score": 65754
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you are looking to go long (buy) you would use bid prices as this is what you will be matched against for your order to be executed and a trade to go through. If you are looking to go short (sell) you would use the ask prices as this is what you will be matched against for your order to be executed and a trade go through. In your analysis you could use either this convention or the midpoint of the two prices. As FX is very liquid the bid and ask prices would be quite close to each other, so the easiest way to do your analysis is to use the convention I listed above.",
"qid": 10526,
"docid": "459052",
"rank": 67,
"score": 65574
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"During the day, market and limit orders are submitted at any time by market participants and there is a bid and an ask that move around over time. Trades occur whenever a market order is submitted or a limit order is submitted that at a price that matches or exceeds an existing limit order. If you submit a market order, it may consume all best-price limit orders and you can get multiple prices, changing the bid or ask at the same time. All that stuff happens during the trading day only. What happens at the end of the day is different. A bunch of orders that were submitted during the day but marked as \"\"on close\"\" are aggregated with any outstanding limit orders to create a single closing price according to the algorithm established by the exchange. Each exchange may handle the details of this closing event differently. For example, the Nasdaq's closing cross or the NYSE's closing auction. The close is the most liquid time of the day, so investors who are trading large amounts and not interested in intraday swings will often submit a market-on-close or limit-on-close order. This minimizes their chance of affecting the price or crossing a big spread. It's actually most relevant for smaller stocks, which may have too little volume during the day to make big trades, but have plenty at the close. In short, the volume you see is due to these on-close orders. The spike in volume most likely has no special information about what will happen overnight or the next day. It's probably just a normal part of the market for illiquid stocks.\"",
"qid": 10526,
"docid": "24537",
"rank": 68,
"score": 65235
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The situation you're proposing is an over-simplification that wouldn't occur in practice. Orders occur in a sequence over time. Time is an important part of the order matching process. Orders are not processed in parallel; otherwise, the problem of fairness, already heavily regulated, would become even more complex. First, crossed and locked markets are forbidden by regulators. Crossed orders are where one exchange has a higher bid than another's ask, or a lower ask than another's bid. A locked market is where a bid on one exchange is equal to the ask on another. HFTs would be able to make these markets because of the gap between exchange fees. Since these are forbidden, and handling orders in parallel would ensure that a crossed or locked market would occur, orders are serialized (queued up), processed in order of price-time priority. So, the first to cross the market will be filled with the best oldest opposing order. Regulators believe crossed or locked markets are unfair. They would however eliminate the bid ask spread for many large securities thus the bid-ask cost to the holder.",
"qid": 10526,
"docid": "392876",
"rank": 69,
"score": 65170
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The current stock price you're referring to is actually the price of the last trade. It is a historical price – but during market hours, that's usually mere seconds ago for very liquid stocks. Whereas, the bid and ask are the best potential prices that buyers and sellers are willing to transact at: the bid for the buying side, and the ask for the selling side. But, think of the bid and ask prices you see as \"\"tip of the iceberg\"\" prices. That is: The \"\"Bid: 13.20 x200\"\" is an indication that there are potential buyers bidding $13.20 for up to 200 shares. Their bids are the highest currently bid; and there are others in line behind with lower bid prices. So the \"\"bid\"\" you're seeing is actually the best bid price at that moment. If you entered a \"\"market\"\" order to sell more than 200 shares, part of your order would likely be filled at a lower price. The \"\"Ask: 13.27 x1,000\"\" is an indication that there are potential sellers asking $13.27 for up to 1000 shares. Their ask prices are the lowest currently asked; and there are others in line behind with higher ask prices. So the \"\"ask\"\" you're seeing is the best asking price at that moment. If you entered a \"\"market\"\" order to buy more than 1000 shares, part of your order would likely be filled at a higher price. A transaction takes place when either a potential buyer is willing to pay the asking price, or a potential seller is willing to accept the bid price, or else they meet in the middle if both buyers and sellers change their orders. Note: There are primarily two kinds of stock exchanges. The one I just described is a typical order-driven matched bargain market, and perhaps the kind you're referring to. The other kind is a quote-driven over-the-counter market where there is a market-maker, as JohnFx already mentioned. In those cases, the spread between the bid & ask goes to the market maker as compensation for making a market in a stock. For a liquid stock that is easy for the market maker to turn around and buy/sell to somebody else, the spread is small (narrow). For illiquid stocks that are harder to deal in, the spread is larger (wide) to compensate the market-maker having to potentially carry the stock in inventory for some period of time, during which there's a risk to him if it moves in the wrong direction. Finally ... if you wanted to buy 1000 shares, you could enter a market order, in which case as described above you'll pay $13.27. If you wanted to buy your shares at no more than $13.22 instead, i.e. the so-called \"\"current\"\" price, then you would enter a limit order for 1000 shares at $13.22. And more to the point, your order would become the new highest-bid price (until somebody else accepts your bid for their shares.) Of course, there's no guarantee that with a limit order that you will get filled; your order could expire at the end of the day if nobody accepts your bid.\"",
"qid": 10526,
"docid": "28604",
"rank": 70,
"score": 64410
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"When it comes to Norway there is also a cultural aspect, that translated into politics: Natural resources are seen as belonging to the people. Therefore, natural resources are not sold to the higher bidder. For instance, the oil companies pay an extremely high extra tax in Norway - around 80 % tax. This means that most of the profit from the oil and gas goes back to the people and are put into a common wealth fund - rather than going to a few share holders in oil companies. Over the years, this has added up to a considerable amount of money. This would not work in places like the US, because it is seen as \"\"Socialism\"\" not to let the oil companies and others rip off the population\"",
"qid": 10526,
"docid": "264175",
"rank": 71,
"score": 64259
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"- In a quote driven market, must every investor trade with a market maker? In other words, two parties that are both not market makers cannot trade between themselves directly? In a way yes, all trades go through a market maker but those trades can be orders put in place by a \"\"person\"\" IE: you, or me. - Does a quote driven market only display the \"\"best\"\" bid and ask prices proposed by the market makers? In other words, only the highest bid price among all the market makers is displayed, and other lower bid prices by other market makers are not? Similarly, only the lowest ask price over all market makers is displayed, and other higher ask prices by other market makers are not? No, you can see other lower bid and higher ask prices. - In a order-driven market, is it meaningful to talk about \"\"the current stock price\"\", which is the price of last transaction? Well that's kind of an opinion. Information is information so it won't be bad to know it. Personally I would say the bid and ask price is more important. However in the real world these prices are changing constantly and quickly so realistically it is easier to keep track of the quote price and most likely the bid/ask spread is small and the quote will fall in between. The less liquid a security is the more important the bid/ask is. -- This goes for all market types. - For a specific asset, will there be several transactions happened at the same time but with different prices? Today with electronic markets, trades can happen so quickly it's difficult to say. In the US stock market trades happen one at a time but there is no set time limit between each trade. So within 1 second you can have a trade be $50 or $50.04. However it will only go to $50.04 when the lower ask prices have been exhausted. - Does an order driven market have market makers? By definition, no. - What are some examples of quote driven and order driven financial markets, in which investors are commonly trading stocks and derivatives, especially in U.S.? Quote driven market: Bond market, Forex. Order driven market: NYSE comes from an order driven market but now would be better classified as a \"\"hybird market\"\" Conclusion: If you are asking in order to better understand today's stock markets then these old definitions of Quote market or Order market may not work. The big markets in the real world are neither. (IE: Nasdaq, NYSE...) The NYSE and Nasdaq are better classified as a \"\"hybird market\"\" as they use more then a single tactic from both market types to insure market liquidity, and transparency. Markets these days are strongly electronic, fast, and fairly liquid in most cases. Here are some resources to better understand these markets: An Introduction To Securities Markets The NYSE And Nasdaq: How They Work Understanding Order Execution\"",
"qid": 10526,
"docid": "505244",
"rank": 72,
"score": 64214
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You can*, if the market is open, in a normal trading phase (no auction phase), works, and there is an existing bid or offer on the product you want to trade, at the time the market learns of your order. Keep in mind there are 2 prices: bid and offer. If the current bid and current offer were the same, it would immediately result in a trade, and thus the bid and offer are no longer the same. Market Makers are paid / given lower fees in order to maintain buy and sell prices (called quotes) at most times. These conditions are usually all true, but commonly fail for these reasons: Most markets have an order type of market order that says buy/sell at any price. There are still sanity checks put in place on the price, with the exact rules for valid prices depending on the stock, so unless it's a penny stock you won't suddenly pay ten times a stock's value. *The amount you can buy sell is limited by the quantity that exists on the bid and offer. If there is a bid or offer, the quantity is always at least 1.",
"qid": 10526,
"docid": "310636",
"rank": 73,
"score": 64097
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: To determine the value of one's life, instead of rating happiness from 1 to 10 every day in pink ink in a secret diary, use the concept of mercantile exchange to determine the value of your existence. First, offer your time for some initial price ($10) to some investors (Bob). Then, create an order book where anyone can make a bid or ask for your time. For example, Bob creates a sell order for 10 min of your time for $20. Mary creates a buy order for 10 min of your time for $20--Bob sells 10 min of your time to Mary for $20. Based on the supply and demand for your time, you could determine the value of your existence. Obviously, your time would no longer be yours, but it's interesting to consider nontheless and precisely equivalent to the process that determines stock price. (Ignoring the minutiae of order books and IPOs.)",
"qid": 10526,
"docid": "309927",
"rank": 74,
"score": 64041
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Limit orders are generally safer than market orders. Market orders take whatever most-favorable price is being offered. This can be especially dangerous in highly volatile stocks which have a significant spread between the bid and ask. That being said, you want to be very careful that you enter the price you intend into a limit order. It is better to be a bit slower at entering your orders than it is to make a terrible mistake like the one you mention in your question.",
"qid": 10526,
"docid": "437436",
"rank": 75,
"score": 63928
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Is there anything here I should be deathly concerned about? A concern I see is the variable rate loans. Do you understand the maximum rate they can get to? At this time those rates are low, but if you are going to put funds against the highest rate loan, make sure the order doesn't change without you noticing it. What is a good mode of attack here? The best mode of attack is to pay off the one with the highest rate first by paying more than the minimum. When that is done roll over the money you were paying for that loan to the next highest. Note if a loan balance get to be very low, you can put extra funds against this low balance loan to be done with it. Investigate loan forgiveness programs. The federal government has loan forgiveness programs for certain job positions, if you work for them for a number of years. Some employers also have these programs. What are the payoff dates for the other loans? My inexact calculations put a bunch in about 2020 but some as late as 2030. You may need to talk to your lender. They might have a calculator on their website. Why do my Citi loans have a higher balance than the original payoff amounts? Some loans are subsidized by the federal government. This covers the interest while the student is still in school. Non-subsidized federal loans and private loans don't have this feature, so their balance can grow while the student is in school.",
"qid": 10526,
"docid": "560928",
"rank": 76,
"score": 63594
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"In the first situation you describe, any intelligent routing algo will send a 1000 lot order to the lit exchange in step 1. Then you get filled 1000@$10. After the fill occurs, the matching engine tells everyone what happened. If the order book consists of 100 orders of 1 lot @ $10, and you place a \"\"buy 100 lots\"\" order, here is what happens: 1. The matching engine receives your order. 2. The matching engine matches your order against the 100 individual orders on the book. 3. The matching engine broadcasts 100 trade notifications. No one has any opportunity to cancel their orders since they only hear of the fill after it happened. The only way someone would have the opportunity to cancel is if there was 500 lots on one exchange and 500 on another. Then someone might observe a trade on exchange #1 and cancel their sell order on exchange #2 in response.\"",
"qid": 10526,
"docid": "63909",
"rank": 77,
"score": 63333
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Well, they don't have to enter a market order. I was just saying that for your benefit. In practice what will really happen is they'll say to themselves \"\"I want ABC for no more than 70.00\"\" The current bid is at 69.60 They'll use a limit order on 10,000 shares. If anyone offers them more than 70.00 the computer program they're using will not accept. However, the shares won't be bought all at once. A limit order for 10,000 shares will be spit into 1,000 shares at 69.70 and 10,000 for 69.65 The HFT can then make a reasonable guess someone is buying in bulk. So then the HFT sends out a sell order saying \"\"10 shares at 70.10\"\". The guy doesn't want that so they do it over again at 70.09 Eventually they notice when the guy accepts at 70.00 So now they knew this guy is willing to pay that. Then HFT buys all the shares they can. ALL SHARES, not just the amount the guy wants. They buy it all at 69.95, which is higher than the 69.70 the guy just paid or whatever. They then sell it all back to the guy at 70.00 The guy has no choice because all the shares are now gone. He has to pay his highest price. Once the guy gets his order the HFT just dumps the rest of the shares back at the price they bought them at. edit: Another way to pull this off is to just literally build your own exchange. Then you can do all of this without any clever tricks. You can just outright give yourself preference over everyone else because you can truly decide what order the trades are being executed.\"",
"qid": 10526,
"docid": "529210",
"rank": 78,
"score": 63161
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"If there are no limit orders on the opposite side of the book when your market order gets its turn for execution, it should be rejected by the market. A market order should generally not \"\"sit on the book\"\" like your question suggests waiting for another order to arrive. Thus, the situation that you describe should not happen in an ordinary market that is operating in an orderly fashion. This is not to say that your order cannot \"\"sit\"\" for a while in a queue - If there is heavy volume, orders will be executed in order, so your your market order may have to wait for orders entered ahead of it to be processed. But once its turn comes up, that's it. There are some related points to consider: I should caution that my answer is biased a bit to US stock markets, whereas you asked about currency markets. I believe the same basic principles apply, but I'd be swayed by someone with evidence to the contrary. I'd also note that currency tends to be more liquid than stock, so I think it's less likely that this situation would come up. Maybe possible for a \"\"weak\"\" currency or a currency that experiences a sudden crisis of some sort.\"",
"qid": 10526,
"docid": "286328",
"rank": 79,
"score": 63014
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Should do it through a limit auction book. Management and shareholders pre ipo submit sealed limit sell orders. Buyers submit sealed limit buy orders, nobody can see where the price is going. At 9AM, the price is calculated and whomever fills get filled and ta da everyone is trading at 9:30 when the market is open.",
"qid": 10526,
"docid": "258563",
"rank": 80,
"score": 62959
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I assume you're talking about a sell order, not a buy order. When you place a limit sell order, your order is guaranteed to be placed at that price or higher. If the market is currently trading much higher than the price of your sell order, then your mistakenly low limit order will be essentially a market order, and will be filled at the current bid price. So the only way this is a problem is if you want to place a limit sell that is much higher than the current market, but mistakenly place a limit lower than the current market.",
"qid": 10526,
"docid": "289045",
"rank": 81,
"score": 62944
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: To add to @Victor 's answer; if you are entering a market order, and not a limit order (where you set the price you want to buy or sell at), then the Ask price is what you can expect to pay to purchase shares of stock in a long position and the Bid price is what you can expect to receive when you sell stock you own in a long position.",
"qid": 10526,
"docid": "503075",
"rank": 82,
"score": 62943
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I can think of the following situations in which one could see a trade occur between the visible best bid & offer: 1) on a public exchange, people have posted hidden limit orders with either bid prices above the best visible bid or offers below the best visible offer, and incoming orders have executed against this hidden liquidity[1]; 2) some orders may have been matched in dark pools which offer \"\"mid-point matching\"\" where buy and sell orders are matched using the mid-point of the best available publicly posted bid and offer as the reference price, and which executed trades are then reported to the public markets; or 3) some internalising broker has traded off exchange directly with a client and is now reporting the trade to the public as is often required. Now how exactly any of the above situations indicates that a \"\"trend is about to come to an end\"\", I do not know. [1] Exchanges often match orders on a price/visibility/time basis, whereby the orders are prioritised by price (better prices get to trade first), then by visibility (visible orders get to trade first) then by time (first come, first serve).\"",
"qid": 10526,
"docid": "122996",
"rank": 83,
"score": 62410
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Market orders do not get priority over limit orders. Time is the only factor that matters in price/time order matching when the order price is the same. For example, suppose the current best available offer for AAPL is $100.01 and the best available bid is $100.00. Now a limit buy for $100.01 and a market buy arrive at around the same instant. The matching engine can only receive one order at a time, no matter how close together they arrive. Let's say that by chance the limit buy arrives first. The engine will check if there's a matching sell at $100.01 and indeed there is and a trade occurs. This all happens in an instant before the matching engine ever sees the market buy. Then it moves on to the market buy and processes it accordingly. On the other hand, let's say that by chance the market buy arrives first. The engine will match it with the best available sell (at $100.01) and a trade occurs. This all happens in an instant before the matching engine ever sees the limit buy. Then it moves on to the limit buy and processes it accordingly. So there's never a comparison between the two orders or their \"\"priorities\"\" because they never exist in the system at the same time. The first one to arrive is processed first; the second one to arrive is processed second.\"",
"qid": 10526,
"docid": "450515",
"rank": 84,
"score": 62322
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Without knowing what the balances are, I associate \"\"uncomfortable\"\" with high, as in tens of thousands. What I would do: is 1) cut up the cards and stop using them, and 2) have some balance transfer offers in hand the next time you call to negotiate with the companies. Essentially, you will have to convince them that they will have to explain one of two things to their boss: why they lowered your rate or why you left. They can collect less interest from you or no interest from you. It's up to them. If they don't offer you something that's in the ballpark of your balance transfer offer, then bid them goodbye and complete the balance transfer. As far as paying them off, the top two modes of repayment are lowest balance first (aka snowball) or high interest rate first. Both methods are similar in that you pay minimums on all but the method's focus point. Whether it is lowest balance or highest interest rate, you pay ALL of your extra money on the lowest balance or the highest interest debt until it is gone and then you move onto the next one in the list. For what it's worth, I prefer the lowest balance method, you see progress faster.\"",
"qid": 10526,
"docid": "28191",
"rank": 85,
"score": 62244
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you look at a trade grid you can see how this happens. If there are enough bids to cover all shares currently on the sell side at a certain price, those shares will be bought and increased price quotes will be shown for the bids and ask. If there are enough bids to cover this price, those will get bought and higher prices will be shown and this process will repeat until the sell side has more power than the buy side. It seems like this process is going on all day long with momentum either on the upside or downside. But I think that much of this bidding and selling is automatic and is being done by large trading firms and high tech computers. I also feel that many of these bids and asks are already programmed to appear once there is a price change. So once one price gets bought, computers will put in higher bids to take over asks. It's like a virtual war between trading firms and their computers. When more money is on the buy side the stock will go up, and vice versa. I sort of feel like this high-frequency trading is detrimental to the markets and doesn't really give everyone a fair shot. Retail investors do not have the resources and knowledge in order to do this sort of high frequency trading. It also seems to go against certain free market principles in my opinion.",
"qid": 10526,
"docid": "67069",
"rank": 86,
"score": 62003
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Limit books are managed by exchanges. If an order is not immediately filled, it is sent to the book. From there, orders are generally executed on price-time-priority. The one major exception is the precedence hide-not-slide orders have over earlier placed visible slidden limit orders since unslidden orders are treated like a modification/cancellation. To an exchange, a modification is the same as a cancellation since it charges no fees for placing or canceling orders, only for trades. The timestamp is reset, and price-time-priority is applied in the same way, so if a modified order isn't immediately filled, it is sent back to the book to be filled in order of price-time-priority.",
"qid": 10526,
"docid": "191240",
"rank": 87,
"score": 61898
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"ETFs purchases are subject to a bid/ask spread, which is the difference between the highest available purchase offer (\"\"bid\"\") and the lowest available sell offer (\"\"ask\"\"). You can read more about this concept here. This cost doesn't exist for mutual funds, which are priced once per day, and buyers and sellers all use the same price for transactions that day. ETFs allow you to trade any time that the market is open. If you're investing for the long term (which means you're not trying to time your buy/sell orders to a particular time of day), and the pricing is otherwise equal between the ETF and the mutual fund (which they are in the case of Vanguard's ETFs and Admiral Shares mutual funds), I would go with the mutual fund because it eliminates any cost associated with bid/ask spread.\"",
"qid": 10526,
"docid": "480315",
"rank": 88,
"score": 61720
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"You need to negotiate with your broker to allow you to do more exotic order types. One in particular I recommend is a \"\"hidden\"\" aka iceberg order. You enter two numbers. The first is the number of shares for your entire order, the second is the amount that will be displayed in the book (this is the tip of the iceberg, the remaining shares are hidden below the surface). The maker/taker rule applies as follows: The amount displayed will receive the rebate for providing liquidity. The amount hidden will be charged the fee for taking liquidity. Example: You want to sell 10,000 shares total. You enter a hidden order for 10,000 shares with 1,000 displayed. On the level 2 screen traders will see 1,000 shares, and those shares will stay displayed there until the entire order is filled. You receive a rebate for 1,000 shares, you pay the brokerage fee for 9,000 shares. Also, like one of the previous posters mentioned, only trade high liquidity stocks. Large market cap companies with high volume. This is why day traders love Tesla, Amazon, Netflix, etc. Large market cap, high volume, and high volatility. Easy to catch $10+ moves in price. Hope this helps Happy trading\"",
"qid": 10526,
"docid": "521844",
"rank": 89,
"score": 61624
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"This is a great question precisely because the answer is so complicated. It means you're starting to think in detail about how orders actually get filled / executed rather than looking at stock prices as a mythical \"\"the market\"\". \"\"The market price\"\" is a somewhat deceptive term. The price at which bids and asks last crossed & filled is the price that prints. I.e. that is what you see on a market price data feed. ] In reality there is a resting queue of orders at various bids & asks on various exchanges. (source: Larry Harris. A size of 1 is 1H = 100 shares.) So at first your 1000H order will sweep through the standing queue of fills. Let's say you are trading a low-volume stock. And let's say someone from another brokerage has set a limit order at a ridiculous price. Part of your order may sweep through and part of it get filled at a ridiculously high price. Or maybe either the exchange or your broker / execution mechanism somehow will protect you against the really high fill. (Let's say your broker hired GETCO, who guarantees a certain VWAP.) Also people change their bids & asks in response to what they see others do. Your 1000H size will likely be marked as a human counterparty by certain players. Other players might see that order differently. (Let's say it was a 100 000H size. Maybe people will decide you must know something and decide they want to go the same direction as you rather than take the opportunity to exit. And maybe some super-fast players will weave in and out of the filling process itself.) There is more to it because, what if some of the resting asks are on other venues? What if both you and some of the asks match with someone who uses the same broker as you? Not only do exchange rules come into play, but so do national regulations. tl;dr: You will get filled, with price slippage. If you send in a big buy order, it will sweep through the resting asks but also there are complications.\"",
"qid": 10526,
"docid": "459650",
"rank": 90,
"score": 61430
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The purpose of a market order is to guarantee that your order gets filled. If you try to place a limit order at the bid or ask, by the time you enter your order the price might have moved and you might need to keep amending your limit order in order to buy or sell, and as such you start chasing the market. A market order will guarantee your order gets executed. Also, an important point to consider, is that market orders are often used in combination with other orders such as conditional orders. For example if you have a stop loss (conditional order) set at say 10% below your buy price, you might want to use a market order to make sure your order gets executed if the price drops 10% and your stop loss gets triggered, making sure that you get out of the stock instead of being stuck with a limit order 10% below your buy price whilst the stock keeps falling further.",
"qid": 10526,
"docid": "200666",
"rank": 91,
"score": 61208
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: This is rather simple if you understand a trailing limit order but to be sure I am going to explain a limit, trailing limit, and trailing LIT order. I am going to use an example assuming that you already own a stock and want to sell it. Limit Order I place an order to sell 100 PG @ 65.00. This order will only be executed if the bid price of PG is at $65.0000 or greater. Trailing Limit Order I place an order to sell 100 CAT @ 85.25 with a trailing 5%. This order will be executed when CAT drops 5% below the highest point it reaches after you place this order. So if you place this order at 85.25 and the stock drops 5% to $80.9875, your order will be executed. However, if the stock jumps to $98, the order will not be executed until the stock falls to $93.10. The sell point will go up with the stock and will always remain at the specified % or $ amount behind the high point. Trailing Limit If Touched Order I place an order to sell 100 INTC @ 24.75 with a trailing 5% if the stock touches $25.00. Essentially, this is the same as the trailing limit except that it doesn't take effect until the stock first gets $25.00. I think the page they provide to explain this is confusing because I think they are explaining it from the shorting a stock perspective instead of the selling a stock you want to profit from. I could also be wrong in how I understand it. My advice would be to either call their customer support and ask for a better explanation or what I do in my finances, avoid things I don't understand.",
"qid": 10526,
"docid": "22304",
"rank": 92,
"score": 60818
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: In general a stock can open at absolutely any price with no regard for the closing price or after hours price the previous day. The opening price will be determined by the best bid and offer made by people who decide to trade the next day. Some of the those people may have put orders in on a prior day that are still on the books and matter, but there's a lot of time overnight for people to cancel orders and enter new ones, which is especially likely to happen if there was substantive news overnight. As for what you can do in your case, you have the same options that you always had: Sell or hold. If you're selling, you can sell after hours, in the pre-open hours, or during the trading day. There's nothing we can say about this case that's really any different than we can say about any other stock on any other day.",
"qid": 10526,
"docid": "118712",
"rank": 93,
"score": 60774
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Just read the book Flash Boys by Michael Lewis. It describes this process in detail, albeit a bit more dramatically than it has to. Basically what \"\"HFTs\"\" (high frequency traders) do is they set up their line to the exchange so its microseconds faster than everyone else. Then they test out the market with tiny orders, seeing how fast it's getting filled - if these are getting filled immediately, it probably means there's a big order coming in from an investor. So the algorithm - and it's all algo-based obviously because no human can remotely hope to catch this - will detect that as soon as there's a spike in volume, it will buy all of the volume at the current price, and sell it back for higher, forcing the big investor to take on higher prices. Another case is that some HFTs can basically buy the entire trade book from an exchange like Nasdaq. So every time someone places a market order for 200 shares of a 6.5 stock, the HFT will see it, buy up all the current stock from say 6.5-6.6 and sell it back at 6.7. Not rocket science if you already get info about the trade coming in, in fact this is basically market making but performed by an \"\"evil HFT\"\" instead of a \"\"trustworthy bank.\"\" But honestly there are a lot more ways to make money from HFT than front-running, which isn't even possible anymore because exchanges no longer sell their books to HFTs.\"",
"qid": 10526,
"docid": "209209",
"rank": 94,
"score": 60557
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Welcome to Money.SE. Your question is similar to a number of others. The \"\"How do I pay my debt down?\"\" and \"\"How do I invest extra money?\"\" is a bit of a continuum since there's no consensus than one should pay off the last cent of debt before investing. Oversimplify it for me: the correct order of investing offers a good look at this. You see, Pete's answer on your question is perfectly fine, but, since you make no mention of, say, a matched 401(k), I'd suggest that any answer to a question like yours should first take a step back and evaluate the bigger picture. A dollar for dollar matched 401(k) beats paying off even an 18% credit card. Absent any tangents, any thought of investing, saving for anything else, etc, my answer is simple, line up the debt, highest interest rate to lowest. Keep in mind the post-tax rate, i.e. a 6% student loan you can deduct, is an effective 4.5% if you are in the 25% bracket.\"",
"qid": 10526,
"docid": "396889",
"rank": 95,
"score": 60548
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The problem is very fundamental. Equity is traded on limit order books while fixed income is not. Meaning counterparty to counterparty, if you buy a bond off say barclays, chances are if you hit them for a price to sell it will be somewhat higher than the market as they do not want you to just take their money. Putting fixed income on a limit order book could help however there may be fundamental liquidity problems on some smaller issues.",
"qid": 10526,
"docid": "396974",
"rank": 96,
"score": 60341
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Investopedia defines it in the following way: It's essentially a market order that doesn't get entered until the last minute (or thereabouts) of trading. With this type of order you are not necessarily guaranteed the closing price but usually something very similar, depending on the liquidity in the market and bid-ask for the security in question. Traders who believe that a security or market will move more heavily during the last few minutes of trading will often place such an order in the hopes of having their order filled at a more desirable price.",
"qid": 10526,
"docid": "139438",
"rank": 97,
"score": 60058
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: These bids are always up to the judgement of the Public Utilities Commission of Texas, and one of their bigger hangups over the NextEra bid was that NextEra essentially wanted almost complete control of Oncor. Berkshire Hathaway's bid includes keeping Oncor's board and allowing Oncor to operate itself, so the thought is that the PUC will be more in favor of that.",
"qid": 10526,
"docid": "166487",
"rank": 98,
"score": 59648
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Most stocks are not actively trades by lots of people. When you buy or sell a stock the price is set by the “order book” – that is the other people looking to trade in the given stock at the same time. Without a large number of active traders, it is very likely the pricing system will break down and result in widely changing prices second by second. Therefore for the market to work well, it need most people to be trading at the same time.",
"qid": 10526,
"docid": "321639",
"rank": 99,
"score": 59540
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The obvious thing would happen. 10 shares change owner at the price of $100. A partially still open selling order would remain. Market orders without limits means to buy or sell at the best possible or current price. However, this is not very realistic. Usually there is a spread between the bid and the ask price and the reason is that market makers are acting in between. They would immediately exploit this situation, for example, by placing appropriately limited orders. Orders without limits are not advisable for stocks with low trading activity. Would you buy or sell stuff without caring for the price?",
"qid": 10526,
"docid": "41468",
"rank": 100,
"score": 59537
}
] |
How much do brokerages pay exchanges per trade? | [
{
"content": "Title: Content: Open an account with a US discount online broker, or with a European broker with access to the US market. I think ETRADE allow non-resident accounts, for instance, amongst others. The brokerage will be about $10, and there is no annual fee. (So you're ~1% down out of the gate, but that's not so much.) Brokers may have a minimum transaction value but very few exchanges care about the number of shares anymore, and there is no per-share fee. As lecrank notes, putting all your savings into a single company is not prudent, but having a flutter with fun money on Apple is harmless. Paul is correct that dividend cheques may be a slight problem for non-residents. Apple don't pay dividends so there's no problem in this specific case. More generally your broker will give you a cash account into which the dividends can go. You may have to deal with US tax which is more of an annoyance than a cost.",
"qid": 10547,
"docid": "451729",
"rank": 1,
"score": 158830
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Before the prevalence of electronic trading, trading stocks was very costly, dropping from ~15c in the late 1970s to less than a nickel per share today. Exchange fees for liquidity takers are ~0.3c per share, currently. When orders were negotiated exclusively by humans, stocks used to be quoted in fractions rather than decimal, such as $50 1/2 instead of something more precise like $50.02. That necessary ease of negotiation for humans to rapidly trade extended to trade size as well. Traders preferred to handle orders in \"\"round lots\"\", 100 shares, for ease of calculation of the total cost of the trade, so 100 shares at $50 1/2 would have a total cost of $5,050. The time for a human to calculate an \"\"odd lot\"\" of 72 shares at $50.02 would take much longer so would cost more per share, and these costs were passed on to the client. These issues have been negated by electronic trading and simply no longer exist except for obsolete brokerages. There are cost advantages for extremely large trades, well above 100 shares per trade. Brokerage fees today run the gamut: they can be as insignificant as what Interactive Brokers charges to as high as a full service broker that could charge hundreds of USD for a few thousand USD trade. With full service brokerages, the charges are frequently mystifying and quoted at the time a trade is requested. With discount brokerages, there is usually a fee per trade and a fee per share or contract. Interactive Brokers will charge a fee per share or option only and will even refund parts of the liquidity rebates exchanges provide, as close as possible to having a seat on an exchange. Even if a trader does not meet Interactive Brokers' minimum trading requirement, the monthly fee is so low that it is possible that a buy and hold investor could benefit from the de minimis trade fees. It should be noted that liquidity providing hidden orders are typically not rebated but are at least discounted. The core costs of all trades are the exchange fees which are per share or contract. Over the long run, costs charged by brokers will be in excess of charges by exchanges, and Interactive Brokers' fee schedule shows that it can be reduced to a simple markup over exchange fees. Exchanges sometimes have a fee schedule with lower charges for larger trades, but these are out of reach of the average individual.\"",
"qid": 10547,
"docid": "503981",
"rank": 2,
"score": 158342
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Agree with Michael here. The exchanges help you more than they will hurt. It begs the question why you want to avoid exchanges and the brokers since they do provide a valuable service. If you want to avoid big fees, most of the discount brokerages have tiny fees these days (optionshouse is down to $4), plus many have deals where you get 60 or more trades for free.",
"qid": 10547,
"docid": "58026",
"rank": 3,
"score": 150408
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Unless you're an active trader, 30 trades per month is a number you'll probably never hit, so you might as well take advantage of the offer while you have it. But don't trade more than you normally would. Discount brokerages make money on the arbitrage between the bid and ask prices on the exchanges (legal as long as you get a price that was available on the open market - they disclose this in the fine print in your account paperwork). So they want you to trade as often as they can get you to. As you say, it's really just a mind game. There is always a cost to doing business with a bank or brokerage. They charge you fees for services and they make money on your deposits while you're not using them. So while it looks like they're paying you interest, which they are, they're not paying you all the interest they've earned using your money. So there's the cost. It was only when interest rates dropped so low that they were starting to feel it, that they started rolling out more overt fees for services. If you'll notice, the conditions that cause the fees to be waived in your account all lead to increased deposits or transactions, either directly or indirectly. If your main concern is the efficiency of your investments, which by your description appear to be rather modest, you should consider dollar-cost averaging (DCA) into a mutual fund (of which there are plenty of high quality no-load/no-fee options around), or into a stock if your brokerage offers a lower-fee DCA program for stocks (where you can often buy partial shares).",
"qid": 10547,
"docid": "95683",
"rank": 4,
"score": 145732
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Retail brokers and are generally not members of exchanges and would generally not be members of exchanges unless they are directly routing orders to those exchanges. Most retail brokers charging $7 are considered discount brokers and such brokers route order to Market Makers (who are members of the exchanges). All brokers and market makers must be members of FINRA and must pay FINRA registration and licensing fees. Discount brokers also have operational costs which include the cost of their facilities, technology, clearing fees, regulation and human capital. Market makers will have the same costs but the cost of technology is probably much higher. Discount brokers will also have market data fees which they will have to pay to the exchanges for the right to show customer real time quotes. Some of their fees can be offset through payment for order flow (POF) where market makers pay routing brokers a small fee for sending orders to them for execution. The practice of POF has actually allowed retail brokers to keep their costs lower but to to shrinking margins and spread market makers POF has significantly declined over the years. Markets makers generally do not pass along Exchange access fees which are capped at $.003 (not .0035) to routing brokers. Also note that The SEC and FINRA charges transactions fees. SEC fee for sales are generally passed along to customers and noted on trade confirms. FINRA TAF is born by the market makers and often subtracted from POF paid to routing firms. Other (full service brokers) charging higher commissions are charging for the added value of their brokers providing advice and expertise in helping investors with investment strategies. They will generally also have the same fees associated with membership of all the exchanges as they are also market makers subject to some of the list of cost mentioned above. One point of note is that Market Making technology is quite sophisticates and very expensive. It has driven most of wholesale market makers of the 90s into consolidation. Retail routing firm's save a significant amount of money for not having to operate such a system (as well as worry about the regulatory headaches associated with running such a system). This allows them to provide much lower commissions that the (full service) or bulge bracket brokers.",
"qid": 10547,
"docid": "4883",
"rank": 5,
"score": 143652
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: My employer matches 1 to 1 up to 6% of pay. They also toss in 3, 4 or 5 percent of your annual salary depending on your age and years of service. The self-directed brokerage account option costs $20 per quarter. That account only allows buying and selling of stock, no short sales and no options. The commissions are $12.99 per trade, plus $0.01 per share over 1000 shares. I feel that's a little high for what I'm getting. I'm considering 401k loans to invest more profitably outside of the 401k, specifically using options. Contrary to what others have said, I feel that limited options trading (the sale cash secured puts and spreads) can be much safer than buying and selling of stock. I have inquired about options trading in this account, since the trustee's system shows options right on the menus, but they are all disabled. I was told that the employer decided against enabling options trading due to the perceived risks.",
"qid": 10547,
"docid": "370494",
"rank": 6,
"score": 141481
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You can get direct market access (DMA) but you have to pay for data, as this is part of the exchanges data plan, and there are plenty of other fees that are passed straight down to you. Your clearing firm also has fees that are passed on to you. In general you are looking at $150 a month on the low side, in data and software fees. If you wanted pure access, NASDAQ alone charges $6,000 a month last I checked. The different routes data routes to the exchange all have different rules, and they give you rebates for some kinds of orders in some conditions. Brokers nowadays usually assume this responsibility (including collecting the rebates lol), at the very least, and charge an average price for routing your orders, a price that fits into their business plan and their target audience. Hope that helps.",
"qid": 10547,
"docid": "595261",
"rank": 7,
"score": 140076
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I've done exactly what you say at one of my brokers. With the restriction that I have to deposit the money in the \"\"right\"\" way, and I don't do it too often. The broker is meant to be a trading firm and not a currency exchange house after all. I usually do the exchange the opposite of you, so I do USD -> GBP, but that shouldn't make any difference. I put \"\"right\"\" in quotes not to indicate there is anything illegal going on, but to indicate the broker does put restrictions on transferring out for some forms of deposits. So the key is to not ACH the money in, nor send a check, nor bill pay it, but rather to wire it in. A wire deposit with them has no holds and no time limits on withdrawal locations. My US bank originates a wire, I trade at spot in the opposite direction of you (USD -> GBP), wait 2 days for the trade to settle, then wire the money out to my UK bank. Commissions and fees for this process are low. All told, I pay about $20 USD per xfer and get spot rates, though it does take approx 3 trading days for the whole process (assuming you don't try to wait for a target rate but rather take market rate.)\"",
"qid": 10547,
"docid": "397897",
"rank": 8,
"score": 139785
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: It sounds for the most part you are a 'buy and hold' type investor and continue to contribute monthly. I follow the same philosophy and continue to contribute monthly as well. I use Questrade.com as my online broker. For trading it costs a penny per share with a minimum cost of $4.95 (so if you only buy 100 shares you will still pay $4.95) up to a maximum of $9.95 per trade (so if you buy 10,000 shares you only pay $9.95. Three trades at $4.95 per month across the year would be $178.20. This is assuming you are trading less then 495 share each trade. So switching to Questrade would save you an additional $111.80 per year! Multiply over number of year before you retire plus compound interest which could accrue and that can quite a bit of extra savings. You pay nothing else to Questrade either. No management fees, etc. You manage the accounts.",
"qid": 10547,
"docid": "597351",
"rank": 9,
"score": 138096
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Yes, there is a lot they are leaving out, and I would be extremely skeptical of them because of the \"\"reasons\"\" they give for being able to charge $0 commissions. Their reasons are that they don't have physical locations and high overhead costs, the reality is that they are burning venture capital on exchange fees until they actually start charging everyone they suckered into opening accounts. They also get paid by exchanges when users provide liquidity. These are called trade rebates in the maker-taker model. They will start offering margin accounts and charging interest. They are [likely] selling trade data to high frequency trading firms that then fill your stock trades at worse prices (Robinhood users are notorious for complaining about the fills). They may well be able to keep commissions low, as that has been a race to the bottom for a long time. But if they were doing their users any actual favors, then they would be also paying users the rebates that exchanges pay them for liquidity. Robinhood isn't doing anything unique as all brokers do what I mentioned along with charging commissions, and it is actually amazing their sales pitch \"\"$0 commissions because we are just a mobile app lol\"\" was enough for their customers. They are just being disingenuous.\"",
"qid": 10547,
"docid": "285997",
"rank": 10,
"score": 137648
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Without knowing what you are trying to achieve - make a bit of pocket money, become financially independent, invest for retirement, learn trading to become a trader - I'll give you a few thoughts ... The difficulty you will have trading with $400-600 is that brokerage will be a high proportion of your \"\"profits\"\". I'm not sure of the US (assuming US rather than AU, NZ, etc) rates for online brokers, but UK online brokers are the order of £6-10 / trade. Having a quick read suggests that the trading is similar $6-10/trade. With doing day trades you will be killed by the brokerage. I'm not sure what percent of profitable trades you have, but if it is 50% (e.g.), you will need to make twice the brokerage fees value on each profitable trade before you are actually making a profit. There can be an emotional effect that trips you up. You will find that trading with your own real money is very different to trading with fake money. Read up about it, this brief blog shows some personal thoughts from someone I read from time to time. With a $10 brokerage, I would suggest the following Another option, which I wouldn't recommend is to leverage your money, by trading CDFs or other derivatives that allow you to trade on a margin. Further to that, learn about trading/investing Plus other investment types I have written about earlier.\"",
"qid": 10547,
"docid": "18855",
"rank": 11,
"score": 137231
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I'm not positive my answer is complete, but from information on my broker's website, the following fees apply to a US option trade (which I assume you're concerned with given fee in dollars and the mention of the Options Clearing Corporation): They have more detail for other countries -- see https://www.interactivebrokers.co.uk/en/index.php?f=commission&p=options1 for North America. Use the sub-menu near the top of the page to pick Europe or Asia. The brokerage-charged commission for this broker is as low as $0.25 per contract with a $1.00 minimum. Though I've been charged less than $1 to STO an options position, as well as less than $1 to BTC an options position, so not sure about that minimum. Regarding what I read as your overall underlying question (why are option fees so high), in my research this broker has one of the cheapest commission rates on options I've ever seen. When I participate in certain discussions, I'm routinely told that these fees are unbelievable and that $5.95, $7.95, or even $9.95 are considered low fees. I've heard this so much, and discussed commissions with enough people who've refused to switch brokers, that I conclude there just isn't enough competition to drive prices lower. If most people won't switch brokers to go from $9.95 to $1 per trade, there simply isn't a reason to lower rates.",
"qid": 10547,
"docid": "582908",
"rank": 12,
"score": 137225
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Its hard to write much in those comment boxes, so I'll just make an answer, although its really not a formal answer. Regarding commissions, it costs me $5 per trade, so that's actually $10 per trade ($5 to buy, $5 to sell). An ETF like TNA ($58 per share currently) fluctuates $1 or $2 per day. IXC is $40 per share and fluctuates nearly 50 cents per day (a little less). So to make any decent money per trade would mean a share size of 50 shares TNA which means I need $2900 in cash (TNA is not marginable). If it goes up $1 and I sell, that's $10 for the broker and $40 for me. I would consider this to be the minimum share size for TNA. For IXC, 100 shares would cost me $4000 / 2 = $2000 since IXC is marginable. If IXC goes up 50 cents, that's $10 for the broker and $40 for me. IXC also pays a decent dividend. TNA does not. You'll notice the amount of cash needed to capture these gains is roughly the same. (Actually, to capture daily moves in IXC, you'll need a bit more than $2000 because it doesn't vary quite a full 50 cents each day). At first, I thought you were describing range trading or stock channeling, but those systems require stop losses when the range or channel is broken. You're now talking about holding forever until you get 1 or 2 points of profit. Therefore, I wouldn't trade stocks at all. Stocks could go to zero, ETFs will not. It seems to me you're looking for a way to generate small, consistent returns and you're not seeking to strike it rich in one trade. Therefore, buying something that pays a dividend would be a good idea if you plan to hold forever while waiting for your 1 or 2 points. In your system you're also going to have to define when to get back in the trade. If you buy IXC now at $40 and it goes to $41 and you sell, do you wait for it to come back to $40? What if it never does? Are you happy with having only made one trade for $40 profit in your lifetime? What if it goes up to $45 and then dips to $42, do you buy at $42? If so, what stops you from eventually buying at the tippy top? Or even worse, what stops you from feeling even more confident at the top and buying bigger lots? If it gets to $49, surely it will cover that last buck to $50, right? /sarc What if you bought IXC at $40 and it went down. Now what? Do you take up gardening as a hobby while waiting for IXC to come back? Do you buy more at lower prices and average down? Do you find other stocks to trade? If so, how long until you run out of money and you start getting margin calls? Then you'll be forced to sell at the bottom when you should be buying more. All these systems seem easy, but when you actually get in there and try to use them, you'll find they're not so easy. Anything that is obvious, won't work anymore. And even when you find something that is obvious and bet that it stops working, you'll be wrong then too. The thing is, if you think of it, many others just like you also think of it... therefore it can't work because everyone can't make money in stocks just like everyone at the poker table can't make money. If you can make 1% or 2% per day on your money, that's actually quite good and not too many people can do that. Or maybe its better to say, if you can make 2% per trade, and not take a 50% loss per 10 trades, you're doing quite well. If you make $40 per trade profit while working with $2-3k and you do that 50 times per year (50 trades is not a lot in a year), you've doubled your money for the year. Who does that on a consistent basis? To expect that kind of performance is just unrealistic. It much easier to earn $2k with $100k than it is to double $2k in a year. In stocks, money flows TO those who have it and FROM those who don't. You have to plan for all possibilities, form a system then stick to it, and not take on too much risk or expect big (unrealistic) rewards. Daytrading You make 4 roundtrips in 5 days, that broker labels you a pattern daytrader. Once you're labeled, its for life at that brokerage. If you switch to a new broker, the new broker doesn't know your dealings with the old broker, therefore you'll have to establish a new pattern with the new broker in order to be labeled. If the SEC were to ask, the broker would have to say 'yes' or 'no' concering if you established a pattern of daytrading at that brokerage. Suppose you make the 4 roundtrips and then you make a 5th that triggers the call. The broker will call you up and say you either need to deposit enough to bring your account to $25k or you need to never make another daytrade at that firm... ever! That's the only warning you'll ever get. If you're in violation again, they lock your account to closing positions until you send in funds to bring the balance up to $25k. All you need to do is have the money hit your account, you can take it right back out again. Once your account has $25k, you're allowed to trade again.... even if you remove $15k of it that same day. If you trigger the call again, you have to send the $15k back in, then take it back out. Having the label is not all bad... they give you 4x margin. So with $25k, you can buy $100k of marginable stock. I don't know... that could be a bad thing too. You could get a margin call at the end of the day for owning $100k of stock when you're only allowed to own $50k overnight. I believe that's a fed call and its a pretty big deal.",
"qid": 10547,
"docid": "122485",
"rank": 13,
"score": 136870
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I think you have a really good idea, kudos to it. It will be difficult to break eve, and while you stressed the fact that you are ready to part with this money, it would be interesting for you not to part with this money just for the sake of trading. You will be frustrated because you are \"\"winning\"\" and breaking even or even losing money in the process. Think about that. For somebody with limited experience the derivatives market carries a very high risk also as everything in this matters carries high or very high yield. Trading futures on margin can actually work but I think you will need a bit more money. Check the mini contracts of infinity futures and calculate the commissions. You will be paying more for a contract, yes. you will need more money for your maintenance margin, yes, but if you day-trade and you have a cheapo broker this will be substantially lower. Gold contracts pay about 10 to 1 so a mini contract of 33 ounces will pay you 33 dollars per 1 dollar move. Your commissions will be about 4/5 usd in a discount broker and you will need to pay some exchange house fees, maybe about 15% of your trade will be fees. Check the contract specs and costs. As somebody said before, they wouldn't recommend trading on margin but with an account of that side I wouldn't know anything else. Trading physical gold on margin could also be an option. Just my 2 cents.\"",
"qid": 10547,
"docid": "444946",
"rank": 14,
"score": 136132
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: In terms of building the initial investment using some kind of mutual fund, I'd suggest you see my answer to this similar question https://money.stackexchange.com/questions/9943/cheapest-or-free-online-broker-for-beginner For buying individual stocks later, you could look at sharebuilder, or a low cost broker, however most of them charge between $5-$7 per trade, and if you are doing small dollar value trades then that can really really eat into things if you try to trade a lot.",
"qid": 10547,
"docid": "413856",
"rank": 15,
"score": 135559
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Say for example a trade totals $10,000. A flat tax of 0.2% would be $20. This is not much for the Buy & Holder b/c he only makes a few trades a year, say 10 transactions a year. So their tax is only about $200 per year. (heck we could even drop it to 0.1%). But DayTraders will routinely do 10 trades a day, or over 3000 trades a year. So using that same 10K trade above, that could hypothetically be 3000x20 = $60,000 per year in taxes. Computer Traders will do hundreds of trades per day. Say 30,000 trades per year. So that is $600,000. So you can see how iit hardly affects legitimate investors, while making the HF traders control themselves a bit. This is what we want. The exchanges charge the flat tax with the transaction like a Sales tax. It avoids excess regulation (the SEC already monitors trades, or is supposed to), and it hurts the gamblers (HFTs), while not hindering the good guys (investors).",
"qid": 10547,
"docid": "184705",
"rank": 16,
"score": 135458
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"All discount brokers offer a commission structure that is based on the average kind of order that their target audience will make. Different brokers advertise to different target audiences. They could all have a lot lower commissions than they do. The maximum commission price for the order ticket is set at $99 by the industry securities regulators. When discount brokers came along and started offering $2 - $9.99 trades, it was simply because these new companies could be competitive in a place where incumbents were overcharging. The same exists with Robinhood. The market landscape and costs have changed over the last decade with regulation NMS, and other brokerage firms never needed to update drastically because they could continue making a lot on commissions with nobody questioning it. The conclusion being that other brokers can also charge a lot less, despite their other overhead costs. Robinhood, like other brokerage firms (and anyone else trading directly with the exchanges), are paid by the exchanges for adding liquidity. Not only are many trades placed with no commission for the broker, they actually earn money for placing the trade. If Robinhood was doing you any favors, they would be paying you. But nobody questions free commissions so they don't. Robinhood, like other brokerage firms, sells your trading data to the highest bidder. This is called \"\"payment for order flow\"\", these subscribers see your order on the internet in route to the exhange, and before your order gets to the exchange, the subscriber sends a different order to the exchange so they either get filled before you do (analogous to front running, but different enough to not be illegal) or they alter the price of the thing you wanted to buy or sell so that you have to get a worse price. These subscribers have faster computers and faster internet access than other market participants, so are able to do this so quickly. They are also burning a lot of venture capital like all startups. You shouldn't place too much faith in the idea they are making [enough] money. They also have plans to earn interest off of balances in a variety of ways and offer more options at a price (like margin accounts).\"",
"qid": 10547,
"docid": "201226",
"rank": 17,
"score": 134719
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Take a look at FolioFN - they let you buy small numbers of shares and fractional shares too. There is an annual fee on the order of US$100/year. You can trade with no fees at two \"\"windows\"\" per day, or at any time for a $15 fee. You are better off leaving the stock in broker's name, especially if you live overseas. Otherwise you will receive your dividends in the form of cheques that might be expensive to try to cash. There is also usually a fee charged by the broker to obtain share certificates instead of shares in your account.\"",
"qid": 10547,
"docid": "281423",
"rank": 18,
"score": 133542
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Have you looked at OptionsHouse? They charge $2.95 per trade and are one of the lowest when it comes to fees. Bare bones interface, but fast execution.",
"qid": 10547,
"docid": "294517",
"rank": 19,
"score": 133238
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: In most markets, there are fixed fees known as commissions. For instance, with a retail broker in the stock market, you can expect every trade to cost you $7.00 as an example, it is $7.00 regardless of if you place a trade for $25 or $25,000. You will see that just opening the trade, with a smaller amount, will eat up all of your profits and a majority of your capital, but if you opened the trade with more capital through the investment group, then the $7.00 commission will be much less of a tax on your trade. Basically, the only advantage is that the tax of commissions will be less if you have a larger account, if the commission is a fixed dollar value, which is not always true either. regardless, at $25 per month, not many markets will be accessible. There is also the possible educational aspect of investing with a group of people, or it can simply be clashing ideals.",
"qid": 10547,
"docid": "149153",
"rank": 20,
"score": 133230
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you want the cheapest online broker in Australia, you can't go past CMC Markets, they charge $9.90 upto a $10,000 trade and 0.1% above that. There is no ongoing fees unless you choose to have dynamic data (stock prices get updated automatically as they change). However, the dynamic data fee does get waived if you have about 10 or more trades per month. You don't really need the dynamic data unless you are a regular trader anyway. They also provide some good research tools and some basic charting. Your funds with them are kept segragated in a Bankwest Account, so are resonably safe. They don't provide the best interest on funds kept in the account, so it is best to just deposit the funds when you are looking to buy, and move your funds elswhere (earning higher interest) when selling. Hopes this helps, regards Victor. Update They have now increased their basic brokerage to a minimum of $11 per trade unless you are a frequent trader.",
"qid": 10547,
"docid": "31936",
"rank": 21,
"score": 131923
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The $500 minimum is a policy of the ASX. As such any broker that offered a different policy would not be offering direct purchase of exchange traded shares. Note however that this policy applies only to the initial purchase. From the CMC FAQs: The ASX requires a minimum parcel of $500 to be traded if you don’t currently hold that particular security. Once you have $500 worth of an individual security, you can purchase any value of shares you like.",
"qid": 10547,
"docid": "72633",
"rank": 22,
"score": 131017
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Exchange A has 100 shares of a stock at $10, the next 100 shares cost $10.01. Exchange B has the same pricing structure. A fund manager wants to buy 200 shares of the stock, and decides that buying 100 shares at $10 from each exchange will be cheaper than staying in one exchange and paying $10.01 for the second half of his order. The manager places two separate orders. Let's say the first order reaches exchange A, and the trade executes at $10. Traders (algorithms) on exchange B see this happen, and adjust their price up to $10.01 accordingly. Now, when the manager's order reaches exchange B, there will no longer be any shares trading at $10. Some people say that this is front running, but if the manager only wanted 100 shares, the price would have still shifted. Some say this creates a more efficient market with tighter spreads due to the decreased risk to the market maker, but it also means the aggregate bid-ask offers across multiple exchanges are not necessarily accurate, creating a \"\"false liquidity\"\". You can decide for yourself whether or not this is a good thing.\"",
"qid": 10547,
"docid": "367547",
"rank": 23,
"score": 130384
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"TLDR: Yes you can. That is quite a steep price to pay for a trade. I've used TradeKing previously, which would charge you $5 for that same trade. Some other brokers are more or less expensive, and it is normally representative of the service one receives. One option would be Scottrade. While they are much more expensive than TradeKing, they offer a much higher level of service. Even at $17 a trade, you'll save a lot of money over the Edward Jones trade. A big question here is who does your investing now? Most people are pretty horrible at managing their own investments. Some professional advice is probably in order. For most they discover this when their investments are small, mitigating any mistakes made. You don't have that luxury. I would highly recommend making sure you have people that can help you make good decisions. The more I think about it the more I like the move to Scottrade (no affiliation) or one like that (Charles Schwab is another option). With Scottrade you can go into a local branch and talk things over. I think they offer some professional management as well. Schwab will offer the latter but not the former. However you can call them up and talk on the phone. Another option is to go with Fidelity and have them manage at least part of your money. Of course you can always just do a professional, independent money manager. Another option is to renegotiate with Edward Jones. Something like: \"\"Sorry but this is ridiculous, you need to do much better or I am moving all my money.\"\" Its much cheaper to charge you $100 for that same trade than lose the whole account.\"",
"qid": 10547,
"docid": "213310",
"rank": 24,
"score": 130041
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I don't know where your trade figures are from. ETrade, TD Ameritrade, Fidelity, etc all have trading costs under 10 USD per share, so I'm not sure where your costs are coming from. I doubt currency conversion or anything like that will double the cost. As for your question, the answer is: It depends How much trading will you do? In what types of investments? For example, Schwab charges no commission on ETF purchases, but this is not an advantage if you wont buy ETFs. Consider minimums. Different brokers have different minimum cash balance/deposit requirements, so make sure you can meet those. It's true that you can get real time quotes anywhere, but consider the other services. For example, TD Ameritrade pools research reports for many publicly traded companies which are nice to read about what analysts have to say. Different brokers given different research tools, so read about offerings and see what's most useful to you. You can open different brokerage accounts, but it's much more convenient to have a one-stop place where you can do all you trading. Pick a broker which is low cost and offers a variety of investments as well as good customer support and a straightforward system.",
"qid": 10547,
"docid": "110608",
"rank": 25,
"score": 129618
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You'd need millions of dollars to trade the number of shares it would take to profit from these penny variations. What you bring up here is the way high frequency firms front-run trades and profit on these pennies. Say you have a trade commission of $5. Every time you buy you pay $5, every time you sell you pay $5. So you need a gain in excess of $10, a 10% gain on $100. Now if you wanted to trade on a penny movement from $100 to $100.01, you need to have bought 1,000 shares totaling $100,000 for the $0.01 price movement to cover your commission costs. If you had $1,000,000 to put at risk, that $0.01 price movement would net you $90 after commission, $10,000,000 would have made you $990. You need much larger gains at the retail level because commissions will equate to a significant percentage of the money you're investing. Very large trading entities have much different arrangements and costs with the exchanges. They might not pay a fee on each transaction but something that more closely resembles a subscription fee, and costs something that more closely resembles a house. Now to your point, catching these price movements and profiting. The way high frequency trading firms purportedly make money relates to having a very low latency network connection to a particular exchange. Their very low latency/very fast network connection lets them see orders and transact orders before other parties. Say some stock has an ask at $101 x 1,000 shares. The next depth is $101.10. You see a market buy order come in for 1,000 shares and place a buy order for 1,000 shares at $101 which hits the exchange first, then immediately place a sell order at $101.09, changing the ask from $101.00 to $101.09 and selling in to the market order for a gain of $0.09 per share.",
"qid": 10547,
"docid": "63044",
"rank": 26,
"score": 128353
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The fees with trading CFDs are usually lower than standard share trading. There is usually no joining fee to join a broker and start trading with them, you must be talking about the minimum required to fund your account to trade with. What country are you in? Because if you are in the USA I believe CFD trading is not allowed there. Also there is no margin fee associated with trading CFDs. The margin is what you put in to buy or sell the CFD when you open a position. For example if you were to open a position in a share CFD where the underlying share had a price of $10 and you were looking to buy 1000 units. To buy the shares outright your outlay would be $10000 plus brokerage. If the CFD provider had a 10% margin on these share, then your initial margin to open a CFD position would be 10% of $10000 or $1000. If the price of the shares went up to $11 and you sold the shares you would get $11000 ($1000 profit), if you sold the CFDs you would get $2000 ($1000 profit). If on the other hand the shares went down to $9 and you sold the shares you would get $9000 ($1000 loss), if you sold the CFDs you would get $0 ($1000 loss). You have to be careful with margin, it is a two edged sword - it can multiply your gains as well as multiply your losses. The only fees you should be charged with CFDs is brokerage (which should be less than for share trading), and overnight financing costs. This is charged for everyday you hold a long position overnight. You should not be charge any overnight financing cost for holding short positions overnight, and if interest rates were higher you might actually get paid an overnight financing for holding short positions overnight. You may have been closed out of your bitcoin position because you didn't have enough funds in your trading account to open the size trade that you opened. From your question it seems like you are not ready to trade CFDs, you should really learn more about CFDs and the trading platform/s you plan to use before trading with your valuable money. You could probably open up a simulation account whilst you are learning the ropes and become more familiar with the trading platform and with CFDs. And if you are not sure about something ask your broker, they usually have training videos and seminars.",
"qid": 10547,
"docid": "405301",
"rank": 27,
"score": 128035
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: In my experience they charge you coming and going. For example, if a brokerage firm is advertising that their commissions are only $7/trade, then that means you pay money to buy the stock, plus $7 to them, and later on if you want to sell that stock you must pay $7 to get out of the deal. So, if you want to make any money on a stock (say, priced at $10) you would have to sell it at a price above $10+$7+$7=$24. That kind of sale could take a few years to turn a profit. However, with flat-rate fees like that it is advantageous to buy in bulk.",
"qid": 10547,
"docid": "11075",
"rank": 28,
"score": 127845
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"1000 (£/$/€) is also not a lot to start with. Assuming you want to buy stocks or ETFs you will be paying fees on both ends. Even with online brokerages you are looking at 7.95 (£/$/€) a trade. That of course translates to a min of .795% x 2 = 1.59% increase in value you would need just to break even already. There is a way around some of this as a lot of the brokerages do not charge fees for their ETFs or their affiliated ones. However, I would try to hold out till at least $5000 before investing in assets such as stocks. In the meantime there are many great books out there to \"\"invest in knowledge\"\".\"",
"qid": 10547,
"docid": "548467",
"rank": 29,
"score": 127738
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Depending on the currencies you want to trade there are mini-futures available with a contract value of 12.500 (for example EUR/USD) or standard futures with a contract value of 125.000. You will find an overview at the Globex CME website For a broker to trade the futures I would recommend Interactive Brokers. They offer real-time trading at very low commission.",
"qid": 10547,
"docid": "190756",
"rank": 30,
"score": 127649
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Yes! What you are describing is an \"\"off-exchange\"\" trade and can be done using stock certificates. Here, you will privately negotiate with the seller on a price and delivery details. That is the old-school way to do it. Many companies (about 20% of the S&P 500) will not issue paper certificates and you may run a hefty printing fee up to $500 (source: Wikipedia, above). Other other type of private-party transactions include a deal negotiated between two parties and settled immediately or based on a future event. For example, Warren Buffet created a deal with Goldman Sachs where Warren would have the choice to purchase GS shares in the future at a certain price. This was to be settled with actual shares (rather than cash-settled). Ignoring that he later canceled this agreement, if it were to go through the transaction would still have been handled by a broker transferring the shares. You can purchase directly from a company using a direct stock purchase plan (SPP). Just pick up the phone, ask for their investor relations and then ask if they offer this option. If not, they will be glad for your interest and look into setting it up for you.\"",
"qid": 10547,
"docid": "455168",
"rank": 31,
"score": 127322
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I recommended Currency Trading For Dummies, in my answer to Layman's guide to getting started with Forex (foreign exchange trading)? The nature of the contract size points toward only putting up a fraction of the value. The Euro FX contract size is 125,000 Euro. If you wish to send the broker US$125K+ to trade this contract, go ahead. Most people trade it with a few thousand dollars.",
"qid": 10547,
"docid": "172025",
"rank": 32,
"score": 126759
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Its a broker fee, not something charged by the reorganizing company. E*Trade charge $20, TD Ameritrade charge $38. As with any other bank fee - shop around. If you know the company is going to do a split, and this fee is of a significant amount for you - move your account to a different broker. It may be that some portion of the fee is shared by the broker with the shares managing services provider of the reorgonizing company, don't know for sure. But you're charged by your broker. Note that the fees differ for voluntary and involuntary reorganizations, and also by your stand with the broker - some don't charge their \"\"premier\"\" customers.\"",
"qid": 10547,
"docid": "325892",
"rank": 33,
"score": 126517
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Often these types of trades fall into two different categories. An error by broker or exchange. Exchange clearing out part of their books incorrectly is an example. Most exchanges make firms reopen their positions for after market hours. There may have been an issue doing so or exchange could incorrectly cancel positions. I was in the direct feed industry for years and this was a big issue. At the same time the broker can issue a no limit buy on accident (or has software that is prospecting and said software has a bug or written poorly). unscrupulous parties looking to feign an upswing or downswing in market. Let's say you hold 500k shares in a stock that sells for $11. You could possibly buy 100 shares for $13. Trust me you will find a seller. Then you are hoping that people see that trade as a \"\"norm\"\" and trade from there, allowing you to rake in $1M for spending an extra $200 - NOTE this is not normal and an extreme example. This was so common in the early days of NASDAQ after hours that they discontinued using the after hours trades as part of historical information that they keep like daily/yearly high or closing price. The liquidity allows for manipulation. It isn't seen as much now since this has been done a million times but it does still happen.\"",
"qid": 10547,
"docid": "378889",
"rank": 34,
"score": 126350
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The lowest cost way to trade on an exchange is to trade directly on the exchange. I can't speak to the LSE, but in the US, there is a mandated firewall between the individual and the exchange, the broker; therefore, in the US, one would have to start a business and become a broker. If that process is too costly, the broker or trade platform that permits individuals to trade with the lowest commissions is the next lowest.",
"qid": 10547,
"docid": "234983",
"rank": 35,
"score": 126217
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The option commissions with IB for trading in the US market are between $0.25 to $0.70 per contract. However if you are looking to trade in Canada, where you are from, their option commission for Canada are $1.50 per contract (as you mention in your question). Note that each contract is for 100 shares, so if you wanted to trade the equivalent of 1000 shares, you would need to trade 10 contracts, so you would have to multiply the above commissions by 10 to get your final costs. (i.e. $2.50 to $7.00 in the US and $15.00 in Canada).",
"qid": 10547,
"docid": "281223",
"rank": 36,
"score": 126084
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Why not figure out the % composition of the index and invest in the participating securities directly? This isn't really practical. Two indices I use follow the Russell 2000 and the S&P 500 Those two indices represent 2500 stocks. A $4 brokerage commission per trade would mean that it would cost me $10,000 in transaction fees to buy a position in 2500 stocks. Not to mention, I don't want to track 2500 investments. Index funds provide inexpensive diversity.",
"qid": 10547,
"docid": "308071",
"rank": 37,
"score": 125091
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: There are various exchanges around the world that handle spot precious metal trading; for the most part these are also the primary spot foreign exchange markets, like EBS, Thomson Reuters, Currenex (website seems to be down), etc. You can trade on these markets through brokers just like you can trade on stock markets. However, the vast majority of traders on these exchanges do not intend to hold any bullion ownership at the end of the day; they want to buy as much as they sell each day. A minority of traders do intend to hold metal positions for longer periods, but I doubt any of them intend to actually go collect bullion from the exchange. I don't think it's even possible. Really the only way to get bullion is to pay a service fee to a dealer like you mentioned. But on an exchange like the ones above you have to pay three different fees: So in the end you can't even get the spot price on the exchanges where the spot prices are determined. You might even come out ahead by going to a dealer. You should try to find a reputable dealer, and go in knowing the latest trade prices. An honest dealer will have a website showing you the current trade prices, so you know that they expect you to know the prices when you come in. For example, here's a well-known dealer in Chicago that happily shows you the spot prices from KITCO so you can decide whether their service fee is worth it or not.",
"qid": 10547,
"docid": "110716",
"rank": 38,
"score": 124566
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Regarding \"\"Interest on idle cash\"\", brokerage firms must maintain a segregated account on the brokerage firm's books to make sure that the client's money and the firm's money is not intermingled, and clients funds are not used for operational purposes. Source. Thus, brokerage firms do not earn interest on cash that is held unused in client accounts. Regarding \"\"Exchanges pay firm for liquidity\"\", I am not aware of any circumstances under which an exchange will pay a brokerage any such fee. In fact, the opposite is the case. Exchanges charge participants to transact business. See : How the NYSE makes money Similarly, market makers do not pay a broker to transact business on their behalf. They charge the broker a commission just like the broker charges their client a commission. Of course, a large broker may also be acting as market maker or deal directly with the exchange, in which case no such commission will be incurred by the broker. In any case, the broker will pay a commission to the clearing house.\"",
"qid": 10547,
"docid": "294424",
"rank": 39,
"score": 124509
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The only fee you incur when buying an ETF is the commission. If you have a brokerage account at Schwab/Fidelity/E-TRADE/Vanguard or any number of banks you won't pay more than $10 per transaction (regardless of the size of the transaction). I use Schwab which charges $5 per trade, but you can open a Robinhood account (it's a discount brokerage) for free, $0 commission trades. It lacks features that paying platforms have, but it's great for beginners. You'll get a dividend each quarter (every 3 months) for most ETFs.",
"qid": 10547,
"docid": "558544",
"rank": 40,
"score": 124342
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Fidelity, Charles Schwab, TDA, and just about every make online brokerage gives you massive amounts of free trades each year and when you sign up. Pretty much the same as 100+ free trades /yr over a 10 year period. Also, you get commission-free trade for the most popular ETFs, which is much more important. Lastly, if you care about free trades, you're probably investing poorly. Non-professionals shouldn't be making that many non-ETF trades in a year. Professional traders wouldn't blink over a tiny $5-10 commission fee.",
"qid": 10547,
"docid": "108671",
"rank": 41,
"score": 123579
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The right answer to this question really depends on the size of the transfer. For larger transfers ($10k and up) the exchange rate is the dominant factor, and you will get the best rates from Interactive Brokers (IB) as noted by Paul above, or OANDA (listed by user6714). Under $10k, CurrencyFair is probably your best bet; while the rates are not quite as good as IB or OANDA, they are much better than the banks, and the transaction fees are less. If you don't need to exchange the currency immediately, you can put in your own bids and potentially get better rates from other CurrencyFair users. Below $1000, XE Trade (also listed by user6714) has exchange rates that are almost as good, but also offers EFT transfers in and out, which will save you wire transfer fees from your bank to send or receive money to/from your currency broker. The bank wire transfer fees in the US can be $10-$30 (outgoing wires on the higher end) so for smaller transfers this is a significant consideration you need to look into; if you are receiving money in US, ING Direct and many brokerage accounts don't charge for incoming wires - but unless you have a commercial bank account with high balances, expect to spend $10-$20 minimum for outgoing. European wire transfer fees are minimal or zero in most cases, making CurrencyFair more appealing if the money stays in Europe. Below $100, it's rarely worth the effort to use any of the above services; use PayPal or MoneyBookers, whatever is easiest. Update: As of December 2013, CurrencyFair is temporarily suspending operations for US residents: Following our initial assessment of regulatory changes in the United States, including changes arising from the Dodd-Frank Act, CurrencyFair will temporarily withdraw services for US residents while we consider these requirements and how they impact our business model. This was a difficult and very regretful decision but we are confident we will be able to resume services in the future. The exact date of re-activation has not yet been determined and may take some time. We appreciate your patience and will continue communicating our status and expected return.",
"qid": 10547,
"docid": "385090",
"rank": 42,
"score": 123552
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Other than the brokerage fee you should also consider the following: Some brokerages provide extra protection against the these and as you guessed it for a fee. However, there could be a small bonus associated with your trading at scale: You are probably qualified for rebates from the exchanges for generating liquidity. \"\"Fees and Credits applicable to Designated Market Makers (“DMMs”)\"\" https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/markets/nyse/NYSE_Price_List.pdf All in all, I will say that it will be really hard for you to avoid paying brokerage fee and yes, even Buffet pays it.\"",
"qid": 10547,
"docid": "494351",
"rank": 43,
"score": 122360
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you bought 5 shares @ $20 each that would cost you $100 plus brokerage. Even if your brokerage was only $10 in and out, your shares would have to go up 20% just for you to break even. You don't make a profit until you sell, so just for you to break even your shares need to go up to $24 per share. Because your share holding would be so small the brokerage, even the cheapest around, would end up being a large percentage cost of any overall profits. If instead you had bought 500 shares at $20, being $1000, the $20 brokerage (in and out) only represents 2% instead of 20%. This is called economies of scale.",
"qid": 10547,
"docid": "12885",
"rank": 44,
"score": 122165
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Am I wrong? Yes. The exchanges are most definitely not \"\"good ole boys clubs\"\". They provide a service (a huge, liquid and very fast market), and they want to be paid for it. Additionally, since direct participants in their system can cause serious and expensive disruptions, they allow only organizations that know what they're doing and can pay for any damages the cause. Is there a way to invest without an intermediary? Certainly, but if you have to ask this question, it's the last thing you should do. Typically such offers are only superior to people who have large investments sums and know what they're doing - as an inexperienced investor, chances are that you'll end up losing everything to some fraudster. Honestly, large exchanges have become so cheap (e.g. XETRA costs 2.52 EUR + 0.0504% per trade) that if you're actually investing, then exchange fees are completely irrelevant. The only exception may be if you want to use a dollar-cost averaging strategy and don't have a lot of cash every month - fixed fees can be significant then. Many banks offer investments plans that cover this case.\"",
"qid": 10547,
"docid": "259371",
"rank": 45,
"score": 122141
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Your cost of platform is built into your commission rates...SC is free if I sign up to a broker that charges more commissions. Right now I am with IB as my broker. With the cost of my charting, if I were to make 10 round turns per month, I would pay $4.50 per side commission on FOREX, $3.25 per side on EQUITIES. Still a better deal than ToS.",
"qid": 10547,
"docid": "30524",
"rank": 46,
"score": 121621
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Your wife could open a non-registered margin trading account with a Canadian full-service or discount broker. An account at one of the top Canadian brokers should provide access to trade U.S.-listed options. I've traded both Canadian and U.S.-listed options with my own broker. On the application, you'd need to indicate an interest in trading options, and more specifically, what kind of option trades; e.g. long puts and calls only, covered writing, combination trades, etc. And yes, part of the application approval process (at least when I went through it) is to answer a few questions to prove that the applicant is aware of the types of risks with trading options. Be sure to do some research on the fees and currency/fx aspects before you choose a broker. If you plan to exercise any options purchased or expect to be assigned for any you write, be aware that those fees are often different from the headline cost-per-trade advertised by brokers. For instance, I pay in excess of $40 when a call option I write gets assigned, vs. ~$10 that I'd pay if I just plain sold the stock. One other thing to investigate is what kind of online option trading research and order entry tools are available; not every broker has the same set of features with respect to options — especially if it isn't a big part of their business.",
"qid": 10547,
"docid": "596567",
"rank": 47,
"score": 121554
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"An order is your command to the broker to, say, \"\"sell 100 shares of AAPL\"\". An executed order (or partially executed order) is when all (or some) of that command is successfully completed. A transaction is an actual exchange of shares for money, and there may be one or more transactions per executed order. For example, the broker might perform all of the following 5 transactions in order to do what you asked: On the other hand, if the broker cannot execute your order, then 0 transactions have taken place. The fee schedule you quote is saying that no matter how many transactions the broker has to perform in order to fill your order -- and no matter what the share prices are -- they're only going to charge you $0.005 per share ($0.50 in this example of 100 shares), subject to certain limits. However, as it says at the top of the page you linked, Our Fixed pricing for stocks, ETFs (Exchange Traded Products, or ETPs) and warrants charges a fixed amount per share or a set percent of trade value, and includes all IB commissions, exchange and most regulatory fees with the exception of the transaction fees, which are passed through on all stock sales. certain transaction fees are passed through to the client. The transaction fee you included above is the SEC fee on sales. Many (but not all) transaction fees DO depend on the prices of the shares involved; as a result they cannot be called \"\"fixed\"\" fees. For example, if you sell 100 shares of AAPL at $150 each, But if you sell 100 shares of AMZN at $940 each, So the broker will charge you the same $0.50 on either of those orders, but the SEC will charge you more for the expensive AMZN shares than for the cheaper AAPL shares. The reason this specific SEC fee mentions aggregate sales rather than trade value is because this particular SEC fee applies only to the seller and not to the buyer. So they could have written aggregate trade value, but they probably wanted to highlight to the reader that the fee is only charged on sells.\"",
"qid": 10547,
"docid": "389268",
"rank": 48,
"score": 121053
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: As mentioned in the comments: According to the message from the exchange all trades at or below $5.86 that were executed in NASDAQ between 09:38:00 and 09:46:00 ET got canceled. If the short doesn't fall into those criteria but the long does, though luck the long is invalid, the short is valid. Traders that got the short end of the stick in the end, should contact their brokers and inquire about this situation. Depending on the terms of the broker the short might get canceled as well. If not, then it's up to the market. The trader can keep or close the short. IMO, what the person in question should have done is hold on to the trade and see what happens at the end of the trading day. He should've realized something was wrong when the price went from 8.xx to 0.8x.",
"qid": 10547,
"docid": "53749",
"rank": 49,
"score": 120946
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"You can certainly try to do this, but it's risky and very expensive. Consider a simplified example. You buy 1000 shares of ABC at $1.00 each, with the intention of selling them all when the price reaches $1.01. Rinse and repeat, right? You might think the example above will net you a tidy $10 profit. But you have to factor in trade commissions. Most brokerages are going to charge you per trade. Fidelity for example, want $4.95 per trade; that's for both the buying and the selling. So your 1000 shares actually cost you $1004.95, and then when you sell them for $1.01 each, they take their $4.95 fee again, leaving you with a measly $1.10 in profit. Meanwhile, your entire $1000 stake was at risk of never making ANY profit - you may have been unlucky enough to buy at the stock's peak price before a slow (or even fast) decline towards eventual bankruptcy. The other problem with this is that you need a stock that is both stable and volatile at the same time. You need the volatility to ensure the price keeps swinging between your buy and sell thresholds, over and over again. You need stability to ensure it doesn't move well away from those thresholds altogether. If it doesn't have this weird stable-volatility thing, then you are shooting yourself in the foot by not holding the stock for longer: why sell for $1.01 if it goes up to $1.10 ten minutes later? Why buy for $1.00 when it keeps dropping to $0.95 ten minutes later? Your strategy means you are always taking the smallest possible profit, for the same amount of risk. Another method might be to only trade each stock once, and hope that you never pick a loser. Perhaps look for something that has been steadily climbing in price, buy, make your tiny profit, then move on to the next company. However you still have the risk of buying something at it's peak price and being in for an awfully long wait before you can cash out (if ever). And if all that wasn't enough to put you off, brokerages have special rules for \"\"frequent traders\"\" that just make it all the more complicated. Not worth the hassle IMO.\"",
"qid": 10547,
"docid": "429418",
"rank": 50,
"score": 120869
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: They will make money from brokerage as usual and also from the interest they charge you for lending you the money for you to buy your shares on margin. In other words you will be paying interest on the $30,000 you borrowed from your broker. Also, as per Chris's comment, if you are shorting securities through your margin account, your broker would charge you a fee for lending you the securities to short.",
"qid": 10547,
"docid": "68853",
"rank": 51,
"score": 120804
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you are trading CFDs, which are usually traded on margin, you will usually be charged an overnight financing fee for long positions held overnight and you will receive an overnight financing credit for short positions held overnight. Most CFD brokers will have their overnight financing rates set at + or - 2.5% or 3% from the country's official interest rates. So if your country's official interest rate is 5% and your broker uses + or - 2.5%, you will get a 2.5% credit for any short positions held overnight and pay 7.5% fee for any long positions held overnight. In Australia the official interest rate is 2.5%, so I get 0% for short positions and pay 5% for long positions held overnight. If you are looking to hold positions open long term (especially long positions) you might think twice before using CFDs to trade as you may end up paying quite a bit in interest over a long period of time. These financing fees are charged because you are borrowing the funds to open your positions, If you buy shares directly you would not be charged such overnight financing fees.",
"qid": 10547,
"docid": "135022",
"rank": 52,
"score": 120121
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Just more sour grapes from those who made their money off arbitrage and got beat by someone quicker. Anyhow, speaking as a normal investor (ie. someone who invests my own money), HFT is what allows me to put in an order in New York, Hong Kong, or Paris from my web browser, and have it executed 10 seconds later. Anyone who's tried trading on a market with less liquidity (say, the TSX Venture exchange) knows it's a pain in the ass to buy and sell, and often you'll get screwed. Electronic trading and HFT has democratized trading. Sure, you pay a few cents per trade, but when I buy a stock on the HK market I'm paying ~300 HK dollars per trade anyway. Heck, even on NA exchanges, when trading >10 000 dollars the amount shaved off by HFT traders is minute. I'll gladly pay it for the convenience - I can put in a trade and have it executed instantly, so that I can go to bed and sleep, rather than wait hours to see if my trade will be executed...",
"qid": 10547,
"docid": "432228",
"rank": 53,
"score": 120120
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Also, in the next sentence, what is buyers commission? Is it referring to the share holder? Or potential share holder? And why does the buyer get commission? The buyer doesn't get a commission. The buyer pays a commission. So normally a buyer would say, \"\"I want to buy a hundred shares at $20.\"\" The broker would then charge the buyer a commission. Assuming 4%, the commission would be So the total cost to the buyer is $2080 and the seller receives $2000. The buyer paid a commission of $80 as the buyer's commission. In the case of an IPO, the seller often pays the commission. So the buyer might pay $2000 for a hundred shares which have a 7% commission. The brokering agent (or agents may share) pockets a commission of $140. Total paid to the seller is $1860. Some might argue that the buyer pays either way, as the seller receives money in the transaction. That's a reasonable outlook. A better way to say this might be that typical trades bill the buyer directly for commission while IPO purchases bill the seller. In the typical trade, the buyer negotiates the commission with the broker. In an IPO, the seller does (with the underwriter). Another issue with an IPO is that there are more parties getting commission than just one. As a general rule, you still call your broker to purchase the stock. The broker still expects a commission. But the IPO underwriter also expects a commission. So the 7% commission might be split between the IPO underwriter (works for the selling company) and the broker (works for the buyer). The broker has more work to do than normal. They have to put in the buyer's purchase request and manage the price negotiation. In most purchases, you just say something like \"\"I want to offer $20 a share\"\" or \"\"I want to purchase at the market price.\"\" In an IPO, they may increase the price, asking for $25 a share. And they may do that multiple times. Your broker has to come back to you each time and get a new authorization at the higher price. And you still might not get the number of shares that you requested. Beyond all this, you may still be better off buying an IPO than waiting until the next day. Sure, you pay more commission, but you also may be buying at a lower price. If the IPO price is $20 but the price climbs to $30, you would have been better off paying the IPO price even with the higher commission. However, if the IPO price is $20 and the price falls to $19.20, you'd be better off buying at $19.20 after the IPO. Even though in that case, you'd pay the 4% commission on top of the $19.20, so about $19.97. I think that the overall point of the passage is that the IPO underwriter makes the most money by convincing you to pay as high an IPO price as possible. And once they do that, they're out of the picture. Your broker will still be your broker later. So the IPO underwriter has a lot of incentive to encourage you to participate in the IPO instead of waiting until the next day. The broker doesn't care much either way. They want you to buy and sell something. The IPO or something else. They don't care much as to what. The underwriter may overprice the stock, as that maximizes their return. If they can convince enough people to overpay, they don't care that the stock falls the day after that. All their marketing effort is to try to achieve that result. They want you to believe that your $20 purchase will go up to $30 the next day. But it might not. These numbers may not be accurate. Obviously the $20 stock price is made up. But the 4% and 7% numbers may also be inaccurate. Modern online brokers are very competitive and may charge a flat fee rather than a percentage. The book may be giving you older numbers that were correct in 1983 (or whatever year). The buyer's commission could also be lower than 4%, as the seller also may be charged a commission. If each pays 2%, that's about 4% total but split between a buyer's commission and a seller's commission.\"",
"qid": 10547,
"docid": "13732",
"rank": 54,
"score": 120080
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Marketwatch reports that the 108 strike call option sells for 1.45, down 1.53 from yesterday. If we split the bid and ask you get 1.415. That is what that contract will, likely, trade at. The biggest problems with options are commissions and liquidity. I have seen a commission as high as $45 per trade. I have also seen open interest disappear overnight. Even if you obtain contracts that become worth more than you paid for them you may find that no one wants to pay you what they are worth. Track your trade over a few weeks to see how you would have done. It is my experience that the only people who make money on options are the brokers.",
"qid": 10547,
"docid": "249185",
"rank": 55,
"score": 119858
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: E*Trade offers banking services, and will provide you with a security token free if you have sufficient assets there ($50,000). Otherwise they'll charge you a $25 fee.",
"qid": 10547,
"docid": "256505",
"rank": 56,
"score": 119720
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I started my account with $500 so I know where you're coming from. For the words of caution, in about 2009 we entered a pretty significant bull market. During this period you could basically buy almost any big name company and do pretty well for yourself. So don't be too cocky about your ability to pick winners in the middle of a bull market. Over the last few years you'd have to try pretty hard to consistently pick losers. I absolutely think you should put real money in the game when you have this sort of interest. However, at your $400-600 level broker fees will eat any sort of active trading or short term profit you could muster. Stock trading is not a great way to make money in the short term. If you're looking to save for something specific you should put that money in a zero risk savings account. You should do more research on brokers. Find the lowest possible trade commission at an organization where you can meet the account opening minimum. A $10 commission is 11% more than a $9 commission.",
"qid": 10547,
"docid": "355341",
"rank": 57,
"score": 119663
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: From what I see, it is more like .70 per contract, with a $1 minimum (for options that trade over a dime.) IB does not provide any help, at all, so you have to know what you are doing. I use tradeking, which charges about $6 for a contract, but you can call them for help if needed. There looks to be other fees for IB, like when you cancel an order, but that can be offset by other trades. It is one of the reason the Motley Fool Stock Adviser service has recommended IB for an investment.",
"qid": 10547,
"docid": "296913",
"rank": 58,
"score": 119393
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: All openly traded securities must be registered with the SEC and setup with clearing agents. This is a costly process. The cost to provide an electronic market for a specific security is negligible. That is why the exchange fees per electronic trade are so small per security. It is so small in fact that exchanges compensate price makers partially at the expense of price takers, that exchanges partially give some portion of the overall fee to those that can help provide liquidity. The cost to provide an open outcry market for a specific security are somewhat onerous, but they are initiated before a security has any continual liquidity to provide a market for large trades, especially for futures. Every individual option contract must be registered and setup for clearing. Aside from the cost to setup each contract, expiration and strike intervals are limited by regulation. For an extremely liquid security like SPY, contracts could be offered for daily expiration and penny strike intervals, but they are currently forbidden.",
"qid": 10547,
"docid": "213609",
"rank": 59,
"score": 118887
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I just finished a high frequency trading project. Individuals can do it, but you need a lot of capital. You can get a managed server in Times Square for $1500/month, giving you access to 90% of the US exchanges that matter, their data farms are within 3 milliseconds of distance (latency). You can also get more servers in the same building as the exchanges, if you know where to look ;) thats all I can divulge good luck",
"qid": 10547,
"docid": "590535",
"rank": 60,
"score": 118675
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: To transfer US$30,000 from the USA to Europe, ask your European banker for the SWIFT transfer instructions. Typically in the USA the sending bank needs a SWIFT code and an account number, the name and address of the recipient, and the amount to transfer. A change of currency can be made as part of the transfer. The typical fee to do this is under US$100 and the time, under 2 days. But you should ask (or have the sender ask) the bank in the USA about the fees. In addition to the fee the bank may try to make a profit on the change of currency. This might be 1-2%. If you were going to do this many times, one way to go about it is to open an account at Interactive Brokers, which does business in various countries. They have a foreign exchange facility whereby you can deposit various currencies into your account, and they stay in that currency. You can then trade the currencies at market rates when you wish. They are also a stock broker and you can also trade on the various exchanges in different countries. I would say, though, they they mostly want customers already experienced with trading. I do not know if they will allow someone other than you to pay money into your account. Trading companies based in the USA do not like to be in the position of collecting on cheques owed to you, that is more the business of banks. Large banks in the USA with physical locations charge monthly fees of $10/mo or more that might be waived if you leave money on deposit. Online banks have significantly lower fees. All US banks are required to follow US anti-terrorist and anti-crime regulations and will tend to expect a USA address and identity documents to open an account with normal customers. A good international bank in Europe can also do many of these same sorts of things for you. I've had an account with Fortis. They were ok, there were no monthly fees but there were fees for transactions. In some countries I understand the post even runs a bank. Paypal can be a possibility, but fees can be high ~3% for transfers, and even higher commissions for currency change. On the other hand, it is probably one of the easiest and fastest ways to move amounts of $1000 or less, provided both people have paypal accounts.",
"qid": 10547,
"docid": "305907",
"rank": 61,
"score": 118568
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I was wondering what relations are between brokerage companies and exchanges? Are brokers representing investors to trade on exchanges? Yes...but a broker may also buy and sell stocks for his own account. This is called broker-delaer firm. For individual investors, what are some cons and pros of trading on the exchanges directly versus indirectly via brokers? Doesn't the former save the investors any costs/expenses paid to the brokers? Yes, but to trade directly on an exchange, you need to register with them. That costs money and only a limited number of people can register I believe. Note that some (or all?) exchanges have their websites where I think trading can be done electronically, such as NASDAQ and BATS? Can almost all stocks be found and traded on almost every exchange? In other words, is it possible that a popular stock can only be found and traded on one exchange, but not found on the other exchange? If needed to be more specific, I am particularly interested in the U.S. case,and for example, Apple's stock. Yes, it is very much possible with smaller companies. Big companies are usually on multiple exchanges. What are your advices for choosing exchange and choosing brokerage companies? What exchanges and brokerage companies do you recommend? For brokerage companies, a beginner can go with discount broker. For sophisticated investors can opt for full service brokers. Usually your bank will have a brokerage firm. For exchanges, it depends...if you are in US, you should send to the US exchanges. IF you wish to send to other exchanges in other countries, you should check with the broker about that.",
"qid": 10547,
"docid": "404339",
"rank": 62,
"score": 118453
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"This answer is applicable to the US. Similar rules may hold in some other countries as well. The shares in an open-ended (non-exchange-traded) mutual fund are not traded on stock exchanges and the \"\"market\"\" does not determine the share price the way it does for shares in companies as brokers make offers to buy and sell stock shares. The price of one share of the mutual fund (usually called Net Asset Value (NAV) per share) is usually calculated at the close of business, and is, as the name implies, the net worth of all the shares in companies that the fund owns plus cash on hand etc divided by the number of mutual fund shares outstanding. The NAV per share of a mutual fund might or might not increase in anticipation of the distribution to occur, but the NAV per share very definitely falls on the day that the distribution is declared. If you choose to re-invest your distribution in the same fund, then you will own more shares at a lower NAV per share but the total value of your investment will not change at all. If you had 100 shares currently priced at $10 and the fund declares a distribution of $2 per share, you will be reinvesting $200 to buy more shares but the fund will be selling you additional shares at $8 per share (and of course, the 100 shares you hold will be priced at $8 per share too. So, you will have 100 previous shares worth only $800 now + 25 new shares worth $200 for a total of 125 shares at $8 = $1000 total investment, just as before. If you take the distribution in cash, then you still hold the 100 shares but they are worth only $800 now, and the fund will send you the $200 as cash. Either way, there is no change in your net worth. However, (assuming that the fund is is not in a tax-advantaged account), that $200 is taxable income to you regardless of whether you reinvest it or take it as cash. The fund will tell you what part of that $200 is dividend income (as well as what part is Qualified Dividend income), what part is short-term capital gains, and what part is long-term capital gains; you declare the income in the appropriate categories on your tax return, and are taxed accordingly. So, what advantage is there in re-investing? Well, your basis in those shares has increased and so if and when you sell the shares, you will owe less tax. If you had bought the original 100 shares at $10 and sell the 125 shares a few years later at $11 and collect $1375, you owe (long-term capital gains) tax on just $1375-$1200 =$175 (which can also be calculated as $1 gain on each of the original 100 shares = $100 plus $3 gain on the 25 new shares = $175). In the past, some people would forget the intermediate transactions and think that they had invested $1000 initially and gotten $1375 back for a gain of $375 and pay taxes on $375 instead. This is less likely to occur now since mutual funds are now required to report more information on the sale to the shareseller than they used to in the past. So, should you buy shares in a mutual fund right now? Most mutual fund companies publish preliminary estimates in November and December of what distributions each fund will be making by the end of the year. They also usually advise against purchasing new shares during this period because one ends up \"\"buying a dividend\"\". If, for example, you bought those 100 shares at $10 on the Friday after Thanksgiving and the fund distributes that $2 per share on December 15, you still have $1000 on December 15, but now owe taxes on $200 that you would not have had to pay if you had postponed buying those shares till after the distribution was paid. Nitpickers: for simplicity of exposition, I have not gone into the detailed chronology of when the fund goes ex-dividend, when the distribution is recorded, and when cash is paid out, etc., but merely treated all these events as happening simultaneously.\"",
"qid": 10547,
"docid": "354136",
"rank": 63,
"score": 118258
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Many of the Bitcoin exchanges mimic stock exchanges, though they're much more rudimentary offering only simple buy/sell/cancel orders. It's fairly normal for retail stock brokerage accounts to allow other sorts of more complex orders, where once a certain criteria is met, (the price falls below some $ threshold, or has a movement greater than some %) then your order is executed. The space between the current buy order and the current sell order is the bid/ask spread, it's not really about timing. Person X will buy at $100, person Y will sell at $102. If both had a price set at $101, they would just transact. Both parties think they can do a little bit better than the current offer. The width of the bid/ask spread is not universal by any means. The current highest buy order and the current lowest sell order, are both the current price. The current quoted market price is generally the price of the last transaction, whether it's buy or sell.",
"qid": 10547,
"docid": "507357",
"rank": 64,
"score": 117778
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"That's like a car dealer advertising their \"\"huge access\"\" to Chevrolet. All brokers utilize dark pools nowadays, either their own or one belonging to a larger financial institution. Why? Because that's a primary source of broker income. Example: Under current US regulations the broker is under no obligation to pass these orders to actual (a.k.a. lit) exchanges. Instead it can internalize them in its dark pool as long as it \"\"improves the price\"\". So: If a broker doesn't run its own dark pool, then it sends the orders to the dark pool run by a larger institution (JPMorgan, Credit Suisse, Getco, Knight Capital) and gets some fraction of the dark pool's profit in return. Are Mom and Pop negatively impacted by this? Not for most order types. They each even got a free penny out of the deal! But if there were no dark pools, that $1.00 difference between their trade prices would have gone half ($0.50) to Mom's counterparty and half ($0.50) to Pop's counterparty, who could be someone else's Mom and someone else's Pop. So ... that's why brokers all use dark pools, and why their advertisement of their dark pool access is silly. They're basically saying, \"\"We're going to occasionally throw you a free penny while making 49 times that much from you\"\"! (Note: Now apply the above math to a less liquid product than AAPL. Say, where the spread is not $0.01, but more like $0.05. Now Mom and Pop still might make a penny each, while the broker can make $4.98 on a 100 share trade!)\"",
"qid": 10547,
"docid": "258706",
"rank": 65,
"score": 117608
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I've never used them myself, but Scottrade might be something for you to look at. They do $7 internet trades, but also offer $27 broker assisted trades (that's for stocks, in both cases). Plus, they have brick-and-morter storefronts all over the US for that extra \"\"I gotta have a human touch\"\". :-) Also, they do have after hours trading, for the same commission as regular trading.\"",
"qid": 10547,
"docid": "544576",
"rank": 66,
"score": 117476
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Your broker will charge you commissions and debit interest on your \"\"overdraft\"\" of $30,000. However it is very likely that your contract with the broker also contains a rehypothecation clause which allows your broker to use your assets. Typically, with a debt of $30,000, they would probably be entitled to use $45-60,000 of your stocks. In short, that means that they would be allowed to \"\"borrow\"\" the stocks you just bought from your account and either lend them to other clients or pledge them as collateral with a bank and receive interest. In both cases they will make money with your stocks. See for example clause #14 of this typical broker's client agreement. Applied to your example: In other words they will make $60 + $450 + $1,800 = $2,310 the first year. If the stock is expensive to borrow and they manage to lend it, they will make a lot more. There are by the way a few important consequences:\"",
"qid": 10547,
"docid": "550314",
"rank": 67,
"score": 117428
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: It is possible to figure out the next price. Just not for Joe Average. A stock exchange has a orderbook. This has two sides. One side has alle the buyers, how many shares they want, and what they are willing to pay. The other side has all the sellers, how many shares they got, and what price they are willing to accept. If any buyers and sellers match up, their orders are executed, money and shares are exchanged, everyone is happy. So the current asking price (the price you have to pay, to get some shares) is currently 12.46$. Let's say you want 6000 shares, for any price. The orderbook now looks like this: Your order is executed, you get 6000 shares for a total of 74,761$ (5900 * 12,46 + 100 * 12,47$). The order book now looks like this: The new asking price is 12.47$. Congrats, you knew the price in advance. Of course this is simplified, there are millions of entries on both sides, thousands of trades happen every millisecond and you'll have to pay the stock exchange a lot of money to give you all this information in real time. That's what high frequency traders are doing. They use highly specialised computer systems to exploit differences in stock exchanges all over the world. It's called arbitage. They have to be faster than the other guy. This race has gone on for a few years now, so that the limiting factor starts to become the speed of light. YOU are not going to benefit, or else you would not be asking questions on PERSONAL finance :)",
"qid": 10547,
"docid": "467852",
"rank": 68,
"score": 117162
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I may be underestimating your knowledge of how exchanges work; if so, I apologize. If not, then I believe the answer is relatively straightforward. Lets say price of a stock at time t1 is 15$ . There are many types of price that an exchange reports to the public (as discussed below); let's say that you're referring to the most recent trade price. That is, the last time a trade executed between a willing buyer and a willing seller was at $15.00. Lets say a significant buy order of 1M shares came in to the market. Here I believe might be a misunderstanding on your part. I think you're assuming that the buy order must necessarily be requesting a price of $15.00 because that was the last published price at time t1. In fact, orders can request any price they want. It's totally okay for someone to request to buy at $10.00. Presumably nobody will want to sell to him, but it's still a perfectly valid buy order. But let's continue under the assumptions that at t1: This makes the bid $14.99 and the ask $15.00. (NYSE also publishes these prices.) There aren't enough people selling that stock. It's quite rare (in major US equities) for anyone to place a buy order that exceeds the total available shares listed for sale at all prices. What I think you mean is that 1M is larger than the amount of currently-listed sell requests at the ask of $15.00. So say of the 1M only 100,000 had a matching sell order and others are waiting. So this means that there were exactly 100,000 shares waiting to be sold at the ask of $15.00, and that all other sellers currently in the market told NYSE they were only willing to sell for a price of $15.01 or higher. If there had been more shares available at $15.00, then NYSE would have matched them. This would be a trigger to the automated system to start increasing the price. Here is another point of misunderstanding, I think. NYSE's automated system does not invent a new, higher price to publish at this point. Instead it simply reports the last trade price (still $15.00), and now that all of the willing sellers at $15.00 have been matched, NYSE also publishes the new ask price of $15.01. It's not that NYSE has decided $15.01 is the new price for the stock; it's that $15.01 is now the lowest price at which anyone (known to NYSE) is willing to sell. If nobody happened to be interested in selling at $15.01 at t1, but there were people interested in selling at $15.02, then the new published ask would be $15.02 instead of $15.01 -- not because NYSE decided it, but just because those happened to be the facts at the time. Similarly, the new bid is most likely now $15.00, assuming the person who placed the order for 1M shares did not cancel the remaining unmatched 900,000 shares of his/her order. That is, $15.00 is now the highest price at which anyone (known to NYSE) is willing to buy. How much time does the automated system wait to increment the price, the frequency of the price change and by what percentage to increment etc. So I think the answer to all these questions is that the automated system does none of these things. It merely publishes information about (a) the last trade price, (b) the price that is currently the lowest price at which anyone has expressed a willingness to sell, and (c) the price that is currently the highest price at which anyone has expressed a willingness to buy. ::edit:: Oh, I forgot to answer your primary question. Can we estimate the impact of a large buy order on the share price? Not only can we estimate the impact, but we can know it explicitly. Because the exchange publishes information on all the orders it knows about, anyone tracking that information can deduce that (in this example) there were exactly 100,000 shares waiting to be purchased at $15.00. So if a \"\"large buy order\"\" of 1M shares comes in at $15.00, then we know that all of the people waiting to sell at $15.00 will be matched, and the new lowest ask price will be $15.01 (or whatever was the next lowest sell price that the exchange had previously published).\"",
"qid": 10547,
"docid": "285126",
"rank": 69,
"score": 116196
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Now a days, your stocks can be seen virtually through a brokerage account. Back in the days, a stock certificate was the only way to authenticate stock ownership. You can still request them though from the corporation you have shares in or your brokerage. It will have your name, corporation name and number of shares you have. You have to buy shares of a stock either through a brokerage or the corporation itself. Most stock brokerages are legit and are FDIC or SIPC insured. But your risks are your own loses. The $10 you are referring to is the trade commission fee the brokerage charges. When you place an order to buy or sell a stock the brokerage will charge you $10. So for example if you bought 1 share of a $20 stock. The total transaction cost will be $30. Depending on the state you live in, you can basically starting trading stocks at either 18 or 21. You can donate/gift your shares to virtually anyone. When you sell a stock and experience a profit, you will be charged a capital gains tax. If you buy a stock and sell it for a gain within 1 year, you will taxed up to 35% or your tax bracket but if you hold it for more than a year, you will taxed only 15% or your tax bracket.",
"qid": 10547,
"docid": "260006",
"rank": 70,
"score": 115835
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Generally not, however some brokers may allow it. My previous CFD Broker - CMC Markets, used to allow you to adjust the leverage from the maximum allowed for that stock (say 5%) to 100% of your own money before you place a trade. So obviously if you set it at 100% you pay no interest on holding open long positions overnight. If you can't find a broker that allows this (as I don't think there would be too many around), you can always trade within your account size. For example, if you have an account size of $20,000 then you only take out trades that have a face value up to the $20,000. When you become more experienced and confident you can increase this to 2 or 3 time your account size. Maybe, if you are just starting out, you should first open a virtual account to test your strategies out and get used to using leverage. You should put together a trading plan with position sizing and risk management before starting real trading, and you can test these in your virtual trading before putting real money on the table. Also, if you want to avoid leverage when first starting out, you could always start trading the underlying without any leverage, but you should still have a trading plan in place first.",
"qid": 10547,
"docid": "375302",
"rank": 71,
"score": 115823
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: My broker offers a service to transfer the shares where you only pay commission once. Therefore say if standard commission is £10, then you don't end up paying £20 (10 for selling + 10 for buy back). You'll have to be okay with the spread though. Hope this helps.",
"qid": 10547,
"docid": "521133",
"rank": 72,
"score": 115583
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You can sell as many shares as you want. The only issue will be the fees attached to low dollar trades. I would recommend a site with no fee for the first 20 trades. If you plan to be a frequent trader I would recommend getting a stable rate ($10 for every transaction). If your plan is to trade in low quantities then maybe a variable rate (1% of all fades) might be better suited.",
"qid": 10547,
"docid": "467176",
"rank": 73,
"score": 115163
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"New SEC rules also now allow brokers to collect fees on non-dividend bearing accounts as an \"\"ADR Pass-Through Fee\"\". Since BP (and BP ADR) is not currently paying dividends, this is probably going to be the case here. According to the Schwab brokerage firm, the fee is usually 1-3 cents per share. I did an EDGAR search for BP's documents and came up with too many to read through (due to the oil spill and all of it's related SEC filings) but you can start here: http://www.schwab.com/public/schwab/nn/m/q207/adr.html\"",
"qid": 10547,
"docid": "429123",
"rank": 74,
"score": 114945
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: One way a lot of people bypass the pattern trading equity requirement is to open multiple brokerage accounts. You have $10k, put $5k in one and $5k in another. Although I don't recommend it!",
"qid": 10547,
"docid": "530155",
"rank": 75,
"score": 114920
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: It depends on your cost structure and knowledge of the exchanges. It could be optimal to make a manual exchange selection so long as it's cheaper to do so. For brokers with trade fees, this is a lost cause because the cost of the trade is already so high that auto routing will be no cheaper than manual routing. For brokers who charge extra to manually route, this could be a good policy if the exchange chosen has very high rebates. This does not apply to equities because they are so cheap, but there are still a few expensive option exchanges. This all presumes that one's broker shares exchange rebates which nearly all do not. If one has direct access to the exchanges, they are presumably doing this already. To do this effectively, one needs: For anyone trading with brokers without shared rebates or who does not have knowledge of the exchange prices and their liquidities, it's best to auto route.",
"qid": 10547,
"docid": "499536",
"rank": 76,
"score": 114525
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Yes, depending on what you're trying to achieve. If its just a symbolic gift - you can use a service like this. There are several companies providing this service, look them up, but the prices are fairly the same. You'll end up getting a real stock certificate, but it will cost a lot of overhead (around $40 to get the certificate, and then another $40 to deposit it into a brokerage account if you want to sell it on a stock exchange). So although the certificate is real and the person whose name on it is a full-blown shareholder, it doesn't actually have much value (unless you buy a Google or Apple stock, where the price is much much higher than the fees). Take into account that it takes around 2 months for the certificate to be issued and mailed to you, so time accordingly. Otherwise, you can open a custodial brokerage account, and use it to buy stocks for the minor. Both ways are secure and legal, each for its own purpose and with its own fees.",
"qid": 10547,
"docid": "328703",
"rank": 77,
"score": 114426
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Yes many people operate accounts in usa from outside usa. You need a brokerage account opened in the name of your sister and then her username and password. Remember that brokerages may check the location of login and may ask security questions before login. So when your sister opens her account , please get the security questions. Also note that usa markets open ( 7.00 pm or 8.00 pm IST depending on daylight savings in usa). So this means when they close at 4:00 pm ET, it will be 1:30 or 2:30 am in India. This means it will affect your sleeping hours if you intend to day trade. Also understand that there are some day trading restrictions and balances associate. Normally brokerages need 25,000 $ for you to be a day trader. Finally CFA is not a qualification to be a trader and desire to become a trader doesn't make one a trader. TO give an analogy , just because you want to be a cricketer doesn't make you one. It needs a lot of practice and discipline.Also since in bangladesh , you will always convert the usa amount to bangladeshi currency and think of profits and losses in those terms. This might actually be bad.",
"qid": 10547,
"docid": "461821",
"rank": 78,
"score": 114415
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"As previously answered, the solution is margin. It works like this: You deposit e.g. 1'000 USD at your trading company. They give you a margin of e.g. 1:100, so you are allowed to trade with 100'000 USD. Let's say you buy 5'000 pieces of a stock at $20 USD (fully using your 100'000 limit), and the price changes to $20.50 . Your profit is 5000* $0.50 = $2'500. Fast money? If you are lucky. Let's say before the price went up to 20.50, it had a slight dip down to $19.80. Your loss was 5000* $0.2 = 1'000$. Wait! You had just 1000 to begin with: You'll find an email saying \"\"margin call\"\" or \"\"termination notice\"\": Your shares have been sold at $19.80 and you are out of business. The broker willingly gives you this credit, since he can be sure he won't loose a cent. Of course you pay interest for the money you are trading with, but it's only for minutes. So to answer your question: You don't care when you have \"\"your money\"\" back, the trading company will always be there to give you more as long as you have deposit left. (I thought no one should get margin explained without the warning why it is a horrible idea to full use the ridiculous high margins some broker offer. 1:10 might or might not be fine, but 1:100 is harakiri.)\"",
"qid": 10547,
"docid": "182930",
"rank": 79,
"score": 114373
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: On international stock exchanges, they trade Puts and Calls, typically also for currencies. If for example 1 NOK is worth 1 $ now, and you buy Calls for 10000 NOK at 1.05 $ each, and in a year the NOK is worth 1.20 $ (which is what you predict), you can execute the Call, meaning 'buying' the 10000 NOK for the contracted 1.05 $ and selling them for the market price of 1.20 $, netting you 12000 - 10500 = 1500 $. Converting those back to NOK would give you 1250 NOK. Considering that those Calls might cost you maybe 300 NOK, you made 950 NOK. Note that if your prediction is common knowledge, Calls will be appropriately priced (=expensive), and there is little to make on them. And note also that if you were wrong, your Calls are worth less than toilet paper, so you lost the complete 300 NOK you paid for them. [all numbers are completely made up, for illustration purposes] You can make the whole thing easier if you define the raise of the NOK against a specific currency, for example $ or EUR. If you can, you can instead buy Puts for that currency, and you save yourself converting the money twice.",
"qid": 10547,
"docid": "75606",
"rank": 80,
"score": 114352
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Great answer by @duffbeer. Only thing to add is that the option itself becomes a tradeable asset. Here's my go at filling out the answer from @duffbeer. \"\"Hey kid... So you have this brand-new video game Manic Mazes that you paid $50 for on Jan 1st that you want to sell two months from now\"\" \"\"Yes, Mr. Video Game Broker, but I want to lock in a price so I know how much to save for a new Tickle Me Elmo for my baby sister.\"\" \"\"Ok, for $3, I'll sell you a 'Put' option so you can sell the game to me for $40 in two months.\"\" Kid says \"\"Ok!\"\", sends $3 to Mr Game Broker who sends our kid a piece of paper saying: The holder of this piece of paper can sell the game Manic Mazes to Mr Game Broker for $40 on March 1st. .... One month later .... News comes out that Manic Mazes is full of bugs, and the price in the shops is heavily discounted to $30. Mr Options Trader realizes that our kid holds a contract written by Mr Game Broker which effectively allows our kid to sell the game at $10 over the price of the new game, so maybe about $15 over the price in the second-hand market (which he reckons might be about $25 on March 1st). He calls up our kid. \"\"Hey kid, you know that Put option that Mr Game Broker sold to you you a month ago, wanna sell it to me for $13?\"\" (He wants to get it a couple of bucks cheaper than his $15 fair valuation.) Kid thinks: hmmm ... that would be a $10 net profit for me on that Put Option, but I wouldn't be able to sell the game for $40 next month, I'd likely only get something like $25 for it. So I would kind-of be getting $10 now rather than potentially getting $12 in a month. Note: The $12 is because there could be $15 from exercising the put option (selling for $40 a game worth only $25 in the second-hand market) minus the original cost of $3 for the Put option. Kid likes the idea and replies: \"\"Done!\"\". Next day kid sends the Put option contract to Mr Options Trader and receives $13 in return. Our kid bought the Put option and later sold it for a profit, and all of this happened before the option reached its expiry date.\"",
"qid": 10547,
"docid": "176015",
"rank": 81,
"score": 114304
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: A CFD broker will let you open a trade on margin as long as your account balance is more than the margin required on all your open trades. If the required margin increases within a certain percentage of your account balance, you will get a margin call. If you then don't deposit more funds or close losing trades out, the broker will close all your trades. Note: Your account balance is the remaining funds you have left to open new trades with. I always use stop loss orders with all my open trades, and because of this my broker reduces the amount of margin required on each trade. This allows me to have more open trades at the one time without increasing my funds. Effects of a Losing Trade on Margin Say I have an account balance of $2,000 and open a long trade in a share CFD of 1,000 CFDs with a share price of $10 and margin of 10%. The face value of the shares would be $10,000, but my initial margin would be $1,000 (10% of $10,000). If I don't place a stop loss and the price falls to $9, I would have lost $1,000 and my remaining margin would now be $900 (10% of $9,000). So I would have $100 balance remaining in my account. I would probably receive a margin call to deposit more funds in or close out my trade. If I don't respond the broker will close out my position before my balance gets to $0. If instead I placed a stop loss at say $9.50, my initial margin might be reduced to $500. As the price drops to $9.60 I would have lost $400 and my remaining margin would now only be $100, with my account balance at $1,500. When the price drops to $9.50 I will get stopped out, my trade will be closed and I would have lost $500, with my account balance still at $1,500. Effects of a Winning Trade on Margin Say I have the same account balance as before and open the same trade but this time the price moves up. If I don't place a stop loss and the price goes up to $11, I would have made a $1,000 profit and my remaining margin will now be $1,100 (10% of $11,000). So my account balance would now be $2,000 + $1,000 - $1,100 = $1,900. If I had placed a stop loss at say $9.50 again and the price moves up to $10.50, I would have made a profit of $500 and my margin would now be $1,000. My account balance would be $2,000 + $500 - $1,000 = $1,500. However, if after the price went up to $10.50 I also moved my stop loss up to $10, then I would have $500 profit and only $500 margin. So my balance in this case would be $2,000 + $500 - $500 = $2,000. So by using stop losses as part of your risk management you can reduce the margin used from your balance which will allow you to open more trades without any extra funds deposited into your account.",
"qid": 10547,
"docid": "254730",
"rank": 82,
"score": 114051
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: CFDs (Contracts for Difference) are basically a contract between you and the broker on the difference in price of the underlying between the time you open a position and close a position. You are not actually buying the underlying. With share CFDs, the outcome is a bit like buying the underlying shares on margin. You pay interest for every day you hold the CFDs overnight for long CFDs. However, with short positions, you get paid interest for every day you hold your short position overnight. Most people use CFDs for short term trading, however they can be used for medium to longer term trading just as you would hold a portfolio on margin. What you have to remember is that because you are buying on margin you can lose more than your initial contract amount. A way to manage this risk is by using position sizing and stop loses. With your position sizing, if you wanted to invest $10,000 in a particular share trading at $10 per share, you would then buy 1000 shares or 1000 CFDs in that share. Your initial expense with the CFDs might be only $1000 (at a margin rate of 10%). So instead of increasing your risk by having an initial outlay of $10,000 with the CFDs you limit your risk to the same as you were buying the shares directly.",
"qid": 10547,
"docid": "173846",
"rank": 83,
"score": 113906
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Purchases and sales from the same trade date will both settle on the same settlement date. They don't have to pay for their purchases until later either. Because HFT typically make many offsetting trades -- buying, selling, buying, selling, buying, selling, etc -- when the purchases and sales settle, the amount they pay for their purchases will roughly cancel with the amount they receive for their sales (the difference being their profit or loss). Margin accounts and just having extra cash around can increase their ability to have trades that do not perfectly offset. In practice, the HFT's broker will take a smaller amount of cash (e.g. $1 million) as a deposit of capital, and will then allow the HFT to trade a larger amount of stock value long or short (e.g. $10 million, for 10:1 leverage). That $1 million needs to be enough to cover the net profit/loss when the trades settle, and the broker will monitor this to ensure that deposit will be enough.",
"qid": 10547,
"docid": "525337",
"rank": 84,
"score": 113545
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"If the price used to be 2.50 but by the time you get in an order it's 2.80, you're going to have to pay 2.80. You can't say, \"\"I want to buy it at the price from an hour ago\"\". If you could, everybody would wait for the price to go up, then buy at the old price and have an instant guaranteed profit. Well, except that when you tried to sell, I suppose the buyer could say, \"\"I want to pay the lower price from last July\"\". So no, you always buy or sell at the current price. If you submit an order after the markets close, your broker should buy the stock for you as soon as possible the next morning. There's no strict queue. There are thousands of brokers out there, they don't take turns. So if your broker has 1000 orders and you are number 1000 on his list, while some other broker has 2 orders and number 1 is someone else wanting to buy the same stock, then even if you got your order in first, the other guy will probably get the first buy. LIFO and FIFO refer to any sort of list or queue, but don't really make sense here. When the market opens a broker has a list of orders he received overnight, which he might think of as a queue. He presumably works his way down the list. But whether he follows a strict and simple first-in-first-out, or does biggest orders first, or does buys for stocks he expects to go up today and sells for stocks he expects to go down today first, or what, I don't know. Does anybody on this forum know, are there rules that say brokers have to go through the overnight orders FIFO, or what is the common practice?\"",
"qid": 10547,
"docid": "153185",
"rank": 85,
"score": 113302
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If a company's shares trade in multiple exchanges, the prices in every exchange are very near to each other, otherwise you could earn money by doing arbitrage deals (buying in one, selling in the other) - and people do that once it becomes worth it. Which stock exchange you use is more a convenience for the buyer/seller - many investment banks offer only something local/near, and you have to go to specific investment banks to use other exchanges. For example, in Germany, it is easy to deal in Frankfurt, but if you want to trade at the the NASDAQ, you have to run around and find a bank that offers it, and you probably have to pay extra for it. In the USA, most investment banks offer NASDAQ, but if you want to trade in Frankfurt, you will have run around for an international company that offers that. As a stock owner/buyer, you can sell/buy your shares on any stock exchange where the company is listed (again, assuming your investment broker supports it). So you can buy in Frankfurt and sell in Tokyo seconds later, as nothing needs to be physically moved. Companies that are listed in multiple stock exchangs are typically large, and offer this to make trading their shares easier for a larger part of the world. Considering your 'theoretical buy all shares' - the shares are not located in the exchanges, they are in the hands of the owners, and not all are for sale, for various reasons. The owners decide if and when they want them offered for sale, and they also decide which stock exchange they offer them on; so you would need to go to all exchanges to buy them all. However, if you raise your offer price in one exchange only slightly, someone will see the arbitrage and buy them in the other locations and offer them to you in your stock exchange; in other words, for a small fee the shares will come to you. But again, most shares are typically not for sale. It's the same as trying to buy all Chevy Tahoes - even if you had the money, most owners wouldn't know or care about you. You would have to go around and contact every single one and convince them to sell.",
"qid": 10547,
"docid": "537222",
"rank": 86,
"score": 112825
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Simply because forex brokers earn money from the spread that they offer you. Spread is the difference between buyers and sellers. If the buy price is at 1.1000 and the sell price is at 1.1002 then the spread is 2 pips. Now think that this broker is getting spread from its liquidity cheaper (for example 1 pip spread). As you can understand this broker makes a profit of 1 pip for each trade you place... Now multiply 1 pip X huge volume, and then you will understand why most forex brokers don't charge commissions.",
"qid": 10547,
"docid": "585236",
"rank": 87,
"score": 112727
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: With gold at US$1300 or so, a gram is about $40. For your purposes, you have the choice between the GLD ETF, which represents a bit less than 1/10oz gold equivalent per share, or the physical metal itself. Either choice has a cost: the commission on the buy plus, eventually, the sale of the gold. There may be ongoing fees as well (fund fees, storage, etc.) GLD trades like a stock and you can enter limit orders or any other type of order the broker accepts.",
"qid": 10547,
"docid": "546027",
"rank": 88,
"score": 112628
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You have only sold 200 shares for $4.75 from those bought for $3.15. So your profit on those 200 shares is $1.60 per share or $320 or 51%. From that you have 110 shares left that cost you $3.15 and 277 shares that cost you $3.54. So the total cost of your remaining shares is $1,327.08 (110 x $3.15 + 277 x $3.54). So your remaining shares have a average cost of $3.429 per share ($1,327.08/387). We don't know what the current share price is as you haven't provided it, nor do we know what the company is, so lets say that the current price is $5 (or that you sell the remaining 387 shares for $5 per share). Then the profit on these 387 shares would be $1.571 per share or $607.92 or 46%. Your total profit would then be $320 + $ 607.92 = $927.92 or 47% (note that this profit neglects any brokerage or other fees, as you have not provided any). Edit due to new info. provided in question With the current share price at $6.06 then the profit on these 387 shares would be $2.631 per share or $1018.20 or 77%. Your total profit would then be $320 + $1018.20 = $1338.20 or 75% (note that this profit neglects any brokerage or other fees, as you have not provided any).",
"qid": 10547,
"docid": "219927",
"rank": 89,
"score": 112397
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Most brokers have a margin maintenance requirement of 30%. In your example, it would depend on how much money you're borrowing from your broker on margin. Consider this: You have $250, and short AAPL at $500 on margin. This would be a common scenario (federal law requires investors to have at least 50% of their margin equity when opening a transaction). If your broker had a requirement of 30%, they would require that for your $500 position, you have at least $500 * .3 = $150 equity. Since you are currently above that number at $250, you will not be hit with a margin call. Say the price of AAPL doubles, and now your position is worth $1000. $1000 * .3 = $300, which is $50 above your initial equity. Your broker will now consider you eligible for a margin call. Most will not execute the call right away, you will often have some time to either sell/cover stock or add funds to your account. But not all brokers will warn you if you are breaking margin requirements, and sometimes margin calls can take you by surprise if you are not paying attention. Also, many will charge interest on extra margin borrowed.",
"qid": 10547,
"docid": "469830",
"rank": 90,
"score": 112391
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I think George's answer explains fairly well why the brokerages don't allow this - it's not an exchange rule, it's just that the brokerage has to have the shares to lend, and normally those shares come from people's margin, which is impossible on a non-marginable stock. To address the question of what the alternatives are, on popular stocks like SIRI, a deep In-The-Money put is a fairly accurate emulation of an actual short interest. If you look at the options on SIRI you will see that a $3 (or higher) put has a delta of -$1, which is the same delta as an actual short share. You also don't have to worry about problems like margin calls when buying options. The only thing you have to worry about is the expiration date, which isn't generally a major issue if you're buying in-the-money options... unless you're very wrong about the direction of the stock, in which case you could lose everything, but that's always a risk with penny stocks no matter how you trade them. At least with a put option, the maximum amount you can lose is whatever you spent on the contract. With a short sale, a bull rush on the stock could potentially wipe out your entire margin. That's why, when betting on downward motion in a microcap or penny stock, I actually prefer to use options. Just be aware that option contracts can generally only move in increments of $0.05, and that your brokerage will probably impose a bid-ask spread of up to $0.10, so the share price has to move down at least 10 cents (or 10% on a roughly $1 stock like SIRI) for you to just break even; definitely don't attempt to use this as a day-trading tool and go for longer expirations if you can.",
"qid": 10547,
"docid": "275199",
"rank": 91,
"score": 112328
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The commission is per trade, there is likely a different commission based on the type of security you're trading, stock, options, bonds, over the internet, on the phone, etc. It's not likely that they charge an account maintenance fee, but without knowing what kind of account you have it's hard to say. What you may be referring to is a fund expense ratio. Most (all...) mutual funds and exchange traded funds will charge some sort of expense costs to you, this is usually expressed as a percent of your holdings. An index fund like Vanguard's S&P 500 index, ticker VOO, has a small 0.05% expense ratio. Most brokers will have a set of funds that you can trade with no commission, though there will still be an expense fee charged by the fund. Read over the E*Trade fee schedule carefully.",
"qid": 10547,
"docid": "236507",
"rank": 92,
"score": 112015
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Brokerages offer you the convenience of buying and selling financial products. They are usually not exchanges themselves, but they can be. Typically there is an exchange and the broker sends orders to that exchange. The main benefit that brokers offer is a simpler commission structure. Not all brokers have their own liquidity, but brokers can have their own allotment of shares of a stock, for example, that they will sell you when you make an order, so that you get what you want faster. Regarding accounts at the exchanges to track actual ownership and transfer of assets, it is not safe to assume thats how that works. There are a lot of shortcomings in how the actual exchange works, since the settlement time is 1 - 3 business days, depending on the product (so upwards of 5 to 6 actual days). In a fast market, the asset can change hands many many times making the accounting completely incorrect for extended time periods. Better to not worry about that part, but if you'd like to read more about how that is regulated look up \"\"Failure To Deliver\"\" regulations on short selling to get a better understanding of market microstructure. It is a very antiquated system.\"",
"qid": 10547,
"docid": "593445",
"rank": 93,
"score": 111907
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I had an RRSP account with a managed services account at a major Cdn bank that increased its fees to $125 a year per account. Because I could not trade any of my funds living in the US, it made no sense to throw away $500 a year for nothing (two accounts for me and two accounts for my wife - regular RRSP and locked in RRSP). I was able to move all my accounts to TD discount brokerage without any issue. I did this two years ago.",
"qid": 10547,
"docid": "264191",
"rank": 94,
"score": 111821
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Losses at a brokerage firm due to fraud are insured up to $500,000 per account for securities by the SIPC (Securities Investors' Protection Corporation), which is the stock market version of the FDIC (that insures deposits). The protection amount for cash is $250,000. That's small comfort to \"\"big\"\" players in MF Global. But it does protect \"\"small\"\" investors like you.\"",
"qid": 10547,
"docid": "288219",
"rank": 95,
"score": 111780
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Deposit $3,500 each month in a brokerage account and invest that money across a handful of diversified index funds. Rebalance those investments every quarter. The hard part is coming up with $3,500 each month; this is where your budget comes in.",
"qid": 10547,
"docid": "575929",
"rank": 96,
"score": 111469
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Really arbitrage means that, currency risk aside, it shouldn't matter which exchange you buy on in price terms alone. Arbitrage will always make sure that the prices are equivalent otherwise high frequency traders can make free money off the difference. In practical terms liquidity and brokerage costs usually make trading on the \"\"home\"\" exchange more worthwhile as any limit orders etc will be filled at a better price as you will more easily find a counterparty to your trade. Obviously that will only be an issue where your quantity is significant enough to move the market on a given exchange. The volume needed to move a market is dependent upon the liquidity of the particular stock.\"",
"qid": 10547,
"docid": "418029",
"rank": 97,
"score": 111453
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You could buy shares of an Exchange-Traded Fund (ETF) based on the price of gold, like GLD, IAU, or SGOL. You can invest in this fund through almost any brokerage firm, e.g. Fidelity, Etrade, Scotttrade, TD Ameritrade, Charles Schwab, ShareBuilder, etc. Keep in mind that you'll still have to pay a commission and fees when purchasing an ETF, but it will almost certainly be less than paying the markup or storage fees of buying the physical commodity directly. An ETF trades exactly like a stock, on an exchange, with a ticker symbol as noted above. The commission will apply the same as any stock trade, and the price will reflect some fraction of an ounce of gold, for the GLD, it started as .1oz, but fees have been applied over the years, so it's a bit less. You could also invest in PHYS, which is a closed-end mutual fund that allows investors to trade their shares for 400-ounce gold bars. However, because the fund is closed-end, it may trade at a significant premium or discount compared to the actual price of gold for supply and demand reasons. Also, keep in mind that investing in gold will never be the same as depositing your money in the bank. In the United States, money stored in a bank is FDIC-insured up to $250,000, and there are several banks or financial institutions that deposit money in multiple banks to double or triple the effective insurance limit (Fidelity has an account like this, for example). If you invest in gold and the price plunges, you're left with the fair market value of that gold, not your original deposit. Yes, you're hoping the price of your gold investment will increase to at least match inflation, but you're hoping, i.e. speculating, which isn't the same as depositing your money in an insured bank account. If you want to speculate and invest in something with the hope of outpacing inflation, you're likely better off investing in a low-cost index fund of inflation-protected securities (or the S&P500, over the long term) rather than gold. Just to be clear, I'm using the laymen's definition of a speculator, which is someone who engages in risky financial transactions in an attempt to profit from short or medium term fluctuations This is similar to the definition used in some markets, e.g. futures, but in many cases, economists and places like the CFTC define speculators as anyone who doesn't have a position in the underlying security. For example, a farmer selling corn futures is a hedger, while the trading firm purchasing the contracts is a speculator. The trading firm doesn't necessarily have to be actively trading the contract in the short-run; they merely have no position in the underlying commodity.",
"qid": 10547,
"docid": "13885",
"rank": 98,
"score": 111440
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Because it takes 3 business days for the actual transfer of stock to occur after you buy or sell to the next owner, your cash is tied up until that happens. This is called the settlement period. Therefore, brokers offer \"\"margin\"\", which is a form of credit, or loan, to allow you to keep trading while the settlement period occurs, and in other situations unrelated to the presented question. To do this you need a \"\"margin account\"\", you currently have a \"\"cash account\"\". The caveat of having a retail margin account (distinct from a professional margin account) is that there is a limited amount of same-day trades you can make if you have less than $25,000 in the account. This is called the Pattern Day Trader (PDT) rule. You don't need $25k to day trade, you will just wish you had it, as it is easy to get your account frozen or downgraded to a cash account. The way around THAT is to have multiple margin accounts at different brokerages. This will greatly increase the number of same day trades you can make. Many brokers that offer a \"\"solution\"\" to PDT to people that don't have 25k to invest, are offering professional trading accounts, which have additional fees for data, which is free for retail trading accounts. This problem has nothing to do with: So be careful of the advice you get on the internet. It is mostly white noise. Feel free to verify\"",
"qid": 10547,
"docid": "402726",
"rank": 99,
"score": 111336
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: > we make a trade-off between time to execute and market impact. Is your time frame any longer than intraday? I imagine you wouldn't want to carry that risk overnight if you're a broker or selling a route.. > we will join the bid for some fraction of our size, and also hit the offer when it looks like the price might be moving away from us So, say for instance you join a bid a few levels down, you aren't really get filled, you start hitting the offer and eventually you realize you're competing with someone for the shares offered, so you take out the price level and bid on all the exchanges so that you're first on the bid at that level, then repeat until someone that can match your appetite starts to fill you on the bid? > In some certain situations we will even sweep the book several levels deep to avoid tipping off market makers and having them adjust in anticipation of the rest of our order. Right, so say you need 100k shares, there are 10k offered at 9.98, 25k offered at 9.99, and 65k at 10.00, you might just enter an intermarket sweep order of 100k @ 10 limit and hope that you can get most of the shares off before everyone can cancel? I imagine there has to be a lot of bidding it up to attract sellers and then letting people take out your bids all day... I have a few other questions I would appreciate your insight on. Just trying to ascertain how orders are filled when, as you put it, time is more important than market impact to the client - when they need to take a large amount of liquidity as quickly as possible and as orderly as possible. Let me know if you'd rather I pm you about this or the additional questions, I work in the industry as well so I know privacy is paramount.",
"qid": 10547,
"docid": "365463",
"rank": 100,
"score": 111262
}
] |
Investment strategy for 401k when rolling over soon | [
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Good question. And it depends a bit on your current plan, your future income, and the plan you are moving too. Mostly you want to roll out of your existing 401K. There will likely be a fee, and your investment choices are limited. You will want to do a direct transfer, and going with a quality company such as Fidelity or Vanguard. Both of those have zero fees for accounts and pretty good customer service. However, if your future income is likely to be high there is something else to consider. If you are over the limits do a ROTH, and are considering doing a \"\"Backdoor ROTH\"\" a key success for this strategy is keeping your roll over IRA balance low (or zero). So you may want to either leave the 401K where it is, or roll it to your new 401K plan. In that case you will have to call the two 401K custodians, and select the best choice as far as fees and fund choice.\"",
"qid": 10558,
"docid": "122114",
"rank": 1,
"score": 170706
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You will be rolling over the proceeds, since you can only deposit cash into an IRA. However, this should probably not affect your considerations much since the pre-rollover sale is non-taxable within the 401k and the period of roll-over itself (when the cash is uninvested) is relatively short. So, whatever investments you choose in your 401k, you'll just sell them and then buy them (or similar investments) back after the rollover to the IRA. If you're worrying about a flash crash right on the day when you want to cash out - that can definitely happen, but it is not really something you can prepare for. You can consider moving to money market several weeks before the potential date of your withdrawal, if you think it will make you feel safer, otherwise I don't think it really matters.",
"qid": 10558,
"docid": "222485",
"rank": 2,
"score": 157101
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: What is my best bet with the 401K? I know very little about retirement plans and don't plan to ever touch this money until I retire but could this money be of better use somewhere else? You can roll over a 401k into an IRA. This lets you invest in other funds and stocks that were not available with your 401k plan. Fidelity and Vanguard are 2 huge companies that offer a number of investment opportunities. When I left an employer that had the 401k plan with Fidelity, I was able to rollover the investments and leave them in the existing mutual funds (several of the funds have been closed to new investors for years). Usually, when leaving an employer, I have the funds transferred directly to the place my IRA is at - this avoids tax penalties and potential pitfalls. The student loans.... pay them off in one shot? If the interest is higher than you could earn in a savings account, then it is smarter to pay them off at once. My student loans are 1.8%, so I can earn more money in my mutual funds. I'm suspicious and think something hinky is going to happen with the fiscal cliff negotiations, so I'm going to be paying off my student loans in early 2013. Disclaimer: I have IRA accounts with both Fidelity and Vanguard. My current 401k plan is with Vanguard.",
"qid": 10558,
"docid": "105011",
"rank": 3,
"score": 155553
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Which strategy makes more sense: Check your new Fidelity 401k plan. Make sure it has a good group of funds available at very low fees. If it does, roll over your Principal 401k to your new 401k. Call Principal and have them transfer the funds directly to Fidelity. Do not have them send you a check. If the new plan doesn't have a good fund lineup, or has high fees, create a rollover IRA and roll your old 401k plan into it. Again, have Principal transfer the funds directly. Consider using Vanguard or other very-low-cost funds in your IRA. Taking the money out of your old 401k to pay toward your mortgage has several disadvantages. You will pay taxes and a penalty. Your mortgage rate is very good, and since you are probably in a high tax bracket and perhaps itemize deductions, the effective rate is even less. And you lose liquidity that might come in handy down the road. You can always change your mind later, but for now don't pay down your mortgage using your 401k money. As a result of being under 20%, I am paying mortgage insurance of about $300/mo. This is wasted money. Save aggressively and get your mortgage down to 80% so that you can get rid of that PMI. If you are earning a high salary, you should be able to get there in reasonably short order. If you are maxing out your 401k ($18,000 per year), you might be better off putting it on pause and instead using that money to get rid of the PMI. I have no 'retirement' plans because I enjoy working and have plans to start a company, and essentially will be happy working until I die You are young. Your life will change over time. Everyone young seems to choose one of two extremes: In the end, very few choose either of these paths. For now, just plan on retiring somewhere close to normal retirement age. You can always change your plans later.",
"qid": 10558,
"docid": "367355",
"rank": 4,
"score": 152972
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: It sounds like the two best options would be to roll it over into a traditional IRA or roll it over into your new 401(k). If there isn't much money in your SIMPLE IRA, it might make more sense to just roll it over into your 401(k) so you have fewer retirement accounts to keep track of. However, if you do have a significant amount of money in the SIMPLE IRA then you may wish to take advantage of the greater freedom in investment options that IRAs offer over most 401(k) plans. Keep in mind the 2-year rule for SIMPLE IRAs. You will face tax penalties if you roll it and it hasn't yet been 2 years since the SIMPLE IRA was opened.",
"qid": 10558,
"docid": "567255",
"rank": 5,
"score": 150224
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"As other responders said, you can certainly roll over multiple 401(k) into a single account. An added benefit of such rollover (besides the ease of tracking) is that you can shop around for your Rollover IRA provider and find the one that gives you the specific mutual funds that you want to invest in, the lowest expenses, etc. - in short, find the best fit to your priorities. There are also \"\"lemon\"\" 401(k) plans and if you are in one of them, get out! And rollover is the way out. There is also one possibility to keep an eye on as it happens rarely, but it does happen - rolling a 401(k) over into another 401(k). I've done it once when I started a job at a company that had a great 401(k) with a good selection of low-cost mutual funds. I rolled the 401(k) from one previous job in to this 401(k) to take advantage of it. At the same time I kept a Rollover IRA, combining the 401(k) from all other jobs; it had more investment options and provided some flexibility.\"",
"qid": 10558,
"docid": "4181",
"rank": 6,
"score": 149339
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Adapted from an answer to a somewhat different question. Generally, 401k plans have larger annual expenses and provide for poorer investment choices than are available to you if you roll over your 401k investments into an IRA. So, unless you have specific reasons for wanting to continue to leave your money in the 401k plan (e.g. you have access to investments that are not available to nonparticipants and you think those investments are where you want your money to be), roll over your 401k assets into an IRA. But I don't think that is the case here. If you had a Traditional 401k, the assets will roll over into a Traditional IRA; if it was a Roth 401k, into a Roth IRA. If you had started a little earlier, you could have considered considered converting part or all of your Traditional IRA into a Roth IRA (assuming that your 2012 taxable income will be smaller this year because you have quit your job). Of course, this may still hold true in 2013 as well. As to which custodian to choose for your Rollover IRA, I recommend investing in a low-cost index mutual fund such as VFINX which tracks the S&P 500 Index. Then, do not look at how that fund is doing for the next thirty years. This will save you from the common error made by many investors when they pull out at the first downturn and thus end up buying high and selling low. Also, do not chase after exchange-traded mutual funds or ETFs (as many will likely recommend) until you have acquired more savvy or interest in investing than you are currently exhibiting. Not knowing which company stock you have, it is hard to make a recommendation about selling or holding on. But since you are glad to have quit your job, you might want to consider making a clean break and selling the shares that you own in your ex-employer's company. Keep the $35K (less the $12K that you will use to pay off the student loan) as your emergency fund. Pay off your student loan right away since you have the cash to do it.",
"qid": 10558,
"docid": "475748",
"rank": 7,
"score": 149106
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Assuming you are below retirement age, you typically cannot roll money from a Roth IRA into a 401k nor transfer money out of a 401k until you leave the company. Your best bet is to leave your exising roth ira separate from your 401k. A good strategy for retirement accounts is whenever able (typically when you switch jobs) roll your 401k into a \"\"rollover IRA\"\" (not a roth). Then you can manage your investments with more options than the 5-20 funds provided in the 401k. I would recommend against rolling funds into a 401k because of the lack of options in most 401k plans. Also, 401k is pre-tax and Roth is post-tax. Pre and post tax investments don't mix before withdrawal unless you do a conversion of some kind.\"",
"qid": 10558,
"docid": "262322",
"rank": 8,
"score": 148445
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I would always suggest rolling over 401(k) plans to traditional IRAs when possible. Particularly, assuming there is enough money in them that you can get a fee-free account at somewhere like Fidelity or Vanguard. This is for a couple of reasons. First off, it opens up your investment choices significantly and can allow you significantly reduced expenses related to the account. You may be able to find a superior offering from Vanguard or Fidelity to what your employer's 401(k) plan allows; typically they only allow a small selection of funds to choose from. You also may be able to reduce the overhead fees, as many 401(k) plans charge you an administrative fee for being in the plan separate from the funds' costs. Second, it allows you to condense 401(k)s over time; each time you change employers, you can rollover your 401(k) to your regular IRA and not have to deal with a bunch of different accounts with different passwords and such. Even if they're all at the same provider, odds are you will have to use separate accounts. Third, it avoids issues if your employer goes out of business. While 401(k) plans are generally fully funded (particularly for former employers who you don't have match or vesting concerns with), it can be a pain sometimes when the plan is terminated to access your funds - they may be locked for months while the bankruptcy court works things out. Finally, employers sometimes make it expensive for you to stay in - particularly if you do have a very small amount. Don't assume you're allowed to stay in the former employer's 401(k) plan fee-free; the plan will have specific instructions for what to do if you change employers, and it may include being required to leave the plan - or more often, it could increase the fees associated with the plan if you stay in. Getting out sometimes will save you significantly, even with a low-cost plan.",
"qid": 10558,
"docid": "335991",
"rank": 9,
"score": 147956
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Former pension/retirement/401(k) administrator here. 1. If you don't want to bother with maintaining your own investments, you can 'roll-over' your existing 401(k) into *your new company's 401(k) plan*. Then you will choose your investments in the new plan, you will be 100% vested in 'rollover account'. 2. If you want control over your own investments (recommended!) you can roll over your existing 401(k) into an IRA (Individual Retirement Account). Then *your entire account* will go into your new IRA. 3. You can take part, or all, of your existing account as cash, paid directly to you. Note that this will trigger *20% mandatory Federal Withholding* on whatever goes straight to you. So some of your money is going to the IRS.",
"qid": 10558,
"docid": "92941",
"rank": 10,
"score": 147452
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The first question is essentially asking for specific investment advice which is off-topic per the FAQ, but I'll take a stab at #2 and #3 (2) If my 401k doesn't change before I leave my job (not planned in the near future), I should roll it over into my Roth IRA after I leave due to these high expense ratios, correct? My advice is that you should roll over a 401K into an IRA the first chance you get (usually when you leave the job). 401K plans are NOTORIOUS for high expense ratios and why leave your money in a plan where you have a limited choice of investments anyway versus a self-directed IRA where you can invest in anything you want? (3) Should I still max contribute with these horrible expense ratios? If they are providing a match, yes. Even with the expense ratios it is hard to beat the immediate return of an employer match. If they aren't matching, the answer is still probably yes for a few reasons: You already are maxing out your ability to contribute to sheltered accounts, so assuming you still want to sock away that money for retirement, the tax benefits are still valuable and probably offset the expense ratios. Although you seem to be an exception, it is hard for most people to be disciplined enough to put money in a retirement account after they have it in their hands (versus auto-deduction from paychecks).",
"qid": 10558,
"docid": "389202",
"rank": 11,
"score": 147447
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Another option you might consider is rolling over some of that 401K balance into a self-directed IRA or Solo 401K, specifically one with \"\"checkbook privileges\"\". That would permit you to invest directly in a property via your IRA/401K money without it being a loan, and preserving the tax benefits. (You may not be able to roll over from your current employer's 401K while still employed.) That said, regarding your argument that your loan is \"\"paying interest to yourself\"\", while that is technically true, that neglects the opportunity cost -- that money could potentially be earning a much higher (and tax-free) return if it remains in the 401K account than if you take it out and slowly repay it at a modest interest rate. Real Estate can be a great way to diversify, build wealth, and generate income, but a company match and tax-free growth via an employee sponsored retirement account can be a pretty sweet deal too (I actually recently wrote about comparing returns from having a tenant pay your mortgage on a rental property vs. saving in a retirement account on my blog -- in short, tax-free stock-market level returns are pretty compelling, even when someone else is paying your mortage). Before taking rather big steps like borrowing from a 401K or buying a rental property, you might also explore other ways to gain some experience with real estate investing, such as the new crop of REITs open to all investors under SEC Reg A+, some with minimums of $500 or less. In my own experience, there are two main camps of real estate investors: (1) those that love the diversification and income, but have zero interest in active management, and (2) those that really enjoy real estate as a lifestyle and avocation, happy to deal with tenant screening and contractors, etc. You'll want to be careful to be sure which camp you're in before signing on to active investment in a specific property.\"",
"qid": 10558,
"docid": "353415",
"rank": 12,
"score": 144604
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You are right; Rollover is a process, and not an account type; the result is a Traditional IRA. There is no such thing as a 'Rollover IRA Account'. Rolling a 401(k) over to a Traditional IRA makes sense if a) you have to, because you leave the employer the 401(k) is with; b) because you Traditional IRA is cheaper or more flexible or in other ways 'better' for you, or c) if your next step is a backdoor rollover to a Roth IRA. Most of the time, it doesn't make sense, because employer 401(k) are often better and cheaper. Of course, for the investment company where you roll it too, it makes a lot of sense, because they get your money, so they recommend it. But that's only good for them, not for you. Of course you can roll into an existing account, if you want to roll. Making a new account has no advantage. I cannot imagine any IRA custodian wouldn't take rollovers; they would shoot themselves in the foot by that. What can happen - and you should consider this - that your IRA only accepts cash, and does not allow to transfer the shares you have in the 401(k). That means you have to sell and then re-buy, and you might lose a lot in fees there.",
"qid": 10558,
"docid": "329497",
"rank": 13,
"score": 144345
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The fact that you are planning to move abroad does not affect the decision to contribute to a 401(k). The reason for this is that after you leave your employer, you can roll all the money over from your 401(k) into a self-directed traditional IRA. That money can stay invested until retirement, and it doesn't matter where you are living before or after retirement age. So, when deciding whether or not to use a 401(k), you need to look at the details of your employer's plan: Does your employer offer a match? If so, you should definitely take advantage of it. Are there good investments available inside the 401(k)? Some plans offer very limited options. If you can't find anything good to invest in, you don't want to contribute anything beyond the match; instead, contribute to an IRA, where you can invest in a fund that you like. The other reason to use a 401(k) is that the contribution limits can be higher. If you want to invest more than you are allowed to in an IRA, the 401(k) might allow that. In your case, since there is no match, it is up to you whether you want to participate or not. An IRA will allow more flexibility in investing options. If you need to invest more than your IRA limit, the 401(k) might allow that. When you leave your employer, you should probably roll any 401(k) money into an IRA.",
"qid": 10558,
"docid": "422979",
"rank": 14,
"score": 140938
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You might want to bring this fancy new IRS rule to your employer's attention. If your employer sets it up, an After-Tax 401(k) Plan allows employees to contribute after-tax money above the $18k/year limit into a special 401(k) that allows deferral of tax on all earnings until withdrawal in retirement. Now, if you think about it, that's not all that special on its own. Since you've already paid tax on the contribution, you could imitate the above plan all by yourself by simply investing in things that generate no income until the day you sell them and then just waiting to sell them until retirement. So basically you're locking up money until retirement and getting zero benefit. But here's the cool part: the new IRS rule says you can roll over these contributions into a Roth 401(k) or Roth IRA with no extra taxes or penalties! And a Roth plan is much better, because you don't have to pay tax ever on the earnings. So you can contribute to this After-Tax plan and then immediately roll over into a Roth plan and start earning tax-free forever. Now, the article I linked above gets some important things slightly wrong. It seems to suggest that your company is not allowed to create a brand new 401(k) bucket for these special After-Tax contributions. And that means that you would have to mingle pre-tax and post-tax dollars in your existing Traditional 401(k), which would just completely destroy the usefulness of the rollover to Roth. That would make this whole thing worthless. However, I know from personal experience that this is not true. Your company can most definitely set up a separate After-Tax plan to receive all of these new contributions. Then there's no mingling of pre-tax and post-tax dollars, and you can do the rollover to Roth with the click of a button, no taxes or penalties owed. Now, this new plan still sits under the overall umbrella of your company's total retirement plan offerings. So the total amount of money that you can put into a Traditional 401(k), a Roth 401(k), and this new After-Tax 401(k) -- both your personal contributions and your company's match (if any) -- is still limited to $53k per year and still must satisfy all the non-discrimination rules for HCEs, etc. So it's not trivial to set up, and your company will almost certainly not be able to go all the way to $53k, but they could get a lot closer than they currently do.",
"qid": 10558,
"docid": "417257",
"rank": 15,
"score": 140913
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I agree with harmanjd – best to roll it over to an IRA. Not only does that afford you better control of your money as pointed out already, but: If you choose your IRA provider wisely, you can get an account that provides you with a much wider array of investing choices, including funds and ETFs that charge much lower fees than what you would have had access to in an employer 401(k) plan. But here's one thing to consider first: Do you hold any of your previous employer's stock in your old 401(k)? There are special rules you might want to be aware of. See this article at Marketwatch: If your 401(k) includes your company's stock, a rollover may be a bad move. Additional Resource:",
"qid": 10558,
"docid": "74583",
"rank": 16,
"score": 140189
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"You're confusing between \"\"individual\"\" 401k (they're called \"\"Solo-401k\"\" and are intended for self-employed), and Individual Retirement Account (IRA). You can't open a solo-401k without being self employed. You can open an IRA and roll over money from your old 401k to it. You cannot get a loan from IRA. You can ask the 401k plan manager to reissue the checks to the new trust, shouldn't be a problem. Make sure the checks are issued to the trust, not to you, to avoid withholding and tax complications. This is what is called a \"\"direct\"\" rollover. You might be able to roll the money over to the 401k of your new employer, it is not always allowed and you should check. You can probably then take a loan from that 401k. However, it diminishes the value of your retirement savings and you should only do it if you have no other choice (being evicted from your home, your children are starving, can't pay for your chemo, etc... this kind of disasters). Otherwise, I'd suggest rolling over to IRA, investing in funds with significantly lower fees (Vanguard target retirements funds for example, or index funds/ETF's), and reassessing your spending and budgeting habits so that you won't need loans from your 401k. Re companies - ETrade is nice, consider also Scottrade, TDAmeriTrade, Vanguard, Fidelity, Sharebuilder, and may be others. These are all discount brokers with relatively low fees, but each has its own set of \"\"no-fee\"\" funds.\"",
"qid": 10558,
"docid": "456526",
"rank": 17,
"score": 140083
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You'll want to roll the 401k over to a specifically designated rollover IRA. Rollover IRAs differ from an ordinary IRA account because they have NO contribution limit per year. Also Rolling over a 401k to a Roth IRA has consequences. There won't be a penalty but you will have to pay taxes on the amount being rolled over. The choice of Roth or Traditional IRA depends on your current tax situation as well as your expected taxes at retirement. Typically if you are in a low tax bracket and expect to be in a higher tax bracket at retirement a Roth IRA is suggested as withdrawals are tax free. With a rollover conversion you will have to evaluate whether paying taxes now outweighs the potential benefits of tax free withdrawals when you retire.",
"qid": 10558,
"docid": "217310",
"rank": 18,
"score": 140065
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Does your employer offer a 401(k) match? If so, contribute enough to maximize that--it's free money. After that, contribute to an IRA where you can invest in funds with low expenses. After you max that out, if you still have money left over, max out your 401(k) despite the high expenses for the tax advantages. Remember when you leave the company you can roll over the balance into an IRA and switch to lower-cost investments. Of course this is general advice without knowing your situation. If you're looking to buy a home soon, for example, you might want to keep extra money in a taxable account for a downpayment rather than maxing out your 401(k).",
"qid": 10558,
"docid": "140917",
"rank": 19,
"score": 139727
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The simplest way to consolidate the funds your old 401(k) plans is by doing what's called a Direct Rollover (whereby the funds go directly into the new plan and skips you completely) from each of the old plans into either an IRA that you establish with a provider of your choice or even into your current employer's 401(k) plan if that is available. That way, the funds are in one central account and available to invest. Plus it eliminates the mandatory 20% withholding if the rollover is indirect and is sent to you first before the deposit into the new plan. It is important to bear in mind that you have 60 calendar days from the date of distribution to get the full amount into the new plan and a rollover is considered a tax reportable, but not necessarily a taxable event provided you deposit the funds within the time frame allotted.",
"qid": 10558,
"docid": "42537",
"rank": 20,
"score": 138730
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Once upon a time, money rolled over from a 401k or 403b plan into an IRA could not be rolled into another 401k or 403b unless the IRA account was properly titled as a Rollover IRA (instead of Traditional IRA - Roth IRAs were still in the future) and the money kept separate (not commingled) with contributions to Traditional IRAs. Much of that has fallen by the way side as the rules have become more relaxed. Also the desire to roll over money into a 401k plan at one's new job has decreased too -- far too many employer-sponsored retirement plans have large management fees and the investments are rarely the best available: one can generally do better keeping ex-401k money outside a new 401k, though of course new contributions from salary earned at the new employer perforce must be put into the employer's 401k. While consolidating one's IRA accounts at one brokerage or one fund family certainly saves on the paperwork, it is worth keeping in mind that putting all one's eggs in one basket might not be the best idea, especially for those concerned that an employee might, like Matilda, take me money and run Venezuela. Another issue is that while one may have diversified investments at the brokerage or fund family, the entire IRA must have the same set of beneficiaries: one cannot leave the money invested in GM stock (or Fund A) to one person and the money invested in Ford stock (or Fund B) to another if one so desires. Thinking far ahead into the future, if one is interested in making charitable bequests, it is the best strategy tax-wise to make these bequests from tax-deferred monies rather than from post-tax money. Since IRAs pass outside the will, one can keep separate IRA accounts with different companies, with, say, the Vanguard IRA having primary beneficiary United Way and the Fidelity IRA having primary beneficiary the American Cancer Society, etc. to achieve the appropriate charitable bequests.",
"qid": 10558,
"docid": "439402",
"rank": 21,
"score": 137789
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"You can move money from a 403b to a 401k plan, but the question you should ask yourself is whether it is a wise decision. Unless there are specific reasons for wanting to invest in your new employer's 401k (e.g. you can buy your employer's stock at discounted rates within the 401k, and this is a good investment according to your friends, neighbors, and brothers-in-law), you would be much better off moving the 403b money into an IRA, where you have many more choices for investment and usually can manage to find investments with lower investment costs (e.g. mutual fund fees) than in a typical employer's 401k plan. On the other hand, 401k assets are better protected than IRA assets in case you are sued and a court finds you to be liable for damages; the plaintiff cannot come after the 401k assets if you cannot pay. To answer the question of \"\"how?\"\", you need to talk to the HR people at your current employer to make sure that they are willing to accept a roll-over from another tax-deferred plan (not all plans are agreeable to do this) and get any paperwork from them, especially making sure that you find out where the check is to be sent, and to whom it should be payable. Then, talk to your previous employer's HR people and tell them that you want to roll over your 403b money into the 401k plan of your new employer, fill out the paperwork, make sure they know to whom to cut the check to, and where it is to be sent etc. In my personal experience, I was sent the check payable to the custodian of my new (IRA) account, and I had to send it on to the custodian; my 403b people refused to send the check directly to the new custodian. The following January, you will receive a 1099-R form from your 403b plan showing the amount transferred to the new custodian, with hopefully the correct code letter indicating that the money was rolled over into another tax-deferred account.\"",
"qid": 10558,
"docid": "104134",
"rank": 22,
"score": 137537
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Rather than rolling the 401(k) to a new employer's plan, you should roll it into a traditional IRA. You get more options for the money, there's no limit on how much you can roll over, and you have more control over the money. If you do a direct rollover, there's no taxes or penalties involved. I'd recommend against taking any money out of the 401(k). With the numbers you give above, it's like borrowing money at 31.5% interest, which is pretty high, and you're sacrificing your future retirement. If you leave that money alone to grow with compounding, you'll have a lot more when you retire. If you're not familiar with the concept of compound interest, it's worth reading up on - the numbers will blow you away. At the very least, if you desperately need to get $3000 out of it, take out just enough to net $3000 after taxes and penalties (not quite $4400 using the numbers you give) and do a rollover with the rest. At least that way, you're keeping more in the IRA (just over $8600, vs the $5000 in your proposed scenario). Overall, I really recommend you find a way to accomplish your goals without touching your retirement savings.",
"qid": 10558,
"docid": "526271",
"rank": 23,
"score": 137216
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I'm not sure what you mean by \"\"receive retirement benefits\"\". If the company had a 401k, that probably is the retirement plan. Few companies have both a 401k and an old-style pension plan, you typically have one or the other. So if your 401k was rolled over into some other account, you have already received your retirement benefits. If you mean that the 401k was rolled over into an IRA and you are asking if you can now start withdrawing from the IRA, see Excel Strategies answer. Short answer: Yes you can, but there's a 10% penalty unless you meet one of the exceptions.\"",
"qid": 10558,
"docid": "335682",
"rank": 24,
"score": 135967
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The presence of the 401K option means that your ability to contribute to an IRA will be limited, it doesn't matter if you contribute to the 401K or not. Unless your company allows you to roll over 401K money into an IRA while you are still an employee, your money in the 401K will remain there. Many 401K programs offer not just stock mutual funds, but bond mutual funds, and international funds. Many also have target date funds. You will have to look at the paperwork for the funds to determine if any of them meet your definition of low expense. Because any money you have in those 401K funds is going to remain in the 401K, you still need to look at your options and make the best choice. Very few companies allow employees to invest in individual stocks, but some do. You can ask your employer to research other options for the 401K. The are contracting with a investment company to make the plan. They may be able to switch to a different package from the same company or may need to switch companies. How much it will cost them is unknown. You will have to understand when their current contract is up for renewal. If you feel their current plan is poor, it may be making hiring new employees difficult, or ti may lead to some employees to leave in search of better options. It may also be a factor in the number of employees contributing and how much they contribute.",
"qid": 10558,
"docid": "79375",
"rank": 25,
"score": 135805
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"You have a few options: Option #1 - Leave the money where it is If your balance is over $5k - you should be able to leave the money in your former-employer's 401(k). The money will stay there and continue to be invested in the funds that you elect to invest in. You should at the very least be receiving quarterly statements for the account. Even better - you should have access to some type of an online account where you can transfer your investments, rebalance your account, conform to target, etc. If you do not have online account access than I'm sure you can still transfer investments and make trades via a paper form. Just reach out to the 401(k) TPA or Recordkeeper that administers your plan. Their contact info is on the quarterly statements you should be receiving. Option #2 - Rollover the money into your current employer's 401(k) plan. This is the option that I tend to recommend the most. Roll the money over into your current employer's 401(k) plan - this way all the money is in the same place and is invested in the funds that you elect. Let's say you wanted to transfer your investments to a new fund lineup. Right now - you have to fill out the paperwork or go through the online process twice (for both accounts). Moving the money to your current-employer's plan and having all the money in the same place eliminates this redundancy, and allows you to make one simple transfer of all your assets. Option #3 - Roll the money from your former-employer's plan into an IRA. This is a cool option, because now you have a new IRA with a new set of dollar limits. You can roll the money into a separate IRA - and contribute an additional $5,500 (or $6,500 if you are 50+ years of age). So this is cool because it gives you a chance to save even more for retirement. Many IRA companies give you a \"\"sign on bonus\"\" where if you rollover your former-employers 401(k)...they will give you a bonus (typically a few hundred bucks - but hey its free money!). Other things to note: Take a look at your plan document from your former-employer's 401(k) plan. Take a look at the fees. Compare the fees to your current-employer's plan. There could be a chance that the fees from your former-employer's plan are much higher than your current-employer. So this would just be yet another reason to move the money to your current-employer's plan. Don't forget you most likely have a financial advisor that oversees your current-employer's 401(k) plan. This financial advisor also probably takes fees from your account. So use his services! You are probably already paying for it! Talk to your HR at your employer and ask who the investment advisor is. Call the advisor and set up an appointment to talk about your retirement and financial goals. Ask him for his advice - its always nice talking to someone with experience face to face. Good luck with everything!\"",
"qid": 10558,
"docid": "591168",
"rank": 26,
"score": 135648
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"As some of the other answers pointed out, company 401(k) accounts can sometimes have poor investment choices so if the company isn't doing some sort of matching and you only have a limited set of options, I would likely recommend that you roll the money over to a different 401(k) account so you have better investment options. Why choice from tens of funds when you may have the full market worth of options as your disposal? Likewise, if you have electronic deposit you might be able to have the 10% automatically deposited to that account out of your paycheck so you will still be getting the advantage of having \"\"forced savings\"\" from a young age. In regards to a Roth IRA, as others have pointed out, they are a bit of a gamble and you can't ensure that you will come out ahead at the end of the day in regards to taxes; however, you also need to take your own career goals into account when you make that decision. If you see yourself getting up there in the income bracket of the course of your career it doesn't hurt to have a Roth IRA now and start putting some money in it (limited amount though, maybe only $100 a month) but if you don't see yourself getting up that high in the income brackets then it might not be worth the overhead of having multiple accounts to keep track of. That said though, make sure that you aren't just saving for retirement, you should have another savings account that you are putting money away for rainy days, houses, and the like.\"",
"qid": 10558,
"docid": "48226",
"rank": 27,
"score": 135387
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The biggest reason why one might want to leave 401k money invested in an ex-employer's plan is that the plan offers some superior investment opportunities that are not available elsewhere, e.g. some mutual funds that are not open to individual investors such as S&P index funds for institutional investors (these have expense ratios even smaller than the already low expense ratios of good S&P index funds) or \"\"hot\"\" funds that are (usually temporarily) closed to new investors, etc. The biggest reason to roll over 401k money from an ex-employer's plan to the 401k plan of a new employer is essentially the same: the new employer's plan offers superior investment opportunities that are not available elsewhere. Of course, the new employer's 401k plan must accept such roll overs. I do not believe that it is a requirement that a 401k plan must accept rollovers, but rather an option that a plan can be set up to allow for or not. Another reason to roll over 401k money from one plan to another (rather than into an IRA) is to keep it safe from creditors. If you are sued and found liable for damages in a court proceeding, the plaintiff can come after IRA assets but not after 401k money. Also, you can take a loan from the 401k money (subject to various rules about how much can be borrowed, payment requirements etc) which you cannot from an IRA. That being said, the benefits of keeping 401k money as 401k money must be weighed against the usually higher administrative costs and usually poorer and more limited choices of investment opportunities available in most 401k plans as Muro has said already.\"",
"qid": 10558,
"docid": "226547",
"rank": 28,
"score": 134673
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Why would you want to withdraw only the company match, and presumably leave your personal contributions sitting in your ex-company's 401k plan? Generally, 401k plans have larger annual expenses and provide for poorer investment choices than are available to you if you roll over your 401k investments into an IRA. So, unless you have specific reasons for wanting to continue to leave your money in the 401k plan (e.g. you have access to investments that are not available to nonparticipants and you think those investments are where you want your money to be), roll over part (or all) of your 401k assets into an IRA, and withdraw the rest for personal expenses. If your personal contributions are in a Roth 401k, roll them over to a Roth IRA, but, as I remember it, company contributions are not part of the Roth 401k and must be rolled over into a Traditional IRA. Perhaps this is why you want to take those in cash to pay for your personal purchase? Also, what is this 30% hit you are talking about? You will owe income tax on the money withdrawn from the 401k (and custodians traditionally withhold 20% and send it to the IRS on your behalf) plus penalty for early withdrawal (which the custodian may also withhold if you ask them), but the tax that you will pay on the money withdrawn will depend on your tax bracket, which may be lower if you are laid off and do not immediately take on a new job. That is, the 30% hit may be on the cash flow, but you may get some of it back as a refund when you file your income tax return.",
"qid": 10558,
"docid": "410675",
"rank": 29,
"score": 134648
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I'd argue that you should be focusing on avoiding taxation and maximizing employer matching funds as your first objective. Over a longer period, quality of investment options and fees will both drive your account value. A personal IRA account is usually a better value over time -- so contribute as much as possible to your IRA, and rollover 401k accounts whenever you have an opportunity to do so.",
"qid": 10558,
"docid": "88550",
"rank": 30,
"score": 134550
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You should be able to take a loan out on the 401(k). You can't do a roll-over unless you leave your job. If your 401(k) is that bad, you should consider maxing out your IRA contributions first and putting the rest into your 401(k) - so if you're putting away about 7k a year, lower your withholding to 1500 and put 5500 into an IRA.",
"qid": 10558,
"docid": "468841",
"rank": 31,
"score": 133704
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Nobody here really answered your question. The custodian of the 401k determines what funds and investment options are available within that 401k. So if they're eliminating company stock as an option then they can absolutely make you sell out of it. You may be able to do an in service rollover and transfer your funds to an individual ira but that's not particularly common among 401k administrators. Aside from that I'd ask why do you want to hold company stock anyway? Generally I'd advise against this as its imposing a ton of risk on your financial future. If your company tanks you're out of a job, which sucks. But it sucks even more if your company tanks and your 401k loses a ton of value at the same time. Edit: I see you asked who benefits as well. It may just be a situation of no benefit at all. Perhaps the plan didn't have enough people investing in company stock to make the option cost effective. Maybe the administrator decided that allowing people to take on that amount of risk was not in their best interest(it's not). Could be a ton of reasons but it's unlikely the company did so out of greed. There isn't a lot of financial benefit for them there.",
"qid": 10558,
"docid": "338519",
"rank": 32,
"score": 133191
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You need to look at all your investment as a whole. The 401K, IRA, and any taxable account need to be a part of the diversification and re-balancing. The fact you have regular deposits into the 401K needs to also be a part of your strategy. Regardless of how much specific investments have gone up this year, you need to first determine how you want to be invested in large cap stock, small cap stock, bond, international, emerging markets... Then you need to see where you are today compared to those investment percentages. You then move the money in the retirement accounts to get to your desired percentage. And set the 401K deposits to be consistent with your goals. Many times the deposits are allocated the same way the balances are, but that is more complex if one of the sectors you are investing in exists completely outside the 401K. When you re-balance in the future you will be selling sectors that grew the most and buying those that grew the least compared to their planned percentages. If all the moves are within the 401K and IRA then capital gains are not a concern. Don't think of the different accounts as separate baskets, but think of them as a whole investment strategy.",
"qid": 10558,
"docid": "509837",
"rank": 33,
"score": 133032
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Open an investment account on your own and have them roll the old 401K accounts into either a ROTH or traditional IRA. Do not leave them in old 401k accounts and definitely don't roll them into your new employer's 401K. Why? Well, as great as 401K accounts are, there is one thing that employers rarely mention and the 401K companies actively try to hide: Most 401K plans are loaded with HUGE fees. You won't see them on your statements, they are often hidden very cleverly with accounting tricks. For example, in several plans I have participated in, the mutual fund symbols may LOOK like the ones you see on the stock tickers, but if you read the fine print they only \"\"approximate\"\" the underlying mutual fund they are named for. That is, if you multiply the number of shares by the market price you will arrive at a number higher than the one printed on your statement. The \"\"spread\"\" between those numbers is the fee charged by the 401K management company, and since employees don't pick that company and can't easily fire them, they aren't very competitive unless your company is really large and has a tough negotiator in HR. If you work for a small company, you are probably getting slammed by these fees. Also, they often charge fees for the \"\"automatic rebalancing\"\" service they offer to do annually to your account to keep your allocation in line with your current contribution allocations. I have no idea why it is legal for them not to disclose these fees on the statements, but they don't. I had to do some serious digging to find this out on my own and when I did it was downright scary. In one case they were siphoning off over 3% annually from the account using this standard practice. HOWEVER, that is not to say that you shouldn't participate in these plans, especially if there is an employer match. There are fees with any investment account and the \"\"free money\"\" your employer is kicking in almost always offsets these fees. My point here is just that you shouldn't keep the money in the 401K after you leave the company when you have an option to move it to an account with much cheaper fees.\"",
"qid": 10558,
"docid": "323934",
"rank": 34,
"score": 132908
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I'd roll them all into one account, just for your own convenience. It's a pain to keep track of lots of different accounts, esp. since you need logins/passwords, etc for all of them, and we all have plenty of those. :) Pick a place like Vanguard or Fidelity (for example), where you can find investment options with lower fees, and do the standard rollover. Once all the accounts are rolled into one, you can think about how to invest the stuff. (Some good investments require larger minimums, so if you have several old 401ks, putting them together will give you more options.) Rolling them over is not hard, if you have paperwork from each of the 401ks. You might be able to DIY online, but I found it helpful to call and talk to a person when I did this. You just need account numbers, etc. If you are moving brokerage accounts, you may need to provide paper documents/applications, which might require getting them notarized (I found a notary at my bank, even though the accounts I was moving from and to weren't at my bank), which means you'll need to provide IDs, etc. and get a special crimped seal after the notary witnesses your signature.",
"qid": 10558,
"docid": "221117",
"rank": 35,
"score": 132582
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Rolling a 401(k) to an IRA should be your default best option. Rolling a 401(k) to another 401(k) is rarely the best option, but that does happen. I've done it once when I started a job at a company that had a great 401(k) with a good selection of low-cost mutual funds. I rolled the 401(k) from one previous job in to this 401(k) to take advantage of it. In all other cases, I rolled 401(k)s from previous jobs to my Rollover IRA, which gave me the most freedom of investment options. Finally, with 401(k)-to-Roth IRA rollovers, it's important to decouple two concepts so you can analyze it as a sum of two transactions:",
"qid": 10558,
"docid": "344526",
"rank": 36,
"score": 132476
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I would not recommend borrowing your 401(k) money to buy a house for two reasons: When you borrow money from your 401(k), it is no longer invested. Yes, you pay yourself interest, but you miss out on the investment gains for the life of the loan. If you leave your job, the loan is due in full shortly thereafter. If you do not pay it back, you are hit with taxes and penalties. If I were you, I would roll it over into an IRA for the reasons you mentioned.",
"qid": 10558,
"docid": "385251",
"rank": 37,
"score": 132348
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I assume that with both companies you can buy stock mutual funds, bonds mutual funds, ETFs and money market accounts. They should both offer all of these as IRAs, Roth IRAs, and non-retirement accounts. You need to make sure they offer the types of investments you want. Most 401K or 403b plans only offer a handful of options, but for non-company sponsored plans you want to have many more choices. To look at the costs see how much they charge you when you buy or sell shares. Also look at the annual expenses for those funds. Each company website should show you all the fees for each fund. Take a few funds that you are likely to invest in, and have a match in the other fund family, and compare. The benefit of the retirement accounts is that if you make a less than perfect choice now, it is easy to move the money within the family of funds or even to another family of funds later. The roll over or transfer doesn't involve taxes.",
"qid": 10558,
"docid": "434734",
"rank": 38,
"score": 132296
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: No, the situation is not different, the roll-over rules are the same. It won't be taxable (as opposed to traditional to Roth roll-over), but other than that it's the same. Whether the 401k allows rolling over or not while you're still employed - you have to check with the plan administrator (ask your payroll/HR for details). Usually, the deferred compensation cannot be rolled over out of the 401k while you're still employed.",
"qid": 10558,
"docid": "72402",
"rank": 39,
"score": 131705
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Bad question. Even people choosing a 401k strategy have to choose risk over reward. But looking at this simply, if you take a 10 year chart of Gold, you will not find any other stock or commodity that could have been invested in that would have provided you with the same results with as little volatility over this time period. http://www.kitco.com/LFgif/au3650nys.gif",
"qid": 10558,
"docid": "480598",
"rank": 40,
"score": 131257
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Your best bets are a Roth IRA or traditional IRA. If you roll it to a Roth, you will have to pay taxes on the amount you roll over (unless it was a Roth 401k), however what is in the Roth will grow tax free and it will be tax free when you withdraw. With a traditional IRA, you won't owe taxes on the money now but will pay taxes when you withdraw. You won't be able to withdraw this money until 59 1/2 years of age without paying a penalty, the same goes for your current 401k. If you take the money (for mortgage, other investment, etc.) and don't roll it over to a qualified account, you will owe taxes on it plus a 10% penalty. So you will only get between 60% and 70% of its value.",
"qid": 10558,
"docid": "399564",
"rank": 41,
"score": 130955
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You cannot roll over your 401k money in an employer's 401k plan into an IRA (of any kind) while you are still employed by that employer. The only way you can start on the conversion before you retire (as Craig W suggests) is to change employers and start rolling over money in the previous employer's 401k into your Roth IRA while possibly contributing to the 401k plan of your new employer. Since the amount rolled over is extra taxable income (that is, in addition to your wages from your new job), you may end up paying more tax (or at higher rates) than you expect.",
"qid": 10558,
"docid": "63532",
"rank": 42,
"score": 129914
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Your question is very widely scoped, making it difficult to reply to, but I can provide my thoughts on at least the following part of the question: I have a 401k plan with T. Rowe Price, should I use them for other investments too? Using your employer's decision, on which 401k provider they've chosen, as a basis for making your own decision on a broker for investing $100k when you don't even know what kind of investments you want seems relatively unwise to me, even if one of your focuses is simplicity. That is, unless your $100k is tax-advantaged (e.g. an IRA or other 401k) and your drive for simplicity means you'd be happy to add $100k to any of your existing 401k investments. In which case you should look into whether you can roll the $100k over into your employer's 401k program. For the rest of my answer, I'll assume the $100k is NOT tax-advantaged. I assume you're suggesting this idea because of some perceived bundling of the relationship and ease of dealing with one company & website? Yes, they may be able to combine both accounts into a single login, and you may be able to interact with both accounts with the same basic interface, but that's about where the sharing will end. And even those benefits aren't guaranteed. For example, I still have a separate site to manage my money in my employer's 401k @ Fidelity than I do for my brokerage/banking accounts @ Fidelity. The investment options aren't the same for the two types of accounts, so the interface for making and monitoring investments isn't either. And you won't be able to co-mingle funds between the 401k and non-tax-advantaged money anyway, so you'll have two different accounts to deal with even if you have a single provider. Given that you'll have two different accounts, you might as well pick a broker/provider for the $100k that gives you the best investment options, lowest fees, and best UI experience for your chosen type/goal of investments. I would strongly recommend figuring out how you want to invest the $100k before trying to figure out which provider to use as a broker for doing the investment.",
"qid": 10558,
"docid": "391896",
"rank": 43,
"score": 129902
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: My answer would be yes. In addition, I'm not sure that anything requires you to roll your current 401(k) into a new one if you don't like the investment options. Keeping existing funds in your current 401(k) if you like their investment options might make sense for you (though they obviously wouldn't be adding funds once you're no longer an employee). As for the terms of the potential new 401(k), the matching percentage and vesting schedule match what I've seen at past employers. My current employer offers the same terms, but there's no vesting schedule.",
"qid": 10558,
"docid": "224434",
"rank": 44,
"score": 129650
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"There are certain allowable reasons to withdraw money from a 401K. The desire to free your money from a \"\"bad\"\" plan is not one of them. A rollover is a special type of withdrawal that is only available after one leaves their current employer. So as long as you stay with your current company, you cannot rollover. [Exception: if you are over age 59.5] One option is to talk to HR, see if they can get a expansion of offerings. You might have some suggestions for mutual funds that you would like to see. The smaller the company the more likely you will have success here. That being said, there is some research to support having few choices. Too many choices intimidates people. It's quite popular to have \"\"target funds\"\" That is funds that target a certain retirement year. Being that I will be 50 in 2016, I should invest in either a 2030 or 2035 fund. These are a collection of funds that rebalances the investment as they age. The closer one gets to retirement the more goes into bonds and less into stocks. However, I think such rebalancing is not as smart as the experts say. IMHO is almost always better off heavily invested in equity funds. So this becomes a second option. Invest in a Target fund that is meant for younger people. In my case I would put into a 2060 or even 2065 target. As JoeTaxpayer pointed out, even in a plan that has high fees and poor choices one is often better off contributing up to the match. Then one would go outside and contribute to an individual ROTH or IRA (income restrictions may apply), then back into the 401K until the desired amount is invested. You could always move on to a different employer and ask some really good questions about their 401K. Which leads me back to talking with HR. With the current technology shortage, making a few tweaks to the 401K, is a very cheap way to make their employees happy. If you can score a 1099 contracting gig, you can do a SEP which allows up to a whopping 53K per year. No match but with typically higher pay, sometimes overtime, and a high contribution limit you can easily make up for it.\"",
"qid": 10558,
"docid": "554739",
"rank": 45,
"score": 129192
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You can probably roll it over into the new company's 401k too, so just talk to your HR rep there. I set up a separate Vangard IRA so when I changejobs or anything, I just dump my investments into that account and don't have to worry about keep track of them all over the place.",
"qid": 10558,
"docid": "392894",
"rank": 46,
"score": 129078
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Why not do both? The object is to \"\"squirrel\"\" away as much money as possible. The 401k has the advantage of being a payroll deduction. The IRA, if you can save the money, gives you more control. When you change jobs, you can \"\"roll over\"\" your first 401k into either your IRA or your second job's 401k. Note: There are legal limits on total contributions to IRA and 401ks. I've forgotten what they are, so find out for yourself. There may also be income limits, but ones that don't apply to most 23-year olds, unless they own their own company or work for say, Goldman Sachs.\"",
"qid": 10558,
"docid": "472882",
"rank": 47,
"score": 128896
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I would check to see what the fee schedule is on your previous employer's 401k. Depending on how it was setup, the quarterly/annual maintenance fee may be lower/higher than your current employer. Another reason to rollover/not-rollover is that selection of funds available is better than the other plan. And of course always consider rolling over your old plan into a standard custodial rollover IRA where the management company gives you a selection of investment options. At least look at the fees and expense ratios of your prior employer's plan and see if anything reaches a threshold of what you consider actionable and worth your time. Note: removed reference to self directed IRA as vehicle is more complicated account type allowing for more than just stocks, bonds, and mutual funds. Not for your typical retail investor.",
"qid": 10558,
"docid": "518379",
"rank": 48,
"score": 128868
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Should I convert the 401K of my old company to Traditional IRA and start investing in that instead of investing in the new employer 401K plan with high fees? Regarding the 401K funds from the previous employer, you can: Future investments: Roll overs don't have limits, but new investments do.",
"qid": 10558,
"docid": "388028",
"rank": 49,
"score": 128714
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Things are more complicated for non-spouse beneficiaries of a 401(k) account. If you have not deposited the money yet, you may wish to contact the plan administrator and have them do a trustee-to-trustee transfer. If you take possession of the money (by depositing that check) then it will be considered a distribution and won't be eligible for a roll-over deposit. Required minimum distributions will still apply, but those are based on when your mother would have reached the age 70.5, rather than 62. It's not clear to me why they chose that number unless it was something specific to the rules of her 401(k) plan.",
"qid": 10558,
"docid": "198135",
"rank": 50,
"score": 128033
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Unless that 401K has very low expense ratios on its funds, you should roll it into an IRA and choose funds with low expense ratios. After rolling it over you should not take the 10% penalty and use it to purchase a home. Unless you use that home as an income property, it is unlikely to provide you more than a 1% inflation-adjusted rate of return given historical data. The S&P 500 is about 4% adjusted for inflation. And that money currently in your 401(k) is for your retirement - your future. Don't borrow against your future. Let compound interest do its work on that money. The value of a house is in the rent you aren't paying to live somewhere and there are a lot of costs to consider. That doesn't mean don't buy. It just means buy wisely. If you are currently maxing out your 401(k), you may consider cutting back to save for your down payment. Other than that I wouldn't touch retirement money unless it was a dire financial emergency.",
"qid": 10558,
"docid": "583830",
"rank": 51,
"score": 127066
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The expense fees are high, and unfortunate. I would stop short of calling it criminal, however. What you are paying for with your expenses is the management of the holdings in the fund. The managers of the fund are actively, continuously watching the performance of the holdings, buying and selling inside the fund in an attempt to beat the stock market indexes. Whether or not this is worth the expenses is debatable, but it is indeed possible for a managed fund to beat an index. Despite the relatively high expenses of these funds, the 401K is still likely your best investment vehicle for retirement. The money you put in is tax deductible immediately, your account grows tax deferred, and anything that your employer kicks in is free money. Since, in the short term, you have little choice, don't lose a lot of sleep over it. Just pick the best option you have, and occasionally suggest to your employer that you would appreciate different options in the future. If things don't change, and you have the option in the future to rollover into a cheaper IRA, feel free to take it.",
"qid": 10558,
"docid": "30159",
"rank": 52,
"score": 126571
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Your assumptions are flawed or miss crucial details. An employer sponsored 401k typically limits the choices of investments, whereas an IRA typically gives you self directed investment choices at a brokerage house or through a bank account. You are correct in noticing that you are limited in making your own pre-tax contributions to a traditional IRA in many circumstances when you also have an employer sponsored 401k, but you miss the massive benefit you have: You can rollover unlimited amounts from a traditional 401k to a traditional IRA. This is a benefit that far exceeds the capabilities of someone without a traditional 401k who is subject to the IRA contribution limits. Your rollover capabilities completely gets around any statutory contribution limit. You can contribution, at time of writing, $18,000 annually to a 401k from salary deferrals and an additional $35,000 from employer contributions for a maximum of $53,000 annually and roll that same $53,000 into an IRA if you so desired. That is a factor. This should be counterweighed with the borrowing capabilities of a 401k, which vastly exceeds an IRA again. The main rebuttal to your assumptions is that you are not necessarily paying taxes to fund an IRA.",
"qid": 10558,
"docid": "81148",
"rank": 53,
"score": 126278
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The time horizon for your 401K/IRA is essentially the same, and it doesn't stop at the day you retire. On the day you do the rollover you will be transferring your funds into similar investments. S&P500 index to S&P 500 index; 20xx retirement date to 20xx retirement date; small cap to small cap... If your vested portion is worth X $'s when the funds are sold, that is the amount that will be transferred to the IRA custodian or the custodian for the new employer. Use the transfer to make any rebalancing adjustments that you want to make. But with as much as a year before you leave the company if you need to rebalance now, then do that irrespective of your leaving. Cash is what is transferred, not the individual stock or mutual fund shares. Only move your funds into a money market account with your current 401K if that makes the most sense for your retirement plan. Also keep in mind unless the amount in the 401K is very small you don't have to do this on your last day of work. Even if you are putting the funds in a IRA wait until you have started with the new company and so can define all your buckets based on the options in the new company.",
"qid": 10558,
"docid": "483268",
"rank": 54,
"score": 126184
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: When you pick a company for your IRA, they should have information about rolling over funds from another IRA or a 401K. They will be able to walk you through the process. There shouldn't be a fee for doing this. They want your money to be invested in their funds. Once your money is in their hands they are able to generate their profits. You will want to do a direct transfer. Some employers will work with the investment companies and send the funds directly to the IRA. Others will insist on sending a check to you. The company that will have your IRA should give you exact specifications for the check so that you won't have to cash it. The check will be payable to you or the IRA account. The IRA company will have all the details. Decide if you will be converting non-Roth to Roth, before doing the rollover.",
"qid": 10558,
"docid": "361037",
"rank": 55,
"score": 126175
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"What is my best bet with the 401K? I know very little about retirement plans and don't plan to ever touch this money until I retire but could this money be of better use somewhere else? If you don't know your options, I would suggest reading some material on it that might be a little more extensive than an answer here (for instance, http://www.getrichslowly.org/blog/ has some good and free information about a myriad of financial topics). With retirement accounts you can roll it over or leave it in the current account. Things to look at would be costs of the accounts, options you have in each account, and the flexibility of moving it if you need to. Depending on what type of retirement account it is (Roth 401K, Traditional 401K, etc, you may have some advantages with moving it to another type). The student loans.... pay them off in one shot? I have the extra money and it would not be a hardship to do so unless that money can be best used somewhere else? Unless I was making more money in a savings/investing/business opportunity, I would pay off the student loans in a lump sum. The reason is basic opportunity cost (economics) - if a better opportunity isn't on the horizon with your money, kill the interest you're paying because it's money you're losing every month. With the money just sitting in the bank I get a little sick feeling thinking that I can be doing something better with that. Outside of general savings you could look at investing in stocks, ETFs, mutual funds, currencies, lending club loans (vary by state), or something similar. Or you could try to start a business or invest in a start up directly (though, depending on the start up, they may not accept small investors). Otherwise, if you don't have a specific idea at this time, it's best to have money in savings while you ponder where else it would serve you. Keep in mind, having cash on hand, even if it's not earning anything, can bail you out in emergencies or open the door if an opportunity arises. So, you're really not \"\"losing\"\" anything by having it in cash if you're patiently waiting on opportunities.\"",
"qid": 10558,
"docid": "379639",
"rank": 56,
"score": 125688
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Just the amount contributed to the Roth 401k that you rolled over, not the conversions from regular 401k/traditional IRA (for those there are holding period limitation of 5 year from conversion), the earning on it or the employer's match (neither of these can be withdrawn without penalty as a non-qualified withdrawal). However, I'd suggest not to withdraw from Roth IRA unless you're sleeping on a bench in a park and beg strangers for a piece of bread. This is the best retirement investment you can make while you're in the lower tax brackets, and withdrawing it would reduce dramatically your tax-free retirement income.",
"qid": 10558,
"docid": "469311",
"rank": 57,
"score": 125554
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I am assuming that you are talking about rolling a 401k over to an IRA since if you were rolling over to another 401k you probably would not have a choice as to where it would be. Ameriprise will generally have lower fees than JPMorgan. (Probably why your husband's mutual fund is with Ameriprise.) Additionally having both accounts with Ameriprise will better allow them to assist you with your long term financial planning. For these two reasons I would recommend rolling your account over to Ameriprise. No, I do not work for Ameriprise",
"qid": 10558,
"docid": "9861",
"rank": 58,
"score": 125498
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: 401(k)'s can be rolled over into IRAs. You can roll all of your former company 401(k)'s into a single IRA, managed by whatever company you like. Many employers will not let you transfer money out of your 401(k) while you're still a current employee, though, so you may be stuck with the 401(k) used by your current company until you leave. You'll have to check with your 401(k) administrator to be sure. You won't incur any taxes as long as you execute the rollovers properly. The best way to do it is to coordinate the transfer directly between your old 401(k) and your new IRA, so the check is never sent directly to you.",
"qid": 10558,
"docid": "551545",
"rank": 59,
"score": 124683
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I do the same thing with my 401k (100% S&P 500). My strategy is to check it weekly. If the S&P falls by 10%-20% (based on risk tolerance, currently mine is 19%). I'll move all of it out into cash until I see 3-consecutive months of gains, then I'll get back in. I don't have a lot of time to manage my investments, and this was the simplest strategy I've come up with so far. It served me very well in the 2008 crash. I got out around 120 and returned to the S&P on 2009-06-29 around 90.",
"qid": 10558,
"docid": "233717",
"rank": 60,
"score": 124489
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"401(k) doesn't have a \"\"return rate\"\", because 401(k) is not a type of investment -- it is a vehicle for investment, with certain tax treatments. Just like your money that's not in a 401(k), you can invest it in either the bank, a CD, stocks, mutual funds, bonds, etc., you can similarly (depending on the options given to you by your 401(k) plan) invest the money in the 401(k) in a cash account, buy stocks, mutual funds, etc. Your return is dependent on how you invest your money, not whether it's in a 401(k) or not. Whether it's in a (Roth or Traditional) 401(k) simply affects when and how it gets taxed. (It is true that most 401(k) plans offer little variety in types of investments you can choose; however, this is not a big deal, as chances are that in a few years, you will leave your company, at which point you are able to rollover the 401(k) into an IRA, at which point you will have many, many options for how to invest it.) To make a valid comparison, you should be comparing the same type of investment in both cases. That means, you should assume the same return for both the money outside the 401(k), and the money inside the 401(k), and only consider the taxes and penalties (if you plan to withdraw early).\"",
"qid": 10558,
"docid": "134109",
"rank": 61,
"score": 124076
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Your retirement PLAN is a lifelong plan and shouldn't be tied to your employer status. Max out your 401(k) contribution to the maximum that your employer matches (that's a 100% ROI!) and as much as you can afford. When you leave the work force rollover your 401(k) to an IRA account (e.g.: you can create an IRA account with any of the online brokerage firms Schwab, E-Trade, Sharebuilder, or go with a brick-and-mortar firm like JP Morgan, Stifel Nicolaus, etc.). You should have a plan: How much money do you need/month for your expenses? Accounting for inflation, how much is that going to be at retirement (whatever age you plan to retire)? How much money do you need to have so that 4.5% of that money will provide for your annual living expenses? That's your target retirement amount of savings. Now figure out how to get to that target. Rule #1 Invest early and invest often! The more money you can sock away early in your career the more time that money has to grow. If you aren't comfortable allocating your investments yourself then you could go with a Targeted Retirement Fund. These funds have a general \"\"date\"\" for retirement and the assets are allocated as appropriate for the amount of risk appropriate for the time to retirement.\"",
"qid": 10558,
"docid": "449828",
"rank": 62,
"score": 123516
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: It is typically very easy to roll a 401(k) into an IRA. Companies that provide IRA's are very experienced with it, and I would expect that they will take your calls from overseas. You will likely be able to do it over the internet without using a phone at all. Just open an IRA with any brokerage company (Scottrade, Vanguard, Fidelity, Schwab, Ameritrade, etc.) and follow instructions to roll your 401(k) into it. Most likely they will need your signature, but usually a scan of a form you have filled out will do. Be sure to have information on your 401(k) provider, including your account number there, on hand. These companies are all very reputable and this is not a difficult transaction. There's really no downside to rolling into an IRA. 401(k) plans usually have more limited options and/or worse fee structures and are frequently harder to work with, as you have observed.",
"qid": 10558,
"docid": "117158",
"rank": 63,
"score": 123181
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I assume by that you mean gradually buying the same mix of funds over time. If that's the case, there is no rational reason to do this. Dollar-cost averaging is an artifact of the way most people fund their 401(k). I would not consider it a viable \"\"strategy\"\". (Neither does Wikipedia) Let's say you have $100,000 that you add $10,000 at a time. When you add money, one of three things can happen: Since you can't predict the future, there's no mathematical justification for buying in segments. There's just as much chance that your funds will be worth more or less, so on average it should make little to no difference. In fact, given the time value of money there is a slight advantage to investing it all now so you can capture any future returns. You can always rebalance later to capture gains on some funds and purchase funds that are down to (hopefully) catch them on a rebound.\"",
"qid": 10558,
"docid": "434466",
"rank": 64,
"score": 123087
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Yes you can rollover as many different 401ks into a single IRA account. I have done it personally and it really cuts down on the overhead of keeping up with lots of different accounts. Your brokerage or mutual fund company should be able to help you with it. If you are using a company that just gives you forms and those forms don't mention an easy way to combine. Then I suggest rolling over one 401k first then once that's finished you can rollover the other 401k into that same account.",
"qid": 10558,
"docid": "426189",
"rank": 65,
"score": 123038
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I want to take a loan out against an old 401k to use as the down payment on a house. The problem that I've found is that in order to borrow against the 401k it has to be considered current. I'd like to avoid rolling it over to my current job because then if I quit the entire load has to be repaid within 60 days. I'm specifically wondering if me plan of starting a company with a 401k will work. From what I can tell, there's no limit on the number of current 401ks you can have. Since I'm obviously never going to fire myself, having to suddenly repay the entire loan won't be a problem. I'd like to keep my job and money related to investments separate.",
"qid": 10558,
"docid": "110649",
"rank": 66,
"score": 122973
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Yes. Not doing so would be like turning down a raise. The best advice in almost every situation is to at least contribute up to the amount that the company will match so you get the full benefit. One thing to clarify that you might not be understanding. The vesting period is only for the money the company matches, not your own investment. Even if you leave the company before the account is vested or fully vested, you can transfer to a 401k at your new employer, or roll over into an IRA, or take as taxable income (and pay a penalty if it is an early withdrawal), all your contributions together with any investment gains or losses that have occurred. Ditto whatever part of your employer match that has vested by the time you leave. Often, the employer matching contributions are invested in the same funds in the same proportions that you have chosen for your own contributions and thus will have incurred the same gains or losses as your own contributions, but what you are entitled to take with you is the part that has vested. Also, you mention that it is unlikely that you will stay the entire 5 years. However, if you plan to at least stay a couple of years it makes sense to get the 20%, 40%, etc. of the match that you vest during your stay. Again, it's free money.",
"qid": 10558,
"docid": "135724",
"rank": 67,
"score": 122764
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"You can rollover money from a 401(k) to Traditional IRA and back to a 401(k). There are likely account closure fees associated with this, so it's not completely free. As long as you're rolling from one tax deferred account to another there are no penalties. The IRS has a handy chart showing what accounts can roll where. Note, starting next year, you can only do one IRA rollover per year. The IRS has additional general information on retirement account rollovers. One additional comment - on the concept of your money being \"\"locked\"\" into an IRA. Generally you have far more options with an IRA than a 401(k). If you go with a large, low cost provider like Vanguard you're likely to be much better off than in a small company 401(k) that only offers costly funds that are likely selected primarily to benefit the administrator of the plan. Choose your IRA provider and the investments with them wisely, and leave that money there for a very long time.\"",
"qid": 10558,
"docid": "424766",
"rank": 68,
"score": 122744
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Does the 457(b) plan allow for the rollover of other retirement funds into it? And do you have very specific reasons for wanting to roll over your SEP-IRA into the 457(b) plan instead of into some other IRA plan with a different custodian? For example, if you already have a Traditional IRA, is there any reason why your SEP-IRA should not be rolled over into the Traditional IRA? With regard to the question about separate accounts, once upon a time, rolling over money from an employment retirement plan (e.g. 401k) into a Traditional IRA required establishing a separate account called a Rollover Traditional IRA so that the rolled-over money (and the earnings thereon) were not commingled with standard traditional IRA money resulting from personal contributions). This was so that the account owner had the option of rolling over the separately kept money into a new employer's retirement plan (if such a rollover was permitted by the new 401k plan). If one did not want to ever roll over money into a new employer plan, one had to write a letter to the custodian telling them that commingling was OK; you never wanted to put that money into another 401k plan. The law changed some time later and the concept of Rollover IRAs holding non-commingled funds has disappeared. With that as prologue, my answer to your question is that perhaps the law did not change with respect to 457(b) plans, and so the money that you want to rollover into the 457(b) plan needs to be kept separate and not commingled with your contributions via payroll deduction to the 457(b) plan (in case you want to ever roll over the SEP-IRA money into another SEP-IRA). Hence, separate accounts are needed: one to hold your SEP-IRA money and one to hold your contributions via payroll deductions.",
"qid": 10558,
"docid": "111603",
"rank": 69,
"score": 122451
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I would create a \"\"Rollover IRA\"\". These IRAs are designed to take funds from a 401k and allow you to invest them without incurring a cash out penalty nor a tax due. You will have more choices than if you leave it at your old 401k. If you cash out the 401k, you'll have much less to invest ($1500 - penalty - taxes) vs. doing a rollover 401k where you'll still have $1500 to invest. Then, once the money is inside the new Rollover IRA you can invest in whatever you please. If you want to invest in Vanguard funds, I recommend opening the Rollover IRA at Vanguard. Here is Vanguard's information page about rollovers from 401ks: https://investor.vanguard.com/what-we-offer/401k-rollovers/401k-403b-to-ira-rollover-benefits When you next change jobs and have another 401k with funds in it, you can roll it into the same Rollover IRA.\"",
"qid": 10558,
"docid": "550083",
"rank": 70,
"score": 122334
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"GreenMatt - this is a good question, and a question I have asked about whether to invest in a Roth IRA, or a traditional IRA. This is my take on the picture, I'm not sure about your tax situation and how much you'd have to pay for each conversion you did, whether you have extra money to pay those taxes, etc. In my opinion I don't think it would be a good idea to use your 401(k) principal to pay taxes, but to have the extra money to pay these when rolling over so you don't lose any interest, especially since you're near the \"\"end\"\" of your \"\"snowball\"\" effect with interest in your retirement account. Here is a resource to consider. Also, another thing to consider that I don't really see much of on here is inflation. If you're going to be in the same tax bracket as you are now, and if whatever you're contributing to your 401(k) or traditional IRA is NOT bumping you down in the 15% bracket, then I would suggest doing a ROTH IRA. I say this because to me, when I retire, I would have rather paid my taxes throughout the years (I'm 23 and in 25% marginal tax bracket) in a ROTH IRA and pay nothing when I'm withdrawing in 30 years, factors people forget to consider are that the Cost of Living is going to be MUCH MUCH higher for me down the road, and the cost of sending a child to school is going to be much higher as well. Since your child is young, consider this site for the cost of a college education for your child. This is comparing the average cost of education for someone attending college in 2015 versus 2033 (a child born IN 2015). While this seems drastic, and there could be a lot of different things that happen by that time, it's a decent illustration. While the website provided certainly isn't validated by the DoE, I have read multiple articles about this, and they are all very similar. Again, other things could happen between now and your child's college career, but if college becomes \"\"free\"\" we're paying for it, and if it's not free and raises at historical rates you're paying for it. I also don't really want to comment on what is going to happen with taxes over the years, I'm not sure where you live (I'm in the U.S.), but IMO I believe they either A) won't change or B) will raise slightly. As far as SS goes, I think it's fair and definitely more than reasonable to not expect SS in retirement. I'm definitely not counting on it.\"",
"qid": 10558,
"docid": "458455",
"rank": 71,
"score": 121869
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: 401k choices are awful because: The best remedy I have found is to roll over to an IRA when changing jobs.",
"qid": 10558,
"docid": "85658",
"rank": 72,
"score": 121843
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Are you very certain that your regular investments will produce >10% above and beyond what can be created from your 401(k) plan? Unless you have a monumentally terrible selection of funds with massive fees you would need to be a truly exceptional investment genius to consistently beat the 10% penalty hurdle. Also, losing the tax-deferred growth for your money is a large additional hurdle meaning that your investment skill would have to be near Warren Buffet levels to just break even. That 10% + tax-deferral is easy free money just like the 50% match. Wait for a few years until you switch jobs and roll the money into an IRA and you will have full control and a lot more money. Taking the penalty is a bad idea.",
"qid": 10558,
"docid": "210386",
"rank": 73,
"score": 121283
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"See if they offer a \"\"Target Date\"\" plan that automatically adjusts throughout your career to balance gains against preserving what you've already built up. You can adjust for more or less aggressive by selecting a plan with a later or sooner target date, respectively. (But check the administrative fees; higher fees can eat up a surprisingly large part of your growth since they're essentially subtracted from rate of return and thus get compounded.) If they don't have that option, or charge too much for it, then yes, you may want to adjust which plan your money is in over time; you can usually \"\"exchange\"\" between these plans at no cost and with no tax penalty. NOTE: The tax-advantaged 401(k) investments should be considered in the context of all your investments. This is one of the things an independent financial planner can help you with. As with other investment decisions, the best answer for you depends on your risk tolerance and your time horizon.\"",
"qid": 10558,
"docid": "61524",
"rank": 74,
"score": 121042
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: It is not necessarily proportional. 401k are all unique per the plan and how they are set up. It is impossible to find any two exactly alike. You should have separate buckets of the money types. Pre tax, after tax, roth, employer contribution,etc... If the plan is good you may have a Source Specific Withdraw option which allows you to take only roth or pretax at your choosing. They should track the growth of each bucket separately. It does indeed appear complicated but just think of it as different buckets of cash store in the same vault. Most people end up rolling over the 401k into an ira when they retire for flexibility to get out from under the plan rules. When you do this you will create a roth ira and a traditional ira. Then you can pick and choose when you want to take what type of money.",
"qid": 10558,
"docid": "444044",
"rank": 75,
"score": 121040
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Unfortunately, I missed most of segment and I didn't get to understand the Why? To begin with, Cramer is an entertainer and his business is pushing stocks. If you put money into mutual funds (which most 401k plans limit your investments to), then you are not purchasing his product. Also, many 401k plans have limited selections of funds, and many of those funds are not good performers. While his stock-picking track record is much better than mine, his isn't that great. He does point out that there are a lot of fees (mostly hidden) in 401k accounts. If you read your company's 5500 filing (especialy Schedule A), you can determine just how much your plan administrators are paying themselves. If paying excessive fees is your concern, then you should be rolling over your 401k into your IRA when you quit (or the employer-match vests, which ever is later). Finally, Cramer thinks that most of his audience will max out their IRA contributions and have only a little bit left for their 401k. I'm most definately \"\"not most people\"\" as I'm maxing out both my 401k and IRA contributions.\"",
"qid": 10558,
"docid": "411910",
"rank": 76,
"score": 120476
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I tried to roll my funds to my new company. But my hr department from my old job would not work with me on getting it straightened out. So I decided to either pull it all out or roll it into a 401 k and use it as a trial for stocks and investments. Simce it isn't a large amount of money to begin with",
"qid": 10558,
"docid": "425703",
"rank": 77,
"score": 120112
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Does your current 401(k) have low fees and good investment choices? If so you might be able to \"\"roll-in\"\" your rollover IRA to your 401(k), then do a backdoor Roth IRA contribution. A Roth IRA would be far more useful than a non-deductible traditional IRA.\"",
"qid": 10558,
"docid": "576263",
"rank": 78,
"score": 119726
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"A long time ago, in a galaxy far far away, Rollover IRAs were used for funds that came from (were rolled over from) a 401(k) account or a 403(b) account. All that money (including any earnings in the interim) could be rolled over into a 401(k) plan with a new employer etc. One could make a regular contribution to a Rollover IRA but once such a commingling of money occurred, none of the money in the Rollover IRA could be rolled over into a 401(k) account etc. In those good old days when contributions to IRAs were made by paper check and \"\"deposit slip\"\", one had to write a letter to the Rollover IRA custodian certifying that the IRA owner understood that the contribution would destroy forever the possibility of rolling over the money into another 401(k) etc. All this went by the wayside a few years ago when the law changed and the distinction between Rollover IRAs and ordinary Traditional IRAs was eliminated. Commingling of IRA contributions and Rollover money from 401(k)s are permitted, and the entire IRA balance could be rolled over into a new 401(k) plan (provided the new plan accepted rollovers). However the adjectives still persist; like chili555, I too have IRAs that are still called Rollover IRA, they all have commingled funds, and if the law ever changes back, none of those IRA accounts would be eligible for rolling over into a new 401(k).\"",
"qid": 10558,
"docid": "208263",
"rank": 79,
"score": 119714
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: My advice would be to invest in the 401k with the same type of funds you'd purchase when you rollover to your IRA. They are both retirement accounts. If the stock market tanks, your 401k balance will be low but you'll also be purchasing stocks at a much cheaper price when you establish your roth. You should create an asset allocation based on your age, not on the type of retirement account you have. One question to consider: When you do become a student, you'll likely be a in lower tax bracket. Can you contribute pre-tax dollars and then rollover to a ROTH in the year that you're a student?",
"qid": 10558,
"docid": "175252",
"rank": 80,
"score": 119348
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: At 22 years old, you can afford to be invested 100% in the stock market. Like many others, I recommend that you consider low cost index funds if those are available in your 401(k) plan. Since your 401(k) contributions are usually made with each paycheck this gives you the added benefit of dollar cost averaging throughout your career. There used to be a common rule that you should put 100 minus your age as the percentage invested in the stock market and the rest in bonds, but with interest rates being so low, bonds have underperformed, so many experts now recommend 110 or even 120 minus your age for stocks percentage. My recommendation is that you wait until you are 40 and then move 25% into bonds, then increase it to 40% at 55 years old. At 65 I would jump to a 50-50 stock/bonds mix and when you start taking distributions I would move to a stable-value income portfolio. I also recommend that you roll your funds into a Vanguard IRA when you change jobs so that you take advantage of their low management fee index mutual funds (that have no fees for trading). You can pick whatever mix feels best for you, but at your age I would suggest a 50-50 mix between the S&P 500 (large cap) and the Russell 2000 (small cap). Those with quarterly rebalancing will put you a little ahead of the market with very little effort.",
"qid": 10558,
"docid": "216365",
"rank": 81,
"score": 119262
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The best strategy? Skip the loan. Find a way to invest for a low starting amount via a retirement account (such as a 401K or IRA in the United States) or non-retirement account. Use this money to buy individual stocks or funds. Every month put money from your regular income into this investment account. Then buy more stocks or sell if the conditions change based on what the market is doing, not to meet a loan payment. This helps you because if the price fluctuates you will buy more shares if the price is down; and you will buy fewer shares when the price is up. It also allows you to skip worrying about how to repay the loan. It also means that you not have to pull more money out of savings to make the final loan payments if it doesn't make as much money as you plan. Regarding your math. This is a better understanding of the money flow than the earlier question.",
"qid": 10558,
"docid": "140572",
"rank": 82,
"score": 119210
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: There is little advantage to waiting or combining accounts. If it makes sense to put money into a Roth now (which I can easily believe because your current tax rate is crazy low) go ahead and do so. Your later opportunities for investment in a 401(k) do not affect your optimal decision today. There's nothing wrong with having multiple types of retirement accounts and many people do. Over time the best place to put money can change. After retirement you can roll all your Roth style investments into a single Roth IRA and your traditional investments (IRA and 401k) into a single traditional IRA.",
"qid": 10558,
"docid": "568322",
"rank": 83,
"score": 119197
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I suggest rolling it over to the 401(k) with your new employer. Particularly if they match any percentage of your contribution, it would be in your interest to take as much of that money as possible. When it comes to borrowing money from your 401(k), it looks like the issues AbraCadaver mentioned only apply if you don't pay back the money (http://www.kiplinger.com/article/real-estate/T010-C000-S002-borrowing-from-your-retirement-plan-to-buy-a-home.html). The reasonable argument against taking money out of your 401(k) to buy a home is that it leaves a dent in your retirement nest egg (and its earning power) during key earning years. On the plus side for borrowing from your 401(k), it's very low interest--and it's interest you're paying back to yourself over a 5-year period. At its current value, the most you could borrow from your 401(k) is $35K. If you're fortunate in where you live, that could be most or all of the downpayment. In my own experience, my wife borrowed against her 401(k) balance for the earnest money when we purchased a new home. Fortunately for us, an investor snapped up my previous home within 4 days of us listing it, so she was able to pay back her loan in full right away.",
"qid": 10558,
"docid": "436331",
"rank": 84,
"score": 118547
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I don't know if what they're doing is legal, however I believe you should be able to roll over the funds in your 401(k) to a self-administered IRA in which you can buy any stock you want. Is the company publicly traded? Also, you say the stock is \"\"expected\"\" to surpass its previous high? By who? You? Spokespeople at the company? Certainly not the market itself, as it wouldn't have fallen so much otherwise. I'm not saying you're wrong, just that you have to make your own judgments about these things, don't go by others' \"\"expectations\"\".\"",
"qid": 10558,
"docid": "538198",
"rank": 85,
"score": 118235
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: It's best to roll over a pension plan, you don't want to pay the penalties especially when you are young. Rolling over into another scheme, or rolling over into a scheme that is somewhat self directed would avoid the penalty and could help you achieve higher returns should you feel you will perform better. Making regular monthly or biweekly contributions is imperative so that you catch compounded returns on your investments. Since you state that you are inexperienced, I would suggest rolling over into the new scheme and sitting with the pension advisor for the company, ie Prudential, etc. Telling them some key information like your age, in how many years you expect to retire, your current income, your desired pension income per year and such will greatly help them ensure that you come as close to your goal as possible, providing nothing horrendous happens in the market.",
"qid": 10558,
"docid": "264476",
"rank": 86,
"score": 118225
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: First: In most cases when you inherit stocks the cost basis is stepped up to the date of the death of the person you inherited them from. So the capital gain/loss is likely reset to zero. The rules vary a bit for joint accounts, but retirement accounts (401k/ROTH) are considered individual accounts by the IRS. The rules on this have changed a lot in recent history, so it may depend on when he died. Update: As JoeTaxpayer pointed out and I confirmed via this site , the gains are NOT stepped up for retirement accounts, so this is a moot point anyway. Further evidence that retirement accounts can be complicated and seeking professional guidance is a good idea. ...[T]here is no step-up in cost basis upon the death of the IRA owner. Most other assets owned by an individual receive a step-up in cost basis upon the death of the person, eliminating all capital gains on those assets up to that point in time. Second: Even if you can deduct an investment (capital) loss, you can only deduct it to offset capital gains on another investments. Also you can only do this up to $3k per year, though you can roll over excess capital losses into future years. Bottom line: I really doubt you are going to be able to claim a deduction. However, due to the complexity of the situation and the amount of money involved. I strongly suggest you talk to a qualified tax adviser and not rely solely on information you gather through this site.",
"qid": 10558,
"docid": "181827",
"rank": 87,
"score": 118194
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you really want to use the money roll it over to the new companies 401k and then take a 401k loan out for whatever the expense is. (Assuming the retirement plan allows them.) Generally 401k loans are frowned upon for all sorts of reasons however if the alternative is to just flat out withdraw the money it is a slightly better solution.",
"qid": 10558,
"docid": "179606",
"rank": 88,
"score": 118082
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Are you obligated to do what they ask? Probably not, with one big caveat discussed below. Your employer sent your money and their money after every paycheck to the 401K management company. Then after a while the 401K management company followed your instructions to roll it over into an IRA. Now the IRA management company has it. Pulling it out of the IRA would be very hard, and the IRA company would be required to report it to the IRS as a withdraw. Here is the caveat. If the extra funds you put in allowed you to exceed the annual contribution amount set by the law, or if it allowed you to put more than 100% of your income into the fund, then this would be an excess contribution, and you and your employer would have to resolve or face the excess contribution penalties. Though if the 401K company and HR allowed you to exceed the annual limit they have a much more complex problem with their payroll system. The bigger concern is why they want you to pull out your $27.50 and their $27.50. Unless you were hitting the maximum limit, your $27.50 could have been invested by adjusting the percentage taken out of each check. You could have picked a percentage to reach a goal. That money is yours because you contributed it and unless you exceed the IRS set limits it is still pre-tax retirement money. The return of matching funds may be harder to calculate. The returns for 2013 were very good. Each $1.06 of matching funds each paycheck purchased a fraction of some investment. That investment went up and down, ok mostly up, if it was invested in the broad market. I guess you should be glad they aren't asking for more due to the increase in value. It would be very hard to calculate what happened if you have moved it around since then. Which of course you did when you moved it into an IRA. If the average employee was also given a $55 gift last year, then the suggestion to the employer is that the tax complexity you and your fellow employees face would exceed the cost of the extra funds. They should chalk it up to an expensive lesson and move on.",
"qid": 10558,
"docid": "140349",
"rank": 89,
"score": 117901
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"You can definitely open an IRA and roll the money over. I suggest instead of trying opening online calling the institution and asking what would be the procedure in your specific case. If not, I will have to cash out my 401K. Who do I contact to find out if my country has some sort of deal with the US in regards to taxes? I would of course prefer to not pay the penalty (20 % federal + 10 % state tax), and instead reinvest the money in a retirement fund in my country. US embassies some times have listings of tax advisers who work with US expats in the countries they cover. You can check for such a list on the website of your local US embassy. These people will be able to answer this question. However it is highly unlikely that you'll be able to avoid the tax and penalty in the US in this scenario. It is not likely that you could \"\"roll-over\"\" into a foreign retirement fund (from your country's laws perspective), but maybe your country has some solution for this.\"",
"qid": 10558,
"docid": "61153",
"rank": 90,
"score": 117352
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You should try to take out other loans sufficient to pay off your 401(k) loan if you can. Maybe you can take out a home equity loan? You can also ask your bank about unsecured loans. You should also check the rules for your new employer's 401(k), if you're rolling over your 401(k). There's a small possibility that you could take out another loan right now and apply it to the previous loan balance. Or if you need to wait, you could use it to help pay off any temporary loans that were needed to avoid the distribution penalty.",
"qid": 10558,
"docid": "149004",
"rank": 91,
"score": 117350
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I've changed jobs several times and I chose to rollover my 401k from the previous employer into an IRA instead of the new employer's 401k plan. The biggest reason not to rollover the 401k into the new employer's 401k plan was due to the limited investments offered by 401k plans. I found it better to roll the 401k into an IRA where I can invest in any stock or fund.",
"qid": 10558,
"docid": "13275",
"rank": 92,
"score": 117266
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You can't roll it over to a Roth IRA without tax penalties. The best thing to do is roll it to an IRA that isn't tied to work at all. Second best is to roll it into your new employer's 401k. The reason that an IRA makes sense is that it gives you the same tax savings as a 401k, but it allows you to remain in control of the money regardless of your employment status.",
"qid": 10558,
"docid": "192627",
"rank": 93,
"score": 117218
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I would suggest you rollover your Roth 401k to a Roth IRA. Then pay off your debt before investing anymore money. In the long run you will be better off to have all your debt paid off. But I would not withdraw from the Roth 401k to pay down your debt. The penality is too steep.",
"qid": 10558,
"docid": "401450",
"rank": 94,
"score": 116840
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: There is a process called a backdoor IRA. You now have effectively made a Roth IRA contribution in a year where technically you aren't eligible. You do not have to pay taxes on earnings with a Roth IRA. You are limited to the normal annual contribution to the IRA (Roth or traditional). If you don't convert your traditional IRA contribution to a Roth IRA, then you are right. That gains nothing except enhanced protection in bankruptcy. Only do this if you are taking advantage of the Roth rollover. I'm ignoring rolling over a 401k into an IRA, as that doesn't increase the amount you can contribute. This does. You can contribute the full $18,000 to the 401k and still make a full contribution to the backdoor IRA. This is the tax advantaged form of an IRA. This avoids double taxation. Let's assume that your investment can go into something with a 5% annual return and you pay a 25% tax rate (doesn't matter as it drops out). You are going to invest for thirty years and then withdraw. You initially have $1000 before taxes. With a regular investment: You now have $2867.74. With a pre-tax IRA. You now have $3241.45 (it is not an accident that this is almost the same as the amount before the capital gains tax in the example without an IRA). You avoided the $373.72 capital gains tax. Even though you paid a lot more tax, you paid it out of the gains from investing the original $250 that you would have paid in tax. This helps you even more if the capital gains tax goes up in the future. Or if your tax bracket changes. If you currently are in the 25% bracket but retire in the 15% bracket, these numbers will get even better in your favor. If you currently are in the 15% bracket and worry that you might retire in the 25% bracket, consider a Roth instead. It also avoids double taxation but its single taxation is at your current rate rather than your future rate.",
"qid": 10558,
"docid": "258658",
"rank": 95,
"score": 116828
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: From your first link: IRS.gov: IRA One-Rollover-Per-Year-Rule IRA One-Rollover-Per-Year Rule Beginning in 2015, you can make only one rollover from an IRA to another (or the same) IRA in any 12-month period, regardless of the number of IRAs you own (Announcement 2014-15 and Announcement 2014-32). The limit will apply by aggregating all of an individual’s IRAs, including SEP and SIMPLE IRAs as well as traditional and Roth IRAs, effectively treating them as one IRA for purposes of the limit. They are limiting your ability to roll over money from an IRA to an IRA. You are looking to go from a 401K to an IRA. That is fine. The idea was that some people were taking all money from their IRA, using it for almost 60 days, then putting it back into an IRA. Thus getting a sort of short term loan. They could do this multiple times in a year. The direct trustee-to-trustee transfer are exempt from the once per year rule because the money is never in your possession. Moving money from a 401K/403b/TSP plan from your former employer to an IRA or Roth IRA is fine, and isn't limited to once per year.",
"qid": 10558,
"docid": "528522",
"rank": 96,
"score": 116752
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You weren't eligible for a 401K in 2010, but you were eligible for an individual IRA. If you had known by April 18th that you had this extra money, you could have deposited (not rolled over) the money, up to the maximum ($5,000 or so, I think), into an IRA account You could do that because you didn't participate (legally) in an employer retirement program. But you didn't learn until early May, so you missed that deadline. I doubt that the IRS has any provisions for waiving that April 18th deadline, but I could be wrong: see the IRS publications. In any case, to answer the question directly - no, you can't roll over the money you're getting back, because it was mistakenly in the 401K plan. It will now become part of your 2011 income, and so you'll owe taxes on it when you file your tax return for the tax year 2011, in early 2012.",
"qid": 10558,
"docid": "433256",
"rank": 97,
"score": 116705
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: There is no segregation of amounts that you have in Rollover (Traditional) IRAs when it comes to figuring out how much of your basis is being converted from your Traditional IRA into a Roth IRA. So, yes, you will lose the benefit of being able to make nondeductible contributions to your Traditional IRA each year and rolling them over into a Roth IRA without tax consequences. Since your 401k amount may be substantially more than the $5K basis you create each year, converting the 401k amount into a Traditional IRA will mean that most of the money converted to the Roth IRA is pre-tax money, and so you end up paying tax on most of the converted amount.",
"qid": 10558,
"docid": "187975",
"rank": 98,
"score": 116281
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You might be confusing two different things. An advantage of investing over a long term is the compounding of returns. Those returns can be interest, dividends, or capital gains. The mix between them depends on what you invest it and how you invest in it. This advantage applies whether your investment is in a taxable brokerage account or in a tax-advantaged 401K or IRA. So, start investing early so that you have longer for this compounding of returns to happen. The second thing is the tax deferral you get from 401(k) or IRAs. If you invest in a ordinary taxable account, then you have to pay taxes on your interest and dividends for the year in which they occur. You also have to pay taxes on any capital gains which you realize during the year. These yearly tax payments are then money that you don't get the benefit of compounding on. With 401(k) and IRAs, you don't have to pay taxes during these intermediate years.",
"qid": 10558,
"docid": "396097",
"rank": 99,
"score": 116152
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Dollar cost averaging is a great strategy to use for investment vehicles where you can't invest it in a lump sum. A 401K is perfect for this. You take a specific amount out of each paycheck and invest it either in a single fund, or multiple funds, or some programs let you invest it in a brokerage account so you can invest in virtually any mutual fund or stock. With annual or semi-annual re-balancing of your investments dollar cost averaging is the way to invest in these programs. If you have a lump sum to invest, then dollar cost averaging is not the best way to invest. Imagine you want to invest 10K and you want to be 50% bonds and 50% stocks. Under dollar cost averaging you would take months to move the money from 100% cash to 50/50 bonds/stocks. While you are slowly moving towards the allocation you want, you will spend months not in the allocation you want. You will spend way too long in the heavy cash position you were trying to change. The problem works the other way also. Somebody trying to switch from stocks to gold a few years ago, would not have wanted to stay in limbo for months. Obviously day traders don't use dollar cost averaging. If you will will be a frequent trader, DCA is not the way to go. No particular stock type is better for DCA. It is dependent on how long you plan on keeping the investment, and if you will be working with a lump sum or not. EDIT: There have be comments regarding DCA and 401Ks. When experts discuss why people should invest via a 401K, they mention DCA as a plus along with the company match. Many participants walk away with the belief that DCA is the BEST strategy. Many articles have been written about how to invest an inheritance or tax refund, many people want to use DCA because they believe that it is good. In fact in the last few years the experts have begun to discourage ever using DCA unless there is no other way.",
"qid": 10558,
"docid": "464264",
"rank": 100,
"score": 115614
}
] |
Does a market maker sell (buy) at a bid or ask price? | [
{
"content": "Title: Content: The everyday investor buys at the ask and sells at the bid but the market maker does the opposite This is misleading; it has nothing to do with being either an investor or a market maker. It is dependent on the type of order that is submitted. When a market trades at the ask, this means that a buy market order has interacted with a sell limit order at the limit price. When a market trades at the bid, this means that a sell market order has interacted with a buy limit order at the limit price. An ordinary investor can do exactly the same as a market maker and submit limit orders. Furthermore, they can sit on both sides of the bid and ask exactly as a market maker does. In the days before high frequency trading this was quite common (an example being Daytek, whose traders were notorious for stepping in front of the designated market maker's bid/ask on the Island ECN). An order executes ONLY when both bid and ask meet. (bid = ask) This is completely incorrect. A transaction occurs when an active (marketable) order is matched with a passive (limit book) order. If the passive order is a sell limit then the trade has occurred at the ask, and if it is a buy limit the trade has occurred at the bid. The active orders are not bids and asks. The only exception to this would be if the bid and ask have become crossed. When a seller steps in, he does so with an ask that's lower than the stock's current ask Almost correct; he does so with an order that's lower than the stock's current ask. If it's a marketable order it will fill the front queued best bid, and if it's a limit order his becomes the new ask price. A trade does not need to occur at this price for it to become the ask. This is wrong, market makers are the opposite party to you so the prices are the other way around for them. This is wrong. There is no distinction between the market maker and yourself or any other member of the public (beside the fact that designated market makers on some exchanges are obliged to post both a bid and ask at all times). You can open an account with any broker and do exactly the same as a market maker does (although with nothing like the speed that a high frequency market-making firm can, hence likely making you uncompetitive in this arena). The prices a market maker sees and the types of orders that they are able to use to realize them are exactly the same as for any other trader.",
"qid": 10596,
"docid": "164008",
"rank": 1,
"score": 196719
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I think your confusion has arisen because in every transaction there is a buyer and a seller, so the market maker buys you're selling, and when you're buying the market maker is selling. Meaning they do in fact buy at the ask price and sell at the bid price (as the quote said).",
"qid": 10596,
"docid": "208070",
"rank": 2,
"score": 193440
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Market Makers are essentially just there to process the buys and sells of traders, so just like you and I buy and sell at the ask and bid prices they do to. They are just completing the process of making our orders a reality. Market makers are just representative of brokers, meaning that when you place your order at ask or bid, you are placing that particular brokers order at ask or bid. People often say that certain brokers have too many shares and claim that they are games when really that just means that there happen to be a lot of people using a particular broker all at once, or more troubling, perhaps even company execs using a broker, to sell a large amount of shares.",
"qid": 10596,
"docid": "413041",
"rank": 3,
"score": 184973
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The Auction Market is where investors such you and me, as well as Market Makers, buy and sell securities. The Auction Markets operate with the familiar bid-ask pricing that you see on financial pages such as Google and Yahoo. The Market Makers are institutions that are there to provide liquidity so that investors can easily buy and sell shares at a \"\"fair\"\" price. Market Makers need to have on hand a suitable supply of shares to meet investor demands. When Market Makers feel the need to either increase or decrease their supply of a particular security quickly, they turn to the Dealer Market. In order to participate in a Dealer Market, you must be designated a Market Maker. As noted already, Market Makers are dedicated to providing liquidity for the Auction Market in certain securities and therefore require that they have on hand a suitable supply of those securities which they support. For example, if a Market Maker for Apple shares is low on their supply of Apple shares, then will go the Dealer Market to purchase more Apple shares. Conversely, if they are holding what they feel are too many Apple shares, they will go to the Dealer Market to sell Apple shares. The Dealer Market does operate on a bid-ask basis, contrary to your stated understanding. The bid-ask prices quoted on the Dealer Market are more or less identical to those on the Auction Market, except the quote sizes will be generally much larger. This is the case because otherwise, why would a Market Maker offer to sell shares to another Market Maker at a price well below what they could themselves sell them for in the Auction Market. (And similarly with buy orders.) If Market Makers are generally holding low quantities of a particular security, this will drive up the price in both the Dealer Market and the Auction Market. Similarly, if Market Makers are generally holding too much of a particular security, this may drive down prices on both the Auction Market and the Dealer Market.\"",
"qid": 10596,
"docid": "565568",
"rank": 4,
"score": 184902
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"EVERYONE buys at the ask price and sells at the bid price (no matter who you are). There are a few important things you need to understand. Example: EVE bid: 16.00 EVE ask: 16.25 So if your selling EVE at \"\"market price\"\" you are entering an ask equal to the highest bid ($16.00). If you buy EVE at \"\"market price\"\" you are entering a bid equal to the lowest ask price ($16.25). Its key to understand this rule: \"\"An order executes ONLY when both bid and ask meet. (bid = ask).\"\" So a market maker puts in a bid when he wants to buy but the trade only executes when an ASK price meets his BID price. When you see a quote for a stock it is the price of the last trade. So it is possible to have a quote higher or lower then both the bid and the ask.\"",
"qid": 10596,
"docid": "284235",
"rank": 5,
"score": 184308
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Bid and ask prices are the reigning highest buy price and lowest sell price in the market which doesn't mean one must only buy/sell at thise prices. That said one can buy/sell at whatever price they so wish although doing it at any other price than the bid/ask is usually harder as other market participants will gravitate to the reigning bid/ask price. So in theory you can buy at ask and sell at bid, whether or not your order will be filled is another matter altogether.",
"qid": 10596,
"docid": "394244",
"rank": 6,
"score": 175003
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The answer posted by Kirill Fuchs is incorrect according to my series 65 text book and practice question answers. The everyday investor buys at the ask and sells at the bid but the market maker does the opposite. THE MARKET MAKER \"\"BUYS AT THE BID AND SELLS AT THE ASK\"\", he makes a profit form the spread. I have posted a quiz question and the answer created by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA). To fill a customer buy order for 800 WXYZ shares, your firm requests a quote from a market maker. The response is \"\"bid 15, ask 15.25.\"\" If the order is placed, the market maker must sell: A) 800 shares at $15.25 per share. B) 800 shares at $15 per share. C) 100 shares at $15.25 per share. D) 800 shares at no more than $15 per share. Your answer, sell 800 shares at $15.25 per share., was correct!. A market maker is responsible for honoring a firm quote. If no size is requested by the inquiring trader, a quote is firm for 100 shares. In this example, the trader requested an 800-share quote, so the market maker is responsible for selling 8 round lots of 100 shares at the ask price of $15.25 per share.\"",
"qid": 10596,
"docid": "316838",
"rank": 7,
"score": 174152
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"This is a complicated subject, because professional traders don't rely on brokers for stock quotes. They have access to market data using Level II terminals, which show them all of the prices (buy and sell) for a given stock. Every publicly traded stock (at least in the U.S.) relies on firms called \"\"market makers\"\". Market makers are the ones who ultimately actually buy and sell the shares of companies, making their money on the difference between what they bought the stock at and what they can sell it for. Sometimes those margins can be in hundreds of a cent per share, but if you trade enough shares...well, it adds up. The most widely traded stocks (Apple, Microsoft, BP, etc) may have hundreds of market makers who are willing to handle share trades. Each market maker sets their own price on what they'll pay (the \"\"bid\"\") to buy someone's stock who wants to sell and what they'll sell (the \"\"ask\"\") that share for to someone who wants to buy it. When a market maker wants to be competitive, he may price his bid/ask pretty aggressively, because automated trading systems are designed to seek out the best bid/ask prices for their trade executions. As such, you might get a huge chunk of market makers in a popular stock to all set their prices almost identically to one another. Other market makers who aren't as enthusiastic will set less competitive prices, so they don't get much (maybe no) business. In any case, what you see when you pull up a stock quote is called the \"\"best bid/ask\"\" price. In other words, you're seeing the highest price a market maker will pay to buy that stock, and the lowest price that a market maker will sell that stock. You may get a best bid from one market maker and a best ask from a different one. In any case, consumers must be given best bid/ask prices. Market makers actually control the prices of shares. They can see what's out there in terms of what people want to buy or sell, and they modify their prices accordingly. If they see a bunch of sell orders coming into the system, they'll start dropping prices, and if people are in a buying mood then they'll raise prices. Market makers can actually ignore requests for trades (whether buy or sell) if they choose to, and sometimes they do, which is why a limit order (a request to buy/sell a stock at a specific price, regardless of its current actual price) that someone places may go unfilled and die at the end of the trading session. No market maker is willing to fill the order. Nowadays, these systems are largely automated, so they operate according to complex rules defined by their owners. Very few trades actually involve human intervention, because people can't digest the information at a fast enough pace to keep up with automated platforms. So that's the basics of how share prices work. I hope this answered your question without being too confusing! Good luck!\"",
"qid": 10596,
"docid": "105343",
"rank": 8,
"score": 174047
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Market makers (shortened MM) in an exchange are generally required to list both a bid and ask price to allow both buyers and sellers to trade and keep the market moving. However, a more general idea of a MM may includes companies off an exchange (say large banks acting as broker/dealers in an over-the-counter market) are not required to give a simultaneous bid/ask, but often will on request. So, it might depend on where you are getting this data but likely the bid/ask was quoted simultaneously. An exchange, like the NASDAQ for instance, may have multiple MMs for a given market. The \"\"market\"\" spread will be from the highest bid to the lowest ask over all the MMs. The highest bid and lowest ask may come from different MMs and any particular MM often will have a larger spread. The size of the spread gives a rough idea of how much a MM is trying to make off of a \"\"round trip\"\" trade (buying than immediately selling to someone else or selling than immediately buying from someone else). Of course, immediate round-trip trades are not always possible and there are many other complications. However, half the spread is a rough indicator of how much they hope to make off of a single trade.\"",
"qid": 10596,
"docid": "112714",
"rank": 9,
"score": 172390
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The role of the market maker is to make sure there is a bid and ask on a particular stock. That's it. The market maker ensures that there is a price at which you can buy and a price at which you can sell immediately, but these are not necessarily the best prices. The majority of trades do not involve market makers and occur between two third parties. Whoever said a market order trades with the market maker is thinking of the way stock markets were years ago, not the way they are now. Market orders are supposed to execute immediately and at one time trading with the market makers was the method for executing immediately. If you issue a market order today, it executes with the best available limit order(s) on the other wide of the trade. This may or may not involve a party that identifies as a market maker.",
"qid": 10596,
"docid": "7561",
"rank": 10,
"score": 167040
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The Bid price is simply the highest buy price currently being offered and the Ask price simply the lowest sell price being offered. The list of Bid and Ask prices is called the market depth. When the Bid and Ask prices match then a sale goes through. When looking to sell you would generally look at both the Bid and Ask prices. As a seller you want to be matched with the Bid price to get a sale, but you also need to check the current list of Ask prices. If the price you want to sell at is too high you will be placed down the Ask price list, and unless the price moves up to match your sell price you will not end up selling. On the other-hand, if your price to sell is too low and in fact much lower than the current lowest sell price you may get a quick sale but maybe at a lower price than you could have gotten. Similarly, when looking to buy, you would generally also look at both the Bid and Ask prices. As a buyer you want to be matched with the Ask price to get a sale, but you also need to check the current list of Bid prices. If the price you want to buy at is too low you will be placed down the Bid price list, and unless the price moves down to match your buy price you will no end up buying. On the other-hand, if your price to buy is too high and in fact much higher than the current highest buy price you may get a quick purchase but maybe at a higher price than you could have gotten. So, whether buying or selling, it is important to look at and consider both the Bid and Ask prices in the market depth.",
"qid": 10596,
"docid": "87065",
"rank": 11,
"score": 166047
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The market maker will always compare the highest bid and the lowest ask. A trade will happen if the highest bid is at least as high as the lowest ask. Adding one share (or a million shares) at a higher asking price, here: $210 instead of $200, will not have any effect at all. Nobody will buy the share. Adding a bid for one share (or a million shares) at a higher bid price will trigger a sale. If you bid $210 for one share, you will pay $210 for one of the shares that were offered at $200. If you have $210 million in cash and add a bid for 1,000,000 AAPL at $210, you will pay $210 for all shares with an ask of $200.00, then $200.01, then $200.02 until you either bought all shares with an ask up to $210, or until you bought a million shares. With AAPL, you probably bid the price up to $201 with a million shares, so you made lots of people very happy while losing about 10 million dollars. So let's say this is a much smaller company. You have driven the share price up to $210, but there is nobody else bidding above $200. So nobody is going to buy your shares. Until some people think there is something going on and enter higher bids, but then some people will take advantage of this and ask lower than your $210. And there will be more people trying to make cash by selling their shares at a good price than people tricked into bidding over $200, so it is most likely that you lose out. (This completely ignores legality; attempting to do this would be market manipulation and in many countries illegal. I don't know if losing money in the process would protect you from criminal charges).",
"qid": 10596,
"docid": "450489",
"rank": 12,
"score": 165833
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The point is that the bid and ask prices dictate what you can buy and sell at (at market, at least), and the difference between the two, or spread, contributes implicitly to your gains or losses. For example, say your $1 stock actually had a bid of $0.90 and an ask of $1.10; i.e. say that $1 was the last price. You would have to buy the stock at the ask price of $1.10, but now you can only sell that stock at the bid price of $0.90. Thus, you would need to make at least that $0.20 spread before you can make a profit.",
"qid": 10596,
"docid": "184051",
"rank": 13,
"score": 162988
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You can always trade at bid or ask price (depending if you are selling or buying). Market price is the price the last transaction was executed at so you may not be able to get that. If your order is large then you may not even be able to get bid/ask but should look at the depth of the order book (ie what prices are other market participants asking for and what is the size of their order). Usually only fast traders will trade at bid/ask, those who believe the price move is imminent. If you are a long term trader you can often get better than bid or ask by placing a limit order and waiting until a market participant takes your offer.",
"qid": 10596,
"docid": "402482",
"rank": 14,
"score": 162498
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: It is unlikely that buying 100 shares will have any effect on a stock's price, unless the stock's average trading volume is incredibly low. That being said, no matter how many share you buy, there's no way to know what the impact on the price will be, because that's only one factor in how shares are priced. If anyone could figure out the answer to your question then they'd be extremely rich, because they'd simply watch for big share trades and then buy those stocks on the way up. The market makers who actually execute the trades are the ones who set the prices, and most stocks have multiple market makers trading the stock, so the bid/ask you see is the highest bid and lowest ask. The market makers set the price based on what the trend of the stock is. If, for instance, there's a large number of sell orders against a stock, the market makers will start dropping the bid prices as they fill execution orders, and as they see buy orders increase, they'll raise ask prices as they fill execution orders. The market makers earn the difference between what they paid to buy someone's stock who was selling and what they get from someone else who buys it. This is a simplified explanation, so pro traders, don't beat me up! (grin) So, basically, it takes quite a bit of share volume in one direction or another to affect a stock's price. I can guarantee a 100-share trade wouldn't even be noticed by market makers. I hope this helps. Good luck!",
"qid": 10596,
"docid": "295498",
"rank": 15,
"score": 161397
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"People in this case, are large institutional investors. The \"\"bid ask\"\" spread is for \"\"small traders\"\" like yourself. It is put out by the so-called specialists (or \"\"market makers\"\") and is typically good for hundreds or thousands of shares at a time. Normally, 2 points on a 50 stock is a wide spread, and the market maker will make quite a bit of money on it trading with people like yourself. It's different if a large institution, say Fidelity, wants to sell, say 1 million shares of the stock. Depending on market conditions, it may have trouble finding buyers willing to buy in those amounts anywhere near 50. To \"\"move\"\" such a large block of stock, they may have to put the equivalent of K-Mart's old \"\"Blue Light Special\"\" on, several points below.\"",
"qid": 10596,
"docid": "43432",
"rank": 16,
"score": 158946
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"A \"\"market maker\"\" is someone that is contractually bound, by the exchange, to provide both bid and ask prices for a given volume (e.g. 5000 shares). A single market maker usually covers many stocks, and a single stock is usually covered by many market makers. The NYSE has \"\"specialists\"\" that are market makers that also performed a few other roles in the management of trading for a stock, and usually a single issue on the NYSE is covered by only one market maker. Market makers are often middlemen between brokers (ignoring stuff like dark pools, and the fact that brokers will often trade stocks internally among their own clients before going to the exchange). Historically, the market makers gave up buy/sell discretion in exchange for being the \"\"go-to guys\"\" for anyone wanting to trade in that stock. When you told your broker to buy a stock for you, he didn't hook you up with another retail investor; he went to the market maker. Market makers would also sometimes find investors willing to step in when more liquidity was needed for a security. They were like other floor traders; they hung out on the exchange floors and interacted with traders to buy and sell stocks. Traders came to them when they wanted to buy one of the specialist's issues. There was no public order book; just ticker tape and a quote. It was up to the market maker to maintain that order book. Since they are effectively forbidden from being one-sided traders in a security, their profit comes from the bid-ask spread. Being the counter-party to almost every trade, they'd make profit from always selling above where they were buying. (Except when the price moved quickly -- the downside to this arrangement.) \"\"The spread goes to the market maker\"\" is just stating that the profit implicit in the spread gets consumed by the market maker. With the switch to ECNs, the role of the market maker has changed. For example, ForEx trading firms tend to act as market makers to their customers. On ECNs, the invisible, anonymous guy at the other end of most trades is often a market maker, still performing his traditional role. Yet brokers can interact directly with each other now, rather than relying on the market maker's book. With modern online investing and public order books, retail investors might even be trading directly with each other. Market makers are still out there; in part, they perform a service sold by an Exchange to the companies that choose to be listed on that exchange. That service has changed to helping tamp volatility during normal high-volatility periods (such as at open and close).\"",
"qid": 10596,
"docid": "53041",
"rank": 17,
"score": 158787
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I don't know why a financial investor or a retail trader would do this. But I can guess why a market maker in options would do this. Let us say you buy an option from an option market maker and the market maker sold the option to you. He made a small profit in the bid-ask spread but now he is holding a short position in the option with unlimited risk exposure. So to protect himself, he will take an offsetting position in the underlying and become delta neutral, so that his position is not affected by the moves in the underlying. In the end, he can do this because he is not in the market to make money by betting on direction, unlike the rest of us poor mortals. He is making money from the bid-ask spread. So to ensure that his profits are not eroded by an adverse move in the underlying, he will continuously seek to be delta neutral. But once again, this is for a market maker. For market takers like us, I still don't understand why we would need to delta hedge.",
"qid": 10596,
"docid": "272929",
"rank": 18,
"score": 157207
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Market price is just the bid or offer price of the last sell or buy order in the market. The price that you actually receive or pay will be the price that the person buying the stock off you or selling it to you will accept. If there are no other participants in the market to make up the other side of your order (i.e. to buy off you if you are selling or to sell to you if you are buying) the exchange pays large banks to be \"\"market makers\"\"; they fulfil your order using stocks that they don't want to either buy or sell just so that you get your order filled. When you place an order outside of market hours the order is kept on the broker's order books until the market reopens and then, at market opening time there is an opening \"\"auction\"\" at which orders are matched to opposing orders (i.e. each buy order will be matched with a sell) at a price determined by auction. You will not know what price the order was filled at until it has been filled. If you want to guarantee a price you can do so by placing a limit order that says not to pay more than a certain price for any unit of the stock.\"",
"qid": 10596,
"docid": "538915",
"rank": 19,
"score": 156529
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: This is copying my own answer to another question, but this is definitely relevant for you: A bid is an offer to buy something on an order book, so for example you may post an offer to buy one share, at $5. An ask is an offer to sell something on an order book, at a set price. For example you may post an offer to sell shares at $6. A trade happens when there are bids/asks that overlap each other, or are at the same price, so there is always a spread of at least one of the smallest currency unit the exchange allows. Betting that the price of an asset will go down, traditionally by borrowing some of that asset and then selling it, hoping to buy it back at a lower price and pocket the difference (minus interest). Going long, as you may have guessed, is the opposite of going short. Instead of betting that the price will go down, you buy shares in the hope that the price will go up. So, let's say as per your example you borrow 100 shares of company 'X', expecting the price of them to go down. You take your shares to the market and sell them - you make a market sell order (a market 'ask'). This matches against a bid and you receive a price of $5 per share. Now, let's pretend that you change your mind and you think the price is going to go up, you instantly regret your decision. In order to pay back the shares, you now need to buy back your shares as $6 - which is the price off the ask offers on the order book. Similarly, the same is true in the reverse if you are going long. Because of this spread, you have lost money. You sold at a low price and bought at a high price, meaning it costs you more money to repay your borrowed shares. So, when you are shorting you need the spread to be as tight as possible.",
"qid": 10596,
"docid": "307155",
"rank": 20,
"score": 155802
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The obvious thing would happen. 10 shares change owner at the price of $100. A partially still open selling order would remain. Market orders without limits means to buy or sell at the best possible or current price. However, this is not very realistic. Usually there is a spread between the bid and the ask price and the reason is that market makers are acting in between. They would immediately exploit this situation, for example, by placing appropriately limited orders. Orders without limits are not advisable for stocks with low trading activity. Would you buy or sell stuff without caring for the price?",
"qid": 10596,
"docid": "41468",
"rank": 21,
"score": 154294
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: To add to @Victor 's answer; if you are entering a market order, and not a limit order (where you set the price you want to buy or sell at), then the Ask price is what you can expect to pay to purchase shares of stock in a long position and the Bid price is what you can expect to receive when you sell stock you own in a long position.",
"qid": 10596,
"docid": "503075",
"rank": 22,
"score": 153907
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Re: A trader when buying needs to buy at the ask price and when selling needs to sell at the bid price. So how can a trade happen 'in between' the bid and ask? Saying the trade can happen \"\"in between\"\" the bid & ask is simplistic. There is a time dimension to the market. It's more accurate to say that an order can be placed \"\"in between\"\" the current best bid & ask (observed at time T=0), thus establishing a new level for one or the other of those quoted prices (observed at time T>0). If you enter a market order to buy (or sell), then yes, you'll generally be accepting the current best ask (or best bid) with your order, because that's what a market order says to do: Accept the current best market price being offered for your kind of transaction. Of course, prices may move much faster than your observation of the price and the time it takes to process your order – you're far from being the only participant. Market orders aside, you are free to name your own price above or below the current best bid & ask, respectively. ... then one could say that you are placing an order \"\"in between\"\" the bid and ask at the time your order is placed. However – and this is key – you are also moving one or the other of those quoted prices in the process of placing your above-bid buy order or your below-ask sell order. Then, only if somebody else in the market chooses to accept your new ask (or bid) does your intended transaction take place. And that transaction takes place at the new ask (or bid) price, not the old one that was current when you entered your order. Read more about bid & ask prices at this other question: (p.s. FWIW, I don't necessarily agree with the assertion from the article you quoted, i.e.: \"\"By looking for trades that take place in between the bid and ask, you can tell when a strong trend is about to come to an end.\"\" I would say: Maybe, perhaps, but maybe not.)\"",
"qid": 10596,
"docid": "494727",
"rank": 23,
"score": 153697
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Prices quoted are primarily the offer prices quoted by the numerous market makers on the stock exchange(s) willing to sell you the stock. There is another price which generally isn't seen on these websites, the bid prices, which are lower prices quoted by buyers and market makers willing to buy your shares from you. You wouldn't see those prices, unless you login to your trade terminal. How meaningful are they to you depends on what you want to do buy or sell. If you want to buy then yes they are relevant. But if you want to sell, then no. And remember some websites delay market information by 15 minutes, in case of Google you might have seen that the volume is delayed by 15 minutes. So you need to consider that also while trading, but mayn't be a concern unless you are trying to buy out the company.",
"qid": 10596,
"docid": "218842",
"rank": 24,
"score": 153503
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You can*, if the market is open, in a normal trading phase (no auction phase), works, and there is an existing bid or offer on the product you want to trade, at the time the market learns of your order. Keep in mind there are 2 prices: bid and offer. If the current bid and current offer were the same, it would immediately result in a trade, and thus the bid and offer are no longer the same. Market Makers are paid / given lower fees in order to maintain buy and sell prices (called quotes) at most times. These conditions are usually all true, but commonly fail for these reasons: Most markets have an order type of market order that says buy/sell at any price. There are still sanity checks put in place on the price, with the exact rules for valid prices depending on the stock, so unless it's a penny stock you won't suddenly pay ten times a stock's value. *The amount you can buy sell is limited by the quantity that exists on the bid and offer. If there is a bid or offer, the quantity is always at least 1.",
"qid": 10596,
"docid": "310636",
"rank": 25,
"score": 153298
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Market price simply depends on your order side. If you are placing a buy order the market price is the lowest ask, if you are placing a sell order the market price is the highest bid. If your order is larger than the volume then you'd need to also consider the next lowest ask or next highest bid until you've fulfilled your order volume.",
"qid": 10596,
"docid": "427747",
"rank": 26,
"score": 152857
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you are buying your order will be placed in Bid list. If you are selling your order will be placed in the Ask list. The highest Bid price will be placed at the top of the Bid list and the lowest Ask price will be placed at the top of the Ask list. When a Bid and Ask price are matched a transaction will take place and it will the last traded price. If you are looking to buy at a lower price, say $155.01, your Bid price will be placed 3rd in the Bid list, and unless the Ask prices fall to that level, your order will remain in the list until it trades, it expires or you cancel it. If prices don't fall to you Bid price you will not get a trade. If you wanted your trade to go through you could either place a limit buy order closer to the lowest Ask price (however this is still not a certainty), or to be certain place a market buy order which will trade at the lowest Ask price.",
"qid": 10596,
"docid": "137175",
"rank": 27,
"score": 151195
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"This is a misconception. One of the explanations is that if you buy at the ask price and want to sell it right away, you can only sell at the bid price. This is incorrect. There are no two separate bid and ask prices. The price you buy (your \"\"bid\"\") is the same price someone else sells (their \"\"sell\"\"). The same goes when you sell - the price you sell at is the price someone else buys. There's no spread with stocks. Emphasized it on purpose, because many people (especially those who gamble on stock exchange without knowing what they're doing) don't understand how the stock market works. On the stock exchange, the transaction price is the match between the bid price and the ask price. Thus, on any given transaction, bid always equals ask. There's no spread. There is spread with commodities (if you buy it directly, especially), contracts, mutual funds and other kinds of brokered transactions that go through a third party. The difference (spread) is that third party's fee for assuming part of the risk in the transaction, and is indeed added to your cost (indirectly, in the way you described). These transactions don't go directly between a seller and a buyer. For example, there's no buyer when you redeem some of your mutual fund - the fund pays you money. So the fund assumes certain risk, which is why there's a spread in the prices to invest and to redeem. Similarly with commodities: when you buy a gold bar - you buy it from a dealer, who needs to keep a stock. Thus, the dealer will not buy from you at the same price: there's a premium on sale and a discount on buy, which is a spread, to compensate the dealer for the risk of keeping a stock.\"",
"qid": 10596,
"docid": "580364",
"rank": 28,
"score": 150785
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Sounds like an illiquid option, if there are actually some bidders, market makers, then sell the option at market price (market sell order). If there are not market makers then place a really low limit sell order so that you can sit at the ask in the order book. A lot of time there is off-book liquidity, so there may be a party looking for buy liquidity. You can also exercise the option to book the loss (immediately selling the shares when they get delivered to you), if this is an American style option. But if the option is worthless then it is probably significantly underwater, and you'd end up losing a lot more as you'd buy the stock at the strike price but only be able to sell at its current market value. The loss could also be increased further if there are even MORE liquidity issues in the stock.",
"qid": 10596,
"docid": "339419",
"rank": 29,
"score": 150481
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: A bid is an offer to buy something on an order book, so for example you may post an offer to buy one share, at $5. An ask is an offer to sell something on an order book, at a set price. For example you may post an offer to sell shares at $6. A trade happens when there are bids/asks that overlap each other, or are at the same price, so there is always a spread of at least one of the smallest currency unit the exchange allows. Betting that the price of an asset will go down, traditionally by borrowing some of that asset and then selling it, hoping to buy it back at a lower price and pocket the difference (minus interest). So, let's say as per your example you borrow 100 shares of company 'X', expecting the price of them to go down. You take your shares to the market and sell them - you make a market sell order (a market 'ask'). This matches against a bid and you receive a price of $5 per share. Now, let's pretend that you change your mind and you think the price is going to go up, you instantly regret your decision. In order to pay back the shares, you now need to buy back your shares as $6 - which is the price off the ask offers on the order book. Because of this spread, you have lost money. You sold at a low price and bought at a high price, meaning it costs you more money to repay your borrowed shares. So, when you are shorting you need the spread to be as tight as possible.",
"qid": 10596,
"docid": "412223",
"rank": 30,
"score": 149709
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: When you want to short a stock, you are trying to sell shares (that you are borrowing from your broker), therefore you need buyers for the shares you are selling. The ask prices represent people who are trying to sell shares, and the bid prices represent people who are trying to buy shares. Using your example, you could put in a limit order to short (sell) 1000 shares at $3.01, meaning that your order would become the ask price at $3.01. There is an ask price ahead of you for 500 shares at $3.00. So people would have to buy those 500 shares at $3.00 before anyone could buy your 1000 shares at $3.01. But it's possible that your order to sell 1000 shares at $3.01 never gets filled, if the buyers don't buy all the shares ahead of you. The price could drop to $1.00 without hitting $3.01 and you will have missed out on the trade. If you really wanted to short 1000 shares, you could use a market order. Let's say there's a bid for 750 shares at $2.50, and another bid for 250 shares at $2.49. If you entered a market order to sell 1000 shares, your order would get filled at the best bid prices, so first you would sell 750 shares at $2.50 and then you would sell 250 shares at $2.49. I was just using your example to explain things. In reality there won't be such a wide spread between the bid and ask prices. A stock might have a bid price of $10.50 and an ask price of $10.51, so there would only be a 1 cent difference between putting in a limit order to sell 1000 shares at $10.51 and just using a market order to sell 1000 shares and getting them filled at $10.50. Also, your example probably wouldn't work in real life, because brokers typically don't allow people to short stocks that are trading under $5 per share. As for your question about how often you are unable to make a short sale, it can sometimes happen with stocks that are heavily shorted and your broker may not be able to find any more shares to borrow. Also remember that you can only short stocks with a margin account, you cannot short stocks with a cash account.",
"qid": 10596,
"docid": "1203",
"rank": 31,
"score": 149416
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Will there be a scenario in which I want to sell, but nobody wants to buy from me and I'm stuck at the brokerage website? Similarly, if nobody wants to sell their stocks, I will not be able to buy at all? You're thinking of this as a normal purchase, but that's not really how US stock markets operate. First, just because there are shares of stock purchased, it doesn't mean that there was real investor buyer and seller demand for that instrument (at that point in time). Markets have dedicated middlemen called Market Makers (NASDAQ) or Specialists (NYSE), who are responsible to make sure that there is always someone to buy or sell; this ensures that all instruments have sufficient liquidity. Market Makers and specialists may decide to lower their bid on a stock based on a high number of sellers, or raise their ask for a high number of buyers. During an investor rush to buy or sell an instrument (perhaps in response to a news release), it's possible for the Market Maker / specialist to accumulate or distribute a large number of shares, without end-investors like you or I being involved on both sides of the same transaction.",
"qid": 10596,
"docid": "466143",
"rank": 32,
"score": 149342
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Assuming that no one else has hit the ask, and the asks are still there, yes, you will fill $54.55 as long as you didn't exhaust that ask. Actually, there is no \"\"current price at which the stock is exchanging hands\"\"; in reality, it is \"\"the last price traded\"\". The somebody who negotiated prices between buyers & sellers is the exchange through their handling of bids & asks. The real negotiation comes between bids & asks, and if they meet or cross, a trade occurs. It's not that both bid & ask should be $54.55, it's that they were. To answer the title, the reasons why the bid and ask (even their midpoint) move away from the last price are largely unknown, but at least for the market makers, if their sell inventory is going away (people are buying heavily and they're running out of inventory) they will start to hike up their asks a lot and their bids a little because market makers try to stay market neutral, having no opinion on whether an asset will rise or fall, so with stocks, that means having a balanced inventory of longs & shorts. They want to (sometimes have to depending on the exchange) accommodate the buying pressure, but they don't want to lose money, so they simply raise the ask and then raise the bid as people hit their asks since their average cost basis has risen. In fact (yahoo finance is great about showing this), there's rarely 1 bid and 1 ask. Take a look at BAC's limit book: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ecn?s=BAC+Order+Book You can see that there are many bids and many asks. If one ask is exhausted, the next in line is now the highest. The market maker who just sold at X will certainly step over the highest bid to bid at X*0.9 to get an 11% return on investment.\"",
"qid": 10596,
"docid": "298551",
"rank": 33,
"score": 148159
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"It's good to ask this question, because this is one of the fundamental dichotomies in market microstructure. At any time T for each product on a (typical) exchange there are two well-defined prices: At time T there is literally no person in the market who wants to sell below the ask, so all the people who are waiting to buy at the bid (or below) could very well be waiting there forever. There's simply no guarantee that any seller will ever want to part with their product for a lesser price than they think it's worth. So if you want to buy the product at time T you have a tough choice to make: you get in line at the bid price, where there's no guarantee that your request will ever be filled, and you might never get your hands on the product you decide that owning the product right now is more valuable to you than (ask - bid) * quantity, so you tell the exchange that you're willing to buy at the ask price, and the exchange matches you with whichever seller is first in line Now, if you're in the market for the long term, the above choice is completely immaterial to you. Who cares if you pay $10.00 * 1000 shares or $10.01 * 1000 shares when you plan to sell 30 years from now at $200 (or $200.01)? But if you're a day trader or anyone else with a very short time horizon, then this choice is extremely important: if the price is about to go up several cents and you got in line at the bid (and never got filled) then you missed out on some profit if you \"\"cross the spread\"\" to buy at the ask and then the price doesn't go up (or worse, goes down), you're screwed. In order to get out of the position you'll have to cross the spread again and sell at at most the bid, meaning you've now paid the spread twice (plus transaction fees and regulatory fees) for nothing. (All of the above also applies in reverse for selling at the ask versus selling at the bid, but most people like to learn in terms of buying rather than selling.)\"",
"qid": 10596,
"docid": "169062",
"rank": 34,
"score": 145007
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Joke warning: These days, it seems that rogue trading programs are the big market makers (this concludes the joke) Historically, exchange members were market makers. One or more members guaranteed a market in a particular stock, and would buy whatever you wanted to sell (or vice-versa). In a balanced market -- one where there were an equal number of buyers and sellers -- the spread was indeed profit for them. To make this work, market makers need an enormous amount of liquidity (ability to hold an inventory of stocks) to deal with temporary imbalances. And a day like October 29, 1929, can make that liquidity evaporate. I say \"\"historically,\"\" because I don't think that any stock market works this way today (I was discussing this very topic with a colleague last week, went to Wikipedia to look at the structure of the NYSE, and saw no mention of exchange members as market makers -- in fact, it appears that the NYSE is no longer a member-based exchange). Instead, today most (all?) trading happens on \"\"electronic crossing networks,\"\" where the spread is simply the difference between the highest bid and lowest ask. In a liquid stock, there will be hundreds if not thousands of orders clustered around the \"\"current\"\" price, usually diverging by fractions of a cent. In an illiquid stock, there may be a spread, but eventually one bid will move up or one ask will move down (or new bids will come in). You could claim that an entity with a large block of stock to move takes the role of market maker, but it doesn't have the same meaning as an exchange market maker. Since there's no entity between the bidder and asker, there's no profit in the spread, just a fee taken by the ECN. Edit: I think you have a misconception of what the \"\"spread\"\" is. It's simply the difference between the highest bid and the lowest offer. At the instant a trade takes place, the spread is 0: the highest bid equals the lowest offer, and the bidder and seller exchange shares for money. As soon as that trade is completed, the spread re-appears. The only way that a trade happens is if buyer and seller agree on price. The traditional market maker is simply an entity that has the ability to buy or sell an effectively unlimited number of shares. However, if the market maker sets a price and there are no buyers, then no trade takes place. And if there's another entity willing to sell shares below the market maker's price, then the buyers will go to that entity unless the market's rules forbid it.\"",
"qid": 10596,
"docid": "78053",
"rank": 35,
"score": 144261
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Buying stocks is like an auction. Put in the price you want to pay and see if someone is willing to sell at that price. Thing to remember about after hours trading; There is a lot less supply so there's always a larger bid/ask price spread. That's the price brokers charge to handle the stocks they broker over and above the fee. That means you will always pay more after the market closes. Unless it is bad news, but I don't think you want to buy when that happens. I think a lot of the after market trading is to manipulate the market. Traders drive up the price overnight with small purchases then sell their large holdings when the market opens.",
"qid": 10596,
"docid": "362212",
"rank": 36,
"score": 144255
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The current stock price you're referring to is actually the price of the last trade. It is a historical price – but during market hours, that's usually mere seconds ago for very liquid stocks. Whereas, the bid and ask are the best potential prices that buyers and sellers are willing to transact at: the bid for the buying side, and the ask for the selling side. But, think of the bid and ask prices you see as \"\"tip of the iceberg\"\" prices. That is: The \"\"Bid: 13.20 x200\"\" is an indication that there are potential buyers bidding $13.20 for up to 200 shares. Their bids are the highest currently bid; and there are others in line behind with lower bid prices. So the \"\"bid\"\" you're seeing is actually the best bid price at that moment. If you entered a \"\"market\"\" order to sell more than 200 shares, part of your order would likely be filled at a lower price. The \"\"Ask: 13.27 x1,000\"\" is an indication that there are potential sellers asking $13.27 for up to 1000 shares. Their ask prices are the lowest currently asked; and there are others in line behind with higher ask prices. So the \"\"ask\"\" you're seeing is the best asking price at that moment. If you entered a \"\"market\"\" order to buy more than 1000 shares, part of your order would likely be filled at a higher price. A transaction takes place when either a potential buyer is willing to pay the asking price, or a potential seller is willing to accept the bid price, or else they meet in the middle if both buyers and sellers change their orders. Note: There are primarily two kinds of stock exchanges. The one I just described is a typical order-driven matched bargain market, and perhaps the kind you're referring to. The other kind is a quote-driven over-the-counter market where there is a market-maker, as JohnFx already mentioned. In those cases, the spread between the bid & ask goes to the market maker as compensation for making a market in a stock. For a liquid stock that is easy for the market maker to turn around and buy/sell to somebody else, the spread is small (narrow). For illiquid stocks that are harder to deal in, the spread is larger (wide) to compensate the market-maker having to potentially carry the stock in inventory for some period of time, during which there's a risk to him if it moves in the wrong direction. Finally ... if you wanted to buy 1000 shares, you could enter a market order, in which case as described above you'll pay $13.27. If you wanted to buy your shares at no more than $13.22 instead, i.e. the so-called \"\"current\"\" price, then you would enter a limit order for 1000 shares at $13.22. And more to the point, your order would become the new highest-bid price (until somebody else accepts your bid for their shares.) Of course, there's no guarantee that with a limit order that you will get filled; your order could expire at the end of the day if nobody accepts your bid.\"",
"qid": 10596,
"docid": "28604",
"rank": 37,
"score": 143449
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"- In a quote driven market, must every investor trade with a market maker? In other words, two parties that are both not market makers cannot trade between themselves directly? In a way yes, all trades go through a market maker but those trades can be orders put in place by a \"\"person\"\" IE: you, or me. - Does a quote driven market only display the \"\"best\"\" bid and ask prices proposed by the market makers? In other words, only the highest bid price among all the market makers is displayed, and other lower bid prices by other market makers are not? Similarly, only the lowest ask price over all market makers is displayed, and other higher ask prices by other market makers are not? No, you can see other lower bid and higher ask prices. - In a order-driven market, is it meaningful to talk about \"\"the current stock price\"\", which is the price of last transaction? Well that's kind of an opinion. Information is information so it won't be bad to know it. Personally I would say the bid and ask price is more important. However in the real world these prices are changing constantly and quickly so realistically it is easier to keep track of the quote price and most likely the bid/ask spread is small and the quote will fall in between. The less liquid a security is the more important the bid/ask is. -- This goes for all market types. - For a specific asset, will there be several transactions happened at the same time but with different prices? Today with electronic markets, trades can happen so quickly it's difficult to say. In the US stock market trades happen one at a time but there is no set time limit between each trade. So within 1 second you can have a trade be $50 or $50.04. However it will only go to $50.04 when the lower ask prices have been exhausted. - Does an order driven market have market makers? By definition, no. - What are some examples of quote driven and order driven financial markets, in which investors are commonly trading stocks and derivatives, especially in U.S.? Quote driven market: Bond market, Forex. Order driven market: NYSE comes from an order driven market but now would be better classified as a \"\"hybird market\"\" Conclusion: If you are asking in order to better understand today's stock markets then these old definitions of Quote market or Order market may not work. The big markets in the real world are neither. (IE: Nasdaq, NYSE...) The NYSE and Nasdaq are better classified as a \"\"hybird market\"\" as they use more then a single tactic from both market types to insure market liquidity, and transparency. Markets these days are strongly electronic, fast, and fairly liquid in most cases. Here are some resources to better understand these markets: An Introduction To Securities Markets The NYSE And Nasdaq: How They Work Understanding Order Execution\"",
"qid": 10596,
"docid": "505244",
"rank": 38,
"score": 142336
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: As others have stated, the current price is simply the last price at which the security traded. For any given tick, however, there are many bid-ask prices because securities can trade on multiple exchanges and between many agents on a single exchange. This is true for both types of exchanges that Chris mentioned in his answer. Chris' answer is pretty thorough in explaining how the two types of exchanges work, so I'll just add some minor details. In exchanges like NASDAQ, there are multiple market makers for most relatively liquid securities, which theoretically introduces competition between them and therefore lowers the bid-ask spreads that traders face. Although this results in the market makers earning less compensation for their risk, they hope to make up the difference by making the market for highly liquid securities. This could also result in your order filling, in pieces, at several different prices if your brokerage firm fills it through multiple market makers. Of course, if you place your order on an exchange where an electronic system fills it (the other type of exchange that Chris mentioned), this could happen anyway. In short, if you place a market order for 1000 shares, it could be filled at several different prices, depending on volume, multiple bid-ask prices, etc. If you place a sizable order, your broker may fill it in pieces regardless to prevent you from moving the market. This is rarely a problem for small-time investors trading securities with high volumes, but for investors with higher capital like institutional investors, mutual funds, etc. who place large orders relative to the average volume, this could conceivably be a burden, both in the price difference across time as the order is placed and the increased bookkeeping it demands. This is tangentially related, so I'll add it anyway. In cases like the one described above, all-or-none (AON) orders are one solution; these are orders that instruct the broker to only execute the order if it can be filled in a single transaction. Most brokers offer these, but there are some caveats that apply to them specifically. (I haven't been able to find some of this information, so some of this is from memory). All-or-none orders are only an option if the order is for more than a certain numbers of shares. I think the minimum size is 300 or 400 shares. Your order won't be placed until your broker places all other orders ahead of it that don't have special conditions attached to them. I believe all-or-none orders are day orders, which means that if there wasn't enough supply to fill the order during the day, the order is cancelled at market close. AON orders only apply to limit orders. If you want to replicate the behavior of a market order with AON characteristics, you can try setting a limit buy/sell order a few cents above/below the current market price.",
"qid": 10596,
"docid": "560558",
"rank": 39,
"score": 142254
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: At any given time there are buy orders and there are sell orders. Typically there is a little bit of space between the lowest sell order and the highest buy order, this is known as the bid/ask spread. As an example say person A will sell for $10.10 but person B will only buy at $10.00. If you have a billion shares outstanding just the space between the bid and ask prices represents $100,000,000 of market cap. Now imagine that the CEO is in the news related to some embezzlement investigation. A number of buyers cancel their orders. Now the highest buy order is $7. There isn't money involved, that's just the highest offer to buy at the time; but that's a drop from $10 to $7. That's a change in market cap of $3,000,000,000. Some seller thinks the stock will continue to fall, and some buyer thinks the stock has reached a fair enterprise value at $7 billion ($7 per share). Whether or not the seller lost money depends on where the seller bought the stock. Maybe they bought when it was an IPO for $1. Even at $7 they made $6 per share. Value is changing, not money. Though it would be fun, there's no money bonfire at the NYSE.",
"qid": 10596,
"docid": "65147",
"rank": 40,
"score": 141533
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"When I first started working in finance I was given a rule of thumb to decide which price you will get in the market: \"\"You will always get the worst price for your deal, so when buying you get the higher ask price and when selling you get the lower bid price.\"\" I like to think of it in terms of the market as a participant who always buys at the lowest price they can (i.e. buys from you) and sells at the highest price they can. If that weren't true there would be an arbitrage opportunity and free money never exists for long.\"",
"qid": 10596,
"docid": "585552",
"rank": 41,
"score": 141005
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Yes, but also note each exchange have rules that states various conditions when the market maker can enlarge the bid-ask (e.g. for situations such as freely falling markets, etc.) and when the market makers need to give a normal bid-ask. In normal markets, the bid-asks are usually within exchange dictated bounds. MM's price spread can be larger than bid-ask spread only when there are multiple market makers and different market makers are providing different bid-asks. As long as the MM under question gives bid and ask within exchange's rules, it can be fine. These are usually rare situations. One advice: please carefully check the time-stamps. I have seen many occasions when tick data time-stamps between different vendors are mismatched in databases whereas in real life it isn't. MM's profits not just from spreads, but also from short term mean-reversion (fading). If a large order comes in suddenly, the MM increases the prices in one direction, takes the opposite side, and once the order is done, the prices comes down and the MM off-loads his imbalance at lower prices, etc.",
"qid": 10596,
"docid": "558566",
"rank": 42,
"score": 140889
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Sounds to me like you're describing just how it should work. Ask is at 30, Bid is at 20; you offer a new bid at 25. Either: Depending on liquidity, one or the other may be more likely. This Investorplace article on the subject describes what you're seeing, and recommends the strategy you're describing precisely. Instead of a market order, take advantage of the fact that the options world truly is a marketplace — one where you can possibly get a better price just by asking. How does that work? If you use a limit order (instead of a market order) when opening a position, you can tell your broker how much you are willing to pay to enter a trade. For example, if you enter a limit price of $1.15, you can see whether the market-maker will bite. You will be surprised at how many times you will get your price (i.e., $1.15) instead of the ask price of $1.30. If your order at $1.15 is not filled after a few minutes, you can modify your order and pay the ask price by entering a market order or limit order at the ask price (that is, you can tell your broker to pay no more than $1.30).",
"qid": 10596,
"docid": "373862",
"rank": 43,
"score": 140420
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: To add a bit to Daniel Anderson's great answer, if you want to 'peek' at what a the set of bid and ask spreads looks like, the otc market page could be interesting (NOTE: I'm NOT recommending that you trade Over The Counter. Many of these stocks are amusingly scary): http://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/ACBFF/quote You can see market makers essentially offering to buy or sell blocks of stock at a variety of prices.",
"qid": 10596,
"docid": "501748",
"rank": 44,
"score": 139473
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"It depends on many factors, but generally, the bid/ask spread will give you an idea. There are typically two ways to buy (or sell) a security: With a limit order, you would place a buy for 100 shares at $30-. Then it's easy, in the worst case you will get your 100 shares at $30 each exactly. You may get lucky and have the price fall, then you will pay less than $30. Of course if the price immediately goes up to say $35, nobody will sell at the $30 you want, so your broker will happily sit on his hands and rake in the commission while waiting on what is now a hail Mary ask. With a market order, you have the problem you mention: The ticker says $30, but say after you buy the first 5 shares at $30 the price shoots up and the rest are $32 each - you have now paid on average $31.9 per share. This could happen because there is a limit order for 5 at $30 and 200 at $32 (you would have filled only part of that 200). You would be able to see these in the order book (sometimes shown as bid/ask spread or market depth). However, the order book is not law. Just because there's an ask for 10k shares at $35 each for your $30 X stock, doesn't mean that by the time the price comes up to $35, the offer will still be up. The guy (or algorithm) who put it up may see the price going up and decide he now wants $40 each for his 10k shares. Also, people aren't obligated to put in their order: Maybe there's a trader who intends to trade a large volume when the price hits a certain level, like a limit order, but he elected to not put in a limit order and instead watch the ticker and react in real time. Then you will see a huge order suddenly come in out of nowhere. So while the order book is informative, what you are asking is actually fundamentally impossible to know fully, unless you can read the minds of every interested trader. As others said, in \"\"normal\"\" securities (meaning traded at a major exchange, especially those in the S&P500) you simply can't move the price, the market is too deep. You would need millions of dollars to budge the price, and if you had that much money, you wouldn't be asking here on a QA site, you would have a professional financial advisor (or even a team) that specializes in distributing your large transaction over a longer time to minimize the effect on the market. With crazier stocks, such as OTC and especially worthless penny stocks with market caps of $1 mil or less, what you say is a real problem (you can end up paying multiples of the last ticker if not careful) and you do have to be careful about it. Which is why you shouldn't trade penny stocks unless you know what you're doing (and if you're asking this question here, you don't).\"",
"qid": 10596,
"docid": "78138",
"rank": 45,
"score": 139418
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Bid and ask prices of stocks change not just daily, but continuously. They are, as the names suggest, what price people are asking for to be willing to sell their stock, and how much people are bidding to be willing to buy it at that moment. Your equation is accurate in theory, but doesn't actually apply. The bid and ask prices are indicators of the value of the stock, but the only think you care about as a trader are what you actually pay and sell it for. So regardless of the bid/ask the equation is: Since you cannot buy an index directly (index, like indicator) it doesn't make sense to discuss how much people are bidding or asking for it. Like JoeTaxpayer said, you can buy (and therefore bid/ask) for ETFs and funds that attempt to track the value of the S&P 500.",
"qid": 10596,
"docid": "351518",
"rank": 46,
"score": 138590
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"During market hours, there are a lot of dealers offering to buy and sell all exchange traded stocks. Dealers don't actually care about the company's fundamentals and they set their prices purely based on order flow. If more people start to buy than sell, the dealer notices his inventory going down and starts upping the price (both his bid and ask). There are also traders who may not be \"\"dealers\"\", but are willing to sell if the price goes high enough or buy if the price goes low enough. This keeps the prices humming along smoothly. During normal trading hours, if you buy something and turn around and sell it two minutes later, you'll probably be losing a couple cents per share. Outside normal market hours, the dealers who continue to have a bid and ask listed know that they don't have access to good price information -- there isn't a liquid market of continuous buying and selling for the dealer to set prices he considers safe. So what does he do? He widens the spread. He doesn't know what the market will open tomorrow at and doesn't know if he'll be able to react quickly to news. So instead of bidding $34.48 and offering at $34.52, he'll move that out to $33 and $36. The dealer still makes money sometimes off this because maybe some trader realized that he has options expiring tomorrow, or a short position that he's going to get a margin call on, or some kind of event that pretty much forces him to trade. Or maybe he's just panicking and overreacting to some news. So why not trade after hours? Because there's no liquidity, and trading when there's no liquidity costs you a lot.\"",
"qid": 10596,
"docid": "414036",
"rank": 47,
"score": 138581
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"There is one other factor that I haven't seen mentioned here. It's easy to assume that if you buy a stock, then someone else (another stock owner) must have sold it to you. This is not true however, because there are people called \"\"market makers\"\" whose basic job is to always be available to buy shares from those who wish to sell, and sell shares to those who wish to buy. They could be selling you shares they just bought from someone else, but they also could simply be issuing shares from the company itself, that have never been bought before. This is a super oversimplified explanation, but hopefully it illustrates my point.\"",
"qid": 10596,
"docid": "482739",
"rank": 48,
"score": 137708
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I'm not sure the term actually has a clear meaning. We can think of \"\"what does this mean\"\" in two ways: its broad semantic/metaphorical meaning, and its mechanical \"\"what actual variables in the market represent this quantity\"\". Net buying/selling have a clear meaning in the former sense by analogy to the basic concept of supply and demand in equilibrium markets. It's not as clear what their meaning should be in the latter sense. Roughly, as the top comment notes, you could say that a price decrease is because of net selling at the previous price level, while a price rise is driven by net buying at the previous price level. But in terms of actual market mechanics, the only way prices move is by matching of a buyer and a seller, so every market transaction inherently represents an instantaneous balance across the bid/ask spread. So then we could think about the notion of orders. Actual transactions only occur in balance, but there is a whole book of standing orders at various prices. So maybe we could use some measure of the volume at various price levels in each of the bid/ask books to decide some notion of net buying/selling. But again, actual transactions occur only when matched across the spread. If a significant order volume is added on one side or the other, but at a price far away from the bid/offer - far enough that an actual trade at that price is unlikely to occur - should that be included in the notion of net buying/selling? Presumably there is some price distance from the bid/offer where the orders don't matter for net buying/selling. I'm sure you'd find a lot of buyers for BRK.A at $1, but that's completely irrelevant to the notion of net buying/selling in BRK.A. Maybe the closest thing I can think of in terms of actual market mechanics is the comparative total volumes during the period that would still have been executed if forced to execute at the end of period price. Assuming that traders' valuations are fixed through the period in question, and trading occurs on the basis of fundamentals (which I know isn't a good assumption in practice, but the impact of price history upon future price is too complex for this analysis), we have two cases. If price falls, we can assume all buyers who executed above the last price in the period would have happily bought at the last price (saving money), while all sellers who executed below the last price in the period would also be happy to sell for more. The former will be larger than the latter. If the price rises, the reverse is true.\"",
"qid": 10596,
"docid": "599523",
"rank": 49,
"score": 137576
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Quote driven markets are the predecessors to the modern securities market. Before electronic trading and HFTs specifically, trading was thin and onerous. Today, the average investor can open up a web page, type in a security, and buy at the narrowest spread permitted by regulators with anyone else who wants to take the other side. Before the lines between market maker and speculator became blurred to indistinction, a market maker was one who was contractually obligated to an exchange to provide a bid and ask for a given security on said exchange even though at heart a market maker is still simply a trader despite the obligation. A market maker would simultaneously buy a large amount of securities privately and short the same amount to have no directional bias, exposure to the direction of the security, and commence to making the market. The market maker would estimate its cost basis for the security based upon those initial trades and provide a bid and ask appropriate for the given level of volume. If volumes were high, the spread would be low and vice versa. Market makers who survived crashes and spikes would forgo the potential profit in always providing a steady price and spread, ie increased volume otherwise known as revenue, to maintain no directional bias. In other words, if there were suddenly many buyers and no sellers, hitting the market maker's ask, the MM would raise the ask rapidly in proportion to the increased exposure while leaving the bid somewhere below the cost basis. Eventually, a seller would arise and hit the MM's bid, bringing the market maker's inventory back into balance, and narrowing the spread that particular MM could provide since a responsible MM's ask could rise very high very quickly if a lack of its volume relative to its inventory made inventory too costly. This was temporarily extremely costly to the trader if there were few market makers on the security the trader was trading or already exposed to. Market makers prefer to profit from the spread, bidding below some predetermined price, based upon the cost basis of the market maker's inventory, while asking above that same predetermined cost basis. Traders profit from taking exposure to a security's direction or lack thereof in the case of some options traders. Because of electronic trading, liquidity rebates offered by exchanges not only to contractually obligated official market makers but also to any trader who posts a limit order that another trader hits, and algorithms that become better by the day, market making HFTs have supplanted the traditional market maker, and there are many HFTs where there previously were few official market makers. This speed and diversification of risk across many many algorithmically market making HFTs have kept spreads to the minimum on large equities and have reduced the same for the smallest equities on major exchanges. Orders and quotes are essentially identical. Both are double sided auction markets with impermenant bids and asks. The difference lies in that non-market makers, specialists, etc. orders are not shown to the rest of the market, providing an informational advantage to MMs and an informational disadvantage to the trader. Before electronic trading, this construct was of no consequence since trader orders were infrequent. With the prevalence of HFTs, the informational disadvantage has become more costly, so order driven markets now prevail with much lower spreads and accelerated volumes even though market share for the major exchanges has dropped rapidly and hyperaccelerated number of trades even though the size of individual trades have fallen. The worst aspect of the quote driven market was that traders could not directly trade with each other, so all trades had to go between a market maker, specialist, etc. While this may seem to have increased cost to a trader who could only trade with another trader by being arbitraged by a MM et al, paying more than what another trader was willing to sell, these costs were dwarfed by the potential absence of those market makers. Without a bid or ask at any given time, there could be no trade, so the costs were momentarily infinite. In essence, a quote driven market protects market makers from the competition of traders. While necessary in the days where paper receipts were carted from brokerage to brokerage, and the trader did not dedicate itself to round the clock trading, it has no place in a computerized market. It is more costly to the trader to use such a market, explaining quote driven markets' rapid exit.",
"qid": 10596,
"docid": "69197",
"rank": 50,
"score": 136940
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The equation you show is correct, you've simply pointed out that you understand that you buy at the 'ask' price, and later sell at the 'bid.' There is no bid/ask on the S&P, as you can't trade it directly. You have a few alternatives, however - you can trade SPY, the (most well known) S&P ETF whose price reflects 1/10 the value or VOO (Vanguard's offering) as well as others. Each of these ETFs gives you a bid/ask during market hours. They trade like a stock, have shares that are reasonably priced, and are optionable. To trade the index itself, you need to trade the futures. S&P 500 Futures and Options is the CME Group's brief info guide on standard and mini contracts. Welcome to SE.",
"qid": 10596,
"docid": "122323",
"rank": 51,
"score": 136538
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Yes, stock price is determined by the last trade price. There are always going to be people who have put in a price to buy a stock (called a bid price) and people who have put in a price to sell a stock (called an ask price). Based on your example, if the last trade price for the stock was $1.23, then you might have the following bid prices and ask prices: So if you put in a limit order to buy 100 shares at $100, you would buy the 40 shares at $1.23, the 15 shares at $1.24, and the 45 shares $1.25. The price of the stock would go up to $1.25. Conversely, if you put in a limit order to sell 100 shares at $0.01 (I don't think any broker would allow a sell price of $0.00), you would sell 30 shares at $1.22, 20 shares at $1.21, and 50 shares at $1.20. The price of the stock would go down to $1.20.",
"qid": 10596,
"docid": "179564",
"rank": 52,
"score": 136264
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Both prices are quotes on a single share of stock. The bid price is what buyers are willing to pay for it. The ask price is what sellers are willing to take for it. If you are selling a stock, you are going to get the bid price, if you are buying a stock you are going to get the ask price. The difference (or \"\"spread\"\") goes to the broker/specialist that handles the transaction.\"",
"qid": 10596,
"docid": "183419",
"rank": 53,
"score": 136104
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: There are two terms that are related, but separate here: Broker and Market Maker. The former is who goes and finds a buyer/seller to buy/sell shares from/to you. The latter (Market Maker) is a company which will agree to partner with you to complete the sale at a set price (typically the market price, often by definition as the market maker often is the one who determines the market price in a relatively low volumne listing). A market maker will have as you say a 'pool' of relatively common stock (and even relatively uncommon, up to a point) for this purpose. A broker can be a market maker (or work for one), also, in which case he would sell you directly the shares from the market maker reservoir. This may be a bad idea for you - the broker (while obligated to act in your interest, in theory) may push you towards stocks that the brokerage acts as a market maker for.",
"qid": 10596,
"docid": "584295",
"rank": 54,
"score": 135258
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If the share is listed on a stock exchange that creates liquidity and orderly sales with specialist market makers, such as the NYSE, there will always be a counterparty to trade with, though they will let the price rise or fall to meet other open interest. On other exchanges, or in closely held or private equity scenarios, this is not necessarily the case (NASDAQ has market maker firms that maintain the bid-ask spread and can do the same thing with their own inventory as the specialists, but are not required to by the brokerage rules as the NYSE brokers are). The NYSE has listing requirements of at least 1.1 million shares, so there will not be a case with only 100 shares on this exchange.",
"qid": 10596,
"docid": "458546",
"rank": 55,
"score": 135181
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You don't see Buying and Selling. You see Bid and Ask. Best Bid--Highest Price someone is willing to pay to buy a stock. Best Ask - Lowest price someone is willing to accept to sell a stock. As for your second question, if you can look up Accumulation/Distribution Algorithm and Iceberg Order, you will get basic idea.",
"qid": 10596,
"docid": "294867",
"rank": 56,
"score": 135036
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The price of a share has two components: Bid: The highest price that someone who wants to buy shares is willing to pay for them. Ask: The lowest price that someone who has a share is willing to sell it for. The ask is always higher than the bid, since if they were equal the buyer and seller would have a deal, make a transaction, and that repeats until they are not equal. For stock with high volume, there is usually a very small difference between the bid and ask, but a stock with lower volume could have a major difference. When you say that the share price is $100, that could mean different things. You could be talking about the price that the shares sold for in the most recent transaction (and that might not even be between the current bid and ask), or you could be talking about any of the bid, the ask, or some value in between them. If you have shares that you are interested in selling, then the bid is what you could immediately sell a share for. If you sell a share for $100, that means someone was willing to pay you $100 for it. If after buying it, they still want to buy more for $100 each, or someone else does, then the bid is still $100, and you haven't changed the price. If no one else is willing to pay more than $90 for a share, then the price would drop to $90 next time a transaction takes place and thats what you would be able to immediately sell the next share for.",
"qid": 10596,
"docid": "472537",
"rank": 57,
"score": 134717
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I think for this a picture is worth a thousand words. This is a \"\"depth chart\"\" that I pulled from google images, specifically because it doesn't name any security. On the left you have all of the \"\"bids\"\" to buy this security, on the right you have the \"\"asks\"\" to sell the security. In the middle you have the bid/ask spread, this is the space between the highest bid and the lowest ask. As you can see you are free to place you order to the market to buy for 232, and someone else is free to place their order to the market to sell for 234. When the bid and the ask match there's a transaction for the maximum number of available shares. Alternatively, someone can place a market order to buy or sell and they'll just take the current market price. Retail investors don't really get access to this kind of chart from their brokers because for the most part the information isn't terribly relevant at the retail level.\"",
"qid": 10596,
"docid": "322798",
"rank": 58,
"score": 134530
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Price is decided by what shares are offered at what prices and who blinks first. The buyer and seller are both trying to find the best offer, for their definition of best, within the constraints then have set on their bid or ask. The seller will sell to the highest bid they can get that they consider acceptable. The buyer will buy from the lowest offer they can get that they consider acceptable. The price -- and whether a sale/purchase happens at all -- depends on what other trades are still available and how long you're willing to wait for one you're happy with, and may be different on one share than another \"\"at the same time\"\" if the purchase couldn't be completed with the single best offer and had to buy from multiple offers. This may have been easier to understand in the days of open outcry pit trading, when you could see just how chaotic the process is... but it all boils down to a high-speed version of seeking the best deal in an old-fashioned marketplace where no prices are fixed and every sale requires (or at least offers the opportunity for) negotiation. \"\"Fred sells it five cents cheaper!\"\" \"\"Then why aren't you buying from him?\"\" \"\"He's out of stock.\"\" \"\"Well, when I don't have any, my price is ten cents cheaper.\"\" \"\"Maybe I won't buy today, or I'll buy elsewhere. \"\"Maybe I won't sell today. Or maybe someone else will pay my price. Sam looks interested...\"\" \"\"Ok, ok. I can offer two cents more.\"\" \"\"Three. Sam looks really interested.\"\" \"\"Two and a half, and throw in an apple for Susie.\"\" \"\"Done.\"\" And the next buyer or seller starts the whole process over again. Open outcry really is just a way of trying to shop around very, very, very fast, and electronic reconciliation speeds it up even more, but it's conceptually the same process -- either seller gets what they're asking, or they adjust and/or the buyer adjusts until they meet, or everyone agrees that there's no agreement and goes home.\"",
"qid": 10596,
"docid": "540816",
"rank": 59,
"score": 134169
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: When a stock is ask for 15.2 and bid for 14.5, and the last market price was 14.5, what does it mean? It means that the seller wants to sell for a higher price than the last sale while the buyer does not want to buy for more than the last sale price. Or what if the last price is 15.2? The seller is offering to sell for the last sale price, but the buyer wants to buy for less.",
"qid": 10596,
"docid": "92109",
"rank": 60,
"score": 133460
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"There are people (well, companies) who make money doing roughly what you describe, but not exactly. They're called \"\"market makers\"\". Their value for X% is somewhere on the scale of 1% (that is to say: a scale at which almost everything is \"\"volatile\"\"), but they use leverage, shorting and hedging to complicate things to the point where it's nothing like a simple as making a 1% profit every time they trade. Their actions tend to reduce volatility and increase liquidity. The reason you can't do this is that you don't have enough capital to do what market makers do, and you don't receive any advantages that the exchange might offer to official market makers in return for them contracting to always make both buy bids and sell offers (at different prices, hence the \"\"bid-offer spread\"\"). They have to be able to cover large short-term losses on individual stocks, but when the stock doesn't move too much they do make profits from the spread. The reason you can't just buy a lot of volatile stocks \"\"assuming I don't make too many poor choices\"\", is that the reason the stocks are volatile is that nobody knows which ones are the good choices and which ones are the poor choices. So if you buy volatile stocks then you will buy a bunch of losers, so what's your strategy for ensuring there aren't \"\"too many\"\"? Supposing that you're going to hold 10 stocks, with 10% of your money in each, what do you do the first time all 10 of them fall the day after you bought them? Or maybe not all 10, but suppose 75% of your holdings give no impression that they're going to hit your target any time soon. Do you just sit tight and stop trading until one of them hits your X% target (in which case you start to look a little bit more like a long-term investor after all), or are you tempted to change your strategy as the months and years roll by? If you will eventually sell things at a loss to make cash available for new trades, then you cannot assess your strategy \"\"as if\"\" you always make an X% gain, since that isn't true. If you don't ever sell at a loss, then you'll inevitably sometimes have no cash to trade with through picking losers. The big practical question then is when that state of affairs persists, for how long, and whether it's in force when you want to spend the money on something other than investing. So sure, if you used a short-term time machine to know in advance which volatile stocks are the good ones today, then it would be more profitable to day-trade those than it would be to invest for the long term. Investing on the assumption that you'll only pick short-term winners is basically the same as assuming you have that time machine ;-) There are various strategies for analysing the market and trying to find ways to more modestly do what market makers do, which is to take profit from the inherent volatility of the market. The simple strategy you describe isn't complete and cannot be assessed since you don't say how to decide what to buy, but the selling strategy \"\"sell as soon as I've made X% but not otherwise\"\" can certainly be improved. If you're keen you can test a give strategy for yourself using historical share price data (or current share price data: run an imaginary account and see how you're doing in 12 months). When using historical data you have to be realistic about how you'd choose what stocks to buy each day, or else you're just cheating at solitaire. When using current data you have to beware that there might not be a major market slump in the next 12 months, in which case you won't know how your strategy performs under conditions that it inevitably will meet eventually if you run it for real. You also have to be sure in either case to factor in the transaction costs you'd be paying, and the fact that you're buying at the offer price and selling at the bid price, you can't trade at the headline mid-market price. Finally, you have to consider that to do pure technical analysis as an individual, you are in effect competing against a bank that's camped on top of the exchange to get fastest possible access to trade, it has a supercomputer and a team of whizz-kids, and it's trying to find and extract the same opportunities you are. This is not to say the plucky underdog can't do well, but there are systematic reasons not to just assume you will. So folks investing for their retirement generally prefer a low-risk strategy that plays the averages and settles for taking long-term trends.\"",
"qid": 10596,
"docid": "360059",
"rank": 61,
"score": 133114
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Why would there not be a bid and ask? Dealers make their money in the spread between what they buy it from one entity for and what they sell it to another entity for. This doesn't mean they have to do it auction-style, but they'll still have a different buy price from a sell price, hence \"\"bid\"\" and \"\"ask\"\".\"",
"qid": 10596,
"docid": "127452",
"rank": 62,
"score": 132847
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"At least for liquid markets, the downside of being a market maker is what we call \"\"negative selection\"\". Specifically, if you're both bid and offered in a market, trying to collect your spread, then as the market goes up, you'll tend to sell the whole way up, and vice versa. So if you're not smart about it, you can end up losing a lot of money. Being a good market maker, then, involves either being able to smarter about when to be aggressively bid and offered and when to pull back, or being able to hedge them quickly before they really hurt you. The first probably would require more sophisticated algorithms, while the second requires good speed and execution strategies.\"",
"qid": 10596,
"docid": "224725",
"rank": 63,
"score": 131892
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: In practice, it would not work. If you put a bid in that was really out of line, even if it got filled, the exchange would reverse it. Other than that it really depends on what the current bid/ask spread it, and what volume its trading, as well as how the market feels. Say the current bid is 11 and you put an order in with bid 11.5, it would soak up all the orders on the market up to the volume your buying. But once your order is filled the market will be determined by what the next order's bid/ask is. It might stay where you moved it too if others feels thats a fair price. But if every other order on the market is still at 11, then the price isnt gonna move. tl;dl unless your a market maker, you could not realistically affect the price.",
"qid": 10596,
"docid": "343558",
"rank": 64,
"score": 131796
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Say we have stock XYZ that costs $50 this second. It doesn't cost XYZ this second. The market price only reflects the last price at which the security traded. It doesn't mean that if you'll get that price when you place an order. The price you get if/when your order is filled is determined by the bid/ask spreads. Why would people sell below the current price, and not within the range of the bid/ask? Someone may be willing to sell at an ask price of $47 simply because that's the best price they think they can sell the security for. Keep in mind that the \"\"someone\"\" may be a computer that determined that $47 is a reasonable ask price. Remember that bid/ask spreads aren't fixed, and there can be multiple bid/ask prices in a market at any given time. Your buy order was filled because at the time, someone else in the market was willing to sell you the security for the same price as your bid price. Your respective buy/sell orders were matched based on their price (and volume, conditional orders, etc). These questions may be helpful to you as well: Can someone explain a stock's \"\"bid\"\" vs. \"\"ask\"\" price relative to \"\"current\"\" price? Bids and asks in case of market order Can a trade happen \"\"in between\"\" the bid and ask price? Also, you say you're a day trader. If that's so, I strongly recommend getting a better grasp on the basics of market mechanics before committing any more capital. Trading without understanding how markets work at the most fundamental levels is a recipe for disaster.\"",
"qid": 10596,
"docid": "353396",
"rank": 65,
"score": 131776
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Most of the time* you're selling to other investors, not back to the company. The stock market is a collection of bid (buy offers) and asks (sell offers). When you sell your stock as a retail investor at the \"\"market\"\" price you're essentially just meeting whatever standing bid offers are on the market. For very liquid stocks (e.g. Apple), you can pretty much always get the displayed price because so many stocks are being traded. However during periods of very high volatility or for low-volume stocks, the quoted price may not be indicative of what you actually pay. As an example, let's say you have 5 stocks you're trying to sell and the bid-side order book is 2 stocks for $105, 2 for $100, and 5 for $95. In this scenario the quoted price will be $105 (the best bid price), but if you accept market price you'll settle 2 for 105, 2 for 100, and 1 for 95. After your sell order goes through, the new quoted price will be $95. For high volume stocks, there will usually be so many orders near the midpoint price ($105, in this case) that you won't see any price slippage for small orders. You can also post limit orders, which are essentially open orders waiting to be filled like in the above example. They ensure you get the price you want, but you have no way to guarantee they'll be filled or not. Edit: as a cool example, check out the bitcoin GDAX on coinbase for a live example of what the order book looks like for stocks. You'll see that the price of bitcoin will drift towards whichever direction has the less dense order book (e.g. price drifts upwards when there are far more bids than asks.)\"",
"qid": 10596,
"docid": "317365",
"rank": 66,
"score": 131305
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"If we can agree that 2010 was closer to the low of 2009 than 2007 then the rich did all the buying while the super-rich did all the selling. http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html Looks like the rich cleaned up during the Tech Crash too, but it looks like the poor lost faith. That limited data makes it look like the best investors are the rich. Market makers are only required by the exchanges to provide liquidity, bids & asks. They aren't required to buy endlessly. In fact, market makers (at least the ones who survive the busts) try to never have a stake in direction. They do this by holding equal inventories of long and shorts. They are actually the only people legally allowed to naked short stock: sell without securing shares to borrow. All us peons must secure borrowed shares before selling short. Also, firms involved in the actual workings of the market like bookies but unlike us peons who make the bets play by different margin rules. They're allowed to lever through the roof because they take on low risk or near riskless trades and \"\"positions\"\" (your broker, clearing agent, etc actually directly \"\"own\"\" your financial assets and borrow & lend them like a bank). http://www.finra.org/web/groups/industry/@ip/@reg/@notice/documents/notices/p004001.pdf This is why market makers can be assumed not to load up on shares during a decline; they simply drop the bids & asks as their bids are hit.\"",
"qid": 10596,
"docid": "482517",
"rank": 67,
"score": 131296
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Many of the Bitcoin exchanges mimic stock exchanges, though they're much more rudimentary offering only simple buy/sell/cancel orders. It's fairly normal for retail stock brokerage accounts to allow other sorts of more complex orders, where once a certain criteria is met, (the price falls below some $ threshold, or has a movement greater than some %) then your order is executed. The space between the current buy order and the current sell order is the bid/ask spread, it's not really about timing. Person X will buy at $100, person Y will sell at $102. If both had a price set at $101, they would just transact. Both parties think they can do a little bit better than the current offer. The width of the bid/ask spread is not universal by any means. The current highest buy order and the current lowest sell order, are both the current price. The current quoted market price is generally the price of the last transaction, whether it's buy or sell.",
"qid": 10596,
"docid": "507357",
"rank": 68,
"score": 131295
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I'm just trying to visualize the costs of trading. Say I set up an account to trade something (forex, stock, even bitcoin) and I was going to let a random generator determine when I should buy or sell it. If I do this, I would assume I have an equal probability to make a profit or a loss. Your question is what a mathematician would call an \"\"ill-posed problem.\"\" It makes it a challenge to answer. The short answer is \"\"no.\"\" We will have to consider three broad cases for types of assets and two time intervals. Let us start with a very short time interval. The bid-ask spread covers the anticipated cost to the market maker of holding an asset bought in the market equal to the opportunity costs over the half-life of the holding period. A consequence of this is that you are nearly guaranteed to lose money if your time interval between trades is less than the half-life of the actual portfolio of the market maker. To use a dice analogy, imagine having to pay a fee per roll before you can gamble. You can win, but it will be biased toward losing. Now let us go to the extreme opposite time period, which is that you will buy now and sell one minute before you die. For stocks, you would have received the dividends plus any stocks you sold from mergers. Conversely, you would have had to pay the dividends on your short sales and received a gain on every short stock that went bankrupt. Because you have to pay interest on short sales and dividends passed, you will lose money on a net basis to the market maker. Maybe you are seeing a pattern here. The phrase \"\"market maker\"\" will come up a lot. Now let us look at currencies. In the long run, if the current fiat money policy regime holds, you will lose a lot of money. Deflation is not a big deal under a commodity money regime, but it is a problem under fiat money, so central banks avoid it. So your long currency holdings will depreciate. Your short would appreciate, except you have to pay interest on them at a rate greater than the rate of inflation to the market maker. Finally, for commodities, no one will allow perpetual holding of short positions in commodities because people want them delivered. Because insider knowledge is presumed under the commodities trading laws, a random investor would be at a giant disadvantage similar to what a chess player who played randomly would face against a grand master chess player. There is a very strong information asymmetry in commodity contracts. There are people who actually do know how much cotton there is in the world, how much is planted in the ground, and what the demand will be and that knowledge is not shared with the world at large. You would be fleeced. Can I also assume that probabilistically speaking, a trader cannot do worst than random? Say, if I had to guess the roll of a dice, my chance of being correct can't be less than 16.667%. A physicist, a con man, a magician and a statistician would tell you that dice rolls and coin tosses are not random. While we teach \"\"fair\"\" coins and \"\"fair\"\" dice in introductory college classes to simplify many complex ideas, they also do not exist. If you want to see a funny version of the dice roll game, watch the 1962 Japanese movie Zatoichi. It is an action movie, but it begins with a dice game. Consider adopting a Bayesian perspective on probability as it would be a healthier perspective based on how you are thinking about this problem. A \"\"frequency\"\" approach always assumes the null model is true, which is what you are doing. Had you tried this will real money, your model would have been falsified, but you still wouldn't know the true model. Yes, you can do much worse than 1/6th of the time. Even if you are trying to be \"\"fair,\"\" you have not accounted for the variance. Extending that logic, then for an inexperienced trader, is it right to say then that it's equally difficult to purposely make a loss then it is to purposely make a profit? Because if I can purposely make a loss, I would purposely just do the opposite of what I'm doing to make a profit. So in the dice example, if I can somehow lower my chances of winning below 16.6667%, it means I would simply need to bet on the other 5 numbers to give myself a better than 83% chance of winning. If the game were \"\"fair,\"\" but for things like forex the rules of the game are purposefully changed by the market maker to maximize long-run profitability. Under US law, forex is not regulated by anything other than common law. As a result, the market maker can state any price, including prices far from the market, with the intent to make a system used by actors losing systems, such as to trigger margin calls. The prices quoted by forex dealers in the US move loosely with the global rates, but vary enough that only the dealer should make money systematically. A fixed strategy would promote loss. You are assuming that only you know the odds and they would let you profit from your 83.33 percentage chance of winning. So then, is the costs of trading from a purely probabilistic point of view simply the transaction costs? No matter what, my chances cannot be worse than random and if my trading system has an edge that is greater than the percentage of the transaction that is transaction cost, then I am probabilistically likely to make a profit? No, the cost of trading is the opportunity cost of the money. The transaction costs are explicit costs, but you have ignored the implicit costs of foregone interest and foregone happiness using the money for other things. You will want to be careful here in understanding probability because the distribution of returns for all of these assets lack a first moment and so there cannot be a \"\"mean return.\"\" A modal return would be an intellectually more consistent perspective, implying you should use an \"\"all-or-nothing\"\" cost function to evaluate your methodology.\"",
"qid": 10596,
"docid": "588569",
"rank": 69,
"score": 130600
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"You answered your own question \"\"whether someone buys is a different thing\"\". You can ask any price that you want. (Or given an electronic brokerage, you can enter the highest value that the system was designed to accept.) The market (demand) will determine whether anyone will buy at the price you are asking. A better strategy if you want to make an unreasonable amount of money is to put in a buy order at an unreasonably low price and hope a glitch causes a flash crash and allows you to purchase at that price. There may be rules that unravel your purchase after the fact, but it has a better chance of succeeding than trying to sell at an unreasonably high price.\"",
"qid": 10596,
"docid": "96807",
"rank": 70,
"score": 130166
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"A market sell order will be filled at the highest current \"\"bid\"\" price. For a reasonably liquid stock, there will be several buy orders in line, and the highest bid must be filled first, so there should a very short time between when you place the order and when it is filled. What could happen is what's called front running. That's when the broker places their own order in front of yours to fulfill the current bid, selling their own stock at the slightly higher price, causing your sale to be filled at a lower price. This is not only unethical but illegal as well. It is not something you should be concerned about with a large broker. You should only place a market order when you don't care about minute differences between the current ask and your execution price, but want to guarantee order execution. If you absolutely have to sell at a minimum price, then a limit order is more appropriate, but you run the risk that your limit will not be reached and your order will not be filled. So the risk is a tradeoff between a guaranteed price and a guaranteed execution.\"",
"qid": 10596,
"docid": "418937",
"rank": 71,
"score": 130085
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I frequently do this on NADEX, selling out-of-the-money binary calls. NADEX is highly illiquid, and the bid/ask is almost always from the market maker. Out-of-the-money binary calls lose value quickly (NADEX daily options exist for only ~21 hours). If I place an above-ask order, it either gets filled quickly (within a few minutes) due to a spike in the underlying, or not at all. I compensate by changing my price hourly. As Joe notes, one of Black-Scholes inputs is volatility, but price determines (implied) volatility, so this is circular. In other words, you can treat the bid/ask prices as bid/ask volatilities. This isn't as far-fetched as it seems: http://www.cmegroup.com/trading/fx/volatility-quoting-fx-options.html",
"qid": 10596,
"docid": "294295",
"rank": 72,
"score": 129569
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The market price of a stock is based on nothing at all more than what two parties were last willing to transact for it. The stock has a \"\"bid\"\" and an \"\"ask\"\" each is the value placed by a counterparty. For the sale to occur, one party must meet the other. The stock transacts and that is the price. For a stock to \"\"go up\"\" people must be willing to pay more for it. Likewise, for it to \"\"go down\"\" people must be willing to accept less for it.\"",
"qid": 10596,
"docid": "39696",
"rank": 73,
"score": 128612
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I think you're over complicating it! There is the market maker in the pure sense as what chilldontkill said - a bookie, a middleman. They are just the brokers in between the buyers and sellers, and they simply make profit off of the spread differential. But market maker is also used to refer to large, high volume buyers and sellers that can influence the price because they control a larger % of volume. These only really exist on low volume products, and they slowly ween out the larger the volume. On higher volume products, I like to refer to them as institutions - that is, well informed, large pockets - whether is be central banks, clearing houses, hedge funds, boutique firms. These are the people who are generally in the know and they often bet against eachother.hope this helps ...",
"qid": 10596,
"docid": "58565",
"rank": 74,
"score": 128439
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you are looking to go long (buy) you would use bid prices as this is what you will be matched against for your order to be executed and a trade to go through. If you are looking to go short (sell) you would use the ask prices as this is what you will be matched against for your order to be executed and a trade go through. In your analysis you could use either this convention or the midpoint of the two prices. As FX is very liquid the bid and ask prices would be quite close to each other, so the easiest way to do your analysis is to use the convention I listed above.",
"qid": 10596,
"docid": "459052",
"rank": 75,
"score": 128011
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I assume that mutual funds are being discussed here. As Bryce says, open-ended funds are bought from the mutual fund company and redeemed from the fund company. Except in very rare circumstances, they exist only as bits in the fund company's computers and not as share certificates (whether paper or electronic) that can be delivered from the selling broker to the buying broker on a stock exchange. Effectively, the fund company is the sole market maker: if you want to buy, ask the fund company at what price it will sell them to you (and it will tell you the answer only after 4 pm that day when a sale at that price is no longer possible unless you committed to buy, say, 100 shares and authorized the fund company to withdraw the correct amount from your bank account or other liquid asset after the price was known). Ditto if you want to sell: the mutual fund company will tell you what price it will give you only after 4 pm that day and you cannot sell at that price unless you had committed to accept whatever the company was going to give you for your shares (or had said \"\"Send me $1000 and sell as many shares of mine as are needed to give me proceeds of $1000 cash.\"\")\"",
"qid": 10596,
"docid": "201361",
"rank": 76,
"score": 127681
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You have to look at stocks just like you would look at smaller and more illiquid markets. Stock trade in auction markets. These are analogous to ebay or craigslist, just with more transparency and liquidity. There is no guarantee that a market will form for a particular stock, or that it will sustain. When a stock sells off, and there are no bids left, that means all of the existing bidder's limit orders got filled because someone sold at those prices. There is nothing fishy about that. It is likely that someone else wants to sell even more, but couldn't find any more bidders. If you put a bid you would likely get filled by the shareholder with a massive position looking for liquidity. You could also buy at the ask.",
"qid": 10596,
"docid": "400614",
"rank": 77,
"score": 127628
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I was the one who made the beating you to the punch comment. That liquidity is worthless without an active market. That's the whole point of liquidity. An ability to sell back when needed. High volume means nothing when the fucking HFT buys all the stock and holds you hostage to his sell price. The only thing raising the price of pineapples is high speed trading. They only buy OR sell **when they see a bid.** That is not a traditional market maker. Please, tell me how that is wrong. That is not a rhetorical question. edit: If a pineapple is listed at 6.00 let's say you decide to buy and throw it in your cart. A store employee overhears you saying \"\"I'd be willing to pay 6.02 for this\"\". The employee tells the cashier to raise the price to 6.02 right before you get to the register. This is HFT in a nutshell. It doesn't provide an active pineapple market because the pineapple was only being offered once a buyer was lined up.\"",
"qid": 10596,
"docid": "314698",
"rank": 78,
"score": 127032
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Some technical indicators (e.g. Williams %R) indicate whether the market is overbought or oversold. ... Every time a stock or commodity is bought, it is also sold. And vice versa. So how can anything ever be over-bought or over-sold? But I'm sure I'm missing something. What is it? You're thinking of this as a normal purchase, but that's not really how equity markets operate. First, just because there are shares of stock purchased, it doesn't mean that there was real investor buyer and seller demand for that instrument (at that point in time). Markets have dedicated middlemen called Market Makers, who are responsible to make sure that there is always someone to buy or sell; this ensures that all instruments have sufficient liquidity. Market Makers may decide to lower their bid on a stock based on a high number of sellers, or raise their ask for a high number of buyers. During an investor rush to buy or sell an instrument (perhaps in response to a news release), it's possible for Market Makers to accumulate a large number of shares, without end-investors being involved on both sides of the transaction. This is one example of how instruments can be over-bought or over-sold. Since Williams %R creates over-bought and over-sold signals based on historical averages of open / close prices, perhaps it's better to think of these terms as \"\"over-valued\"\" and \"\"under-valued\"\". Of course, there could be good reason for instruments to open or close outside their expected ranges, so Williams %R is just a tool to give you clues... not a real evaluation of the instrument's true value.\"",
"qid": 10596,
"docid": "260085",
"rank": 79,
"score": 126572
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I can often get the option at [a] price [between bid and ask] The keyword you use here is quite relevant: often. More realistically, it's going to be sometimes. And that's just how supply and demand should work. The ask is where you know you can buy right away. If you don't wanna buy at ask, you can try and put a higer bid but you can only hope someone will take it before the price moves. If prices are moving up fast, you will have missed a chance if you gambled mid-spread. Having said that, the larger the spread is, the more you should work with limits mid-spread. You don't want to just take ask or bid with illiquid options. Make a calculation of the true value of the option (i.e. using the Black Scholes Model), then set your bid around there. Of course, if not only the option but also the underlying is illiquid, this all gets even more difficult.",
"qid": 10596,
"docid": "49782",
"rank": 80,
"score": 126191
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"ETFs purchases are subject to a bid/ask spread, which is the difference between the highest available purchase offer (\"\"bid\"\") and the lowest available sell offer (\"\"ask\"\"). You can read more about this concept here. This cost doesn't exist for mutual funds, which are priced once per day, and buyers and sellers all use the same price for transactions that day. ETFs allow you to trade any time that the market is open. If you're investing for the long term (which means you're not trying to time your buy/sell orders to a particular time of day), and the pricing is otherwise equal between the ETF and the mutual fund (which they are in the case of Vanguard's ETFs and Admiral Shares mutual funds), I would go with the mutual fund because it eliminates any cost associated with bid/ask spread.\"",
"qid": 10596,
"docid": "480315",
"rank": 81,
"score": 125930
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: In general stock markets are very similar to that, however, you can also put in limit orders to say that you will only buy or sell at a given price. These sit in the market for a specified length of time and will be executed when an order arrives that matches the price (or better). Traders who set limit orders are called liquidity (or price) makers as they provide liquidity (i.e. volume to be traded) to be filled later. If there is no counterparty (i.e. buyer to your seller) in the market, a market maker; a large bank or brokerage who is licensed and regulated to do so, will fill your order at some price. That price is based on how much volume (i.e. trading) there is in that stock on average. This is called average daily volume (ADV) and is calculated over varying periods of time; we use ADV30 which is the 30 day average. You can always sell stocks for whatever price you like privately but a market order does not allow you to set your price (you are a price taker) therefore that kind of order will always fill at a market price. As mentioned above limit orders will not fill until the price is hit but will stay on book as long as they aren't filled, expired or cancelled.",
"qid": 10596,
"docid": "434596",
"rank": 82,
"score": 125852
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: So in your screenshot, someone or some group of someones is willing to buy 3,000 shares at $3.45, and someone or some group of someones is willing to sell 2,000 shares at 3.88. Without getting in to the specific mechanics, you can place a market buy order for 10 (or whatever number) shares and it will probably transact at $3.88 per share because that's the lowest price for which someone will currently sell their shares. As a small fish, you can generally ignore the volume notations in the bid/ask quotes.",
"qid": 10596,
"docid": "317148",
"rank": 83,
"score": 125772
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"When you buy a share of stock, you are almost always buying from someone who previously purchased that share and now wants to sell it. The money -- minus broker's fee -- goes to that other investor, which may be a person, a company (rarely the company that issued the stock, but that will occasionally be the case), an investment fund, the \"\"market maker\"\" for that stock (websearch for definition of that term), or anyone else. They owned a small percentage of the company; you bought it from them and gave them the money for it, just as you would buy anything else. You don't know or care who you bought from; they don't know or care who they sold to; the market just found a buyer and seller who could agree on the price. There are a very few exceptions to that. The company may repurchase some of its own shares and/or sell them again, depending on its own financial needs and obligations. For example, my own employer has to purchase its own shares periodically so it has enough on hand to sell to employees at a slight discount through the Employee Stock Ownership Program. But you generally don't know that's who you're selling to; it happens like any other transaction. And during the Initial Public Offering, if you're lucky/privileged enough to get in on the first wave of purchases, you're buying from the investment bank that's managing this process ... though that's an almost vanishingly rare case for \"\"retail\"\" investors like us; we're more likely to get the shares after someone has already pushed the price up a bit. But really, when you buy a share the money goes to whoever you bought it from, and that's all you can know or need to know.\"",
"qid": 10596,
"docid": "558703",
"rank": 84,
"score": 125460
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The \"\"price\"\" is the price of the last transaction that actually took place. According to Motley Fool wiki: A stock price is determined by what was last paid for it. During market hours (usually weekdays from 9:30AM-4:00PM eastern), a heavily traded issue will see its price change several times per second. A stock's price is, for many purposes, considered unchanged outside of market hours. Roughly speaking, a transaction is executed when an offer to buy matches an offer to sell. These offers are listed in the Order Book for a stock (Example: GOOG at Yahoo Finance). This is actively updated during trading hours. This lists all the currently active buy (\"\"bid\"\") and sell (\"\"ask\"\") orders for a stock, and looks like this: You'll notice that the stock price (again, the last sale price) will (usually*) be between the highest bid and the lowest ask price. * Exception: When all the buy or sell prices have moved down or up, but no trades have executed yet.\"",
"qid": 10596,
"docid": "340607",
"rank": 85,
"score": 125163
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: In the stock market many participants enter orders that are not necessarily set at the current market price of the stock (i.e. they are not market orders, they are limit orders). They can be lower than the market price (if they want to buy) or they can be higher than the market price (if they want to sell). The set of orders at each point of time for a security is called the order book. The lowest selling price of the order book is the offer or ask, the higher buying price is the bid. The more liquid is a security, the more orders will be in the order book, and the narrower will be the bid-ask spread. The depth of the order book is the number of units that the order book can absorb in any direction (buy or sell). As an example: imagine I want to buy 100 units at the lowest offer, but the size of the lowest offer is only 50 units, and there is not any further order, that means the stock has little depth.",
"qid": 10596,
"docid": "177926",
"rank": 86,
"score": 124997
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Yes, almost always. I trade some of the most illiquid single stock options, and I would be absolutely murdered if I didn't try to work orders between the bid/ask. When I say illiquid, I mean almost non-existent: ~50 monthly contracts on ALL contracts for a given underlying. Spreads of 30% or more. The only time you shouldn't try to work an order, in my opinion, is when you think you need to trade immediately (rare), if implied volatility (IV) has moved to such a degree that the market makers (MM) won't hit your order while they're offering fair IV (they'll sometimes come down to meet you at their \"\"real\"\" price to get the exchange's liquidity rebate), or if the bid/ask spread is a penny. For illiquid single stock options, you need to be extremely mindful of implied and statistical volatility. You can't just try to always put your order in the middle. The MMs will play with the middle to get you to buy at higher IVs and sell at lower. The only way you can hope that an order working below the bid / above the ask will get filled is if a big player overwhelms the MMs' (who are lined up on the bid and ask) current orders and hits yours with one large order. I've never seen this happen. The only other way is like you said: if the market moves against you, the orders in front of yours disappear, and someone hits your order, but I think that defeats the intent of your question.\"",
"qid": 10596,
"docid": "458933",
"rank": 87,
"score": 124410
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"In a sense, yes. There's a view in Yahoo Finance that looks like this For this particular stock, a market order for 3000 shares (not even $4000, this is a reasonably small figure) will move the stock past $1.34, more than a 3% move. Say, on the Ask side there are 100,000 shares, all with $10 ask. It would take a lot of orders to purchase all these shares, so for a while, the price may stay right at $10, or a bit lower if there are those willing to sell lower. But, say that side showed $10 1000, $10.25 500, $10.50 1000. Now, the volume is so low that if I decided I wanted shares at any price, my order, a market order will actually drive the market price right up to $10.50 if I buy 2500 shares \"\"market\"\". You see, however, even though I'm a small trader, I drove the price up. But now that the price is $10.50 when I go to sell all 2500 at $10.50, there are no bids to pay that much, so the price the next trade will occur at isn't known yet. There may be bids at $10, with asking (me) at $10.50. No trades will happen until a seller takes the $10 bid or other buyers and sellers come in.\"",
"qid": 10596,
"docid": "228983",
"rank": 88,
"score": 124281
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: No, Mark is right, if you place a market order there will always be someone to buy or sell at the market price. Only if you place a limit order on the price can it not sell or be bought. Just research on your computer and you will find your answer. You must be specify about open order or limit order when asking.",
"qid": 10596,
"docid": "502607",
"rank": 89,
"score": 124069
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"This was an article meant for mass consumption, written by a Yale law professor and an individual who has a PhD in economics (in addition to his practical, on the job experience managing the Yale endowment). I'm having a hard time believing that it was \"\"poorly argued.\"\" As for proof, that's the sort of thing you find in financial and economic journals (for example, [The Effect of Maker-Taker Fees on Investor Order Choice and Execution Quality in U.S. Stock Markets](http://people.stern.nyu.edu/jhasbrou/SternMicroMtg/SternMicroMtg2015/Papers/MakerTakerODonoghue.pdf)). One of the direct takeaways from the above paper states: *\"\"I find that total trading cost to investors increases, when the taker fee and maker rebate increase, even if the net fee is held fixed. The total trading cost represents the net-of-fees bid-ask spread and the brokerage commission to an investor wanting to buy and then sell the same stock.\"\"* I'm not here to argue for the paper. I'm really here to tell you that these guys have far more of a clue than you realize. ~~A dash of humility on your part may be in order, given the fact that you've already admitted to the reality that you aren't sure of any of this yourself.~~ *Edit*: Thought I was responding to a different thread.\"",
"qid": 10596,
"docid": "232114",
"rank": 90,
"score": 124068
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Depends on when you are seeing these bids & asks-- off hours, many market makers pull their bid & ask prices entirely. In a lightly traded stock there may just be no market except during the regular trading day.",
"qid": 10596,
"docid": "382067",
"rank": 91,
"score": 123213
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The principle of demand-supply law will not work if spoofing (or layering, fake order) is implemented. However, spoofing stocks is an illegal criminal practice monitored by SEC. In stock market, aggressive buyer are willing to pay for a higher ask price pushing the price higher even if ask size is considerably larger than bid size, especially when high growth potential with time is expected. Larger bids may attract more buyers, further perpetuating a price increase (positive pile-on effect). Aggressive sellers are willing to accept a lower bid price pushing the price lower even if ask size is considerably smaller than bid size, when a negative situation is expected. Larger asks may attract more sellers, further perpetuating a price fall (negative pile-on effect). Moreover, seller and buyers considers not only price but also size of shares in their decision-making process, along with marker order and/or limit order. Unlike limit order, market order is not recorded in bid/ask size. Market order, but not limit order, immediately affects the price direction. Thus, ask/bid sizes alone do not give enough information on price direction. If stocks are being sold continuously at the bid price, this could be the beginning of a downward trend; if stocks are being sold continuously at the ask price, this could be the beginning of a upward trend. This is because ask price is always higher than bid price. In all the cases, both buyers and sellers hope to make a profit in a long-term and short-term view",
"qid": 10596,
"docid": "19196",
"rank": 92,
"score": 122962
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The order book looks fine, if it were a liquid market. However, a bid that matches with an ask will always be met on a first come first serve basis. There's no other way to do it. Most traders don't like doing that because they want to try to get a lower price. HFT don't have to worry about meeting the ask because they're just going to pass that cost on to the guy on the hook. By the time the HFT makes the buy they already know the guy wants to buy at 70.00 They did not know that at the time they placed the buy order. If the buy order from the HFT hasn't been cancelled it means they already found someone. How? By testing the market with sell orders at the same time they were sending buy orders. They keep a little bit of stock in reserve to perform these tests.",
"qid": 10596,
"docid": "413132",
"rank": 93,
"score": 122026
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you look at a trade grid you can see how this happens. If there are enough bids to cover all shares currently on the sell side at a certain price, those shares will be bought and increased price quotes will be shown for the bids and ask. If there are enough bids to cover this price, those will get bought and higher prices will be shown and this process will repeat until the sell side has more power than the buy side. It seems like this process is going on all day long with momentum either on the upside or downside. But I think that much of this bidding and selling is automatic and is being done by large trading firms and high tech computers. I also feel that many of these bids and asks are already programmed to appear once there is a price change. So once one price gets bought, computers will put in higher bids to take over asks. It's like a virtual war between trading firms and their computers. When more money is on the buy side the stock will go up, and vice versa. I sort of feel like this high-frequency trading is detrimental to the markets and doesn't really give everyone a fair shot. Retail investors do not have the resources and knowledge in order to do this sort of high frequency trading. It also seems to go against certain free market principles in my opinion.",
"qid": 10596,
"docid": "67069",
"rank": 94,
"score": 121914
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Honestly, I wonder if the other answerers aren't overthinking it. Their answers are detailed and correct, but what your coach may be saying is this: When you have bought a stock, on cash or margin, and you are watching it rise you are evaluating when you sell on the price of the stock you are seeing. In reality, you should look at the bid (price buyers will give you for the stock) and ask (price sellers will charge you for the stock) prices. If the stock is going up, odds are the price of the stock is very close to the ask price because it is purchases that are driving it up, but that's not what you're going to get when you sell. You're going to get something around the bid price. If the spread between the two is large (i.e. a volatile stock) this could be many cents or more lower than the ask price. Therefore, what your coach may mean by \"\"Selling on Ask\"\" is you're using the stock price when it's equal or close to the ask price to decide when to sell, instead of letting the stock peak and drop (when its price will approach the bid price) or letting the trailing bid offers catch up to your desired sell point and selling then (i.e. letting the stock point grow PAST your sell point, dragging the bid price up with it). Just a thought, but that sounds like a term a coach would come up with to mean selling and getting less than you thought you were going to from the sale. (I know it's a necro reply, but the Interwebs are immortal and people come via Google... I did)\"",
"qid": 10596,
"docid": "31465",
"rank": 95,
"score": 121907
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Feel free to educate man. Everything I can find says the same thing. [Investopedia](http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/100314/what-are-key-factors-cause-market-go-and-down.asp) >If there are a greater number of buyers than sellers (more demand), the buyers bid up the prices of the stocks to entice sellers to get rid of them. Conversely, a larger number of sellers bids down the price of stocks hoping to entice buyers to purchase. Yes, if a company is performing well, you might find that more people want to buy then sale. That would cause it to go up. But if no one wants to buy, it doesn't matter how well the company is doing. I mean really, how would that work? Someone in the company notices they had more sales today then yesterday, email someone on wallstreet and they just mouse wheel the stock price up to something higher? Say the stock is $1.00 right now. But the lowest buy order is $.90. and the highest sale order is $1.10. (I guess there is some math there making is $1.) As soon as someone says, yeah. I'll sale at 90 cents, it'll go down. If someone says yeah, I'll buy at $1.10 it'll go up. I'm sure there is more to it than that. But everything I can find. It 100% has to have people more people wanting to buy then sale for it to go up. If more want to sale then buy, it'll go down. But hey, if this is way off base. Go ahead and fill me in. I'm open to CMV. This was all found after a short amount of time researching [\"\"What makes stock prices go up?\"\"](https://www.google.com/search?q=What+makes+stock+prices+go+up%3F&oq=What+makes+stock+prices+go+up%3F&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i71k1l4.43421.43421.0.43882.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..0.0.0....0.6Crfejzb3XY)\"",
"qid": 10596,
"docid": "363421",
"rank": 96,
"score": 121779
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/goldman0424.pdf \"\"At the heart of Goldman Sachs‘ sales and trading business is our role as a ―market maker.‖ As a market maker, the firm stands ready, willing and able to buy and sell financial instruments at the initiation of our clients. Goldman Sachs‘ clients expect the firm to do so, regardless of whether the other side of a transaction has been identified or is readily available. \"\"\"",
"qid": 10596,
"docid": "140163",
"rank": 97,
"score": 121730
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"When you place a limit sell order of $10.00 (for a stock on an option) you are adding your order to the book. Anyone who places a buy at-the-market or with a limit price over $10.00 will have that order immediately fulfilled through the offer you have placed on the book. On the other hand, if that other person places a buy for $8.00, then the spread will now be \"\"$8.00 bid, $10.00 ask\"\". Priority is based on first the price (all $9.99 asks will clear before $10.00) and within each bucket this is based on the time your order was submitted. This is why in bidding markets (including eBay) buying at $x.01 is way better than $x.00 and selling at $x.99 is better than $(x+1).00. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_(exchange) under \"\"first-come-first-served\"\"\"",
"qid": 10596,
"docid": "525603",
"rank": 98,
"score": 121712
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"When people talk about \"\"the price\"\" of a stock, they usually mean one of the following: Last price: The price at which a trade most recently took place. If someone sold (and someone else bought) shares of XYZ for $20 each, then until another trade occurs, the last price of the stock will be quoted at $20. Bid price: The highest price at which someone is currently offering to buy the stock. Ask price: The lowest price at which someone is currently offering to sell the stock. As you can see, all of these are completely determined by the people buying and selling the stock.\"",
"qid": 10596,
"docid": "116846",
"rank": 99,
"score": 121358
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: A stock market is just that, a market place where buyers and sellers come together to buy and sell shares in companies listed on that stock market. There is no global stock price, the price relates to the last price a stock was traded at on a particular stock market. However, a company can be listed on more than one stock exchange. For example, some Australian companies are listed both on the Australian Stock Exchange (ASX) and the NYSE, and they usually trade at different prices on the different exchanges. Also, there is no formula to determine a stock price. In your example where C wants to buy at 110 and B wants to sell at 120, there will be no sale until one or both of them decides to change their bid or offer to match the opposite, or until new buyers and/or sellers come into the market closing the gap between the buy and sell prices and creating more liquidity. It is all to do with supply and demand and peoples' emotions.",
"qid": 10596,
"docid": "435963",
"rank": 100,
"score": 121331
}
] |
Bitcoin Cost Basis Purchases | [
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"As long as the IRS treats bitcoin as property, then whenever you use bitcoin to buy anything you are supposed to consider the capital gain or capital loss. There is no \"\"until it's converted to fiat\"\". You are paying local sales tax and capital gains, or paying local sales tax and reporting capital loss. As long as you are consistent, you can use either the total cost basis, or individual lot purchases. The same as other property like stocks (except without stock specific regulations like wash-sale rules :D ). There are a lot of perks or unintentional loopholes for speculators, with the property designation. There are a lot of disadvantages for consumers trying to use it like a currency. Someone mixing investment and spending funds across addresses is going to have complicated tax issues, but fortunately the exchanges have records of purchase times and prices, which you can compare with the addresses you control. Do note, after that IRS guideline, another federal agency designated Bitcoin as a commodity, which is a subset of \"\"property\"\" with its own more favorable but different tax guidelines.\"",
"qid": 10601,
"docid": "568064",
"rank": 1,
"score": 163750
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: What people fail to realize about bitcoin is its cost to acquire a coin.. I'm not exactly familiar on pricing nowadays but back when it was $100 a coin it took you ~$95+ in power/equipment to get that coin. Meaning bitcoin can not go below $95. Bitcoin is at $5800.. And if its as it were before, it's costing ~$5700ish to obtain, miners are not going to sell their coin for $5600 that cost $5700 to get.",
"qid": 10601,
"docid": "213659",
"rank": 2,
"score": 156917
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Yeah. I don't really understand the value of bitcoin. I know it's going up because people keep buying to for more and more. But who the hell is buying it at $5600-$5700 to get it up to where it's at now. Holy crap, it's as high as it's ever been. Butter buy now!?!",
"qid": 10601,
"docid": "467469",
"rank": 3,
"score": 151607
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The existing IRS guidance in the US related to bitcoin indicates it will be taxed as property. You'll sell your coins then when you file your taxes for that year you will indicate the dollar value that you sold as a capital gain with a $0 cost basis since you can't prove your initial cost. You can use a block chain explorer to get an idea of when the coins were transferred to your wallet to lay to rest any idea that someone paid you $1,000,000 for some sort of nefarious reason today. Prepare to be audited, I'd probably shop around for a local tax guy willing to prepare your return. Additionally, I probably wouldn't sell it all at once or even all in a single year. It's obvious but I think it's worth saying, there's no law against making money. You bought the equivalent of junk a number of years ago that, by some kind of magic, has a value today. You're capitalizing on the value increase. I don't think there's a reason to \"\"worry\"\" about the government.\"",
"qid": 10601,
"docid": "503450",
"rank": 4,
"score": 149009
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Well consider this, even if you bought some at every all time high prior to this one, you would have still made a profit. I was kicking myself when I passed up an opportunity to buy some at $30. After its wild ride up to $1,200 and subsequent fall, I made sure to start buying around $250. Bitcoin is not going away. There are hundreds of different cryptos out there, but Bitcoin is the gold standard and it is becoming more legitimized every day. Regulators and governments passed it off as a fad for years but are now paying attention because people are actually using it to get around all kinds of bottlenecks that exist due to the structure of the current global banking system. If you feel like it will continue to be used more extensively and become more scarce over the next several years, then it is probably worth investing at least something into it. Of course, never invest more than you can afford to lose. Full disclosure: I hold some Bitcoin but I am mostly in Ethereum right now because I think there is greater potential there. Bitcoin is pretty expensive right now and Ethereum is still catching up to it in market cap. I think we will see some great practical uses for it in the coming years. There are already some major players involved, including the Russian State owned banks.",
"qid": 10601,
"docid": "188822",
"rank": 5,
"score": 141734
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I don't think these currencies need large scale adoption to exist or go up in value. Even if only 0.2% of middle and upper class people own bitcoins it can go to 100000$, simply because the marketcap and value of bitcoin is more than the $ amount invested in it because of holders and longterm supply deflation.",
"qid": 10601,
"docid": "179304",
"rank": 6,
"score": 139185
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You realize people are buying houses, and Lamborghini’s with bitcoin? Maybe if you for once stopped to think that the people involved in bitcoin can see value based off what it cost to generate and are more than willing to pay the price for one knowing that? But yeah we will go with your method bitcoin cost 6k to mine, sells for 5k and no way demand vs supply is going up from no new coins entering the market for 4 weeks.",
"qid": 10601,
"docid": "194035",
"rank": 7,
"score": 138049
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I have come to the conclusion, taking into account the Mining aspect of Bitcoin, that it is the biggest coordinated brute force attempt to try and Decrpyt something. Yes . .I know, a hash cannot be reversed, thats what they said about MD5 and in the absence of true random, anything is possible. So they get everybody excited, woohoooo . .bitcoin is $4000 . . .get everybody to buy systems with 5/10/15 high end graphic cards. spend US $ 1500-2000 to make US $7-8 a day and all that processing power goes where? When the Hash for a piece of data will never change and always remain the same.",
"qid": 10601,
"docid": "205358",
"rank": 8,
"score": 137133
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You would have sold at $10,000 or you’d be an absolute moron Edit: or when it dipped from $1k to $300 if you held through that you’re either clinically tarded or forgot you owned it. Not even the creators held their bitcoins through this",
"qid": 10601,
"docid": "295524",
"rank": 9,
"score": 136528
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: This article is very short on details. How much Bitcoin did he buy? If he spent $10k or more the bank is LEGALLY REQUIRED to ask why he is buying it, just as they would be if he was withdrawing the cash. What's more, the threshold can be far lower than 10K, especially if it appears you are doing multiple transactions for the express purpose of being below 10K. Since the article explicitly said he did multiple transactions, this is a likely possibility as well.",
"qid": 10601,
"docid": "56424",
"rank": 10,
"score": 134605
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Just a thought because this is a really good question: Would the buying and selling of blockchain based digital currency, using other blockchain based digital currencies, be subject to like kind treatment and exempt from capital gains until exchanged for a non-blockchain based good or service (or national currency) Suppose someone sells 1 bitcoin to buy 100 monero. Monero's price and bitcoin's price then change to where the 100 monero are 3 bitcoins. The person gets their bitcoin back and has 66.67 monero remaining. This scenario could be: Suppose someone sells 1 bitcoin at $1000 to buy 100 monero at $10. Bitcoin crashes 80% to $200 while monero crashes to only $6 per monero. $6 times 100 is $600 and if the person gets their bitcoin back (at $200 per bitcoi), they still lost money when measured in US Dollars if they move that bitcoin back to US dollars. In reading the IRS on bitcoin, they only care about the US dollar value of bitcoin or monero and in this example, the US dollar value is less. The person may have more bitcoins, but they still lost money if they sell.",
"qid": 10601,
"docid": "207316",
"rank": 11,
"score": 134009
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: It's extremely divisible. The smallest unit is 0.00000001 BTC. This smallest unit is called a satoshi, after the pseudonym of the inventor of Bitcoin. I suggested to my friends and family back in mid 2015 that they invest a little of their money. Nobody did. Back then I bought 21 BTC at around $600 USD/BTC for a total value of slightly less than $13k USD. Currently it's worth over $90k. I can't tell you how many of them say they wish they had listened to me. Then when I tell them they should still buy they think it's too late. It's not.",
"qid": 10601,
"docid": "291705",
"rank": 12,
"score": 133296
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Bitcoin prices are likely rising as a result of the simple issue of supply and demand. Supply is constrained as there aren't much in the way of new bitcoins coming into existence, and demand is high right now as a result of various events. For example, this Reuters article goes into some detail as to some current influences. Mostly, crypto-hedge funds are buying a lot of bitcoins as a speculative move (i.e., believing the price will continue to rise). The evidence suggests that few of the users are buying bitcoin to use it as a means of exchange, but are speculating to increase their capital. Many describe the bubble as similar to the Tulip craze in seventeenth century Holland; from the same Reuters article: “It’s got all the shapings of your tulip bubble chart (but) that tells you nothing about where that price line could go depending on the number of people who wish to own it,” Standard Life’s head of investment strategy, Andrew Milligan, said on Wednesday. “Who is to say it doesn’t reach $100,000?” You can see in the volume chart from blockchain.info that the trading volume for bitcoins has really increased - and if you look at the market price, you see a very similar movement. However, if you look at the number of transactions per day, that number is basically constant - meaning the actual uses of bitcoins by people just buying or selling goods or services isn't really changing much, but the dollar amount is. That's indicative of a speculation-caused bubble. Below is a graph I made from the data from blockchain.info above that overlays price with trading volume; you can see clearly the increase in volume and increase in price are nearly simultaneous. Bitcoin itself has some actual utility, mostly for black market sellers and similar people participating in activities that are less than legal (not necesesarily ethically bad, for example people in nations with oppressive regimes that limit contact with the outside world or try to restrict foreign currency purchases). It's unlikely that the degree of adoption so far however has driven it to this level, and the fact that bitcoin can be broken up into very small chunks means that the big boom in price of individual bitcoins causes the demand-side pressure from the actual use of bitcoins to be alleviated (as there is now 1/10th the demand for bitcoins from people who use them for non-speculative reasons).",
"qid": 10601,
"docid": "287563",
"rank": 13,
"score": 131056
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The price movements of Bitcoin are actually cogent in at least one sense: Why in the world would somebody use bitcoin right now to buy anything? That $100 item you bought today represents (to most) a huge opportunity cost as far as \"\"missed returns in the future\"\" go. It's basically a dollar-deflationary cycle, which we know to be corrosive to an economy: You don't buy today what you expect to be cheaper tomorrow. That's highly problematic for bitcoin as far as business adoption is concerned.\"",
"qid": 10601,
"docid": "91595",
"rank": 14,
"score": 130315
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: 1) Document that you held the bitcoins for more than one year. This should not be particularly difficult. Since you haven't moved the bitcoins, you hold the key to an address that has held them for more than one year. While this isn't absolute proof, it should be sufficient. 2) Since you can't document how you bought them easily, you can just assume a tax basis of zero. This will mean you will pay microscopically more in taxes, but don't worry about it. 3) Sign up with an exchange that can handle your sales. Coinbase will work if you want to sell it slowly. Gemini will work if you want to sell more quickly. 4) Get a decent, secure bitcoin wallet. Transfer the bitcoins to the exchange only as you're selling them. Make you first sale fairly small just in case something goes wrong. 5) Keep meticulous notes about each sale -- the date of the sale, the number of bitcoins you sold, and the number of dollars you got. 6) Make sure to keep enough money for taxes. In Michigan, 24.3% would be the highest possible tax rate you might have to pay if you sold a lot or had high income otherwise. 7) Either get a professional to file your taxes for you or learn how to correctly report long-term capital gains. You must report each individual sale. You may get audited or investigated, but there's nothing to find. The bitcoins have been in stasis for a long time, and it's completely plausible that you bought them and held them. If you can find any proof you bought them (such as a transfer to an exchange) that would be great, but it's not essential. Many people have this same story and unless you're connected to something illegal, you probably don't have anything to worry about. Congratulations! So thats my question, what steps do I need to take to declare this money and obtain it without getting arrested / investigated? There's nothing special you need to do other than keep very good documentation. When you file your taxes, you will need to declare each sale. (This answer assumes that you didn't have a lot of income last year and significantly less income this year. If that's the case, you may have to pay estimated taxes to avoid a penalty. But that penalty is very small and will be calculated by the IRS for you automatically. So I wouldn't worry about it.) You may wish to read up on gift taxes to understand how they work. You won't owe any, but you may need to file paperwork with the IRS if you give large gifts (over $14,000) to people and you will use up some of your lifetime exemption. Keep records of any gifts you give.",
"qid": 10601,
"docid": "336272",
"rank": 15,
"score": 129390
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I traded penny stocks for a bit then switched over after I found out the bitcoin I bought was worth $1400 each years ago when it first inflated. Now I trade BTC, LTC and NMC. Only trading coins I believe in and will be around long term.",
"qid": 10601,
"docid": "286549",
"rank": 16,
"score": 128648
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: >$1,000 worth of electricity to generate The cost of Bitcoin always tracks the price of Bitcoin. There is a fixed amount of Bitcoin available to be mined every day. The cost to mine bitcoin rises because of competition (they increase the difficulty of the problems to maintain a fixed supply of Bitcoin). The electricity cost to mine Bitcoin is directly related to the amount of miners, which is directly related to the current cost of Bitcoin. More people want to mine when the price is high. If you really think about it, what you are really saying is that the intrinsic value of bitcoin is the value of Bitcoin. Its a completely circular mirage.",
"qid": 10601,
"docid": "351318",
"rank": 17,
"score": 128164
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: To sum up: My question came from misunderstanding what cost basis applies to. Now I get it that it applies to stocks as physical entities. Consider a chain of buys of 40 stock A with prices $1-$4-$10-$15 (qty 10 each time) then IRS wants to know exactly which stock I am selling. And when I transfer stocks to different account, that cost basis transfers with them. Cost basis is included in transfers, so that removes ambiguity which stock is being sold on the original account. In the example above, cost basis of 20 stocks moved to a new account would probably be $1 x 10 and $4 x 10, i.e. FIFO also applies to transfers.",
"qid": 10601,
"docid": "104453",
"rank": 18,
"score": 128007
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: blockchain.info has all the most recent stats. 264,360 bitcoins traded in the last 24 hours. About [16.5 Million](http://moderninvestor.io/how-many-bitcoins-have-been-mined/) exist right now. Here is how they make more bitcoins >12.5 [bitcoins per block](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin) (approximately every ten minutes) until mid 2020,[7] and then afterwards 6.25 bitcoins per block for 4 years until next halving. This halving continues until 2110–40, when 21 million bitcoins will have been issued. None of that is really making the price going up. There is not a shortage of bitcoins. There are just more people wanting to buy bitcoin right now then there are people who want to sale. So on the exchanges people keep offering to buy at a higher and higher price. Competing with each other causing the price to go up. It'll probably hit a peak and drop back down to 4k or so. That seems to be the trend with bitcoin. Climb real high, dip down to about halfway up that climb, level off, time goes by, peak again. Repeat.",
"qid": 10601,
"docid": "306810",
"rank": 19,
"score": 127545
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Many of the Bitcoin exchanges mimic stock exchanges, though they're much more rudimentary offering only simple buy/sell/cancel orders. It's fairly normal for retail stock brokerage accounts to allow other sorts of more complex orders, where once a certain criteria is met, (the price falls below some $ threshold, or has a movement greater than some %) then your order is executed. The space between the current buy order and the current sell order is the bid/ask spread, it's not really about timing. Person X will buy at $100, person Y will sell at $102. If both had a price set at $101, they would just transact. Both parties think they can do a little bit better than the current offer. The width of the bid/ask spread is not universal by any means. The current highest buy order and the current lowest sell order, are both the current price. The current quoted market price is generally the price of the last transaction, whether it's buy or sell.",
"qid": 10601,
"docid": "507357",
"rank": 20,
"score": 127251
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Tumble? Haha, spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt to get a entry price point, that's what I'm seeing in this 'tumble'. Bitcoin was under 2k in March 2017. People have enjoyed an amazing bull run this year. To correct at $3,500 USD would still be a decent profit. RemindMe! One Year \"\"Bitcoin price today\"\"\"",
"qid": 10601,
"docid": "182777",
"rank": 21,
"score": 126581
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: > On Wednesday, shares closed at $739.50, while the bitcoin it holds were worth less than $373, according to the issuer. This amazes me. Intense speculation on a shell that represents a currency driven by intense speculation and high volatility. Why would anyone double down on this?",
"qid": 10601,
"docid": "546906",
"rank": 22,
"score": 126353
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You can't Your problem is that no one will value you new currency call it bytecoin. People will ask why is the bytecoin worth anything and you don't have an answer. You employees will have worthless currency and be effectively making under minimum wage. Its the same as if you printed Charles dollars with your face instead of George Washington, no one would take them for real money or be willing to trade them for services or food. Bitcoin's basis of value is that many people will trade real services or other currencies for it, but it took decades for this willingness to use bitcoin to build, and mostly because of the useful features of bitcoin, it can protect anonymity is easy to transfer world wide and many more. Even with those features the value of bitcoin is very volatile and unreliablie because it lacks backing. How many decades are your employees willing to wait, what amazing new features will you nontechnical staff add that bitcoin lacks?",
"qid": 10601,
"docid": "344648",
"rank": 23,
"score": 124611
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: i'd like to hear why anyone thinks that 0.1% of gold value or .01% of world money supply the the ultimate fair value of bitcoin. There's no difference in $4500/btc vs $1000/btc. its either worth 0% of the above metrics in a few years or 10%+",
"qid": 10601,
"docid": "198937",
"rank": 24,
"score": 124086
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"My prediction: They are purposefully suppressing the price. Chinese crypto-exchanges will be temporarily closed at the end of this month. The Communist party leaders and PBoC insiders will have access to cheap bitcoin. After they are sufficiently happy with their bitcoin acquisition, they release a new statement that says exchanges can re-open. The supply has been significantly reduced because of insiders attaining bitcoin behind the scenes during the \"\"shut down\"\". Because of the low supply, the price skyrockets to $10k. They all make significant sums of money. So do you want to be on the sidelines during this, or do you want to join in on the fun? I know what I'll be doing :)\"",
"qid": 10601,
"docid": "295786",
"rank": 25,
"score": 124007
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Yes not yet. I mean it's obviously not going to keep at this pace forever but it is funny to see the overreacting of people. It's not just about being able to buy things with bitcoin it's about the tech. It's already up 126 dollars from the time you posted the gif.",
"qid": 10601,
"docid": "523928",
"rank": 26,
"score": 123939
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: they did crash because supply caught up to demand. > because the only reason people were buying them is because they would go up in value that is the explanation for why price shot up so quick. > Sounds exactly like Bitcoin in my opinion There's genuine utility in cryptocurrency. Bitcoin is the anchor to all of them. Btw, there is significant cost to mining bitcoin > How many people do you know using Bitcoin as a currency? You can pay bills with it. A lot better than gold in that regard. > It isn't backed by a government or military historically always a terrible thing for every currency. The freedom from political whim based valuation is a plus. > When it crashes and criminals are the only ones using it, then what is it worth? Criminals would be better off using cash or Monero (a crypto with better privacy safeguards). But criminal can be a bit subjective. Bitcoin for instance is the best vehicle for transporting money protecting from thieves whether or not they are government employees. > Maybe $100 a coin? $10? Who knows, it sure as hell isn't $5,000 a coin though. I think we'll see $5000 again, before $3000 or $1000.",
"qid": 10601,
"docid": "91520",
"rank": 27,
"score": 121511
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The penny costs more to mint than it is worth...also, the price of Bitcoin is up tenfold in the past year and 580-fold in the past 5 years so all those Bitcoin miners did more than just alright if they held on to their mined Bitcoin.",
"qid": 10601,
"docid": "391331",
"rank": 28,
"score": 121494
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: people have been comparing bitcoin to tulips for the past 8 years, meanwhile the value has grown from $0 to nearly $6000. Do you have any specific reason why you think bitcoin is comparable to tulips? Do you not see a value of having a currency that is not issued from a central bank, that can be sent anywhere in the world without permission from governments, and wont be debased? please do some research before you just parrot the same mantra that others have been for years.",
"qid": 10601,
"docid": "183141",
"rank": 29,
"score": 121104
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You could use Bitcoin. Bitcoin is THE fee-killer. I haven't used US and China exchanges, but you can connect your US bank account to Coinbase, buy bitcoins, transfer to BTCChina, and sell for CNY. There are many other options to convert from and to Bitcoins, but Coinbase seems to be most practical and most widely used in the US and BTCChina is the largest and probably most trusted exchange in China. You can also use LocalBitocoins for both buying and selling, but people on LocalBitcoins typically charge larger fees than exchanges, though this may vary. Please read a bit about Bitcoin before using it, and be aware of the risks. It's still very new (but revolutionary and very easy and fast to move internationally). Try with a small amount first to check it out. Your electronic wallet can be stolen, and you're exposed to certain risks of exchanges shutting down or government/banks stepping over their boundaries. One nice thing is that you probably won't be affected by volatility as you won't be holding bitcoins for long. Also be aware that the Chinese don't like capital leaving China and there is a possibility that China government will introduce further regulations on exchanges (though they have stated that buying, selling and owning bitcoins is legal). You're doing the opposite, importing money into China, but you'll probably feel it in one way or the other. P.S. Approximate fast fee calculation: Coinbase has 1% transaction fee + $0.15 bank fee. Bitcoin transfer is free or in some cases with minimal 0.0001 BTC fee (a bit less than $0.01 currently). BTCChina has 0.3% trading fee and 0.5% CNY withdrawal fee. As you can see, the main fees are exchange fees, but still less than 3% and if you find a good exchange combination with low fees you're golden, or might even make money on transaction if BTC price rises. Also check this Reddit thread - there are alternative China exchanges with lower fees. P.P.S. Found this blog post, maybe a bit outdated, but probably with better calculation than mine as it takes into account exchange prices.",
"qid": 10601,
"docid": "201561",
"rank": 30,
"score": 120814
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I bought about $800 worth over a year ago and have since made a lot of money off of the investment. There are still opportunities to invest but I would do so cautiously as there is a lot of volatility. Still fun though and I would suggest people read about how bitcoin works, along with the pluses/minuses.",
"qid": 10601,
"docid": "294510",
"rank": 31,
"score": 118691
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I don't think this is \"\"curious\"\" at all. A large part of Bitcoin's value is based on speculation currently, and since it's both a global currency and a relatively small one, global changes can greatly affect it without having a huge impact on the US Dollar (e.g., the article mentions that much of Bitcoin's trade, and therefore its value, is coming from Japan right now). The symmetry you're looking for can also be deceiving when talking about currencies of dramatically different values. The US M2 money supply is worth over $13 trillion (measuring in US Dollars). The Bitcoin money supply is currently worth about $66 billion (also measuring in US Dollars). If Bitcoin spiked 10% and the change in value was completely symmetric with the US dollar, the US dollar would fall in value by only 0.05% (i.e. move $6.6 billion in market cap from the USD to Bitcoin). That's also greatly exaggerating the impact of changes in value of Bitcoin on the US Dollar since Bitcoin and the USD aren't the only currency pair in existence. Far from it, in fact. This is why you see, for example, the Venezuelan Bolivar tank against the US Dollar without feeling immensely more wealthy. People in the US also tend to price things in USD, including foreign currencies, because that's what they're used to doing as they're most familiar with the value of a dollar from everyday experience.\"",
"qid": 10601,
"docid": "204892",
"rank": 32,
"score": 118306
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Bitcoin payments involve by far the lowest fees. For pure bitcoin-to-bitcoin transfers you have the option of not paying any fee at all, while if you want to avoid the risk (currently very small) of miners ignoring your transaction you can pay a small transaction fee. Currently no more than 0.0005 BTC is ever required ($0.01 at $20/BTC). Bitcoin also does not support \"\"chargebacks\"\", which is an advantage for the merchant (no risk that Paypal will freeze your account, as it did in with a Burning Man nonprofit), but more risk for the consumer. Popular sites for exchanging bitcoins with other currencies charge rates of 0.65% or less. The primary barrier is that it typically takes a few days to get funds into your account from bank accounts etc. Given the volatility of the bitcoin exchange rate you may want to treat bitcoin like cash, and only keep a small amount on-hand. A variety of shopping cart interfaces are supported. The obvious downside is that only a small fraction of users would be likely to go through the steps to use this option since bitcoin is new and immature, so your investment in adding support may be hard to pay off. On the other hand, just advertising that you accept bitcoin payments would give you a bit of free advertising. Another downside is the risk of government intervention. In NPR's 2011 story a law professor said it was \"\"legal for now\"\" in the US, but that could change. I'd say that given the sizable current fees and other barriers to international commerce and micro-payments, if bitcoin doesn't succeed, something else will.\"",
"qid": 10601,
"docid": "28346",
"rank": 33,
"score": 117953
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Load \"\"truestory.jpg\"\" -be a hardcore computer gamer -design awesome rig with encrypted raid0 drives (what could go wrong?) -explore the darkweb, buying and mining early bitcoins for novelty -accumulate several hundred bitcoins in a wallet stored only on your fancy encrypted gaming computer, planning to sell when the price goes up to a few thousand dollars -raid0 drive failure -NOOOOOO -~10 years storing the rest of the drives hoping one day it could be recovered as bitcoin soars to $5k. Load \"\"feelsbadman.jpg\"\"\"",
"qid": 10601,
"docid": "539624",
"rank": 34,
"score": 117342
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The way bitcoin works it has no choice to go up. It's high risk because If say America bans it, its almost worthless, or your investment at least. It's a worldwide currency, though the dollar talks.. the cost of the coin has to be higher than the cost to mine + sell. And every 4 years you mine 1/2 of the last, and the more who start up miners mean you use the same power to earn less.",
"qid": 10601,
"docid": "48298",
"rank": 35,
"score": 116999
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Depositing above $10,000 in cash into a bank automatically triggers warnings in the banks computer system, and reports are submitted to appropriate authorities. Every bank has to do its, it's the law. If you \"\"structure\"\" your deposits where you put in several cash deposits below $10,000 that's a crime and bank computers are very sensitive to picking up on that. They're so sensitive to structuring that innocent people get flagged by it all the time. So I recommend only depositing $6k or less of that money into banks. What do you want to do with the money? If you want to use it to buy stuff in person at stores then I recommend just using it at the counter instead of credit cards. If you want to buy things online with it then I recommend bitcoin. It's anonymous, the IRS won't know it's yours, and it's easy to buy what you need with bitcoin. You can easily exchange bitcoin for cash among your neighbors using apps like PaxFul, LocalBitcoins, and BitQuick. They'll give you bitcoin which you'd load onto an app called a \"\"wallet\"\", for example Mycelium or Blockchain.info. You can buy just about anything online with bitcoin these days: from computers at newegg, to hotels at expedia, to airplane tickets at cheapair.com, to anything on amazon at 20% off using purse.io, or you can invest it by offer people around the world loans at BTCJam.com and they pay you back with interest. You can hold on to bitcoin as it grows in value, or you can donate it to any of the thousands of charities around the world who accept it. You can even use it to support presidential campaigns (at this time, only Rand Paul's campaign and Joe Biden's SuperPAC accept bitcoin).\"",
"qid": 10601,
"docid": "99484",
"rank": 36,
"score": 116283
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I think the answer you are looking for is: You are not taxed on the original basis (purchase cost) of your investment. If you pay $30 a share, and sell at $35, the $5 per share gain is taxable at time of sale. But the $30 basis cost doesn't enter into tax calculations at all. (So it's important to keep good records on your investments and how much you paid for them at purchase.)",
"qid": 10601,
"docid": "465313",
"rank": 37,
"score": 116061
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Can someone please explain how this is not the definition of a Ponzi scheme? Bitcoin has a $100B market cap. This is a financial instrument with very little real value to either consumers or businesses. However, Bitcoin has experienced a meteoric rise in value as more and more people buy in. Is the bottom not going to fall out here?",
"qid": 10601,
"docid": "175771",
"rank": 38,
"score": 115979
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Assuming the stock was worth more at the time she gave it to you than when she bought it, the cost basis would be the amount that she bought it for. You would then pay tax on the increase in value from that time. Generally it's better to inherit assets than receive them as gifts, since the cost basis of inherited assets is raised to the value at the time of the death of the one leaving the inheritance. You will probably need to find some record of the original amount paid so you can determine the right cost basis.",
"qid": 10601,
"docid": "238333",
"rank": 39,
"score": 115801
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"There are many Bitcoin stores where items are bought and sold daily. Overstock.com is one of them. The value doesn't matter because Bitcoins are divisible down to 8 decimal points. I can send you a fraction of a penny easily, although currently the transaction fee to send it is likely to be several pennies. (One purpose of the fees are to discourage such pointlessly small transactions, referred to as \"\"dust\"\".)\"",
"qid": 10601,
"docid": "5535",
"rank": 40,
"score": 115177
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Assuming a price is set on an free market there are particular difficulties to pricing. A free market is one where the price is entirely determined by the willingness of people to buy and sell at a particular price point. What you perceive as price, is actually the \"\"tick\"\", i.e. the quote of the last transaction. The first and most serious major obstacle to pricing is a variation of the prisoners dilemma, a psychological phenomenon. For instance, bitcoin might be worth 4$ now, but you believe it will be worth 5$ in 3 days. Will you buy bitcoin? If acting only on your conviction, yes. But what if you consider what other people will do? Will others believe bitcoin will be worth 5$ in 3 days? Will they act on their conviction? Will the others believe that others believe that it wil be worth 5$ in 3 days, and will the others believe that the others who believe will act on their conviction? Will the others believe that others believe of still others who believe that they will act on their conviction? It goes on like this ad-infinitum. The actual behavior of any individual on the market is essentially chaotic and unpredictable (for the reason stated above and others). This is related to a phenomenon you call market efficiency. An efficient market always reflects the optimal price-point at any given time. If that is so, then you cannot win on this market, because at the time you would have to realize a competitive edge, everybody else has already acted on that information. Markets are not 100% efficient of course. But modern electronic markets can be very, very efficient (as say compared to stock markets fro 100 years ago, where you could get a competitive edge just by having access to a fast courier). What makes matters rather more difficult for price forecasting is that not only are humans engaging in the market, machines are as well. The machines may not be terribly good at what they do, but they are terribly fast. The machines that work well (i.e. don't loose much) will survive, and the ones that don't will die in short order. Since speed is one of the major benefits of the machines over humans, they tend to make markets even more efficient. Another phenomenon to price forecasting is that of information and entropy. Suppose you found a reliable method to predict a market at a given time. You act on this information and indeed you make a profit. The profit you will be able to achieve will diminish over time until it reaches zero or reverts. The reason for this is that you acted on private information, which you leaked out by engaging in a trade. The more successful you are in exploiting your forecast, the better you train every other market participant to react to their losses. Since for every trade you make successfully, there has to be somebody who lost. People or machines who lose on markets usually exit those markets in some fashion. So even if the other participants are not adjusting their behavior, your success is weeding out those with the wrong behavior. Yet another difficulty in pricing forecasts are black-swan events. Since information can have a huge impact on pricing, the sudden appearance of new information can throw a conservative forecast completely off the rails and incur huge losses (or huge unexpected benefits). You cannot quantify black-swan events in any shape or form. It is my belief that you cannot predict efficient and well working markets. You might be able to predict some very sub-optimal markets, but usually, hedge-funds are always on the hunt for inefficient markets to exploit, so by simple decree of market economics, the inefficient markets tend to be a perpetually dying species.\"",
"qid": 10601,
"docid": "44917",
"rank": 41,
"score": 114827
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I guess Bitcoin are not that popular yet and hence there are no specific regulations. If currently it gets debated, it would be treated more like a Pre-Paid card or your Paypal account. As you have already paid taxes on the $$ you used to buy the Bitcoins there is no tax obligation as long as you keep using it to buy something else. The other way to look at it is as a commodity. If you have purchased a commodity and it has appreciated in value in future you may be liable to pay tax on the appreciated value. Think of it as a if you bought a house with the $$ and sold it later. Once more serious trade starts happening, the governments around the world would bring in regulations. Till then there is nothing to worry about.",
"qid": 10601,
"docid": "445549",
"rank": 42,
"score": 114358
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You wouldn't fill out a 1099, your employer would or possibly whoever manages the stock account. The 1099-B imported from E-Trade says I had a transaction with sell price ~$4,500. Yes. You sold ~$4500 of stock to pay income taxes. Both the cost basis and the sale price would probably be ~$4500, so no capital gain. This is because you received and sold the stock at the same time. If they waited a little, you could have had a small gain or loss. The remainder of the stock has a cost basis of ~$5500. There are at least two transactions here. In the future you may sell the remaining stock. It has a cost basis of ~$5500. Sale price of course unknown until then. You may break that into different pieces. So you might sell $500 of cost basis for $1000 with a ~$500 capital gain. Then later sell the remainder for $15,000 for a capital gain of ~$10,000.",
"qid": 10601,
"docid": "249687",
"rank": 43,
"score": 114044
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The way the wash sale works is your loss is added to your cost basis of the buy. So suppose your original cost basis is $10,000. You then sell the stock for $9,000 which accounts for your $1,000 loss. You then buy the stock again, say for $8,500, and sell it for $9,000. Since your loss of $1,000 is added to your cost basis, you actually still have a net loss of $500. You then buy the stock again for say $10,500, then sell it for $9,500. Your $500 loss is added to your cost basis, and you have a net loss of $1,500. Since you never had a net gain, you will not owe any tax for these transactions.",
"qid": 10601,
"docid": "358602",
"rank": 44,
"score": 113635
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"You don't \"\"deduct\"\" transaction fees, but they are included in your cost basis and proceeds, which will affect the amount of gain/loss you report. So in your example, the cost basis for each of the two lots is $15 (10$ share price plus $5 broker fee). Your proceeds for each lot are $27.50 (($30*2 - $5 )/2). Your gain on each lot is therefore $12.50, and you will report $12.50 in STCG and $12.50 in LTCG in the year you sold the stock (year 3). As to the other fees, in general yes they are deductible, but there are limits and exceptions, so you would need to consult a tax professional to get a correct answer in your specific situation.\"",
"qid": 10601,
"docid": "100009",
"rank": 45,
"score": 113503
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I'd take a look at some graphs and chart the price of bitcoins and its value. You'll be surprised that it follows basically any other vehicle for money. There were several times where the price of bitcoin dropped drastically and ontop of that, there is a wide margin of error that could cost you your entire wallet with no equivalent to a FDIC insurance or possibility of government/federal intervention in the event of theft.",
"qid": 10601,
"docid": "15452",
"rank": 46,
"score": 113485
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Its only a matter of time before Governments worldwide crack down on Bitcoin. Apart from using it for illicit purchases, money laundering or speculation based on its hard limited supply, what use does it have? The transaction fees are much greater than other methods for small transactions, and its store of wealth is questionable given the vulnerability to hacking and volatility.",
"qid": 10601,
"docid": "458915",
"rank": 47,
"score": 113214
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I think what you're asking is, Can I buy 1000 shares of the stock at $1. For $1000. it goes up to $2, then sell 500 shares of the stock with proceeds of $1000, now having my original $1000 out of it, and still owning 500 shares. And that not create a taxable event. Since all I did was take my cost basis back out, and didn't collect any gains. And then I want to repeat that over and over. Nope, not in the USA anyway. Each sale is a separate taxable event. The first sale will have proceeds of $1000 and a cost basis of $500, with $500 of capital gains, and taxes owed at the time of that sale. The remaining stock will have a cost basis of $500 and proceeds of whatever you sell it for in the future. The next batch of stock will have a cost basis of whatever you pay for it. The only thing that works anything like the way you're thinking, is a Roth IRA... You can put your cost basis in, pull it back out, and put it back in again, all tax free. But every time your cost basis cycles in, that counts towed your contribution limits unless you do it fast enough to call it a rollover.",
"qid": 10601,
"docid": "156092",
"rank": 48,
"score": 112984
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: As a beginner to cryptocurrencies, I would recommend that you sign up for an account at gemini.com. Once you get verified - and understand, that getting verified will take multiple weeks, unfortunately, considering the large amount of traffic that these web apps still have to scale for - you will be able to make daily deposits of $500 to buy either bitcoin (BTC) or ethereum (ETH). Any other currencies (altcoins, usually built on another network or entirely separate networks) will require you to sign up for an altcoin exchange like Kraken or Poloniex. Speaking of which, another user that commented on this post mentioned Kraken, but the issue with Kraken is that it only allows you to buy currencies using other currency, which is why I recommend gemini (you could even use coinbase, but coinbase is EXTREMELY popular and it takes forever to get verified). After purchasing crypto, you can transfer to other accounts on other exchanges to speculate on altcoin. Please be secure when using these exchanges. Consider also using a wallet (I personally recommend exodus.io), as many exchanges suffer from occasional attacks. As for /u/beat_tapes questioning your motives, I totally agree with that sentiment, as no one REALLY knows what's going to happen tomorrow, which is why I implore you to evaluate your financial situation and only speculate with what you're entirely comfortable with losing. You're entering casino doors, and yeah, I'm a personal believer that at this casino you'll win big, but it's still a gamble. Just keep that in mind.",
"qid": 10601,
"docid": "23443",
"rank": 49,
"score": 112957
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Based on my research, the answer is both. You would pay taxes on the bitcoin you mine as income, and then capital gains tax when you sell them for a profit (or capital loss if you lose value on the sale). You can write off a portion of your electricity bill and hardware purchased for the use of mining as a business expense, but it's recommended that you consult a tax professional for determining the proper amount that is eligible for a deduction. From Forbes: New Bitcoin are being issued by the system roughly every 10 minutes by a process called mining. In mining, computers running the Bitcoin software around the world attempt to solve math problems and the first computer to come up with the solution adds the most recent transactions to the ledger of all Bitcoin transactions, plus receives the new bitcoins created by the system, called the block reward. If you are a miner and win the block reward, you must record the fair market value of Bitcoin that day and mark that as an addition to your personal or business income. Also note the date and timestamp at which your coins were mined. Later, when you dispose of those Bitcoin, you will subtract the date of acquisition from the date of disposal, and you will be taxed a long-term capital gains rate on any Bitcoin you held for more than a year, and a short-term capital gains rate on any Bitcoin you held for a year or less. (The timestamp isn’t absolutely necessary, but is helpful to validate the order of multiple acquisitions or disposals within a day.) The amount you pay in taxes on a long-term capital gain will depend on your income-tax bracket, while short-term capital gains are taxed the same as ordinary income. From bitcoin.tax: Another clarification in the IRS's March notice was how mining should be treated. Mining is income, on the day of receipt of any coins and at the fair value of those coins. This means that if you mined any Bitcoins or alt-coins either solo, as part of a pool, or through a cloud provider, you need to report any coins you received as income. Where it is less clear, is what that dollar value might be, since the fair value is not always as easy to determine. Bitcoins, Litecoins, Dogecoins, are all examples of where there is a direct USD market and so you can easily find out their value of any given day. However, a newly created alt-coin that was mined in its early days has no direct market and so how do you determine its value? Or for any alt-coin, e.g. ABC coin, that has no direct USD market but does have a BTC market. Does it have a value? Do you have to make a conversion from ABC to BTC to USD? Since there is no clarification yet from the IRS on this issue you should discuss how to proceed with your own tax professional. BitcoinTaxes has taken a prudent approach and calculates value where a fiat or BTC market exists, converting an alt-coin to BTC to USD as necessary. And from Bitcoin magazine: The IRS also stated mined bitcoins are treated as immediate income at the market value of those mined coins on their date of mining. “Most don’t know they can write off any losses they have,” said Libra founder Jake Benson. “The IRS allows you to offset income by up to $3,000 per year on capital losses. If you have losses and you aren’t writing them off, then it’s like throwing money away. Nobody likes doing taxes, but if you can owe less or increase your return, then doing your Bitcoin taxes often results in a benefit. In fact, the majority of our users are filing a capital loss, which means they’ve actually saved money by using our tool.” Benson also gives insight for miners. “Mining is considered income, so know the price of Bitcoin at the time you mined it,” he said. “If you make money on Bitcoin trading, the IRS requires that you report gains with line level detail.” The appropriate form for that is 8949, a sub-form of schedule D. Gains and losses, as outlined above, are treated like every other capital asset.",
"qid": 10601,
"docid": "447593",
"rank": 50,
"score": 112687
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Great, so we agree it's not a fraud and the title of the bloomberg article is grossly misleading. Even still, to call it a bubble, you'd need to first agree to what the non-bubble valuation of Bitcoin would be. The consensus among those who use the word \"\"tulip\"\" frequently when talking about bitcoin is that the non-bubble valuation of bitcoin is zero (0). This, of course, means that Bitcoin has been in a bubble ever since the first exchange of good was made with it (which folklore tells us was a purchase of 2 pizzas for 10,000 bitcoins, establishing a price of under $0.01 per bitcoin. Ever since, for the past 7 years, Bitcoin has been in a bubble. Furthermore, for as long as Bitcoin's market value remains at or above $0.01 per bitcoin, it will still be in a bubble. If me and a few hundred thousand of my closest friends have anything to say about it, that will never happen. And therefore Bitcoin will remain in a bubble indefinitely. Now that, to me, seems like a very unusual bubble. If that strikes you as a stretch of the concept too, then maybe we need to revisit an assumption or two here. For one, is the non-bubble valuation of bitcoin really zero? Is there perhaps something about bitcoin that might give it some intrinsic value that, say, tulips or beanie babies may not have? And if there is, is there a way to estimate what that value may be? Does that value change over time? Is it perhaps possible that the value of bitcoin correlates in some fashion with its reach and its network effect? Those are harder questions to answer, and their answers is certainly not as neat and precise as \"\"zero\"\" or \"\"bubble\"\", but maybe it's useful to think about them when trying to reason about what bitcoin is and isn't.\"",
"qid": 10601,
"docid": "588101",
"rank": 51,
"score": 112465
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Much like everyone else in 2011 I almost invested $100 in bitcoin and was almost going to go all in as I had $1000 cash on hand. Not sure if I would've sat on it as my bank account is a rollercoaster. Kinda cool that that mindest almost netted me 400,000-4,000,000 USD. Edit: I'm now in my early twenties lol would have been cool",
"qid": 10601,
"docid": "96750",
"rank": 52,
"score": 112458
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: It’s an investment and a currency which is also based no less than the value it takes to mine... so yeah you’re right if people who are involved in bitcoin decide it’s not worth the time to have a currency it will become worth less than it take to mine.. but it’s worth 102b do I don’t think it’s gonna happen.",
"qid": 10601,
"docid": "503581",
"rank": 53,
"score": 112313
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Tax cost basis is the amounts you've spent on developing the product which you hasn't deducted yet from previous income. From what you've described, it sounds like your cost basis is $0. Time you spent is not your cost, since time is not money. The fact that you might have earned something if working at that time but you didn't - is irrelevant, because potential income that you didn't get is not a loss that you took. Someone mentioned \"\"intangibles\"\" in the comments - that would be the line of thought of the buyer. However, since you didn't buy the product but rather developed it, you can only deduct the actual expenses you've incurred, that you haven't deducted so far.\"",
"qid": 10601,
"docid": "357914",
"rank": 54,
"score": 112290
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I mean, I've made perhaps 2000% on them simply buying low (whenever I remembered bitcoin existed and saw that it was only a few hundred USD) and then selling when the news reminded me again that it existed and was hitting 1k. Which is where I dropped ship this last time too, unfortunately. Also, unfortunately I never bought more than a few coins and didn't go into Ethereum at the beginning of the year, thinking it was dead. Still enough to pay for some vacationing. Basically everyone I know has had the same experience with them - so 295% seems really low.",
"qid": 10601,
"docid": "461380",
"rank": 55,
"score": 112258
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"You're acting like my comments are inconsistent. They're not. I think bitcoin's price is primarily due to Chinese money being moved outside of China. I don't think you can point to a price chart and say \"\"Look, that's the Chinese money right there, and look, that part isn't Chinese money\"\". That's what I said already.\"",
"qid": 10601,
"docid": "1532",
"rank": 56,
"score": 111717
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I know this won't be a popular answer, but here goes: Bitcoin. Regardless of how you feel about the long term prospects of bitcoin, it actually works very well as a way to transfer money with hardly any fee. You can go online, buy bitcoin, transfer them for a very tiny fee, then the person on the other end can cash out in their own local currency. In fact, bitcoin is gaining a lot of popularity in some countries for this very reason. It is becoming more common for one family member to come to America or Eurpoe to work, then use bitcoin to transfer money to their family back home. This works so well because even international transfers have such low fees. The best place to get bitcoins will vary depending on where you live. I'm American, so I use Coinbase. I believe Bitstamp is popular in Europe. I'm not sure about other countries.",
"qid": 10601,
"docid": "48530",
"rank": 57,
"score": 110995
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Market cap doesn't mean that much money went into the system. Money in equals money out over time, and is not directly tied to market cap, which can actually be lower if price drops far enough. These concepts are the same for all traded assets, such as stocks, bonds, and commodities. \"\"Market cap\"\" is simply the current price times the number of shares available in the market. So a $300 billion market cap does not mean $300 billion was paid to somebody to buy it all. Instead, what's happened is that some money went in at first, but much much less, and then price increased. Bitcoin is a little different in that \"\"money in\"\" for many innovators and early adopters was in the form of time spent and contributing to the network (what they call mining). 1 Now, as to the price jump, that's an effect of market forces. For many reasons, the market has clamored to buy bitcoin over the last year 2, but many already holding bitcoin weren't ready to sell. Supply and demand worked in a way that increased price. Supply low, demand high, price increases. This situation could easily reverse. Just as suddenly as the market wanted bitcoin it can decide it doesn't want bitcoin. Supply and demand would work in a way that would decrease price. Supply high, demand low, price decreases. This kind of massive market price movement in this short timeframe is exactly what traders mean by \"\"volatile\"\". It's actually not that unusual, it's just that most stocks and other assets that experience such gains don't get much media attention. Further, gains like this often reflect \"\"inflated\"\" prices, market \"\"euphoria\"\", and trading \"\"bubbles\"\". All of these terms essentially mean \"\"price will correct (go down) eventually, because price is currently much higher than actual value\"\". If the market loses all faith in the asset, price will drop to zero and the \"\"money in equals money out\"\" maxim breaks down. Some traders will be left \"\"holding the bag\"\", meaning they owned the stock at the moment trading permanently ceased. 3 NOTES: Exact reasons cannot be pinpointed with facts. Instead, we enter the realm of opinion on this point. In my opinion, bitcoin has increased massively in value mostly due to the media attention it has received. And this media attention is not new. It received equally pervasive attention in 2013. As an effect, price went from under $100 to over $1000 back to under $200 in about 20 months. It's great news if you're a trader. You could have made tons of money. As for the early bitcoiners, it was actually kind of annoying because it then brought in all the skeptics calling it a \"\"ponzi\"\" scheme or \"\"pyramid\"\" scheme, despite the quite obvious fact that bitcoin cannot be either by definition. Further upward market forces may have come from the fact that bitcoin is built on an innovative technology that may very well change the way we do a lot of things in the future. I'm referring to \"\"blockchain\"\". This effect can be seen in several failing companies rising from the darkness like Valkrie simply by adding the work blockchain to their name. I personally find this exactly analogous to the \"\"dot com bubble\"\", where companies in the late 1990's made millions in stock selloffs simply by adding \"\".com\"\" to their name, despite having no profits or sometimes not even a working product. For high volatility stocks, this is not unusual. Many \"\"penny stocks\"\" fail, and typically the road down is faster than the road up. Bitcoin may indeed fail, but again, it's a bit different than a stock. Bitcoin is not a company. There's no financials for Bitcoin, no VC investors, board members to report to, no product to produce, etc. Bitcoin is designed to simply be a thing itself. The hope is to disrupt currency and commodity markets and create a new \"\"store of value.\"\" Literally, Bitcoin is designed to have intrinsic value. Whether it's actually working at this point is still unknown.\"",
"qid": 10601,
"docid": "287600",
"rank": 58,
"score": 110778
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: This was all luck, that amount of leverage will destroy your account in a single bad trade. You profit is way less than it should be because you are getting killed on fees. Take a look at the bitcoin trade, you should have 2,157.30 in profit but you only have 1825.42. And your currency trades were consistently positions that were worth $400,000 dollars, where you were pulling out ~$50 in profits, even though they should have been ~$80 profits. You are consistently getting 30% less than you should be, and consistently betting waaaaay bigger amounts than you account can really handle. Bad trades will probably have 30% greater losses than actual, and when the market moves the wrong direction then a single position will wipe out your account. Yes, you could have just bought bitcoin and gotten great profits. You totally nailed the directions of the markets! It is just a matter of time before you blow up, the trailing profits won't always help you when the market starts going down first.",
"qid": 10601,
"docid": "449689",
"rank": 59,
"score": 109784
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: That's not why they crashed. They crashed because the only reason people were buying them is because they would go up in value and then they could sell them for profit later. Sounds exactly like Bitcoin in my opinion. The only difference is Bitcoin is useful in the sense that criminals can use it and not get in trouble. How many people do you know using Bitcoin as a currency? They aren't, they are only buying it to sell it for a profit later. That isn't sustainable. It isn't backed by a government or military and it is too volatile to actually use as a currency. When it crashes and criminals are the only ones using it, then what is it worth? Maybe $100 a coin? $10? Who knows, it sure as hell isn't $5,000 a coin though.",
"qid": 10601,
"docid": "471870",
"rank": 60,
"score": 109739
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Dollar cost averaging can be done in a retirement plan, and can be done for individual stock purchases, as this will increase your returns by reducing your risk, especially if you are buying a particular stock for the first time. How many time have I purchased a stock, bottom fishing, thinking I was buying at the low, only to find out there was a new low. Sitting with a thousand shares that are now down $3-$4K. I have a choice to sell at a loss, hold what I've got or double down. I usually add more shares if I'm thinking I'll recover, but at that time I'd wished I'd eased into my investment. That way I would have owned more shares at a smaller cost basis. Anything can happen in the market, not knowing whether the price will increase or decrease. In the example above a $3,000 loss is equal to the brokerage cost of about 300 trades, so trading cost should not be a factor. Now I'm not saying to slowly get into the market and miss the bull, like we're having today with Trump, but get into individual stocks slowly, being fully invested in the market. Also DCA means you do not buy equal number of shares per period, say monthly, but that you buy with the same amount of money a different number of shares, reducing your total costs. Let's say you spend $2000 on a stock trading at $10 (200 shares), if the stock rose to $20 you would spend $2000 and buy 100 shares, and if the stock dropped to $5 you would spend $2000 and buy 400 shares, by now having amassed 700 shares for $6,000. On the other hand and in contrast to DCA had you purchased 200 shares for $2000 at $10/share, then 200 shares for $4000 at $20/share, and finally 200 more shares for $1000 at $5/share, you would have amassed only 600 shares for $7000 investment.",
"qid": 10601,
"docid": "135031",
"rank": 61,
"score": 109355
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The average price would be $125 which would be used to compute your basis. You paid $12,500 for the stock that is now worth $4,500 which is a loss of $8,000 overall if you sell at this point.",
"qid": 10601,
"docid": "324916",
"rank": 62,
"score": 109202
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"In 2014 the IRS announced that it published guidance in Notice 2014-21. In that notice, the answer to the first question describes the general tax treatment of virtual currency: For federal tax purposes, virtual currency is treated as property. General tax principles applicable to property transactions apply to transactions using virtual currency. As it's property like any other, capital gains if and when you sell are taxed. But there's nothing illegal or nefarious about it, and while you might get some odd questions if a large deposit ends up in your bank account, as long as you answer them there really isn't a problem. If you don't have documentation of how much you paid for it, if it's a trivial amount compared to what it's worth now you can just declare $0 as your basis. I would suggest you try to have documentation that you've held it at least one year so that it's a long-term capital gain, but you can just mark the purchase date as \"\"Various\"\" on your tax form. I've done this (for a much smaller amount of bitcoins, alas) and haven't run into any trouble. While there are some good reasons to sell slowly, as others are saying, I want to play devil's advocate for a minute and give you a reason to sell quickly: A decision to hold is equivalent to a decision to buy. That is, if a million dollars randomly ended up in your bank account for no reason, you probably wouldn't choose to go put it all into bitcoin, and then slowly sell it. Yet that's more-or-less an equivalent financial situation to holding on to the bitcoin and slowly selling it. While there are certainly tax advantages to selling over the course of many years, bitcoin is one of the most volatile commodities out there, and one has no idea what will happen over the next few weeks, let alone the next few years. It may go to tens of thousands of dollars a coin, or it may go to basically zero. If I had a million dollars in my pocket, bitcoin isn't how I'd choose to store it all. Just something to think about; obviously you need to make the best choice for you for yourself.\"",
"qid": 10601,
"docid": "314026",
"rank": 63,
"score": 108920
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You could buy Bitcoins. They are even more deflationary than Swiss Francs. But the exchange rate is currently high, and so is the risk in case of volatility. So maybe buy an AltCoin instead. See altcoin market capitalization for more information. Basically, all you'd be doing is changing SwissFrancs into Bitcoin/AltCoin. You don't need a bank to store it. You don't need to stockpile cash at home. Stays liquid, there's no stock portfolio (albeit a coin portfolio), unlike in stocks there are no noteworthy buy and sell commissions, and the central bank can't just change the bills as in classic-cash-currency. The only risk is volatility in the coin market, which is not necessarely a small risk. Should coins have been going down, then for as long as you don't need that money and keep some for everyday&emergency use on a bank account, you can just wait until said coins re-climb - volatility goes both ways after all.",
"qid": 10601,
"docid": "353028",
"rank": 64,
"score": 108501
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: As we can see, now it’s October and Bitcoin is not 5k. It turned out that it’s a very high psychological point for the holders. Most of them don’t believe in it, that’s why sell. Moreover, that’s the way expert traders use the opportunity, because they understand the mentality of the crowd.",
"qid": 10601,
"docid": "102551",
"rank": 65,
"score": 108394
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I think that long term, bitcoin is a great investment. In fact I predict a big spike in price right around the new year when the block reward halves. I also predict that inflation will hit all fiat currencies much harder than their respective governments will ever admit.",
"qid": 10601,
"docid": "596303",
"rank": 66,
"score": 108123
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"There are two scenarios to determine the relevant date, and then a couple of options to determine the relevant price. If the stocks were purchased in your name from the start - then the relevant date is the date of the purchase. If the stocks were willed to you (i.e.: you inherited them), then the relevant date is the date at which the person who willed them to you had died. You can check with the company if they have records of the original purchase. If it was in \"\"street name\"\" - they may not have such records, and then you need to figure out what broker it was to hold them. Once you figured out the relevant date, contact the company's \"\"investor relationships\"\" contact and ask them for the adjusted stock price on that date (adjusted for splits/mergers/acquisitions/whatever). That would be the cost basis per share you would be using. Alternatively you can research historical prices on your favorite financial information site (Google/Yahoo/Bloomberg or the stock exchange where the company is listed). If you cannot figure the cost basis, or it costs too much - you can just write cost basis as $0, and claim the whole proceeds as gains. You'll pay capital gains tax on the whole amount, but that may end up being cheaper than conducting the investigation to reveal the actual numbers.\"",
"qid": 10601,
"docid": "248021",
"rank": 67,
"score": 108010
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Your 1099-B report for ADNT on the fractional shares of cash should answer this question for you. The one I am looking at shows ADNT .8 shares were sold for $36.16 which would equal a sale price of $45.20 per share, and a cost basis of $37.27 for the .8 shares or $46.59 per share.",
"qid": 10601,
"docid": "595924",
"rank": 68,
"score": 107868
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Cost basis is irrelevant because the entire distribution is taxed as ordinary income even if the custodian distributes stock or mutual fund shares to you. Such distributions save you the brokerage fees that you would incur had you taken a cash distribution and promptly bought the shares outside the retirement account for yourself but they have no effect on the tax treatment of the distribution: the market value of the shares distributed to you is taxed as ordinary income, and your basis in the newly acquired shares outside the retirement account is the market value of the shares, all prices being as of the date of the distribution.",
"qid": 10601,
"docid": "183926",
"rank": 69,
"score": 107857
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The problem was that it was such a niche offering that was only used by hardcore bitcoin fans. It's such a hassle just to buy bitcoin, as Coinbase makes you wait a week. If you don't already have bitcoin, there was (and still, I assume) no reason to not use paypal or a credit card, which offer much better protection to the buyer. Gyft, an online e gift card company which carries every major retailer, was offering a percentage off to people who paid in bitcoin. I was getting Amazon cards through them but once they stopped offering bitcoin discounts, I have stopped using bitcoin all together as an online purchase tool.",
"qid": 10601,
"docid": "359753",
"rank": 70,
"score": 107806
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You only got 75 shares, so your basis is the fair market value of the stock as of the grant date times the number of shares you got: $20*75. Functionally, it's the same thing as if your employer did this: As such, the basis in that stock is $1,500 ($20*75). The other 25 shares aren't yours and weren't ever yours, so they aren't part of your basis (for net issuance; if they were sell to cover, then the end result would be pretty similar, but there'd be another transaction involved, but we won't go there). To put it another way, suppose your employer paid you a $2000 bonus, leaving you with a $1500 check after tax withholding. Being a prudent person and not wishing to blow your bonus on luxury goods, you invest that $1500 in a well-researched investment. You wouldn't doubt that your cost basis in that investment at $1500.",
"qid": 10601,
"docid": "474467",
"rank": 71,
"score": 106962
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Around 22 million bitcoin maximum. I can't remember full details but it's designed to dish out 12.5 coins every 10 minutes on average. Sometimes it might be 10 seconds, sometimes an hour, and half every 4 years until 22 million it just halved so in about 3.5 years you will get 6.25. Now to SEND bitcoin you can bribe miners and pay a few cents to jump the line, so you get your 12.5 + the donated coin. As for eth it's confusing shit. Bitcoin is like a virtual dollar, eth you can 'transform' into other things to do things I don't know what it's for. Research 'dao' and eth. Dao was some sort of contract system using eth.",
"qid": 10601,
"docid": "56785",
"rank": 72,
"score": 106325
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Assuming that taxes were withheld when you received the options, you would now only owe tax on the profit from the sale of the stock. The cost basis would be whatever you bought the stock for (the strike price of the options in this case), and the profit will be the total amount received from the sale minus the total cost of those shares. Since you bought the stock more than one year ago, you will get taxed at the long-term capital gains rate of 15% (unless you are in the 39.6% tax bracket, in which case the rate is 20%). As with all tax advice on this site, you need to check with a tax specialist when you actually file, but that should give you a rough indication of what your tax liability is.",
"qid": 10601,
"docid": "367742",
"rank": 73,
"score": 106044
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You don't. When you sell them - your cost basis would be the price of the stock at which you sold the stocks to cover the taxes, and the difference is your regular capital gain.",
"qid": 10601,
"docid": "227064",
"rank": 74,
"score": 106028
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"While this does fall under the \"\"All-inclusive income\"\" segment of GI (gross income), there are two questions that come up. I invested in a decentralized bitcoin business and earned about $230 this year in interest from it Your wording is confusing here only due to how bitcoin works.\"",
"qid": 10601,
"docid": "378437",
"rank": 75,
"score": 105848
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Paper money and coins cost real resources too, but it doesn't matter much that it costs resources, except maybe for the environment. No institutions controlling the price and supply is a good thing. I prefer a currency in which the global market decides the price and not some government I don't trust that keeps printing more and more for decades, causing the currency to lose value over time. Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies will never replace normal currencies, but they are already competing and it's good that governments and banks don't have an oligopoly anymore. Bitcoin is a great mix of a currency and safehaven for longterm inflation. It's easily transactable and divisible without a third party AND because it's scarce, yet more accessible than gold, it's a great place to store value to escape an economic crisis or simply monetary inflation. Now you'll probably say, something volatile isn't safe enough for a safehaven. But I think the higher the price and the longer it exists the less volatile the bitcoin price will be and that the longterm trend will be up, even after it surpasses the marketcap of gold. Meanwhile, cryptocurrencies are a great way to crowdfund interesting projects and create value out of nothing, enriching young smart people whom will be able stimulate the global economy.",
"qid": 10601,
"docid": "378654",
"rank": 76,
"score": 105772
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Bitcoin... up 100% in 2016, already 300% Q1,Q2 2017. Has gone up 100x in the last 5 years, and conservative projections have it going up 50x next 10. Not only is it not vulnerable to the instability in the world, it feeds on it. Top investors include Marc Andreessen, Blythe Masters, and David Rutter, and just about every financial institution has at least wet their beak on it if not taken sizable positions.",
"qid": 10601,
"docid": "85804",
"rank": 77,
"score": 105630
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I’m going to answer this because: Accounting books only reflect the dollar value of inventories. Which means if you look at the balance sheet of McDonalds, you will not see how many bags of French fries are remaining at their storage facility, you will only see the total value at cost basis. Your requirement for noting the number of shares purchased is not part of the double entry accounting system. When you transfer $10000 from bank to broker, the entries would be: The bank’s name and the broker’s name will not appear on the balance sheet. When you purchase 50 shares at $40 per share, the accounting system does not care about the number of shares or the price. All it cares is the $2000 total cost and the commission of $10. You have two choices, either place $10 to an expense account, or incorporate it into the total cost (making it $2010). The entries for the second method would be: Now your balance sheet would reflect: What happens if the price increases from $40 per share to $50 per share tomorrow? Do nothing. Your balance sheet will show the cost of $2010 until the shares are sold or the accounting period ends. It will not show the market value of $2500. Instead, the Portfolio Tracker would show $2500. The most basic tracker is https://www.google.com/finance/portfolio . Later if you finally sell the shares at $50 per share with $10 commission: Again, the number of shares will not be reflected anywhere in the accounting system. Only the total proceeds from the sale matters.",
"qid": 10601,
"docid": "280763",
"rank": 78,
"score": 105611
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Mathematically it's arbitrary - you could just as easily use the bid or the midpoint as the denominator, so long as you're consistent when comparing securities. So there's not a fundamental reason to use the ask. The best argument I can come up with is that most analysis is done from the buy side, so looking at liquidity costs (meaning how much does the value drop instantaneously purely because of the bid-ask spread) when you buy a security would be more relevant by using the ask (purchase price) as the basis. Meaning, if a stock has a bid-ask range of $95-$100, if you buy the stock at $100 (the ask), you immediately \"\"lose\"\" 5% (5/100) of its value since you can only sell it for $95.\"",
"qid": 10601,
"docid": "66210",
"rank": 79,
"score": 105238
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I own less than 1BTC, and I think this is a bubble about to burst but it could go either way. After all, a small purchase of bitcoins three years ago paid for my brand new Toyota Sequoia this summer. You never know.",
"qid": 10601,
"docid": "44482",
"rank": 80,
"score": 105020
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Currencies don't really have intrinsic value. You can't compare bitcoins to tulips because you can't grow 200x more bitcoins next winter to push the price down to its intrinsic value. Bitcoins are scarce and like gold, the intrinsic value doesn't matter anymore, it's all about supply and demand and there will always be bitcoin fans with money that won't let it go to 0$. And compared to gold, bitcoin is still very very cheap, so even if the bubble \"\"bursts\"\", it will grow again.\"",
"qid": 10601,
"docid": "512734",
"rank": 81,
"score": 104703
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I don't know much about paypal or bitcoin, but I can provide a little information on BTC(Paypal I thought was just a service for moving real currency). BTC has an exchange, in which the price of a bitcoin goes up and down. You can invest in to it much like you would invest in the stock market. You can also invest in equipment to mine bitcoins, if you feel like that is worthwhile. It takes quite a bit of research and quite a bit of knowledge. If you are looking to provide loans with interest, I would look into P2P lending. Depending on where you live, you can buy portions of loans, and receive monthly payments with the similiar risk that credit card companies take on(Unsecured debt that can be cleared in bankruptcy). I've thrown a small investment into P2P lending and it has had average returns, although I don't feel like my investment strategy was optimal(took on too many high risk notes, a large portion of which defaulted). I've been doing it for about 8 months, and I've seen an APY of roughly 9%, which again I think is sub-optimal. I think with better investment strategy you could see closer to 12-15%, which could swing heavily with economic downturn. It's hard to say.",
"qid": 10601,
"docid": "201275",
"rank": 82,
"score": 104622
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Bitcoin exhibits the network effect so you would have to expect that it's price will mimic an S-curve. Of course for equity and debt investors it looks like a bubble within their asset classes. The only way you could say if bitcoin is becoming frothy is if you had a very large pool of people answering surveys with why they are buying bitcoin and how much they own and plan to invest.",
"qid": 10601,
"docid": "517218",
"rank": 83,
"score": 104493
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"In 2014 the IRS announced that it published guidance in Notice 2014-21. In that notice, the answer to the first question describes the general tax treatment of virtual currency: For federal tax purposes, virtual currency is treated as property. General tax principles applicable to property transactions apply to transactions using virtual currency. As it's property like any other, capital gains if and when you sell are taxed. As with any capital gains, you're taxed on the \"\"profit\"\" you made, that is the \"\"proceeds\"\" (how much you got when you sold) minus your \"\"basis\"\" (how much you paid to get the property that you sold). Until you sell, it's just an asset (like a house, or a share of stock, or a rare collectible card) that doesn't require any reporting. If your initial cryptocurrency acquisition was through mining, then this section of that Notice applies: Q-8: Does a taxpayer who “mines” virtual currency (for example, uses computer resources to validate Bitcoin transactions and maintain the public Bitcoin transaction ledger) realize gross income upon receipt of the virtual currency resulting from those activities? A-8: Yes, when a taxpayer successfully “mines” virtual currency, the fair market value of the virtual currency as of the date of receipt is includible in gross income. See Publication 525, Taxable and Nontaxable Income, for more information on taxable income. That is to say, when it was mined the market value of the amount generated should have been included in income (probably on either Line 21 Other Income, or on Schedule C if it's from your own business). At that point, the market value would also qualify as your basis. Though I doubt there'd be a whole lot of enforcement action for not amending your 2011 return to include $0.75. (Technically if you find a dollar bill on the street it should be included in income, but usually the government cares about bigger fish than that.) It sounds like your basis is close enough to zero that it's not worth trying to calculate a more accurate value. Since your basis couldn't be less than zero, there's no way that using zero as your basis would cause you to pay less tax than you ought, so the government won't have any objections to it. One thing to be careful of is to document that your holdings qualify for long-term capital gains treatment (held longer than a year) if applicable. Also, as you're trading in multiple cryptocurrencies, each transaction may count as a \"\"sale\"\" of one kind followed by a \"\"purchase\"\" of the other kind, much like if you traded your Apple stock for Google stock. It's possible that \"\"1031 like kind exchange\"\" rules apply, and in June 2016 the American Institute of CPAs sent a letter asking about it (among other things), but as far as I know there's been no official IRS guidance on the matter. There are also some related questions here; see \"\"Do altcoin trades count as like-kind exchanges?\"\" and \"\"Assuming 1031 Doesn't Apply To Cryptocurrency Trading\"\". But if in fact those exchange rules do not apply and it is just considered a sale followed by a purchase, then you would need to report each exchange as a sale with that asset's basis (probably $0 for the initial one), and proceeds of the fair market value at the time, and then that same value would be the basis of the new asset you're purchasing. Using a $0 basis is how I treat my bitcoin sales, though I haven't dealt with other cryptocurrencies. As long as all the USD income is being reported when you get USD, I find it unlikely you'll run into a lot of trouble, even if you technically were supposed to report the individual transactions when they happened. Though, I'm not in charge of IRS enforcement, and I'm not aware of any high-profile cases, so it's hard to know anything for sure. Obviously, if there's a lot of money involved, you may want to involve a professional rather than random strangers on the Internet. You could also try contacting the IRS directly, as believe-it-or-not, their job is in fact helping you to comply with the tax laws correctly. Also, there are phone numbers at the end of Notice 2014-21 of people which might be able to provide further guidance, including this statement: The principal author of this notice is Keith A. Aqui of the Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Income Tax & Accounting). For further information about income tax issues addressed in this notice, please contact Mr. Aqui at (202) 317-4718\"",
"qid": 10601,
"docid": "14065",
"rank": 84,
"score": 104440
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Its amazing how little users in the business subreddit know or even have a basic understanding of bitcoin/cryptocurrencies when people are literally investing [more than a billion dollars](http://blocktribune.com/september-promises-busy-ico-market/) and as the op article states is worth over a hundred billion dollars in just 9 months. Some of you are calling it a \"\"bubble\"\" and while that may be true for the entire market (leaving some of these startups dead in the water), bitcoin is merely gaining traction as it has done since it was worth pennies. It rises, dips, rises higher, dips, rises to even higher heights. There is revolutionary technology in cryptocurrencies that people in the forefront of business should be paying attention to. Some of the cryptocurrencies are going to succeed, it's just a matter of which ones. Bitcoin is not a bad bet.\"",
"qid": 10601,
"docid": "442211",
"rank": 85,
"score": 102984
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I'm going to assume that you will spend the money to fix the mold problem correctly. Using your numbers, after that is done, the home is worth perhaps $280k. To evaluate whether or not to sell, the amount you have spent on the house is irrelevant. The only thing you need to ask yourself is this: Would I spend $280k to buy this house today? You might, if you were happy with the rental income that you were getting. If the house is fully rented, it earns you $24k/year, which is an 8.6% return if you had purchased the house today at $280k. Of course, you will have vacancies, taxes, and other expenses bringing that return number down. Figure out what that is, and see if you are happy with the return based on those numbers. If you decide it would be a bad investment for you at $280k, then sell the house. By the way, this question works for any investment, not just real estate. When deciding whether or not to sell stock, the same thing applies. It is irrelevant what your cost basis is. You only need to ask yourself if the stock would be a good buy for you at the current price.",
"qid": 10601,
"docid": "475474",
"rank": 86,
"score": 102984
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Here's an excerpt from the Charles Schwab website which I think will help evaluate your position: The simple answer to your question is no, the value of a gift of stock for gift tax liability is NOT the donor's cost basis, but rather the fair market value of the stock at the time the gift is given. So let's say you purchased 100 shares of XYZ stock at $50 a share. Your cost basis is $5,000. Now the stock is $80 a share and you give it as a gift. The value of your gift for gift tax purposes is $8,000. In 2015, you can give up to $14,000 to an unlimited number of individuals each year without paying a gift tax or even reporting the gifts. If you give over that amount to any individual, however, you must report the gift on your tax return, but you don't have to pay taxes until you give away more than the current lifetime limit of $5,430,000—for the amount above and beyond $14,000 per person per year. So in the example above, there would be no gift tax liability. However, if the stock happened to be $150 a share, the value of the gift would be $15,000. You'd then have to report it and $1,000 would be applied toward your $5,430,000 lifetime exclusion. You will need to pay a gift tax on the current value of the stock. I'm not familiar with the tax laws in India, but if your brother was in the US, he wouldn't pay taxes on that gift until he sells the stock. The recipient doesn’t have to worry about gift taxes. It's when the recipient decides to sell the stock that the issue of valuation comes up—for income taxes. And this is where things can get a bit more complicated. In general, when valuing a gift of stock for capital gains tax liability, it's the donor's cost basis and holding period that rules. As an example, let's say you receive a gift of stock from your grandfather. He bought it for $10 a share and it's worth $15 a share on the day you receive it. If you then sell the stock, whether for a gain or a loss, your cost basis will be the same as your grandfather’s: $10 per share. Sell it at $25 and you'll pay tax (at the short- or long-term rate, depending on how long he owned the stock) on a gain of $15 a share; sell it at $8 and your capital loss will be $2 a share. Ultimately, with a gift this large that also crosses international borders, you really should hire a professional who is experienced with these types of transactions. Their fees/commission will be completely offset by the savings in risk and paperwork. http://www.schwab.com/public/schwab/nn/articles/How-Do-You-Value-a-Gift-of-Stock-It-Depends-on-Whether-You-re-the-Giver-or-the-Receiver",
"qid": 10601,
"docid": "100128",
"rank": 87,
"score": 102467
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Bitcoins have the potential to be an alternative to gold or USD, but not yet. Their value is too volatile, and there are still serious security concerns. I would strongly advise anyone against putting more than a small % of their worth in Bitcoins.",
"qid": 10601,
"docid": "391344",
"rank": 88,
"score": 102293
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The BitCoin section is just hilarious and highlights how rediculous some of the Crytocurrency market has become (not counting BitCoin and ETH). This quote in particular from the start-ups press-release had my cracking: >\"\"In order to purchase and support WEED anyone that sends 1 President Johnson coin ($GARY) to the Company’s Omni Layer Bitcoin Wallet will receive 1 WEED coin into their Omni Wallet\"\"\"",
"qid": 10601,
"docid": "216557",
"rank": 89,
"score": 102200
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Bitcoin can facilitate this, despite the risks associated with using bitcoin exchanges and the price volatility at any given time. The speed of bitcoin can limit your exposure to the bitcoin network to one hour. Cyprus has a more advanced infrastructure than most countries to support bitcoin transactions, with Neo & Bee opening as a regulated bank/financial entity in Cyprus just two months ago, and ATM/Vending Machines existing for that asset. Anyway, you acquire bitcoin from an individual locally (in exchange for cash) or an exchange that does not require the same level of reporting as a bank account in Cyprus or Russia. No matter how you acquire the bitcoin, you transfer it to the exchange, sell bitcoin on the exchange for your desired currency (USD, EURO, etc), you instruct the exchange to wire the EURO to your cyprus bank account using your cyprus account's SWIFT code. The end. Depending on the combination of countries involved, the exchange may still encounter similar withdrawal limitations until certain regulatory requirements are resolved. Also, I'm unsure of the attitude toward bitcoin related answers on this site, so I tried to add a disclaimer about bitcoin's risks at the top, but that doesn't make this answer incorrect.",
"qid": 10601,
"docid": "219398",
"rank": 90,
"score": 102127
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: My original statement was answering onefingerattack's query, not strategizing for institutional investors. It's very easy for instituationals to move money across borders into and out of treasuries, and to purchase gold near spot and vault it. For a retailer like onefingerattack, getting money into bitcoin is going to be much easier than opening a foreign bank account, exchanging, and transferring funds. And my point wasn't to say that this was necessarily the best strategy because it is impossible to know. I just linked to an article about the fact that this strategy is being used by other Europeans (although, I think it's more by Greeks who worry about their Euros being nationalized and replaced with a drachma).",
"qid": 10601,
"docid": "212164",
"rank": 91,
"score": 101824
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I would think you need proof that you actually bought it when it was cheaper, but that's a guess. You are supposed to pay the capital gains tax on bitcoin gains, same as if you made money on a stock https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2017/02/21/if-you-traded-bitcoin-you-should-report-capital-gains-to-the-irs/amp/",
"qid": 10601,
"docid": "313270",
"rank": 92,
"score": 101752
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://www.reuters.com/article/us-bitcoin-funding-tezos-specialreport/special-report-backroom-battle-imperils-230-million-cryptocurrency-venture-idUSKBN1CN35K) reduced by 97%. (I'm a bot) ***** > ZUG, Switzerland/NEW YORK - Just three months ago, a tech project called Tezos raised $232 million online in a wildly successful &quot;Initial coin offering,&quot; in which new digital currency is parceled out to buyers. > Georg von Schnurbein, co-author of a book on Swiss foundation governance, expressed surprise over cryptocurrency ventures like Tezos setting up not-for-profit foundations in Switzerland. > Kevin Zhou, co-founder of the cryptocurrency trading fund Galois Capital, said he invested about five bitcoins in Tezos, which he considers overall one of the better ICOs. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/77m6f4/special_report_backroom_battle_imperils_230/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~231942 tl;drs so far.\"\") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") | *Top* *keywords*: **Tezos**^#1 **foundation**^#2 **Breitman**^#3 **Reuters**^#4 **Gevers**^#5\"",
"qid": 10601,
"docid": "71490",
"rank": 93,
"score": 101488
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Lets look at possible use cases: If you ever converted your cryptocurrency to cash on a foreign exchange, then **YES** you had to report. That means if you ever daytraded and the US dollar (or other fiat) amount was $10,000 or greater when you went out of crypto, then you need to report. Because the regulations stipulate you need to report over $10,000 at any point in the year. If you DID NOT convert your cryptocurrency to cash, and only had them on an exchange's servers, perhaps traded for other cryptocurrency pairs, then NO this did not fall under the regulations. Example, In 2013 I wanted to cash out of a cryptocurrency that didn't have a USD market in the United States, but I didn't want to go to cash on a foreign exchange specifically for this reason (amongst others). So I sold my Litecoin on BTC-E (Slovakia) for Bitcoin, and then I sold the Bitcoin on Coinbase (USA). (even though BTC-E had a Litecoin/USD market, and then I could day trade the swings easily to make more capital gains, but I wanted cash in my bank account AND didn't want the reporting overhead). Read the regulations yourself. Financial instruments that are reportable: Cash (fiat), securities, futures and options. Also, http://www.bna.com/irs-no-bitcoin-n17179891056/ whether it is just in the blockchain or on a server, IRS and FINCEN said bitcoin is not reportable on FBAR. When they update their guidance, it'll be in the news. The director of FinCEN is very active in cryptocurrency developments and guidance. Bitcoin has been around for six years, it isn't that esoteric and the government isn't that confused on what it is (IRS and FinCEN's hands are tied by Congress in how to more realistically categorize cryptocurrency) Although at this point in time, there are several very liquid exchanges within the United States, such as the one NYSE/ICE hosts (Coinbase).",
"qid": 10601,
"docid": "158515",
"rank": 94,
"score": 101001
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Not really an answer, but too long for a comment: Since anyone can create their own cryptocurrency (see http://www.bitclone.net/) the value of new cryptocurrencies is very small. According to https://bleutrade.com/exchange/MINT/USD for example, 100,000 mintcoins is worth less than $1. Even if they give you 20% interest, that interest is on mintcoins, not dollars. If the mintcoin rates falls by more than 20%, you would've been better off withdrawing your mintcoins immediately. Check to see how much they pay for various tasks and compare it to the current exchange rate. Realize the exchange rate may go down as more mintcoins are created.",
"qid": 10601,
"docid": "16229",
"rank": 95,
"score": 100910
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Assuming your investments aren't in any kind of tax-advantaged account (like an IRA), they are generally not tracked and you indeed may pay more taxes. What will likely change, however, is your cost basis. You only pay tax on the difference between the value of the investment when you sell it and its value when you bought it. There is no rule that says once you sell an investment and pay taxes on the gain, you will never again pay any taxes on any other investments you then buy with that money. If you own some investment, and it increases in value, and then you sell it, you had a capital gain and owe taxes (depending on your tax bracket, etc.). If you use the money to buy some other investment, and that increases in value, and then you sell it, you had another separate capital gain and again owe taxes. However, every time you sell, you only are subject to capital gains taxes on the gain, not the entire sale price. The value of the investment at the time you bought it is the cost basis. When you sell, you take the sale price and subtract the cost basis to find your gain, So suppose you bought $1000 worth of some ETF many years ago. It went up to $2000 and you sold it. You have $2000 in cash, but $1000 of that is your original money back, so your capital gain is $1000 and that is the amount on which you owe (or may owe) taxes. Suppose you pay 15% tax on this, as you suggest; that is $150, leaving you with $1850. Now suppose you buy another ETF with that. Your cost basis is now $1850. Suppose the investment now increases in value again to $2000. This time when you sell, you still have $2000 in cash, but this is now only $150 more than you paid, so you only owe capital gains taxes on that $150. (A 15% tax on that would be $22.50.) In that example you had one capital gain of $1000 and a second of $150 and paid a total of $172.50 in taxes (150 + 22.50). Suppose instead that you had held the original investment and it had increased in value to $2150 and you had then sold it. You would have a single capital gain of $1150 (2150 minus the original 1000 you paid). 15% of this would be the same $172.50 you paid under the other arrangement. So in essence you pay the same taxes either way. (This example is simplified, of course; in reality, the rate you pay depends on your overall income, so you could pay more if you sell a lot in a single year, since it could push you into a higher tax bracket.) So none of the money is \"\"tax exempt\"\", but each time you sell, you \"\"reset the counter\"\" by paying tax on your gain, and each time you buy, you start a new counter on the basis of whatever you pay for the investment. Assuming you're dealing with ordinary investment instruments like stocks and ETFs, this basis information is typically tracked by the bank or brokerage where you buy and sell them. Technically speaking it is your responsibility to track and report this when you sell an investment, and if you do complicated things like transfer securities from one brokerage to another you may have to do that yourself. In general, however, your bank/brokerage will keep track of cost basis information for you.\"",
"qid": 10601,
"docid": "190687",
"rank": 96,
"score": 100875
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Bitcoin will never come back down; it's a *limited commodity* that is tradable like a currency. Since it's a commodity, it will always have value and since it's a limited commodity, that value will always go up. Disclaimer: by \"\"come back down\"\" I meant back down to the $3 a coin it was at when it hit it's first spike *without* being obsoleted. Not the current $5000 shenanigans; this is just part of it's market cycle.\"",
"qid": 10601,
"docid": "313092",
"rank": 97,
"score": 100851
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Reducing supply doesn't cause demand. It may shift the equilibrium price, or supply can fall even faster than demand. Certain goods are pretty inelastic, such as food - people will still pay for it even if the price goes up because the alternative is starving to death. In that case you have a point that cost of production puts a price floor there. For completely elastic goods such as bitcoin which have no intrinsic use or demand beyond people that think it is a speculative investment, it's a totally different situation. Why is it that I find in any discussion about bitcoin the pro bitcoin side has not even a high school level understanding of basic economics?",
"qid": 10601,
"docid": "71307",
"rank": 98,
"score": 100821
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: It seems to me to be a pyramid scheme, where the holder will reach a point where they decide to sell for more traditional currency or throw it into the traditional economy through mass purchasing. The sudden increase in supply of bitcoin will help the eventual plummet in value and leave a lot of people in the cold with billions in real dollars lost by those who are still holding bitcoin to those who dumped it all before the crash. Why? It's unregulated. The one characteristic that might draw people to it will be the cause of it's demise.",
"qid": 10601,
"docid": "447366",
"rank": 99,
"score": 100797
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](http://fortune.com/2017/08/01/bitcoins-new-currency-trades-above-200-on-first-day/) reduced by 76%. (I'm a bot) ***** > This means many bitcoin owners using Coinbase, all of are entitled to receive Bitcoin Cash at a one-to-one ratio, are seeing their new &quot;Cash&quot; sit in a sort of limbo. > A source close to Coinbase, who asked to speak anonymously, also told Fortune that a new currency like Bitcoin Cash is akin to a new product, and it can be time-consuming and expensive to create secure infrastructure to trade it. > The Bitcoin Cash fork came about after a group of miners, who are responsible for recording bitcoin transaction records, decided to implement a new version of the software that governs the bitcoin blockchain. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/6r602t/bitcoins_new_currency_trades_above_200_on_first/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~181542 tl;drs so far.\"\") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") | *Top* *keywords*: **Bitcoin**^#1 **Cash**^#2 **new**^#3 **currency**^#4 **Coinbase**^#5\"",
"qid": 10601,
"docid": "241150",
"rank": 100,
"score": 100589
}
] |
What happens with the “long” buyer of a stock when somebody else's short fails (that is, unlimited loss bankrupts short seller) | [
{
"content": "Title: Content: When you short a stock, you can lose an unlimited amount of money if the trade goes against you. If the shorted stock gaps up overnight you can lose more money than you have in your account. The best case is you make 100% if the stock goes to zero. And then you have margin fees on top of that. With long positions, it's the other way around. Your max loss is 100% and your gains are potentially unlimited.",
"qid": 10628,
"docid": "209359",
"rank": 1,
"score": 151076
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Rich's answer captures the basic essence of short selling with example. I'd like to add these additional points: You typically need a specially-privileged brokerage account to perform short selling. If you didn't request short selling when you opened your account, odds are good you don't have it, and that's good because it's not something most people should ever consider doing. Short selling is an advanced trading strategy. Be sure you truly grok selling short before doing it. Consider that when buying stock (a.k.a. going long or taking a long position, in contrast to short) then your potential loss as a buyer is limited (i.e. stock goes to zero) and your potential gain unlimited (stock keeps going up, if you're lucky!) Whereas, with short selling, it's reversed: Your loss can be unlimited (stock keeps going up, if you're unlucky!) and your potential gain is limited (i.e. stock goes to zero.) The proceeds you receive from a short sale – and then some – need to stay in your account to offset the short position. Brokers require this. Typically, margin equivalent to 150% the market value of the shares sold short must be maintained in the account while the short position is open. The owner of the borrowed shares is still expecting his dividends, if any. You are responsible for covering the cost of those dividends out of your own pocket. To close or cover your short position, you initiate a buy to cover. This is simply a buy order with the intention that it will close out your matching short position. You may be forced to cover your short position before you want to and when it is to your disadvantage! Even if you have sufficient margin available to cover your short, there are cases when lenders need their shares back. If too many short sellers are forced to close out positions at the same time, they push up demand for the stock, increasing price and deepening their losses. When this happens, it's called a short squeeze. In the eyes of the public who mostly go long buying stock, short sellers are often reviled. However, some people and many short sellers believe they are providing balance to the market and preventing it sometimes from getting ahead of itself. [Disambiguation: A short sale in the stock market is not related to the real estate concept of a short sale, which is when a property owner sells his property for less than he owes the bank.] Additional references:",
"qid": 10628,
"docid": "107045",
"rank": 2,
"score": 145752
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: To expand on the comment made by @NateEldredge, you're looking to take a short position. A short position essentially functions as follows: Here's the rub: you have unlimited loss potential. Maybe you borrow a share and sell it at $10. Maybe in a month you still haven't closed the position and now the share is trading at $1,000. The share lender comes calling for their share and you have to close the position at $1,000 for a loss of $990. Now what if it was $1,000,000 per share, etc. To avoid this unlimited loss risk, you can instead buy a put option contract. In this situation you buy a contract that will expire at some point in the future for the right to sell a share of stock for $x. You get to put that share on to someone else. If the underlying stock price were to instead rise above the put's exercise price, the put will expire worthless — but your loss is limited to the premium paid to acquire the put option contract. There are all sorts of advanced options trades sometimes including taking a short or long position in a security. It's generally not advisable to undertake these sorts of trades until you're very comfortable with the mechanics of the contracts. It's definitely not advisable to take an unhedged short position, either by borrowing someone else's share(s) to sell or selling an option (when you sell the option you take the risk), because of the unlimited loss potential described above.",
"qid": 10628,
"docid": "140371",
"rank": 3,
"score": 141104
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: http://www.investopedia.com/university/shortselling/shortselling1.asp 'Therein lies the major risk of short selling, the fear of infinite losses. While the maximum loss for a long investor is the amount invested in a security, the maximum loss for a short seller is theoretically infinite, since there is no upper limit to a stock’s price appreciation. This risk is compounded by the fact that during a short squeeze or buy-in...' Never have shorted a stock. Too intimidated by that!",
"qid": 10628,
"docid": "384015",
"rank": 4,
"score": 137793
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Buying a put is hedging. You won't lose as much if the market goes down, but you'll still lose capital: lower value of your long positions. Buying an ultrashort like QID is safer than shorting a stock because you don't have the unlimited losses you could have when you short a stock. It is volatile. It's not a whole lot different than buying a put; it uses futures and swaps to give the opposing behavior to the underlying index. Some places indicate that the tax consequences could be severe. It is also a hedge if you don't sell your long positions. QID opposes the NASDAQ 100 which is tech-heavy so bear (!) that in mind. Selling your long positions gets you out of equities completely. You'll be responsible for taxes on capital gains. It gets your money off of the table, as opposed to playing side bets or buying insurance. (Sorry for the gambling analogy but that's a bit how I feel with stock indices now :) ).",
"qid": 10628,
"docid": "526574",
"rank": 5,
"score": 136701
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"There are three ways to do this. So far the answers posted have only mentioned two. The three ways are: Selling short means that you borrow stock from your broker and sell it with the intent of buying it back later to repay the loan. As others have noted, this has unlimited potential losses and limited potential gains. Your profit or loss will go $1:$1 with the movement of the price of the stock. Buying a put option gives you the right to sell the stock at a later date on a price that you choose now. You pay a premium to have this right, and if the stock moves against you, you won't exercise your option and will lose the premium. Options move non-linearly with the price of the stock, especially when the expiration is far in the future. They probably are not for a beginner, although they can be powerful if used properly. The third option is a synthetic short position. You form this by simultaneously buying a put option and selling short a call option, both at the same strike price. This has a risk profile that is very much like the selling the stock short, but you can accomplish it entirely with stock options. Because you're both buying an selling, in theory you might even collect a small net premium when you open. You might ask why you'd do this given that you could just sell the stock short, which certainly seems simpler. One reason is that it is not always possible to sell the stock short. Recall that you have to borrow shares from your broker to sell short. When many people want to short the stock, brokers will run out of shares to loan. The stock is then said to be \"\"hard to borrow,\"\" which effectively prevents further short selling of the stock. In this case the synthetic short is still potentially possible.\"",
"qid": 10628,
"docid": "118633",
"rank": 6,
"score": 132881
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Market makers, traders, and value investors would be who I'd suspect for buying the stock that is declining. Some companies stocks can come down considerably which could make some speculators buy the stock at the lower price thinking it may bounce back soon. \"\"Short sellers\"\" are out to sell borrowed stocks that if the stock is in free fall, unless the person that shorted wants to close the position, they would let it ride. Worthless stocks are a bit of a special case and quite different than the crash of 1929 where various blue chip stocks like those of the Dow Jones Industrials had severe declines. Thus, the companies going down would be like Apple, Coca-Cola and other large companies that people would be shocked to see come down so much yet there are some examples in recent history if one remembers Enron or Worldcom. Stocks getting delisted tend to cause some selling and there are some speculators may buy the stock believing that the shares may be worth something only to lose the money possibly as one could look at the bankrupt cases of airlines and car companies to study some recent cases here. Circuit breakers are worth noting as these are cases when trading may be halted because of a big swing in prices that it is believed stopping the market may cause things to settle down.\"",
"qid": 10628,
"docid": "62360",
"rank": 7,
"score": 131078
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Vitalik has mentioned this in a comment but I think it ought to be expanded upon: Companies that aren't already penny stocks really don't stand to gain anything from trying to prevent short interest. Short selling does not inherently lower the stock price - not any more so than any other kind of selling. When somebody shorts a stock, it's simply borrowed from another investor's margin; as long as it's not a naked short resulting in an FTD (Failure To Deliver) then it does not add any \"\"artificial\"\" selling pressure. In fact, shorting can actually drive the price up in the long term due to stops and margin calls. Not a guarantee, of course, but if a rally occurs then a high short interest can cause a cascade effect from the short \"\"squeeze\"\", resulting in an even bigger rally than what would have occurred with zero short interest. Many investors actually treat a high short interest as a bullish signal. Compare with margin buying - essentially the opposite of short selling - which has the opposite effect. If investors buy stocks on margin, then if the value of that stock decreases too rapidly they will be forced to sell, which can cause the exact same cascade effect as a short interest but in the opposite direction. Shorting is (in a sense) evening out the odds by inflating the buying pressure at lower stock prices when the borrowers decide to cover and take profits. Bottom line is that, aside from (illegal) insider trading, it doesn't do businesses any good to try to manipulate their stock price or any trading activity. Yes, a company can raise capital by selling additional common shares, but a split really has no effect on the amount of capital they'd be able to raise because it doesn't change the actual market cap, and a dilution is a dilution regardless of the current stock price. If a company's market cap is $1 billion then it doesn't matter if they issue 1 million shares at $50.00 each or 10 million shares at $5.00 each; either way it nets them $50 million from the sale and causes a 5% dilution, to which the market will react accordingly. They don't do it because there'd be no point.\"",
"qid": 10628,
"docid": "537418",
"rank": 8,
"score": 129018
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Unless I am missing something subtle, nothing happens to the buyer. Suppose Alice wants to sell short 1000 shares of XYZ at $5. She borrows the shares from Bob and sells them to Charlie. Now Charlie actually owns the shares; they are in his account. If the stock later goes up to $10, Charlie is happy; he could sell the shares he now owns, and make a $5000 profit. Alice still has the $5000 she received from her short sale, and she owes 1000 shares to Bob. So she's effectively $5000 in debt. If Bob calls in the loan, she'll have to try to come up with another $5000 to buy 1000 shares at $10 on the open market. If she can't, well, that's between her and Bob. Maybe she goes bankrupt and Bob has to write off a loss. But none of this has any effect on Charlie! He got the shares he paid for, and nobody's going to take them away from him. He has no reason to care where they came from, or what sort of complicated transactions brought them into Alice's possession. She had them, and she sold them to him, and that's the end of the story as far as he's concerned.",
"qid": 10628,
"docid": "588116",
"rank": 9,
"score": 128253
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Trying to make money on something going down is inherently more complicated, risky and speculative than making money on it going up. Selling short allows for unlimited losses. Put options expire and have to be rebought if you want to keep playing that game. If you are that confident that the European market will completely crash (I'm not, but then again, I tend to be fairly contrarian) I'd recommend just sitting it out in cash (possibly something other than the Euro) and waiting until it gets so ridiculously cheap due to panic selling that it defies all common sense. For example, when companies that aren't completely falling apart are selling for less than book value and/or less than five times prior peak earnings that's a good sign. Another indicator is when you hear absolutely nothing other than doom-and-gloom and people swearing they'll never buy another stock as long as they live. Then buy at these depressed prices and when all the panic sellers realize that the world didn't end, it will go back up.",
"qid": 10628,
"docid": "137073",
"rank": 10,
"score": 125316
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Not really. The lender is not buying the stock back at a lower price. Remember, he already owns it, so he need not buy it again. The person losing is the one from whom the short seller buys back the stock, provided that person bought the stock at higher price. So if B borrowed from A(lender) and sold it to C, and later B purchased it back from C at a lower price, then B made profit, C made loss and A made nothing .",
"qid": 10628,
"docid": "434788",
"rank": 11,
"score": 125234
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The answer is partly and sometimes, but you cannot know when or how. Most clearly, you do not take somebody else's money if you buy shares in a start-up company. You are putting your money at risk in exchange for a share in the rewards. Later, if the company thrives, you can sell your shares for whatever somebody else will pay for your current share in the thriving company's earnings. Or, you lose your money, when the company fails. (Much of it has then ended up in the company's employees' pockets, much of the rest with the government as taxes that the company paid). If the stockmarket did not exist, people would be far less willing to put their money into a new company, because selling shares would be far harder. This in turn would mean that fewer new things were tried out, and less progress would be made. Communists insist that central state planning would make better decisions than random people linked by a market. I suggest that the historical record proves otherwise. Historically, limited liability companies came first, then dividing them up into larger numbers of \"\"bearer\"\" shares, and finally creating markets where such shares were traded. On the other hand if you trade in the short or medium term, you are betting that your opinion that XYZ shares are undervalued against other investors who think otherwise. But there again, you may be buying from a person who has some other reason for selling. Maybe he just needs some cash for a new car or his child's marriage, and will buy back into XYZ once he has earned some more money. You can't tell who you are buying from, and the seller can only tell if his decision to sell was good with the benefit of a good few years of hindsight. I bought shares hand over fist immediately after the Brexit vote. I was putting my money where my vote went, and I've now made a decent profit. I don't feel that I harmed the people who sold out in expectation of the UK economy cratering. They got the peace of mind of cash (which they might then reinvest in Euro stocks or gold or whatever). Time will tell whether my selling out of these purchases more recently was a good decision (short term, not my best, but a profit is a profit ...) I never trade using borrowed money and I'm not sure whether city institutions should be allowed to do so (or more reasonably, to what extent this should be allowed). In a certain size and shortness of holding time, they cease to contribute to an orderly market and become a destabilizing force. This showed up in the financial crisis when certain banks were \"\"too big to fail\"\" and had to be bailed out at the taxpayer's expense. \"\"Heads we win, tails you lose\"\", rather than trading with us small guys as equals! Likewise it's hard to see any justification for high-frequency trading, where stocks are held for mere milliseconds, and the speed of light between the trader's and the market's computers is significant.\"",
"qid": 10628,
"docid": "226197",
"rank": 12,
"score": 121533
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: A long put - you have a small initial cost (the option premium) but profit as the stock goes down. You have no additional risk if the shock rises, even a lot. Short a stock - you gain if the stock drops, but have unlimited risk if it rises, the call mitigates this, by capping that rising stock risk. The profit/loss graph looks similar to the long put when you hold both the short position and the long call. You might consider producing a graph or spreadsheet to compare positions. You can easily sketch put, call, long stock, short stock, and study how combinations of positions can synthetically look like other positions. Often, when a stock has no shares to short, the synthetic short can help you put your stock position in place.",
"qid": 10628,
"docid": "232880",
"rank": 13,
"score": 119150
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The process of borrowing shares and selling them is called shorting a stock, or \"\"going short.\"\" When you use money to buy shares, it is called \"\"going long.\"\" In general, your strategy of going long and short in the same stock in the same amounts does not gain you anything. Let's look at your two scenarios to see why. When you start, LOOT is trading at $20 per share. You purchased 100 shares for $2000, and you borrowed and sold 100 shares for $2000. You are both long and short in the stock for $2000. At this point, you have invested $2000, and you got your $2000 back from the short proceeds. You own and owe 100 shares. Under scenario A, the price goes up to $30 per share. Your long shares have gone up in value by $1000. However, you have lost $1000 on your short shares. Your short is called, and you return your 100 shares, and have to pay interest. Under this scenario, after it is all done, you have lost whatever the interest charges are. Under scenario B, the prices goes down to $10 per share. Your long shares have lost $1000 in value. However, your short has gained $1000 in value, because you can buy the 100 shares for only $1000 and return them, and you are left with the $1000 out of the $2000 you got when you first sold the shorted shares. However, because your long shares have lost $1000, you still haven't gained anything. Here again, you have lost whatever the interest charges are. As explained in the Traders Exclusive article that @RonJohn posted in the comments, there are investors that go long and short on the same stock at the same time. However, this might be done if the investor believes that the stock will go down in a short-term time frame, but up in the long-term time frame. The investor might buy and hold for the long term, but go short for a brief time while holding the long position. However, that is not what you are suggesting. Your proposal makes no prediction on what the stock might do in different periods of time. You are only attempting to hedge your bets. And it doesn't work. A long position and a short position are opposites to each other, and no matter which way the stock moves, you'll lose the same amount with one position that you have gained in the other position. And you'll be out the interest charges from the borrowed shares every time. With your comment, you have stated that your scenario is that you believe that the stock will go up long term, but you also believe that the stock is at a short-term peak and will drop in the near future. This, however, doesn't really change things much. Let's look again at your possible scenarios. You believe that the stock is a long-term buy, but for some reason you are guessing that the stock will drop in the short-term. Under scenario A, you were incorrect about your short-term guess. And, although you might have been correct about the long-term prospects, you have missed this gain. You are out the interest charges, and if you still think the stock is headed up over the long term, you'll need to buy back in at a higher price. Under scenario B, it turns out that you were correct about the short-term drop. You pocket some cash, but there is no guarantee that the stock will rise anytime soon. Your investment has lost value, and the gain that you made with your short is still tied up in stocks that are currently down. Your strategy does prevent the possibility of the unlimited loss inherent in the short. However, it also prevents the possibility of the unlimited gain inherent in the long position. And this is a shame, since you fundamentally believe that the stock is undervalued and is headed up. You are sabotaging your long-term gains for a chance at a small short-term gain.\"",
"qid": 10628,
"docid": "240215",
"rank": 14,
"score": 119116
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: In this type of strategy profit is made when the shares go down as your main position is the short trade of the common stock. The convertible instruments will tend to move in about the same direction as the underlying (what it can be converted to) but less violently as they are traded less (lower volatility and lower volume in the market on both sides), however, they are not being used to make a profit so much as to hedge against the stock going up. Since both the bonds and the preference shares are higher on the list to be repaid if the company declares bankruptcy and the bonds pay out a fixed amount of interest as well, both also help protect against problems that may occur with a long position in the common stock. Essentially the plan with this strategy is to earn fixed income on the bonds whilst the stock price drops and then to sell both the bonds and buy the stock back on the market to cover the short position. If the prediction that the stock will fall is wrong then you are still earning fixed income on the debt and are able to convert it into stock at the higher price to cover the short sale eliminating, or reducing, the loss made on the short sale. Effectively the profit here is made on the spread between the price of the bond, accounting for the conversion price, and the price of the stock and that fixed income is less volatile (except usually in the junk market) than stock.",
"qid": 10628,
"docid": "581514",
"rank": 15,
"score": 118980
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: A stop-loss does not guarantee a sale at the given price; it just automatically triggers an unlimited sale as soon as the market reaches the limit. Depending on the development, your sale could be right at, slightly under, or deeply under the stop-loss limit you gave - it could even be it is never executed, if there are no further deals. The point is that each sell needs a partner that buys for that price, and if nobody is buying, no sale happens, no matter what you do (automated or manually) - your stop loss cannot 'force' a sale. Stop-loss works well for minor corrections in liquid shares; it becomes less useful the less liquid a share is, and it will not be helpfull for seldomly traded shares.",
"qid": 10628,
"docid": "300587",
"rank": 16,
"score": 118914
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The day trader in the article was engaging in short selling. Short selling is a technique used to profit when a stock goes down. The investor borrows shares of a stock from someone else and sells them. After the stock price goes down, the investor buys the shares back and returns them, pocketing the difference. As the day trader in the article found out, it is a dangerous practice, because there is no limit to the amount of money you can lose. The stock was trading at $2, and the day trader thought the stock was going to go down to $1. He borrowed and sold 8,400 shares at $2. He hoped to buy them back at $1 and earn $8,400 profit. Instead, the stock went up a lot, and he was forced to buy back the shares at $18.50 per share, or about $155,400. He had had $37,000 with E-Trade, which they took, and he is now over $100,000 in debt.",
"qid": 10628,
"docid": "94690",
"rank": 17,
"score": 118785
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Short selling can be a good strategy to hedge, but you have almost unlimited downside. If a stock price skyrockets, you may be forced to cover your short by the brokerage before you want to or put up more capital. A smarter strategy to hedge, that limits your potential downside is to buy puts if you think the market is going down. Your downside is limited to the total amount that you purchased the put for and no more. Another way to hedge is to SELL calls that are covered because you own the shares the calls refer to. You might do this if you thought your stock was going to go down but you didn't want to sell your shares right now. That way the only downside if the price goes up is you give up your shares at a predetermined price and you miss out on the upside, but your downside is now diminished by the premium you were paid for the option. (You'd still lose money if the shares went down since you still own them, but you got paid the option premium so that helps offset that).",
"qid": 10628,
"docid": "12542",
"rank": 18,
"score": 118211
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: For every seller, there's a buyer. Buyers may have any reason for wanting to buy (bargain shopping, foolish belief in a crazy business, etc). The party (brokerage, market maker, individual) owning the stock at the time the company goes out of business is the loser . But in a general panic, not every company is going to go out of business. So the party owning those stocks can expect to recover some, or all, of the value at some point in the future. Brokerages all reserve the right to limit margin trading (required for short selling), and during a panic would likely not allow you to short a stock they feel is a high risk for them.",
"qid": 10628,
"docid": "366484",
"rank": 19,
"score": 117424
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: When you sell a stock that you own, you realize gains, or losses. Short-term gains, realized within a year of buying and selling an asset, are taxed at your maximum (or marginal) tax rate. Long term-gains, realized after a year, are taxed at a lower, preferential rate. The first thing to consider is losses. Losses can be cancelled against gains, reducing your tax liability. Losses can also be carried over to the next tax year and be redeemed against those gains. When you own a bunch of the same type of stock, bought at different times and prices, you can choose which shares to sell. This allows you to decide whether you realize short- or long-term gains (or losses). This is known as lot matching (or order matching). You want to sell the shares that lost value before selling the ones that gained value. Booking losses reduces your taxes; booking gains increases them. If faced with a choice between booking short term and long term losses, I'd go with the former. Since net short-term gains are taxed at a higher rate, I'd want to minimize the short-term tax liability before moving on to long-term tax liability. If my remaining shares had gains, I'd sell the ones purchased earliest since long-term gains are taxed at a lower rate, and delaying the booking of gains converts short-term gains into long-term ones. If there's a formula for this, I'd say it's (profit - loss) x (tax bracket) = tax paid",
"qid": 10628,
"docid": "81353",
"rank": 20,
"score": 117063
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: In finance, short selling (also known as shorting or going short) is the practice of selling assets, usually securities, that have been borrowed from a third party (usually a broker) with the intention of buying identical assets back at a later date to return to the lender. Remember your broker has to borrow it from somewhere, other clients or if they hold those specific stocks themselves. So if it isn't possible for them to lend you those stocks, they wouldn't. High P/E stocks would find more sellers than buyers, and if the broker has to deliver them, it would be a nightmare for him to deliver all those stocks, which he had lent you(others) back to whom he had borrowed from, as well as to people who had gone long(buy) when you went short(sell). And if every body is selling there is going to be a dearth of stocks to be borrowed from as everybody around is selling instead of buying.",
"qid": 10628,
"docid": "35500",
"rank": 21,
"score": 116613
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: In order to short a stock, you have to borrow the number of shares that you're shorting from someone else who holds the shares, so that you can deliver the shares you're shorting if it becomes necessary to do so (usually; there's also naked short selling, where you don't have to do this, but it's banned in a number of jurisdictions including the US). If a stock has poor liquidity, or is in high demand for shorting, then it may well be impossible to find anyone from whom it can be borrowed, which is what has happened in this instance.",
"qid": 10628,
"docid": "384252",
"rank": 22,
"score": 116251
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: How so? If i sell short, then i make a profit only if the price goes down so i can buy back at a lower price. Yes, but if the price is going up then you would go long instead. Shorting a stock (or any other asset) allows you to profit when the price is going down. Going long allows you to profit when the price is going up. In the opposite cases, you lose money. In order to make a profit in either of those situations, you have to accurately assess which way the price will trade over the period of time you are dealing with. If you make the wrong judgment, then you lose money because you'll either sell for a lower price than you bought (if you went long), or have to buy back at a higher price than you sold for (if you went short). In either case, unless the trader can live with making a short-term loss and recouperating it later, one needs a good stop-loss strategy.",
"qid": 10628,
"docid": "428786",
"rank": 23,
"score": 116247
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I'm just began playing in the stock market. I assume you mean that you're not using real money, but rather you have an account with a stock simulator like the one Investopedia offers. I am hopeful that's the case due to the high level of risk involved in short selling like you're describing. Here is another post about short selling that expands a bit on that point. To learn much more about the ins and outs of short selling I will point again to Investopedia. I swear I don't work for them, but they do have a great short selling tutorial. When you short sell a stock you are borrowing the stock from your broker. (The broker typically uses stock held by one or more of his clients to cover the loan.) Since it's basically a loan you pay interest. Of course the longer you hold it the more interest you pay. Also, as Joe mentioned there are scenarios in which you may be forced to buy the stock (at a higher price than you sold it). This tends to happen when the stock price is going against the short sell (i.e. you lose money). Finally, did anyone mention that the potential losses in a short sell are infinite?",
"qid": 10628,
"docid": "49794",
"rank": 24,
"score": 115975
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Learn something new every day... I found this interesting and thought I'd throw my 2c in. Good description (I hope) from Short Selling: What is Short Selling First, let's describe what short selling means when you purchase shares of stock. In purchasing stocks, you buy a piece of ownership in the company. You buy/sell stock to gain/sell ownership of a company. When an investor goes long on an investment, it means that he or she has bought a stock believing its price will rise in the future. Conversely, when an investor goes short, he or she is anticipating a decrease in share price. Short selling is the selling of a stock that the seller doesn't own. More specifically, a short sale is the sale of a security that isn't owned by the seller, but that is promised to be delivered. Still with us? Here's the skinny: when you short sell a stock, your broker will lend it to you. The stock will come from the brokerage's own inventory, from another one of the firm's customers, or from another brokerage firm. The shares are sold and the proceeds are credited to your account. Sooner or later, you must \"\"close\"\" the short by buying back the same number of shares (called covering) and returning them to your broker. If the price drops, you can buy back the stock at the lower price and make a profit on the difference. If the price of the stock rises, you have to buy it back at the higher price, and you lose money. So what happened? The Plan The Reality Lesson I never understood what \"\"Shorting a stock\"\" meant until today. Seems a bit risky for my blood, but I would assume this is an extreme example of what can go wrong. This guy literally chose the wrong time to short a stock that was, in all visible aspects, on the decline. How often does a Large Company or Individual buy stock on the decline... and send that stock soaring? How often does a stock go up 100% in 24 hours? 600%? Another example is recently when Oprah bought 10% of Weight Watchers and caused the stock to soar %105 in 24 hours. You would have rued the day you shorted that stock - on that particular day - if you believed enough to \"\"gamble\"\" on it going down in price.\"",
"qid": 10628,
"docid": "336018",
"rank": 25,
"score": 115744
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Being \"\"Long\"\" something means you own it. Being \"\"Short\"\" something means you have created an obligation that you have sold to someone else. If I am long 100 shares of MSFT, that means that I possess 100 shares of MSFT. If I am short 100 shares of MSFT, that means that my broker let me borrow 100 shares of MSFT, and I chose to sell them. While I am short 100 shares of MSFT, I owe 100 shares of MSFT to my broker whenever he demands them back. Until he demands them back, I owe interest on the value of those 100 shares. You short a stock when you feel it is about to drop in price. The idea there is that if MSFT is at $50 and I short it, I borrow 100 shares from my broker and sell for $5000. If MSFT falls to $48 the next day, I buy back the 100 shares and give them back to my broker. I pocket the difference ($50 - $48 = $2/share x 100 shares = $200), minus interest owed. Call and Put options. People manage the risk of owning a stock or speculate on the future move of a stock by buying and selling calls and puts. Call and Put options have 3 important components. The stock symbol they are actionable against (MSFT in this case), the \"\"strike price\"\" - $52 in this case, and an expiration, June. If you buy a MSFT June $52 Call, you are buying the right to purchase MSFT stock before June options expiration (3rd Saturday of the month). They are priced per share (let's say this one cost $0.10/share), and sold in 100 share blocks called a \"\"contract\"\". If you buy 1 MSFT June $52 call in this scenario, it would cost you 100 shares x $0.10/share = $10. If you own this call and the stock spikes to $56 before June, you may exercise your right to purchase this stock (for $52), then immediately sell the stock (at the current price of $56) for a profit of $4 / share ($400 in this case), minus commissions. This is an overly simplified view of this transaction, as this rarely happens, but I have explained it so you understand the value of the option. Typically the exercise of the option is not used, but the option is sold to another party for an equivalent value. You can also sell a Call. Let's say you own 100 shares of MSFT and you would like to make an extra $0.10 a share because you DON'T think the stock price will be up to $52/share by the end of June. So you go to your online brokerage and sell one contract, and receive the $0.10 premium per share, being $10. If the end of June comes and nobody exercises the option you sold, you get to keep the $10 as pure profit (minus commission)! If they do exercise their option, your broker makes you sell your 100 shares of MSFT to that party for the $52 price. If the stock shot up to $56, you don't get to gain from that price move, as you have already committed to selling it to somebody at the $52 price. Again, this exercise scenario is overly simplified, but you should understand the process. A Put is the opposite of a Call. If you own 100 shares of MSFT, and you fear a fall in price, you may buy a PUT with a strike price at your threshold of pain. You might buy a $48 June MSFT Put because you fear the stock falling before June. If the stock does fall below the $48, you are guaranteed that somebody will buy yours at $48, limiting your loss. You will have paid a premium for this right (maybe $0.52/share for example). If the stock never gets down to $48 at the end of June, your option to sell is then worthless, as who would sell their stock at $48 when the market will pay you more? Owning a Put can be treated like owning insurance on the stock from a loss in stock price. Alternatively, if you think there is no way possible it will get down to $48 before the end of June, you may SELL a $48 MSFT June Put. HOWEVER, if the stock does dip down below $48, somebody will exercise their option and force you to buy their stock for $48. Imagine a scenario that MSFT drops to $30 on some drastically terrible news. While everybody else may buy the stock at $30, you are obligated to buy shares for $48. Not good! When you sold the option, somebody paid you a premium for buying that right from you. Often times you will always keep this premium. Sometimes though, you will have to buy a stock at a steep price compared to market. Now options strategies are combinations of buying and selling calls and puts on the same stock. Example -- I could buy a $52 MSFT June Call, and sell a $55 MSFT June Call. I would pay money for the $52 Call that I am long, and receive money for the $55 Call that I am short. The money I receive from the short $55 Call helps offset the cost of buying the $52 Call. If the stock were to go up, I would enjoy the profit within in $52-$55 range, essentially, maxing out my profit at $3/share - what the long/short call spread cost me. There are dozens of strategies of mixing and matching long and short calls and puts depending on what you expect the stock to do, and what you want to profit or protect yourself from. A derivative is any financial device that is derived from some other factor. Options are one of the most simple types of derivatives. The value of the option is derived from the real stock price. Bingo? That's a derivative. Lotto? That is also a derivative. Power companies buy weather derivatives to hedge their energy requirements. There are people selling derivatives based on the number of sunny days in Omaha. Remember those calls and puts on stock prices? There are people that sell calls and puts based on the number of sunny days in Omaha. Sounds kind of ridiculous -- but now imagine that you are a solar power company that gets \"\"free\"\" electricity from the sun and they sell that to their customers. On cloudy days, the solar power company is still on the hook to provide energy to their customers, but they must buy it from a more expensive source. If they own the \"\"Sunny Days in Omaha\"\" derivative, they can make money for every cloudy day over the annual average, thus, hedging their obligation for providing more expensive electricity on cloudy days. For that derivative to work, somebody in the derivative market puts a price on what he believes the odds are of too many cloudy days happening, and somebody who wants to protect his interests from an over abundance of cloudy days purchases this derivative. The energy company buying this derivative has a known cost for the cost of the derivative and works this into their business model. Knowing that they will be compensated for any excessive cloudy days allows them to stabilize their pricing and reduce their risk. The person selling the derivative profits if the number of sunny days is higher than average. The people selling these types of derivatives study the weather in order to make their offers appropriately. This particular example is a fictitious one (I don't believe there is a derivative called \"\"Sunny days in Omaha\"\"), but the concept is real, and the derivatives are based on anything from sunny days, to BLS unemployment statistics, to the apartment vacancy rate of NYC, to the cost of a gallon of milk in Maine. For every situation, somebody is looking to protect themselves from something, and somebody else believes they can profit from it. Now these examples are highly simplified, many derivatives are highly technical, comprised of multiple indicators as a part of its risk profile, and extremely difficult to explain. These things might sound ridiculous, but if you ran a lemonade stand in Omaha, that sunny days derivative just might be your best friend...\"",
"qid": 10628,
"docid": "573077",
"rank": 26,
"score": 114059
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"An attempt at a simple answer for the normal investor: A normal investor buys stock then later sells that stock. (This is known as \"\"going long\"\", as opposed to \"\"going short\"\"). For the normal investor, a stop order (of either kind) is only used when selling. A stop-loss sell order (or stop sell) is used to sell your stock when it has fallen too much in price, and you don't want to suffer more losses. If the stock is at $50, you could enter a stop sell at $40, which means if the stock ever falls to $40 or lower, your stock will be sold at whatever price is available (e.g. $35). A stop-loss limit sell order (or stop limit sell) is the same, except you are also saying \"\"but don't sell for less than my limit price\"\". So you can enter a stop limit sell at $40 with a limit of $39, meaning that if the stock falls to $40, you will then have a limit order in effect to sell the stock at $39 or higher. Thus your stock will never be sold at $35 or any value below $39, but of course, if the stock falls fast from $40 to $35, your limit sell at $39 will not be done and you will be left still owning the stock (worth at that moment $35, say).\"",
"qid": 10628,
"docid": "554997",
"rank": 27,
"score": 113851
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Your plan already answers your own question in the best possible way: If you want to be able to make the most possible profit from a large downward move in a stock (in this case, a stock that tracks gold), with a limited, defined risk if there is an upward move, the optimal strategy is to buy a put option. There are a few Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs) that track the price of gold. think of them as stocks that behave like gold, essentially. Two good examples that have options are GLD and IAU. (When you talk about gold, you'll hear a lot about futures. Forget them, for now. They do the same essential thing for your purposes, but introduce more complexity than you need.) The way to profit from a downward move without protection against an upward move is by shorting the stock. Shorting stock is like the opposite of buying it. You make the amount of money the stock goes down by, or lose the amount it goes up by. But, since stocks can go up by an infinite amount, your possible loss is unlimited. If you want to profit on a large downward move without an unlimited loss if you're wrong and it goes up, you need something that makes money as the stock drops, but can only lose so much if it goes up. (If you want to be guaranteed to lose nothing, your best investment option is buying US Treasuries, and you're technically still exposed to the risk that US defaults on its debt, although if you're a US resident, you'll likely have bigger problems than your portfolio in that situation.) Buying a put option has the exact asymmetrical exposure you want. You pay a limited premium to buy it, and at expiration you essentially make the full amount that the stock has declined below the strike price, less what you paid for the option. That last part is important - because you pay a premium for the option, if it's down just a little, you might still lose some or all of what you paid for it, which is what you give up in exchange for it limiting your maximum loss. But wait, you might say. When I buy an option, I can lose all of my money, cant I? Yes, you can. Here's the key to understanding the way options limit risk as compared to the corresponding way to get \"\"normal\"\" exposure through getting long, or in your case, short, the stock: If you use the number of options that represent the number of shares you would have bought, you will have much, much less total money at risk. If you spend the same \"\"bag 'o cash\"\" on options as you would have spent on stock, you will have exposure to way more shares, and have the same amount of money at risk as if you bought the stock, but will be much more likely to lose it. The first way limits the total money at risk for a similar level of exposure; the second way gets you exposure to a much larger amount of the stock for the same money, increasing your risk. So the best answer to your described need is already in the question: Buy a put. I'd probably look at GLD to buy it on, simply because it's generally a little more liquid than IAU. And if you're new to options, consider the following: \"\"Paper trade\"\" first. Either just keep track of fake buys and sells on a spreadsheet, or use one of the many online services where you can track investments - they don't know or care if they're real or not. Check out www.888options.com. They are an excellent learning resource that isn't trying to sell you anything - their only reason to exist is to promote options education. If you do put on a trade, don't forget that the most frustrating pitfall with buying options is this: You can be basically right, and still lose some or all of what you invest. This happens two ways, so think about them both before you trade: If the stock goes in the direction you think, but not enough to make back your premium, you can still lose. So you need to make sure you know how far down the stock has to be to make back your premium. At expiration, it's simple: You need it to be below the strike price by more than what you paid for the option. With options, timing is everything. If the stock goes down a ton, or even to zero - free gold! - but only after your option expires, you were essentially right, but lose all your money. So, while you don't want to buy an option that's longer than you need, since the premium is higher, if you're not sure if an expiration is long enough out, it isn't - you need the next one. EDIT to address update: (I'm not sure \"\"not long enough\"\" was the problem here, but...) If the question is just how to ensure there is a limited, defined amount you can lose (even if you want the possible loss to be much less than you can potentially make, the put strategy described already does that - if the stock you use is at $100, and you buy a put with a 100 strike for $5, you can make up to $95. (This occurs if the stock goes to zero, meaning you could buy it for nothing, and sell it for $100, netting $95 after the $5 you paid). But you can only lose $5. So the put strategy covers you. If the goal is to have no real risk of loss, there's no way to have any real gain above what's sometimes called the \"\"risk-free-rate\"\". For simplicity's sake, think of that as what you'd get from US treasuries, as mentioned above. If the goal is to make money whether the stock (or gold) goes either up or down, that's possible, but note that you still have (a fairly high) risk of loss, which occurs if it fails to move either up or down by enough. That strategy, in its most common form, is called a straddle, which basically means you buy a call and a put with the same strike price. Using the same $100 example, you could buy the 100-strike calls for $5, and the 100-strike puts for $5. Now you've spent $10 total, and you make money if the stock is up or down by more than $10 at expiration (over 110, or under 90). But if it's between 90 and 100, you lose money, as one of your options will be worthless, and the other is worth less than the $10 total you paid for them both.\"",
"qid": 10628,
"docid": "69395",
"rank": 28,
"score": 113003
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I know its not legal to have open long and short position on specific security (on two stock exchanges - NSE/BSE) There is nothing illegal about it. There are prescribed ways on how this is addressed. In Cash Segment / Intra Day trades: One can short sell a security. If by end of day he does not buy the security; it goes into Auction. The said security is purchased on your behalf. Any profit or loss arising out of this is charged to you. Similarly one can buy a security; if one does not pay the amount by end of day; it would go into auction and sold. Any profit or loss arising out of this is charged to you. If you short sell a security on one exchange; you have to buy it on same exchange. If you buy on other exchange; it will not be adjusted against this short position. Also is it legal to have long position on stock and short its derivative (future/option)? There are no restrictions. Edit: @yety Party A shorts 10 shares of HDFC today in Intra-Day Cash Segment purchased by Party B. Rather than buying back 10 shares or allowing it to go into auction... Party A borrows 10 HDFC Shares from \"\"X\"\" via SLB for a period of say 6 months [1 month to 1 year]. This is recorded as Party A obligation to \"\"X\"\". These 10 borrowed shares are transferred to Party B. So Party \"\"X\"\" doesn't have any HDFC shares at this point in time. However in exchange, Party X receives fees for borrowing from Party A. If there is dividend, are declared, Company pays Party B. However SLB recovers identical amount from Party A and pays Party X. If there is 1:1 split, now party A owes Party X 20 HDFC Shares. On maturity [after 6 months], Party A has to buy these from market and given back the borrowed shares to Party X. If there are some other corporate actions, i.e. mergers / amalgamations ... the obligation of Party A to Party X is closed immediately and position settled. Of course there are provisions whereby party A can pay back the shares earlier or party X can ask for shares earlier and there are rules/trades/mechanisms to facilitate this.\"",
"qid": 10628,
"docid": "450760",
"rank": 29,
"score": 112917
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"If you sell a stock you don't own, it's called a short sale. You borrowed the shares from an owner of the stock and eventually would buy to close. On most normal shares, you can hold a short position indefinitely, but there are some shares that have a combination of either a small float or too high a short position that shares to short are not available. This can create a \"\"short squeeze\"\" where shorts are burned by being forced to buy the stock back. Last - when you did this, you should have instructed the broker that you were \"\"selling to open\"\" or \"\"selling short.\"\" In the old days, when people held stock certificates, you were required to send the certificate in when you sold. Today, the broker should know that wasn't your intention.\"",
"qid": 10628,
"docid": "345368",
"rank": 30,
"score": 112244
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: +1 to YosefWeiner. Let me add: Legally, technically, or at least theoretically, when you buy stock through a broker, you own the stock, not the broker. The broker is just holding it for you. If the broker goes bankrupt, that has nothing to do with the value of your stock. That said, if the broker fails to transfer your shares to another broker before ceasing operation, it could be difficult to get your assets. Suppose you take your shoes to a shoe repair shop. Before you can pick them up, the shop goes bankrupt. The shoes are still rightfully yours. If the shop owner was a nice guy he would have called you and told you to pick up your shoes before he closed the shop. But if he didn't, you may have to go through legal gyrations to get your shoes back. If as his business failed the shop owner quit caring and got sloppy about his records, you might have to prove that those shoes are yours and not someone else's, etc.",
"qid": 10628,
"docid": "354815",
"rank": 31,
"score": 112014
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"A derivative contract can be an option, and you can take a short (sell) position , much the same way you would in a stock. When BUYING options you risk only the money you put in. However when selling naked(you don't have the securities or cash to cover all potential losses) options, you are borrowing. Brokers force you to maintain a required amount of cash called, a maintenance requirement. When selling naked calls - theoretically you are able to lose an INFINITE amount of money, so in order to sell this type of options you have to maintain a certain level of cash in your account. If you fail to maintain this level you will enter into whats often referred to as a \"\"margin-call\"\". And yes they will call your phone and tell you :). Your broker has the right to liquidate your positions in order to meet requirements. PS: From experience my broker has never liquidated any of my holdings, but then again I've never been in a margin call for longer then a few days and never with a severe amount. The margin requirement for investors is regulated and brokers follow these regulations.\"",
"qid": 10628,
"docid": "520098",
"rank": 32,
"score": 111993
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Problems with shorting 1. The price could become even more insanely high. 2. The stock you borrowed could be recalled leaving you sitting on a loss. 3. High borrowing costs. 4. Potentially limited loss potential e.g. when a takeover is announced, or when the company has a windfall, or fraudulently announces phony good news. Shorting could still be useful as a niche 10% of your portfolio; the risk is limited that way. Also high short interest tend to make me look a bit harder before buying.",
"qid": 10628,
"docid": "308809",
"rank": 33,
"score": 111660
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The product type and transaction direction are not linked. When you short sell a stock, you are still dealing with shares of an equity security. When you take delivery of a bond, you are buying that bond and holding a long position even though it's a debt security.",
"qid": 10628,
"docid": "157347",
"rank": 34,
"score": 110725
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you are sure you are right, you should sell stock short. Then, after the market drop occurs, close out your position and buy stock, selling it once the stock has risen to the level you expect. Be warned, though. Short selling has a lot of risk. If you are wrong, you could quite easily lose all $80,000 or even substantially more. Consider, for example, this story of a person who had $37,000 and ended up losing all of that and still owing over $100,000. If you mistime your investment, you could quite easily lose your entire investment and end up hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt.",
"qid": 10628,
"docid": "292338",
"rank": 35,
"score": 110635
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Your answer looks correct. It's the buyer of the option that's long, not the seller (you). If you're doing a lot of trading, you might get hit with wash-sale rules and you could be taxed at the short-term capital gains rate, which is higher than for long-term gains. But those aren't direct fees.",
"qid": 10628,
"docid": "528157",
"rank": 36,
"score": 110601
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The question is, how do I exit? I can't really sell the puts because there isn't enough open interest in them now that they are so far out of the money. I have about $150K of funds outside of this position that I could use, but I'm confused by the rules of exercising a put. Do I have to start shorting the stock? You certainly don't want to give your broker any instructions to short the stock! Shorting the stock at this point would actually be increasing your bet that the stock is going to go down more. Worse, a short position in the stock also puts you in a situation of unlimited risk on the stock's upside – a risk you avoided in the first place by using puts. The puts limited your potential loss to only your cost for the options. There is a scenario where a short position could come into play indirectly, if you aren't careful. If your broker were to permit you to exercise your puts without you having first bought enough underlying shares, then yes, you would end up with a short position in the stock. I say \"\"permit you\"\" because most brokers don't allow clients to take on short positions unless they've applied and been approved for short positions in their account. In any case, since you are interested in closing out your position and taking your profit, exercising only and thus ending up with a resulting open short position in the underlying is not the right approach. It's not really a correct intermediate step, either. Rather, you have two typical ways out: Sell the puts. @quantycuenta has pointed out in his answer that you should be able to sell for no less than the intrinsic value, although you may be leaving a small amount of time value on the table if you aren't careful. My suggestion is to consider using limit orders and test various prices approaching the intrinsic value of the put. Don't use market orders where you'll take any price offered, or you might be sorry. If you have multiple put contracts, you don't need to sell them all at once. With the kind of profit you're talking about, don't sweat paying a few extra transactions worth of commission. Exercise the puts. Remember that at the other end of your long put position is one (or more) trader who wrote (created) the put contract in the first place. This trader is obligated to buy your stock from you at the contract price should you choose to exercise your option. But, in order for you to fulfill your end of the contract when you choose to exercise, you're obligated to deliver the underlying shares in exchange for receiving the option strike price. So, you would first need to buy underlying shares sufficient to exercise at least one of the contracts. Again, you don't need to do this all at once. @PeterGum's answer has described an approach. (Note that you'll lose any remaining time value in the option if you choose to exercise.) Finally, I'll suggest that you ought to discuss the timing and apportioning of closing out your position with a qualified tax professional. There are tax implications and, being near the end of the year, there may be an opportunity* to shift some/all of the income into the following tax year to minimize and defer tax due. * Be careful if your options are near expiry! Options typically expire on the 3rd Friday of the month.\"",
"qid": 10628,
"docid": "123320",
"rank": 37,
"score": 110455
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"There are situations where you can be forced to cover a position, particular when \"\"Reg SHO\"\" (\"\"regulation sho\"\") is activated. Reg SHO is intended to make naked short sellers cover their position, it is to prevent abusive failure to delivers, where someone goes short without borrowing someone else's shares. Naked shorting isn't a violation of federal securities laws but it becomes an accounting problem when multiple people have claims to the same underlying assets. (I've seen companies that had 120% of their shares sold short, too funny, FWIW the market was correct as the company was worth nothing.) You can be naked short without knowing it. So there can be times when you will be forced to cover. Other people being forced to cover can result in a short squeeze. A risk. The other downside is that you have to pay interest on your borrowings. You also have to pay the dividends to the owner of the shares, if applicable. In shorter time frames these are negligible, but in longer time frames, such as closer to a year or longer, these really add up. Let alone the costs of the market going in the opposite direction, and the commissions.\"",
"qid": 10628,
"docid": "553110",
"rank": 38,
"score": 110422
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The correct answer to this question is: the person who the short sells the stock to. Here's why this is the case. Say we have A, who owns the stock and lends it to B, who then sells it short to C. After this the price drops and B buys the stock back from D and returns it to A. The outcome for A is neutral. Typically stock that is sold short must be held in a margin account; the broker can borrow the shares from A, collect interest from B, and A has no idea this is going on, because the shares are held in a street name (the brokerage's name) and not A. If A decides during this period to sell, the transaction will occur immediately, and the brokerage must shuffle things around so the shares can be delivered. If this is going to be difficult then the cost for borrowing shares becomes very high. The outcome for B is obviously a profit: they sold high first and bought (back) low afterwards. This leaves either C or D as having lost this money. Why isn't it D? One way of looking at this is that the profit to B comes from the difference in the price from selling to C and buying from D. D is sitting on the low end, and thus is not paying out the profit. D bought low, compared to C and this did not lose any money, so C is the only remaining choice. Another way of looking at it is that C actually \"\"lost\"\" all the money when purchasing the stock. After all, all the money went directly from C to B. In return, C got some stock with the hope that in the future C could sell it for more than was paid for it. But C literally gave the money to B, so how could anybody else \"\"pay\"\" the loss? Another way of looking at it is that C buys a stock which then decreases in value. C is thus now sitting on a loss. The fact that it is currently only a paper loss makes this less obvious; if the stock were to recover to the price C bought at, one might conclude that C did not lose the money to B. However, in this same scenario, D also makes money that C could have made had C bought at D's price, proving that C really did lose the money to B. The final way of seeing that the answer is C is to consider what happens when somebody sells a stock which they already hold but the price goes up; who did they lose out on the gain to? The person again is; who bought their stock. The person would buys the stock is always the person who the gain goes to when the price appreciates, or the loss comes out of if the price falls.\"",
"qid": 10628,
"docid": "591694",
"rank": 39,
"score": 110315
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Some stocks do fall to zero. I don't have statistics handy, but I'd guess that a majority of all the companies ever started are now bankrupt and worth zero. Even if a company does not go bankrupt, there is no guarantee that it's value will increase forever, even in a general, overall sense. You might buy a stock when it is at or near its peak, and then it loses value and never regains it. Even if a stock will go back up, you can't know for certain that it will. Suppose you bought a stock for $10 and it's now at $5. If you sell, you lose half your money. But if you hold on, it MIGHT go back up and you make a profit. Or it might continue going down and you lose even more, perhaps your entire investment. A rational person might decide to sell now and cut his losses. Of course, I'm sure many investors have had the experience of selling a stock at a loss, and then seeing the price skyrocket. But there have also been plenty of investors who decided to hold on, only to lose more money. (Just a couple of weeks ago a stock I bought for $1.50 was selling for $14. I could have sold for like 900% profit. Instead I decided to hold on and see if it went yet higher. It's now at $2.50. Fortunately I only invested something like $800. If it goes to zero it will be annoying but not ruin me.) On a bigger scale, if you invest in a variety of stocks and hold on to them for a long period of time, the chance that you will lose money is small. The stock market as a whole has consistently gone up in the long term. But the chance is not zero. And a key phrase is \"\"in the long term\"\". If you need the money today, the fact that the market will probably go back up within a few months or a year or so may not help.\"",
"qid": 10628,
"docid": "289801",
"rank": 40,
"score": 110263
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: When you set up a short sale for equities you are borrowing stock from someone else; typically another client at the broker. The broker usually buries an agreement to let your shares be borrowed for short sales in your account details. So if Client A wants to short a stock, he borrows stock from Client B to do the short sale (it's usually not this direct as they can borrow from many clients). If Client B then wants to sell his shares; if the broker can't shift around assets to find another client's shares to let Client A borrow; then he has to close the short position out because he doesn't have the shares in the brokerage to let Client A borrow to short anymore.",
"qid": 10628,
"docid": "84761",
"rank": 41,
"score": 110124
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Assuming that no one else has hit the ask, and the asks are still there, yes, you will fill $54.55 as long as you didn't exhaust that ask. Actually, there is no \"\"current price at which the stock is exchanging hands\"\"; in reality, it is \"\"the last price traded\"\". The somebody who negotiated prices between buyers & sellers is the exchange through their handling of bids & asks. The real negotiation comes between bids & asks, and if they meet or cross, a trade occurs. It's not that both bid & ask should be $54.55, it's that they were. To answer the title, the reasons why the bid and ask (even their midpoint) move away from the last price are largely unknown, but at least for the market makers, if their sell inventory is going away (people are buying heavily and they're running out of inventory) they will start to hike up their asks a lot and their bids a little because market makers try to stay market neutral, having no opinion on whether an asset will rise or fall, so with stocks, that means having a balanced inventory of longs & shorts. They want to (sometimes have to depending on the exchange) accommodate the buying pressure, but they don't want to lose money, so they simply raise the ask and then raise the bid as people hit their asks since their average cost basis has risen. In fact (yahoo finance is great about showing this), there's rarely 1 bid and 1 ask. Take a look at BAC's limit book: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ecn?s=BAC+Order+Book You can see that there are many bids and many asks. If one ask is exhausted, the next in line is now the highest. The market maker who just sold at X will certainly step over the highest bid to bid at X*0.9 to get an 11% return on investment.\"",
"qid": 10628,
"docid": "298551",
"rank": 42,
"score": 110081
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Shorting is the term used when someone borrows a stock and sells it at the current price to then buy it back later at hopefully a lower price. There are rules about this as noted in the link that begins this answer as there are risks to selling a stock you don't own of course. If you look up various large companies you may find that there are millions of shares sold short throughout the market as someone does have the shares and they will need to be put back eventually.",
"qid": 10628,
"docid": "409350",
"rank": 43,
"score": 109587
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Being \"\"long\"\" - expecting the price to go up to make a profit - is a two step process: 1) buy 2) sell Being \"\"short\"\" - expecting the price to go down to make a profit - is a 5 step process: 1) borrow someone else's asset 2) sell their asset on the open market to somebody else a third party 3) pocket the proceeds of the sell for your own account 4) buy an identical asset for a cheaper price 5) return this identical asset to the person that let you borrow their asset if this is successful you keep the difference between 3) and 4)\"",
"qid": 10628,
"docid": "385220",
"rank": 44,
"score": 109273
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: TD will only sell the stock for you if there's a buyer. There was a buyer, for at least one transaction of at least one stock at 96.66. But who said there were more? Obviously, the stocks later fell, i.e.: there were not that many buyers as there were sellers. What I'm saying is that once the stock passed/reached the limit, the order becomes an active order. But it doesn't become the only active order. It is added to the list, and to the bottom of that list. Obviously, in this case, there were not enough buyers to go through the whole list and get to your order, and since it was a limit order - it would only execute with the limit price you put. Once the price went down you got out of luck. That said, there could of course be a possibility of a system failure. But given the story of the market behavior - it just looks like you miscalculated and lost on a bet.",
"qid": 10628,
"docid": "315871",
"rank": 45,
"score": 108976
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"First, there will always be people who think the market is about to crash. It doesn't really crash very often. When it does crash, they always say they predicted it. Well, even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while. You could go short (short selling stocks), which requires a margin account that you have to qualify for (typically you can only short up to half the value of your account, in the US). And if you've maxed out your margin limits and your account continues to drop in value, you risk a margin call, which would force you to cover your shorts, which you may not be able to afford. You could invest in a fund that does the shorting for you. You could also consider actually buying good investments while their prices are low. Since you cannot predict the start, or end, of a \"\"crash\"\" you should consider dollar-cost-averaging until your stocks hit a price you've pre-determined is your \"\"trigger\"\", then purchase larger quantities at the bargain prices. The equity markets have never failed to recover from crashes. Ever.\"",
"qid": 10628,
"docid": "549422",
"rank": 46,
"score": 108902
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Below is just a little information on short selling from my small unique book \"\"The small stock trader\"\": Short selling is an advanced stock trading tool with unique risks and rewards. It is primarily a short-term trading strategy of a technical nature, mostly done by small stock traders, market makers, and hedge funds. Most small stock traders mainly use short selling as a short-term speculation tool when they feel the stock price is a bit overvalued. Most long-term short positions are taken by fundamental-oriented long/short equity hedge funds that have identified some major weaknesses in the company. There a few things you should consider before shorting stocks: Despite all the mystique and blame surrounding short selling, especially during bear markets, I personally think regular short selling, not naked short selling, has a more positive impact on the stock market, as: Lastly, small stock traders should not expect to make significant profits by short selling, as even most of the great stock traders (Jesse Livermore, Bernard Baruch, Gerald Loeb, Nicolas Darvas, William O’Neil, and Steven Cohen,) have hardly made significant money from their shorts. it is safe to say that odds are stacked against short sellers. Over the last century or so, Western large caps have returned an annual average of between 8 and 10 percent while the returns of small caps have been slightly higher. I hope the above little information from my small unique book was a little helpful! Mika (author of \"\"The small stock trader\"\")\"",
"qid": 10628,
"docid": "459494",
"rank": 47,
"score": 107545
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Don't sell. Ever. Well almost. A number of studies have shown that buying equal amounts of shares randomly will beat the market long term, and certainly won't do badly. Starting from this premise then perhaps you can add a tiny bit extra with your skill... maybe, but who knows, you might suck. Point is when buying you have the wind behind you - a monkey would make money. Selling is a different matter. You have the cost of trading out and back in to something else, only to have changed from one monkey portfolio to the other. If you have skill that covers this cost then yes you should do this - but how confident are you? A few studies have been done on anonymised retail broker accounts and they show the same story. Retail investors on average lose money on their switches. Even if you believe you have a real edge on the market, you're strategy still should not just say sell when it drops out of your criteria. Your criteria are positive indicators. Lack of positive is not a negative indicator. Sell when you would happily go short the stock. That is you are really confident it is going down. Otherwise leave it.",
"qid": 10628,
"docid": "368348",
"rank": 48,
"score": 107315
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Concerning the general problem of short selling and the need to borrow shares to complete the transaction : Selling short is a cash transaction. Unlike a futures contract, where a short seller is entering into a legal agreement to sell something in the future, in the case of short selling a share the buyer of the share is taking immediate delivery and is therefore entitled to all of the benefits and rights that come with share ownership. In particular, the buyer of the shares is entitled to any dividends payable and, where applicable, to vote on motions at AGMs. If the short seller has not borrowed the shares to sell, then buyer of non-existent shares will have none of the rights associated with ownership. The cash market is based on the idea of matching buyers and sellers. It does not accommodate people making promises. Consider that to allow short sellers to sell shares they have not borrowed opens up the possibility of the aggregate market selling more shares than actually exist. This would lead to all sorts of problematic consequences such as heavily distorting the price of the underlying share. If everyone is selling shares they have not borrowed willy-nilly, then it will drive the price of the share down, much to the disadvantage of existing share holders. In this case, short sellers who have sold shares they have not already borrowed would be paying out more in dividends to the buyers than the total dividends being paid out by the underlying company. There are instruments that allow for short selling of unowned shares on a futures basis. One example is a CFD = Contract for Difference. In the case of CFDs, sellers are obliged to pay dividends to buyers as well as other costs related to financing. EDIT Regarding your comment, note that borrowing shares is not a market transaction. Your account does not show you buying a share and then selling it. It simply shows you selling a share short. The borrowing is the result of an agreement between yourself and the lender and this agreement is off market. You do not actually pay the lender for the shares, but you do pay financing costs for the borrowing so long as you maintain your short position. EDIT I realise that I have not actually read your question correctly. You are not actually talking about \"\"naked\"\" short selling. You are talking about selling shares you already own in a hope of maintaining both a long and short position (gross). The problem with this approach is that you must deliver the shares to the buyer. Otherwise, ask yourself what shares is the buyer actually buying if you want the bought shares to remain in your account. If you are not going to deliver your long position shares, then you will need to borrow the shares you are selling short for the reasons I have outlined above.\"",
"qid": 10628,
"docid": "188531",
"rank": 49,
"score": 107097
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"When you buy a share of stock, you are almost always buying from someone who previously purchased that share and now wants to sell it. The money -- minus broker's fee -- goes to that other investor, which may be a person, a company (rarely the company that issued the stock, but that will occasionally be the case), an investment fund, the \"\"market maker\"\" for that stock (websearch for definition of that term), or anyone else. They owned a small percentage of the company; you bought it from them and gave them the money for it, just as you would buy anything else. You don't know or care who you bought from; they don't know or care who they sold to; the market just found a buyer and seller who could agree on the price. There are a very few exceptions to that. The company may repurchase some of its own shares and/or sell them again, depending on its own financial needs and obligations. For example, my own employer has to purchase its own shares periodically so it has enough on hand to sell to employees at a slight discount through the Employee Stock Ownership Program. But you generally don't know that's who you're selling to; it happens like any other transaction. And during the Initial Public Offering, if you're lucky/privileged enough to get in on the first wave of purchases, you're buying from the investment bank that's managing this process ... though that's an almost vanishingly rare case for \"\"retail\"\" investors like us; we're more likely to get the shares after someone has already pushed the price up a bit. But really, when you buy a share the money goes to whoever you bought it from, and that's all you can know or need to know.\"",
"qid": 10628,
"docid": "558703",
"rank": 50,
"score": 106886
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: For stocks, I would not see these as profiting at the expense of another individual. When you purchase/trade stocks, you are exchanging items of equal market value at the time of the trade. Both parties are getting a fair exchange when the transaction happens. If you buy a house, the seller has not profited at your expense. You have exchanged goods at market prices. If your house plummets in value and you lose $100k, it is not the sellers fault that you made the decision to purchase. The price was fair when you exchanged the goods. Future prices are speculative, so both parties must perform due diligence to make sure the exchange aligns with their interests. Obviously, this is barring any sort of dishonesty or insider information on the part of either buyer or seller.",
"qid": 10628,
"docid": "67006",
"rank": 51,
"score": 106803
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Your question contains a faulty assumption: During crashes and corrections the amount of sellers is of course higher than the amount of buyers, making it difficult to sell stocks. This simply isn't true. Every trade has two sides; thus, by definition, for every seller there is buyer and vice versa. Even if we broaden the definition of \"\"buyers\"\" and \"\"sellers\"\" to mean \"\"people willing to buy (or sell) at some price\"\", the assumption still isn't true. When a stock is falling it is generally not because potential buyers are exiting the market; it is because they are revising the prices they are willing to buy at downward. For example, say there are a bunch of orders to buy Frobnitz Consolidated (DUMB) at $5. Suppose DUMB announces a downward revision to its earnings guidance. Those people might not be willing to buy at $50 anymore, so they'll probably cancel their $50 buy orders. However, just because DUMB isn't worth as much as they thought it was, that doesn't mean it's completely worthless. So, those prospective buyers will likely enter new orders at some lower value, say, $45. With that, the value of DUMB has just dropped by $5, a 10% correction. However, there are still plenty of buyers, and you can still sell your DUMB holdings, if you're willing to take $45 for them. In other words, the value of a security is not determined by the relative numbers of buyers and sellers. It is determined by the prices those buyers and sellers are willing to pay to buy or accept to sell. Except for cases of massive IT disruptions, such as we saw in the \"\"flash crash\"\", there is always somebody willing to buy or sell at some price.\"",
"qid": 10628,
"docid": "543589",
"rank": 52,
"score": 106603
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Yes, you could sell what you have and bet against others that the stock price will continue to fall within a period of time \"\"Shorting\"\". If you're right, your value goes UP even though the stock price goes down. This is a pretty darn risky bet to make. If you're wrong, there's no limit to how much money you can owe. At least with stocks they can only fall to zero! When you short, and the price goes up and up and up (before the deadline) you owe it! And just as with stocks, someone else has to agree to take the bet. If a stock is pretty obviously tanking, its unlikely that someone would oppose your bet. (It's probably pretty clear that I barely know what I'm talking about, but I was surprised not to see this listed among the answers.)\"",
"qid": 10628,
"docid": "353224",
"rank": 53,
"score": 105882
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: In addition to the higher risk as pointed out by @JamesRoth, you also need to consider that there are regulations against 'naked shorting' so you generally need to either own the security, or have someone that is willing to 'loan' the security to you in order to sell short. If you own a stock you are shorting, the IRS could view the transaction as a Sell followed by a buy taking place in a less than 30 day period and you could be subject to wash-sale rules. This added complexity (most often the finding of someone to loan you the security you are shorting) is another reason such trades are considered more advanced. You should also be aware that there are currently a number of proposals to re-instate the 'uptick rule' or some circuit-breaker variant. Designed to prevent short-sellers from driving down the price of a stock (and conducting 'bear raids etc) the first requires that a stock trade at the same or higher price as prior trades before you can submit a short. In the latter shorting would be prohibited after a stock price had fallen a given percentage in a given amount of time. In either case, should such a rule be (re)established then you could face limitations attempting to execute a short which you would not need to worry about doing simple buys or sells. As to vehicles that would do this kind of thing (if you are convinced we are in a bear market and willing to take the risk) there are a number of ETF's classified as 'Inverse Exchange Traded Funds (ETF's) for a variety of markets that via various means seek to deliver a return similar to that of 'shorting the market' in question. One such example for a common broad market is ticker SH the ProShares Short S&P500 ETF, which seeks to deliver a return that is the inverse of the S&P500 (and as would be predicted based on the roughly +15% performance of the S&P500 over the last 12 months, SH is down roughly -15% over the same period). The Wikipedia article on inverse ETF's lists a number of other such funds covering various markets. I think it should be noted that using such a vehicle is a pretty 'aggressive bet' to take in reaction to the belief that a bear market is imminent. A more conservative approach would be to simply take money out of the market and place it in something like CD's or Treasury instruments. In that case, you preserve your capital, regardless of what happens in the market. Using an inverse ETF OTOH means that if the market went bull instead of bear, you would lose money instead of merely holding your position.",
"qid": 10628,
"docid": "39265",
"rank": 54,
"score": 105768
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: It's actually quite simple. You're actually confusing two concept. Which are taking a short position and short selling itself. Basically when taking a short position is by believing that the stock is going to drop and you sell it. You can or not buy it back later depending on the believe it grows again or not. So basically you didn't make any profit with the drop in the price's value but you didn't lose money either. Ok but what if you believe the market or specific company is going to drop and you want to profit on it while it's dropping. You can't do this by buying stock because you would be going long right? So back to the basics. To obtain any type of profit I need to buy low and sell high, right? This is natural for use in long positions. Well, now knowing that you can sell high at the current moment and buy low in the future what do you do? You can't sell what you don't have. So acquire it. Ask someone to lend it to you for some time and sell it. So selling high, check. Now buying low? You promised the person you would return him his stock, as it's intangible he won't even notice it's a different unit, so you buy low and return the lender his stock. Thus you bought low and sold high, meaning having a profit. So technically short selling is a type of short position. If you have multiple portfolios and lend yourself (i.e. maintaining a long-term long position while making some money with a short term short-term strategy) you're actually short selling with your own stock. This happens often in hedge funds where multiple strategies are used and to optimise the transaction costs and borrowing fees, they have algorithms that clear (match) long and short coming in from different traders, algorithms, etc. Keep in mind that you while have a opportunities risk associated. So basically, yes, you need to always 'borrow' a product to be able to short sell it. What can happen is that you lend yourself but this only makes sense if:",
"qid": 10628,
"docid": "226496",
"rank": 55,
"score": 105548
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Yes you can. This is known as a short selling against the box. In the old days, this was used to delay a taxable event. You could lock in a gain without triggering a taxable event. Any loss on one side of the box would be offset by a loss on the other side, and vice versa. However, the IRS clamped down on this, and you will realize the gain on your long position as soon as you go short on the other side. See http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/sellagainstthebox.asp. As to how to initiate the short cover, just transfer the long position to the same account as your short position and make sure your broker covers the short. Should be relatively easy.",
"qid": 10628,
"docid": "48153",
"rank": 56,
"score": 105185
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"if you buy back the now ITM calls, then you will have a short term loss. That pair of transactions is independent, from a tax perspective, of your long position (which was being used as \"\"collateral\"\" in the very case that occurred). I can see your tax situation and can see the logic of taking a short term loss to balance a short term gain. Referring to D Stanley's answer, #2 and #3 are not the same because you are paying intrinsic value in the options and the skew in #2, whereas #3 has no intrinsic value. Of course, because you can't know the future, the stock price could move higher or lower between #2 and #3. #1 presumes the stock continues to climb.\"",
"qid": 10628,
"docid": "72677",
"rank": 57,
"score": 105121
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Lending of shares happens in the background. Those who have lent them out are not aware that they have been lent out, nor when they are returned. The borrowers have to pay any dividends to the lenders and in the end the borrowers get their stock back. If you read the fine print on the account agreement for a margin account, you will see that you have given the brokerage the permission to silently loan your stocks out. Since the lending has no financial impact on your portfolio, there's no particular reason to know and no particular protection required. Actually, brokers typically don't bother going through the work of finding an actual stock to borrow. As long as lots of their customers have stocks to lend and not that many people have sold short, they just assume there is no problem and keep track of how many are long and short without designating which stocks are borrowed from whom. When a stock becomes hard to borrow because of liquidity issues or because many people are shorting it, the brokerage will actually start locating individual shares to borrow, which is a more time-consuming and costly procedure. Usually this involves the short seller actually talking to the broker on the phone rather than just clicking \"\"sell.\"\"\"",
"qid": 10628,
"docid": "125659",
"rank": 58,
"score": 105064
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: As mentioned by Dilip, you need to provide more details. In general for transacting on stocks; Long Term: If you hold the stock for more than one year then its long term and not taxable. There is a STT [Securities Transaction Tax] that is already deducted/paid during buying and selling of a stock. Short Term: If you hold the stock for less than one year, it's short term gain. This can be adjusted against the short term loss for the financial year. The tax rate is 10%. Day Trading: Is same as short term from tax point of view. Unless you are doing it as a full time business. If you have purchased multiple quantities of same stock in different quantities and time, then when you selling you have to arrive at profit or loss on FIFO basis, ie First in First Out",
"qid": 10628,
"docid": "333425",
"rank": 59,
"score": 104883
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"If you're asking this question, you probably aren't ready to be buying individual stock shares, and may not be ready to be investing in the market at all. Short-term in the stock market is GAMBLING, pure and simple, and gambling against professionals at that. You can reduce your risk if you spend the amount of time and effort the pros do on it, but if you aren't ready to accept losses you shouldn't be playing and if you aren't willing to bet it all on a single throw of the dice you should diversify and accept lower potential gain in exchange for lower risk. (Standard advice: Index funds.) The way an investor, as opposed to a gambler, deals with a stock price dropping -- or surging upward, or not doing anything! -- is to say \"\"That's interesting. Given where it is NOW, do I expect it to go up or down from here, and do I think I have someplace to put the money that will do better?\"\" If you believe the stock will gain value from here, holding it may make more sense than taking your losses. Specific example: the mortgage-crisis market crash of a few years ago. People who sold because stock prices were dropping and they were scared -- or whose finances forced them to sell during the down period -- were hurt badly. Those of us who were invested for the long term and could afford to leave the money in the market -- or who were brave/contrarian enough to see it as an opportunity to buy at a better price -- came out relatively unscathed; all I have \"\"lost\"\" was two years of growth. So: You made your bet. Now you have to decide: Do you really want to \"\"buy high, sell low\"\" and take the loss as a learning experience, or do you want to wait and see whether you can sell not-so-low. If you don't know enough about the company to make a fairly rational decision on that front, you probably shouldn't have bought its stock.\"",
"qid": 10628,
"docid": "138096",
"rank": 60,
"score": 104751
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The two dimensions are to open the trade (creating a position) and to buy or sell (becoming long or short the option). If you already own an option, you bought it to open and then you would sell it to close. If you don't own an option, you can either buy it to open, or sell it (short it) to open. If you are already short an option, you can buy it back to close. If you sell to open covered, the point is you're creating a \"\"covered call\"\" which means you own the stock, and then sell a call. Since you own the stock, the covered call has a lot of the risk of loss removed, though it also subtracts much of the reward possible from your stock.\"",
"qid": 10628,
"docid": "320101",
"rank": 61,
"score": 104484
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Wrong message. I initially thought this was true, but it's not as cut and dry as people want to make it seem like it is. People usually try to say that he's just a bad CEO for Sears, and while this is completely true, the long game isn't as cut and dry. By buying a majority of Sears, he's using his power to authorize the sale of properties to himself, which he's then re-leasing back out when Sears fails to pay him (as Sears' landlord). Lampert isn't looking to fix the house -- he's looking to put the homeowner out of business, buy it, re-lease it to the homeowner, hike up the rates, then when the homeowner can't pay, re-lease it back out to someone else. It's very tangled and that's exactly why shareholders are going to lose big time when Sears declares Chapter 7 bankruptcy.",
"qid": 10628,
"docid": "553348",
"rank": 62,
"score": 104233
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: When you buy a stock, the worst case scenario is that it drops to 0. Therefore, the most you can lose when buying a stock is 100% of your investment. When you short a stock, however, there's no limit on how high the stock can go. If you short a stock at 10, and it goes up to 30, then you've lost 200% on your investment. Therefore shorting stocks is riskier than buying stocks, since you can lose more than 100% of your investment when shorting. because the price might go up, but it will never be as big of a change as a regular price drop i suppose... That is not true. Stocks can sometimes go up significantly (50-100% or more) in a very short amount of time on a positive news release (such as an earnings or a buyout announcement). A famous example occurred in 2008, when Volkswagen stock quintupled (went up 400%) in less than 2 days on some corporate news: Porsche, for some reason, wants to control Volkswagen, and by building up its stake has driven up the price. Hedge funds, figuring the share price would fall as soon as Porsche got control and stopped buying, sold a lot of VW shares short. Then last weekend, Porsche disclosed that it owned 42.6 percent of the stock and had acquired options for another 31.5 percent. It said it wanted to go to 75 percent. The result: instant short-squeeze. The German state of Lower Saxony owns a 20 percent stake in VW, which it said it would not sell. That left precious few shares available for anyone else. The shorts scrambled to cover, and the price leaped from about €200, or about $265, to above €1,000.",
"qid": 10628,
"docid": "295511",
"rank": 63,
"score": 104056
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The stock market is no different in this respect to anything that's bought or sold. The price of a stock like many other things reflects what the seller is prepared to sell it at and what the buyer is prepared to offer for it. If those things match then a transaction can take place. The seller loses money but gains stocks they feel represent equivalent value, the reverse happens for the buyer. Take buying a house for example, did the buyer lose money when they bought a house, sure they did but they gained a house. The seller gained money but lost a house. New money is created in the sense that companies can and do make profits, those profits, together with the expected profits from future years increase the value that is put on the company. If we take something simple like a mining company then its value represents a lot of things: and numerous other lesser things too. The value of shares in the mining company will reflect all of these things. It likely rises and falls in line with the price of the raw materials it mines and those change based on the overall supply and demand for those raw materials. Stocks do have an inherent value, they are ownership of a part of a company. You own part of the asset value, profits and losses made by that company. Betting on things is different in that you've no ownership of the thing you bet on, you're only dependent on the outcome of the bet.",
"qid": 10628,
"docid": "516561",
"rank": 64,
"score": 103971
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Many investors don't invest for the short term and so a stock \"\"nose-diving\"\" in the short run will not affect their long term strategy so they will simply hold on to it until it recovers. Additionally funds that track an index have to hold on to the constituents of that index no matter what happens to its value over the period (within trading limits). Both of these kinds of investors will be able to lend stock in a company out and not trigger a forced buy-in on a short term change. If the underlying long-term health of the company changes or it is removed from indices it is likely that this will change, however. Employee stock plans and other investors who are linked directly to the company or who have a vested interest in the company other than in a financial way will also be unwilling (or unable) to sell on a down turn in the company. They will similarly be able to lend their stock in the short term.\"",
"qid": 10628,
"docid": "84891",
"rank": 65,
"score": 103931
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Aganju has mentioned put options, which are one good possibility. I would suggest considering an even easier strategy: short selling. Technically you are borrowing the stock from someone and selling it. At some point you repurchase the stock to return to the lender (\"\"covering your short\"\"). If the stock price has fallen, then when you repurchase it, it will be cheaper and you keep the profit. Short selling sounds complicated but it's actually very easy--your broker takes care of all the details. Just go to your brokerage and click \"\"sell\"\" or \"\"sell short.\"\" You can use a market or limit order just like you were selling something you own. When it sells, you are done. The money gets credited to your account. At some point (after the price falls) you should repurchase it so you don't have a negative position any more, but your brokerage isn't going to hassle you for this unless you bought a lot and the stock price starts rising. There will be limits on how much you can short, depending on how much money is in your account. Some stocks (distressed and small stocks) may sometimes be hard to short, meaning your broker will charge you a kind of interest and/or may not be able to complete your transaction. You will need a margin account (a type of brokerage account) to either use options or short sell. They are easy to come by, though. Note that for a given amount of starting money in your account, puts can give you a much more dramatic gain if the stock price falls. But they can (and often do) expire worthless, causing you to lose all money you have spent on them. If you want to maximize how much you make, use puts. Otherwise I'd short sell. About IPOs, it depends on what you mean. If the IPO has just completed and you want to bet that the share price will fall, either puts or short selling will work. Before an IPO you can't short sell and I doubt you would be able to buy an option either. Foreign stocks? Depends on whether there is an ADR for them that trades on the domestic market and on the details of your brokerage account. Let me put it this way, if you can buy it, you can short sell it.\"",
"qid": 10628,
"docid": "480967",
"rank": 66,
"score": 103791
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You would generally have to pay interest for everyday you hold the position overnight. If you never close the position and the stock price goes to zero, you will be closed out and credited with your profit. If you never close the position and the stock price keeps going up and up, your potential loss is an unlimited amount of money. Of course your broker may close you out early for a number of reasons, particularly if your loss goes above the amount of capital you have in your trading account.",
"qid": 10628,
"docid": "45065",
"rank": 67,
"score": 103669
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Opened Long - is when you open a long position. Long means that you buy to open the position, so you are trying to profit as the price rises. So if you were closing a long position you would sell it. Closed Short - is when you close out a short position. Short means that you sell to open and buy back to close. With a short position you are trying to profit as the price falls. Scaled Out - means you get out of a position in increments as the price climbs (for long positions). Scaled In - means you set a target price and then invest in increments as the stock falls below that price (for long positions).",
"qid": 10628,
"docid": "154665",
"rank": 68,
"score": 103311
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Derivatives derive their value from underlying assets. This is expressed by the obligation of at least one counterparty to trade with the other counterparty in the future. These can take on as many combinations as one can dream up as it is a matter of contract. For futures, where two parties are obligated to trade at a specific price at a specific date in the future (one buyer, one seller), if you \"\"short\"\" a future, you have entered into a contract to sell the underlying at the time specified. If the price of the future moves against you (goes up), you will have to sell at a loss. The bigger the move, the greater the loss. You go ahead and pay this as well as a little extra to be sure that you satisfy what you owe due to the future. This satisfaction is called margin. If there weren't margin, people could take huge losses on their derivative bets, not pay, and disrupt the markets. Making sure that the money that will trade is already there makes the markets run smoothly. It's the same for shorting stocks where you borrow the stock, sell it, and wait. You have to leave the money with the broker as well as deposit a little extra to be sure you can make good if the market moves to a large degree against you.\"",
"qid": 10628,
"docid": "356388",
"rank": 69,
"score": 103011
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Are these all of the taxes or is there any additional taxes over these? Turn-over tax is not for retail investors. Other taxes are paid by the broker as part of transaction and one need not worry too much about it. Is there any \"\"Income tax\"\" to be paid for shares bought/holding shares? No for just buying and holding. However if you buy and sell; there would be a capital gain or loss. In stocks, if you hold a security for less than 1 year and sell it; it is classified as short term capital gain and taxes at special rate of 15%. The loss can be adjusted against any other short term gain. If held for more than year it is long term capital gain. For stock market, the tax is zero, you can't adjust long term losses in stock markets. Will the money received from selling shares fall under \"\"Taxable money for FY Income tax\"\"? Only the gain [or loss] will be tread as income not the complete sale value. To calculate gain, one need to arrive a purchase price which is price of stock + Brokerage + STT + all other taxes. Similar the sale price will be Sales of stock - Brokerage - STT - all other taxes. The difference is the gain. Will the \"\"Dividend/Bonus/Buy-back\"\" money fall under taxable category? Dividend is tax free to individual as the company has already paid dividend distribution tax. Bonus is tax free event as it does not create any additional value. Buy-Back is treated as sale of shares if you have participated. Will the share-holder pay \"\"Dividend Distribution Tax\"\"? Paid by the company. What is \"\"Capital Gains\"\"? Profit or loss of buying and selling a particular security.\"",
"qid": 10628,
"docid": "507276",
"rank": 70,
"score": 102923
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Shorting Stocks: Borrowing the shares to sell now. Then buying them back when the price drops. Risk: If you are wrong the stock can go up. And if there are a lot of people shorting the stock you can get stuck in a short squeeze. That means that so many people need to buy the stock to return the ones they borrowed that the price goes up even further and faster. Also whoever you borrowed the stock from will often make the decision to sell for you. Put options. Risk: Put values don't always drop when the underlying price of the stock drops. This is because when the stock drops volatility goes up. And volatility can raise the value of an option. And you need to check each stock for whether or not these options are available. finviz lists whether a stock is optional & shortable or not. And for shorting you also need to find a broker that owns shares that they are willing to lend out.",
"qid": 10628,
"docid": "499811",
"rank": 71,
"score": 102796
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: When you want to short a stock, you are trying to sell shares (that you are borrowing from your broker), therefore you need buyers for the shares you are selling. The ask prices represent people who are trying to sell shares, and the bid prices represent people who are trying to buy shares. Using your example, you could put in a limit order to short (sell) 1000 shares at $3.01, meaning that your order would become the ask price at $3.01. There is an ask price ahead of you for 500 shares at $3.00. So people would have to buy those 500 shares at $3.00 before anyone could buy your 1000 shares at $3.01. But it's possible that your order to sell 1000 shares at $3.01 never gets filled, if the buyers don't buy all the shares ahead of you. The price could drop to $1.00 without hitting $3.01 and you will have missed out on the trade. If you really wanted to short 1000 shares, you could use a market order. Let's say there's a bid for 750 shares at $2.50, and another bid for 250 shares at $2.49. If you entered a market order to sell 1000 shares, your order would get filled at the best bid prices, so first you would sell 750 shares at $2.50 and then you would sell 250 shares at $2.49. I was just using your example to explain things. In reality there won't be such a wide spread between the bid and ask prices. A stock might have a bid price of $10.50 and an ask price of $10.51, so there would only be a 1 cent difference between putting in a limit order to sell 1000 shares at $10.51 and just using a market order to sell 1000 shares and getting them filled at $10.50. Also, your example probably wouldn't work in real life, because brokers typically don't allow people to short stocks that are trading under $5 per share. As for your question about how often you are unable to make a short sale, it can sometimes happen with stocks that are heavily shorted and your broker may not be able to find any more shares to borrow. Also remember that you can only short stocks with a margin account, you cannot short stocks with a cash account.",
"qid": 10628,
"docid": "1203",
"rank": 72,
"score": 102795
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Who's to say it wasn't priced into the markets, at least to some degree? Without any information on the behaviour of holders pre-expiry, no one can know if they've been shorting the stock in advance of selling on expiry day. And with the float being such a small proportion of the total issuance, there's always the risk of sudden fluctuations picking up big momentum - which could easily explain the 7% drop on expiry day. Add into all this uncertainty, the usual risks of shorting (e.g. limited upside, unlimited downside), and the observed phenomena aren't by any means killer blows of the Efficient Market Hypothesis. That's not to say that such evidence doesn't necessarily exist - just that this isn't it.",
"qid": 10628,
"docid": "529864",
"rank": 73,
"score": 102498
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Successful covered calls are short term capital gains. The amount of time you have owned the underlying security is irrelevant. The gain occurred in the option period which will be an amount of days less than needed for a long term capital gain classification. Failed Covered calls can be either as the date you acquired the stock you are forced to sell determines their classification.",
"qid": 10628,
"docid": "561884",
"rank": 74,
"score": 101977
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The margin rules are also more complicated. A simple buy on a non-margin account will never run into margin rules and you can just wait out any dips if you have confidence the stock will recover. A \"\"simple\"\" short sell might get you a call from your broker that you have a margin call, and you can't wait it out without putting more money in. Personally I have trouble keeping the short sale margin rules straight in my head, at least compared to a long sale. I got in way over my head shorting AMZN once, and lost a lot of money because I thought it was overvalued at the time, but it just kept going up and I wanted it to go down. I've never gotten stuck like that on a long position.\"",
"qid": 10628,
"docid": "35102",
"rank": 75,
"score": 101969
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Absolutely. There is no requirement that an option be in-the-money for you to close out a position. Remember that there are alwayes two sides to a trade - a buyer and a seller. When you bought your option, it's entirely possible that someone else was closing out their long position by selling it to you.",
"qid": 10628,
"docid": "557582",
"rank": 76,
"score": 101733
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"There some specific circumstances when you would have a long-term gain. Option 1: If you meet all of these conditions: Then you've got a long-term gain on the stock. The premium on the option gets rolled into the capital gain on the stock and is not taxed separately. From the IRS: If a call you write is exercised and you sell the underlying stock, increase your amount realized on the sale of the stock by the amount you received for the call when figuring your gain or loss. The gain or loss is long term or short term depending on your holding period of the stock. https://www.irs.gov/publications/p550/ch04.html#en_US_2015_publink100010630 Option 2: If you didn't hold the underlying and the exercise of the call that you wrote resulted in a short position, you might also be able to get to a long-term gain by buying the underlying while keeping your short position open and then \"\"crossing\"\" them to close both positions after one year. (In other words, don't \"\"buy to cover\"\" just \"\"buy\"\" so that your account shows both a long and a short position in the same security. Your broker probably allows this, but if not you, could buy in a different account than the one with the short position.) That would get you to this rule: As a general rule, you determine whether you have short-term or long-term capital gain or loss on a short sale by the amount of time you actually hold the property eventually delivered to the lender to close the short sale. https://www.irs.gov/publications/p550/ch04.html#en_US_2015_publink100010586 Option 1 is probably reasonably common. Option 2, I would guess, is uncommon and likely not worthwhile. I do not think that the wash sale rules can help string along options from expiration to expiration though. Option 1 has some elements of what you wrote in italics (I find that paragraph a bit confusing), but the wash sale does not help you out.\"",
"qid": 10628,
"docid": "171819",
"rank": 77,
"score": 101717
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Just before a crash or at the start of the crash most of the smart money would have gotten out, the remaining technical traders would be out by the time the market has dropped 10 to 15%, and some of them would be shorting their positions by now. Most long-term buy and hold investors would stick to their guns and stay in for the long haul. Some will start to get nervous and have sleepless nights when the markets have fallen 30%+ and look to get out as well. Others stay in until they cannot stand it anymore. And some will stick it out throughout the downturn. So who are the buyers at this stage? Some are the so called bargain hunters that buy when the market has fallen over 30% (only to sell again when it falls another 20%), or maybe buy more (because they think they are dollar cost averaging and will make a packet when the price goes back up - if and when it does). Some are those with stops covering their short positions, whilst others may be fund managers and individuals looking to rebalance their portfolios. What you have to remember during both an uptrend and a downtrend the price does not move straight up or straight down. If we take the downtrend for instance, it will have lower lows and lower highs (that is the definition of a downtrend). See the chart below of the S&P 500 during the GFC falls. As you can see just before it really started falling in Jan 08 there was ample opportunity for the smart money and the technical traders to get out of the market as the price drops below the 200 MA and it fails to make a higher peak. As the price falls from Jan 08 to Mar 08 you suddenly start getting some movement upwards. This is the bargain hunters who come into the market thinking the price is a bargain compared to 3 months ago, so they start buying and pushing the price up somewhat for a couple of months before it starts falling again. The reason it falls again is because the people who wanted to sell at the start of the year missed the boat, so are taking the opportunity to sell now that the prices have increased a bit. So you get this battle between the buyers (bulls) and seller (bears), and of course the bears are winning during this downtrend. That is why you see more sharper falls between Aug to Oct 08, and it continues until the lows of Mar 09. In short it has got to do with the phycology of the markets and how people's emotions can make them buy and/or sell at the wrong times.",
"qid": 10628,
"docid": "238024",
"rank": 78,
"score": 101660
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I think the question, as worded, has some incorrect assumptions built into it, but let me try to hit the key answers that I think might help: Your broker can't really do anything here. Your broker doesn't own the calls you sold, and can't elect to exercise someone else's calls. Your broker can take action to liquidate positions when you are in margin calls, but the scenario you describe wouldn't generate them: If you are long stock, and short calls, the calls are covered, and have no margin requirement. The stock is the only collateral you need, and you can have the position on in a cash (non-margin) account. So, assuming you haven't bought other things on margin that have gone south and are generating calls, your broker has no right to do anything to you. If you're wondering about the \"\"other guy\"\", meaning the person who is long the calls that you are short, they are the one who can impact you, by exercising their right to buy the stock from you. In that scenario, you make $21, your maximum possible return (since you bought the stock at $100, collected $1 premium, and sold it for $120. But they usually won't do that before expiration, and they pretty definitely won't here. The reason they usually won't is that most options trade above their intrinsic value (the amount that they're in the money). In your example, the options aren't in the money at all. The stock is trading at 120, and the option gives the owner the right to buy at 120.* Put another way, exercising the option lets the owner buy the stock for the exact same price anyone with no options can in the market. So, if the call has any value whatsoever, exercising it is irrational; the owner would be better off selling the call and buying the stock in the market.\"",
"qid": 10628,
"docid": "254474",
"rank": 79,
"score": 101608
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Your strategy fails to control risk. Your \"\"inversed crash\"\" is called a rally. And These kind of things often turn into bigger rallies because of short squeezes, when all the people that are shorting a stock are forced to close their stock because of margin calls - its not that shorts \"\"scramble\"\" to close their position, the broker AUTOMATICALLY closes your short positions with market orders and you are stuck with the loss. So no, your \"\"trick\"\" is not enough. There are better ways to profit from a bearish outlook.\"",
"qid": 10628,
"docid": "333496",
"rank": 80,
"score": 101397
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"There are more than a few different ways to consider why someone may have a transaction in the stock market: Employee stock options - If part of my compensation comes from having options that vest over time, I may well sell shares at various points because I don't want so much of my new worth tied up in one company stock. Thus, some transactions may happen from people cashing out stock options. Shorting stocks - This is where one would sell borrowed stock that then gets replaced later. Thus, one could reverse the traditional buy and sell order in which case the buy is done to close the position rather than open one. Convertible debt - Some companies may have debt that come with warrants or options that allow the holder to acquire shares at a specific price. This would be similar to 1 in some ways though the holder may be a mutual fund or company in some cases. There is also some people that may seek high-yield stocks and want an income stream from the stock while others may just want capital appreciation and like stocks that may not pay dividends(Berkshire Hathaway being the classic example here). Others may be traders believing the stock will move one way or another in the short-term and want to profit from that. So, thus the stock market isn't necessarily as simple as you state initially. A terrorist attack may impact stocks in a couple ways to consider: Liquidity - In the case of the attacks of 9/11, the stock market was closed for a number of days which meant people couldn't trade to convert shares to cash or cash to shares. Thus, some people may pull out of the market out of fear of their money being \"\"locked up\"\" when they need to access it. If someone is retired and expects to get $x/quarter from their stocks and it appears that that may be in jeopardy, it could cause one to shift their asset allocation. Future profits - Some companies may have costs to rebuild offices and other losses that could put a temporary dent in profits. If there is a company that makes widgets and the factory is attacked, the company may have to stop making widgets for a while which would impact earnings, no? There can also be the perception that an attack is \"\"just the beginning\"\" and one could extrapolate out more attacks that may affect broader areas. Sometimes what recently happens with the stock market is expected to continue that can be dangerous as some people may believe the market has to continue like the recent past as that is how they think the future will be.\"",
"qid": 10628,
"docid": "589127",
"rank": 81,
"score": 101390
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Consider the futures market. Traders buy and sell gold futures, but very few contracts, relatively speaking, result in delivery. The contracts are sold, and \"\"Open interest\"\" dwindles to near zero most months as the final date approaches. The seller buys back his short position, the buyer sells off his longs. When I own a call, and am 'winning,' say the option that cost me $1 is now worth $2, I'd rather sell that option for even $1.95 than to buy 100 shares of a $148 stock. The punchline is that very few option buyers actually hope to own the stock in the end. Just like the futures, open interest falls as expiration approaches.\"",
"qid": 10628,
"docid": "393134",
"rank": 82,
"score": 101251
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: In the US, it is perfectly legal to execute what you've described. However, since you seem to be bullish on the stock, why sell? How do you KNOW the price will continue downwards? Aside from the philosophical reasoning, there can be significant downside to selling shares when you're expecting to repurchase them in the near future, i.e. you will lose your cost basis date which determines whether or not your trade is short-term (less than 1 year) or long-term. This cost basis term will begin anew once you repurchase the shares. IF you are trying to tax harvest and match against some short-term gains, tax loss harvesting prior to long-term treatment may be suitable. Otherwise, reexamine your reasoning and reconsider the sale at all, since you are bullish. Remember: if you could pick where stock prices are headed in the short term with any degree of certainty you are literally one of a kind on this planet ;-). In addition, do remember that in a tax deferred account (e.g. IRA) the term of your trade is typically meaningless but your philosophical reasoning for selling should still be examined.",
"qid": 10628,
"docid": "219762",
"rank": 83,
"score": 101233
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: In the US, and I suspect in most of the developed world, one major point of a corporation is limited liability. The stockholders are not on the hook for liabilities beyond their investment. If the company does something terrible, or fails economically, it goes bankrupt. Usually the stockholders have their investment wiped out, but they are guaranteed that they do not have to pay more in to any settlement.",
"qid": 10628,
"docid": "564197",
"rank": 84,
"score": 101053
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"There is one other factor that I haven't seen mentioned here. It's easy to assume that if you buy a stock, then someone else (another stock owner) must have sold it to you. This is not true however, because there are people called \"\"market makers\"\" whose basic job is to always be available to buy shares from those who wish to sell, and sell shares to those who wish to buy. They could be selling you shares they just bought from someone else, but they also could simply be issuing shares from the company itself, that have never been bought before. This is a super oversimplified explanation, but hopefully it illustrates my point.\"",
"qid": 10628,
"docid": "482739",
"rank": 85,
"score": 100956
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"For personal investing, and speculative/ highly risky securities (\"\"wasting assets\"\", which is exactly what options are), it is better to think in terms of sunk costs. Don't chase this trade, trying to make your money back. You should minimize your loss. Unwind the position now, while there is still some remaining value in those call options, and take a short-term loss. Or, you could try this. Let's say you own an exchange traded call option on a listed stock (very general case). I don't know how much time remains before the option's expiration date. Be that as it may, I could suggest this to effect a \"\"recovery\"\". You'll be long the call and short the stock. This is called a delta hedge, as you would be delta trading the stock. Delta refers to short-term price volatility. In other words, you'll short a single large block of the stock, then buy shares, in small increments, whenever the market drops slightly, on an intra-day basis. When the market price of the stock rises incrementally, you'll sell a few shares. Back and forth, in response to short-term market price moves, while maintaining a static \"\"hedge ratio\"\". As your original call option gets closer to maturity, roll it over into the next available contract, either one-month, or preferably three-month, time to expiration. If you don't want to, or can't, borrow the underlying stock to short, you could do a synthetic short. A synthetic short is a combination of a long put and a short call, whose pay-off replicates the short stock payoff. I personally would never purchase an unhedged option or warrant. But since that is what you own right now, you have two choices: Get out, or dig in deeper, with the realization that you are doing a lot of work just to trade your way back to a net zero P&L. *While you can make a profit using this sort of strategy, I'm not certain if that is within the scope of the money.stachexchange.com website.\"",
"qid": 10628,
"docid": "214003",
"rank": 86,
"score": 100797
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If it helps you to think about it, long is equivalent to betting for the upside and short is equivalent to betting for the downside. If you are long on options, then you expect the value of such options to increase. If you are long an option, then you own the option. If you are short an option, then generally you sold the option. Someone who is short a call (sometimes called the writer or occasionally the issuer) has sold a call option to someone who is now long a call. Buying a call option that will increase in value is itself a form of investment, just as it's investment to buy stock or other instruments hoping they will appreciate in value. An option's value will rise or fall with the underlying, so being long an option is a way to be long in the underlying. Someone can be long in a stock by buying the stock, or long in a call by buying call options in the stock. The long call generally requires less initial investment than buying the underlying, and lets the option-holder avoid the asset downside during the option term. The risk is that the asset may not appreciate to the point that the call option will pay off. In the conceptual sense, a share of stock is a particular right to the profits and assets of a corporation, both in form of dividends and in liquidation. An option is a particular right to the the share of stock. It's just a further way to formalize and subdivide the various property rights that exist in a corporation. If you can buy a piece of paper with particular rights to corporate profits and assets, then you can buy another piece of paper with particular rights to the former piece of paper.",
"qid": 10628,
"docid": "238474",
"rank": 87,
"score": 100713
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: One of the biggest laws in economics is that if an opportunity is very profitable and is very easily exploitable even by complete beginners, then it will very soon stop being profitable. That's how the market works. If you buy stock when it is at the lowest, then you are making money, but most of the time someone else is losing money. And if there was a magic hour of the day when buying would be the most profitable, then soon everybody would want to buy at that time and no one would want to sell anything, so the scheme would collapse.",
"qid": 10628,
"docid": "508385",
"rank": 88,
"score": 100252
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"In fact, it's quite the opposite. If someone is willing to sell some stock as low as $30/share, and someone else is willing to pay $31/share, one of those individuals is going to get a good deal - unless HFT acts as the middle-man and snags the extra dollar. In which case the individuals get the worst price they would accept and someone with fast collocated computers gets to skim some profits (while adding no value, the order could have happened without the so called \"\"liquidity\"\" that HFT claims to add). It's not exactly that simple, but that's the basic effect. It's an unnecessary middleman that skims profits away from individuals on both sides. I would like to see a return to \"\"investing\"\" back to the meaning of the word, instead of gambling on daily or short-term fluctuations. I wouldn't mind a long-term holding requirement (3 months?) for every purchase, and a daily exchange-calculated set price (calculated by actual orders placed) that everyone who buys/sells a particular stock on a given day pays. Yes, my ideas would destroy an entire industry. I'm ok with that because it would encourage people to *really* invest in companies.\"",
"qid": 10628,
"docid": "257378",
"rank": 89,
"score": 100224
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Michael gave a good answer describing the transaction but I wanted to follow up on your questions about the lender. First, the lender does charge interest on the borrowed securities. The amount of interest can vary based on a number of factors, such as who is borrowing, how much are they borrowing, and what stock are they trying to borrow. Occasionally when you are trying to short a stock you will get an error that it is hard to borrow. This could be for a few reasons, such as there are already a large amount of people who have shorted your broker's shares, or your broker never acquired the shares to begin with (which usually only happens on very small stocks). In both cases the broker/lender doesnt have enough shares and may be unwilling to get more. In that way they are discriminating on what they lend. If a company is about to go bankrupt and a lender doesnt have any more shares to lend out, it is unlikely they will purchase more as they stand to lose a lot and gain very little. It might seem like lending is a risky business but think of it as occurring over decades and not months. General Motors had been around for 100 years before it went bankrupt, so any lender who had owned and been lending out GM shares for a fraction of that time likely still profited. Also this is all very simplified. JoeTaxpayer alluded to this in the comments but in actuality who is lending stock or even who owns stock is much more complicated and probably doesnt need to be explained here. I just wanted to show in this over-simplified explanation that lending is not as risky as it may first seem.",
"qid": 10628,
"docid": "405206",
"rank": 90,
"score": 100186
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I sold it at 609.25 and buy again at 608.75 in the same day If you Sold and bought the same day, it would be considered as intra-day trade. Profit will be due and would be taxed at normal tax brackets. Edits Best Consult a CA. This is covered under Indian Accounting Standard AG51 The following examples illustrate the application of the derecognition principles of this Standard. (e) Wash sale transaction. The repurchase of a financial asset shortly after it has been sold is sometimes referred to as a wash sale. Such a repurchase does not preclude derecognition provided that the original transaction met the derecognition requirements. However, if an agreement to sell a financial asset is entered into concurrently with an agreement to repurchase the same asset at a fixed price or the sale price plus a lender's return, then the asset is not derecognised. This is more relevant now for shares/stocks as Long Term Capital Gains are tax free, Long Term Capital Loss cannot be adjusted against anything. Short Term Gains are taxed differentially. Hence the transaction can be interpreted as tax evasion, professional advise is recommended. A simple way to avoid this situation; sell on a given day and buy it next or few days later.",
"qid": 10628,
"docid": "390864",
"rank": 91,
"score": 99991
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Since the bondholders have voted to reject the emergency manager's plan, which would have paid them pennies on the dollar, the city is now attempting to discharge its short-term and long-term debt. If they get what they want in court, it is likely these bonds will become worthless. Even if they are only able to restructure the debt, its likely that bondholders will need to accept large concessions. However, this may not be immediately reflected in bond prices as it's very possible that the market for these bonds will be very limited in terms of who they could sell them to. If you were to buy them now , that would be a bet on some outcome other than bankruptcy and the discharge of the city's long-term obligations. President Obama has already stated that he monitoring the situation, and it seems unlikely to me that after all of the support given to the auto industry in the last several years that the federal government will do nothing, if only to avert job losses. However, I think it's likely that state aid will be limited at best, as Michigan's economy has been struggling for a number of years. There aren't many large precedents to look at for guidance. One of the largest public entities to declare bankruptcy, Orange County, was a very different situation because this was due to malfeasance on the part of its investment manager, whereas Detroit's situation is a much larger structural problem with its declining economy and tax base. I think the key question will be whether the Federal Government will consider a Detroit bankruptcy to be a large enough embarassment/failure to take significant action.",
"qid": 10628,
"docid": "488615",
"rank": 92,
"score": 99807
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You are right that every transaction involves a seller and a buyer. The difference is the level of willingness from both parties. Overbought and oversold, as I understand them (particularly in the context of stocks), describe prolonged price increase (overbought, people are more willing to buy than sell, driving price up) and price decrease (oversold, people are more willing to sell than buy, driving price down).",
"qid": 10628,
"docid": "50002",
"rank": 93,
"score": 99716
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I think your premise is slightly flawed. Every investment can add or reduce risk, depending on how it's used. If your ordering above is intended to represent the probability you will lose your principal, then it's roughly right, with caveats. If you buy a long-term government bond and interest rates increase while you're holding it, its value will decrease on the secondary markets. If you need/want to sell it before maturity, you may not recover your principal, and if you hold it, you will probably be subject to erosion of value due to inflation (inflation and interest rates are correlated). Over the short-term, the stock market can be very volatile, and you can suffer large paper losses. But over the long-term (decades), the stock market has beaten inflation. But this is true in aggregate, so, if you want to decrease equity risk, you need to invest in a very diversified portfolio (index mutual funds) and hold the portfolio for a long time. With a strategy like this, the stock market is not that risky over time. Derivatives, if used for their original purpose, can actually reduce volatility (and therefore risk) by reducing both the upside and downside of your other investments. For example, if you sell covered calls on your equity investments, you get an income stream as long as the underlying equities have a value that stays below the strike price. The cost to you is that you are forced to sell the equity at the strike price if its value increases above that. The person on the other side of that transaction loses the price of the call if the equity price doesn't go up, but gets a benefit if it does. In the commodity markets, Southwest Airlines used derivatives (options to buy at a fixed price in the future) on fuel to hedge against increases in fuel prices for years. This way, they added predictability to their cost structure and were able to beat the competition when fuel prices rose. Even had fuel prices dropped to zero, their exposure was limited to the pre-negotiated price of the fuel, which they'd already planned for. On the other hand, if you start doing things like selling uncovered calls, you expose yourself to potentially infinite losses, since there are no caps on how high the price of a stock can go. So it's not possible to say that derivatives as a class of investment are risky per se, because they can be used to reduce risk. I would take hedge funds, as a class, out of your list. You can't generally invest in those unless you have quite a lot of money, and they use strategies that vary widely, many of which are quite risky.",
"qid": 10628,
"docid": "561997",
"rank": 94,
"score": 99597
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"If you sold the stock for a profit, you will owe tax on that profit. Whether it is taxed as short-term or long-term capital gains depends on how long you held the stock before selling it. Presumably you're going to invest this money into mutual funds or something of that sort. Those may pay dividends which can be reinvested, and will grow in value (you hope) just as the individual stock shares would (you hope). Assuming the advice you've been given is at all reasonable, there's no need for buyer's remorse here; you're just changing your investing style to a different point on the risk-versus-return curve. (If you have to ask this question, I tend to agree that you should do more homework before playing with shares in individual companieS ... unless you're getting thess shares at employee discount, in which case you should still seriously consider selling them fairly quickly and reinvesting the money in a more structured manner. In a very real sense your job is itself an \"\"investment\"\" in your employer; if they ever get into trouble you don't want that to hit both your income and investments.)\"",
"qid": 10628,
"docid": "106104",
"rank": 95,
"score": 99551
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The shares available to short are a portion of those shares held by the longs. This number is actually much easier to determine outside of active trading hours, but either way doesn't really impact the matter at hand since computers are pretty good at counting things. If your broker is putting up obstacles to your issuing sell short limit orders in the pre-market then there is likely some other reason (maybe they reserve that function to \"\"premium\"\" account holders?)\"",
"qid": 10628,
"docid": "181238",
"rank": 96,
"score": 99415
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Both explanations are partly true. There are many investors who do not want to sell an asset at a loss. This causes \"\"resistance\"\" at prices where large amounts of the asset were previously traded by such investors. It also explains why a \"\"break-through\"\" of such a \"\"resistance\"\" is often associated with a substantial \"\"move\"\" in price. There are also many investors who have \"\"stop-loss\"\" or \"\"trailing stop-loss\"\" \"\"limit orders\"\" in effect. These investors will automatically sell out of a long position (or buy out of a short position) if the price drops (or rises) by a certain percentage (typically 8% - 10%). There are periods of time when money is flowing into an asset or asset class. This could be due to a large investor trying to quietly purchase the asset in a way that avoids raising the price earlier than necessary. Or perhaps a large investor is dollar-cost-averaging. Or perhaps a legal mandate for a category of investors has changed, and they need to rebalance their portfolios. This rebalancing is likely to take place over time. Or perhaps there is a fad where many small investors (at various times) decide to increase (or decrease) their stake in an asset class. Or perhaps (for demographic reasons) the number of investors in a particular situation is increasing, so there are more investors who want to make particular investments. All of these phenomena can be summarized by the word \"\"momentum\"\". Traders who use technical analysis (including most day traders and algorithmic speculators) are aware of these phenomena. They are therefore more likely to purchase (or sell, or short) an asset shortly after one of their \"\"buy signals\"\" or \"\"sell signals\"\" is triggered. This reinforces the phenomena. There are also poorly-understood long-term cycles that affect business fundamentals and/or the politics that constrain business activity. For example: Note that even if the markets really were a random walk, it would still be profitable (and risk-reducing) to perform dollar-cost-averaging when buying into a position, and also perform averaging when selling out of a position. But this means that recent investor behavior can be used to predict the near-future behavior of investors, which justifies technical analysis.\"",
"qid": 10628,
"docid": "370290",
"rank": 97,
"score": 99409
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"There are several reasons. First, if you sell your stock \"\"at any price\"\", you may be selling it for less than you originally bought it for. Thus you will take a loss right at the beginning of your scheme. If you \"\"rinse and repeat\"\", the problem only gets worse. Every time you sell your stock, you will have to sell it at an even lower price in order to lower the price even more. Then you buy it back and. . . just resell it an even lower price? It should be clear that you are not making any money this way. Second, even if you don't sell it at an absolute loss, you must sell it at a relative loss in order to lower the price. In other words, if someone will currently buy your shares for $X, and you want to lower the price, you must sell them for less than $X. But you could have made more money by selling them for $X, since someone was already willing to buy them at that price. In order to bring the price down significantly, you have to sell the stock for less than people currently believe it is worth, which means you're incurring a loss relative to just selling it at the market rate. Of course, you can still make money if it goes back up again, but selling it at an extra loss this way just makes it harder to break even. Third, if you sell the stock at $X, whoever you sold it to is not going to sell it right back to you at $X, because then they would not make any money. You could in theory buy it from someone else, but the same principle holds: if the stock price has just gone down, people who have it may be waiting for it to go back up. This is doubly true if anyone suspects you have been trying to manipulate the stock price, because they will then suspect that the price drop is artificial and it will soon go back up. Fourth, even if someone did sell it right back to you at the price you sold it for, then what? You now hold the stock at a lower price, but you don't gain unless it goes back up. If it wasn't going up before until you took action, there is no reason to suppose it will go back up now. In fact, if you had enough shares to significantly influence the price, other people may have been fooled into thinking the value is actually lower now. The basic problem is that, in order for you to buy it at a low price, someone else has to sell it at that low price. It is easy to sell someone a stock for less than it's worth, but it will be hard to get people to sell it back to you for less than it's worth. If you engage in deceptive practices to get people to do this, you may be guilty of securities fraud.\"",
"qid": 10628,
"docid": "548278",
"rank": 98,
"score": 99372
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: No, the dividends can't be exploited like that. Dividends settlement are tied to an ex-dividend date. The ex-dividend, is the day that allows you to get a dividend if you own the stock. Since a buyer of the stock after this date won't get the dividend, the price usually drop by the amount of the dividend. In your case the price of a share would lose $2.65 and you will be credited by $2.65 in cash such that your portfolio won't change in value due to the dividend. Also, you can't exploit the drop in price by short-selling, as you would be owing the dividend to the person lending you the stock for the short sale. Finally, the price of the stock at the ex-dividend will also be affected by the supply and demand, such that you can't be precisely sure of the drop in price of the security.",
"qid": 10628,
"docid": "115553",
"rank": 99,
"score": 99343
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Government should have worked the same way. Use as hard terms as possible for \"\"too big to fail\"\" banks. If they can't take it and go bankrupt, purchase the liabilities and assets and run government owned bank next gradually selling stock next 10-15 years.\"",
"qid": 10628,
"docid": "169163",
"rank": 100,
"score": 99324
}
] |
Short term parking of a large inheritance? | [
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"What are the options available for safe, short-term parking of funds? Savings accounts are the go-to option for safely depositing funds in a way that they remain accessible in the short-term. There are many options available, and any recommendations on a specific account from a specific institution depend greatly on the current state of banks. As you're in the US, If you choose to save funds in a savings account, it's important that you verify that the account (or accounts) you use are FDIC insured. Also be aware that the insurance limit is $250,000, so for larger volumes of money you may need to either break up your savings into multiple accounts, or consult a Accredited Investment Fiduciary (AIF) rather than random strangers on the internet. I received an inheritance check... Money is a token we exchange for favors from other people. As their last act, someone decided to give you a portion of their unused favors. You should feel honored that they held you in such esteem. I have no debt at all and aside from a few deferred expenses You're wise to bring up debt. As a general answer not geared toward your specific circumstances: Paying down debt is a good choice, if you have any. Investment accounts have an unknown interest rate, whereas reducing debt is guaranteed to earn you the interest rate that you would have otherwise paid. Creating new debt is a bad choice. It's common for people who receive large windfalls to spend so much that they put themselves in financial trouble. Lottery winners tend to go bankrupt. The best way to double your money is to fold it in half and put it back in your pocket. I am not at all savvy about finances... The vast majority of people are not savvy about finances. It's a good sign that you acknowledge your inability and are willing to defer to others. ...and have had a few bad experiences when trying to hire someone to help me Find an AIF, preferably one from a largish investment firm. You don't want to be their most important client. You just want them to treat you with courtesy and give you simple, and sound investment advice. Don't be afraid to shop around a bit. I am interested in options for safe, short \"\"parking\"\" of these funds until I figure out what I want to do. Apart from savings accounts, some money market accounts and mutual funds may be appropriate for parking funds before investing elsewhere. They come with their own tradeoffs and are quite likely higher risk than you're willing to take while you're just deciding what to do with the funds. My personal recommendation* for your specific circumstances at this specific time is to put your money in an Aspiration Summit Account purely because it has 1% APY (which is the highest interest rate I'm currently aware of) and is FDIC insured. I am not affiliated with Aspiration. I would then suggest talking to someone at Vanguard or Fidelity about your investment options. Be clear about your expectations and don't be afraid to simply walk away if you don't like the advice you receive. I am not affiliated with Vanguard or Fidelity. * I am not a lawyer, fiduciary, or even a person with a degree in finances. For all you know I'm a dog on the internet.\"",
"qid": 10639,
"docid": "163353",
"rank": 1,
"score": 111165
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The standard low-risk/gain very-short-term parking spot these days tends to be a money market account. However, you have only mentioned stock. For good balance, your portfolio should consider the bond market too. Consider adding a bond index fund to diversify the basic mix, taking up much of that 40%. This will also help stabilize your risk since bonds tend to move opposite stocks (prperhaps just because everyone else is also using them as the main alternative, though there are theoretical arguments why this should be so.) Eventually you may want to add a small amount of REIT fund to be mix, but that's back on the higher risk side. (By the way: Trying to guess when the next correction will occur is usually not a winning strategy; guesses tend to go wrong as often as they go right, even for pros. Rather than attempting to \"\"time the market\"\", pick a strategic mix of investments and rebalance periodically to maintain those ratios. There has been debate here about \"\"dollar-cost averaging\"\" -- see other answers -- but that idea may argue for investing and rebalancing in more small chunks rather than a few large ones. I generally actively rebalance once a year or so, and between those times let maintainng the balance suggest which fund(s) new money should go into -- minimal effort and it has worked quite well enough.,)\"",
"qid": 10639,
"docid": "551719",
"rank": 2,
"score": 95044
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The best option for maximizing your money long-term is to contribute to the 401(k) offered by your employer. If you park your inheritance in a savings account you can draw on it to augment your income while you max out your contributions to the 401(k). You will get whatever the employer matches right off the bat and your gains are tax deferred. In essence you will be putting your inheritance into the 401(k) and forcing your employer to match at whatever rate they do. So if your employer matches at 50 cents on the dollar you will turn your 50 thousand into 75 thousand.",
"qid": 10639,
"docid": "171196",
"rank": 3,
"score": 93899
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Both have merits, Korea can plan long term for their families inheritance, the west needs to make massive gains every year short term and if the choice is screw the consumer or build loyalty. They are legally required to do the former. I wish there were no corporations, limited companies only. The corporation is nothing like it was legally allowed to be.",
"qid": 10639,
"docid": "289326",
"rank": 4,
"score": 89732
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The safest investment in the United States is Treasures. The Federal Reserve just increased the short term rate for the first time in about seven years. But the banks are under no obligation to increase the rate they pay. So you (or rather they) can loan money directly to the United States Government by buying Bills, Notes, or Bonds. To do this you set up an account with Treasury Direct. You print off a form (available at the website) and take the filled out form to the bank. At the bank their identity and citizenship will be verified and the bank will complete the form. The form is then mailed into Treasury Direct. There are at least two investments you can make at Treasury Direct that guarantee a rate of return better than the inflation rate. They are I-series bonds and Treasury Inflation Protected Securities (TIPS). Personally, I prefer the I-series bonds to TIPS. Here is a link to the Treasury Direct website for information on I-series bonds. this link takes you to information on TIPS. Edit: To the best of my understanding, the Federal Reserve has no ability to set the rate for notes and bonds. It is my understanding that they can only directly control the overnight rate. Which is the rate the banks get for parking their money with the Fed overnight. I believe that the rates for longer term instruments are set by the market and are not mandated by the Fed (or anyone else in government). It is only by indirect influence that the Fed tries to change long term rates.",
"qid": 10639,
"docid": "244115",
"rank": 5,
"score": 87413
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you want to invest in stocks, bonds and mutual funds I would suggest you take a portion of your inheritance and use it to learn how to invest in this asset class wisely. Take courses on investing and trading (two different things) in paper assets and start trading on a fantasy exchange to test and hone your investment skills before risking any of your money. Personally I don't find bonds to have a meaningful rate of return and I prefer stocks that have a dividend over those that don't. Parking some of your money in an IRA is a good strategy for when you do not see opportunities to purchase cashflow-positive assets right away; this allows you to wait and deploy your capital when the opportunity presents itself and to educate yourself on what a good opportunity looks like.",
"qid": 10639,
"docid": "163197",
"rank": 6,
"score": 87177
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: There are two very small catches. You have just increased your available credit. In some cases when you want to make a loan, they will check your available credit against your creditworthiness (your income and credit history). In the short term with a greater credit limit, you may have more difficulty getting a large loan. On the other hand, your greater credit limit will make you seem more creditworthy (as you have been walking around with the ability to borrow a whole pile and demonstrated the ability to not go bankrupt). The other possible catch is that if something goes wrong and your credit line is maxed (maybe you have a psychotic episode; maybe you give your credit card and pin number to someone who buys a car on you), your liability is larger. If you can maintain spending discipline and don't need every ounce of credit head room right now, neither of these apply. In the medium to long term, a lower credit utilization and a higher total limit will make you more creditworthy.",
"qid": 10639,
"docid": "263999",
"rank": 7,
"score": 83292
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If the company that owns the lot is selling them it is doing so because it feels it will make more money doing so. You need to read carefully what it is you are getting and what the guarantees are from the owner of the property and the parking structure. I have heard from friends in Chicago that said there are people who will sell spaces they do not own as a scam. There are also companies that declare bankruptcy and go out of business after signing long term leases for their spots. They sell the lot to another company(which they have an interest in) and all the leases that they sold are now void so they can resell the spots. Because of this if I were going to invest in a parking space, I would make sure: The company making the offer is reputable and solvent Check for plans for major construction/demolition nearby that would impact your short and long term prospects for rent. Full time Rental would Recoup my investment in less than 5 years. Preferably 3 years. The risk on this is too high for me with out that kind of return.",
"qid": 10639,
"docid": "235628",
"rank": 8,
"score": 78281
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: This all depends on your timeline and net worth. If you're short on time before you plan to start spending it or have a large net worth, parking some of your money in CDs is a good idea. If you have lots of time or not much net worth, then index funds are a better bet. Equity or dividend index funds are the way to go when you have 10+ years before you reach your goal. CDs major downside is that they don't beat inflation 1 - 3% a year. This is why you only use them when it's absolutely critical you hold onto every penny of the principal. The reason is because with CDs your 10k is actually losing its value (not the principal) the longer you leave it in CDs. I generally wouldn't recommend CDs unless you are in or approaching your 60s or have assets over 500k. Even still I would limit the use of CDs to no more than 20%. I would view them as catastrophic loss protection.",
"qid": 10639,
"docid": "159725",
"rank": 9,
"score": 78250
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Really this is no different from any kind of large lump sum and having a mortgage. There are probably many questions and answers on this subject. It really doesn't matter that the proceeds were the result of a sale, an inheritance would not change the answer. I think it is important to note that the proceeds will not eliminate the house 2 mortgage. A high level choice of investment one makes is between equity (such as stock) and debt investments (such as bonds and mortgages). You are in a unique case of being able to invest in your own mortgage with no investment fee. This may tip the scales in favor of paying down the mortgage. It is difficult to answer in your specific case as we don't know the rest of your finances. Do you have a sizable 401K that is heavily invested in stocks? Do you have the need for a college fund? Do you have an emergency fund? Do you have a desire to own several homes generating income property? If it was me I'd do the following in order, skipping steps I may have already completed: I've heard that the bank may agree to a \"\"one time adjustment\"\" to lower the payments on Mortgage #2 because of paying a very large payment. Is this something that really happens? I really kind of hate this attitude. Your goal is to get rid of the mortgage in a timely manner. Doing such makes paying for kids college a snap, reduces the income one might need in retirement, basically eliminates the need for life insurance, and gives one a whole lot of money to have fun with.\"",
"qid": 10639,
"docid": "488638",
"rank": 10,
"score": 77061
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Never invest money you need in the short term. As already suggested, park your money in CDs.",
"qid": 10639,
"docid": "450228",
"rank": 11,
"score": 75756
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: For now, park it in a mix of cash and short term bond funds like the Vanguard Short Term Investment Grade fund. The short term fund will help with the inflation issue. Make sure the cash positions are FDIC insured. Then either educate yourself about investing or start interviewing potential advisors. Look for referrals, and stay away from people peddling annuities or people who will not fully disclose how they get paid. Your goal should be to have a long-term plan within 6-12 months.",
"qid": 10639,
"docid": "7625",
"rank": 12,
"score": 75512
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: In the short term the market is a popularity contest In the short run which in value investing time can extend even to many years, an equity is subject to the vicissitudes of the whims by every scale of panic and elation. This can be seen by examining the daily chart of any large cap equity in the US. Even such large holdings can be affected by any set of fear and greed in the market and in the subset of traders trading the equity. Quantitatively, this statement means that equities experience high variance in the short rurn. in the long term [the stock market] is a weighing machine In the long run which in value investing time can extend to even multiple decades, an equity is more or less subject only to the variance of the underlying value. This can be seen by examining the annual chart of even the smallest cap equities over decades. An equity over such time periods is almost exclusively affected by its changes in value. Quantitatively, this statement means that equities experience low variance in the long run.",
"qid": 10639,
"docid": "79111",
"rank": 13,
"score": 74559
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The car has value, but it is still a depreciating asset. You're paying far more to rent a space to park the car than you are to own and drive it if you look beyond the initial term of your loan. You could buy a space to keep the car, but at $225,000 for a permanent spot, renting is a much better deal. Would you travel home as frequently if you didn't have the fixed cost of a parking space rental giving you incentive to make the most of the car since you're paying for it either way? My additional question is whether the freedom to travel home on a whim is worth more than the financial freedom you would gain by investing the money for the long term. I don't think it's irresponsible if the short term freedom contributes significantly to your sense of well-being, but even if it isn't entirely sunk cost, the majority of it is. The only way you can really know whether it's worth it to you would be to park the car at home for a month or two to see if you can live without it. Fortunately you don't lose much money in this experiment, since you're only paying 1.9% interest.",
"qid": 10639,
"docid": "111048",
"rank": 14,
"score": 72517
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Warren Buffett: 'Investing Advice For You--And My Wife' (And Other Quotes Of The Week): What I advise here is essentially identical to certain instructions I’ve laid out in my will. One bequest provides that cash will be delivered to a trustee for my wife’s benefit…My advice to the trustee could not be more simple: Put 10% of the cash in short-term government bonds and 90% in a very low-cost S&P 500 index fund. (I suggest Vanguard’s.) I believe the trust’s long-term results from this policy will be superior to those attained by most investors… Similarly from Will Warren Buffett's investment advice work for you?: Specifically, Buffett wants the trustee of his estate to put 10 percent of his wife's cash inheritance in short-term government bonds and 90 percent in a low-cost S&P index fund - and he tips his hat specifically to Bogle's Vanguard in doing so. Says Buffett: \"\"I believe the trust's long-term results from this policy will be superior to those attained by most investors - whether pension funds, institutions or individuals.\"\"\"",
"qid": 10639,
"docid": "590276",
"rank": 15,
"score": 71114
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Of course, you've already realized that some of that is that smaller estates are more common than larger estates. But it seems unlikely that there are four times as many estates between $10 and $11 million as above that range. People who expect to die with an estate subject to inheritance tax tend to prepare. I don't know how common it is, but if the surviving member of a couple remarries, then the new spouse gets a separate exemption. And of course spouses inherit from spouses without tax. In theory this could last indefinitely. In practice, it is less likely. But if a married couple has $20 million, the first spouse could leave $15 million to the second and $5 million to other heirs. The second spouse could leave $10 million to a third spouse (after remarrying) and another $5 million to children with the first spouse. All without triggering the estate tax. People can put some of their estate into a trust. This can allow the heirs to continue to control the money while not paying inheritance tax. Supposedly Ford (of Ford Motor Company) took that route. Another common strategy is to give the maximum without gift tax each year. That's at least $14k per donor and recipient per year. So a married couple with two kids can transfer $56k per year. Plus $56k for the kids' spouses. And if there are four grandchildren, that's another $112k. Great-grandchildren count too. That's more than a million every five years. So given ten years to prepare, parents can transfer $2 million out of the estate and to the heirs without tax. Consider the case of two wealthy siblings. They've each maxed out their gifts to their own heirs. So they agree to max out their gifts to their sibling's heirs. This effectively doubles the transfer amount without tax implication. Also realize that they can pretransfer assets at the current market rate. So if a rich person has an asset that is currently undervalued, it may make sense to transfer it immediately as a gift. This will use up some of the estate exemption. But if you're going to transfer the asset eventually, you might as well do so when the value is optimal for your purpose. These are just the easy things to do. If someone wants, they can do more complicated things that make it harder for the IRS to track value. For example, the Bezos family invested in Amazon.com when Jeff Bezos was starting it. As a result, his company could survive capital losses that another company might not. The effect of this was to make him fabulously rich and his parents richer than they were. But he won't pay inheritance tax until his parents actually transfer the estate to him (and I believe they actually put it in a charitable trust). If his company had failed instead, he still would have been supported by the capital provided by his parents while it was open (e.g. his salary). But he wouldn't have paid inheritance tax on it. There are other examples of the same pattern: Fred Smith of FedEx; Donald Trump; Bill Gates of Microsoft; etc. The prime value of the estate was not in its transfer, but in working together while alive or through a family trust. The child's company became much more valuable as a result of a parent's wealth. And in two of those examples, the child was so successful that the parent became richer as a result. So the parent's estate does count. Meanwhile, another company might fail, leaving the estate below the threshold despite a great deal of parental support. And those aren't even fiddles. Those children started real companies and offered their parents real investment opportunities. A family that wants to do so can do a lot more with arrangements. Of course, the IRS may be looking for some of them. The point being that the estate might be more than $11 million earlier, but the parents can find ways to reduce it below the inheritance tax exemption by the time that they die.",
"qid": 10639,
"docid": "405115",
"rank": 16,
"score": 70845
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"If you live and work in the euro-zone, then even after a \"\"crash\"\" all of your income and most of your expenses will still be in euros. The only portion of your worth you need to worry about protecting is the portion you intend to spend on goods from outside the euro-zone (i.e. imports). In that case, you may want to consider parking some of your money in short-term government bonds issued by other countries, such as the UK, Switzerland, and USA (or wherever else your favorite goods tend to come from). If the euro actually \"\"massively devalues\"\" (an extremely unlikely scenario), then you can expect foreign goods to cost a lot more than they do now. Inflation might also pick up, so you might also want to purchase some OATis.\"",
"qid": 10639,
"docid": "110624",
"rank": 17,
"score": 69866
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: ParkAir Meet and Greet collects your vehicle at the London Heathrow Terminal 2 Short Stay Car Park Level 2 Zone A and B (Off airport parking bays are marked in black and white board). After handing in your vehicle to our Valet all you have to do is to make the less than 2 mins walk straight into the Depature Terminal to Check In.",
"qid": 10639,
"docid": "340723",
"rank": 18,
"score": 69666
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"No, it doesn't look like you can use the employee benefit to pay for parking near your home. The definition for \"\"qualified parking\"\" is in the Internal Revenue Code Section 132 (\"\"Certain Fringe Benefits\"\") (f) (5) (c): (C) Qualified parking The term “qualified parking” means parking provided to an employee on or near the business premises of the employer or on or near a location from which the employee commutes to work by transportation described in subparagraph (A), in a commuter highway vehicle, or by carpool. Such term shall not include any parking on or near property used by the employee for residential purposes. Parking near your home is explicitly excluded. Your employer's human resources department can probably provide information on the details of where you can park and get reimbursement.\"",
"qid": 10639,
"docid": "178386",
"rank": 19,
"score": 69632
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"As you're saving up for an expenditure instead of investing for the long run, I would stay away from any sort of \"\"parking facility\"\" where you run the risk of not having the principal protected. The riskier investments that would potentially generate a bigger return also carry a bigger downside, ie you might not be able to get the money back that you put in. I'd shop around for a CD or a MMA/regular savings account with a half-decent interest rate. And yes, I'm aware that the return you might get is probably still less than inflation.\"",
"qid": 10639,
"docid": "425479",
"rank": 20,
"score": 69102
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Is this an inheritance (tax-free) or is it taxable income from a large project? I won't argue with knocking out the student loan, it's a monthly payment that's nice to get rid of. You make no mention of your age or your current retirement assets. Call me boring, but if I were handed $100K it would simply be added to the mix. A conservative withdrawal rate of 4%/yr, means that $100K to me is really a $4K annual income. That makes it seem like far less of a windfall, I know. The problem I see in your question is that there's an inclination to 'do something' with it all. You've already trimmed it down to $40,000. As a freelancer with income that's probably not steady why not just start to put it aside for the long term. In good income years, a pretax account, in low income years, use a Roth IRA. As littleadv asks - what are your plans if any to buy a house? $40K may not even be a full downpayment.",
"qid": 10639,
"docid": "441260",
"rank": 21,
"score": 68964
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"What you're asking for is a short-term, large return investment. When looking for big returns in a short period of time, risk is inevitable. The more risk you are willing to assume, the higher your potential returns. Of course, the flip is is that the higher your risk, the higher the potential to lose all your money! Since this is an exercise for school (and not real money and not your life savings) your best bet is to \"\"go big or go home\"\". You can safely assume 100% risk! Don't look for value stocks, dividend stocks, or anything that pays a steady return over a long period of time. Instead, look for something risky that has the potential of going up, up, up in the next few months. Are you allowed to trade options in your fake portfolio? Options can have big risk and big reward potential. Penny stocks are super volatile, too. Do some research, look for a fad. In other words, you will most likely lose it all. But you get a little lucky, you could win this thing outright by making some risky investments. A 5% chance of winning $3000 vs 95% of going broke may be pretty good odds if everyone else is value investing for just a few months. You will need to get lucky. Go big or go home!\"",
"qid": 10639,
"docid": "102029",
"rank": 22,
"score": 67330
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Like Dheer said, the demand for shorter term money is greater than for longer term money, precisely because the banks don't want to have to pay big interest rates for long periods. Banks borrow short term and lend long term - so they take money from you for one year, and lend it away as a 20 year mortgage. After a year, they take money for another year. Since short term rates tend to be higher than longer term rates, they make money off the \"\"spread\"\" (or the different between the rate they lend and the rate they borrow). In this scenario, banks should pay higher for longer term deposits, but overall banks realize that interest rates will go up and down, and they don't want to lock the \"\"up\"\" for a longer term. Since banks believe that rates will come down in the 1-2 year period, they offer good rates only till the 1 year period and disincentivize longer term deposits by offering lower rates. If you look at the interbank or money markets, trading of very short term bulk money shows that for the 10-15 day periods, the interest rates being offered are 10% or so, while for one year it's just 9.5%. The market believes that interest rates will go down in the one year time frame - but you never really know since this is just a bunch of people that believe so. Eventually, if rates continue to go up, the demand at the longer term will also go up, because it will become obvious that the rate pressure continues to be strong. If you do want higher rates for the long term, check out State bank of India bonds that are currently trading on the NSE (you can buy them if you have a brokerage account) They are just about as safe as SBI Fixed Deposits, and the rate being offered is around 9.3%, for a 10-15 year term. Hope that helps!\"",
"qid": 10639,
"docid": "131635",
"rank": 23,
"score": 66211
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Plenty of good answers here, but probably the best answer is that The Market relies on suckers...er...investors like you. The money has to come from somewhere, it might as well be you. So-called \"\"day traders\"\" or \"\"short-term investors\"\" are a huge part of the market, and they perform a vital function: they provide capital that flows to the large, well-equipped, institutional investors. Thing is, you can never be big enough, smart enough, well-informed enough, or quick enough to beat the big guys. You may have a run of good fortune, but over the long term aggregate, you're a PAYOR into the market, not a DIVIDEND reaper.\"",
"qid": 10639,
"docid": "22026",
"rank": 24,
"score": 65982
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"You can't short a stock unless there is someone willing and able to \"\"lend\"\" shares to you. And there are several reasons why that might not be the case. First, BSFT is a \"\"new\"\" stock, which means that NO ONE has held it very long. It's much easier to short IBM or Exxon Mobil, where there are some long-term holders who would like to earn a little extra money lending you THEIR shares. But if \"\"everyone\"\" involved is busy buying or selling the stock, there won't be many people to lend it. That's not manipulation, that's just the market. Another reason may be a large \"\"short\"\" interest. That is many OTHERS have shorted it before you. That's dangerous for you, because if some lenders want to pull their shares off the market, they can cause a \"\"short squeeze\"\" that will drive the price much higher. And stock shortages can be orchestrated by the company or large investors to artificially drive the price higher. Unless you have a lot of experience, don't try shorting small cap stocks. Try to gain some experience with large caps like IBM or Exxon Mobil first. Those are stocks that people at least can't \"\"play games\"\" with. YOu will win or lose based on the market itself.\"",
"qid": 10639,
"docid": "114214",
"rank": 25,
"score": 65632
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The financially best choice depends on which has a lower interest rate and what your other debts are. If you have significant other debts with a higher interest rate, it may make good sense to sign up for the longer-term loan and use your extra money to pay those down first. Then pay down your mortgage with large payments. If you don't have significant other debts, then it is likely a good idea to take a shorter term loan because those tend to have lower interest rates. In either case, remember that the required loan payments are the minimum payments. You can always pay more, and in many cases you should. The objective here is to pay as little interest over the course of your life as is feasible. I don't think it makes too much sense to gamble on whether or not interest rates will rise in the future. They may or may not over the life of your loan and you are not in a position to know which. They are low now, so they can be compared to your existing loans usefully. That is enough information to make rational decisions today.",
"qid": 10639,
"docid": "356669",
"rank": 26,
"score": 65259
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Considering that they are paying non-waitstaff 2.13/hr is a pretty good indication that they are looking at the (short term) bottom line, employee satisfaction (and service) be-damned. While pushing people to part-time status might not have been 'in the parking lot', I'd be willing to bet that cutting costs in any legal manner possible is probably right in the decision maker's wheelhouse. This approach can make a lot of sense...if you aren't in the service industry.",
"qid": 10639,
"docid": "474007",
"rank": 27,
"score": 64912
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: There is no inheritance tax on federal level there may be a tax at the state level. Inheritance taxes are different from estate taxes which effect the money that you would be inheriting before you receive it.",
"qid": 10639,
"docid": "361602",
"rank": 28,
"score": 64366
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I think, the top three answers by Joe, Anthony and Bigh are giving you all the detail that you need on a technical sense. Although I would like to add a simple picture that underlines, that you can not really compare day trading to long-term trading and that the addictive and psychologic aspect that you mentioned can not be taken out of consideration. The long term investor is like someone buying a house for investment. You carefully look at all offers on the market. You choose by many factors, price, location, quality, environment, neighborhood and extras. After a long research, you pick your favorites and give them a closer look until you finally choose the object of desire, which will pay off in 10 years and will be a wise investment in your future. Now this sounds like a careful but smart person, who knows what he wants and has enough patience to have his earnings in the future. The short term investor is like someone running into the casino for a game of black-jack, roulette or poker. He is a person that thinks he has found the one and only formula, the philosopher's stone, the money-press and is seeking immense profits in just one night. And if it does not work, he is sure, that this was just bad coincidence and that his \"\"formula\"\" is correct and will work the next night. This person is a pure gambler and running the risk of becoming addicted. He is seeking quick and massive profits and does not give up, even though he knows, that the chances of becoming a millionaire in a casino are quite unrealistic and not better than playing in a lottery. So if you are a gamer, and the profit is less important than the \"\"fun\"\", then short term is the thing for you. If you are not necessarily seeking tons of millions, but just want to keep your risk of loss to a minimum, then long term is your way to go. So it is a question of personality, expectations and priorities. The answer why losses are bigger on high frequency signals is answered elsewhere. But I am convinced in reality it is a question of what you want and therefore very subjective. I have worked for both. I have worked for a portfolio company that has gone through periods of ups and downs, but on the long term has made a very tempting profit, which made me regret, that I did not ask for shares instead of money as payment. These people are very calm and intelligent people. They spend all their time investigating and searching for interesting objects for their portfolio and replace losers with winners. They are working for your money and investors just relax and wait. This has a very serious taste to it and I for my part would always prefer this form of investment. I have worked for an investment broker selling futures. I programmed the account management for their customers and in all those years I have only seen one customer that made the million. But tons of customers that had made huge losses. And this company was very emotional, harsh, unpersonal - employees changing day by day, top sellers coming in corvettes. All the people working there where gamblers, just like their customers. Well, it ended one day, when the police came and confiscated all computers from them, because customers have complained about their huge losses. I am glad, that I worked as a remote developer for them and got paid in money and not in options. So both worlds are so different from each other. The chances for bigger profits are higher on day trading, but so are the chances for bigger losses - so it is pure gambling. If you like gambling, split your investment: half in long term and other half in short term, that is fun and wise in one. But one thing is for sure: in over ten years, I have seen many customers loosing loads of money in options in the future markets or currencies. But I have never seen anyone making a loss in long term portfolio investment. There have been hard years, where the value dropped almost 30%, but that was caught up by the following years, so that the only risk was minimizing the profit.\"",
"qid": 10639,
"docid": "162420",
"rank": 29,
"score": 64094
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Shorting is the term used when someone borrows a stock and sells it at the current price to then buy it back later at hopefully a lower price. There are rules about this as noted in the link that begins this answer as there are risks to selling a stock you don't own of course. If you look up various large companies you may find that there are millions of shares sold short throughout the market as someone does have the shares and they will need to be put back eventually.",
"qid": 10639,
"docid": "409350",
"rank": 30,
"score": 63944
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: theoretically this concept makes sense. However as recent numbers have shown ( I do not have the source handy but one can simply obtain this information via the ECB's website) banks have tapped this LTRO, something in the likes of 500 billion or so, and instead of buying Sovereign debt, they instead prefer to park this money with the ECB, paying something like 25 bps on deposits. so instead of using this LTRO money to buy Sovereigns or perhaps lend to other banks, easing the strain on LIBOR, banks have just parked this money back with the ECB, as the ECB has seen its deposits once again reach record amounts (again, see the ECB website for proof). Just this speaks volumes about the LTRO carry trade and how it is evidently not going to achieve its long term goal of bringing spreads down in Europe. Perhaps in the short run yes, but if you look at the fundamentals (EURUSD, the EUR Basis Swap and the OIS-LIBOR Spread) they show how the situation in Europe is far from over, and the LTRO is nothing close to a long term and stable solution",
"qid": 10639,
"docid": "228116",
"rank": 31,
"score": 63741
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"First it is worth noting the two sided nature of the contracts (long one currency/short a second) make leverage in currencies over a diverse set of clients generally less of a problem. In equities, since most margin investors are long \"\"equities\"\" making it more likely that large margin calls will all be made at the same time. Also, it's worth noting that high-frequency traders often highly levered make up a large portion of all volume in all liquid markets ~70% in equity markets for instance. Would you call that grossly artificial? What is that volume number really telling us anyway in that case? The major players holding long-term positions in the FX markets are large banks (non-investment arm), central banks and corporations and unlike equity markets which can nearly slow to a trickle currency markets need to keep trading just for many of those corporations/banks to do business. This kind of depth allows these brokers to even consider offering 400-to-1 leverage. I'm not suggesting that it is a good idea for these brokers, but the liquidity in currency markets is much deeper than their costumers.\"",
"qid": 10639,
"docid": "429704",
"rank": 32,
"score": 63739
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"short answer: any long term financial planning (~10yrs+). e.g. mortgage and retirement planning. long answer: inflation doesn't really matter in short time frames. on any given day, you might get a rent hike, or a raise, or the grocery store might have a sale. inflation is really only relevant over the long term. annual inflation is tiny (2~4%) compared to large unexpected expenses(5-10%). however, over 10 years, even your \"\"large unexpected expenses\"\" will still average out to a small fraction of your spending (5~10%) compared to the impact of compounded inflation (30~40%). inflation is really critical when you are trying to plan for retirement, which you should start doing when you get your first job. when making long-term projections, you need to consider not only your expected nominal rate of investment return (e.g. 7%) but also subtract the expected rate of inflation (e.g. 3%). alternatively, you can add the inflation rate to your projected spending (being sure to compound year-over-year). when projecting your income 10+ years out, you can use inflation to estimate your annual raises. up to age 30, people tend to get raises that exceed inflation. thereafter, they tend to track inflation. if you ever decide to buy a house, you need to consider the impact of inflation when calculating the total cost over a 30-yr mortgage. generally, you can expect your house to appreciate over 30 years in line with inflation (possibly more in an urban area). so a simple mortgage projection needs to account for interest, inflation, maintenance, insurance and closing costs. you could also consider inflation for things like rent and income, but only over several years. generally, rent and income are such large amounts of money it is worth your time to research specific alternatives rather than just guessing what market rates are this year based on average inflation. while it is true that rent and wages go up in line with inflation in the long run, you can make a lot of money in the short run if you keep an eye on market rates every year. over 10-20 years your personal rate of inflation should be very close to the average rate when you consider all your spending (housing, food, energy, clothing, etc.).\"",
"qid": 10639,
"docid": "424220",
"rank": 33,
"score": 63534
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"There is no zero risk option! There is no safe parking zone for turbulent times! There is no such thing as a zero-risk investment. You would do well to get this out of your head now. Cash, though it will retain its principle over time, will always be subject to inflation risk (assuming a positive-inflation environment which, historically in the US anyway, has always been the case since the Great Depression). But I couldn't find a \"\"Pure Cash - No investment option\"\" - what I mean by this is an option where my money is kept idle without investing in any kind of financial instrument (stocks, bonds, other MFs, currencies, forex etc etc whatever). Getting back to the real crux of your question, several other answers have already highlighted that you're looking for a money market fund. These will likely be as close to cash as you will get in a retirement account for the reasons listed in @KentA's answer. Investing in short-term notes would also be another relatively low-risk alternative to a money market fund. Again, this is low-risk, not no-risk. I wanted such kinda option because things may turn bad and I may want nothing invested in the stock markets/bond markets. I was thinking that if the market turns bear then I would move everything to cash Unless you have a the innate ability to perfectly time the market, you are better off keeping your investments where they are and riding out the bear market. Cash does not generate dividends - most funds in a retirement account do. Sure, you may have a paper loss of principle in a bear market, but this will go away once the market turns bull again. Assuming you have a fairly long time before you retire, this should not concern you in the slightest. Again, I want to stress that market timing does not work. Even the professionals, who get paid the big bucks to do this, on average, get it right as often as they get it wrong. If you had this ability, you would not be asking financial questions on Stack Exchange, I can tell you that. I would recommend you read The Four Pillars of Investing, by William Bernstein. He has a very no-nonsense approach to investing and retirement that would serve you (or anybody) well in turbulent financial markets. His discussion on risk is especially applicable to your situation.\"",
"qid": 10639,
"docid": "437427",
"rank": 34,
"score": 63394
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I recently engaged in a dispute with a ski resort that was proposing several hotels (about 500 rooms) along with a new lodge, which will host conventions. I have a home (3 bedrooms) I rent on Airbnb located next to the resort and was a statutory party to their permit hearing. After all was said and done, I managed to take away approximately 250 parking spots, forcing them to build a parking garage. They were permitted for the new lodge, which they are building now, but not for the hotels. I will now be able to raise my rates as there will be a severe lack of short term housing to accommodate the new lodge.",
"qid": 10639,
"docid": "131391",
"rank": 35,
"score": 63205
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Over the long run, yeah I agree that that the technology consumers have and their real incomes have gone up. However, people don’t live their lives in the long run, their experiences are firmly centered in the short run. People marry, have children, move, start work, lose work, suffer health problems, divorce, homelessness all in the short run. When you zoom in from the long run view, life and individual fortunes seem a bit more dependent on luck and relative positioning than long run technological or economic trends. This is exacerbated by our political system where money seems to positively correlate with the ability to wield political power. Folks with political power can engineer changes that can improve their bottom line through zero sum political games (think taxes, regulation, etc) and maybe even turn a short run advantage (starting a successful business, generating wealth) into a longer run advantage (eliminating taxes on inheritance, potentially cementing family wealth for generations).",
"qid": 10639,
"docid": "279303",
"rank": 36,
"score": 63182
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Its pretty much always a positive to have large institutional investors. Here's a few cases where I can see an argument against large institutional investors: In recent years, we've seen corporate raiders and institutional investors that tend to influence management in ways that are focused on short term gain. They'll often go for board seats and disrupt the existing management team. It can serve as a distraction and really hurt morale. Institutional investors also have rules in their prospectus that they are required to abide by. For example, some institutional investors will not hold on to stock below $5. This really affected major banking stocks, some of which ended up doing reverse stock splits to keep their share price high. Institutional investors will also setup specific funds that require a stock to be listed as part of an index (i.e. the SPY, DJIA etc.,). When a stock is removed from an index, big investors leave quickly and the share price suffers. In recent months, companies like Apple have made their share price more affordable to attract retail investors. It gives an opportunity for retail to feel even more connected to the company. I'm not sure how much this affects overall sales... Generally, a good stock should be able to attract both retail and institutional investors. If there's not a good mix, then its usually a sign that somethings amiss.",
"qid": 10639,
"docid": "449500",
"rank": 37,
"score": 63035
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: > the west needs to make massive gains every year short term and if the choice is screw the consumer or build loyalty This isn't the fault of the system - it's a result of the dotcom creating irrational greed over capital gains. Once upon a time a company could be large and *not* have massive growth every year, so long as they had consistent profits. People bought their stock for the dividends, to share in the profits, and any capital gains were just gravy. The way the market is running now is a ponzi scheme - when a company has a billion shares valued at $50, you can never actually **get** $50B by selling the stock. As stock is sold, the price will drop - only the first people to sell get that price.",
"qid": 10639,
"docid": "400782",
"rank": 38,
"score": 62995
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Don't pay it, see a lawyer. Given your comment, it will depend on the jurisdiction on the passing of the house and the presence of a will or lack thereof. In some states all the assets will be inherited by your mom. Debts cannot be inherited; however, assets can be made to stand for debts. This is a tricky situation that is state dependent. In the end, with few assets and large credit card debt, the credit card companies are often left without payment. I would not pay the debt unless your lawyer specifically told you to do so. Sorry for your loss.",
"qid": 10639,
"docid": "264029",
"rank": 39,
"score": 62706
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you are looking at long-term investments then you can look to Dheer's answer and see that it doesn't matter whether the money is large or small, the return will be the same. When it comes to shorter-term investments, it can actually pay to be a smaller investor. Consider a stock that may not be trading in high volume. If I want to take a position for 2,000 shares, I can probably buy it quite quickly without moving the market considerably. If I was managing your hypothetical portfolio opening a position for 1,000,000 shares, it can cause the price to go up significantly because I have to execute the order very carefully in order to not tip my hand to the market that I want a million shares. Algorithmic traders will see the volume increasing on those shares and will raise their asking price. High speed traders and market makers will also cause a lot of purchasing overhead. Then later when it comes time to sell, I will lose a percentage to the price drop as I start flooding the market with available shares.",
"qid": 10639,
"docid": "546932",
"rank": 40,
"score": 62694
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: A parking lot is someone else's property. They get to decide whether you can park a mobile home or equivalent, and can demand you remove it at any time. Similarly, permission to charge an electric car us not permission to use power for anything else. And health codes will be applied to your housing, as will zoning laws, as will... Without permission you are just begging for trouble. With permission (which may involve paying rent for the space and paying for utilities) you're still likely to find this much more complicated, difficult, and expensive than it appears.",
"qid": 10639,
"docid": "157627",
"rank": 41,
"score": 62621
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: A more recent article on inheritance taxes than the one cited by @JohnBensin says that Maryland does not charge inheritance tax on inheritances received from parents (and other close relatives as well). Thus, there is no inheritance tax due to Maryland on your inheritance, and of course, estate tax (both Federal and State) is imposed on the estate and payable by the estate, and thus should have been taken into account by the executor before determining the amount to be divided among the children. If the executor screwed up on this point, some of the inheritance may have to be returned to the estate so that the estate can pay the taxes due, or be paid directly to the Federal Government and/or the State of Maryland on behalf of the estate. Some part of the inheritance might be taxable income to you if it came in the form of an Inherited IRA on which Federal (and possibly State) taxes have to paid on the (taxable part of) any distribution from the IRA including the Required Minimum Distribution that must be made from the IRA each year. (There is also a 50% penalty for not taking at least the RMD each year). Note that the value of the IRA is not taxable income in the year of inheritance, just the money taken as a distribution. Some people liquidate the IRA within 5 years, as used to be required for non-spouse inheritors under earlier tax law, and thus end up paying a lot more income tax than they would have to pay if they went the RMD route. If your uncle took the help of a lawyer in winding up your father's estate, you are probably OK in that all the rules were likely followed, but if it was a do-it-yourself job (or you don't trust your uncle not to screw it up anyway!), then, as John Bensin has already told you, you should certainly consult a tax professional in Maryland to make sure you don't run afoul of tax authorities.",
"qid": 10639,
"docid": "438874",
"rank": 42,
"score": 62463
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"When you say \"\"apartment\"\" I take it you mean \"\"condo\"\", as you're talking about buying. Right or no? A condo is generally cheaper to buy than a house of equal size and coondition, but they you have to pay condo fees forever. So you're paying less up front but you have an ongoing expense. With a condo, the condo association normally does exterior maintenance, so it's not your problem. Find out exactly what's your responsibility and what's theirs, but you typically don't have to worry about maintaining the parking areas, you have less if any grass to mow, you don't have to deal with roof or outside walls, etc. Of course you're paying for all this through your condo fees. There are two advantages to getting a shorter term loan: Because you owe the money for less time, each percentage point of interest is less total cash. 1% time 15 years versus 1% times 30 years or whatever. Also, you can usually get a lower rate on a shorter term loan because there's less risk to the bank: they only have to worry about where interest rates might go for 15 years instead of 30 years. So even if you know that you will sell the house and pay off the loan in 10 years, you'll usually pay less with a 15 year loan than a 30 year loan because of the lower rate. The catch to a shorter-term loan is that the monthly payments are higher. If you can't afford the monthly payment, then any advantages are just hypothetical. Typically if you have less than a 20% down payment, you have to pay mortgage insurance. So if you can manage 20% down, do it, it saves you a bundle. Every extra dollar of down payment is that much less that you're paying in interest. You want to keep an emergency fund so I wouldn't put every spare dime I had into a down payment if I could avoid it, but you want the biggest down payment you can manage. (Well, one can debate whether its better to use spare cash to invest in the stock market or some other investment rather than paying down the mortgage. Whole different question.) \"\"I dont think its a good idea to make any principal payments as I would probably loose them when I would want to sell the house and pay off the mortgage\"\" I'm not sure what you're thinking there. Any extra principle payments that you make, you'll get back when you sell the house. I mean, suppose you buy a house for $100,000, over the time you own it you pay $30,000 in principle (between regular payments and any extra payments), and then you sell it for $120,000. So out of that $120,000 you'll have to pay off the $70,000 balance remaining on the loan, leaving $50,000 to pay other expenses and whatever is left goes in your pocket. Scenario 2, you buy the house for $100,000, pay $40,000 in principle, and sell for $120,000. So now you subtract $60,000 from the $120,000 leaving $60,000. You put in an extra $10,000, but you get it back when you sell. Whether you make or lose money on the house, whatever extra principle you put in, you'll get back at sale time in terms of less money that will have to go to pay the remaining principle on the mortgage.\"",
"qid": 10639,
"docid": "597376",
"rank": 43,
"score": 62437
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I have inherited property worth close to 1 million US Dollars. 1 Million USD is a large amount considering Bangladesh. Around 80 Million Taka; making someone with this amount amongst the high net worth individual. Check if this is not a scam as indicated in comments. What is the proper procedure for him to send me the money to US? As per Bangladesh Foreign Exchange Regulation Act; there are limitations to transfer of funds outside of Bangladesh. Read the detail guideline, section 11 Private Remittance is relevant. However your specific case is not detailed. A professional help is advised as there would be paperwork required. What are our legal and tax obligations? Tax obligations in US, as indicated by Michael in his answer.",
"qid": 10639,
"docid": "575636",
"rank": 44,
"score": 62331
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: There is no federal inheritance tax. The federal estate tax, currently, exempts the first 5.49 million (US citizen spouses even avoid this). Current law also does a stepped up basis on inherited assets which were bought with after tax money. Example: Dad bought a house years ago for 100k. He dies and leaves it to JJ along with other assets worth $100k (well below the federal estate tax level). JJ sells the house for $400k which was its market value on the day dad died. He gets to keep the entire $400k. Note: Current government wants to eliminate the estate tax AND the stepped up basis. In above case, JJ will now have $300k gains on the house sale and will pay income tax on that! He will end up with much less that $400k.",
"qid": 10639,
"docid": "6334",
"rank": 45,
"score": 62268
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: There are multiple ways of determining the value of an inherited property. If you aren't planning on selling it, then the best way would be to have a real estate agent do a comp on the property (or multiple real estate agents).",
"qid": 10639,
"docid": "344186",
"rank": 46,
"score": 61959
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Some of those could be bubbles since they violate price-rent metric. maybe or maybe not. People parking money is not necessarily a bubble if the money stays parked. I look at overseas real estate and some areas will never have prices anywhere near in line with incomes because they are global markets. locals couldn't dream to afford to own their own property.",
"qid": 10639,
"docid": "354283",
"rank": 47,
"score": 61915
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: It can be zero or negative given the current market conditions. Any money parked with treasury bonds is 100% risk free. So if I have a large amount of USD, and need a safe place to keep, then in today's environment even the banks (large as well) are at risk. So if I park my money with some large bank and that bank goes bankrupt, my money is gone for good. After a long drawn bankruptcy procedure, I may get back all of it or some of it. Even if the bank does not go bankrupt, it may face liquidity crises and I may not be able to withdraw when I want. Hence it's safer to keep it in Treasury bonds even though I may not gain any interest, or even lose a small amount of money. At least it will be very safe. Today there are very few options for large investors (typically governments and institutional investors.) The Euro is facing uncertainty. The Yuan is still regulated. There is not enough gold to buy (or to store it.) Hence this leads towards the USD. The very fact that USD is safe in today's environment is reflected in the Treasury rates.",
"qid": 10639,
"docid": "211026",
"rank": 48,
"score": 61913
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"1. Interest rates What you should know is that the longer the \"\"term\"\" of a bond fund, the more it will be affected by interest rates. So a short-term bond fund will not be subject to large gains or losses due to rate changes, an intermediate-term bond fund will be subject to moderate gains or losses, and a long-term bond fund will be subject to the largest gains or losses. When a book or financial planner says to buy \"\"bonds\"\" with no other qualification, they almost always mean investment-grade intermediate-term bond funds (or for individual bonds, the equivalent would be a bond ladder averaging an intermediate term). If you want technical details, look at the \"\"average duration\"\" or \"\"average maturity\"\" of the bond fund; as a rough guide, if the duration is 10, then a 1% change in interest rates would be a 10% gain or loss on the fund. Another thing you can do is look at long-term (10 years or ideally longer) performance history on some short, intermediate, and long term bond index funds, and you can see how the long term funds bounced around more. Non-investment-grade bonds (aka junk bonds or high yield bonds) are more affected by factors other than interest rates, including some of the same factors (economic booms or recessions) that affect stocks. As a result, they aren't as good for diversifying a portfolio that otherwise consists of stocks. (Having stocks, investment grade bonds, and also a little bit in high-yield bonds can add diversification, though. Just don't replace your bond allocation with high-yield bonds.) A variety of \"\"complicated\"\" bonds exist (convertible bonds are an example) and these are tough to analyze. There are also \"\"floating rate\"\" bonds (bank loan funds), these have minimal interest rate sensitivity because the rate goes up to offset rate rises. These funds still have credit risks, in the credit crisis some of them lost a lot of money. 2. Diversification The purpose of diversification is risk control. Your non-bond funds will outperform in many years, but in other years (say the -37% S&P 500 drop in 2008) they may not. You will not know in advance which year you'll get. You get risk control in at least a few ways. There's also an academic Modern Portfolio Theory explanation for why you should diversify among risky assets (aka stocks), something like: for a given desired risk/return ratio, it's better to leverage up a diverse portfolio than to use a non-diverse portfolio, because risk that can be eliminated through diversification is not compensated by increased returns. The theory also goes that you should choose your diversification between risk assets and the risk-free asset according to your risk tolerance (i.e. select the highest return with tolerable risk). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_portfolio_theory for excruciating detail. The translation of the MPT stuff to practical steps is typically, put as much in stock index funds as you can tolerate over your time horizon, and put the rest in (intermediate-term investment-grade) bond index funds. That's probably what your planner is asking you to do. My personal view, which is not the standard view, is that you should take as much risk as you need to take, not as much as you think you can tolerate: http://blog.ometer.com/2010/11/10/take-risks-in-life-for-savings-choose-a-balanced-fund/ But almost everyone else will say to do the 80/20 if you have decades to retirement and feel you can tolerate the risk, so my view that 60/40 is the max desirable allocation to stocks is not mainstream. Your planner's 80/20 advice is the standard advice. Before doing 100% stocks I'd give you at least a couple cautions: See also:\"",
"qid": 10639,
"docid": "599436",
"rank": 49,
"score": 61845
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Sorry, but you are the exception and not the rule -- and from your description of how stressful the parking and shopping experience is you must be in a large city. Maybe it makes sense in SF, I never lived there but having worked there it's a PIA to get around. $60/mo as added expense to isn't going to work for many. A large percentage of American grocery shoppers use coupons which indicates how price conscious they are and explains the failed adoption of these grocery delivery services. My grocery bill is $200/mo so a 30% convenience fee is ridiculous. Until they can bring cost parity for grocery delivery to the same as I can pickup in store I don't see any of this panning out.",
"qid": 10639,
"docid": "319283",
"rank": 50,
"score": 61696
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Lazy man's budget. Four separate accounts for timing of expenses: short (monthly; utilities etc.), medium (quarterly+; property taxes), long (yearly+; house improvements) and retirement. Set target levels for each account, to cover 1 full cycle. The short target is smallest; it should comfortably cover a month. For me each target is about 10x larger than the last. (Cycles & targets for a homeowner w/ family; YMMV). All income goes in short term. When an account gets above target level, the excess gets swept up to the next longer term account. That's all I keep firm track of; takes just a few minutes a month. Watching the account balances vs. their targets (and how short some of them are of target) keeps me focused on spending, and thinking about how much I can sweep (or can't) next paycheck.",
"qid": 10639,
"docid": "538410",
"rank": 51,
"score": 61376
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: To short a stock you actually borrow shares and sell them. The shorter gets the money from selling immediately, and pays interest for the share he borrows until he covers the short. The amount of interest varies depending on the stock. It's typically under 1% a year for large cap stocks, but can be 20% or more for small, illiquid, or heavily shorted stocks. In this scam only a few people own the shares that are lent to shorters, so they essentially have a monopoly and can set really high borrow costs. The shorter probably assumes that a pump-and-dump will crash quickly, so wouldn't mind paying a high borrow cost.",
"qid": 10639,
"docid": "501984",
"rank": 52,
"score": 61175
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I'm no proponent for wealth inheritance but the government taking it is no solution. Voluntary charity is which his children will most likely be doing. Doesn't matter if the money end up in the US or Asia though although personally I think Asia needs it more.",
"qid": 10639,
"docid": "301822",
"rank": 53,
"score": 61091
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Below is just a little information on short selling from my small unique book \"\"The small stock trader\"\": Short selling is an advanced stock trading tool with unique risks and rewards. It is primarily a short-term trading strategy of a technical nature, mostly done by small stock traders, market makers, and hedge funds. Most small stock traders mainly use short selling as a short-term speculation tool when they feel the stock price is a bit overvalued. Most long-term short positions are taken by fundamental-oriented long/short equity hedge funds that have identified some major weaknesses in the company. There a few things you should consider before shorting stocks: Despite all the mystique and blame surrounding short selling, especially during bear markets, I personally think regular short selling, not naked short selling, has a more positive impact on the stock market, as: Lastly, small stock traders should not expect to make significant profits by short selling, as even most of the great stock traders (Jesse Livermore, Bernard Baruch, Gerald Loeb, Nicolas Darvas, William O’Neil, and Steven Cohen,) have hardly made significant money from their shorts. it is safe to say that odds are stacked against short sellers. Over the last century or so, Western large caps have returned an annual average of between 8 and 10 percent while the returns of small caps have been slightly higher. I hope the above little information from my small unique book was a little helpful! Mika (author of \"\"The small stock trader\"\")\"",
"qid": 10639,
"docid": "459494",
"rank": 54,
"score": 60858
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: For safety. If something catastrophic happens to your bank and your money is in there you will lose any not covered by FDIC. So if you have a very large amount of money you will store it in bonds as its much less likely that the US treasury will go bankrupt than your bank. I also literally just posted this in another thread: Certain rules and regulations penalize companies or institutions for holding cash, so they are shifting to bonds and bills. Fidelity, for example, is completely converting its $100 billion dollar cash fund to short term bills. Its estimated that over $2 trillion that is now in cash may be converted to bills, and that will obviously put upward preasure on the price of them. The treasury is trying to issue more short term debt to balance out the demand. read more here: http://www.wsj.com/articles/money-funds-clamor-for-short-term-treasurys-1445300813",
"qid": 10639,
"docid": "406926",
"rank": 55,
"score": 60815
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The S&P top 5 - 401(k) usually comply with the DOL's suggestion to offer at least three distinct investment options with substantially different risk/return objectives. Typically a short term bond fund. Short term is a year or less and it will rarely have a negative year. A large cap fund, often the S&P index. A balanced fund, offering a mix. Last, the company's stock. This is a great way to put all your eggs in one basket, and when the company goes under, you have no job and no savings. My concern about your Microsoft remark is that you might not have the choice to manage you funds with such granularity. Will you get out of the S&P fund because you think this one stock or even one sector of the S&P is overvalued? And buy into what? The bond fund? If you have the skill to choose individual stocks, and the 401(k) doesn't offer a brokerage window (to trade on your own) then just invest your money outside the 401(k). But. If they offer a matching deposit, don't ignore that.",
"qid": 10639,
"docid": "194776",
"rank": 56,
"score": 60681
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: There can be Federal estate tax as well as State estate tax due on an estate, but it is not of direct concern to you. Estate taxes are paid by the estate of the decedent, not by the beneficiaries, and so you do not owe any estate tax. As a matter of fact, most estates in the US do not pay Federal estate tax at all because only the amount that exceeds the Federal exemption ($5.5M) is taxable, and most estates are smaller. State estate taxes might be a different matter because while many states exempt exactly what the Federal Government does, others exempt different (usually smaller) amounts. But in any case, estate taxes are not of concern to you except insofar as what you inherit is reduced because the estate had to pay estate tax before distributing the inheritances. As JoeTaxpayer's answer says more succinctly, what you inherit is net of estate tax, if any. What you receive as an inheritance is not taxable income to you either. If you receive stock shares or other property, your basis is the value of the property when you inherit it. Thus, if you sell at a later time, you will have to pay taxes only on the increase in the value of the property from the time you inherit it. The increase in value from the time the decedent acquired the property till the date of death is not taxable income to you. Exceptions to all these favorable rules to you is the treatment of Traditional IRAs, 401ks, pension plans etc that you inherit that contain money on which the decedent never paid income tax. Distributions from such inherited accounts are (mostly) taxable income to you; any part of post-tax money such as nondeductible contributions to Traditional IRAs that is included in the distribution is tax-free. Annuities present another source of complications. For annuities within IRAs, even the IRS throws up its hands at explaining things to mere mortals who are foolhardy enough to delve into Pub 950, saying in effect, talk to your tax advisor. For other annuities, questions arise such as is this a tax-deferred annuity and whether it was purchased with pre-tax money or with post-tax money, etc. One thing that you should check out is whether it is beneficial to take a lump sum distribution or just collect the money as it is distributed in monthly, quarterly, semi-annual, or annual payments. Annuities in particular have heavy surrender charges if they are terminated early and the money taken as a lump sum instead of over time as the insurance company issuing the annuity had planned on happening. So, taking a lump sum would mean more income tax immediately due not just on the lump sum but because the increase in AGI might reduce deductions for medical expenses as well as reduce the overall amount of itemized deductions that can be claimed, increase taxability of social security benefits, etc. You say that you have these angles sussed out, and so I will merely re-iterate Beware the surrender charges.",
"qid": 10639,
"docid": "17633",
"rank": 57,
"score": 60623
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: AS PER IRS PUBLICATION: Question: Is money received from the sale of inherited property considered taxable income? Answer: To determine if the sale of inherited property is taxable, you must first determine your basis in the property. The basis of property inherited from a decedent is generally one of the following: For information on the FMV of inherited property on the date of the decedent’s death, contact the executor of the decedent’s estate. Also, note that in 2015, Congress passed a new law that, under certain circumstances, requires an executor to provide a statement identifying the FMV of certain inherited property to the individual receiving that property. Check IRS.gov for updates on final rules being promulgated to implement the new law. If you or your spouse gave the property to the decedent within one year before the decedent's death, see Publication 551, Basis of Assets. Report the sale on Schedule D (Form 1040), Capital Gains and Losses, and on Form 8949, Sales and Other Dispositions of Capital Assets: Under the new law passed by Congress in 2015, an accuracy-related penalty may apply if an individual reporting the sale of certain inherited property uses a basis in excess of that property’s final value for federal estate tax purposes. Again, check IRS.gov for updates on final rules being promulgated to implement the new law. For estates of decedents who died in 2010, basis is generally determined as described above. However, the executor of a decedent who died in 2010 may elect out of the estate tax rules for 2010 and use the modified carryover of basis rules. Under this special election, the basis of property inherited from a decedent who died during 2010 is generally the lesser of: Under this special election for estates of decedents who died in 2010, the executor of the decedent’s estate may increase the basis of certain property that beneficiaries acquire from a decedent by up to $1.3 million (plus certain unused built-in losses and loss carryovers, if applicable), but the increased basis cannot exceed the FMV of the property at the date of the decedent’s death. The executor may also increase the basis of certain property that the surviving spouse acquires from a decedent by up to an additional $3 million, but the increased basis cannot exceed the FMV of the property at the date of the decedent’s death. The executor of the decedent’s estate is required to provide a statement to all heirs listing the decedent’s basis in the property, the FMV of the property on the date of the decedent’s death, and the additional basis allocated to the property. Contact the executor to determine what the basis of the asset is. Report the sale on Schedule D (Form 1040) and on Form 8949, as described above. Additional Information:",
"qid": 10639,
"docid": "360193",
"rank": 58,
"score": 60434
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Maryland is one of only two states (as of the writing of that article) that collects both inheritance tax and estate tax. These are two different issues, and it's important to differentiate between them sufficiently. I can't provide you a definitive answer, so consult a tax professional in Maryland for specific details to make sure you don't run afoul of tax authorities. This blog has a nice summary of the differences, as of 2012: The estate tax is assessable if more than one million dollars passes at death. The total dollar value of the property determines whether there is an estate tax. The inheritance tax is not dependent upon the value of the estate, as even very small estates can have inheritance tax imposed. Inheritance tax is assessed on property given to a person who is further removed in relationship than a sibling. Thus, for example, a 10% tax will be assessed on property passing to a cousin, niece, nephew or friend. Another section of the page states, as an example: If you give someone $10,000 in cash, the inheritance tax will simply reduce the amount inherited – in this case to $9,000. There are several other exemptions to the inheritance tax in addition to the immediate family exception discussed above: Property that passes from a decedent to or for the use of a grandparent, parent, spouse, child or other lineal descendant, spouse of a child or other lineal descendant, stepparent, stepchild, brother or sister of the decedent, or a corporation if all of its stockholders consist of the surviving spouse, parents, stepparents, stepchildren, brothers, sisters, and lineal descendants of the decedent and spouses of the lineal descendants. Putting this information together makes me think that the inheritance wouldn't be taxable in your case because it's a cash inheritance from an immediate family member, so it qualifies for one of the exemptions. Since I'm not a tax professional, however, I can't say that for sure. Hopefully these pages will give you enough of a foundation for when you talk to a professional.",
"qid": 10639,
"docid": "222030",
"rank": 59,
"score": 60426
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: From strictly a gross revenue point of view, the parking spot is going to yield a higher rate (5.4%) versus a 3% savings account, assuming you have it rented all year. Your break-even point (not considering other expenses) is 7-8 months of rent per year. So, what are things to consider? Here's a few to start with. The parking spot is a nice investment in that you get a decent return, and the potential for appreciation. The savings account/CD will give you a fixed return with no risk. To support your decision, make sure you understand all of the costs and understand all of the downside risk. If you're 50 and this is alot of money to you, be conservative. If you're 25 and have a good job, you can afford to chase the yield.",
"qid": 10639,
"docid": "305904",
"rank": 60,
"score": 60233
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I think you've made a perfectly valid suggestion, and, if your son is struggling somewhat financially now, one that may be very welcome. If you agree to forgive the debt at this time in lieu of a similar amount forgone in future inheritance, it will eliminate the never ending interest-only payments, free up $200+ a month for you son on a tight budget, and improve your own credit score once you pay off the credit line. It's also, in my opinion, a good idea to be open about this in advance with your other children heirs so that everyone will understand what is expected during the eventual probate. My paternal grandfather was the recipient of a great deal of financial largess from his wealthy mother during her life, and it was fully understood by him, her, and his siblings, that in exchange he would not share in her estate when she passed. He didn't, there were no problems, and he and his siblings stayed close for the rest of their lives.",
"qid": 10639,
"docid": "588197",
"rank": 61,
"score": 59938
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Step one: keep this information from friends and family, or ar least state a lower number when asked how much you inherited. It can be amazing how many old friends and family members come crawling out of the woodwork. I'm also a college student, so I dont have much experience under my belt to give you a \"\"good\"\" advice. All I can say is put it into liquid assets (if you decide to invest). I've had major car repairs and medical emergencies I never had to sweat because I could just pull a relarively large lump sum out. Or say \"\"fuck it\"\" and blow it on hookers and cocaine in Cancun. You're your own person. Good luck!\"",
"qid": 10639,
"docid": "318864",
"rank": 62,
"score": 59787
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Since the bondholders have voted to reject the emergency manager's plan, which would have paid them pennies on the dollar, the city is now attempting to discharge its short-term and long-term debt. If they get what they want in court, it is likely these bonds will become worthless. Even if they are only able to restructure the debt, its likely that bondholders will need to accept large concessions. However, this may not be immediately reflected in bond prices as it's very possible that the market for these bonds will be very limited in terms of who they could sell them to. If you were to buy them now , that would be a bet on some outcome other than bankruptcy and the discharge of the city's long-term obligations. President Obama has already stated that he monitoring the situation, and it seems unlikely to me that after all of the support given to the auto industry in the last several years that the federal government will do nothing, if only to avert job losses. However, I think it's likely that state aid will be limited at best, as Michigan's economy has been struggling for a number of years. There aren't many large precedents to look at for guidance. One of the largest public entities to declare bankruptcy, Orange County, was a very different situation because this was due to malfeasance on the part of its investment manager, whereas Detroit's situation is a much larger structural problem with its declining economy and tax base. I think the key question will be whether the Federal Government will consider a Detroit bankruptcy to be a large enough embarassment/failure to take significant action.",
"qid": 10639,
"docid": "488615",
"rank": 63,
"score": 59766
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I would encourage you to read The Warren Buffett Way. Its a short read and available from most libraries as an audio book. It should address most of the ignorance that your post displays. Short term prices, offered in the market, do not necessarily reflect the future value of a company. In the short term the market is a popularity contest, in the long run prices increases based on the performance of the company. How much free cash flow (and related metrics) does the company generate. You seem way overly concerned with short term price fluctuations and as such you are more speculating. Expecting a 10 bagger in 2-3 years is unrealistic. Has it happened, sure, but it is a rare thing. Most would be happy to have a 2 bagger in that time frame. If I was in your shoes I'd buy the stock, and watch it. Provided management meet my expectations and made good business decisions I would hold it and add to my position as I was able and the market was willing to sell me the company at a good price. It is good to look at index funds as a diversification. Assuming everything goes perfectly, in 2-3 years, you would have an extra 1K dollars. Big deal. How much money could you earn during that time period? Simply by working at a fairly humble job you should be able to earn between 60K and 90K during that time. If you stuck 10% of that income into a savings account you would be far better off (6K to 9K) then if this stock actually does double. Hopefully that gets you thinking. Staring out is about earning and saving/investing. Start building funds that can compound. Very early on, the rate of return (provided it is not negative) is very unimportant. The key is to get money to compound!",
"qid": 10639,
"docid": "245728",
"rank": 64,
"score": 59483
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"First, I'd recommend that you separate \"\"short-term\"\" assets from \"\"long-term\"\" assets in your head. Short-term assets are earmarked for spending on something specific in the near future or are part of your emergency fund. These should be kept in cash or short bond funds. Long-term assets are assets that you can take some risks with and aren't going to spend in the next few years. Under normal circumstances, I'd recommend 80% stocks/20% bonds or even 70/30 for someone your age, assuming you're saving mainly for retirement and thus have a correspondingly long time horizon. These portfolios historically are much less risky than 100% stock and only return slightly less. Right now, though, I think that anyone who doesn't absolutely need safety keep 100% of their long-term assets in stocks. I'm 26 and this is my asset allocation. Bond yields are absolutely pathetic by historical standards. Even ten year treasury yields are comparable to S&P 500 dividend yields and likely won't outperform inflation if held to maturity. The stock market is modestly undervalued when measured by difference between current P/E ratio and the historical average and more severely undervalued when you account for the effects of reduced inflation, transaction costs and capital gains taxes on fair valuation. Therefore, the potential reward for taking risk is much higher now than it usually is.\"",
"qid": 10639,
"docid": "386423",
"rank": 65,
"score": 59422
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Mortgages with a prepayment penalty usually do not charge points as a condition of issue. The points, usually in the range 1%-3% of the amount borrowed, are paid from the buyer's funds at the settlement, and are effectively the prepayment penalty. Once upon a time (e.g. 30 years ago), in some areas, buyers had a choice of This last option usually had a higher interest rate than the first two. It was advantageous for a buyer to accept this option if the buyer was sure that the mortgage would indeed be paid off in a short time, e.g. because a windfall of some kind (huge bonus, big inheritance, a killing in the stock market, a successful IPO) was anticipated, where the higher interest charged for only a few years did not make much of a difference. Taking this third option and hanging on to the mortgage over the full 15 or 20 or 25 or 30 year term would have been a very poor choice. I do not know if all three options are still available in the current mortgage market. The IRS treats points for original morttgages and points for re-financed mortgages differently for the purposes of Schedule A deductions. Points paid on an original mortgage are deductible as mortgage interest in the year paid, whereas points paid on a refinance must be amortized over the life of the loan so that the mortgage interest deduction is the sum of the interest paid in the monthly payments plus a fraction of the points paid for the refinance. The undeducted part of the points get deducted in the year that the mortgage is paid off early (or refinanced again). Prepayment penalties are, of course, deductible as mortgage interest in the year of the prepayment.",
"qid": 10639,
"docid": "397455",
"rank": 66,
"score": 59085
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"From the UK side, the estate may be liable to \"\"inheritance tax\"\" depending on its size - but this will be paid by the estate itself before any payment is made to you, so if the estate makes a payment to you, the whole of it is yours to keep. The tax thresholds are a bit complicated and due to become more so, but at a minimum any estate under £325,000 will be exempt. If your spouse died first without using their entire allowance, or for deaths after 6th April 2017 where a family home is being left to direct descendants, the allowance is higher. Anything above the threshold is subject to 40% tax, which will be paid be the person dealing with the estate before they can distribute anything else.\"",
"qid": 10639,
"docid": "173865",
"rank": 67,
"score": 59009
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"how is this new value determined? According to Publication 551: Inherited Property The basis of property inherited from a decedent is generally one of the following. The FMV of the property at the date of the individual's death. The FMV on the alternate valuation date if the personal representative for the estate chooses to use alternate valuation. For information on the alternate valuation date, see the Instructions for Form 706. The value under the special-use valuation method for real property used in farming or a closely held business if chosen for estate tax purposes. This method is discussed later. FMV is Fair Market Value - which is the price that a willing buyer would pay for the property with reasonable knowledge of all the facts of the property. The rest generally apply to farmland or other special-purpose land where the amount of income it generates is not properly reflected in the market value. One or more real estate professionals will run \"\"comps\"\" that show you recent sales in the same area for similar houses to get a rough estimate of fair market value. Does it go off of the tax appraised value? Tax assessment may or may not be accurate depending on tax laws (e.g. limits to tax increases) and consistency with the actual market. Should you, prior to your death, get an independent appraiser to appraise the value of the property and include that assessment of the properties value with the will or something? That should not be necessary - another appraisal will likely be done as part of the estate process after death. One reason you might do one is if you are distributing different assets to different heirs, and you want to make sure that the estate is divided equitably.\"",
"qid": 10639,
"docid": "319307",
"rank": 68,
"score": 58938
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"My grandma left a 50K inheritance You don't make clear where in the inheritance process you are. I actually know of one case where the executor (a family member, not a professional) distributed the inheritance before paying the estate taxes. Long story short, the heirs had to pay back part of the inheritance. So the first thing that I would do is verify that the estate is closed and all the taxes paid. If the executor is a professional, just call and ask. If a family member, you may want to approach it more obliquely. Or not. The important thing is not to start spending that money until you're sure that you have it. One good thing is that my husband is in grad school and will be done in 2019 and will then make about 75K/yr with his degree profession. Be a bit careful about relying on this. Outside the student loans, you should build other expenses around the assumption that he won't find a job immediately after grad school. For example, we could be in a recession in 2019. We'll be about due by then. Paying off the $5k \"\"other debt\"\" is probably a no brainer. Chances are that you're paying double-digit interest. Just kill it. Unless the car loan is zero-interest, you probably want to get rid of that loan too. I would tend to agree that the car seems expensive for your income, but I'm not sure that the amount that you could recover by selling it justifies the loss of value. Hopefully it's in good shape and will last for years without significant maintenance. Consider putting $2k (your monthly income) in your checking account. Instead of paying for things paycheck-to-paycheck, this should allow you to buy things on schedule, without having to wait for the money to appear in your account. Put the remainder into an emergency account. Set aside $12k (50% of your annual income/expenses) for real emergencies like a medical emergency or job loss. The other $16k you can use the same way you use the $5k other debt borrowing now, for small emergencies. E.g. a car repair. Make a budget and stick to it. The elimination of the car loan should free up enough monthly income to support a reasonable budget. If it seems like it isn't, then you are spending too much money for your income. Don't forget to explicitly budget for entertainment and vacations. It's easy to overspend there. If you don't make a budget, you'll just find yourself back to your paycheck-to-paycheck existence. That sounds like it is frustrating for you. Budget so that you know how much money you really need to live.\"",
"qid": 10639,
"docid": "452837",
"rank": 69,
"score": 58829
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Not charging taxes on a money losing investment or business is much more than humanitarian it is common sense. In general money that is used to invest has already been taxed as income or inheritance to the person making the investment so taxing that money again not just the profit would provide a disincentive for people to invest. Which would be bad for economic growth over the medium and long term. As far as taxing a money losing businesses goes, most businesses don't make money in their couple of years and adding further tax burdens would be counter productive because it would provide a major hurdle for people wanting to start a business. Other have already mentioned that the money losing operation likely paid indirect taxes as well. Small businesses provide a majority of the economic growth and innovation. So in short additional taxes on money losing investments and businesses would be both foolish and shortsighted.",
"qid": 10639,
"docid": "91076",
"rank": 70,
"score": 58754
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Finally some good examples! So clearly this is an issue, and many large companies do similar shenanigans. But the divisions being cut are massively unprofitable anyhow, even with these crappy tricks. I agree that a company like GE should be looking long term, but I'm not sure what % they do in technology R&D so I'm not prepared to be too harsh on that front. I absolutely agree that having non software engineers write software is a long term failure. Even smart engineers who can pump out software often do so without having learned the lessons that software companies learn. Resulting in short term results followed by long term pain. Anyhow. Thanks for a real response. I wonder if the divisions being cut need to be cut or sold off regardless. But I think every large org should look at examples like this and not try to play the \"\"this quarter is good\"\" game.\"",
"qid": 10639,
"docid": "379307",
"rank": 71,
"score": 58651
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: IMO almost any sensible decision is better than parking money in a retirement account, when you are young. Some better choices: 1) Invest in yourself, your skills, your education. Grad school is one option within that. 2) Start a small business, build a customer base. 3) Travel, adventure, see the world. Meet and talk to lots of different people. Note that all my advice revolves around investing in YOURSELF, growing your skills and/or your experiences. This is worth FAR more to you than a few percent a year. Take big risks when you are young. You will need maybe $1m+ (valued at today's money) to retire comfortably. How will you get there? Most people can only achieve that by taking bigger risks, and investing in themselves.",
"qid": 10639,
"docid": "462113",
"rank": 72,
"score": 58545
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you do the financing, get a large down payment and make a short loan. Do not expose yourself to risk with a 30 year note, and get some major money up front so the buyer has some skin in the game and will continue to make payments.",
"qid": 10639,
"docid": "151746",
"rank": 73,
"score": 58352
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: A gift between spouses has no tax implications. If one spouse dies the inheritance tax is always zero no matter how much of the estate passes to the surviving spouse. Gift taxes are actually related to estate taxes, so a gift no matter how large never requires filing any tax forms or paying any taxes.",
"qid": 10639,
"docid": "21288",
"rank": 74,
"score": 58184
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: To start, I hope you are aware that the properties' basis gets stepped up to market value on inheritance. The new basis is the start for the depreciation that must be applied each year after being placed in service as rental units. This is not optional. Upon selling the units, depreciation is recaptured whether it's taken each year or not. There is no rule of thumb for such matters. Some owners would simply collect the rent, keep a reserve for expenses or empty units, and pocket the difference. Others would refinance to take cash out and leverage to buy more property. The banker is not your friend, by the way. He is a salesman looking to get his cut. The market has had a good recent run, doubling from its lows. Right now, I'm not rushing to prepay my 3.5% mortgage sooner than it's due, nor am I looking to pull out $500K to throw into the market. Your proposal may very well work if the market sees a return higher than the mortgage rate. On the flip side I'm compelled to ask - if the market drops 40% right after you buy in, will you lose sleep? And a fellow poster (@littleadv) is whispering to me - ask a pro if the tax on a rental mortgage is still deductible when used for other purposes, e.g. a stock purchase unrelated to the properties. Last, there are those who suggest that if you want to keep investing in real estate, leverage is fine as long as the numbers work. From the scenario you described, you plan to leverage into an already pretty high (in terms of PE10) and simply magnifying your risk.",
"qid": 10639,
"docid": "279488",
"rank": 75,
"score": 57992
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Only they didn't work a day in their lives they received an inheritance of blood money built on the backs of minorities and exploited people. It's not entitlement to expect a good life when we have the means and ability to provide it to everyone. These people have so much money they have a responsibility to help mankind with it instead of encouraging further exploitation.",
"qid": 10639,
"docid": "584908",
"rank": 76,
"score": 57975
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"There is no doubt that this is a scam (you ask a British solicitor for help with this sort of problem, not an American friend) but it's not as obvious as some answers seem to assume. Inheritance taxes always have to be paid before legacies can be received, and the funds are part of the estate not \"\"in the hands of the government\"\". There are certainly ways round the problem (which vary by country), but if the facts were as the asker sets out, this would be a reasonable request. You can bet they aren't and it isn't.\"",
"qid": 10639,
"docid": "467080",
"rank": 77,
"score": 57846
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"For most people \"\"home ownership\"\" is a long term lifestyle strategy (i.e. the intention is to own a home for several decades, regardless of how many times one particular house might be \"\"swapped\"\" for a different one. In an economic environment with steady monetary inflation, taking out a long-term loan backed by a tangible non-depreciating \"\"permanent\"\" asset (e.g. real estate) is in practice a form of investing not borrowing, because over time the monetary value of the asset will increase in line with inflation, but the size of the loan remains constant in money terms. That strategy was always at risk in the short term because of temporary falls in house prices, but long-term inflation running at say 5% per year would cancel out even a 20% fall in house prices in 4 years. Downturns in the economy were often correlated with rises in the inflation rate, which fixed the short-term problem even faster. Car and student loans are an essentially different financial proposition, because you know from the start that the asset will not retain its value (unless you are \"\"investing in a vintage car\"\" rather than \"\"buying a means of personal transportation\"\", a new car will lose most of its monetary value within say 5 years) or there is no tangible asset at all (e.g. taking out a student loan, paying for a vacation trip by credit card, etc). The \"\"scariness\"\" over home loans was the widespread realization that the rules of the game had been changed permanently, by the combination of an economic downturn plus national (or even international) financial policies designed to enforce low inflation rates - with the consequence that \"\"being underwater\"\" had been changed from a short term problem to a long-term one.\"",
"qid": 10639,
"docid": "40865",
"rank": 78,
"score": 57816
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: A normal FSA also gives you a short term loan: money earmarked is available in entirety immediately, while you repay it every paycheck. This is interest free, and if you time your large planned medical expenses for January, can be a nice cheap loan.",
"qid": 10639,
"docid": "169178",
"rank": 79,
"score": 57795
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"There is not a special rate for short-term capital gains. Only long-term gains have a special rate. Short-term gains are taxed at your ordinary-income rate (see here). Hence if you're in the 25% bracket, your short-term gain would be taxed at 25%. The IRA withdrawal, as you already mentioned, would be taxed at 25%, plus a 10% penalty, for 35% total. Thus the bite on the IRA withdrawal is larger than that on a non-IRA withdrawal. As for the estimated tax issue, I don't think there will be a significant difference there. The reason is that (traditional) IRA withdrawals count as ordinary taxable income (see here). This means that, when you withdraw the funds from your IRA, you will increase your income. If that increase pushes you too far beyond what your withholding is accounting for, then you owe estimated tax. In other words, whether you get the money by selling stocks in a taxable account or by withdrawing them from an IRA, you still increase your taxable income, and thus potentially expose yourself to the estimated tax obligation. (In fact, there may be a difference. As you note, you will pay tax at the capital gains rate on gains from selling in a taxable account. But if you sell the stocks inside the IRA and withdraw, that is ordinary income. However, since ordinary income is taxed at a higher rate than long-term capital gains, you will potentially pay more tax on the IRA withdrawal, since it will be taxed at the higher rate, if your gains are long-term rather than short term. This is doubly true if you withdraw early, incurring the extra 10% penalty. See this question for some more discussion of this issue.) In addition, I think you may be somewhat misunderstanding the nature of estimated tax. The IRS will not \"\"ask\"\" you for a quarterly estimated tax when you sell stock. The IRS does not monitor your activity and send you a bill each quarter. They may indeed check whether your reported income jibes with info they received from your bank, etc., but they'll still do that regardless of whether you got that income by selling in a taxable account or withdrawing money from an IRA, because both of those increase your taxable income. Quarterly estimated tax is not an extra tax; it is just you paying your normal income tax over the course of the year instead of all at once. If your withholdings will not cover enough of your tax liability, you must figure that out yourself and pay the estimated tax (see here); if you don't do so, you may be assessed a penalty. It doesn't matter how you got the money; if your taxable income is too high relative to your withheld tax, then you have to pay the estimated tax. Typically tax will be withheld from your IRA distribution, but if it's not withheld, you'll still owe it as estimated tax.\"",
"qid": 10639,
"docid": "155053",
"rank": 80,
"score": 57718
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Put your money in a big company automating their workforce and in 20 years you'll see above historical returns year over year. Interest rates have some short term impact but long term technological improvements will be dramatic.",
"qid": 10639,
"docid": "500300",
"rank": 81,
"score": 57671
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: But which effect is larger, short-term stupidity or long-term rationality? Investors may repeatedly make this mistake and forever affect FACE's price because of FB's actions. Maybe the fools who confused FB and FACE last month have learned their lessons, but the market provides an inexhaustible supply of fools.",
"qid": 10639,
"docid": "128371",
"rank": 82,
"score": 57652
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: 15 years ago I bought a beach condo in Miami for $400,000 and two extra parking spaces for $3000 each. Today the condo is worth 600,000 but the rent barely covers mortgage repairs and property taxes. Most of The old people in the building have since died and are now replaced with families with at least two cars and spots are in short supply. I turned down offers of 25,000 for each parking space. I have the spaces rented out for $200 per month no maintenance for an 80% annual return on my purchase price and the value went has gone up over $700%. And no realtors commissions if i decide to sell the spaces.",
"qid": 10639,
"docid": "35002",
"rank": 83,
"score": 57518
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Stocks (among other property) currently is allowed a \"\"stepped-up basis\"\" when valuing for estate tax purpose. From the US IRS web page: To determine if the sale of inherited property is taxable, you must first determine your basis in the property. The basis of property inherited from a decedent is generally one of the following: The fair market value (FMV) of the property on the date of the decedent's death. The FMV of the property on the alternate valuation date if the executor of the estate chooses to use alternate valuation. See the Instructions for Form 706, United States Estate (and Generation-Skipping Transfer) Tax Return. If you or your spouse gave the property to the decedent within one year before the decedent's death, see Publication 551, Basis of Assets. Your question continues \"\"the person that died still has to pay taxes on their profits in the year they died, right?\"\" Yes. The estate would be subject to tax on realized gains/losses prior to death.\"",
"qid": 10639,
"docid": "466145",
"rank": 84,
"score": 57422
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: In the US, an opposite-sex spouse who is a citizen as well, can receive an unlimited inheritance with no tax due from the estate. IRAs and retirement accounts which were pretax accounts, are inherited by a spouse who can then either treat the accounts as her own, i.e. even co-mingle with current IRAs, or treat as inherited IRA, and begin RMDs. In which case tax is due to the extent the money wasn't already taxed. I see the edits above. No tax should have been due. Mom can gift the kids up to $14,000 per year per kid with no paperwork at all. And another $14K to the kid's spouses or grandchildren. Above this number, a form 709 is used to tap into the lifetime exclusion. As it stands now, it's unclear why any tax would have been due in the first place.",
"qid": 10639,
"docid": "581509",
"rank": 85,
"score": 56992
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Since you are talking about a small firm, for the long term, it would be advisable to invest your money into the expansion - growth, diversification, integration - of your business. However, if your intention is to make proper use of your earnings in the short term, a decent bank deposit would help you to increase the credit line for your business with the benefit of having a high enough liquidity. You can also look at bonds and other such low risk instruments to protect your assets.",
"qid": 10639,
"docid": "72131",
"rank": 86,
"score": 56988
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: They are looking at your work history to see that you have maintained a similar level of income for a period of time, and that you have a reasonable expectation to continue that for the foreseeable future. They are looking to make a commitment for 15-30 years. They see the short term contract, and have no confidence in making a guess to your ability to pay. Before the real estate bubble burst, you would have had a chance with a no documentation loan. These were setup for people who earned fluctuating incomes, mostly due to being commissioned based. They were easily abused, and lenders have gotten away from them becasue they were burned too often. Just like building your credit rating over time, and your down payment over time, you might have to wait to build a work history.",
"qid": 10639,
"docid": "52706",
"rank": 87,
"score": 56836
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You apparently assume that pouring money into a landlord's pocket is a bad thing. Not necessarily. Whether it makes sense to purchase your own home or to live in a rental property varies based on the market prices and rents of properties. In the long term, real estate prices closely follow inflation. However, in some areas it may be possible that real estate prices have increased by more than inflation in the past, say, 10 years. This may mean that some (stupid) people assume that real estate prices continue to appreciate at this rate in the future. The price of real estates when compared to rents may become unrealistically high so that the rental yield becomes low, and the only reasonable way of obtaining money from real estate investments is price appreciation continuing. No, it will not continue forever. Furthermore, an individual real estate is a very poorly diversified investment. And a very risky investment, too: a mold problem can destroy the entire value of your investment, if you invest in only one property. Real estates are commonly said to be less risky than stocks, but this applies only to large real estate portfolios when compared with large stock portfolios. It is easier to build a large stock portfolio with a small amount of money to invest when compared to building a large real estate portfolio. Thus, I would consider this: how much return are you going to get (by not needing to pay rent, but needing to pay some minor maintenance costs) when purchasing your own home? How much does the home cost? What is the annual return on the investment? Is it larger than smaller when compared to investing the same amount of money in the stock market? As I said, an individual house is a more risky investment than a well-diversified stock portfolio. Thus, if a well-diversified stock portfolio yields 8% annually, I would demand 10% return from an individual house before considering to move my money from stocks to a house.",
"qid": 10639,
"docid": "578597",
"rank": 88,
"score": 56810
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"It is difficult to become a millionaire in the short term (a few years) working at a 9-to-5 job, unless you get lucky (win the lottery, inheritance, gambling at a casino, etc). However, if you max out your employer's Retirement Plan (401k, 403b) for the next 30 years, and you average a 5% rate of return on your investment, you will reach millionaire status. Many people would consider this \"\"easy\"\" and \"\"automatic\"\". Of course, this assumes you are able to max our your retirement savings at the start of your career, and keep it going. The idea is that if you get in the habit of saving early in your career and live modestly, it becomes an automatic thing. Unfortunately, the value of $1 million after 30 years of inflation will be eroded somewhat. (Sorry.) If you don't want to wait 30 years, then you need to look at a different strategy. Work harder or take risks. Some options:\"",
"qid": 10639,
"docid": "434869",
"rank": 89,
"score": 56539
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Your source does not support the claim above that \"\"foreign buyers are screwing everyone, particularly upper middle class people from China\"\". Foreign direct investments are beneficial to the economy and knee-jerk protectionism does more harm than good. Sure, in the short term, an increase in real estate investment will increase property prices due to the rise in demand. However, housing developers and tenants will respond by increasing the supply of affordable housing elsewhere eventually reaching price equilibrium. There will always be displacement in a dynamic and robust economy but I guess it's easier to make out foreign investors as the boogeyman.\"",
"qid": 10639,
"docid": "15376",
"rank": 90,
"score": 56487
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Yes, I'm a big picture guy. Like when the central banks opened unlimited short term lines recently the first thing I thought was \"\"now hedge funds can short the euro with impunity!\"\" So, short bets on the euro became a no brainer even as the market was perversely celebrating the announcement with a euro rally. Almost as if they have no idea how the bigger picture works. As if all liquidity is created equally. All it meant to me was that European banks would not have to call in the lines of credit they extend to hedge funds for THREE YEARS. That is enough time to crash the euro, hold a funeral and dance on the grave. It is just musical chairs over there. All the banks know the EU is coming for them an they all want to be in the right capital position to survive the banhammer. They'll sell out the euro to get there. I think I'm a bit too jaded for Graham style fundamental analysis. Then again I do use strong companies as my preferred trading vehicles. So, maybe I do a hybrid.\"",
"qid": 10639,
"docid": "173479",
"rank": 91,
"score": 56461
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I don't understand the logic in the other answer, and I think it doesn't make sense, so here is my take: You pay taxes on income, not on sales price. So if you put X $ of your own money in the account and it becomes X + Y $ in the future, at the moment of liquidation, you will own taxes on the Y $. Never on the X $, as it was your own (already taxed) money to begin with. The difference between long-term and short-term gains just influences the tax rate on Y. If you donate the gain alone (the Y $) to charity, you can deduct Y from your tax base. So adding Y to your tax base and then deducting Y again obviously leaves your tax base at the old value, so you pay no extra taxes. Which seems logical, as you didn't make any money in the process. Aside from extreme cases where the deductible gain is too large a percentage from your income or negative, I don't see why this would ever be different. So you can take your original 100 $ back out and donate all gains, and be fine. Note that potential losses are seen different, as the IRA regulations are not symmetric.",
"qid": 10639,
"docid": "561377",
"rank": 92,
"score": 56438
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Indeed, there's no short term/long term issue trading inside the IRA, and in fact, no reporting. If you have a large IRA balance and trade 100 (for example) times per year, there's no reporting at all. As you note, long term gains outside the IRA are treated favorably in the tax code (as of now, 2012) but that's subject to change. Also to consider, The worst thing I did was to buy Apple in my IRA. A huge gain that will be taxed as ordinary income when I withdraw it. Had this been in my regular account, I could sell and pay the long term cap gain rate this year. Last, there's no concept of Wash sale in one's IRA, as there's no taking a loss for shares sold below cost. (To clarify, trading solely within an IRA won't trigger wash sale rules. A realized loss in a taxable account, combined with a purchase inside an IRA can trigger the wash sale rule if the stock is purchased inside the IRA 30 days before or after the sale at a loss. Thank you, Dilip, for the comment.) Aside from the warnings of trading too much or running afoul of frequency restrictions, your observation is correct.",
"qid": 10639,
"docid": "276333",
"rank": 93,
"score": 56414
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: They don't care.. the people making those choices are judged on the short term basis; ie yearly bonus. They make the choice to move it over, reap a massive bonus for a couple of years before the profit starts to crumble then they bail out. I've seen it happen at no less than 5 of my clients.",
"qid": 10639,
"docid": "533542",
"rank": 94,
"score": 56381
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Short answer: Liquidity. Well, you have to see it from an exchange's point of view. Every contract they put up is a liability to them. You have to allocate resources for the order book, the matching engine, the clearing, etc. But only if the contract is actually trading they start earning (the big) money. Now for every new expiry they engage a long term commitment and it might take years for an option chain to be widely accepted (and hence before they're profitable). Compare the volumes and open interests of big chains versus the weeklies and you'll find that weeklies can still be considered illiquid compared to their monthly cousins. Having said that, like many things, this is just a question of demand. If there's a strong urge to trade July weeklies one day, there will be an option chain. But, personally I think, as long as there are the summer doldrums there will be no rush to ask for Jul and Aug chains.",
"qid": 10639,
"docid": "291134",
"rank": 95,
"score": 56352
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Short-term, the game is supply/demand and how the various participants react to it at various prices. On longer term, prices start to better reflect the fundamentals. Within something like week to some month or two, if there has not been any unique value affecting news, then interest, options, market maker(s), swing traders and such play bigger part. With intraday, the effects of available liquidity become very pronounced. The market makers have algos that try to guess what type of client they have and they prefer to give high price to large buyer and low price to small buyer. As intraday trader has spreads and commissions big part of their expenses and leverage magnifies those, instead of being able to take advantage of the lower prices, they prefer to stop out after small move against them. In practise this means that when they buy low, that low will soon be the midpoint of the day and tomorrows high etc if they are still holding on. Buy and sell are similar to long call or long put options position. And options are like insurance, they cost you. Also the longer the position is held the more likely it is to end up with someone with ability to test your margin if you're highly leveraged and constantly making your wins from the same source. Risk management is also issue. The leveraged pros trade through a company. Not sure if they're able to open another such company and still open accounts after the inevitable.",
"qid": 10639,
"docid": "357583",
"rank": 96,
"score": 56055
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I would say when starting with Gnucash to start with the level of granularity you are comfortable with while sticking to the double entry bookkeeping practices. So going through each one: Refund for Parking Pass. Assuming you treat the Parking Pass as a sunk cost, i.e. an Expense account, its just a negative entry in the Expense account which turns into a positive one in your Bank account. Yes it may look weird, and if you don't like it you can always 'pay from Equity' the prior month, or your Bank Account if you're backfilling old statements. Selling physical items. If you sold it on eBay and the value is high enough you'll get tax forms indicating you've earned x. Even if its small or not done via eBay, treat it the same way and create a 'Personal Items/Goods' Income account to track all of it. So the money you get in your Bank account would have come from there. Found jacket money would be an Equity entry, either Opening Balances into Cash or Bank account. Remember you are treating Equity / Opening Balances as the state before you started recording every transaction so both the value going into Assets (Banks,Stock,Mutual Funds) and Liabilities (Mortgage, Student Debt, Credit Card Debt) originate from there.",
"qid": 10639,
"docid": "28758",
"rank": 97,
"score": 55509
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Even straight index funds grow at about 6-7%. on average, or over long periods of time. In short time periods (quarters, years), they can fluctuate anywhere from -10% to +20%. Would you be happy if your bank account lost 10% of its value the week before you had to pay the bill for the repairs? Is it appropriate to invest small amounts for short periods of time? In general, no. Most investments are designed for long term appreciation. Even sophisticated financial companies can't do any better than 1 or 2% (annualized) on short-term cash reserves. Where you can make a huge difference is on the cost side. Bargain with suppliers, or wait for sales on retail items. Both will occasionally forego their margin on certain items in order to try to secure future business, which can make a difference of 20% or more in the cost of repairs.",
"qid": 10639,
"docid": "566493",
"rank": 98,
"score": 55432
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: A loan from a bank with no real purpose could be a bad idea and end up costing you more money than it needs to. As someone with a loan and credit card debts accrued over university, I would say avoid it if at all possible. Certainly don't sign up to a large loan if you have no current plans for the money (car, house repair, etc). It sounds as though you're fairly careful with your money, but just want a bit of extra security in case a purchase you didn't account for slips by. If this is the case and you're set on obtaining a source of credit, I'd suggest getting an overdraft if you haven't already. Overdrafts are a lot more flexible, and are better for short term debt that you plan to pay off immediately, such as unexpected charges coming in at the end of the month. It's worth mentioning that this is from the perspective of a UK banking customer. Overdraft conditions will vary depending on the country.",
"qid": 10639,
"docid": "155922",
"rank": 99,
"score": 55419
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Whenever a large number of shares to be sold hit the market at the same time the expectation is that the price for each share will drop. The employees in a normal market would be expected to sell some of their shares at the first opportunity. Because during the dot com boom some companies employees were able to become millionaires, every employee at a tech IPO hopes to be richly rewarded. If the long term prospects of the stock price are viewed by the employees as a continuous path up, then the percentage of shares that will hit the market is low. They do want some instant cash, but want the bulk of the shares to capture future growth. The more dismal the long term price lookout is, the greater the percentage of shares that will hit the market. The general consensus is that as each of the Lock Ups expires a significant percentage of shares will be sold, and the price will suffer a short term drop.",
"qid": 10639,
"docid": "436536",
"rank": 100,
"score": 55285
}
] |
Explain the details and benefits of rebalancing a retirement portfolio? | [
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I'm assuming that all the savings are of 'defined contribution' type, and not 'defined benefit' as per marktristan's comment to the original question. Aside from convenience of having all the pension money in one place, which may or may not be something you care about, there may be a benefit associated with being able to rebalance your portfolio when you need do. Say you invest your pension pot in a 60%/40% of equities and bonds respectively. Due higher risk/reward ratio of the equities part, in the long run equities tend to get 'overweight' turning your mix into 70%/30% or even 80%/20%, therefore raising your overall exposure to equities. General practice is to rebalance your portfolio every now and then, in this case, by selling some equities and buying more bonds (\"\"sell high, buy low\"\"). Now if you have few small pockets of pension money, it makes it harder to keep track of the overall asset allocation and actually do the rebalancing as you cannot see and trade everything from one place.\"",
"qid": 10645,
"docid": "319182",
"rank": 1,
"score": 149318
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Also, almost by definition rebalancing involves making more trades than you would have otherwise; wouldn't the additional trading fees you incurred in doing so reduce the benefits of this strategy? You forgot to mention taxes. Rebalancing does or rather can incur costs. One way to minimize the costs is to use the parts of the portfolio that have essentially zero cost of moving. These generally are the funds in your retirement accounts. In the United States they can be in IRAs or 401Ks; they can be regular or Roth. Selling winners withing the structure of the plan doesn't trigger capital gains taxes, and many have funds within them that have zero loads. Another way to reduce trading fees is to only rebalance once a year or once every two years; or by setting a limit on how far out of balance. For example don't rebalance at 61/39 to get back to 60/40 even if it has been two years. Given that the ratio of investments is often rather arbitrary to begin with, how do I know whether I'm selling high and buying low or just obstinately sticking with a losing asset ratio? The ratio used in an example or in an article may be arbitrary, but your desired ratio isn't arbitrary. You selected the ratio of your investments based on several criteria: your age, your time horizon, your goals for the money, how comfortable you are with risk. As these change during your investing career those ratios would also morph. But they aren't arbitrary. These decisions to rebalance are separate from the ones to sell a particular investment. You could sell Computer Company X because of how it is performing, and buy stock in Technology Company Y because you think it has a better chance of growing. That transaction would not be a re-balancing. Selling part of your stock in Domestic Company A to buy stock in international Company B would be part of a re-balancing.",
"qid": 10645,
"docid": "148632",
"rank": 2,
"score": 147196
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The goal of the single-fund with a retirement date is that they do the rebalancing for you. They have some set of magic ratios (specific to each fund) that go something like this: Note: I completely made up those numbers and asset mix. When you invest in the \"\"Mutual-Fund Super Account 2025 fund\"\" you get the benefit that in 2015 (10 years until retirement) they automatically change your asset mix and when you hit 2025, they do it again. You can replace the functionality by being on top of your rebalancing. That being said, I don't think you need to exactly match the fund choices they provide, just research asset allocation strategies and remember to adjust them as you get closer to retirement.\"",
"qid": 10645,
"docid": "562305",
"rank": 3,
"score": 131804
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you are making regular periodic investments (e.g. each pay period into a 401(k) plan) or via automatic investment scheme in a non-tax-deferred portfolio (e.g. every month, $200 goes automatically from your checking account to your broker or mutual fund house), then one way of rebalancing (over a period of time) is to direct your investment differently into the various accounts you have, with more going into the pile that needs bringing up, and less into the pile that is too high. That way, you can avoid capital gains or losses etc in doing the selling-off of assets. You do, of course, take longer to achieve the balance that you seek, but you do get some of the benefits of dollar-cost averaging.",
"qid": 10645,
"docid": "441176",
"rank": 4,
"score": 126101
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Rebalancing a portfolio helps you reduce risk, sell high, and buy low. I'll use international stocks and large cap US stocks. They both have ups and downs, and they don't always track with each other (international might be up while large cap US stocks are down and vice-versa) If you started with 50% international and 50% large cap stocks and 1 year later you have 75% international and 25% large cap stocks that means that international stocks are doing (relatively) well to large cap stocks. Comparing only those two categories, large cap stocks are \"\"on sale\"\" relative to international stocks. Now move so you have 50% in each category and you've realized some of the gains from your international investment (sell high) and added to your large cap stocks (buy low). The reason to rebalance is to lower risk. You are spreading your investments across multiple categories to manage risk. If you don't rebalance, you could end up with 95% in one category and 5% in another which means 95% of your portfolio is tied to the performance of a single asset category. I try to rebalance every 12 months and usually get it done by every 18 months. I like being a hands-off long term investor and this has proven often enough to beat the S&P500.\"",
"qid": 10645,
"docid": "588607",
"rank": 5,
"score": 122263
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Rebalancing your portfolio doesn't have to include selling. You could simply adjust your buying to keep your portfolio in balance. If you portfolio has shifted from 50% stocks and 50% bonds to 75% stocks and 25% bonds, you can just only use new savings to buy bonds, until you are back at 50-50. Remember to take into account taxes if you are thinking of selling to rebalance in taxable accounts. The goal of rebalancing is to keep your exposures the way that you want them. Assuming that you had a good reason to have a portfolio of 50% stocks and 50% bonds, you probably want to keep your portfolio similar in the future. If you end up with a portfolio of 75% stocks and 25% bonds due to stock market fluctuations, the exposure and the risk / return profile of your portfolio will have changed, and it's probably not something that you want. You don't want to rebalance just for the sake of rebalancing either. There can be costs to rebalancing (taxes, transaction fees, etc...) and these aren't always worth the effort. That's why you don't need to rebalance every month or if your portfolio has shifted from 50/50 to 51/49. I take a look at my portfolio once a year, and adjust my automated investments so that by the end of the next year I'm back to the ratio I want.",
"qid": 10645,
"docid": "22221",
"rank": 6,
"score": 121232
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"An asset allocation formula is useful because it provides a way to manage risk. Rebalancing preserves your asset allocation. The investment risk of a well-diversified portfolio (with a few ETFs or mutual funds in there to get a wide range of stocks, bonds, and international exposure) is mostly proportional to the asset class distribution. If you started out with half-stocks and half-bonds, and stocks surged 100% over the past few years while bonds have stayed flat, then you may be left with (say) 66% stocks and 33% bonds. Your portfolio is now more vulnerable to future stock market drops (the risk associated with stocks). (Most asset allocation recommendations are a little more specific than a stock/bond split, but I'm sure you can get the idea.) Rebalancing can be profitable because it's a formulaic way to enforce you to \"\"buy low, sell high\"\". Massive recessions notwithstanding, usually not everything in your portfolio will rise and fall at the same time, and some are actually negatively correlated (that's one idea behind diversification, anyway). If your stocks have surged, chances are that bonds are cheaper. This doesn't always work (repeatedly transferring money from bonds into stocks while the market was falling in 2008-2009 could have lost you even more money). Also, if you rebalance frequently, you might incur expenses from the trading (depending on what sort of financial instrument you're holding). It may be more effective to simply channel new money into the sector that you're light on, and limit the major rebalancing of the portfolio so that it's just an occasional thing. Talk to your financial adviser. :)\"",
"qid": 10645,
"docid": "269169",
"rank": 7,
"score": 119789
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"'Buy and Hold' Is Still a Winner: An investor who used index funds and stayed the course could have earned satisfactory returns even during the first decade of the 21st century. by By Burton G. Malkiel in The Wall Street Journal on November 18, 2010: \"\"The other useful technique is \"\"rebalancing,\"\" keeping the portfolio asset allocation consistent with the investor's risk tolerance. For example, suppose an investor was most comfortable choosing an initial allocation of 60% equities, 40% bonds. As stock and bond prices change, these proportions will change as well. Rebalancing involves selling some of the asset class whose share is above the desired allocation and putting the money into the other asset class. From 1996 through 1999, annually rebalancing such a portfolio improved its return by 1 and 1/3 percentage points per year versus a strategy of making no changes.\"\" Mr. Malkiel is a professor of economics at Princeton University. This op-ed was adapted from the upcoming 10th edition of his book \"\"A Random Walk Down Wall Street,\"\" out in December by W.W. Norton. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703848204575608623469465624.html\"",
"qid": 10645,
"docid": "458244",
"rank": 8,
"score": 115780
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: A strategy of rebalancing assumes that the business cycle will continue, that all bull and bear markets end eventually. Imagine that you maintained a 50% split between a US Treasury bond mutual fund (VUSTX) and an S&P 500 stock mutual fund (VFINX) beginning with a $10,000 investment in each on January 1, 2008, then on the first of each year you rebalanced your portfolio on the first of January (we can pretend the markets are open that day). The following table illustrates the values in each of those funds with the rebalancing transactions: This second table shows what that same money would look like without any rebalancing over those years: Obviously this is cherry-picking for the biggest drop we've recently experienced, but even if you skipped 2008 and 2009, the increase for a rebalanced portfolio from 2010-2017 is 85% verses 54% for the portfolio that is not being rebalanced in the same period. This is also a plenty conservative portfolio. You can see that a 100% stock portfolio dropped 40% in 2008, but the combined portfolio only dropped 18%. A 100% stock portfolio has gained 175% since 2009, compared to 105% for the balanced portfolio, but it's common to trade gains for safety as you get closer to retirement. You didn't ask about a 100% stock portfolio in your initial question. These results would be repeated in many other portfolio allocations because some asset classes outperform others one year, then underperform the next. You sell after the years it outperforms, then you buy after years that it underperforms.",
"qid": 10645,
"docid": "28425",
"rank": 9,
"score": 113641
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"First of all, it's great you're now taking full advantage of your employer match – i.e. free money. Next, on the question of the use of a life cycle / target date fund as a \"\"hedge\"\": Life cycle funds were introduced for hands-off, one-stop-shopping investors who don't like a hassle or don't understand. Such funds are gaining in popularity: employers can use them as a default choice for automatic enrollment, which results in more participation in retirement savings plans than if employees had to opt-in. I think life cycle funds are a good innovation for that reason. But, the added service and convenience typically comes with higher fees. If you are going to be hands-off, make sure you're cost-conscious: Fees can devastate a portfolio's performance. In your case, it sounds like you are willing to do some work for your portfolio. If you are confident that you've chosen a good equity glide path – that is, the initial and final stock/bond allocations and the rebalancing plan to get from one to the other – then you're not going to benefit much by having a life cycle fund in your portfolio duplicating your own effort with inferior components. (I assume you are selecting great low-cost, liquid index funds for your own strategy!) Life cycle are neat, but replicating them isn't rocket science. However, I see a few cases in which life cycle funds may still be useful even if one has made a decision to be more involved in portfolio construction: Similar to your case: You have a company savings plan that you're taking advantage of because of a matching contribution. Chances are your company plan doesn't offer a wide variety of funds. Since a life cycle fund is available, it can be a good choice for that account. But make sure fees aren't out of hand. If much lower-cost equity and bond funds are available, consider them instead. Let's say you had another smaller account that you were unable to consolidate into your main account. (e.g. a Traditional IRA vs. your Roth, and you didn't necessarily want to convert it.) Even if that account had access to a wide variety of funds, it still might not be worth the added hassle or trading costs of owning and rebalancing multiple funds inside the smaller account. There, perhaps, the life cycle fund can help you out, while you use your own strategy in your main account. Finally, let's assume you had a single main account and you buy partially into the idea of a life cycle fund and you find a great one with low fees. Except: you want a bit of something else in your portfolio not provided by the life cycle fund, e.g. some more emerging markets, international, or commodity stock exposure. (Is this one reason you're doing it yourself?) In that case, where the life cycle fund doesn't quite have everything you want, you could still use it for the bulk of the portfolio (e.g. 85-95%) and then select one or two specific additional ETFs to complement it. Just make sure you factor in those additional components into the overall equity weighting and adjust your life cycle fund choice accordingly (e.g. perhaps go more conservative in the life cycle, to compensate.) I hope that helps! Additional References:\"",
"qid": 10645,
"docid": "374225",
"rank": 10,
"score": 113026
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"You will hear a lot about diversifying your portfolio, which typically means having a good mix of investment types, areas of investments, etc. I'd like to suggest that you should also diversify your sources. Sad to say but the defined benefit pension is not a rock solid, sure fire source of security in your retirement planning. Companies go bankrupt, government agencies are reorganized, and those hitherto-untouchable assets are destroyed overnight. So, treat your new investment strategy as if you were starting over, and invest accordingly, for example, aggressively for a few years, then progressively safer as you get older. There are other strategies too, depending on factors like your taste for risk: you might prefer to be conservative until you reach some safety threshold to reach \"\"certain safety\"\" and then start making riskier investments. You may also consider different investment vehicles and techniques such as index funds, dollar cost averaging, and so on.\"",
"qid": 10645,
"docid": "246109",
"rank": 11,
"score": 112552
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If the portfolio itself is taxable, then yes; if you have two stocks and you're rebalancing them, without using new cash, you are forced to sell one stock to buy another. That sale is taxable, unless you're in some sort of tax deferred/deductible account, such as an IRA. If you're talking about you being in a mutual fund and the fund itself rebalances, the same rules apply as above, though indirectly; you'll have capital gains realized and distributed to you, those gains will be taxed unless, again, your account is a retirement account.",
"qid": 10645,
"docid": "421769",
"rank": 12,
"score": 111923
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Doesn't \"\"no rebalancing\"\" mean \"\"start with a portfolio and let it fly?\"\" Seems like incorporation of rebalancing is more sophisticated than not. Just \"\"buy\"\" your portfolio at the start and see where it ends up with no buying/selling, as compared with where it ends up if you do rebalance. Or is it not that simple?\"",
"qid": 10645,
"docid": "355738",
"rank": 13,
"score": 110464
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Having cash and bonds in your portfolio isn't just about balancing out the risk and volatility inherent in equities. Consider: If you are 100% invested in equities and the market declines by 30%, you'll be hard pressed to come up with additional money to \"\"buy low\"\". You'll miss out on the rebalancing bonus. But, if you make a point of keeping some portion of your portfolio in cash and bonds, then when the market has such a decline (and it will), you'll be able to rebalance your portfolio back to target weights — i.e. redeploy some of your cash and bonds into equities to take advantage of the lower prices.\"",
"qid": 10645,
"docid": "418528",
"rank": 14,
"score": 110079
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"This paper by a Columbia business school professor says: The standard 60%/40% strategy outperforms a 100% bond or 100% stock strategy over the 1926-1940 period (Figure 5) and over the 1990-2011 period (Figure 6). This is based on actual market data from those periods. You can see the figures in the PDF. These are periods of 14 and 21 years, which is perhaps shorter than the amount of time money would sit in your IRA, but still a fairly long time. The author goes on with a lot of additional discussion and claims that \"\"under certain conditions, rebalancing will always outperform a buy-and-hold portfolio given sufficient time\"\". Of course, there are also many periods over which a given asset mix would underperform, so there are no guarantees here. I read your question as asking \"\"is there any data suggesting that rebalancing a diversified portfolio can outperform an all-in-one-asset-class portfolio\"\". There is some such data. However, if you're asking which investing strategy you should actually choose, you'd want to look at a lot of data on both sides. You're unlikely to find data that \"\"proves\"\" anything conclusively either way. It should also be noted that the rebalancing advantage described here (and in your question) is not specific to bonds. For instance, in theory, rebalancing between US and international stocks could show a similar advantage over an all-US or all-non-US portfolio. The paper contains a lot of additional discussion about rebalancing. It seems that your question is really about whether rebalancing a diverse portfolio is better than going all-in with one asset class, and this question is touched on throughout the paper. The author mentions that diversification and rebalancing strategies should be chosen not solely for their effect on mathematically-calculated returns, but for their match with your psychological makeup and tolerance for risk.\"",
"qid": 10645,
"docid": "569849",
"rank": 15,
"score": 108886
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: When interest rates rise, the price of bonds fall because bonds have a fixed coupon rate, and since the interest rate has risen, the bond's rate is now lower than what you can get on the market, so it's price falls because it's now less valuable. Bonds diversify your portfolio as they are considered safer than stocks and less volatile. However, they also provide less potential for gains. Although diversification is a good idea, for the individual investor it is far too complicated and incurs too much transaction costs, not to mention that rebalancing would have to be done on a regular basis. In your case where you have mutual funds already, it is probably a good idea to keep investing in mutual funds with a theme which you understand the industry's role in the economy today rather than investing in some special bonds which you cannot relate to. The benefit of having a mutual fund is to have a professional manage your money, and that includes diversification as well so that you don't have to do that.",
"qid": 10645,
"docid": "31581",
"rank": 16,
"score": 108763
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Yes, rebalancing with new money avoids capital gains taxes and loads (although if you're financially literate enough to be thinking about rebalancing techniques, I'm surprised to hear that you're invested in funds with loads). On the other hand, if it's taking you years to rebalance, then: (a) you are not rebalancing anywhere near frequently enough. Rebalancing should be something you do every 6 months or 1 year, such that it would take only a few weeks or maybe a month of new investment to get back in balance. (b) you will be out-of-balance for quite a long time, while the whole point of the theory of rebalancing is to always be mathematically prepared for swings in the market. Any time spent out of balance represents that much more risk that an unexpected market move can seriously hurt your portfolio. You should weigh the time it will take you to rebalance the long way (i.e. the risk cost of not rebalancing immediately) vs. the taxes and fees involved in rebalancing quickly. If you had said that it would take you only a couple weeks or a month to rebalance the long way, I would say that the long way is fine. But the prospect of spending years without a balanced portfolio seems far more costly to me than any expenses you might incur rebalancing quickly. Since it's almost the end of the calendar year, have you considered doing two quick rebalances, one this year, and another in January? That way half of the tax consequences would happen in April, and the other half not until the next April, giving you plenty of time to scrounge up the money. Also, even if you have no capital losses this year with which to offset some of your expected capital gains, you would have all of next year to harvest some losses against next year's half of the rebalancing gains.",
"qid": 10645,
"docid": "422051",
"rank": 17,
"score": 108508
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: As mentioned by others, dollar cost averaging is just a fancy term for how many shares your individual purchases get when you are initially adding money to your investment accounts. Once the money is invested, annual or quarterly rebalancing serves the purpose of taking advantage of higher rates of growth in particular market sectors. You define the asset allocation based on your risk profile, time to retirement, etc., then you periodically sell the shares of the investments that have grown faster than the rest and buy more shares of the investments that are relatively cheaper.",
"qid": 10645,
"docid": "406192",
"rank": 18,
"score": 108241
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Check out some common portfolios compared: Note that all these portfolios are loosely based on Modern Portfolio Theory, a theory of how to maximize reward given a risk tolerance introduced by Harry Markowitz. The theory behind the Gone Fishin' Portfolio and the Couch Potato Portfolio (more info) is that you can make money by rebalancing once a year or less. You can take a look at 8 Lazy ETF Portfolios to see other lazy allocation percentages. One big thing to remember - the expense ratio of the funds you invest in is a major contributor to the return you get. If they're taking 1% of all of your gains, you're not. If they're only taking .2%, that's an automatic .8% you get. The reason Vanguard is so often used in these model portfolios is that they have the lowest expense ratios around. If you are talking about an IRA or a mutual fund account where you get to choose who you go with (as opposed to a 401K with company match), conventional wisdom says go with Vanguard for the lowest expense ratios.",
"qid": 10645,
"docid": "83079",
"rank": 19,
"score": 107504
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: While it is certainly easy to manage single fund, I am not sure it's the right strategy. It's been proven again and again that portfolio diversification is key to long term gains in wealth. I think your best option is to invest in low cost index funds and ETFs. While rebalancing your portfolio is hard, it is vastly simpler if your portfolio only has ETFs.",
"qid": 10645,
"docid": "429929",
"rank": 20,
"score": 106380
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"A diversified portfolio (such as a 60% stocks / 40% bonds balanced fund) is much more predictable and reliable than an all-stocks portfolio, and the returns are perfectly adequate. The extra returns on 100% stocks vs. 60% are 1.2% per year (historically) according to https://personal.vanguard.com/us/insights/saving-investing/model-portfolio-allocations To get those average higher stock returns, you need to be thinking 20-30 years (even 10 years is too short-term). Over the 20-30 years, you must never panic and go to cash, or you will destroy the higher returns. You must never get discouraged and stop saving, or you will destroy the higher returns. You have to avoid the panic and discouragement despite the likelihood that some 10-year period in your 20-30 years the stock market will go nowhere. You also must never have an emergency or other reason to withdraw money early. If you look at \"\"dry periods\"\" in stocks, like 2000 to 2011, a 60/40 portfolio made significant money and stocks went nowhere. A diversified portfolio means that price volatility makes you money (due to rebalancing) while a 100% stocks portfolio means that price volatility is just a lot of stress with no benefit. It's somewhat possible, probably, to predict dry periods in stocks; if I remember the statistics, about 50% of the variability in the market price 10 years out can be explained by normalized market valuation (normalized = adjusted for business cycle and abnormal profit margins). Some funds such as http://hussmanfunds.com/ are completely based on this, though a lot of money managers consider it. With a balanced portfolio and rebalancing, though, you don't have to worry about it very much. In my view, the proper goal is not to beat the market, nor match the market, nor is it to earn the absolute highest possible returns. Instead, the goal is to have the highest chance of financing your non-financial goals (such as retirement, or buying a house). To maximize your chances of supporting your life goals with your financial decisions, predictability is more important than maximized returns. Your results are primarily determined by your savings rate - which realistic investment returns will never compensate for if it's too low. You can certainly make a 40-year projection in which 1.2% difference in returns makes a big difference. But you have to remember that a projection in which value steadily and predictably compounds is not the same as real life, where you could have emergency or emotional factors, where the market will move erratically and might have a big plunge at just the wrong time (end of the 40 years), and so on. If your plan \"\"relies\"\" on the extra 1.2% returns then it's not a reasonable plan anyhow, in my opinion, since you can't count on them. So why suffer the stress and extra risk created by an all-stocks portfolio?\"",
"qid": 10645,
"docid": "593879",
"rank": 21,
"score": 106320
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Rebalancing is, simply, a way of making sure your risk/reward level is where you want it to be. Let's say you've decided that your optimal mix is 50% stocks and 50% bonds (or 50% US stocks, 50% international, or 30/30/30 US large-cap/US small-cap/US midcap...). So you buy $100 of each, but over time, the prices will of course fluctuate. At the end of the year, the odds that the ratio of the value of your investments is equal to the starting ratio is nil. So you rebalance to get your target mix again. Rebalance too often and you end up paying a lot in transaction fees. Rebalance not often enough and you end up running outsize risk. People who tell you that you should rebalance to make money, or use \"\"dollar cost averaging\"\" or think there is any upside to rebalancing outside of risk management are making assumptions about the market (mean regressing or some such thing) that generally you should avoid.\"",
"qid": 10645,
"docid": "117696",
"rank": 22,
"score": 106091
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: My personal gold/metals target is 5.0% of my retirement portfolio. Right now I'm underweight because of the run up in gold/metals prices. (I haven't been selling, but as I add to retirement accounts, I haven't been buying gold so it is going below the 5% mark.) I arrived at this number after reading a lot of different sample portfolio allocations, and some books. Some people recommend what I consider crazy allocations: 25-50% in gold. From what I could figure out in terms of modern portfolio theory, holding some metal reduces your overall risk because it generally has a low correlation to equity markets. The problem with gold is that it is a lousy investment. It doesn't produce any income, and only has costs (storage, insurance, commissions to buy/sell, management of ETF if that's what you're using, etc). The only thing going for it is that it can be a hedge during tough times. In this case, when you rebalance, your gold will be high, you'll sell it, and buy the stocks that are down. (In theory -- assuming you stick to disciplined rebalancing.) So for me, 5% seemed to be enough to shave off a little overall risk without wasting too much expense on a hedge. (I don't go over this, and like I said, now I'm underweighted.)",
"qid": 10645,
"docid": "371390",
"rank": 23,
"score": 106077
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The problem is that short-term trends are really unpredictable. There is nobody who can accurately predict where a fund (or even moreso, a single stock or bond) is going to move in a few hours, or days or even months. The long-term trends of the entire market, however, are (more or less) predictable. There is a definite upward bias when you look at time-scales of 5, 10, 20 years and more. Individual stocks and bonds may crash, and different sectors perform differently from year to year, but the market as a whole has historically always risen over long time scales. Of course, past performance never guarantees future performance. It is possible that everything could crash and never come back, but history shows that this would be incredibly unlikely. Which is the entire basis for strategies based on buying and holding (and periodically rebalancing) a portfolio containing funds that cover all market sectors. Now, regarding your 401(k), you know your time horizon. The laws won't let you withdraw money without penalty until you reach retirement age - this might be 40 years, depending on your current age. So we're definitely talking long term. You shouldn't care about where the market goes over a few months if you won't be using the money until 20 years from now. The most important thing for a 401(k) is to choose funds from those available to you that will be as diverse as possible. The actual allocation strategy is something you will need to work out with a financial advisor, since it will be different for every person. Once you come up with an appropriate allocation strategy, you will want to buy according to those ratios with every paycheck and rebalance your funds to those ratios whenever they start to drift away. And review the ratios with your advisor every few years, to keep them aligned with large-scale trends and changes in your life.",
"qid": 10645,
"docid": "382101",
"rank": 24,
"score": 105735
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"If you want to make a profit from long term trading (whatever \"\"long term\"\" means for you), the best strategy is to let the good performers in your portfolio run, and cull the bad ones. Of course that strategy is hard to follow, unless you have the perfect foresight to know exactly how long your best performing investments will continue to outperform the market, but markets don't always follow the assumption that perfect information is available to all participants, and hence \"\"momentum\"\" has a real-world effect on prices, whether or not some theorists have chosen to ignore it. But a fixed strategy of \"\"daily rebalancing\"\" does exactly the opposite of the above - it continuously reduces the holdings of good performers and increases the holdings of bad. If this type of rebalancing is done more frequently than the constituents of benchmark index are adjusted, it is very likely to underperform the index in the long term. Other issues in a \"\"real world\"\" market are the impact of increased dealing costs on smaller parcels of securities, and the buy/sell spreads incurred in the daily rebalancing trades. If the market is up and down 1% on alternate days with no long tern trend, quite likely the fund will be repeatedly buying and selling small parcels of the same stocks to do its daily balancing.\"",
"qid": 10645,
"docid": "410461",
"rank": 25,
"score": 105414
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"From http://blog.ometer.com/2008/03/27/index-funds/ , Lots of sensible advisers will tell you to buy index funds, but importantly, the advice is not simply \"\"buy index funds.\"\" There are at least two other critical details: 1) asset allocation across multiple well-chosen indexes, maintained through regular rebalancing, and 2) dollar cost averaging (or, much-more-complex-but-probably-slightly-better, value averaging). The advice is not to take your single lump sum and buy and hold a cap-weighted index forever. The advice is an investment discipline which involves action over time, and an initial choice among indexes. An index-fund-based strategy is not completely passive, it involves some active risk control through rebalancing and averaging. If you'd held a balanced portfolio over the last ten years and rebalanced, and even better if you'd dollar cost averaged, you'd have done fine. Your reaction to the last 10 years incidentally is why I don't believe an almost-all-stocks allocation makes sense for most people even if they're pretty young. More detail in this answer: How would bonds fare if interest rates rose? I think some index fund advocacy and books do people a disservice by focusing too much on the extra cost of active management and why index funds are a good deal. That point is true, but for most investors, asset allocation, rebalancing, and \"\"autopilotness\"\" of their setup are more important to outcome than the expense ratio.\"",
"qid": 10645,
"docid": "551590",
"rank": 26,
"score": 104942
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Taking as given that your definition of VA involves selling at intermediate times, your question can be made more general. After all, value averaging is just one special case of a portfolio that rebalances to target weights periodically. Do back-end fees (and front-end fees) harm the value of portfolios that require rebalancing? The answer is yes, they do. Those fees are put in place in order to prevent investors from redeeming shares over any but the longest horizons. Any portfolio that rebalances periodically will involve some periodic selling. If you invest in a fund with front-end or back-end fees, it is optimal to leave your money in it for as long as possible and not do any rebalancing. If you want to run a portfolio that is at all active (involves rebalancing), then it is probably wise to use no-load funds. These are often some of the best and cheapest funds anyway, but even if front or back end load funds have a lower expense ratio, you will likely lose money on those loads as you rebalance.",
"qid": 10645,
"docid": "85276",
"rank": 27,
"score": 104759
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Rebalancing has been studied empirically quite a bit, but not particularly carefully and actually turns out to be very hard to study well. The main problem is that you don't know until afterward if your target weights were optimal so a bad rebalancing program might give better performance if it strayed closer to optimal weights even if it didn't do an efficient job of keeping near the target weights. In your particular case either method might be preferred depending on a number of things: You can see why there isn't a generally correct answer to your question and the results of empirical studies might very wildly depending on the mix of assets and risk tolerance. Still if your portfolio is not too complicated you can estimate the costs of the two methods without too much trouble and figure out if it is worthwhile to you. EDIT In Response to Comment Below: Your example gets at what makes rebalancing so hard empirically but also generally pretty easy in practice. If you were to target 75% Equity (25% bonds?) and look at returns only for 30 years the \"\"best\"\" rebalancing method would be to never rebalance and just let 75% equity go to near 100% as equity has better long term returns. This happens when you look only at returns as the final number and don't take into account the change in risk in your portfolio. In practice, most people that are still adding (or subtracting in retirement) to a retirement portfolio are adding (removing) a significant amount compared to the total amount in their portfolio. In the case you discribe, it is cheaper (massively cheaper in the presence of load fees) just to use new capital to trade toward your target, keeping your risk profile. New money should be large enough to keep you near enough your target. If you just estimate the trading costs/fees in both cases I think you'll see just how large the difference is between the two methods this will dwarf any small differences in return over the long run even if you can't trade back all the way to your target.\"",
"qid": 10645,
"docid": "516607",
"rank": 28,
"score": 104551
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Before investing, absolutely follow the advice in mbhunter's answer. There is no safe investment (unless you count your mattress, and even there you could find moths, theives, or simple inflation taking a chunk out of your change). There is only maximizing your reward for a given level of risk - and there is always risk. This question should be enshrined somewhere on the Q&A site for its comprehensive list of sources for information on asset allocation. The tag is also going to have tons of good information for you. To answer your question on what slice of the pie is devoted to what, you can check out some common portfolios given by U. S. experts for U. S. investors - these should be convertible into Australian funds. Another portfolio that is, like all those above, loosely based on Modern Portfolio Theory for maximizing reward for a given level of risk is the Gone Fishin' Portfolio. A common denominator amongst these portfolios is that they emphasize index funds over mutual funds for their long-term performance and preference lazy management (yearly rebalancing is a common suggestion as the maximum level of involvement) over active management. You can see more Lazy Portfolios.",
"qid": 10645,
"docid": "233226",
"rank": 29,
"score": 104266
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"There are ways to mitigate, but since you're not protected by a tax-deferred/advantaged account, the realized income will be taxed. But you can do any of the followings to reduce the burden: Prefer selling either short positions that are at loss or long positions that are at gain. Do not invest in stocks, but rather in index funds that do the rebalancing for you without (significant) tax impact on you. If you are rebalancing portfolio that includes assets that are not stocks (real-estate, mainly) consider performing 1031 exchanges instead of plain sale and re-purchase. Maximize your IRA contributions, even if non-deductible, and convert them to Roth IRA. Hold your more volatile investments and individual stocks there - you will not be taxed when rebalancing. Maximize your 401K, HSA, SEP-IRA and any other tax-advantaged account you may be eligible for. On some accounts you'll pay taxes when withdrawing, on others - you won't. For example - Roth IRA/401k accounts are not taxed at all when withdrawing qualified distributions, while traditional IRA/401k are taxed as ordinary income. During the \"\"low income\"\" years, consider converting portions of traditional accounts to Roth.\"",
"qid": 10645,
"docid": "257274",
"rank": 30,
"score": 103615
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"If the stock market dropped 30%-40% next month, providing you with a rare opportunity to buy stocks at a deep discount, wouldn't you want to have some of your assets in investments other than stocks? If you don't otherwise have piles of new cash to throw into the market when it significantly tanks, then having some of your portfolio invested elsewhere will enable you to back up the proverbial truck and load up on more stocks while they are on sale. I'm not advocating active market timing. Rather, the way that long-term investors capitalize on such opportunities is by choosing a portfolio asset allocation that includes some percentage of safer assets (e.g. cash, short term bonds, etc.), permitting the investor to rebalance the portfolio periodically back to target allocations (e.g. 80% stocks, 20% bonds.) When rebalancing would have you buy stocks, it's usually because they are on sale. Similarly, when rebalancing would have you sell stocks, it's usually because they are overpriced. So, don't consider \"\"safer investments\"\" strictly as a way to reduce your risk. Rather, they can give you the means to take advantage of market drops, rather than just riding it out when you are already 100% invested in stocks. I could say a lot more about diversification and risk reduction, but there are plenty of other great questions on the site that you can look through instead.\"",
"qid": 10645,
"docid": "310218",
"rank": 31,
"score": 102633
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Fund rebalancing typically refers to changing the investment mix to stay within the guidelines of the mutual fund objective. For example, lets say a fund is supposed to have at least 20% in bonds. Because of a dramatic increase in stock price and decrease in bond values it finds itself with only 19.9% in bonds at the end of the trading day. The fund manager would sell sufficient equities to reduce its equity holdings and buy more bonds. Rebalancing is not always preferential because it could cause capital gain distribution, typically once per year, without selling the fund. And really any trading within the fun could do the same. In the case you cite the verbiage is confusing. Often times I wonder if the author knows less then the reader. It might also be a bit of a rush to get the article out, and the author did not write correctly. I agree that the ETFs cited are suitable for short term traders. However, that is because, traditionaly, the market has increased in value over the long term. If you bet it will go down over the long term, you are almost certain to lose money. Like you, I cannot figure out how rebalancing makes this suitable only for short term traders. If the ETFs distribute capital gains events much more frequently then once per year, that is worth mentioning, but does not provide a case for short versus long term traders. Secondly, I don't think these funds are doing true rebalancing. They might change investments daily for the most likely profitable outcome, but that really isn't rebalancing. It seems the author is confused.",
"qid": 10645,
"docid": "108721",
"rank": 32,
"score": 102449
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Personally I'm not a huge fan of rebalancing within an asset class. I would vote for leaving the HD shares alone and buying other assets until you get to the portfolio you want. Frequent buying and selling incurs costs and possible tax consequences that can really hurt your returns.",
"qid": 10645,
"docid": "507468",
"rank": 33,
"score": 101225
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: People that argue for an FTT, whether they know it or not, are directly advocating for savers to have reduced stock market returns, making it even harder to save for retirement. Make no mistake - a financial transactions tax would disproportionately hurt middle class savers the most. In almost every article I see advocating an FTT, the authors have a profound misunderstanding about how financial markets work. They focus on jealousy politics (target the rich!) and dismiss the hugely detrimental effects on the market as obscure academic objections. FFTs impose a DIRECT cost on ALL investors in four major ways: (1) larger bid/ask spreads, (2) higher volatility, (3) reduced capital mobility, and obviously (4) the tax itself. All of these things are BAD for any investor. Advocates for FFT essentially want the stock market to be less efficient. Even investors that make NO trades during the year will see the returns drop on their ETFs, mutual funds, index funds, that they are accumulating for retirement. Why? Institutional funds (Vanguard, Fidelity, etc) churn billions of dollars during the normal course of business handling buy/sell orders, portfolio rebalancing, unit creation/elimination. Increased bid/ask spreads make these transactions more expensive, higher volatility makes them more risky, reduced capital mobility reduces volumes available to trade, and the tax adds to the cost. All of these effects show up as reduced returns on a typical fund. Vanguard put the reduced returns on the order of 1% depending on fund style - in other words, hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost savings compounded over a middle class working career. For a middle class saver, that could mean the difference between retiring at a reasonable age or never being able to retire! But don't take my word on it. [There are an extensive number of studies and statements from both academia and industry on this subject, all saying the same thing.](https://modernmarketsinitiative.org/topics/ftt/) When Vanguard says an FTT will hurt investors, people should listen. Vanguard is perhaps the most consumer friendly investment firm in history, single-handedly responsible for bringing investing costs down near zero. They have done more for middle class investors than virtually any other firm.",
"qid": 10645,
"docid": "480590",
"rank": 34,
"score": 100552
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The portfolio described in that post has a blend of small slices of Vanguard sector funds, such as Vanguard Pacific Stock Index (VPACX). And the theory is that rebalancing across them will give you a good risk-return tradeoff. (Caveat: I haven't read the book, only the post you link to.) Similar ETFs are available from Vanguard, iShares, and State Street. If you want to replicate the GFP exactly, pick from them. (If you have questions about how to match specific funds in Australia, just ask another question.) So I think you could match it fairly exactly if you wanted to. However, I think trying to exactly replicate the Gone Fishin Portfolio in Australia would not be a good move for most people, for a few reasons: Brokerage and management fees are generally higher in Australia (smaller market), so dividing your investment across ten different securities, and rebalancing, is going to be somewhat more expensive. If you have a \"\"middle-class-sized\"\" portfolio of somewhere in the tens of thousands to low millions of dollars, you're cutting it into fairly small slices to manually allocate 5% to various sectors. To keep brokerage costs low you probably want to buy each ETF only once every one-two years or so. You also need to keep track of the tax consequences of each of them. If you are earning and spending Australian dollars, and looking at the portfolio in Australian dollars, a lot of those assets are going to move together as the Australian dollar moves, regardless of changes in the underlying assets. So there is effectively less diversification than you would have in the US. The post doesn't mention the GFP's approach to tax. I expect they do consider it, but it's not going to be directly applicable to Australia. If you are more interested in implementing the general approach of GFP rather than the specific details, what I would recommend is: The Vanguard and superannuation diversified funds have a very similar internal split to the GFP with a mix of local, first-world and emerging market shares, bonds, and property trusts. This is pretty much fire-and-forget: contribute every month and they will take care of rebalancing, spreading across asset classes, and tax calculations. By my calculations the cost is very similar, the diversification is very similar, and it's much easier. The only thing they don't generally cover is a precious metals allocation, and if you want that, just put 5% of your money into the ASX:GOLD ETF, or something similar.\"",
"qid": 10645,
"docid": "555237",
"rank": 35,
"score": 99305
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Here would be the general steps to my mind for creating such a plan: Write out the final desired outcome. Is it $x in y years to fund your retirement? Is it $a in b years to put as a house down payment? This is the first step in defining how much money you want at what point in time. Consider what is your risk tolerance and how much time do you plan on spending in this plan. Is it rebalancing once a quarter and that's it or do you plan on doing monthly research and making tweaks all the time? This is slightly different from the first where one has to be mindful of how much volatility would one handle and what time commitment does one have for an investing strategy. Also, how much money would you be adding to the investments on what kind of time table would also be worth noting here. Construct the asset allocation based on the previous two steps along with historical returns averaged out to be a first draft of what you are buying in general. Is it US stocks? Is it a short-term bond fund? There are more than a few choices here that may make sense and it is worth considering based on the first couple of responses that determine what this will look like. Retirement in 40 years may be quite different than a house down payment in 2 years for example. Determine what brokerages or fund companies would offer such funds along with what types of accounts you'd want to have as in some countries there may be tax-advantaged accounts that may be useful to use here. This is where you're almost ready to start by doing the homework of figuring out how will things work. This may vary depending on one's jurisdiction. Get the applications from whatever institutions you'll be using and run with the desired asset allocation across various funds and accounts. Note that in the first few steps there were points of being aware of how much would you have, how aggressive are you investing and so forth. This is where you actually send in the money and get things rolling. Run with the plan and make tweaks as needed to achieve result, hopefully desired or better.",
"qid": 10645,
"docid": "458183",
"rank": 36,
"score": 98220
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"As others are saying, you want to be a bit wary of completely counting on a defined benefit pension plan to be fulfilling exactly the same promises during your retirement that it's making right now. But, if in fact you've \"\"won the game\"\" (for lack of a better term) and are sure you have enough to live comfortably in retirement for whatever definition of \"\"comfortably\"\" you choose, there are basically two reasonable approaches: Those are all reasonable approaches, and so it really comes down to what your risk tolerance is (a.k.a. \"\"Can I sleep comfortably at night without staying up worrying about my portfolio?\"\"), what your goals for your money are (Just taking care of yourself? Trying to \"\"leave a legacy\"\" via charity or heirs or the like? Wanting a \"\"dream\"\" retirement traveling the world if possible but content to stay home if it's not?), and how confident you are in being able to calculate your \"\"needs\"\" in retirement and what your assets will truly be by then. You ask \"\"if it would be unwise at this stage of my life to create a portfolio that's too conservative\"\", but of course if it's \"\"too conservative\"\" then it would have been unwise. But I don't think it's unwise, at any stage of life, to create a portfolio that's \"\"conservative enough\"\". Only take risks if you have the need, ability, and willingness to do so.\"",
"qid": 10645,
"docid": "132361",
"rank": 37,
"score": 97570
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You may want to move money between your investments within the plan, rebalancing money to maintain your diversification. You don't have to deal with the details if selling and buying, just tell them how much to move where. Many plans offer investments that automatically rebalance for you such as Target Date accounts. You may be able to select one of those and just ignore the 401k until retirement, or at most rebalance even less often. Look at what's offered, look at what it costs as fees, run the numbers and decide whether you can do better.",
"qid": 10645,
"docid": "340131",
"rank": 38,
"score": 97285
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Bonds by themselves aren't recession proof. No investment is, and when a major crash (c.f. 2008) occurs, all investments will be to some extent at risk. However, bonds add a level of diversification to your investment portfolio that can make it much more stable even during downturns. Bonds do not move identically to the stock market, and so many times investing in bonds will be more profitable when the stock market is slumping. Investing some of your investment funds in bonds is safer, because that diversification allows you to have some earnings from that portion of your investment when the market is going down. It also allows you to do something called rebalancing. This is when you have target allocation proportions for your portfolio; say 60% stock 40% bond. Then, periodically look at your actual portfolio proportions. Say the market is way up - then your actual proportions might be 70% stock 30% bond. You sell 10 percentage points of stocks, and buy 10 percentage points of bonds. This over time will be a successful strategy, because it tends to buy low and sell high. In addition to the value of diversification, some bonds will tend to be more stable (but earn less), in particular blue chip corporate bonds and government bonds from stable countries. If you're willing to only earn a few percent annually on a portion of your portfolio, that part will likely not fall much during downturns - and in fact may grow as money flees to safer investments - which in turn is good for you. If you're particularly worried about your portfolio's value in the short term, such as if you're looking at retiring soon, a decent proportion should be in this kind of safer bond to ensure it doesn't lose too much value. But of course this will slow your earnings, so if you're still far from retirement, you're better off leaving things in growth stocks and accepting the risk; odds are no matter who's in charge, there will be another crash or two of some size before you retire if you're in your 30s now. But when it's not crashing, the market earns you a pretty good return, and so it's worth the risk.",
"qid": 10645,
"docid": "303037",
"rank": 39,
"score": 97028
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: When you are starting out using a balanced fund can be quite advantageous. A balanced fund is represents a diversified portfolio in single fund. The primary advantage of using a balanced fund is that with it being a single fund it is easier to meet the initial investment minimum. Later once you have enough to transition to a portfolio of diversified funds you would sell the fund and buy the portfolio. With a custom portfolio, you will be better able to target your risk level and you might also be able to use lower cost funds. The other item to check is do any of the funds that you might be interested in for the diversified portfolio have lower initial investment option if you can commit to adding money on a specified basis (assuming that you are able to). Also there might be an ETF version of a mutual fund and for those the initial investment amount is just the share price. The one thing to be aware of is make sure that you can buy enough shares that you can rebalance (holding a single share makes it hard to sell some gain when rebalancing). I would stay away from individual stocks until you have a much larger portfolio, assuming that you want to invest with a diversified portfolio. The reason being that it takes a lot more money to create a diversified portfolio out of individual stocks since you have to buy whole shares. With a mutual fund or ETF, your underlying ownership of can be fractional with no issue as each fund share is going to map into a fraction of the various companies held and with mutual funds you can buy fractional shares of the fund itself.",
"qid": 10645,
"docid": "469141",
"rank": 40,
"score": 96580
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Katherine from Betterment here. I wanted to address your inquiry and another comment regarding our services. I agree with JAGAnalyst - it's detrimental to your returns and potential for growth if you try to time the market. That's why Betterment offers customized asset allocation for each portfolio based on the nature of your goal, time horizon, and how much you are able to put towards your investments. We do this so regardless of what's happening in the markets, you can feel comfortable that your asset allocation plus other determining factors will get you where you need to go, without having to time your investing. We also put out quite a bit of content regarding market timing and why we think it's an unwise practice. We believe continuously depositing to your goal, especially through auto-deposits, compounding returns, tax-efficient auto-rebalancing, and reinvesting dividends are the best ways to grow your assets. Let me know if you would like additional information regarding Betterment accounts and our best practices. I am available at buck@betterment.com and am always happy to speak about Betterment's services. Katherine Buck, Betterment Community Manager",
"qid": 10645,
"docid": "583549",
"rank": 41,
"score": 95606
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: My thoughts from the top: 1. If you're already long, which not just buy-write? if you want to sit on the portfolio for some time with little rebalancing collecting some option premiums might not be bad? 2. You can replicate this portfolio on a rolling basis through bull spreads, which should hedge (or at least reduce) your theta and give you some of that sweet sweet convexity, however you will need a large enough size to cover your transaction costs. 3. I agree with maximizing mean / lower semi var (most kids max mean/var)) so good move there. However you need estimates of expected return (not easy!) and semi var (easier). Look into using GARCH (or a form of it) on the semi var for a better estimator. 4. Is this an MSR portfolio? How do you determine your weights? 5. In terms of sizing/leverage, Remember the betting condition that equity needs to be positive for all time. How are you planning to limit your max DD? and how often do you plan on rebalancing/rebetting.",
"qid": 10645,
"docid": "291173",
"rank": 42,
"score": 95254
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Modern portfolio theory has a strong theoretical background and its conclusions on the risk/return trade-off have a lot of good supporting evidence. However, the conclusions it draws need to be used very carefully when thinking about retirement investing. If you were really just trying to just pick the one investment that you would guess would make you the most money in the future then yes, given no other information, the riskiest asset would be the best one. However, for most people the goal retirement investing is to be as sure as possible to retire comfortably. If you were to just invest in a single, very risky asset you may have the highest expected return, but the risk involved would mean there might be a good chance you money may not be there when you need it. Instead, a broad diversified basket of riskier and safer assets leaning more toward the riskier investments when younger and the safer assets when you get closer to retirement tends to be a better fit with most people's retirement goals. This tends to give (on average) more return when you are young and can better deal with the risk, but dials back the risk later in life when your investment portfolio is a majority of your wealth and you can least afford any major swings. This combines the lessons of MPT (diversity, risk/return trade-off) in a clearer way with common goals of retirement. Caveat: Your retirement goals and risk-tolerance may be very different from other peoples'. It is often good to talk to (fee-only) financial planner.",
"qid": 10645,
"docid": "500863",
"rank": 43,
"score": 95088
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You are very correct, rebalancing is basically selling off winners to buy losers. Of course the thinking is that selling a winner that has already increased 100% on the basis that it has doubled so it is likely to go down in the near future. However, just look at Apple as an example, if you bought Apple in June 2009 for $20 (adjusted price) and sold it as part of rebalancing when it rose to $40 (adjusted price) in September 2010, you would have missed out on it reaching over $95 2 years later. Similarly you look to rebalance by buying assets which have been battered (say dropped by 50%) on the basis that it has dropped so much that it should start increasing in the near future. But many times the price can fall even further. A better method would be to sell your winners when they stop being winners (i.e. their uptrend ends) and replace them with assets that are just starting their winning ways (i.e. their downtrend has ended and are now starting to Uptrend). This can be achieved by looking at price action and referring to the definitions of an uptrend and a downtrend. Definition of an uptrend - higher highs and higher lows. Definition of a downtrend - lower lows and lower highs.",
"qid": 10645,
"docid": "473504",
"rank": 44,
"score": 95060
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Unfortunately I believe there is not a good answer to this because it's not a well posed problem. It sounds like you are looking for a theoretically sound criteria to decide whether to sell or hold. Such a criteria would take the form of calculating the cost of continuing to hold a stock and comparing it to the transactions cost of replacing it in your portfolio. However, your criteria for stock selection doesn't take this form. You appear to have some ad hoc rules defining whether you want the stock in your portfolio that provide no way to calculate a cost of having something in your portfolio you don't want or failing to have something you do want. Criteria for optimally rebalancing a portfolio can't really be more quantitative than the rules that define the portfolio.",
"qid": 10645,
"docid": "331673",
"rank": 45,
"score": 94039
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Target Date Funds automatically change their diversification balance over time, rebalancing and reassigning new contributions to become progressively more protective of what you've already earned. (As opposed to other funds which continue to maintain the same balance of investments until you explicitly move the money around.) You can certainly make that same evolution manually; we all used to do that before target funds were made available, and many of us still do so. I'm still handling the relative allocations by hand. But I'm also close to my retirement target, so a target fund wouldn't be changing that much more anyway, and since I'm already tracking the curve... Note that if you feel a bit braver, or a bit more cautious, than the \"\"average investor\"\" the target fund was designed for, you can tweak the risk/benefit curve of a Target Date Fund by selecting a fund with a target date a bit later or earlier, respectively, than the date at which you intend to start pulling money back out of the fund.\"",
"qid": 10645,
"docid": "252918",
"rank": 46,
"score": 93850
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you are looking for an advisor to just build a portfolio and then manage it, a robo-advisor can be beneficial (especially if the alternative is doing it your self, assuming that you are not well versed in the markets). The primary risk with one is that it does not build a portfolio that accurately represents your needs and risk tolerance. Some firms base the number of questions they ask you on sign up based not on what is needed to get a good profile, but on how many before people decide that it is too much hassle and bail. That usually results in poorer profiles. Also a live advisor may be better at really getting at your risk tolerance. Many of day our risk tolerance is one thing but in reality we are not so risk tolerant. Once the profile is built. The algorithms maintain your portfolio on a day by day basis. If rebalancing opportunities occur they take advantage of it. The primary benefit of a robo-advisor is lower fees or smaller minimum account balances. The downside is the lack of human interaction and financial advise outside of putting together a portfolio.",
"qid": 10645,
"docid": "278718",
"rank": 47,
"score": 93666
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: In the US, the key to understanding the benefits of retirement accounts is to understand capital gains taxes and how they work. Retirement accounts are designed for making investments throughout your career, then after several decades of contributions, withdrawing that money to pay for your needs when your full-time employment has concluded. Normally when you invest money in a brokerage account, if the value of your investment increases, and you sell in less than a year, those investments are considered short-term gains and taxed as ordinary income. If you hold that same investment for over a year, the same investment is taxed at a lower capital gains rate (depending on which tax bracket you are in during that year, the amount due could be up to 20%, but much lower than your regular income tax rate). When you place your money in a retirement account, you are choosing to either pay the tax due on the income when you put it in the account, or put the money in tax free and pay the tax when you withdraw (these are called tax-deferred accounts). When you have money invested several decades, the raw dollar amount increases greatly, but inflation is also reducing the value of those dollars. Imagine you bought some bonds that payed 4% over 40 years, but inflation was 2% during those same years. When you sell those bonds 40 years later, you will owe capital gains on the entire gain even though half of the gain came from inflation. Retirement accounts allow you to buy and sell according to your investment needs and goals without any consideration about whether the gains are short-term or long-term, and they also allow you to pay taxes just once, either when you put it in, or when you take it out, with no worries about whether you're paying taxes on inflated gains.",
"qid": 10645,
"docid": "170717",
"rank": 48,
"score": 93311
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: From Vanguard's Best practices for portfolio rebalancing:",
"qid": 10645,
"docid": "36284",
"rank": 49,
"score": 92302
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I still don't see the point of this software; rebalancing frequently is a waste of money (through fees). If you invest in index funds, you don't have to rebalance at all--effectively, the fund is doing it for you, and since they can generally trade more efficiently than individual investors can, that's a win. The Coverdell ESA is a great example. There's a maximum contribution amount, just as there are for almost any tax-exempt account. A decent financial adviser could help you plan how much to contribute to which accounts, at what time, and when you can/should start to withdraw from them.",
"qid": 10645,
"docid": "476138",
"rank": 50,
"score": 91769
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The standard low-risk/gain very-short-term parking spot these days tends to be a money market account. However, you have only mentioned stock. For good balance, your portfolio should consider the bond market too. Consider adding a bond index fund to diversify the basic mix, taking up much of that 40%. This will also help stabilize your risk since bonds tend to move opposite stocks (prperhaps just because everyone else is also using them as the main alternative, though there are theoretical arguments why this should be so.) Eventually you may want to add a small amount of REIT fund to be mix, but that's back on the higher risk side. (By the way: Trying to guess when the next correction will occur is usually not a winning strategy; guesses tend to go wrong as often as they go right, even for pros. Rather than attempting to \"\"time the market\"\", pick a strategic mix of investments and rebalance periodically to maintain those ratios. There has been debate here about \"\"dollar-cost averaging\"\" -- see other answers -- but that idea may argue for investing and rebalancing in more small chunks rather than a few large ones. I generally actively rebalance once a year or so, and between those times let maintainng the balance suggest which fund(s) new money should go into -- minimal effort and it has worked quite well enough.,)\"",
"qid": 10645,
"docid": "551719",
"rank": 51,
"score": 91238
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: My super fund and I would say many other funds give you one free switch of strategies per year. Some suggest you should change from high growth option to a more balance option once you are say about 10 to 15 years from retirement, and then change to a more capital guaranteed option a few years from retirement. This is a more passive approach and has benefits as well as disadvantages. The benefit is that there is not much work involved, you just change your investment option based on your life stage, 2 to 3 times during your lifetime. This allows you to take more risk when you are young to aim for higher returns, take a balanced approach with moderate risk and returns during the middle part of your working life, and take less risk with lower returns (above inflation) during the latter part of your working life. A possible disadvantage of this strategy is you may be in the higher risk/ higher growth option during a market correction and then change to a more balanced option just when the market starts to pick up again. So your funds will be hit with large losses whilst the market is in retreat and just when things look to be getting better you change to a more balanced portfolio and miss out on the big gains. A second more active approach would be to track the market and change investment option as the market changes. One approach which shouldn't take much time is to track the index such as the ASX200 (if you investment option is mainly invested in the Australian stock market) with a 200 day Simple Moving Average (SMA). The concept is that if the index crosses above the 200 day SMA the market is bullish and if it crosses below it is bearish. See the chart below: This strategy will work well when the market is trending up or down but not very well when the market is going sideways, as you will be changing from aggressive to balanced and back too often. Possibly a more appropriate option would be a combination of the two. Use the first passive approach to change investment option from aggressive to balanced to capital guaranteed with your life stages, however use the second active approach to time the change. For example, if you were say in your late 40s now and were looking to change from aggressive to balanced in the near future, you could wait until the ASX200 crosses below the 200 day SMA before making the change. This way you could capture the majority of the uptrend (which could go on for years) before changing from the high growth/aggressive option to the balanced option. If you where after more control over your superannuation assets another option open to you is to start a SMSF, however I would recommend having at least $300K to $400K in assets before starting a SMSF, or else the annual costs would be too high as a percentage of your total super assets.",
"qid": 10645,
"docid": "277",
"rank": 52,
"score": 90950
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You can simply stick with some index funds that tracks the S&P 500 and Ex-US world market. That should provide some good diversification. And of course, you should always have a portion of your money in short/mid term bond fund, rebalancing your stock/bond ratio all the way as deemed necessary. If you want to follow the The Über–Tuber portfolio, you'd better make sure that there's minimum overlapping among the underlying shares that they hold.",
"qid": 10645,
"docid": "317354",
"rank": 53,
"score": 90074
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Both explanations are partly true. There are many investors who do not want to sell an asset at a loss. This causes \"\"resistance\"\" at prices where large amounts of the asset were previously traded by such investors. It also explains why a \"\"break-through\"\" of such a \"\"resistance\"\" is often associated with a substantial \"\"move\"\" in price. There are also many investors who have \"\"stop-loss\"\" or \"\"trailing stop-loss\"\" \"\"limit orders\"\" in effect. These investors will automatically sell out of a long position (or buy out of a short position) if the price drops (or rises) by a certain percentage (typically 8% - 10%). There are periods of time when money is flowing into an asset or asset class. This could be due to a large investor trying to quietly purchase the asset in a way that avoids raising the price earlier than necessary. Or perhaps a large investor is dollar-cost-averaging. Or perhaps a legal mandate for a category of investors has changed, and they need to rebalance their portfolios. This rebalancing is likely to take place over time. Or perhaps there is a fad where many small investors (at various times) decide to increase (or decrease) their stake in an asset class. Or perhaps (for demographic reasons) the number of investors in a particular situation is increasing, so there are more investors who want to make particular investments. All of these phenomena can be summarized by the word \"\"momentum\"\". Traders who use technical analysis (including most day traders and algorithmic speculators) are aware of these phenomena. They are therefore more likely to purchase (or sell, or short) an asset shortly after one of their \"\"buy signals\"\" or \"\"sell signals\"\" is triggered. This reinforces the phenomena. There are also poorly-understood long-term cycles that affect business fundamentals and/or the politics that constrain business activity. For example: Note that even if the markets really were a random walk, it would still be profitable (and risk-reducing) to perform dollar-cost-averaging when buying into a position, and also perform averaging when selling out of a position. But this means that recent investor behavior can be used to predict the near-future behavior of investors, which justifies technical analysis.\"",
"qid": 10645,
"docid": "370290",
"rank": 54,
"score": 88635
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I separate them out, simply because they're for different purposes, with different goals and time-frames, and combining them may mask hidden problems in either the retirement account or the regular account. Consider an example: A young investor has been working on their retirement planning for a few years now, and has a modest amount of retirement savings (say $15,000) allocated carefully according to one of the usually recommended schemes. A majority exposure to large cap U.S. stocks, with smaller exposures to small cap, international and bond markets. Years before however, they mad an essentially emotional investment in a struggling manufacturer of niche personal computers, which then enjoyed something of a renaissance and a staggering growth in shareholder value. Lets say their current holdings in this company now represent $50,000. Combining them, their portfolio is dominated by large cap U.S. equities to such an extent that the only way to rebalance their portfolio is to pour money into bonds and the international market for years on end. This utterly changes the risk profile of their retirement account. At the same time, if we switch the account balances, the investor might be reassured that their asset allocation is fine and diversified, even though the assets they have access to before retirement are entirely in a single risky stock. In neither case is the investor well served by combining their funds when figuring out their allocation - especially as the \"\"goal\"\" allocations may very well be different.\"",
"qid": 10645,
"docid": "294855",
"rank": 55,
"score": 88228
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Aggressiveness in a retirement portfolio is usually a function of your age and your risk tolerance. Your portfolio is usually a mix of the following asset classes: You can break down these asset classes further, but each one is a topic unto itself. If you are young, you want to invest in things that have a higher return, but are more volatile, because market fluctuations (like the current financial meltdown) will be long gone before you reach retirement age. This means that at a younger age, you should be investing more in stocks and foreign/developing countries. If you are older, you need to be into more conservative investments (bonds, money market, etc). If you were in your 50s-60s and still heavily invested in stock, something like the current financial crisis could have ruined your retirement plans. (A lot of baby boomers learned this the hard way.) For most of your life, you will probably be somewhere in between these two. Start aggressive, and gradually get more conservative as you get older. You will probably need to re-check your asset allocation once every 5 years or so. As for how much of each investment class, there are no hard and fast rules. The idea is to maximize return while accepting a certain amount of risk. There are two big unknowns in there: (1) how much return do you expect from the various investments, and (2) how much risk are you willing to accept. #1 is a big guess, and #2 is personal opinion. A general portfolio guideline is \"\"100 minus your age\"\". This means if you are 20, you should have 80% of your retirement portfolio in stocks. If you are 60, your retirement portfolio should be 40% stock. Over the years, the \"\"100\"\" number has varied. Some financial advisor types have suggested \"\"150\"\" or \"\"200\"\". Unfortunately, that's why a lot of baby boomers can't retire now. Above all, re-balance your portfolio regularly. At least once a year, perhaps quarterly if the market is going wild. Make sure you are still in-line with your desired asset allocation. If the stock market tanks and you are under-invested in stocks, buy more stock, selling off other funds if necessary. (I've read interviews with fund managers who say failure to rebalance in a down stock market is one of the big mistakes people make when managing a retirement portfolio.) As for specific mutual fund suggestions, I'm not going to do that, because it depends on what your 401k or IRA has available as investment options. I do suggest that your focus on selecting a \"\"passive\"\" index fund, not an actively managed fund with a high expense ratio. Personally, I like \"\"total market\"\" funds to give you the broadest allocation of small and big companies. (This makes your question about large/small cap stocks moot.) The next best choice would be an S&P 500 index fund. You should also be able to find a low-cost Bond Index Fund that will give you a healthy mix of different bond types. However, you need to look at expense ratios to make an informed decision. A better-performing fund is pointless if you lose it all to fees! Also, watch out for overlap between your fund choices. Investing in both a Total Market fund, and an S&P 500 fund undermines the idea of a diversified portfolio. An aggressive portfolio usually includes some Foreign/Developing Nation investments. There aren't many index fund options here, so you may have to go with an actively-managed fund (with a much higher expense ratio). However, this kind of investment can be worth it to take advantage of the economic growth in places like China. http://www.getrichslowly.org/blog/2009/04/27/how-to-create-your-own-target-date-mutual-fund/\"",
"qid": 10645,
"docid": "418551",
"rank": 56,
"score": 88149
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You are correct that over a short term there is no guarantee that one index will out perform another index. Every index goes through periods of feat and famine. That uis why the advice is to diversify your investments. Every index does have some small amount of management. For the parent index (the S&P 500 in this case) there is a process to divide all 500 stocks into growth and value, pure growth and pure value. This rebalancing of the 500 stocks occurs once a year. Rebalancing The S&P Style indices are rebalanced once a year in December. The December rebalancing helps set the broad universe and benchmark for active managers on an annual cycle consistent with active manager performance evaluation cycles. The rebalancing date is the third Friday of December, which coincides with the December quarterly share changes for the S&P Composite 1500. Style Scores, market-capitalization weights, growth and value midpoint averages, and the Pure Weight Factors (PWFs), where applicable across the various Style indices, are reset only once a year at the December rebalancing. Other changes to the U.S. Style indices are made on an as-needed basis, following the guidelines of the parent index. Changes in response to corporate actions and market developments can be made at any time. Constituent changes are typically announced for the parent index two-to-five days before they are scheduled to be implemented. Please refer to the S&P U.S. Indices Methodology document for information on standard index maintenance for the S&P 500, the S&P MidCap 400,the S&P SmallCap 600 and all related indices. As to which is better: 500, growth,value or growth and value? That depends on what you the investor is trying to do.",
"qid": 10645,
"docid": "178875",
"rank": 57,
"score": 87959
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"To answer your question directly.. you can investigate by using google or other means to look up research done in this area. There's been a bunch of it Here's an example of search terms that returns a wealth of information. effect+of+periodic+rebalancing+on+portfolio+return I'd especially look for stuff that appears to be academic papers etc, and then raid the 'references' section of those. Look for stuff published in industry journals such as \"\"Journal of Portfolio Management\"\" as an example. If you want to try out different models yourself and see what works and what doesn't, this Monte Carlo Simulator might be something you would find useful The basic theory for those that don't know is that various parts of a larger market do not usually move in perfect lockstep, but go through cycles.. one year tech might be hot, the next year it's healthcare. Or for an international portfolio, one year korea might be doing fantastic only to slow down and have another country perform better the next year. So the idea of re-balancing is that since these things tend to be cyclic, you can get a higher return if you sell part of a slice that is doing well (e.g. sell at the high) and invest it in one that is not (buy at the low) Because you do this based on some criteria, it helps circumvent the human tendency to 'hold on to a winner too long' (how many times have you heard someone say 'but it's doing so well, why do I want to sell now\"\"? presuming trends will continue and they will 'lose out' on future gains, only to miss the peak and ride the thing down back into mediocrity.) Depending on the volatility of the specific market, and the various slices, using re balancing can get you a pretty reasonable 'lift' above the market average, for relatively low risk. generally the more volatile the market, (such as say an emerging markets portfolio) the more opportunity for lift. I looked into this myself a number of years back, the concensus I came was that the most effective method was to rebalance based on 'need' rather than time. Need is defined as one or more of the 'slices' in your portfolio being more than 8% above or below the average. So you use that as the trigger. How you rebalance depends to some degree on if the portfolio is taxable or not. If in a tax deferred account, you can simply sell off whatever is above baseline and use it to buy up the stuff that is below. If you are subject to taxes and don't want to trigger any short term gains, then you may have to be more careful in terms of what you sell. Alternatively if you are adding funds to the portfolio, you can alter how your distribute the new money coming into the portfolio in order to bring up whatever is below the baseline (which takes a bit more time, but incurs no tax hit) The other question is how will you slice a given market? by company size? by 'sectors' such as tech/finance/industrial/healthcare, by geographic regions?\"",
"qid": 10645,
"docid": "434014",
"rank": 58,
"score": 87902
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"You should establish a strategy -- eg a specific mix of investments/funds which has the long-term tradeofv of risk, returns, and diversification you want -- and stick to that strategy, rebalancing periodically to maintain your strategic ratios betwedn those investments. Yes, that means you will somettimes sell things that have been doing well and buy others that have been doing less well -- but that's to be expected; it's exactly what happens when you \"\"buy low, sell high\"\".\"",
"qid": 10645,
"docid": "83807",
"rank": 59,
"score": 87746
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: For a non-technical investor (meaning someone who doesn't try to do all the various technical analysis things that theoretically point to specific investments or trends), having a diverse portfolio and rebalancing it periodically will typically be the best solution. For example, I might have a long-term-growth portfolio that is 40% broad stock market fund, 40% (large) industry specific market funds, and 20% bond funds. If the market as a whole tanks, then I might end up in a situation where my funds are invested 30% market 35% industry 35% bonds. Okay, sell those bonds (which are presumably high) and put that into the market (which is presumably low). Now back to 40/40/20. Then when the market goes up we may end up at 50/40/10, say, in which case we sell some of the broad market fund and buy some bond funds, back to 40/40/20. Ultimately ending up always selling high (whatever is currently overperforming the other two) and buying low (whatever is underperforming). Having the industry specific fund(s) means I can balance a bit between different sectors - maybe the healthcare industry takes a beating for a while, so that goes low, and I can sell some of my tech industry fund and buy that. None of this depends on timing anything; you can rebalance maybe twice a year, not worrying about where the market is at that exact time, and definitely not targeting a correction specifically. You just analyze your situation and adjust to make everything back in line with what you want. This isn't guaranteed to succeed (any more than any other strategy is), of course, and has some risk, particularly if you rebalance in the middle of a major correction (so you end up buying something that goes down more). But for long-term investments, it should be fairly sound.",
"qid": 10645,
"docid": "126836",
"rank": 60,
"score": 87706
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Don't put money in things that you don't understand. ETFs won't kill you, ignorance will. The leveraged ultra long/short ETFs hold swaps that are essentially bets on the daily performance of the market. There is no guarantee that they will perform as designed at all, and they frequently do not. IIRC, in most cases, you shouldn't even be holding these things overnight. There aren't any hidden fees, but derivative risk can wipe out portions of the portfolio, and since the main \"\"asset\"\" in an ultra long/short ETF are swaps, you're also subject to counterparty risk -- if the investment bank the fund made its bet with cannot meet it's obligation, you're may lost alot of money. You need to read the prospectus carefully. The propectus re: strategy. The Fund seeks daily investment results, before fees and expenses, that correspond to twice the inverse (-2x) of the daily performance of the Index. The Fund does not seek to achieve its stated investment objective over a period of time greater than a single day. The prospectus re: risk. Because of daily rebalancing and the compounding of each day’s return over time, the return of the Fund for periods longer than a single day will be the result of each day’s returns compounded over the period, which will very likely differ from twice the inverse (-2x) of the return of the Index over the same period. A Fund will lose money if the Index performance is flat over time, and it is possible that the Fund will lose money over time even if the Index’s performance decreases, as a result of daily rebalancing, the Index’s volatility and the effects of compounding. See “Principal Risks” If you want to hedge your investments over a longer period of time, you should look at more traditional strategies, like options. If you don't have the money to make an option strategy work, you probably can't afford to speculate with leveraged ETFs either.\"",
"qid": 10645,
"docid": "440417",
"rank": 61,
"score": 87512
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: As you point out, the main benefits of a pension/retirement account over a traditional cash/taxable account are the legal and tax benefits. Most Western countries establish a specific legal definition for an account which is often taxed less or not at all relative to taxable accounts and which contains some protection for the owner in case of a bankruptcy. The typical drawbacks for investing within such structures are limited investment choice, limited withdrawal rights (either in terms of age or rate of withdrawal), and maximum contributions. The benefits are usually very clear, and your decision whether or not to open a pension/retirement account should depend on a careful weighing of the benefits and drawbacks. As to whether you may end up with less than you started, that depends on what you invest in. As with all of finance, you must take more risk to get more return. Although the choices inside a pension/retirement account may be worded somewhat differently, they are usually fundamentally no different than some of the most popular investments available for ordinary taxable accounts.",
"qid": 10645,
"docid": "486367",
"rank": 62,
"score": 86886
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I think that the answer by @jkuz is good. I'd add that the there's a mathematically precise difference: Gambling games are typically \"\"zero-sum\"\" games, which means that every dollar won by one person is lost by another. (If there's a \"\"house\"\" taking a cut then it's worse than zero-sum, but let's ignore that for the moment.) None of the markets that you mentioned are zero-sum because it's possible for both parties in the transaction to \"\"win\"\" since they typically have different objectives. If I buy stock, I typically desire for it to go up to make money, but, if I sell stock, I typically sell it because I want the money to do something else completely. The \"\"something else\"\" might be invest in another instrument if I think it's better or I'm rebalancing risk. It might also be to buy a house, pay for college, or (if I'm in retirement living on my investments) to buy food. If the stock goes up, the buyer won (increased investment) but the seller also won (got the \"\"other thing\"\" that they wanted/needed), which they would not have been able to get had there not been a buyer willing to pay cash for the stock. Of course it's possible that in some cases not everyone wins because there is risk, but risk should not be considered synonymous with gambling because there's varying degrees of risk in everything you do.\"",
"qid": 10645,
"docid": "175564",
"rank": 63,
"score": 86798
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you are looking to begin living off the money now, then Dheer's answer is correct - it is not possible. However, if you are looking to grow that money (and potentially additional money added at later dates), then you could make this work. 250 a month corresponds to 3000 per year. A first approximation is that you will need a diversified portfolio of 20-25x that amount (60k-75k) to get the required return. This approximation is based on the rule of thumb for how much life insurance to buy. Therefore you need to determine how to grow the 4k you currently have into 60-75k. These numbers, however, are not adjusted for inflation. In the US I would like put the long term inflation adjust diversified market return at 4% per year (your money doubles about every 18 years). So your best approach if you have time is a diversified portfolio with rebalancing and adding additional money each year.",
"qid": 10645,
"docid": "333059",
"rank": 64,
"score": 85626
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Defined Benefit - the benefit you receive when you retire is defined e.g. $500 a month if you retire at age 65. It is up to the plan administrators to manage the pension fund, and ensure that there is enough money to cover the benefits based on the life expectancy of the retiree. Defined Contribution - the amount you contribute to the plan is defined. The benefit you receive at retirement depends on how well the investments do over the years.",
"qid": 10645,
"docid": "12614",
"rank": 65,
"score": 85611
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Many investment companies are also offering target retirement date portfolios to invest in. They manage reducing the risk over time so you don't have to worry about it if you choose not to.",
"qid": 10645,
"docid": "119136",
"rank": 66,
"score": 85439
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Exactly. Regardless of just the volatility, to weight an asset or two with a majority of your portfolio is poor investment strategy. Ron is a smart guy and obviously understands the benefits of diversification. As others have suggested, I think he is doing it more to make a statement. When he retires, I hope it doesn't come back to bite him.",
"qid": 10645,
"docid": "430398",
"rank": 67,
"score": 85361
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: This depends completely on your investing goals. Typically when saving for retirement younger investors aim for a more volatile and aggressive portfolio but diversify their portfolio with more cautious stocks/bonds as they near retirement. In other words, the volatility that owning a single stock brings may be in line with your goals if you can shoulder the risk.",
"qid": 10645,
"docid": "179328",
"rank": 68,
"score": 84831
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: As you move toward retirement, your portfolio is supposed to move toward low risk, stable investments, more bonds, less stocks, etc. Your question implies that you want to increase your income, most likely because your income is not satisfying your desires. First, any idea that you have that risks your savings, just eliminate it. You are not able to replace those savings. The time for those kind of plays has passed. However, you can improve your situation. Do random odd jobs. Find a part time job that you're willing to do for 10 hours a week or something. Keep this money separate from your retirement savings. Research the stock trades you would like to make and use that 'extra' money to play in the market. Set a rule that you do not touch your nest egg for trading. You may find that being retired gives you the time to do the #1 thing that helps investors make good investments -- research. Then when you make your first million doing this, write a book. If you call it Retire - And Then Get Rich, I expect royalties and a dedication.",
"qid": 10645,
"docid": "454650",
"rank": 69,
"score": 84516
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Though it seems unintuitive, you should rationally ignore the past performance of this stock (including the fact that it's at its 52-week high) and focus exclusively on factors that you believe should affect it moving forward. If you think it's going to go up even further, more than the return on your other options for where to put the money, keep the stock. If you think it's peaked and will be going down, now's a good time to sell. To put it another way: if you didn't already have this stock, would you buy it today? Your choice is just about the same: you can choose between a sum of cash equal to the present market value of the shares, OR the shares. Which do you think is worth more? You also mentioned that you only have 10 stocks in the portfolio. Some are probably a larger percentage than others, and this distribution may be different than what you want in your portfolio. It may be time to do some rebalancing, which could involve selling some shares where your position is too large (as a % of your portfolio) and using the proceeds toward one or more categories you're not as invested in as you would like to be. This might be a good opportunity to increase the diversity in your portfolio. If part of your reward and motivation for trading is emotional, not purely financial, you could sell now, mark it as a \"\"win,\"\" and move on to another opportunity. Trading based on emotions is not likely to optimize your future balance, but not everybody is into trading or money for money's sake. What's going to help you sleep better at night and help boost your quality of life? If holding the stock will make you stress and regret a missed opportunity if it goes down, and selling it will make you feel happy and confident even if it still goes up more (e.g. you interpret that as further confirming that you made a good pick in the first place), you might decide that the risk of suboptimal financial returns (from emotion-based trading) is acceptable. As CQM points out, you could also set a trailing sell order to activate only when the stock is a certain percentage or dollar amount below whatever it peaks at between the time you set the order and the time it fires/expires; the activation price will rise with the stock and hold as it falls.\"",
"qid": 10645,
"docid": "420974",
"rank": 70,
"score": 83779
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Your retirement plan shouldn't necessarily be dictated by your perceived employment risks. If you're feeling insecure about your short-term job longevity and mid-career prospects, you will likely benefit from a thoughtful and robust emergency fund plan. Your retirement plan is really designed to fund your life after work, so the usual advice to contribute as much as you can as early as you can applies either way. While a well-funded retirement portfolio will help you feel generally more secure in the long run (and worst case can be used earlier), a good emergency fund will do more to address your near-term concerns. Both retirement and emergency fund planning are fundamental to a comprehensive personal finance plan. This post on StackExchange has some basic info about your retirement options. Given your spare income, you should be able to fully fund an IRA and your 401K every year with some left over. Check the fees in your 401K to determine if you really want to fully fund the 401K past employer matching. There are several good answers and info about that here. Low-cost mutual funds are a good choice for starting your IRA. There is a lot of different advice about emergency funds (check here) ranging from x months salary in savings to detailed planning for each of your expenses. Regardless of which method you chose, it is important to think about your personal risk tolerance and create a plan that addresses your personal needs. It's difficult to live life and perform well at work if you're always worried about your situation. A good emergency plan should go a long way toward calming those fears. Your concern about reaching mid-life and becoming obsolete or unable to keep up in your career may be premature. Of course your mind, body, and your abilities will change over the years, but it is very difficult to predict where you will be, what you will be doing, and whether your experience will offset any potential decrease in your ability to keep up. It's good to think ahead and consider the \"\"what-ifs\"\", but keep in mind that those scenarios are not preordained. There isn't anything special about being 40 that will force you into a different line of work if you don't want to switch.\"",
"qid": 10645,
"docid": "460779",
"rank": 71,
"score": 83252
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I actually love this question, and have hashed this out with a friend of mine where my premise was that at some volume of money it must be advantageous to simply track the index yourself. There some obvious touch-points: Most people don't have anywhere near the volume of money required for even a $5 commission outweigh the large index fund expense ratios. There are logistical issues that are massively reduced by holding a fund when it comes to winding down your investment(s) as you get near retirement age. Index funds are not touted as categorically \"\"the best\"\" investment, they are being touted as the best place for the average person to invest. There is still a management component to an index like the S&P500. The index doesn't simply buy a share of Apple and watch it over time. The S&P 500 isn't simply a single share of each of the 500 larges US companies it's market cap weighted with frequent rebalancing and constituent changes. VOO makes a lot of trades every day to track the S&P index, \"\"passive index investing\"\" is almost an oxymoron. The most obvious part of this is that if index funds were \"\"the best\"\" way to invest money Berkshire Hathaway would be 100% invested in VOO. The argument for \"\"passive index investing\"\" is simplified for public consumption. The reality is that over time large actively managed funds have under-performed the large index funds net of fees. In part, the thrust of the advice is that the average person is, or should be, more concerned with their own endeavors than they are managing their savings. Investment professionals generally want to avoid \"\"How come I my money only returned 4% when the market index returned 7%? If you track the index, you won't do worse than the index; this helps people sleep better at night. In my opinion the dirty little secret of index funds is that they are able to charge so much less because they spend $0 making investment decisions and $0 on researching the quality of the securities they hold. They simply track an index; XYZ company is 0.07% of the index, then the fund carries 0.07% of XYZ even if the manager thinks something shady is going on there. The argument for a majority of your funds residing in Mutual Funds/ETFs is simple, When you're of retirement age do you really want to make decisions like should I sell a share of Amazon or a share of Exxon? Wouldn't you rather just sell 2 units of SRQ Index fund and completely maintain your investment diversification and not pay commission? For this simplicity you give up three basis points? It seems pretty reasonable to me.\"",
"qid": 10645,
"docid": "452939",
"rank": 72,
"score": 83206
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: In your entire question, the only time you mention that this is an investment inside an IRA is when you say Every quarter, six months, whatever Id have to rebalance my IRA while Vanguard would do this for the fund of funds without me needing to. Within an IRA, there are no tax implications to the rebalancing. But if this investment were not inside an IRA, then the rebalancing done by you will have tax implications. In particular, any gains realized when you sell shares in one fund and buy shares in another fund during the rebalancing process are subject to income tax. Similarly, losses also might be realized (and will affect your taxes). However, if you are invested in a fund of funds, there are no capital gains (or capital losses) when re-balancing is done; you have gains or losses only when you sell shares of the fund of funds for a price different than the price you paid for them.",
"qid": 10645,
"docid": "271504",
"rank": 73,
"score": 83058
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Dollar cost averaging is an great way to diversify your investment risk. There's mainly 2 things you want to achieve when you're saving for retirement: 1) Keep your principal investment; 2) Grow it. The best methods recommended by most financial institutions are as follows: 1) Diversification; 2) Re-balance. There are a lot of additional recommendations, but these are my main take away. When you dollar cost average, you're essentially diversifying your exchange risk between the value of the funds you're investing. Including the ups and downs of the value of the underlying asset, may actually be re-balancing. Picking your asset portfolio: 1) You generally want to include within your 401k or any other invest, classes of investments that do not always move in total correlation as this allows you to diversify risk; 2) I'm making a lot of assumptions here - since you may have already picked your asset classes. Consider utilizing the following to tell you when to buy or sell your underlying investment: 1) Google re-balance excel sheet to find several examples of re-balance tools to help you always buy low and sell high; 2) Enter your portfolio investment; 3) Utilize the movement to invest in the underlying assets based on market movement; and 4) Execute in an emotionless way and stick to your plan. Example - Facts 1) I have 1 CAD and 1 USD in my 401k. Plan I will invest 1 dollar in the ratio of 50/50 - forever. Let's start in 2011 since we were closer to par: 2010 - 1 CAD (value 1 USD) and 1 USD (value 1 USD) = 50/50 ratio 2011 start - 1 CAD ( value .8 USD) and 1 USD (value 1 USD) = 40/60 ratio 2011 - rebalance - invest 1 USD as follows purchase .75 CAD (.60 USD) and purchase .40 USD = total of 1 USD reinvested 2011 end - 1.75 CAD (value 1.4USD) and 1.4 USD (value 1.4 USD) - 50/50 ratio As long as the fundamentals of your underlying assets (i.e. you're not expecting hyperinflation or your asset to approach 0), this approach will always build value over time since you're always buying low and selling high while dollar averaging. Keep in mind it does reduce your potential gains - but if you're looking to max gain, it may mean you're also max potential loss - unless you're able to find A symmetrical investments. I hope this helps.",
"qid": 10645,
"docid": "18436",
"rank": 74,
"score": 82968
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"A well diversified retirement portfolio is going to have some component in cash or near-liquid investments. So I tend to put it all in one place knowing that I can draw on it (at least from the ROTH account) in the event of an emergency. Obviously, you don't want to do this very often, but hopefully emergencies don't happen often either. You also have to attenuate your idea of an emergency so that it doesn't mean \"\"I didn't get a bonus check this year and can't afford gifts for the kids as nice as last year!\"\"\"",
"qid": 10645,
"docid": "458168",
"rank": 75,
"score": 81888
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The reason diversification in general is a benefit is easily seen in your first graph. While the purple line (Betterment 100% Stock) is always below the blue line (S&P), and the blue line is the superior return over the entire period, it's a bit different if you retired in 2009, isn't it? In that case the orange line is superior: because its risk is much lower, so it didn't drop much during the major crash. Lowering risk (and lowering return) is a benefit the closer you get to retirement as you won't see as big a cumulative return from the large percentage, but you could see a big temporary drop, and need your income to be relatively stable (if you're living off it or soon going to). Now, you can certainly invest on your own in a diverse way, and if you're reasonably smart about it and have enough funds to avoid any fees, you can almost certainly do better than a managed solution - even a relatively lightly managed solution like Betterment. They take .15% off the top, so if you just did exactly the same as them, you would end up .15% (per year) better off. However, not everyone is reasonably smart, and not everyone has much in the way of funds. Betterment's target audience are people who aren't terribly smart about investing and/or have very small amounts of funds to invest. Plenty of people aren't able to work out how to do diversification on their own; while they probably mostly aren't asking questions on this site, they're a large percentage of the population. It's also work to diversify your portfolio: you have to make minor changes every year at a minimum to ensure you have a nicely balanced portfolio. This is why target retirement date portfolios are very popular; a bit higher cost (similar to Betterment, roughly) but no work required to diversify correctly and maintain that diversification.",
"qid": 10645,
"docid": "347825",
"rank": 76,
"score": 81254
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: This answer will assume you know more math than most. An ideal case: For the point of argument, first consider the following admittedly incorrect assumptions: 1) The prices of all assets in your investment universe are continuously differentiable functions of time. 2) Investor R (for rebalance) continuously buys and sells in order to maintain a constant proportion of each of several investments in his portfolio. 3) Investor P (for passive) starts with the same portfolio as R, but neither buys nor sells Then under the assumptions of no taxes or trading costs, it is a mathematical theorem that investor P's portfolio return fraction will be the weighted arithmetic mean of the return fractions of all the individual investments, whereas investor R will obtain the weighted geometric mean of the return fractions of the individual investments. It's also a theorem that the weighted arithmetic mean is ALWAYS greater than or equal to the weighted geometric mean, so regardless of what happens in the market (given the above assumptions) the passive investor P does at least as well as the rebalancing investor R. P will do even better if taxes and trading costs are factored in. The real world: Of course prices aren't continuously differentiable or even continuous, nor can you continuously trade. (Indeed, under such assumptions the optimal investing strategy would be to sample the prices sufficiently rapidly to capture the derivatives and then to move all your assets to the stock increasing at the highest relative rate. This crazy momentum trading would explosively destabilize the market and cause the assumptions to break.) The point of this is not to argue for or against rebalancing, but to point out that any argument for rebalancing which continues to hold under the above ideal assumptions is bogus. (Many such arguments do.) If a stockbroker standing to profit from commission pushes rebalancing on you with an argument that still holds under the above assumptions then he is profiting off of BS.",
"qid": 10645,
"docid": "549402",
"rank": 77,
"score": 80396
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"In a comment you say, if the market crashes, doesn't \"\"regress to the mean\"\" mean that I should still expect 7% over the long run? That being the case, wouldn't I benefit from intentionally unbalancing my portfolio and going all in on equities? I can can still rebalance using new savings. No. Regress to the mean just tells you that the future rate is likely to average 7%. The past rate and the future rate are entirely unconnected. Consider a series: The running average is That running average is (slowly) regressing to the long term mean without ever a member of the series being above 7%. Real markets actually go farther than this though. Real value may be increasing by 7% per year, but prices may move differently. Then market prices may revert to the real value. This happened to the S&P 500 in 2000-2002. Then the market started climbing again in 2003. In your system, you would have bought into the falling markets of 2001 and 2002. And you would have missed the positive bond returns in those years. That's about a -25% annual shift in returns on that portion of your portfolio. Since that's a third of your portfolio, you'd have lost 8% more than with the balanced strategy each of those two years. Note that in that case, the market was in an over-valued bubble. The bubble spent three years popping and overshot the actual value. So 2003 was a good year for stocks. But the three year return was still -11%. In retrospect, investors should have gone all in on bonds before 2000 and switched back to stocks for 2003. But no one knew that in 2000. People in the know actually started backing off in 1998 rather than 2000 and missed out on the tail end of the bubble. The rebalancing strategy automatically helps with your regression to the mean. It sells expensive bonds and buys cheaper stocks on average. Occasionally it sells modest priced bonds and buys over-priced stocks. But rarely enough that it is a better strategy overall. Incidentally, I would consider a 33% share high for bonds. 30% is better. And that shouldn't increase as you age (less than 30% bonds may be practical when you are young enough). Once you get close to retirement (five to ten years), start converting some of your savings to cash equivalents. The cash equivalents are guaranteed not to lose value (but might not gain much). This gives you predictable returns for your immediate expenses. Once retired, try to keep about five years of expenses in cash equivalents. Then you don't have to worry about short term market fluctuations. Spend down your buffer until the market catches back up. It's true that bonds are less volatile than stocks, but they can still have bad years. A 70%/30% mix of stocks/bonds is safer than either alone and gives almost as good of a return as stocks alone. Adding more bonds actually increases your risk unless you carefully balance them with the right stocks. And if you're doing that, you don't need simplistic rules like a 70%/30% balance.\"",
"qid": 10645,
"docid": "405212",
"rank": 78,
"score": 80001
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Congrats! That's a solid accomplishment for someone who is not even in college yet. I graduated college 3 years ago and I wish I was able to save more in college than I did. The rule of thumb with saving: the earlier the better. My personal portfolio for retirement is comprised of four areas: Roth IRA contributions, 401k contributions, HSA contributions, Stock Market One of the greatest things about the college I attended was its co-op program. I had 3 internships - each were full time positions for 6 months. I strongly recommend, if its available, finding an internship for whatever major you are looking into. It will not only convince you that the career path you chose is what you want to do, but there are added benefits specifically in regards to retirement and savings. In all three of my co-ops I was able to apply 8% of my paycheck to my company's 401k plan. They also had matching available. As a result, my 401k had a pretty substantial savings amount by the time I graduated college. To circle back to your question, I would recommend investing the money into a Roth IRA or the stock market. I personally have yet to invest a significant amount of money in the stock market. Instead, I have been maxing out my retirement for the last three years. That means I'm adding 18k to my 401k, 5.5k to my Roth, and adding ~3k to my HSA (there are limits to each of these and you can find them online). Compounded interest is amazing (I'm just going to leave this here... https://www.moneyunder30.com/power-of-compound-interest).",
"qid": 10645,
"docid": "167438",
"rank": 79,
"score": 79849
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Call up vanguard and tell them you want to do a rollover. They walk you through the process. Spend some time on reading up on asset allocation and benefits of indexing. 1.5% every year is steep and what do you have in return? The advisor's word that he'll make it up. How much did he manage to return during the last lost decade? It's a lose-win situation. He'll get his 1.5% no matter how the market does but that's not the deal you are getting. Go with Vanguard. You are already thinking correctly - diversification, rebalancing, low cost!",
"qid": 10645,
"docid": "211765",
"rank": 80,
"score": 79364
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I recommend saving for retirement first to leverage compound interest over a long time horizon. The historical real return on the stock market has been about 7%. Assuming returns stay at 7% in the future (big assumption, but don't have any better numbers to go off of), then $8,000 saved today will be worth $119,795 in 40 years (1.07^40*8000). Having a sizable retirement portfolio will give you peace of mind as you progress through life and make other expenditures. If you buy assets that pay you money and appreciate, you will be in a better financial position than if you buy assets that require significant cash outflows (i.e. property taxes, interest you pay to the bank, etc.) or assets that ultimately depreciate to zero (a car). As a young person, you are well positioned to pay yourself (not the bank or the car dealership) and leverage compound interest over a long time horizon.",
"qid": 10645,
"docid": "16388",
"rank": 81,
"score": 78993
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: A CD is guaranteed to pay its return on maturation. So if you need a certain amount of money at a specific time in the future, the CD is a more reliable way of getting it. The stock market might give you more money or less. More is obviously OK. Less is not if you're planning to pay basic expenses with it, e.g. food, rent, etc. Most retirement portfolios will have a mix of investments. Some securities (stocks and bonds), some guaranteed returns (CDs, treasuries), and some cash equivalents (money market, savings, and checking accounts). Cash equivalents are good for short term expenses and an emergency fund. Guaranteed returns are good for medium term expenses. Securities are good for the long term. Once retired, the general system is to maintain enough cash equivalents for the next few months of expenses and emergencies. Then schedule CDs for the next few years so that you have a predictable amount. Finally, keep the bulk of your wealth in securities. As you get older, your potential emergencies increase and your need for savings decreases, so the mix shifts more and more to the cash equivalents and guaranteed returns and away from securities. CDs have limited use prior to retirement (and the couple years right before retirement), mainly saving up for a large purchase like a house, car, or major appliance. Even there if you have the option of delaying the purchase, that might allow you to use securities instead. Perhaps some of your emergency fund in a short term CD that you keep rolling over. Note that the problem isn't so much that securities will fall. It's that they'll fall right when you need the money. So rather than sell 1% of your securities to meet your needs, you have to sell 2%. That's a dead weight loss of 1% that you have to deduct from your returns. That roughly matches the drop from the height of 2007 to the trough of 2009 of the S&P 500. And it was 2012 before it recovered. If in 2007, you had put the 1% of your portfolio in a two-year CD, you'd be ahead even at zero interest in 2009.",
"qid": 10645,
"docid": "350933",
"rank": 82,
"score": 78981
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"There are certain allowable reasons to withdraw money from a 401K. The desire to free your money from a \"\"bad\"\" plan is not one of them. A rollover is a special type of withdrawal that is only available after one leaves their current employer. So as long as you stay with your current company, you cannot rollover. [Exception: if you are over age 59.5] One option is to talk to HR, see if they can get a expansion of offerings. You might have some suggestions for mutual funds that you would like to see. The smaller the company the more likely you will have success here. That being said, there is some research to support having few choices. Too many choices intimidates people. It's quite popular to have \"\"target funds\"\" That is funds that target a certain retirement year. Being that I will be 50 in 2016, I should invest in either a 2030 or 2035 fund. These are a collection of funds that rebalances the investment as they age. The closer one gets to retirement the more goes into bonds and less into stocks. However, I think such rebalancing is not as smart as the experts say. IMHO is almost always better off heavily invested in equity funds. So this becomes a second option. Invest in a Target fund that is meant for younger people. In my case I would put into a 2060 or even 2065 target. As JoeTaxpayer pointed out, even in a plan that has high fees and poor choices one is often better off contributing up to the match. Then one would go outside and contribute to an individual ROTH or IRA (income restrictions may apply), then back into the 401K until the desired amount is invested. You could always move on to a different employer and ask some really good questions about their 401K. Which leads me back to talking with HR. With the current technology shortage, making a few tweaks to the 401K, is a very cheap way to make their employees happy. If you can score a 1099 contracting gig, you can do a SEP which allows up to a whopping 53K per year. No match but with typically higher pay, sometimes overtime, and a high contribution limit you can easily make up for it.\"",
"qid": 10645,
"docid": "554739",
"rank": 83,
"score": 78608
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I don't think you have your head in the right space - you seem to be thinking of these lifecycle funds like they're an annuity or a pension, but they're not. They're an investment. Specifically, they're a mutual fund that will invest in a collection of other mutual funds, which in turn invest in stock and bonds. Stocks go up, and stocks go down. Bonds go up, and bonds go down. How much you'll have in this fund next year is unknowable, much less 32 years from now. What you can know, is that saving regularly over the next 32 years and investing it in a reasonable, and diversified way in a tax sheltered account like that Roth will mean you have a nice chunk of change sitting there when you retire. The lifecycle funds exist to help you with that \"\"reasonable\"\" and \"\"diversified\"\" bit.They're meant to be one stop shopping for a retirement portfolio. They put your money into a diversified portfolio, then \"\"age\"\" the portfolio allocations over time to make it go from a high risk, (potentially) high reward allocation now to a lower risk, lower reward portfolio as you approach retirement. The idea is is that you want to shoot for making lots of money now, but when you're older, you want to focus more on keeping the money you have. Incidentally, kudos for getting into seriously saving for retirement when you're young. One of the biggest positive effects you can have on how much you retire with is simply time. The more time your money can sit there, the better. At 26, if you're putting away 10 percent into a Roth, you're doing just fine. If that 5k is more than 10 percent, you'll do better than fine. (That's a rule of thumb, but it's based on a lot of things I've read where people have gamed out various scenarios, as well as my own, cruder calculations I've done in the past)\"",
"qid": 10645,
"docid": "423754",
"rank": 84,
"score": 78583
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Comparing retirement savings to ordinary investment is not an apples-to-apples comparison - retirement savings are savings for retirement - if you want to invest in things now and live off of (or reinvest) those earnings, then retirement accounts are not the right vehicle. That said, here are some benefits of the main types of retirement accounts: Benefits of a 401(k): Benefits of a tratitional IRA: Benefits of a ROTH 401(k): Benefits of a ROTH IRA: (the benefits above are not exhaustive, there are other benefits such as using a ROTH IRA for higher ed. expenses, etc. but those are the highlights) If you have a plan for how you hope to use the money now rather than later does it make sense to hold onto it? If your plan is meant to provide income at retirement, and earns returns higher than the returns plus matches and tax benefits you get from retirement accounts, then yes, it may make more sense, but those benefits are generally very hard to beat. Plus, having the money locked away in an account that is painful to tap can be a good thing - you're less tempted to use that money for foolish decisions (which everyone makes at some point).",
"qid": 10645,
"docid": "195515",
"rank": 85,
"score": 78546
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The time horizon for your 401K/IRA is essentially the same, and it doesn't stop at the day you retire. On the day you do the rollover you will be transferring your funds into similar investments. S&P500 index to S&P 500 index; 20xx retirement date to 20xx retirement date; small cap to small cap... If your vested portion is worth X $'s when the funds are sold, that is the amount that will be transferred to the IRA custodian or the custodian for the new employer. Use the transfer to make any rebalancing adjustments that you want to make. But with as much as a year before you leave the company if you need to rebalance now, then do that irrespective of your leaving. Cash is what is transferred, not the individual stock or mutual fund shares. Only move your funds into a money market account with your current 401K if that makes the most sense for your retirement plan. Also keep in mind unless the amount in the 401K is very small you don't have to do this on your last day of work. Even if you are putting the funds in a IRA wait until you have started with the new company and so can define all your buckets based on the options in the new company.",
"qid": 10645,
"docid": "483268",
"rank": 86,
"score": 78095
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"All things being equal, a defined benefit pension is far better than an IRA or a 401(k). Think about it this way - let's say you can have a guaranteed $100 a month*, or the chance at $100 a month. Which is better? Now, obviously, your tolerance for risk is the difference - but this is the beauty of a defined benefit plan. Your employer is picking up the risk. Assuming that the pool of investments is about the same (which unless if their funds are tremendously under performing they are), the question is, who takes the risk - you or them? Especially if you are moving into a new position, having a defined benefit plan is like having a risk-free asset in your portfolio. It increases your safety. The only reason to roll this over into a 401(k) or IRA is if your expected value (risk * payout) is better. A worked example. If half the time you would earn more than $100 and half the time less, then you could imagine the two as being equally good. Only if you really love risk would you take that chance. In reality, only half the investments out there will \"\"beat\"\" the average, and as such, you actually have less than a 50/50 shot of beating a DB - unless if there are really low returns to it. More likely, I suspect you are over-estimating your ability to get a higher return.\"",
"qid": 10645,
"docid": "555821",
"rank": 87,
"score": 77613
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Not if they're unfunded and the company goes under, they don't. And more accurately, defined benefit plans have (perceived) value only to people who don't have the first clue how to soundly invest their own retirement funds - Which admittedly means \"\"almost everyone\"\". But TANSTAAFL - Even the rare pension plan that is fully funded and soundly invested will *still* tend to underpeform the market as a whole. If you really want to lock in a sub-5% return, just sink your entire retirement into whole-life annuities and you can gleefully call it a \"\"pension\"\".\"",
"qid": 10645,
"docid": "101966",
"rank": 88,
"score": 77391
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I quite like the Canadian Couch Potato which provides useful information targeted at investors in Canada. They specifically provide some model portfolios. Canadian Couch Potato generally suggests investing in indexed ETFs or mutual funds made up of four components. One ETF or mutual fund tracking Canadian bonds, another tracking Canadian stocks, a third tracking US stocks, and a fourth tracking international stocks. I personally add a REIT ETF (BMO Equal Weight REITs Index ETF, ZRE), but that may complicate things too much for your liking. Canadian Couch Potato specifically recommends the Tangerine Streetwise Portfolio if you are looking for something particularly easy, though the Management Expense Ratio is rather high for my liking. Anyway, the website provides specific suggestions, whether you are looking for a single mutual fund, multiple mutual funds, or prefer ETFs. From personal experience, Tangerine's offerings are very, very simple and far cheaper than the 2.5% you are quoting. I currently use TD's e-series funds and spend only a few minutes a year rebalancing. There are a number of good ETFs available if you want to lower your overhead further, though Canadians don't get quite the deals available in the U.S. Still, you shouldn't be paying anything remotely close to 2.5%. Also, beware of tax implications; the website has several articles that cover these in detail.",
"qid": 10645,
"docid": "120133",
"rank": 89,
"score": 77280
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"There's nothing to rebalance, the index fund rebalances itself to continue matching the index. However, you need to understand that such an investment is not diversified and you only invest in a very specific market, and very specific stocks on that market. S&P 500 is large (500 different companies, most of the time), but still not as broadly diversified as your retirement investment portfolio should be. You should talk to a financial adviser (CFP for example), many companies provide access to these for 401k plan participants. But in any case, I'd suggest considering \"\"target date\"\" funds - funds that are investing based on your expected retirement year, and become more conservative as you get closer to that year.\"",
"qid": 10645,
"docid": "39569",
"rank": 90,
"score": 77270
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: As others have explained defined contribution is when you (or your employer) contributes a specified amount and you reap all the investment returns. Defined benefit is when your employer promises to pay you a specified amount (benefit) and is responsible for making the necessary investments to provide for it. Is one better than the other? We can argue this either way. Defined benefit would seem to be more predictable and assured. The problem being of course that it is entirely reliant upon the employer to have saved enough money to pay that amount. If the employer fails in that responsibility, then the only fallback is government guarantees. And of course the government has limitations on what it can guarantee. For example, from Wikipedia: The maximum pension benefit guaranteed by PBGC is set by law and adjusted yearly. For plans that end in 2016, workers who retire at age 65 can receive up to $5,011.36 per month (or $60,136 per year) under PBGC's insurance program for single-employer plans. Benefit payments starting at ages other than 65 are adjusted actuarially, which means the maximum guaranteed benefit is lower for those who retire early or when there is a benefit for a survivor, and higher for those who retire after age 65. Additionally, the PBGC will not fully guarantee benefit improvements that were adopted within the five-year period prior to a plan's termination or benefits that are not payable over a retiree's lifetime. Other limitations also apply to supplemental benefits in excess of normal retirement benefits, benefit increases within the last five years before a plan's termination, and benefits earned after a plan sponsor's bankruptcy. By contrast, people tend to control their own defined contribution accounts. So they control how much gets invested and where. Defined contribution accounts are always 100% funded. Defined benefit pension plans are often underfunded. They expect the employer to step forward and subsidize them when they run short. This allows the defined benefits to both be cheaper during the employment period and more generous in retirement. But it also means that employers have to subsidize the plans later, when they no longer get a benefit from the relationship with the employee. If you want someone else to make promises to you and aren't worried that they won't keep them, you probably prefer defined benefit. If you want to have personal control over the money, you probably prefer defined contribution. My personal opinion is that defined benefit plans are a curse. They encourage risky behavior and false promises. Defined contribution plans are more honest about what they provide and better match the production of employment with its compensation. Others see defined benefit plans as the gold standard of pensions.",
"qid": 10645,
"docid": "436897",
"rank": 91,
"score": 77240
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"First, congratulations on choosing to invest in low cost passively managed plans. If you choose any one of these options and stick with it, you will already be well ahead of most individual investors. Almost all plans will allow you to re-balance between asset classes. With some companies, sales agents will encourage you to sell your overweighted assets and buy underweighted assets as this generates brokerage commissions for them, but when you only need to make minor adjustments, you can simply change the allocation of the new money going into your account until you are back to your target weights. Most plans will let you do this for free, and in general, you will only need to do this every few years at most. I don't see much reason for you to be in the Target funds. The main feature of these plans is that they gradually shift you to a more conservative asset allocation over time, and are designed to prevent people who are close to retirement from being too aggressive and risking a major loss just before retirement. It's very likely that at your age, most plans will have very similar recommendations for your allocation, with equities at 80% or more, and this is unlikely to change for the next few decades. The main benefits of betterment seems to be simplicity and ease of use, but there is one concern I would have for you with betterment. Precisely because it is so easy to tweak your allocation, I'm concerned that you might hurt your long-term results by reacting to short-term market conditions: I know I said I wanted a hands off account, but what if the stock market crashes and I want to allocate more to bonds??? One of the biggest reasons that stock returns are better than bond returns on average is that you are being paid to accept additional risk, and living with significant ups and downs is part of what it means to be in the stock market. If you are tempted to take money out of an asset class when it has been \"\"losing/feels dangerous\"\" and put more in when it is \"\"winning/feels safe\"\", my concerns is that you will end up buying high and selling low. I'd recommend taking a look at this article on the emotional cycle of investing. My point is simply that it's very likely that if you are moving money in and out of stocks based on volatility, you're much less likely to get the full market return over the long term, and might be better off putting more weight in asset classes with lower volatility. Either way, I'd recommend taking one or more risk tolerance assessments online and making sure you're committed to sticking with a long-term plan that doesn't involve more risk than you can really live with. I tend to lean toward Vanguard Life Strategy simply because Vanguard as a company has been around longer, but betterment does seem very accessible to a new investor. Best of luck with your decision!\"",
"qid": 10645,
"docid": "105666",
"rank": 92,
"score": 76529
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Yes, the larger number of ETFs will have a greater chance of enhancing the effect you observe. It's beyond a simple discussion, but the bottom line is that by carving out the different market segments your rebalancing will have greater impact.",
"qid": 10645,
"docid": "64634",
"rank": 93,
"score": 76502
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: littleadv's answer gives a concise summary of the system as it stands now, but much more changed than just the portion of the mandatory contribution that was diverted to the private plan. In broad terms, the balances of your accounts and your future benefit won't change. It's only the source of these benefits that's changing. The Bloomberg article describes the changes this way: The state will take over the amount of bonds that pension funds held as of end of Sept. 3 and turn them into pension liabilities in the state-run social security system... The state will assume control of 51.5 percent of pension-fund assets, including bonds guaranteed by the government and “other non-stock assets” After the change, Polish workers that held bonds in the private portion of their retirement portfolios will instead have more payments from the state-run pension system. The balances of your retirement portfolio and your future benefits shouldn't change, but the reality may depend on how the state pension system is managed and any future changes the government implements. The effect this change will have on future benefits isn't clear, because the change may simply delay the problem of high levels of outstanding sovereign debt, not solve it. The government stated that because increasing numbers of workers invested their money in private pension funds, less money went into the government's fund, which forced them to issue sovereign debt in order to cover the shortfall in their current pension liabilities. The government's recent cancellation of government bonds in the hands of private pensions will decrease their overall outstanding debt, but in exchange, the government is increasing its future pension liabilities. Years down the road, the government may find that they need to issue more sovereign debt to cover the increased pension liabilities they're taking on today. In other words, they may find themselves back in the same situation years down the road, and it's difficult to predict what changes they might make at that time.",
"qid": 10645,
"docid": "145334",
"rank": 94,
"score": 76404
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Some people have this notion that withdrawing dividends from savings is somehow okay but withdrawing principal is not. Note, this notion. Would someone please explain the \"\"mistake\"\" on P214 and why it's a mistake? Because there may be times where withdrawing principal may be a good idea as one could sell off something that has gained enough that in re-balancing the portfolio there are capital gains that could be used for withdrawing in retirement. How and why does the sale of financial instrument equate to the receipt of dividends? In either case, one has cash equivalents that could be withdrawn. If you take the dividends in cash or sell a security to raise cash, you have cash. Thus, it doesn't matter what origin it has. If I sell a financial instrument that later appreciates in value, then this profit opportunity is lost. In the case of a dividend, I'd still possess the financial security and benefit from the stock's appreciation? One could argue that the in the case of a dividend, by not buying more of the instrument you are missing out on a profit opportunity as well. Thus, are you out to make the maximum profit overall or do you have reason for taking the cash instead of increasing your holding?\"",
"qid": 10645,
"docid": "337941",
"rank": 95,
"score": 76359
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Making these difficult portfolio decisions for you is the point of Target-Date Retirement Funds. You pick a date at which you're going to start needing to withdraw the money, and the company managing the fund slowly turns down the aggressiveness of the fund as the target date approaches. Typically you would pick the target date to be around, say, your 65th birthday. Many mutual fund companies offer a variety of funds to suit your needs. Your desire to never \"\"have to recover\"\" indicates that you have not yet done quite enough reading on the subject of investing. (Or possibly that your sources have been misleading you.) A basic understanding of investing includes the knowledge that markets go up and down, and that no portfolio will always go up. Some \"\"recovery\"\" will always be necessary; having a less aggressive portfolio will never shield you completely from losing money, it just makes loss less likely. The important thing is to only invest money that you can afford to lose in the short-term (with the understanding that you'll make it back in the long term). Money that you'll need in the short-term should be kept in the absolute safest investment vehicles, such as a savings account, a money market account, short-term certificates of deposit, or short-term US government bonds.\"",
"qid": 10645,
"docid": "324661",
"rank": 96,
"score": 76293
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Though I do think it is important to have a diversified portfolio for your retirement, I also think it's more important to make sure you are at no point touching this money until you retire. Taking money out of your retirement early is a sure fire way to get in a bad habit of spending this money when you need a little help. Here's a tip: If you consider this money gone, you will find another way to figure out your situation. With that said, I also would rather not put a percentage on this. Start by building your emergency fund. You'll want to treat this like a bill and make a monthly payment to your savings account each month or paycheck. When you have a good nine times your monthly income in here, stop contributing to this fund. Instead start putting the same amount into your IRA instead. At this point you should no longer have to add to your emergency fund unless there is a true emergency and you are replacing that money. Keep in mind that the amount of money in your emergency fund changes significantly in each situation. Sit down with your bills and think about how much money you would need in the event you lost your job. How long would you be out of work? How many bills do you have each month that would need to be covered?",
"qid": 10645,
"docid": "326560",
"rank": 97,
"score": 76228
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Don't compare investing with a roll of the dice, compare it with blackjack and the decision to stand or hit, or put more money on the table (double down or increase bet size) , based on an assessment of the state of the table and history. A naive strategy of say \"\"always hitting to 16\"\" isn't as awful as randomly hitting and standing (which, from time to to time will draw to 21 fair and square) , but there's a basic strategy that gets close to 50% and by increasing or decreasing bet based on counting face cards can get into positive expectations. Randomly buying and selling stock is randomly hitting. Buying a market index fund is like always hitting to 16. Determining an asset allocation strategy and periodically rebalancing is basic strategy. Adjusting allocations based on business cycle and economic indicators is turning skill into advantage.\"",
"qid": 10645,
"docid": "118038",
"rank": 98,
"score": 75770
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Defined Benefit Plans: Defined benefit plans are disappearing because of their high cost to the companies that provide them. When an employee retires, the company must pay his pension for the rest of his life, even longer if the pension includes a survivor option. Thus the company's financial burden grows as more employees retire. By law, they must provide a fund that has sufficient resources to pay all present and future pensions. Low interest rates, such as we have now, place a greater burden on the amount that must be in these funds. For these reasons, most companies, including large ones like IBM and Lockheed Martin, have discontinued their pension plans and provide only defined contribution plans. Defined Contribution Plans: These require the company to only make contributions while the employee is working. Once the employee retires, the company's responsibility ends. Usually these plans employ a 401K type savings plan for which the employee contributes and the companies matches some or all of that contribution. Comparison: Although a fully company paid pension plan is the best, it is now almost unavailable. The defined contribution plan, if it includes company matching, can be a viable alternative if the investments are chosen wisely and perform as expected. Of course, this is not guaranteed but is probably the best option that most working people have at this time.",
"qid": 10645,
"docid": "460905",
"rank": 99,
"score": 74867
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The reinvestment of dividends and capital gains is a very significant portion of investment gains over the years. This creates a compounding effect on your gains. You should almost certainly reinvest to help the account grow, until you are retired and want to withdraw some cash. Placing them in a money market account just builds a pile of uninvested cash.",
"qid": 10645,
"docid": "549311",
"rank": 100,
"score": 74628
}
] |
How to sell a stock in a crashing market? | [
{
"content": "Title: Content: If the market has not crashed but you know it will, sell short or buy puts. If the market has crashed, buy equities while they are cheap. If you don't know if or when it will crash hold a diversified portfolio including stocks, bonds, real estate, and alternatives (gold, etc).",
"qid": 10674,
"docid": "296516",
"rank": 1,
"score": 187549
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"First, there will always be people who think the market is about to crash. It doesn't really crash very often. When it does crash, they always say they predicted it. Well, even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while. You could go short (short selling stocks), which requires a margin account that you have to qualify for (typically you can only short up to half the value of your account, in the US). And if you've maxed out your margin limits and your account continues to drop in value, you risk a margin call, which would force you to cover your shorts, which you may not be able to afford. You could invest in a fund that does the shorting for you. You could also consider actually buying good investments while their prices are low. Since you cannot predict the start, or end, of a \"\"crash\"\" you should consider dollar-cost-averaging until your stocks hit a price you've pre-determined is your \"\"trigger\"\", then purchase larger quantities at the bargain prices. The equity markets have never failed to recover from crashes. Ever.\"",
"qid": 10674,
"docid": "549422",
"rank": 2,
"score": 183728
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You talk about an individual not being advised to sell (or purchase) in response to trends in the market in such a buy and hold strategy. But think of this for a moment: You buy stock ABC for $10 when both the market as a whole and stock ABC are near the bottom of a bear market as say part of a value buying strategy. You've now held stock ABC for a number of years and it is performing well hitting $50. There is all good news about stock ABC, profit increases year after year in double digits. Would you consider selling this stock just because it has increased 400%. It could start falling in a general market crash or it could keep going up to $100 or more. Maybe a better strategy to sell ABC would be to place a trailing stop of say 20% on the highest price reached by the stock. So if ABC falls, say in a general market correction, by less than 20% off its high and then rebounds and goes higher - you keep it. If ABC however falls by more than 20% off its high you automatically sell it with your stop loss order. You may give 20% back to the market if the market or the stock crashes, but if the stock continues going up you benefit from more upside in the price. Take AAPL as an example, if you bought AAPL in March 2009, after the GFC, for about $100, would you have sold it in December 2011 when it hit $400. If you did you would have left money on the table. If instead you placed a trailing stop loss on AAPL of 20% you would have been still in it when it hit its high of $702 in September 2012. You would have finally been stopped out in November 2012 for around the $560 mark, and made an extra $160 per share. And if your thinking, how about if I decided to sell AAPL at $700, well I don't think many would have picked $700 as the high in hindsight. The main benefit of using stop losses is that it takes your emotions out of your trading, especially your exits.",
"qid": 10674,
"docid": "319793",
"rank": 3,
"score": 178653
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Assuming you are referring to macro corrections and crashes (as opposed to technical crashes like the \"\"flash crash\"\") -- It is certainly possible to sell stocks during a market drop -- by definition, the market is dropping not only because there are a larger number of sellers, but more importantly because there are a large number of transactions that are driving prices down. In fact, volumes are strongly correlated with volatility, so volumes are actually higher when the market is going down dramatically -- you can verify this on Yahoo or Google Finance (pick a liquid stock like SPY and look at 2008 vs recent years). That doesn't say anything about the kind of selling that occurs though. With respect to your question \"\"Whats the best strategy for selling stocks during a drop?\"\", it really depends on your objective. You can generally always sell at some price. That price will be worse during market crashes. Beyond the obvious fact that prices are declining, spreads in the market will be wider due to heightened volatility. Many people are forced to sell during crashes due to external and / or psychological pressures -- and sometimes selling is the right thing to do -- but the best strategy for long-term investors is often to just hold on.\"",
"qid": 10674,
"docid": "99857",
"rank": 4,
"score": 175032
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Do you want to do it pre or post correction? If you're bearish on the market the obvious thing to do is short an index. I would say this is kind of dumb. The main problem is that it may take months or years for the market to crash, and by then it will have gone up so much that even the crash doesn't bring you profit, and you're paying borrowing fees meanwhile as well. You need to watch the portfolio also, when you short sell you'll get a bunch of cash, which you most likely will want to invest, but once you invest it, the market can spike and pummel your short position, resulting in negative remaining cash (since you already spent it). At that point you get a margin call from your broker. If you check your account regularly, not a big deal, but bad things can happen if you treat it as a fire and forget strategy. These days they have inverse funds so you don't have to borrow anything. The fund manager borrows for you. I'd say those are much better. The less cumbersome choice is to simply sell call options on the index or buy puts. These are even cash options, so when you exercise you get/lose money, not shares. You can even arrange them so that your potential loss is capped. (but honestly, same goes for shorts - it's called a stop loss) You could also wait for the correction and buy the dip. Less worrying about shorts and such, but of course the issue is timing the crash. Usually the crashes are very quick, and there are several \"\"pre-crashes\"\" that look like it bottomed out but then it crashes more. So actually very difficult thing to tell. You have to know either exactly when the correction will be, or exactly what the price floor is (and set a limit buy). Hope your crystal ball works! Yet another choice is finding asset classes uncorrelated or even anticorrelated with the broader market. For instance some emerging markets (developing countries), some sectors, individual stocks that are not inflated, bonds, gold and so on can have these characteristics where if S&P goes down they go up. Buying those may be a safer approach since at least you are still holding a fundamentally valuable thing even if your thesis flops, meanwhile shorts and puts and the like are purely speculative.\"",
"qid": 10674,
"docid": "485760",
"rank": 5,
"score": 170492
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Your question contains a faulty assumption: During crashes and corrections the amount of sellers is of course higher than the amount of buyers, making it difficult to sell stocks. This simply isn't true. Every trade has two sides; thus, by definition, for every seller there is buyer and vice versa. Even if we broaden the definition of \"\"buyers\"\" and \"\"sellers\"\" to mean \"\"people willing to buy (or sell) at some price\"\", the assumption still isn't true. When a stock is falling it is generally not because potential buyers are exiting the market; it is because they are revising the prices they are willing to buy at downward. For example, say there are a bunch of orders to buy Frobnitz Consolidated (DUMB) at $5. Suppose DUMB announces a downward revision to its earnings guidance. Those people might not be willing to buy at $50 anymore, so they'll probably cancel their $50 buy orders. However, just because DUMB isn't worth as much as they thought it was, that doesn't mean it's completely worthless. So, those prospective buyers will likely enter new orders at some lower value, say, $45. With that, the value of DUMB has just dropped by $5, a 10% correction. However, there are still plenty of buyers, and you can still sell your DUMB holdings, if you're willing to take $45 for them. In other words, the value of a security is not determined by the relative numbers of buyers and sellers. It is determined by the prices those buyers and sellers are willing to pay to buy or accept to sell. Except for cases of massive IT disruptions, such as we saw in the \"\"flash crash\"\", there is always somebody willing to buy or sell at some price.\"",
"qid": 10674,
"docid": "543589",
"rank": 6,
"score": 168751
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Trying to make money on something going down is inherently more complicated, risky and speculative than making money on it going up. Selling short allows for unlimited losses. Put options expire and have to be rebought if you want to keep playing that game. If you are that confident that the European market will completely crash (I'm not, but then again, I tend to be fairly contrarian) I'd recommend just sitting it out in cash (possibly something other than the Euro) and waiting until it gets so ridiculously cheap due to panic selling that it defies all common sense. For example, when companies that aren't completely falling apart are selling for less than book value and/or less than five times prior peak earnings that's a good sign. Another indicator is when you hear absolutely nothing other than doom-and-gloom and people swearing they'll never buy another stock as long as they live. Then buy at these depressed prices and when all the panic sellers realize that the world didn't end, it will go back up.",
"qid": 10674,
"docid": "137073",
"rank": 7,
"score": 164494
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"As @ApplePie pointed out in their answer, at any given time there is a finite amount of stock available in a company. One subtlety you may be missing is that there is always a price associated with an offer to buy shares. That is, you don't put in an order simply to buy 1 share of ABC, you put in an order to buy 1 share of ABC for $10. If no one is willing to sell a share of ABC for $10, then your order will go unfilled. This happens millions of times a day as traders try to figure the cheapest price they can get for a stock. Practically speaking, there is always a price at which people are willing to sell their shares. You can put in a market order for 1 share of ABC, which says essentially \"\"I want one share of ABC, and I will pay whatever the market deems to be the price\"\". Your broker will find you 1 share, but you may be very unhappy about the price you have to pay! While it's very rare for a market to have nobody willing to sell at any price, it occasionally happens that no one is willing to buy at any price. This causes a market crash, as in the 2007-2008 financial crisis, when suddenly everyone became very suspicious of how much debt the major banks actually held, and for a few days, very few traders were willing to buy bank stocks at any price.\"",
"qid": 10674,
"docid": "429196",
"rank": 8,
"score": 160609
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you want to make money while European equities markets are crashing and the Euro itself is devaluing: None of these strategies are to be taken lightly. All involve risk. There are probably numerous ways that you can lose even though it seems like you should win. Transaction fees could eat your profits, especially if you have only a small amount of capital to invest with. The worst part is that they all involve timing. If you think the crash is coming next week, you could, say, buy a bunch of puts. But if the crash doesn't come for another 6 months, all of your puts are going to expire worthless and you've lost all of your capital. Even worse, if you sell short an index ETF this week in advance of next week's impending crash, and some rescue package arrives over the weekend, equity prices could spike at the beginning of the week and you'd be screwed.",
"qid": 10674,
"docid": "350366",
"rank": 9,
"score": 157201
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"If you really believe in the particular stocks, then don't worry about their daily price. Overall if the company is sound, and presumably paying a dividend, then you're in it for the long haul. Notwithstanding that, it is reasonable to look for a way out. The two you describe are quite different in their specifics. Selling sounds like the simpler of the two, but the trigger event, and if it is automatic or \"\"manual\"\" matters. If you are happy to put in a sell order at some time in the future, then just go ahead with that. Many brokers can place a STOP order, that will trigger on a certain price threshold being hit. Do note, however, that by default this would place a market order, and depending on the price that breaks through, in the event of a flash crash, depending on how fast the brokers systems were, you could find yourself selling quite cheaply. A STOP LIMIT order will place a limit order at a triggered price. This would limit your overall downside loss, but you might not sell at all if the market is really running away. Options are another reasonable way to deal with the situation, sort of like insurance. In this case you would likely buy a PUT, which would give you the right, but not the obligation to sell the stock at the price the that was specified in the option. In this case, no matter what, you are out the price of the option itself (hence my allusion to insurance), but if the event never happens then that was the price you paid to have that peace of mind. I cannot recommend a specific course of action, but hopefully that fleshed out the options you have.\"",
"qid": 10674,
"docid": "47053",
"rank": 10,
"score": 152219
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Although it is impossible to predict the next stock market crash, what are some signs or measures that indicate the economy is unstable? These questions are really two sides of the same coin. As such, there's really no way to tell, at least not with any amount of accuracy that would allow you time the market. Instead, follow the advice of William Bernstein regarding long-term investments. I'm paraphrasing, but the gist is: Markets crash every so often. It's a fact of life. If you maintain financial and investment discipline, you can take advantage of the crashes by having sufficient funds to purchase when stocks are on sale. With a long-term investment horizon, crashes are actually a blessing since you're in prime position to profit from them.",
"qid": 10674,
"docid": "348250",
"rank": 11,
"score": 150858
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"After learning about things that happened in the \"\"flash crash\"\" I always use limit orders. In an extremely rare instance if you place a market order when there is a some glitch, for example some large trader adds a zero at the end of their volume, you could get an awful price. If I want to buy at the market price, I just set the limit about 1% above the market price. If I want to sell, I set the limit 1% below the market price. I should point out that your trade is not executed at the limit price. If your limit price on a buy order is higher than the lowest offer, you still get filled at the lowest offer. If before your order is submitted someone fills all offers up to your limit price, you will get your limit price. If someone, perhaps by accident, fills all orders up to twice your limit price, you won't end up making the purchase. I have executed many purchases this way and never been filled at my limit price.\"",
"qid": 10674,
"docid": "447886",
"rank": 12,
"score": 149384
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Just before a crash or at the start of the crash most of the smart money would have gotten out, the remaining technical traders would be out by the time the market has dropped 10 to 15%, and some of them would be shorting their positions by now. Most long-term buy and hold investors would stick to their guns and stay in for the long haul. Some will start to get nervous and have sleepless nights when the markets have fallen 30%+ and look to get out as well. Others stay in until they cannot stand it anymore. And some will stick it out throughout the downturn. So who are the buyers at this stage? Some are the so called bargain hunters that buy when the market has fallen over 30% (only to sell again when it falls another 20%), or maybe buy more (because they think they are dollar cost averaging and will make a packet when the price goes back up - if and when it does). Some are those with stops covering their short positions, whilst others may be fund managers and individuals looking to rebalance their portfolios. What you have to remember during both an uptrend and a downtrend the price does not move straight up or straight down. If we take the downtrend for instance, it will have lower lows and lower highs (that is the definition of a downtrend). See the chart below of the S&P 500 during the GFC falls. As you can see just before it really started falling in Jan 08 there was ample opportunity for the smart money and the technical traders to get out of the market as the price drops below the 200 MA and it fails to make a higher peak. As the price falls from Jan 08 to Mar 08 you suddenly start getting some movement upwards. This is the bargain hunters who come into the market thinking the price is a bargain compared to 3 months ago, so they start buying and pushing the price up somewhat for a couple of months before it starts falling again. The reason it falls again is because the people who wanted to sell at the start of the year missed the boat, so are taking the opportunity to sell now that the prices have increased a bit. So you get this battle between the buyers (bulls) and seller (bears), and of course the bears are winning during this downtrend. That is why you see more sharper falls between Aug to Oct 08, and it continues until the lows of Mar 09. In short it has got to do with the phycology of the markets and how people's emotions can make them buy and/or sell at the wrong times.",
"qid": 10674,
"docid": "238024",
"rank": 13,
"score": 146094
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"If you're asking this question, you probably aren't ready to be buying individual stock shares, and may not be ready to be investing in the market at all. Short-term in the stock market is GAMBLING, pure and simple, and gambling against professionals at that. You can reduce your risk if you spend the amount of time and effort the pros do on it, but if you aren't ready to accept losses you shouldn't be playing and if you aren't willing to bet it all on a single throw of the dice you should diversify and accept lower potential gain in exchange for lower risk. (Standard advice: Index funds.) The way an investor, as opposed to a gambler, deals with a stock price dropping -- or surging upward, or not doing anything! -- is to say \"\"That's interesting. Given where it is NOW, do I expect it to go up or down from here, and do I think I have someplace to put the money that will do better?\"\" If you believe the stock will gain value from here, holding it may make more sense than taking your losses. Specific example: the mortgage-crisis market crash of a few years ago. People who sold because stock prices were dropping and they were scared -- or whose finances forced them to sell during the down period -- were hurt badly. Those of us who were invested for the long term and could afford to leave the money in the market -- or who were brave/contrarian enough to see it as an opportunity to buy at a better price -- came out relatively unscathed; all I have \"\"lost\"\" was two years of growth. So: You made your bet. Now you have to decide: Do you really want to \"\"buy high, sell low\"\" and take the loss as a learning experience, or do you want to wait and see whether you can sell not-so-low. If you don't know enough about the company to make a fairly rational decision on that front, you probably shouldn't have bought its stock.\"",
"qid": 10674,
"docid": "138096",
"rank": 14,
"score": 143801
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I am a believer in stocks for the long term, I sat on the S&P right though the last crash, and am 15% below the high before the crash. For individual stocks, you need to look more closely, and often ask yourself about its valuation. The trick is to buy right and not be afraid to sell when the stock appears to be too high for the underlying fundamentals. Before the dotcom bubble I bought Motorola at $40. Sold some at $80, $100, and out at $120. Coworkers who bought in were laughing as it went to $160. But soon after, the high tech bubble burst, and my sales at $100 looked good in hindsight. The stock you are looking at - would you buy more at today's price? If not, it may be time to sell at least some of that position.",
"qid": 10674,
"docid": "509819",
"rank": 15,
"score": 143452
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you are sure you are right, you should sell stock short. Then, after the market drop occurs, close out your position and buy stock, selling it once the stock has risen to the level you expect. Be warned, though. Short selling has a lot of risk. If you are wrong, you could quite easily lose all $80,000 or even substantially more. Consider, for example, this story of a person who had $37,000 and ended up losing all of that and still owing over $100,000. If you mistime your investment, you could quite easily lose your entire investment and end up hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt.",
"qid": 10674,
"docid": "292338",
"rank": 16,
"score": 143384
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: In the 2008 housing crash, cash was king. Cash can make your mortgage payment, buy groceries, utilities, etc. Great deals on bank owned properties were available for those with cash. Getting a mortgage in 2008-2011 was tough. If you are worried about stock market crashing, then diversification is key. Don't have all your investments in one mutual fund or sector. Gold and precious metals have a place in one's portfolio, say 5-10 percent as an insurance policy. The days of using a Gold Double Eagle to pay the property taxes are largely gone, although Utah does allow it. The biggest lesson I took from the crash is you cant have too much cash saved. Build up the rainy day fund.",
"qid": 10674,
"docid": "328556",
"rank": 17,
"score": 143208
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If the equity market in the USA crashed, its very likely equity markets everywhere else would crash. The USA has a high number of the world's largest businesses and there are correlations between equity markets. So you need to think of equities as a global asset class, not regional. Your question is then a question about the correlation between equity markets and currency markets. Here's a guess: If equity markets crashed, you would see a lot of panic selling of stocks denominated in many currencies, but probably the most in USD, due to the large number of the world's largest businesses trading on US stock exchanges. Therefore, when the rest of the world sells US equities they receive cash USD, which they might sell for their local currency. That selling pressure would cause USD to fall. But, when equity markets crash there's a move to safety of the bond markets. The world's largest bond markets are denominated in which currency? Probably USD. So those who receive USD for their equities are going to spend that USD on bonds. In which case there is probably no correlation between equity markets and currency markets at all. A quick google search shows this kind of thing",
"qid": 10674,
"docid": "321941",
"rank": 18,
"score": 142707
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: It is easy to be a stock analyst. #1. Get a YouTube channel #2. Create a Twitter account #3. Every day make a video and tweet that the stock market crash is imminent #4. Hedge your prediction with a bullish long portfolio and lie to the public #5. Watch viewership and following grow rapidly as you misinform the public",
"qid": 10674,
"docid": "235197",
"rank": 19,
"score": 141921
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"You answered your own question \"\"whether someone buys is a different thing\"\". You can ask any price that you want. (Or given an electronic brokerage, you can enter the highest value that the system was designed to accept.) The market (demand) will determine whether anyone will buy at the price you are asking. A better strategy if you want to make an unreasonable amount of money is to put in a buy order at an unreasonably low price and hope a glitch causes a flash crash and allows you to purchase at that price. There may be rules that unravel your purchase after the fact, but it has a better chance of succeeding than trying to sell at an unreasonably high price.\"",
"qid": 10674,
"docid": "96807",
"rank": 20,
"score": 140456
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: What is essential is that company you are selling is transparent enough. Because it will provide additional liquidity to market. When I decide to sell, I drop all volume once at a time. Liquidation price will be somewhat worse then usual. But being out of position will save you nerves for future thinking where to step in again. Cold head is best you can afford in such scenario. In very large crashes, there could be large liquidity holes. But if you are on upper side of sigmoid, you will be profiting from selling before that holes appear. Problem is, nobody could predict if market is on upper-fall, mid-fall or down-fall at any time.",
"qid": 10674,
"docid": "3095",
"rank": 21,
"score": 140231
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Because more people bought it than sold it. That's really all one can say. You look for news stories related to the event, but you don't really know that's what drove people to buy or sell. We're still trying to figure out the cause of the recent flash crash, for example. For the most part, I feel journalism trying to describe why the markets moved is destined to fail. It's very complicated. Stocks can fall on above average earnings reports, and rise on dismal annual reports. I've heard a suggestion before that people \"\"buy on the rumor, sell on the news\"\". Which is just this side of insider trading.\"",
"qid": 10674,
"docid": "462135",
"rank": 22,
"score": 139935
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You're wise to consider mitigating risks considering your age and portfolio size, but 'in' and 'out' are so reductive and binary. Why not be both? Leave some in and let it ride, providing growth but taking risk. Put some in bonds, where it'll earn more than cash and maybe zig when stocks zag. I applaud you for calling the last two crashes, but remember: a lot of people called them. Jeremy Bentham called the dot com bubble *years* in advance - of course, he got out too early, and the investors in his funds suffered for it. Timing means getting the sell and the buy right, which very few can do. Hence my advice to hold a balanced portfolio or *if you really do have the golden touch* make use of that ability and get rich - no need to work a 9 to 5 if you can call market crashes accurately.",
"qid": 10674,
"docid": "394941",
"rank": 23,
"score": 139557
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I can think of a few reasons for this. First, bonds are not as correlated with the stock market so having some in your portfolio will reduce volatility by a bit. This is nice because it makes you panic less about the value changes in your portfolio when the stock market is acting up, and I'm sure that fund managers would rather you make less money consistently then more money in a more volatile way. Secondly, you never know when you might need that money, and since stock market crashes tend to be correlated with people losing their jobs, it would be really unfortunate to have to sell off stocks when they are under-priced due to market shenanigans. The bond portion of your portfolio would be more likely to be stable and easier to sell to help you get through a rough patch. I have some investment money I don't plan to touch for 20 years and I have the bond portion set to 5-10% since I might as well go for a \"\"high growth\"\" position, but if you're more conservative, and might make withdrawals, it's better to have more in bonds... I definitely will switch over more into bonds when I get ready to retire-- I'd rather have slow consistent payments for my retirement than lose a lot in an unexpected crash at a bad time!\"",
"qid": 10674,
"docid": "112369",
"rank": 24,
"score": 139305
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Also a layman, and I didnt read the article because it did the whole 'screw you for blocking my ads' thing. But judging from the title, I'd guess someone bought a massive amount of call options for VIX, the stock that tracks volatility in the market. Whenever the market crashes or goes through difficult times, the VIX fund prospers. The 'by october' part makes me think it was call options that he purchased: basically he paid a premium for each share (a fraction of the shares cost) for the right to buy that share at today's price, from now until october. So if the share increases in value, for each call option he has, he can buy one share at todays price, and sell it at the price it is that day. Options can catapult your profit into the next dimension but if the share decreases in value or even stays the same price, he loses everything. Vicious redditors, please correct the mistakes ive made here with utmost discrimination",
"qid": 10674,
"docid": "587558",
"rank": 25,
"score": 138898
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Between 1 and 2 G is actually pretty decent for a High School Student. Your best bet in my opinion is to wait the next (small) stock market crash, and then invest in an index fund. A fund that tracks the SP500 or the Russel 2000 would be a good choice. By stock market crash, I'm talking about a 20% to 30% drop from the highest point. The stock market is at an all time high, but nobody knows if it's going to keep going. I would avoid penny stocks, at least until you can read their annual report and understand most of what they're claiming, especially the cash flow statement. From the few that I've looked at, penny stock companies just keep issuing stock to raise money for their money loosing operations. I'd also avoid individual stocks for now. You can setup a practice account somewhere online, and try trading. Your classmates probably brag about how much they've made, but they won't tell you how much they lost. You are not misusing your money by \"\"not doing anything with it\"\". Your classmates are gambling with it, they might as well go to a casino. Echoing what others have said, investing in yourself is your best option at this point. Try to get into the best school that you can. Anything that gives you an edge over other people in terms of experience or education is good. So try to get some leadership and team experience. , and some online classes in a field that interests you.\"",
"qid": 10674,
"docid": "23116",
"rank": 26,
"score": 138794
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Is it possible to profit from some of this money in the short term before I need to access it? Sure, it's possible. But if the stock market decides to \"\"correct\"\" (or even crashes), you'll be in a world of hurt. Thus, since it's so important that you not lose this money, just stick it in an online bank earning 1.2%, and withdraw \"\"enough\"\" twice a month. EDIT: by \"\"withdraw\"\", I mean to transfer to your checking account.\"",
"qid": 10674,
"docid": "324946",
"rank": 27,
"score": 138788
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Buying stocks is like an auction. Put in the price you want to pay and see if someone is willing to sell at that price. Thing to remember about after hours trading; There is a lot less supply so there's always a larger bid/ask price spread. That's the price brokers charge to handle the stocks they broker over and above the fee. That means you will always pay more after the market closes. Unless it is bad news, but I don't think you want to buy when that happens. I think a lot of the after market trading is to manipulate the market. Traders drive up the price overnight with small purchases then sell their large holdings when the market opens.",
"qid": 10674,
"docid": "362212",
"rank": 28,
"score": 138096
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"What if everyone decided to sell all the shares at a given moment, let's say when the stock is trading at $40? It would fall to the lowest bid price, which could be $0.01 if someone had that bid in place. Here is an example which I happened to find online: Notice there are orders to buy at half the market price and lower... probably all the way down to pennies. If there were enough selling activity to fill all of those bids you see, then the market price would be the lowest bid on the screen. Alternatively, the bid orders could be pulled (cancelled), which would also let the price free-fall to the lowest bid even if there were few actual sellers. Bid-stuffing is what HFT (high frequency trading) algorithms sometimes do, which some say caused the Flash Crash of May 2010. The computers \"\"stuff\"\" bids into the order book, making it look like there is demand in order to trigger a market reaction, then they pull the bids to make the market fall. This sort of thing happens all the time and Nanex documents it http://www.nanex.net/FlashCrash/OngoingResearch.html Quote stuffing defined: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/q/quote-stuffing.asp I remember the day of the Flash Crash very well. I found this video on youtube of CNBC at that time. Watch from the 5:00 min mark on the video as Jim Crammer talks about PG easily not being worth the price of the market at that time. He said \"\"Who cares?\"\", \"\"Its not a real price\"\", \"\"$49.25 bid for 50,000 shares if I were at my hedge fund.\"\" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86g4_w4j3jU You can value a stock how you want, but its only actually worth what someone will give you for it. More examples: Anadarko Petroleum, which as we noted in today's EOD post, lost $45 billion in market cap in 45 milliseconds (a collapse rate of $1 billion per millisecond), flash crashing from $90 all the way to an (allegedly illegal) stub quote of $0.01. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-05-17/how-last-second-flash-crash-pushed-sp-500-1667-1666 How 10,000 Contracts Crashed The Market: A Visual Deconstruction Of Last Night's E-Mini Flash Crash http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-12-21/how-10000-contracts-crashed-market-visual-deconstruction-last-nights-e-mini-flash-cr Symantec Flash-Crash Destroys Over $1.5 Billion In Less Than A Second http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-04-30/symantec-flash-crash-destroys-over-15-billion-less-second This sort of thing happens so often, I don't pay much attention anymore.\"",
"qid": 10674,
"docid": "386225",
"rank": 29,
"score": 137880
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"If we can agree that 2010 was closer to the low of 2009 than 2007 then the rich did all the buying while the super-rich did all the selling. http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html Looks like the rich cleaned up during the Tech Crash too, but it looks like the poor lost faith. That limited data makes it look like the best investors are the rich. Market makers are only required by the exchanges to provide liquidity, bids & asks. They aren't required to buy endlessly. In fact, market makers (at least the ones who survive the busts) try to never have a stake in direction. They do this by holding equal inventories of long and shorts. They are actually the only people legally allowed to naked short stock: sell without securing shares to borrow. All us peons must secure borrowed shares before selling short. Also, firms involved in the actual workings of the market like bookies but unlike us peons who make the bets play by different margin rules. They're allowed to lever through the roof because they take on low risk or near riskless trades and \"\"positions\"\" (your broker, clearing agent, etc actually directly \"\"own\"\" your financial assets and borrow & lend them like a bank). http://www.finra.org/web/groups/industry/@ip/@reg/@notice/documents/notices/p004001.pdf This is why market makers can be assumed not to load up on shares during a decline; they simply drop the bids & asks as their bids are hit.\"",
"qid": 10674,
"docid": "482517",
"rank": 30,
"score": 137625
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Two main points to answer this in my opinion. First, most people don't start with say half a million dollar to buy all the stocks they need in one shot but rather they accumulate this money gradually. So they must make many Buys in their lifetime. Similarly, most people don't need to withdraw all their investment in one day (and shouldn't do this anyway as it cuts the time of investment). So there will be many Sells. Performing a single buy or sell per year is not efficient since it means you have lots of cash sitting doing nothing. So in this sense, low cost indexing lets you quickly invest your money (and withdraw it when needed after say you retire) without worrying about commission costs each time. The second and most important point to me to answer this is that we should make a very clear distinction between strategy and outcome. Today's stock prices and all the ups and downs of the market are just one possible outcome that materialized from a virtually uncountable number of possible outcomes. It's not too hard to imagine that tomorrow we hear all iPhones explode and Apple stock comes crashing down. Or that in a parallel universe Amazon never takes off and somehow Sears is the king of online commerce. Another item in the \"\"outcome\"\" category is your decisions as a human being of when to buy and sell. If that exploding iPhone event does occur, would you hold on to your stocks? Would you sell and cut your losses? Does the average person make the same decision if they had $1000 invested in Apple alone vs $1M? Index investing offers a low cost strategy that mitigates these uncertainties for the average person. Again here the key is the word \"\"average\"\". Picking a handful of the heavyweight stocks as you mention might give you better returns in 30 years, but it could just as easily give you worse. And the current data suggest the latter is more likely. \"\"Heavyweights\"\" come and go (who were they 30 years ago?) and just like how the other 450 companies may seem right now as dragging down the portfolio, just as easily a handful of them can emerge as the new heavyweights. Guaranteed? No. Possible? Yes. Jack Bogle is simply saying low cost indexing is one of the better strategies for the average person, given the data. But nowhere is it guaranteed that in this lifetime (e.g. next 30 years) will provide the best outcome. Berkshire on the other hand are in the business of chasing maximum outcomes (mid or short term returns). It's two different concepts that shouldn't be mixed together in my opinion.\"",
"qid": 10674,
"docid": "380612",
"rank": 31,
"score": 137284
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: To short a stock you actually borrow shares and sell them. The shorter gets the money from selling immediately, and pays interest for the share he borrows until he covers the short. The amount of interest varies depending on the stock. It's typically under 1% a year for large cap stocks, but can be 20% or more for small, illiquid, or heavily shorted stocks. In this scam only a few people own the shares that are lent to shorters, so they essentially have a monopoly and can set really high borrow costs. The shorter probably assumes that a pump-and-dump will crash quickly, so wouldn't mind paying a high borrow cost.",
"qid": 10674,
"docid": "501984",
"rank": 32,
"score": 137124
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Aganju has mentioned put options, which are one good possibility. I would suggest considering an even easier strategy: short selling. Technically you are borrowing the stock from someone and selling it. At some point you repurchase the stock to return to the lender (\"\"covering your short\"\"). If the stock price has fallen, then when you repurchase it, it will be cheaper and you keep the profit. Short selling sounds complicated but it's actually very easy--your broker takes care of all the details. Just go to your brokerage and click \"\"sell\"\" or \"\"sell short.\"\" You can use a market or limit order just like you were selling something you own. When it sells, you are done. The money gets credited to your account. At some point (after the price falls) you should repurchase it so you don't have a negative position any more, but your brokerage isn't going to hassle you for this unless you bought a lot and the stock price starts rising. There will be limits on how much you can short, depending on how much money is in your account. Some stocks (distressed and small stocks) may sometimes be hard to short, meaning your broker will charge you a kind of interest and/or may not be able to complete your transaction. You will need a margin account (a type of brokerage account) to either use options or short sell. They are easy to come by, though. Note that for a given amount of starting money in your account, puts can give you a much more dramatic gain if the stock price falls. But they can (and often do) expire worthless, causing you to lose all money you have spent on them. If you want to maximize how much you make, use puts. Otherwise I'd short sell. About IPOs, it depends on what you mean. If the IPO has just completed and you want to bet that the share price will fall, either puts or short selling will work. Before an IPO you can't short sell and I doubt you would be able to buy an option either. Foreign stocks? Depends on whether there is an ADR for them that trades on the domestic market and on the details of your brokerage account. Let me put it this way, if you can buy it, you can short sell it.\"",
"qid": 10674,
"docid": "480967",
"rank": 33,
"score": 136490
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Trading is NOT zero-sum game, it is negative sum actually. In fact all people's money is getting swept by commissions and fees. If you don't have The Plan (which includes minimizing commission losses), you win some (not a lot), then you get big positions, then market crashes, then all your money is gone. You will start noticing that commissions are real, only when you get market crash. Prey that you get heavy losses (-10% of portfolio) before some (giant) market crash. Getting good lesson by small price is better then high price (-30..50%). Piece of advice. There is small exchanges that do NOT charge you for operations, taking only market spread ($0.01) as commission. They do so because they do not have big population and they trade mostly by using automatic market-makers (which means there is no way to buy 10% of Apple there).",
"qid": 10674,
"docid": "501056",
"rank": 34,
"score": 136234
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Bonds by themselves aren't recession proof. No investment is, and when a major crash (c.f. 2008) occurs, all investments will be to some extent at risk. However, bonds add a level of diversification to your investment portfolio that can make it much more stable even during downturns. Bonds do not move identically to the stock market, and so many times investing in bonds will be more profitable when the stock market is slumping. Investing some of your investment funds in bonds is safer, because that diversification allows you to have some earnings from that portion of your investment when the market is going down. It also allows you to do something called rebalancing. This is when you have target allocation proportions for your portfolio; say 60% stock 40% bond. Then, periodically look at your actual portfolio proportions. Say the market is way up - then your actual proportions might be 70% stock 30% bond. You sell 10 percentage points of stocks, and buy 10 percentage points of bonds. This over time will be a successful strategy, because it tends to buy low and sell high. In addition to the value of diversification, some bonds will tend to be more stable (but earn less), in particular blue chip corporate bonds and government bonds from stable countries. If you're willing to only earn a few percent annually on a portion of your portfolio, that part will likely not fall much during downturns - and in fact may grow as money flees to safer investments - which in turn is good for you. If you're particularly worried about your portfolio's value in the short term, such as if you're looking at retiring soon, a decent proportion should be in this kind of safer bond to ensure it doesn't lose too much value. But of course this will slow your earnings, so if you're still far from retirement, you're better off leaving things in growth stocks and accepting the risk; odds are no matter who's in charge, there will be another crash or two of some size before you retire if you're in your 30s now. But when it's not crashing, the market earns you a pretty good return, and so it's worth the risk.",
"qid": 10674,
"docid": "303037",
"rank": 35,
"score": 136130
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you find a particular stock to be overvalued at $200 for example and a reasonable value at $175, you can place a limit order at the price you want to pay. If/when the stock price falls to your desired purchase price, the transaction takes place. Your broker can explain how long a limit order can stay open. This method allows you to take advantage of flash crashes when some savvy stock trader decides to game the market. This tactic works better with more volatile or low-volume stocks. If it works for an S&P500 tracking ETF, you have bigger problems. :) Another tactic is to put money into your brokerage cash account on a regular basis and buy those expensive stocks & funds when you have accumulated enough money to do so. This money won't earn you any interest while it sits in the cash account, but it's there, ready to be deployed at a moment's notice when you have enough to purchase those expensive assets.",
"qid": 10674,
"docid": "554674",
"rank": 36,
"score": 136078
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You have to look at stocks just like you would look at smaller and more illiquid markets. Stock trade in auction markets. These are analogous to ebay or craigslist, just with more transparency and liquidity. There is no guarantee that a market will form for a particular stock, or that it will sustain. When a stock sells off, and there are no bids left, that means all of the existing bidder's limit orders got filled because someone sold at those prices. There is nothing fishy about that. It is likely that someone else wants to sell even more, but couldn't find any more bidders. If you put a bid you would likely get filled by the shareholder with a massive position looking for liquidity. You could also buy at the ask.",
"qid": 10674,
"docid": "400614",
"rank": 37,
"score": 136077
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You put in a market order when you want to sell to whomever raises their hand first. It results in the fastest possible liquidation of your stock. It's appropriate when you need to sell now, regardless of price. An example of when to use it: It's 3:55 PM, the market's going to close in 5 minutes and you need to sell some stocks to make some kind of urgent payment elsewhere. If instead you have a limit order in place, you might not reach the limit price before the market closes, and you'll still own the stock, which might not be what you want.",
"qid": 10674,
"docid": "89460",
"rank": 38,
"score": 135509
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: However, is it a risk that they may withhold liquidity in a market panic crash to protect their own capital? Two cases exist here. One is if you access the direct market, then they cannot. Secondly if you are trading in the internal market created by them, yes they can do to save their behind, but that is open to question. They don't make money on your profit or loss, their money comes from you trading. So as long as you maintain the required margin in your accounts, you can go ahead. I had a mail exchange with IG Index regarding this and they categorically refuted on this point. Will their clients be unable to sell at a fair market price in a panic crash? No. Also, do CFD providers sometimes make an occasional downward spike to cream off their clients' cut-loss order? Need proof regarding this, not saying it cannot happen. They wouldn't antagonize the people bringing them business without any reason. They would be putting their money at risk. But you should know, their traders are also in the market. Which might look skimming your money, it would be their traders making money in the free market. After all Google, Facebook etc also sell your personal data for profit, why shouldn't the CFD firm also. Since they are market makers, what is to prevent them from attempting these tricks? Are these concerns also valid for forex brokers serving the retail public? What you consider as tricks are legitimate use of information to make money.",
"qid": 10674,
"docid": "263432",
"rank": 39,
"score": 134843
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Yes there will be enough liquidity to sell your position barring some sort of Flash Crash anomaly. Volume generally rises on the day of expiration to increase this liquidity. Don't forget that there are many investment strategies--buying to cover a short position is closing out a trade similar to your case.",
"qid": 10674,
"docid": "92695",
"rank": 40,
"score": 134714
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I would also be getting out of the stock market if I noticed prices starting to fall and a crash possibly on the way. There are some good and quite simple techniques I would use to time the markets over the medium to long term. I have described some of them in the answer to this question of mine: What are some simple techniques used for Timing the Stock Market over the long term? You could use similar techniques in your investing. And in regards to back-testing DCA to Timing The Markets, I have done that too in my answer to the following question: Investing in low cost index fund — does the timing matter? Timing the Markets wins hand down. In regards to back-testing and the concerns Kent Anderson has brought up, when I back-test a trading strategy, if that strategy is successful, I then forward test it over a year or two to confirm the results. As with back-testing you can sometimes curve fit your criteria too much. By forward testing you are confirming that the strategy is robust over different market conditions. One strategy you can take when the market does start to fall is short selling, as mentioned by some already. I am now short selling using CFDs over the short to medium term as one of my more aggressive strategies. I have a longer term strategy where I do not short, but tighten my stop losses when the market starts to tank. Sometimes my positions will keep going up even though the market as a whole is heading down, and I can make an extra 5% to 10% on these positions before I get taken out. The rare position even continues going up during the whole downturn and when the market starts to recover. So I let the market decide when I get out and when I stay in, I leave my emotions out of it. The best thing you can do is have a written trading plan with all your criteria for getting into the market, your criteria for getting out of the market and your position sizing and risk management incorporated in the plan.",
"qid": 10674,
"docid": "114092",
"rank": 41,
"score": 134708
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Because buying at discount provides a considerable safety of margin -- it increases the likelihood of profiting. The margin serves to cushion future adverse price movement. Why is so much effort made to get a small percentage off an investment, if one is then willing to let the investment drop another 20% or more with the reason of being in it for the long term? Nobody can predict the stock price. Now if a long term investor happens to buy some stocks and the market crashes the next day, he could afford to wait for the stock prices to bounce back. Why should he sells immediately to incur a definite loss, should he has confidence in the underlying companies to recover eventually? One can choose to buy wisely, but the market fluctuation is out of his/her control. Wouldn't you agree that he/she should spend much efforts on something that can be controlled?",
"qid": 10674,
"docid": "466711",
"rank": 42,
"score": 134620
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Since you mention the religion restriction, you should probably look into the stock market or funds investing in it. Owning stock basically means you own a part of a company and benefit from any increase in value the company may have (and 'loose' on decreases, provided you sell your stock) and you also earn dividends over the company's profit. If you do your research properly and buy into stable companies you shouldn't need to bother about temporary market movements or crashes (do pay attention to deterioration on the businesses you own though). When buying stocks you should be aiming for the very long run. As mentioned by Victor, do your research, I recommend you start it by looking into 'value stocks' should you choose that path.",
"qid": 10674,
"docid": "107688",
"rank": 43,
"score": 134558
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you believe the stock market will be down 20-30% in the next few months, sell your stock holdings, buy a protective put option for the value of the holdings that you want to keep. That would be hedging against it. Anything more is speculating that the market will fall.",
"qid": 10674,
"docid": "427808",
"rank": 44,
"score": 134231
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You say you have 90% in stocks. I'll assume that you have the other 10% in bonds. For the sake of simplicity, I'll assume that your investments in stocks are in nice, passive indexed mutual funds and ETFs, rather than in individual stocks. A 90% allocation in stocks is considered aggressive. The problem is that if the stock market crashes, you may lose 40% or more of your investment in a single year. As you point out, you are investing for the long term. That's great, it means you can rest easy if the stock market crashes, safe in the hope that you have many years for it to recover. So long as you have the emotional willpower to stick with it. Would you be better off with a 100% allocation in stocks? You'd think so, wouldn't you. After all, the stock market as a whole gives better expected returns than the bond market. But keep in mind, the stock market and the bond market are (somewhat) negatively correlated. That means when the stock market goes down, the bond market often goes up, and vice versa. Investing some of your money in bonds will slightly reduce your expected return but will also reduce your standard deviation and your maximum annual loss. Canadian Couch Potato has an interesting write-up on how to estimate stock and bond returns. It's based on your stocks being invested equally in the Canadian, U.S., and international markets. As you live in the U.S., that likely doesn't directly apply to you; you probably ignore the Canadian stock market, but your returns will be fairly similar. I've reproduced part of that table here: As you can see, your expected return is highest with a 100% allocation in stocks. With a 20 year window, you likely can recover from any crash. If you have the stomach for it, it's the allocation with the highest expected return. Once you get closer to retirement, though, you have less time to wait for the stock market to recover. If you still have 90% or 100% of your investment in stocks and the market crashes by 44%, it might well take you more than 6 years to recover. Canadian Couch Potato has another article, Does a 60/40 Portfolio Still Make Sense? A 60/40 portfolio is a fairly common split for regular investors. Typically considered not too aggressive, not too conservative. The article references an AP article that suggests, in the current financial climate, 60/40 isn't enough. Even they aren't recommending a 90/10 or a 100/0 split, though. Personally, I think 60/40 is too conservative. However, I don't have the stomach for a 100/0 split or even a 90/10 split. Okay, to get back to your question. So long as your time horizon is far enough out, the expected return is highest with a 100% allocation in stocks. Be sure that you can tolerate the risk, though. A 30% or 40% hit to your investments is enough to make anyone jittery. Investing a portion of your money in bonds slightly lowers your expected return but can measurably reduce your risk. As you get closer to retirement and your time horizon narrows, you have less time to recover from a stock market crash and do need to be more conservative. 6 years is probably too short to keep all your money in stocks. Is your stated approach reasonable? Well, only you can answer that. :)",
"qid": 10674,
"docid": "228488",
"rank": 45,
"score": 133782
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Market makers, traders, and value investors would be who I'd suspect for buying the stock that is declining. Some companies stocks can come down considerably which could make some speculators buy the stock at the lower price thinking it may bounce back soon. \"\"Short sellers\"\" are out to sell borrowed stocks that if the stock is in free fall, unless the person that shorted wants to close the position, they would let it ride. Worthless stocks are a bit of a special case and quite different than the crash of 1929 where various blue chip stocks like those of the Dow Jones Industrials had severe declines. Thus, the companies going down would be like Apple, Coca-Cola and other large companies that people would be shocked to see come down so much yet there are some examples in recent history if one remembers Enron or Worldcom. Stocks getting delisted tend to cause some selling and there are some speculators may buy the stock believing that the shares may be worth something only to lose the money possibly as one could look at the bankrupt cases of airlines and car companies to study some recent cases here. Circuit breakers are worth noting as these are cases when trading may be halted because of a big swing in prices that it is believed stopping the market may cause things to settle down.\"",
"qid": 10674,
"docid": "62360",
"rank": 46,
"score": 133241
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: It depends on why the stocks crashed. If this happened because interest rates shot up, bonds will suffer also. On the other hand, stocks could be crashing because economic growth (and hence earnings) are disappointing. This pulls down interest rates and lifts bonds.",
"qid": 10674,
"docid": "16924",
"rank": 47,
"score": 133078
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Hmm... Well there are several ways to do that: Go to any bank (or at the very least major ones). They can assist you with buying and/or selling stocks/shares of any company on the financial market. They keep your shares safe at the bank and take care of them. The downside is that they will calculate fees for every single thing they do with your money or shares or whatever. Go to any Financial broker/trader that deals with the stock market. Open an account and tell them to buy shares from company \"\"X\"\" and keep them. Meaning they won't trade with them if this is what you want. Do the same as point 2, but on your own. Find a suitable broker with decent transaction fees, open an account, find the company's stock code and purchase the stocks via the platform the broker uses.\"",
"qid": 10674,
"docid": "413672",
"rank": 48,
"score": 132945
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Your strategy fails to control risk. Your \"\"inversed crash\"\" is called a rally. And These kind of things often turn into bigger rallies because of short squeezes, when all the people that are shorting a stock are forced to close their stock because of margin calls - its not that shorts \"\"scramble\"\" to close their position, the broker AUTOMATICALLY closes your short positions with market orders and you are stuck with the loss. So no, your \"\"trick\"\" is not enough. There are better ways to profit from a bearish outlook.\"",
"qid": 10674,
"docid": "333496",
"rank": 49,
"score": 131739
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Peace of mind is the key to your question. Just before the US housing bust of 2007, I had someone try to convince me to take all the equity from my house which was overvalued in an overheated market. The idea was to put that money in the stock market for a bigger return than the interest on the house. Many people did that and found themselves out of jobs as the economy crashed. Unfortunately, they couldn't sell their homes because they owed more than they were worth. I never lost a night of sleep over the money I didn't make in the stock market. I did manage to trade up to a house twice the size by buying another when the housing market bottomed out, but waiting for a market recovery to sell the smaller house. The outcome of my good fortune is a very nice house with no mortgage worth about 1/3 of my total net worth. That's probably a larger percentage than most money managers would recommend, but it is steadily decreasing because now, all the money that would go to a mortgage payment instead gets deposited in retirement accounts, and it still has 30 years to grow before I start drawing it down. I almost don't remember the burden of a mortgage hanging over my head each month. Almost.",
"qid": 10674,
"docid": "127601",
"rank": 50,
"score": 131627
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"You said your strategy was to put it into a index fund. But then you asked about setting stock limits. I'm confused. Funds usually trade at their price at the end of the day, so you shouldn't try to time this at all. Just place your order. If you are buying ETFs, there is going to be so much volume on the market that your small trade is going to have no impact on the price. You should just place a market order. A market order is an order to buy or sell a stock at the current market price. A limit order is an order to buy or sell a security at a specific price. In the US, when you place a trade with any broker, you can either place a limit order or a market order. A market order just fills your order with the next best sellers in line. If you place an order for 100 shares, the sellers willing to sell 100 shares at the lowest price will be matched with your order (sometimes you may get 50 shares at one price and 50 shares at a slightly different price). If your stock has a lot of volatility and you place a market order for a small amount of shares, you will get the best price. If you place a limit order, you specify the price at which you want to buy shares. Your order will then only be filled with sellers willing to sell at that price or lower (i.e. they must be at least as good as you specified). This means you could place an order at a limit that does not get filled (the stock could move in a direction away from your limit price). If you really want to own the stock, you shouldn't use a limit order. You shouldn't only use a limit order if you want to tell your broker \"\"I will only buy this stock at this price or better.\"\" p.s. Every day that passes is NOT a waste. It's just a day that you've decided investing in cash is safer than investing in the market.\"",
"qid": 10674,
"docid": "266785",
"rank": 51,
"score": 131574
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Step 1: Buy stock with own money Step 2: Buy big block of same stock with clients' money, and push the price up Step 3: Go on tv to encourage public to buy the same stock, to push price up even further Step 4: Sell your holding, and profit Step 5: Sell your clients' holding and profit from commission Step 6: Keep low profile so public forgets your lame advice Step 7: Repeat",
"qid": 10674,
"docid": "466001",
"rank": 52,
"score": 130783
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The market isn't going to come up with a cure when the largest trading firms, hedge funds, and wealthy individuals making money off HFT. They have very little incentive for ensuring the stability of the market, because they are already rich. If the market crashes and they lose money, they're still rich. There are already taxes and fees that have to be paid when people make trades. The fees that have been proposed have been fractions of a cent per share. The only way anyone would notice the fee is if they are trading a huge amount of shares during the day, every day.",
"qid": 10674,
"docid": "223383",
"rank": 53,
"score": 130049
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I've read a nice rule of thumb somewhere that you should consider: You should invest (100-YOURAGE)% of your money in stock The rest should be something less volatile and more liquid, so you have some money when the stock market goes down and you need some money nevertheless. So you would start with buying about 75% stock and balance your stock percentage over time by buing more secure assets to keep the stock percentage at the desired level. At some time you might need to sell stock to rebalance and invest in more secure assets.",
"qid": 10674,
"docid": "418003",
"rank": 54,
"score": 129909
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Buy low, sell high. I think a lot of people apply that advice wrongly. Instead of using this as advice about when to buy and when to sell, you should use it as advice about when not to buy and when not to sell. Don't buy when P/Es cannot support the current stock price. Don't sell when stocks have already fallen due to a market panic. Don't follow the herd or you will get trampled when they reverse direction in a panic. If you are smart enough to sell ahead of the panics, more power to you, but you should be using more than a 52-week high on a graph to make that decision.",
"qid": 10674,
"docid": "88813",
"rank": 55,
"score": 129734
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Typically this isn't a random order- having a small volume just means it's not showing on the chart, but it is a vlid price point. Same thing would've happened if it would've been a very large order that shows on the chart. Consider also that this could have been the first one of many transactions that go far below your stop point - would you not have wanted it to be executed then, at this time, as it did? Would you expect the system to look into future and decide that this is a one time dip, and not sell; versus it is a crash, and sell? Either way, the system cannot look in the future, so it has no way to know if a crash is coming, or if it was a short dip; therefore the instrcutions are executed as given - sell if any transfer happens below the limit. To avoid that (or at least reduce the chance for it), you can either leave more distance (and risk a higher loss when it crashes), or trade higher volumes, so the short small dip won't execute your order; also, very liquid stocks will not show such small transaction dips.",
"qid": 10674,
"docid": "288448",
"rank": 56,
"score": 129698
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Being long the S&P Index ETF you can expect to make money. The index itself will never \"\"crash\"\" because the individual stocks in it are simply removed when they begin performing badly. This is not to say that the S&P Index won't lose 80% of its value in an instant (or over a few trading sessions if circuit breakers are considered), but even in the 2008 correction, the S&P still traded far above book value. With this in mind, you have to realize, that despite common sentiment, the indexes are hardly representative of \"\"the market\"\". They are just a derivative, and as you might be aware, derivatives can enable financial tricks far removed from reality. Regarding index funds, if a small group of people decide that 401k's are performing badly, then they will simply rebalance the components of the indexes with companies that are doing well. The headline will be \"\"S&P makes ANOTHER record high today\"\" So although panic selling can disrupt the order book, especially during periods of illiquidity, with the current structure \"\"the stock market\"\" being based off of three composite indexes, can never crash, because there will always exist a company that is not exposed to broad market fluctuations and will be performing better by fundamentals and share price. Similarly, you collect dividends from the index ETFs. You can also sell covered calls on your holdings. The CBOE has a chart through the 2008 crisis showing your theoretical profit and loss if you sold calls 2 standard deviations out of the money, at every monthly interval. If you are going to be holding an index ETF for a long time, then you shouldn't be concerned about its share price at all, since the returns would be pretty abysmal either way, but it should suffice for hedging inflation.\"",
"qid": 10674,
"docid": "461217",
"rank": 57,
"score": 129459
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"One way to start with stocks is by playing the fake stock market. Investigate what trading fees would be with a broker, then \"\"invest\"\" a certain amount of money - note it on paper or in a spreadsheet. Follow your stocks, make decisions on selling and buying, and see where you would be after a year or so. That way you can get an idea, even if not exactly precise, on what your returns would be if you really invested the money.\"",
"qid": 10674,
"docid": "403092",
"rank": 58,
"score": 129338
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Rebates are offered on exchange to promote liquidity offers so that aggressive buy/sell can be done, otherwise a sizable sell/buy would crash the price of a stock with no liquidity, it is perfectly normal for a firm to attempt look for the rebate if the customer is willing to wait longer for the execution to happen. The Author clearly has no freaking idea what the hell he is talking about.",
"qid": 10674,
"docid": "508868",
"rank": 59,
"score": 129326
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you know the market will crash, you could opt for going short. However, if you think this is too risky, not investing at all is probably your best move. In case of crises, correlation go up and almost all assets go down.",
"qid": 10674,
"docid": "66219",
"rank": 60,
"score": 129012
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: A market crash won't affect your cash held with your broker - however if the broker defaults (goes bankrupt), you may lose some or all of that cash. If you read the customer agreement that you signed when opening the account, it's very likely that there's a clause that stipulates that under certain circumstances, the broker has the right to use your cash and/or your positions without notice. If the broker default you may not be able to recover the assets they've been using. As an example, look at clause 14 of the Interactive Brokers US customer agreement. This is a fairly standard clause. Depending on your jurisdiction, you may have a partial or full legal protection against such an event (e.g. the SIPC protection for US-based brokers which would apply to you if your broker is IB LLC, even if you are not a US resident/citizen).",
"qid": 10674,
"docid": "265098",
"rank": 61,
"score": 128955
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"But speculation is absolutely intended to happen, and is considered necessary for healthy a investment environment. What I am saying, however, is that this desire to rid the world of HFT appears to be moral rather than logical. There is very little reason to eliminate HFT as it stands, although there appears to be a propensity for very emotional responses to the basic concept. Ones I can appreciate. However I am suggesting they are misguided as the people who should be upset with HFT are the hedge fund managers and day traders they are outwitting, not you or me who buy and sell shares on a whim every so often. If you want to ban day traders that is a separate argument I don't want to go into. The idea that these computer algorithms are all set to \"\"sell,sell,sell\"\" is provably nonsensical. If that were the case, all of the HFT participants would have gone massively bankrupt during the flash crashes. Also, it is quite patently the case that somebody has to be buying in order for anybody to sell. Saying \"\"this is what caused some of the crashes\"\" is just your desire for a simple explanation. It must have been more complex than this, and to my knowledge none of these crashes have been adequately explained although some poorly designed algorithms have been implicated. Note that in one of these cases IIRC a fund closed its doors due to the losses, and the market was largely unaffected. So it seems like a problem that self corrects in this case, and one that only *harms* the participant that erred. Also, to correct a basic misunderstanding, selling happens all of the time, and does not inherently drive the price down. There are by definition an *equal number of sales to purchases*. What drives the price down is *the people buying being willing to pay less*. EDIT: as another aside, a point I have made elsewhere and seems suitable to make here: flash crashes, whilst causing panic, are again something only the professional intra-day trading community are likely to be affected by. Their very name implies so. The reason being that anybody investing based on the *long term investment potential* of a company will only benefit in the temporary drop in price, as they can purchase more of the company at a bargain price. Any intelligent investor will not be fazed by the drop in price, as price has *no bearing on a company's real value*, and stocks do tend towards this value over time, whatever happens over the short term. The only case in which it could is if the company owns a large portfolio of stock that itself devalues dramatically that they intended to sell and as a result experience cash flow problems. This is so incredibly unlikely with a flash crash as to be ignored.\"",
"qid": 10674,
"docid": "323944",
"rank": 62,
"score": 128765
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The best advice I've heard regarding market conditions is: Buy into fear, and sell into greed. That is, get in when everyone is a bear and predicting economic collapse. Start selling when you hear stock picks at parties and family functions. That said. You are better off in the long term not letting emotion (of you or the market) control your investing decisions). Use dollar cost averaging to put a fixed amount in at fixed intervals and you will most likely end up better off for it.",
"qid": 10674,
"docid": "228889",
"rank": 63,
"score": 128215
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Most of the investors who have large holdings in a particular stock have pretty good exit strategies for those positions to ensure they are getting the best price they can by selling gradually into the volume over time. Putting a single large block of stock up for sale is problematic for one simple reason: Let's say you have 100,000 shares of a stock, and for some reason you decide today is the day to sell them, take your profits, and ride off into the sunset. So you call your broker (or log into your brokerage account) and put them up for sale. He puts in an order somewhere, the stock is sold, and your account is credited. Seems simple, right? Well...not so fast. Professionals - I'm keeping this simple, so please don't beat me up for it! The way stocks are bought and sold is through companies known as \"\"market makers\"\". These are entities which sit between the markets and you (and your broker), and when you want to buy or sell a stock, most of the time the order is ultimately handled somewhere along the line by a market maker. If you work with a large brokerage firm, sometimes they'll buy or sell your shares out of their own accounts, but that's another story. It is normal for there to be many, sometimes hundreds, of market makers who are all trading in the same equity. The bigger the stock, the more market makers it attracts. They all compete with each other for business, and they make their money on the spread between what they buy stock from people selling for and what they can get for it selling it to people who want it. Given that there could be hundreds of market makers on a particular stock (Google, Apple, and Microsoft are good examples of having hundreds of market makers trading in their stocks), it is very competitive. The way the makers compete is on price. It might surprise you to know that it is the market makers, not the markets, that decide what a stock will buy or sell for. Each market maker sets their own prices for what they'll pay to buy from sellers for, and what they'll sell it to buyers for. This is called, respectively, the \"\"bid\"\" and the \"\"ask\"\" prices. So, if there are hundreds of market makers then there could be hundreds of different bid and ask prices on the same stock. The prices you see for stocks are what are called the \"\"best bid and best ask\"\" prices. What that means is, you are being shown the highest \"\"bid\"\" price (what you can sell your shares for) and the best \"\"ask\"\" price (what you can buy those shares for) because that's what is required. That being said, there are many other market makers on the same stock whose bid prices are lower and ask prices are higher. Many times there will be a big clump of market makers all at the same bid/ask, or within fractions of a cent of each other, all competing for business. Trading computers are taught to seek out the best prices and the fastest trade fills they can. The point to this very simplistic lesson is that the market makers set the prices that shares trade at. They adjust those prices based (among other factors) on how much buying and selling volume they're seeing. If they see a wave of sell orders coming into the system then they'll start marking down their bid prices. This keeps them from paying too much for shares they're going to have to find a buyer for eventually, and it can sometimes slow down the pace of selling as investors and automated systems notice the price decline and decide to wait to sell. Conversely, if market makers see a wave of buy orders coming into the system, they'll start marking their ask prices up to maximize their gains, since they're selling you shares they bought from someone else, presumably at a lower price. But they typically adjust their prices up or down before they actually fill trades. (sneaky, eh?) Depending on how much volume there is on the shares of the company you're selling, and depending on whether there are more buyers than sellers at the moment, your share sell order may be filled at market by a market maker with no real consequence to the share's price. If the block is large enough then it's possible it will not all sell to one market maker, or it might not all happen in one transaction or even all at the same price. This is a pretty complex subject, as you can see, and I've cut a LOT of corners and oversimplified much to keep it comprehensible. But the short answer to your question is -- it depends. Hope this helps. Good luck!\"",
"qid": 10674,
"docid": "547553",
"rank": 64,
"score": 127956
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: When the market moves significantly, you should rebalance your investments to maintain the diversification ratios you have selected. That means if bonds go up and stocks go down, you sell bonds and buy stocks (to some degree), and vice versa. Sell high to buy low, and remember that over the long run most things regress to the mean.",
"qid": 10674,
"docid": "107751",
"rank": 65,
"score": 127717
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Ultimately no one really knows what causes the markets to rise and fall beyond supply and demand. If more people want to buy then sell, prices go up. And if more people want to sell, prices go down. The news channels will often try to attribute a specific reason to the price move, but that is largely just guess work to fill up the news pages so people have something to read. You may find it interesting to read up on the Elliot wave principle. The crash of 2008 was a perfect Elliot Wave fit. Elliot Wave theory states that social moods (which ultimately drive the stock market) generally occur in a relatively predictable pattern. The crash in September was a Wave 3 down. This is where the majority of people give up hope. However there are still a few people who are still holding on. The markets tend to meander about during wave 4. Finally the last few people give up hope and sell out. This causes the final crash of wave 5. Only when the last person has given up hope can the markets start to go up again..",
"qid": 10674,
"docid": "523864",
"rank": 66,
"score": 127654
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Your question reminds me of a Will Rogers quote: buy some good stock, and hold it till it goes up, then sell it. If it don’t go up, don’t buy it. There's no way to prevent yourself from buying a stock that goes down. In fact all stocks go down at some times. The way to protect your long term investment is to diversify, which increases the chances that you have more stocks that go up than go down. So many advisors will encourage index funds, which have a low cost (which eats away at returns) and low rick (because of diversification). If you want to experiment with your criteria that's great, and I wish you luck, but Note that historically, very few managed funds (meaning funds that actively buy and sell stocks based on some set of criteria) outperform the market over long periods. So don't be afraid of some of your stocks losing - if you diversify enough, then statistically you should have more winners than losers. It's like playing blackjack. The goal is not to win every hand. The goal is to have more winning hands than losing hands.",
"qid": 10674,
"docid": "336722",
"rank": 67,
"score": 127644
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Short selling can be a good strategy to hedge, but you have almost unlimited downside. If a stock price skyrockets, you may be forced to cover your short by the brokerage before you want to or put up more capital. A smarter strategy to hedge, that limits your potential downside is to buy puts if you think the market is going down. Your downside is limited to the total amount that you purchased the put for and no more. Another way to hedge is to SELL calls that are covered because you own the shares the calls refer to. You might do this if you thought your stock was going to go down but you didn't want to sell your shares right now. That way the only downside if the price goes up is you give up your shares at a predetermined price and you miss out on the upside, but your downside is now diminished by the premium you were paid for the option. (You'd still lose money if the shares went down since you still own them, but you got paid the option premium so that helps offset that).",
"qid": 10674,
"docid": "12542",
"rank": 68,
"score": 127507
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Based on what you wrote, you would be better off with no position to start, and then enter a buy stop 10% above the market, and a sell stop 10% below the market, both to open positions depending on which way the market moves. If the market doesn't move that 10%, you stay flat. However, a long option straddle position requires that the market moves significantly one way or the other just so you recover the premium that you paid for the straddle. If the market doesn't move, you will lose money on your straddle due to theta decay and a drop in volatility. Alternatively, you could buy a strangle, with a call strike 10% out, and a put strike 10% out. The premiums would be much much lower, and these wculd take the place of the stop entries. Personally, I would never buy a straddle, but I do sometimes sell them, especially when implied volatility is very high.",
"qid": 10674,
"docid": "47827",
"rank": 69,
"score": 127349
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You will lose out on your spread, you always pay a spread. Also, if you are looking at a strategy for using stop losses, try taking into account the support lines if you are going long. So, if the stock is on an upward trend but is dropping back from profit taking, your best best is to take a position closest to the next support line. You place your stop just below the support. this will give you the best chance of a winning position as most technical analysts will have looking towards the support as a buy back area. Obviously, in a bear market the opposite is true. If you have taken your position and the market move past the first resistance line, then bring your stop to just below that line as once resistance is broken, it then becomes support. You then have a profitable position with profit locked in. Leave the position to break the next resistance and repeat.",
"qid": 10674,
"docid": "71873",
"rank": 70,
"score": 127130
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The short answer is if you own a representative index of global bonds (say AGG) and global stocks (say ACWI) the bonds will generally only suffer minimally in even the medium large market crashes you describe. However, there are some caveats. Not all bonds will tend to react the same way. Bonds that are considered higher-yield (say BBB rated and below) tend to drop significantly in stock market crashes though not as much as stock markets themselves. Emerging market bonds can drop even more as weaker foreign currencies can drop in global crashes as well. Also, if a local market crash is caused by rampant inflation as in the US during the 70s-80s, bonds can crash at the same time as markets. There hasn't been a global crash caused by inflation after countries left the gold standard, but that doesn't mean it can't happen. Still, I don't mean to scare you away from adding bond exposure to a stock portfolio as bonds tend to have low correlations with stocks and significant returns. Just be aware that these correlations can change over time (sometimes quickly) and depend on which stocks/bonds you invest in.",
"qid": 10674,
"docid": "149900",
"rank": 71,
"score": 126890
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Don't sell. Ever. Well almost. A number of studies have shown that buying equal amounts of shares randomly will beat the market long term, and certainly won't do badly. Starting from this premise then perhaps you can add a tiny bit extra with your skill... maybe, but who knows, you might suck. Point is when buying you have the wind behind you - a monkey would make money. Selling is a different matter. You have the cost of trading out and back in to something else, only to have changed from one monkey portfolio to the other. If you have skill that covers this cost then yes you should do this - but how confident are you? A few studies have been done on anonymised retail broker accounts and they show the same story. Retail investors on average lose money on their switches. Even if you believe you have a real edge on the market, you're strategy still should not just say sell when it drops out of your criteria. Your criteria are positive indicators. Lack of positive is not a negative indicator. Sell when you would happily go short the stock. That is you are really confident it is going down. Otherwise leave it.",
"qid": 10674,
"docid": "368348",
"rank": 72,
"score": 126810
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The 'normal' series of events when trading a stock is to buy it, time passes, then you sell it. If you believe the stock will drop in price, you can reverse the order, selling shares, waiting for the price drop, then buying them back. During that time you own say, -100 shares, and are 'short' those shares.",
"qid": 10674,
"docid": "92267",
"rank": 73,
"score": 126381
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Buy and sell orders always include the price at which you buy/sell. That's how the market prices for stocks are determines. So if you want to place a buy order at 106, you can do that. When that order was fulfilled and you have the stock, you can place a sell order at 107. It will be processed as soon as someone places a buy order at 107. Theoretically you can even place sell orders for stocks you haven't even bought yet. That's called short selling. You do that when you expect a stock to go down in the future. But this is a very risky operation, because when you mispredict the market you might end up owing more money than you invested. No responsible banker will even discuss this with you when you can not prove you know what you are doing.",
"qid": 10674,
"docid": "331521",
"rank": 74,
"score": 126378
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Buy puts on stock holdings buy puts on indexes look at volatility etfs and silver/gold etf s. Calling a market top is hard people hVe tried for 8 years now. 90 of protection via options expires worthless. Who knows if we have another crash. I don't call tops or bottoms if we start falling then I'll look at protection and play the downside",
"qid": 10674,
"docid": "30305",
"rank": 75,
"score": 126376
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Who are the losers going to be? If you can tell me for certain which firms will do worst in a bear market and can time it so that this information is not already priced into the market then you can make money. If not don't try. In a bull market stocks tend to act \"\"normally\"\" with established patterns such as correlations acting as expected and stocks more or less pricing to their fundamentals. In a bear market fear tends to overrule all of those things. You get large drops on relatively minor bad news and modest rallies on even the best news which results in stocks being undervalued against their fundamentals. In the crash itself it is quite easy to make money shorting. In an environment where stocks are undervalued, such as a bear market, you run the risk that your short, no matter how sure you are that the stock will fall, is seen as being undervalued and will rise. In fact your selling of a \"\"losing\"\" stock might cause it to hit levels where value investors already have limits set. This could bring a LOT of buyers into the market. Due to the fact that correlations break down creating portfolios with the correct risk level, which is what funds are required to do not only by their contracts but also by law to an extent, is extremely difficult. Risk management (keeping all kinds to within certain bounds) is one of the most difficult parts of a manager's job and is even difficult in abnormal market conditions. In the long run (definitions may vary) stock prices in general go up (for those companies who aren't bankrupted at least) so shorting in a bear market is not a long term strategy either and will not produce long term returns on capital. In addition to this risk you run the risk that your counterparty (such as Lehman brothers?) will file for bankruptcy and you won't be able to cover the position before the lender wants you to repay their stock to them landing you in even more problems.\"",
"qid": 10674,
"docid": "440805",
"rank": 76,
"score": 126074
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I think the simple answer to your question is: Yes, when you sell, that drives down the price. But it's not like you sell, and THEN the price goes down. The price goes down when you sell. You get the lower price. Others have discussed the mechanics of this, but I think the relevant point for your question is that when you offer shares for sale, buyers now have more choices of where to buy from. If without you, there were 10 people willing to sell for $100 and 10 people willing to buy for $100, then there will be 10 sales at $100. But if you now offer to sell, there are 11 people selling for $100 and 10 people buying for $100. The buyers have a choice, and for a seller to get them to pick him, he has to drop his price a little. In real life, the market is stable when one of those sellers drops his price enough that an 11th buyer decides that he now wants to buy at the lower price, or until one of the other 10 buyers decides that the price has gone too low and he's no longer interested in selling. If the next day you bought the stock back, you are now returning the market to where it was before you sold. Assuming that everything else in the market was unchanged, you would have to pay the same price to buy the stock back that you got when you sold it. Your net profit would be zero. Actually you'd have a loss because you'd have to pay the broker's commission on both transactions. Of course in real life the chances that everything else in the market is unchanged are very small. So if you're a typical small-fry kind of person like me, someone who might be buying and selling a few hundred or a few thousand dollars worth of a company that is worth hundreds of millions, other factors in the market will totally swamp the effect of your little transaction. So when you went to buy back the next day, you might find that the price had gone down, you can buy your shares back for less than you sold them, and pocket the difference. Or the price might have gone up and you take a loss.",
"qid": 10674,
"docid": "12367",
"rank": 77,
"score": 125997
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: A stock market is just that, a market place where buyers and sellers come together to buy and sell shares in companies listed on that stock market. There is no global stock price, the price relates to the last price a stock was traded at on a particular stock market. However, a company can be listed on more than one stock exchange. For example, some Australian companies are listed both on the Australian Stock Exchange (ASX) and the NYSE, and they usually trade at different prices on the different exchanges. Also, there is no formula to determine a stock price. In your example where C wants to buy at 110 and B wants to sell at 120, there will be no sale until one or both of them decides to change their bid or offer to match the opposite, or until new buyers and/or sellers come into the market closing the gap between the buy and sell prices and creating more liquidity. It is all to do with supply and demand and peoples' emotions.",
"qid": 10674,
"docid": "435963",
"rank": 78,
"score": 125994
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I had a coworker whose stock picking skills were clearly in the 1% level. I had a few hundred shares of EMC, bought at $10. When my coworker bought at $80, I quietly sold as it spiked to $100. It then crashed, as did many high tech stocks, and my friend sold his shares close to the $4 bottom advising that the company would go under. So I backed up the truck at $5, which for me, at the time, meant 1000 shares. This was one of nearly 50 trades I made over a good 10 year period. He was loud enough to hear throughout the office, and his trades, whether buy or sell, were 100% wrong. Individual stocks are very tough, as other posters have offered. That, combined with taking advice from those who probably had no business giving it. For the record, I am semi-retired. Not from stock picks, but from budgeting 20% of income to savings, and being indexed (S&P) with 90% of the funds. If there are options on your stock, you might sell calls for a few years, but that's a long term prospect. I'd sell and take my losses. Lesson learned. I hope.",
"qid": 10674,
"docid": "393842",
"rank": 79,
"score": 125700
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: When you invest in stocks, there are two possible ways to make money: Many people speculate just on the stock price, which would result in a gain (or loss), but only once you have resold the shares. Others don't really care about the stock price. They get dividends every so often, and hopefully, the return will be better than other types of investments. If you're in there for the long run, you do not really care what the price of the stock is. It is often highly volatile, and often completely disconnected from anything, so it's not because today you have a theoretical gain (because the current stock price is higher than your buying price) that you will effectively realise that gain when you sell (need I enumerate the numerous crashes that prevented this from happening?). Returns will often be more spectacular on share resale than on dividends, but it goes both ways (you can lose a lot if you resell at the wrong time). Dividends tend to be a bit more stable, and unless the company goes bankrupt (or a few other unfortunate events), you still hold shares in the company even if the price goes down, and you could still get dividends. And you can still resell the stock on top of that! Of course, not all companies distribute dividends. In that case, you only have the hope of reselling at a higher price (or that the company will distribute dividends in the future). Welcome to the next bubble...",
"qid": 10674,
"docid": "576136",
"rank": 80,
"score": 125667
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Consider the case where a stock has low volume. If the stock normally has a few hundred shares trade each minute and you want to buy 10,000 shares then chances are you'll move the market by driving up the price to find enough sellers so that you can get all those shares. Similarly, if you sell way more than the typical volume, this can be an issue.",
"qid": 10674,
"docid": "541730",
"rank": 81,
"score": 125336
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If any academic framework worked, your teachers would be the richest people on the planet. However, you must read up on macro and micro economic factors and make an educated guess where the market(or stock) would be at the date of expiry. Subtract the Strike Price from your determined price and calculate your potential profit. Then, if you are getting paid more or less the same thing as of today, sell it and switch to a safer investment till expiry (For example:- Your potential profit was $10, but you are getting $9 as of today, you can sell it and earn interest(Safer investment) for the remaining time.) Its just like buying and selling stocks. You must set a target and must have a stop loss. Sell when you reach that target, and exit if you hit the stop loss. If you have none of these, you will always be confused(Personal experience).",
"qid": 10674,
"docid": "190746",
"rank": 82,
"score": 125305
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"If you can't find anyone to lend you the shares, then you can't short. You can attempt to raise the interest rate at which you will borrow at, in order to entice others to lend you their shares. In practice, broadcasting this information is pretty convoluted. If there aren't any stocks for you to buy back, then you have to buy back at a higher price. As in, place a limit buy order higher and higher until someone decides to sell to you. This affects your profit. Regarding the public ledger: This functions different in different markets. United States stock markets have an evolving body of regulations to alleviate the exact concerns you detailed, but Canada's or Dubai's stock markets would have different provisions. You make the assumption that it is an efficient process, but it is not and it is indeed ripe for abuse. In US stocks, the public ledger has a 3 business day delay between showing change of ownership. Many times brokers and clearing firms and other market participants allow a customer to go short with fake shares, with the idea that they will find real shares within the 3 business day time period to cover the position. During the time period that there is no real shares hitting the market, this is called a \"\"naked short\"\". The only legal system that attempts to deter this practice is the \"\"fail to deliver\"\" (FTD) list. If someone fails to deliver, that means there is a short position active with fake shares for which no real shares have been borrowed against. Too many FTD's allow for a short selling restriction to be placed, meaning nobody else can be short, and existing short sellers may be forced to cover.\"",
"qid": 10674,
"docid": "458907",
"rank": 83,
"score": 125084
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The market maker will always compare the highest bid and the lowest ask. A trade will happen if the highest bid is at least as high as the lowest ask. Adding one share (or a million shares) at a higher asking price, here: $210 instead of $200, will not have any effect at all. Nobody will buy the share. Adding a bid for one share (or a million shares) at a higher bid price will trigger a sale. If you bid $210 for one share, you will pay $210 for one of the shares that were offered at $200. If you have $210 million in cash and add a bid for 1,000,000 AAPL at $210, you will pay $210 for all shares with an ask of $200.00, then $200.01, then $200.02 until you either bought all shares with an ask up to $210, or until you bought a million shares. With AAPL, you probably bid the price up to $201 with a million shares, so you made lots of people very happy while losing about 10 million dollars. So let's say this is a much smaller company. You have driven the share price up to $210, but there is nobody else bidding above $200. So nobody is going to buy your shares. Until some people think there is something going on and enter higher bids, but then some people will take advantage of this and ask lower than your $210. And there will be more people trying to make cash by selling their shares at a good price than people tricked into bidding over $200, so it is most likely that you lose out. (This completely ignores legality; attempting to do this would be market manipulation and in many countries illegal. I don't know if losing money in the process would protect you from criminal charges).",
"qid": 10674,
"docid": "450489",
"rank": 84,
"score": 125082
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"There are three ways to do this. So far the answers posted have only mentioned two. The three ways are: Selling short means that you borrow stock from your broker and sell it with the intent of buying it back later to repay the loan. As others have noted, this has unlimited potential losses and limited potential gains. Your profit or loss will go $1:$1 with the movement of the price of the stock. Buying a put option gives you the right to sell the stock at a later date on a price that you choose now. You pay a premium to have this right, and if the stock moves against you, you won't exercise your option and will lose the premium. Options move non-linearly with the price of the stock, especially when the expiration is far in the future. They probably are not for a beginner, although they can be powerful if used properly. The third option is a synthetic short position. You form this by simultaneously buying a put option and selling short a call option, both at the same strike price. This has a risk profile that is very much like the selling the stock short, but you can accomplish it entirely with stock options. Because you're both buying an selling, in theory you might even collect a small net premium when you open. You might ask why you'd do this given that you could just sell the stock short, which certainly seems simpler. One reason is that it is not always possible to sell the stock short. Recall that you have to borrow shares from your broker to sell short. When many people want to short the stock, brokers will run out of shares to loan. The stock is then said to be \"\"hard to borrow,\"\" which effectively prevents further short selling of the stock. In this case the synthetic short is still potentially possible.\"",
"qid": 10674,
"docid": "118633",
"rank": 85,
"score": 124909
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The price is moving higher so by the time you enter your order and press buy, a new buyer has already come in at that time and taken out the lowest ask price. So you end up chasing the market as the prices keep moving higher. The solution: if you really want to be sure that you buy it and don't want to keep chasing the market higher and higher, you should put in a market order instead of a limit order. With a market order you may pay a few cents higher than the last traded price but you will be sure to have your order filled. If you keep placing limit orders you may miss out altogether, especially if the price keeps moving higher and higher. In a fast moving market a market order is always best if your aim is to be certain to buy the stock.",
"qid": 10674,
"docid": "20378",
"rank": 86,
"score": 124527
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: What you do is you create an infomercial where you sell a booklet about junk investments that you are absolutely certian may survive an end of the world scenerio. Then you sell that booklet to people who fear for their family. It is basically a tax on stupidity but works because it prays on the fears of the stupid. It requires moral bankruptcy, but you can end up with quite a bit of money... of course if the Euro does crash then you have a lot of worthless money.",
"qid": 10674,
"docid": "171197",
"rank": 87,
"score": 124337
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The common advice you mentioned is just a guideline and has little to do with how your portfolio would look like when you construct it. In order to diversify you would be using correlations and some common sense. Recall the recent global financial crisis, ones of the first to crash were AAA-rated CDO's, stocks and so on. Because correlation is a statistical measure this can work fine when the economy is stable, but it doesn't account for real-life interrelations, especially when population is affected. Once consumers are affected this spans to the entire economy so that sectors that previously seemed unrelated have now been tied together by the fall in demand or reduced ability to pay-off. I always find it funny how US advisers tell you to hold 80% of US stocks and bonds, while UK ones tell you to stick to the UK securities. The same happens all over the world, I would assume. The safest portfolio is a Global Market portfolio, obviously I wouldn't be getting, say, Somalian bonds (if such exist at all), but there are plenty of markets to choose from. A chance of all of them crashing simultaneously is significantly lower. Why don't people include derivatives in their portfolios? Could be because these are mainly short-term, while most of the portfolios are being held for a significant amount of time thus capital and money markets are the key components. Derivatives are used to hedge these portfolios. As for the currencies - by having foreign stocks and bonds you are already exposed to FX risk so you, again, could be using it as a hedging instrument.",
"qid": 10674,
"docid": "384857",
"rank": 88,
"score": 124016
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: It is typically possible to sell during a crash, because there are enough people that understand the mechanics behind a crash. Generally, you need to understand that you don't lose money from the crash, but from selling. Every single crash in history more than recovered, and by staying invested, you wouldn't have lost anything (this assumes you have enough time to sit it out; it could take several years to recover). On the other side of those deals are people that understand that, and make money by buying during a crash. They simply sit the crash out, and some time later they made a killing from what you panic-sold, when it recovers its value.",
"qid": 10674,
"docid": "257241",
"rank": 89,
"score": 124007
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You can execute block trades on the options market and get exercised for shares to create a very large position in Energy Transfer Partners LP without moving the stock market. You can then place limit sell orders, after selling directly into the market and keep an overhang of low priced shares (the technical analysis traders won't know what you specifically are doing, and will call this 'resistance'). If you hit nice even numbers (multiples of 5, multiples of 10) with your sell orders, you can exacerbate selling as many market participants will have their own stop loss orders at those numbers, causing other people to sell at lower and lower prices automatically, and simultaneously keep your massive ask in effect. If your position is bigger than the demand then you can keep a stock lower. The secondary market doesn't inherently affect a company in any way. But many companies have borrowed against the price of their shares, and if you get the share price low enough they can get suddenly margin called and be unable to service their existing debt. You will also lose a lot of money doing this, so you can also buy puts along the way or attempt to execute a collar to lower your own losses. The collar strategy is nice because it is unlikely that other traders and analysts will notice what you are doing, since there are calls, puts and share orders involved in creating it. One person may notice the block trade for the calls initially, but nobody will notice it is part of a larger strategy with multiple legs. With the share position, you may also be able to vote on some things, but that solely depends on the conditions of the shares.",
"qid": 10674,
"docid": "365926",
"rank": 90,
"score": 123893
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: For the type of market neutrality you desire, free from crash risk, it's best to hedge the shares with covered calls when implied volatility is expensive and puts when implied volatility is cheap with the nearest at the money expirations. A put only strategy can be very expensive and should only be used with the longest term options available since they can cost many tens of % per year. Securities become almost perfectly correlated during a crash; therefore, market crash risk of one security is essentially equal to the market crash risk, so hedging the security itself makes a position market neutral for crash risk. This strategy will have intermittent opportunity cost risk in the form of slower returns during market expansion to pay for smaller losses during a crash; however, the expected long run return hedged this way should be greater than the underlying's expected long run return with less volatility.",
"qid": 10674,
"docid": "354767",
"rank": 91,
"score": 123730
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"First a quick terminology correction: I believe you're proposing selling 10,000 shares of the stock of a company, not \"\"10,000 stocks\"\". When you sell, you need to decide whether you're selling for a specific minimum price or just selling for whatever price you can get. If you set a specific lower limit on asking price, then if people aren't interested at that price it doesn't sell. Which may mean you sell only a few shares, or none if your asking price isn't considered reasonable. If you want to sell independent of price, then as you begin to flood the market with your shares, the price you get per additional share may decline until it finds a buyer. What that lower limit is will depend on what people think the stock is currently worth. This is one of the many complications I don't want to deal with, which is why I stick with index funds.\"",
"qid": 10674,
"docid": "394454",
"rank": 92,
"score": 123571
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You should know when to sell your shares before you buy them. This is most easily done by placing a stop loss conditional order at the same time you place your buy order. There are many ways to determine at what level to place your stop losses at. The easiest is to place a trailing stop loss at a percentage below the highest close price, so as the price reaches new highs the trailing stop will rise. If looking for short to medium term gains you might place your trailing stop at 10% below the highest close, whilst if you were looking for more longer term gains you should probably place a 20% trailing stop. Another way to place your stops for short to medium term gains is to keep moving your trailing stop up to just below the last trough in an existing uptrend.",
"qid": 10674,
"docid": "507097",
"rank": 93,
"score": 123340
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: It's actually quite simple. You're actually confusing two concept. Which are taking a short position and short selling itself. Basically when taking a short position is by believing that the stock is going to drop and you sell it. You can or not buy it back later depending on the believe it grows again or not. So basically you didn't make any profit with the drop in the price's value but you didn't lose money either. Ok but what if you believe the market or specific company is going to drop and you want to profit on it while it's dropping. You can't do this by buying stock because you would be going long right? So back to the basics. To obtain any type of profit I need to buy low and sell high, right? This is natural for use in long positions. Well, now knowing that you can sell high at the current moment and buy low in the future what do you do? You can't sell what you don't have. So acquire it. Ask someone to lend it to you for some time and sell it. So selling high, check. Now buying low? You promised the person you would return him his stock, as it's intangible he won't even notice it's a different unit, so you buy low and return the lender his stock. Thus you bought low and sold high, meaning having a profit. So technically short selling is a type of short position. If you have multiple portfolios and lend yourself (i.e. maintaining a long-term long position while making some money with a short term short-term strategy) you're actually short selling with your own stock. This happens often in hedge funds where multiple strategies are used and to optimise the transaction costs and borrowing fees, they have algorithms that clear (match) long and short coming in from different traders, algorithms, etc. Keep in mind that you while have a opportunities risk associated. So basically, yes, you need to always 'borrow' a product to be able to short sell it. What can happen is that you lend yourself but this only makes sense if:",
"qid": 10674,
"docid": "226496",
"rank": 94,
"score": 123252
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Generally, if you are trend trading, and if the market as a hole is going up strongly and an individual stock is falling sharply on the same day, I would tend to stay away from buying that stock at the moment. The market is showing strength whilst at the same time the stock is showing weakness. The general rule of thumb for trend trading is to buy rising stocks in a rising market. Or you could look to short sell falling stocks in a falling market.",
"qid": 10674,
"docid": "378821",
"rank": 95,
"score": 123119
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Sounds like an illiquid option, if there are actually some bidders, market makers, then sell the option at market price (market sell order). If there are not market makers then place a really low limit sell order so that you can sit at the ask in the order book. A lot of time there is off-book liquidity, so there may be a party looking for buy liquidity. You can also exercise the option to book the loss (immediately selling the shares when they get delivered to you), if this is an American style option. But if the option is worthless then it is probably significantly underwater, and you'd end up losing a lot more as you'd buy the stock at the strike price but only be able to sell at its current market value. The loss could also be increased further if there are even MORE liquidity issues in the stock.",
"qid": 10674,
"docid": "339419",
"rank": 96,
"score": 123116
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: There's a grey area where investing and speculating cross. For some, the stock market, as in 10% long term return with about 14% standard deviation, is too risky. For others, not enough action. Say you have chosen 10 penny stocks, done your diligence, to the extent possible, and from a few dozen this is the 10 you like. I'd rather put $100 into each of 10 than to put all my eggs in one basket. You'll find that 3 might go up nicely, 3 will flounder around, and 4 will go under. The gambler mentality is if one takes off, you have a profit. After the crash of '08, buying both GM and Ford at crazy prices actually worked, GM stockholders getting nothing, but Ford surviving and now 7X what I bought it for. Remember, when you go to vegas, you don't drop all your chips on Red, you play blackjack/craps as long as you can, and get all the free drinks you can.",
"qid": 10674,
"docid": "208898",
"rank": 97,
"score": 123097
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Most of the time* you're selling to other investors, not back to the company. The stock market is a collection of bid (buy offers) and asks (sell offers). When you sell your stock as a retail investor at the \"\"market\"\" price you're essentially just meeting whatever standing bid offers are on the market. For very liquid stocks (e.g. Apple), you can pretty much always get the displayed price because so many stocks are being traded. However during periods of very high volatility or for low-volume stocks, the quoted price may not be indicative of what you actually pay. As an example, let's say you have 5 stocks you're trying to sell and the bid-side order book is 2 stocks for $105, 2 for $100, and 5 for $95. In this scenario the quoted price will be $105 (the best bid price), but if you accept market price you'll settle 2 for 105, 2 for 100, and 1 for 95. After your sell order goes through, the new quoted price will be $95. For high volume stocks, there will usually be so many orders near the midpoint price ($105, in this case) that you won't see any price slippage for small orders. You can also post limit orders, which are essentially open orders waiting to be filled like in the above example. They ensure you get the price you want, but you have no way to guarantee they'll be filled or not. Edit: as a cool example, check out the bitcoin GDAX on coinbase for a live example of what the order book looks like for stocks. You'll see that the price of bitcoin will drift towards whichever direction has the less dense order book (e.g. price drifts upwards when there are far more bids than asks.)\"",
"qid": 10674,
"docid": "317365",
"rank": 98,
"score": 123022
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: There's really not a simple yes/no answer. It depends on whether you're doing short term trading or long term investing. In the short term, it's not much different from sports betting (and would be almost an exact match if the bettors also got a percentage of the team's ticket sales), In the long term, though, your profit mostly comes from the growth of the company. As a company - Apple, say, or Tesla - increases sales of iPhones or electric cars, it either pays out some of the income as dividends, or invests them in growing the company, so it becomes more valuable. If you bought shares cheaply way back when, you profit from this increase when you sell them. The person buying it doesn't lose, as s/he buys at today's market value in anticipation of continued growth. Of course there's a risk that the value will go down in the future instead of up. Of course, there are also psychological factors, say when people buy Apple or Tesla because they're popular, instead of at a rational valuation. Or when people start panic-selling, as in the '08 crash. So then their loss is your gain - assuming you didn't panic, of course :-)",
"qid": 10674,
"docid": "31244",
"rank": 99,
"score": 122792
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Your logic is not wrong. But the risk is more significant than you seem to assume. Essentially you are proposing taking a 2.6% loan to buy stocks. Is that a good strategy? On average, probably. But if your stocks crash you might have significant liabilities. In 1929, the Dow Jones dropped 89%. In 1989, >30%. In 2008-9, 54%. This is a huge risk if this is money that you owe in taxes. If you operate the same system year after year the chance of it going horribly wrong increases.",
"qid": 10674,
"docid": "319434",
"rank": 100,
"score": 122733
}
] |
Probablity of touching In the money vs expiring in the money for an american option | [
{
"content": "Title: Content: American options (like those on ADBE) can be exercised by the holder anytime before expiration. They will be exercised automatically at expiration if they are in the money. However, if there is still time before expiration (as in this case), and they are not extremely in the money, there is probably extrinsic value to the option, and you should sell it, not exercise it. European options are only automatically exercised at expiration, and only if they are in the money. These are usually cash settled on products like SPX or VIX. They can not be exercised before expiration, but can be sold anytime.",
"qid": 10710,
"docid": "541928",
"rank": 1,
"score": 116145
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: An option is freely tradable, and all options (of the same kind) are equal. If your position is 0 and you sell 1 option, your new position in that option is -1. If the counterparty to your trade buys or sells more options to close, open, or even reopen their position afterwards, that doesn't matter to your position at all. Of course there's also the issue with American and European Options. European Options expire at their due date, but American Options expire at their due date or at any time before their due date if the holder decides they expire. With American Options, if a holder of an American Option decides to exercise the option, someone who is short the same option will be assigned as the counterparty (this is usually random). Expiry is after market close, so if one of your short American Options expires early, you will need to reopen the position the next day. Keep in mind dividends for slightly increased complexity. American and European Options do not in any way refer to the continents they are traded on, or to the location of the companies. These terms simply describe the expiry rules.",
"qid": 10710,
"docid": "575408",
"rank": 2,
"score": 113188
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The crucial insight is that the alternative to early exercise of an American call is not necessarily to hold it to expiry, but to sell it. And selling it, at its value, is always better than exercising it. Note that this holds only for options on assets that don't pay dividends. Here's the proof, using Put-Call-Parity. We know that at expiry T, we have (using a Call and a Put both struck at K): C(T) - P(T) = S(T) - K (if this is not clear to you, consider the case where S is less than, equal to, or greater than K at maturity, and go through each of them.) If the stock S doesn't pay any dividends (and there is no cost of carry etc.), we can replicate both sides now at time 0; we just buy one call, sell one put (that gives us the left hand side), buy the stock, and borrow money so that at time T we have to repay K (that gives us the right hand side). That means that now, we only need to borrow df * K, where df is the discount factor, and is less than one (assuming the good old pre-2009 world where interest rates are positive). Thus: C(0) - P(0) = S(0) - df * K. Rearranging gives: C(0) = S(0) - df * K + P(0). That's the value of the call, if we sell it (or hold it). However, if we exercise, we only get: C_ex = S(0) - K Now, we see that C(0) > C_ex, because we subtract less (df*K < K), and add P(0).",
"qid": 10710,
"docid": "345410",
"rank": 3,
"score": 110311
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I'm sorry, but your math is wrong. You are not equally likely to make as much money by waiting for expiration. Share prices are moving constantly in both directions. Very rarely does any stock go either straight up or straight down. Consider a stock with a share price of $12 today. Perhaps that stock is a bad buy, and in 1 month's time it will be down to $10. But the market hasn't quite wised up to this yet, and over the next week it rallies up to $15. If you bought a European option (let's say an at-the-money call, expiring in 1 month, at $12 on our start date), then you lost. Your option expired worthless. If you bought an American option, you could have exercised it when the share price was at $15 and made a nice profit. Keep in mind we are talking about exactly the same stock, with exactly the same history, over exactly the same time period. The only difference is the option contract. The American option could have made you money, if you exercised it at any time during the rally, but not the European option - you would have been forced to hold onto it for a month and finally let it expire worthless. (Of course that's not strictly true, since the European option itself can be sold while it is in the money - but eventually, somebody is going to end up holding the bag, nobody can exercise it until expiration.) The difference between an American and European option is the difference between getting N chances to get it right (N being the number of days 'til expiration) and getting just one chance. It should be easy to see why you're more likely to profit with the former, even if you can't accurately predict price movement.",
"qid": 10710,
"docid": "484362",
"rank": 4,
"score": 109859
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Just for clarification, delta and probability of expiring in the money are not the same thing. What the guy meant was that delta is usually a close enough approximation to the probability. One way to think about it is to look at the probabilities and deltas of In the Money, Out of the Money, and At the Money options. In these cases, the delta and probabilities are about the same. In fact if you look at an options chain with delta and probabilities, you can see that they are all about the same. In other words, there is a linear relationship between delta and probability. Here are a couple links to other answers around the web: Hope this answer helps!",
"qid": 10710,
"docid": "195824",
"rank": 5,
"score": 109597
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Conceptually, yes, you need to worry about it. As a practical matter, it's less likely to be exercised until expiry or shortly prior. The way to think about paying a European option is: [Odds of paying out] = [odds that strike is in the money at expiry] Whereas the American option can be thought of as: [Odds of paying out] = [odds that strike price is in the money at expiry] + ( [odds that strike price is in the money prior to expiry] * [odds that other party will exercise early] ). This is just a heuristic, not a formal financial tool. But the point is that you need to consider the odds that it will go into the money early, for how long (maybe over multiple periods), and how likely the counterparty is to exercise early. Important considerations for whether they will exercise early are the strategy of the other side (long, straddle, quick turnaround), the length of time the option is in the money early, and the anticipated future movement. A quick buck strategy might exercise immediately before the stock turns around. But that could leave further gains on the table, so it's usually best to wait unless the expectation is that the stock will quickly reverse its movement. This sort of counter-market strategy is generally unlikely from someone who bought the option at a certain strike, and is equivalent to betting against their original purchase of the option. So most of these people will wait because they expect the possibility of a bigger payoff. A long strategy is usually in no hurry to exercise, and in fact they would prefer to wait until the end to hold the time value of the option (the choice to get out of the option, if it goes back to being unprofitable). So it usually makes little sense for these people to exercise early. The same goes for a straddle, if someone is buying an option for insurance or to economically exit a position. So you're really just concerned that people will exercise early and forgo the time value of the American option. That may include people who really want to close a position, take their money, and move on. In some cases, it may include people who have become overextended or need liquidity, so they close positions. But for the most part, it's less likely to happen until the expiration approaches because it leaves potential value on the table. The time value of an option dwindles at the end because the implicit option becomes less likely, especially if the option is fairly deep in the money (the implicit option is then fairly deep out of the money). So early exercise becomes more meaningful concern as the expiration approaches. Otherwise, it's usually less worrisome but more than a nonzero proposition.",
"qid": 10710,
"docid": "6771",
"rank": 6,
"score": 109516
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: An expired option is a stand-alone event, sold at $X, with a bought at $0 on the expiration date. The way you phrased the question is ambiguous, as 'decrease toward zero' is not quite the same as expiring worthless, you'd need to buy it at the near-zero price to then sell another covered call at a lower strike. Edit - If you entered the covered call sale properly, you find that an in-the-money option results in a sale of the shares at expiration. When entered incorrectly, there are two possibilities, the broker buys the option back at the market close, or you wake up Sunday morning (the options 'paperwork' clears on Saturday after expiration) finding yourself owning a short position, right next to the long. A call, and perhaps a fee, are required to zero it out. As you describe it, there are still two transactions to report, the option at $50 strike that you bought and sold, the other a stock transaction that has a sale price of the strike plus option premium collected.",
"qid": 10710,
"docid": "481070",
"rank": 7,
"score": 107894
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: An option gives you the option rather than the obligation to buy (or sell) the underlying so you don't have to exercise you can just let the option expire (so long it doesn't have an automatic expiry). After expiration the option is worthless if it is out of the money but other than that has no hangover. Option prices normally drop as the time value of the option decays. An option has two values associated with it; time value and exercise value. Far out of the money (when the price of the underlying is far from the strike price on the losing side) options only have time value whereas deep in the money options (as yours seems to be) has some time value as well as the intrinsic value of the right to buy (sell) at a low (high) price and then sell (buy) the underlying. The time value of the option comes from the possibility that the price of the underlying will move (further) in your favour and make you more money at expiry. As expiry closes it is less likely that there will be a favourable mood so this value declines which can cause prices to move sharply after a period of little to no revaluing. Up to now what I have said applies to both OTC and traded options but exchange traded options have another level of complexity in their trading; because there are fewer traders in the options market the size of trade at which you can move the market is much lower. On the equities markets you may need to trade millions of shares to have be substantial enough to significantly move a price, on the options markets it could be thousands or even hundreds. If these are European style options (which sounds likely) and a single trading entity was holding a large number of the exchange traded options and now thinks that the price will move significantly against them before expiry their sell trade will move the market lower in spite of the options being in the money. Their trade is based on their supposition that by the time they can exercise the option the price will be below the strike and they will lose money. They have cashed out at a price that suited them and limited what they will lose if they are right about the underlying. If I am not correct in my excise style assumption (European) I may need more details on the trade as it seems like you should just exercise now and take the profit if it is that far into the money.",
"qid": 10710,
"docid": "428399",
"rank": 8,
"score": 102513
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you are in the money at expiration you are going to get assigned to the person on the other side of the contract. This is an extremely high probability. The only randomness comes from before expiration. Where you may be assigned because a holder exercised the option before expiration, this can unbalance some of your strategies. But in exchange, you get all the premium that was still left on the option when they exercised. An in the money option, at expiration, has no premium. The value of your in the money option is Current Stock price - Strike Price, for a call. And Strike price - Current Stock price, for a put. Thats why there is no free lunch in this scenario.",
"qid": 10710,
"docid": "469382",
"rank": 9,
"score": 101971
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Not all call options that have value at expiration, exercise by purchasing the security (or attempting to, with funds in your account). On ETNs, they often (always?) settle in cash. As an example of an option I'm currently looking at, AVSPY, it settles in cash (please confirm by reading the documentation on this set of options at http://www.nasdaqomxtrader.com/Micro.aspx?id=Alpha, but it is an example of this). There's nothing it can settle into (as you can't purchase the AVSPY index, only options on it). You may quickly look (wikipedia) at the difference between \"\"American Style\"\" options and \"\"European Style\"\" options, for more understanding here. Interestingly I just spoke to my broker about this subject for a trade execution. Before I go into that, let me also quickly refer to Joe's answer: what you buy, you can sell. That's one of the jobs of a market maker, to provide liquidity in a market. So, when you buy a stock, you can sell it. When you buy an option, you can sell it. That's at any time before expiration (although how close you do it before the closing bell on expiration Friday/Saturday is your discretion). When a market maker lists an option price, they list a bid and an ask. If you are willing to sell at the bid price, they need to purchase it (generally speaking). That's why they put a spread between the bid and ask price, but that's another topic not related to your question -- just note the point of them buying at the bid price, and selling at the ask price -- that's what they're saying they'll do. Now, one major difference with options vs. stocks is that options are contracts. So, therefore, we can note just as easily that YOU can sell the option on something (particularly if you own either the underlying, or an option deeper in the money). If you own the underlying instrument/stock, and you sell a CALL option on it, this is a strategy typically referred to as a covered call, considered a \"\"risk reduction\"\" strategy. You forfeit (potential) gains on the upside, for money you receive in selling the option. The point of this discussion is, is simply: what one buys one can sell; what one sells one can buy -- that's how a \"\"market\"\" is supposed to work. And also, not to think that making money in options is buying first, then selling. It may be selling, and either buying back or ideally that option expiring worthless. -- Now, a final example. Let's say you buy a deep in the money call on a stock trading at $150, and you own the $100 calls. At expiration, these have a value of $50. But let's say, you don't have any money in your account, to take ownership of the underlying security (you have to come up with the additional $100 per share you are missing). In that case, need to call your broker and see how they handle it, and it will depend on the type of account you have (e.g. margin or not, IRA, etc). Generally speaking though, the \"\"margin department\"\" makes these decisions, and they look through folks that have options on things that have value, and are expiring, and whether they have the funds in their account to absorb the security they are going to need to own. Exchange-wise, options that have value at expiration, are exercised. But what if the person who has the option, doesn't have the funds to own the whole stock? Well, ideally on Monday they'll buy all the shares with the options you have at the current price, and immediately liquidate the amount you can't afford to own, but they don't have to. I'm mentioning this detail so that it helps you see what's going or needs to go on with exchanges and brokerages and individuals, so you have a broader picture.\"",
"qid": 10710,
"docid": "72024",
"rank": 10,
"score": 101569
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Yes, if it's an American style option. American style options may be exercised at any time prior to expiration (even if they're not in-the-money). Generally, you are required to deliver or accept delivery of the underlying by the beginning of the next trading day. If you are short, you may be chosen by the clearinghouse to fulfill the exercise (a process called \"\"assignment\"\"). Because the clearinghouse is the counter-party to every options trade, you can be assigned even if the specific person who purchased the option you wrote didn't exercise, but someone else who holds a long position did. Similarly, you might not be assigned if that person did exercise. The clearinghouse randomly chooses a brokerage to fulfill an assignment, and the brokerage will randomly choose an individual account. If you're going to be writing options, especially using spreads, you need to have a plan ahead of time on what to do if one of your legs gets assigned. This is more likely to happen just before a dividend payment, if the payment is more than the remaining time value.\"",
"qid": 10710,
"docid": "477588",
"rank": 11,
"score": 100393
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Owners of American-style options may exercise at any time before the option expires, while owners of European-style options may exercise only at expiration. Read more: American Vs. European Options",
"qid": 10710,
"docid": "333408",
"rank": 12,
"score": 99711
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The short answer to your initial question is: yes. The option doesn't expire until the close of the market on the day of expiration. Because the option is expiring so soon, the time value of the option is quite small. That is why the option, once it is 'in-the-money', will track so closely to the underlying stock price. If someone buys an in-the-money option on the day of expiration, they are likely still expecting the price to go up before they sell it or exercise it. Many brokers will exercise your in-the-money options sometime after 3pm on the day of expiration. If this is not what you desire, you should communicate that with them prior to that day.",
"qid": 10710,
"docid": "11456",
"rank": 13,
"score": 99365
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"It's talked about quite often among more experienced investors. They were/ are used extensively by hedge funds. Keep in mind that if your option expires when not \"\"in the money\"\" you lose the premium you paid for the purchase of the option. That's where the risk comes in. I've grown really interested in options over the last couple months. Check out McMillan's Guide to Options. It's generally thought of as the quintessential beginners guide to understanding options. Good luck!\"",
"qid": 10710,
"docid": "487297",
"rank": 14,
"score": 97912
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: This is dependent on the broker according to The Options Industry Council. Your broker will specify what they would do upon expiry (or hours before last trade) if you did not indicate your preference. Most likely they will conduct a probabilistic simulation to see whether exercising the contracts may result in margin deficit even after selling the delivered shares under extreme circumstances. In most cases, brokers tend to liquidate the option for you (sell to close) before expiry. I've seen people complain about certain brokers forcing liquidation at terrible bid-ask spreads even though the options are still days to expiry. It is better for you to close the position on your own beforehand. The best brokers would allow margin deficit and let you deposit the required amount of money afterward. Please consult your broker's materials. If you can't find them, use live chat or email tickets.",
"qid": 10710,
"docid": "151587",
"rank": 15,
"score": 97672
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: First, in the money options are scarcely created because most options trade at the money with the rest evenly distributed between in and out, so they are at best half the market when created. They are also closed before expiration. The reason is still unknown, but one theory is: Barely in the money options carry enormous exercise risk because the chance that could be turned into a potentially solvency threatening unhedged liability is great; therefore, option sellers prefer to close barely in the money options so not to take on unhedged liability risk. Statistically, option sellers are risk avoiders.",
"qid": 10710,
"docid": "414448",
"rank": 16,
"score": 97538
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You will tend to find as options get closer to expiry (within 2 months of expiry) they tend to be traded more. Also the closer they are to being in the money they more they are traded. So there tends to be more demand for these options than long dated ones that are far out of the money. When there is this higher demand there is less need for a market maker to step in to assure liquidity, thus there should be no effect on the underlying stock price due to the high demand for options. I would say that market makers would mainly get involved in providing liquidity for options way out of the money and with long periods until expiry (6+ months), where there is little demand to start with and open interest is usually quite low.",
"qid": 10710,
"docid": "223687",
"rank": 17,
"score": 96673
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The other two answers seem basically correct, but I wanted to add on thing: While you can exercise an \"\"American style\"\" option at any time, it's almost never smart to do so before expiration. In your example, when the underlying stock reaches $110, you can theoretically make $2/share by exercising your option (buying 100 shares @ $108/share) and immediately selling those 100 shares back to the market at $110/share. This is all before commission. In more detail, you'll have these practical issues: You are going to have to pay commissions, which means you'll need a bigger spread to make this worthwhile. You and those who have already answered have you finger on this part, but I include it for completeness. (Even at expiration, if the difference between the last close price and the strike price is pretty close, some \"\"in-the-money\"\" options will be allowed to expire unexercised when the holders can't cover the closing commission costs.) The market value of the option contract itself should also go up as the price of the underlying stock goes up. Unless it's very close to expiration, the option contract should have some \"\"time value\"\" in its market price, so, if you want to close your position at this point, earlier then expiration, it will probably be better for you to sell the contract back to the market (for more money and only one commission) than to exercise and then close the stock position (for less money and two commissions). If you want to exercise and then flip the stock back as your exit strategy, you need to be aware of the settlement times. You probably are not going to instantly have those 100 shares of stock credited to your account, so you may not be able to sell them right away, which could leave you subject to some risk of the price changing. Alternatively, you could sell the stock short to lock in the price, but you'll have to be sure that your brokerage account is set up to allow that and understand how to do this.\"",
"qid": 10710,
"docid": "388362",
"rank": 18,
"score": 96533
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: As the option approaches expiry, the delta will approach zero or one, depending on whether you're in or out of the money. This might be easiest to conceptualise if you look at the option value as a function of the stock price, and then realise that the delta is the slope of that curve. Now, as we get closer to expiry, time value fades away, and we get closer and closer to the intrinsic value, which looks like this hockey stick: __/ As you see, close to expiry, if you're out of the money, you have nothing (with delta zero), while if you're in the money, you have a forward (with delta one).",
"qid": 10710,
"docid": "231646",
"rank": 19,
"score": 96339
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The value at expiration does not depend on the price path for a plain vanilla European or American option. At expiration, the value would simply be: max[K - S_T, 0], where: K is the strike price, and S_T is the underlying price at expiration.",
"qid": 10710,
"docid": "596203",
"rank": 20,
"score": 95580
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Your scenario depicts 2 \"\"in the money\"\" options, not \"\"at the money\"\". The former is when the share price is higher than the option strike, the second is when share price is right at strike. I agree this is a highly unlikely scenario, because everyone pricing options knows what everyone else in that stock is doing. Much about an option has everything to do with the remaining time to expiration. Depending on how much more the buyer believes the stock will go up before hitting the expiration date, that could make a big difference in which option they would buy. I agree with the others that if you're seeing this as \"\"real world\"\" then there must be something going on behind the scenes that someone else knows and you don't. I would tread with caution in such a situation and do my homework before making any move. The other big factor that makes your question harder to answer more concisely is that you didn't tell us what the expiration dates on the options are. This makes a difference in how you evaluate them. We could probably be much more helpful to you if you could give us that information.\"",
"qid": 10710,
"docid": "384165",
"rank": 21,
"score": 95465
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"An option is an instrument that gives you the \"\"right\"\" (but not the obligation) to do something (if you are long). An American option gives you more \"\"rights\"\" (to exercise on more days) than a European option. The more \"\"rights,\"\" the greater the (theoretical) value of the option, all other things being equal, of course. That's just how options work. You could point to an ex post result, and and say that's not the case. But it is true ex ante.\"",
"qid": 10710,
"docid": "368230",
"rank": 22,
"score": 94461
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: For listed options in NYSE,CBOE, is it possible for an option holder to exercise an option even if it is not in the money? Abandonment of in-the-money options or the exercise of out-of-the-money options are referred as contrarian instructions. They are sometimes forbidden, e.g. see CME - Weekly & End-of-Month (EOM) Options on Standard & E-mini S&P 500 Futures (mirror): In addition to offering European-style alternatives (which by definition can only be exercised on expiration day), both the weekly and EOM options prohibit contrarian instructions (the abandonment of in-the-money options, or the exercise of out-of-the-money options). Thus, at expiration, all in-the-money options are automatically exercised, whereas all options not in-the-money are automatically abandoned.",
"qid": 10710,
"docid": "41967",
"rank": 23,
"score": 94296
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I asked a friend and he gave me a good explanation, so I'm just gonna paste it here for others: There is a simple and a complex answer depending on how much you want to understand the pricing dynamic of options. LEAPs don't react 1:1 with a stock move because the probability of your option being in the money at expiry is still very much up in the air so you basically don't get full credit for a move in the stock this far out from expiry. The more complex answer involves a discussion of option 'greeks'. Delta, Gamma, Theta, Vega, and Rho are variables that affect the pricing of all options. The key greek in this case is Delta because it describes mathematically the expected move of an option as a ratio vs changes in stock price. For put options the ratio is -1 to 0 where -1 is direct correlation between stock price and option price and 0 is no correlation. The Delta increases as an option gets deeper in the money and also as it gets closer to expiry and reflects the probability of the option expiring in the money. For your option contract the current Delta is -0.5673 so -3.38 * -0.5673 = 1.9 which is close. Also keep in mind that that strike price had a last trade at 12:03 when the stock was at 13.3 and the current ask price is 22.30 so the last price isn't a true reflection of the market value. As for the other greeks, Gamma is a reflection of volatility in the sense that it affects the rate of change of Delta as price and time changes. Theta is the value of the time component of the option and is expressed as the expected time decay per day. The problem is that the time premium is really some arbitrary number that the market maker seems to be able to change at will without justification and it can fluctuate wildly over short periods of time and I think this may explain some of the discrepancy. If you bought the options when AAPL was $118.68 a couple weeks ago (option price of $18.85) and now AAPL is at $112.34 and the Delta over that time averaged at -0.55 then your expected option price would be $22.34 (($118.68 - $112.34) * 0.55 + 18.85 = $22.34) so you lost around $0.24 in time premium or 'Theta burn' over the last 2 weeks assuming it opens trading around 22.1 on Monday. Your broker should have information about the option contract greeks somewhere. For my platform I have to put the cursor over top of the option contract for it to show me the greeks. If your broker doesn't have this then you can get it from nasdaq.com. This is another reason that I only invest in deep in the money LEAPs because the time premium is much much lower than near the money and also because delta is much higher so if I want to trade out of it early I don't feel like I'm getting ripped off not getting paid for a stock price move. For example look at the Jan 17 175 put. The Delta is -0.9 and the time premium is only $0-1 depending if you are looking at the bid or ask. The only downside is expected returns are lower for deep in the money contracts and they are expensive to buy.",
"qid": 10710,
"docid": "16292",
"rank": 24,
"score": 94230
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"But what happen if the stock price went high and then go down near expiry date? When you hold a short (sold) call option position that has an underlying price that is increasing, what will happen (in general) is that your net margin requirements will increase day by day. Thus, you will be required to put up more money as margin to finance your position. Margin money is simply a \"\"good faith\"\" deposit held by your broker. It is not money that is debited as cash from the accounting ledger of your trading account, but is held by your broker to cover any potential losses that may arise when you finally settle you position. Conversely, when the underlying share price is decreasing, the net margin requirements will tend to decrease day by day. (Net margin is the net of \"\"Initial Margin\"\" and \"\"Variation Margin\"\".) As the expiry date approaches, the \"\"time value\"\" component of the option price will be decreasing.\"",
"qid": 10710,
"docid": "61853",
"rank": 25,
"score": 93916
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: There are a few situations in which it may be advantageous to exercise early. Wikipedia actually has a good explanation: Option Style, Difference in value To account for the American's higher value there must be some situations in which it is optimal to exercise the American option before the expiration date. This can arise in several ways, such as: An in the money (ITM) call option on a stock is often exercised just before the stock pays a dividend that would lower its value by more than the option's remaining time value. A put option will usually be exercised early if the underlying asset files for bankruptcy.[3] A deep ITM currency option (FX option) where the strike currency has a lower interest rate than the currency to be received will often be exercised early because the time value sacrificed is less valuable than the expected depreciation of the received currency against the strike. An American bond option on the dirty price of a bond (such as some convertible bonds) may be exercised immediately if ITM and a coupon is due. A put option on gold will be exercised early when deep ITM, because gold tends to hold its value whereas the currency used as the strike is often expected to lose value through inflation if the holder waits until final maturity to exercise the option (they will almost certainly exercise a contract deep ITM, minimizing its time value).[citation needed]",
"qid": 10710,
"docid": "194605",
"rank": 26,
"score": 93421
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: In India, in the money options get exercised automatically at the end of the day and is settled at T+1(Where T is expiry day). This means, the clearing house takes the closing price of the underlying security while calculating the amount that needs to be credited/debited to its members. Source: - http://www.nseindia.com/products/content/derivatives/equities/settlement_mechanism.htm",
"qid": 10710,
"docid": "505223",
"rank": 27,
"score": 93413
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: When you can exercie your option depends on your trading style. In the american options trading style (the most popular) you're allowed to exercice your options and make profit (if any) whenever you want before the expiration date. Thus, the decision of exercising your option and make a profit out of it does not rely only on the asset price. The reason is, you already paid for the premium to get the option. So, if taken into account the underlying price AND your premium, your investment is profitable then you can exercice your contract anytime.",
"qid": 10710,
"docid": "477011",
"rank": 28,
"score": 93411
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: SPX options are cash settled European style. You cannot exercise European style options before the expiration date. Assuming it is the day of expiration and you own 2,000 strike puts and the index settlement value is 1,950 - you would exercise and receive cash for the in the money amount times the contract multiplier. If instead you owned put options on the S&P 500 SPDR ETF (symbol SPY) those are American style, physically settled options. You can exercise a long American style option anytime between when your purchase it and when it expires. If you exercised SPY puts without owning shares of SPY you would end up short stock at the strike price.",
"qid": 10710,
"docid": "401447",
"rank": 29,
"score": 93020
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: So, this isn't always the case, but in the example provided the option is most likely in the money or near the money since the delta is nearly 1 - indicating that a $1 move in the underlying results in a $0.92 move in the option - this will happen when the expiration is very far out or the option is in the money. As expiration gets closer, movements in the underlying become more pronounced in the options because the probability of the stock price moving from its current position is lower. As the probability of the stock price moving goes down, the delta of in the money options approaches 100, eventually reaching 100 at expiration. Another way to word this is that the premium on in the money options shrinks as expiration approaches and the intrinsic value of the option increases as percentage of total value so that movements in the underlying stock price become a greater influence on the option price - hence a greater delta. Again, if the option is out of the money, this is not the case.",
"qid": 10710,
"docid": "416286",
"rank": 30,
"score": 92434
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The answer to the question, can I exercise the option right away? depends on the exercise style of the particular option contract you are talking about. If it's an American-style exercise, you can exercise at any moment until the expiration date. If it's an European-style exercise, you can only exercise at the expiration date. According to the CME Group website on the FOPs on Gold futures, it's an American-style exercise (always make sure to double check this - especially in the Options on Futures world, there are quite a few that are European style): http://www.cmegroup.com/trading/metals/precious/gold_contractSpecs_options.html?optionProductId=192#optionProductId=192 So, if you wanted to, the answer is: yes, you can exercise those contracts before expiration. But a very important question you should ask is: should you? Option prices are composed of 2 parts: intrinsic value, and extrinsic value. Intrinsic value is defined as by how much the option is in the money. That is, for Calls, it's how much the strike is below the current underlying price; and for Puts, it's how much the strike is above the current underlying price. Extrinsic value is whatever amount you have to add to the intrinsic value, to get the actual price the option is trading at the market. Note that there's no negative intrinsic value. It's either a positive number, or 0. When the intrinsic value is 0, all the value of the option is extrinsic value. The reason why options have extrinsic value is because they give the buyer a right, and the seller, an obligation. Ie, the seller is assuming risk. Traders are only willing to assume obligations/risks, and give others a right, if they get paid for that. The amount they get paid for that is the extrinsic value. In the scenario you described, underlying price is 1347, call strike is 1350. Whatever amount you have paid for that option is extrinsic value (because the strike of the call is above the underlying price, so intrinsic = 0, intrinsic + extrinsic = value of the option, by definition). Now, in your scenario, gold prices went up to 1355. Now your call option is \"\"in the money\"\", that is, the strike of your call option is below the gold price. That necessarily means that your call option has intrinsic value. You can easily calculate how much: it has exactly $5 intrinsic value (1355 - 1350, undelrying price - strike). But that contract still has some \"\"risk\"\" associated to it for the seller: so it necessarily still have some extrinsic value as well. So, the option that you bought for, let's say, $2.30, could now be worth something like $6.90 ($5 + a hypothetical $1.90 in extrinsic value). In your question, you mentioned exercising the option and then making a profit there. Well, if you do that, you exercise your options, get some gold futures immediately paying $1350 for them (your strike), and then you can sell them in the market for $1355. So, you make $5 there (multiplied by the contract multiplier). BUT your profit is not $5. Here's why: remember that you had to buy that option? You paid some money for that. In this hypothetical example, you payed $2.30 to buy the option. So you actually made only $5 - $2.30 = $2.70 profit! On the other hand, you could just have sold the option: you'd then make money by selling something that you bought for $2.30 that's now worth $6.90. This will give you a higher profit! In this case, if those numbers were real, you'd make $6.90 - $2.30 = $4.60 profit, waaaay more than $2.70 profit! Here's the interesting part: did you notice exactly how much more profit you'd have by selling the option back to the market, instead of exercising it and selling the gold contracts? Exactly $1.90. Do you remember this number? That's the extrinsic value, and it's not a coincidence. By exercising an option, you immediately give up all the extrinsic value it has. You are going to convert all the extrinsic value into $0. So that's why it's not optimal to exercise the contract. Also, many brokers usually charge you much more commissions and fees to exercise an option than to buy/sell options, so there's that as well! Always remember: when you exercise an option contract, you immediately give up all the extrinsic value it has. So it's never optimal to do an early exercise of option contracts and individual, retail investors. (institutional investors doing HFT might be able to spot price discrepancies and make money doing arbitrage; but retail investors don't have the low commissions and the technology required to make money out of that!) Might also be interesting to think about the other side of this: have you noticed how, in the example above, the option started with $2.30 of extrinsic value, and then it had less, $1.90 only? That's really how options work: as the market changes, extrinsic value changes, and as time goes by, extrinsic value usually decreases. Other factors might increase it (like, more fear in the market usually bring the option prices up), but the passage of time alone will decrease it. So options that you buy will naturally decrease some value over time. The closer you are to expiration, the faster it's going to lose value, which kind of makes intuitive sense. For instance, compare an option with 90 days to expiration (DTE) to another with 10 DTE. One day later, the first option still has 89 DTE (almost the same as 90 DTE), but the other has 9 DTE - it relatively much closer to the expiration than the day before. So it will decay faster. Option buyers can protect their investment from time decay by buying longer dated options, which decay slower! edit: just thought about adding one final thought here. Probabilities. The strategy that you describe in your question is basically going long an OTM call. This is an extremely bullish position, with low probability of making money. Basically, for you to make money, you need two things: you need to be right on direction, and you need to be right on time. In this example, you need the underlying to go up - by a considerable amount! And you need this to happen quickly, before the passage of time will remove too much of the extrinsic value of your call (and, obviously, before the call expires). Benefit of the strategy is, in the highly unlikely event of an extreme, unanticipated move of the underlying to the upside, you can make a lot of money. So, it's a low probability, limited risk, unlimited profit, extremely bullish strategy.\"",
"qid": 10710,
"docid": "243714",
"rank": 31,
"score": 92060
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Out of the money options often have the biggest changes in value, when the stock moves upward. This person could also gain, by the implied (underlying) volatility of the stock rising if it moves erratically to either side. Still seems to be a very risky game, given only 4 days to expiry.",
"qid": 10710,
"docid": "22426",
"rank": 32,
"score": 91643
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Think of it this way, if you traveled back through time one month - with perfect knowledge of AAPL's stock price over that period - which happens to peak viciously then return to its old price at the end of the period - wouldn't you pay more for an American option? Another way to think about options is as an insurance policy. Wouldn't you pay more for a policy that covered fire and earthquake losses as opposed to just losses from earthquakes? Lastly - and perhaps most directly - one of the more common reasons people exercise (as opposed to sell) an American option before expiration is if an unexpected dividend (larger than remaining time value of the option) was just announced that's going to be paid before the option contract expires. Because only actual stockholders get the dividends, not options holders. A holder of an American option has the ability to exercise in time to grab that dividend - a European option holder doesn't have that ability. Less flexibility (what you're paying for really) = lower option premium.",
"qid": 10710,
"docid": "353467",
"rank": 33,
"score": 91521
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I have held an in the money long position on an option into expiration, on etrade, and nothing happened. (Scalping expiring options - high risk) The option expired a penny or two ITM, and was not worth exercising, nor did I have the purchasing power to exercise it. (AAPL) From etrade's website: Here are a few things to keep in mind about exercises and assignments: Equity options $0.01 or more in the money will be automatically exercised for you unless you instruct us not to exercise them. For example, a September $25 call will be automatically exercised if the underlying security's closing price is $25.01 or higher at expiration. If the closing price is below $25.01, you would need to call an E*TRADE Securities broker at 1-800-ETRADE-1 with specific instructions for exercising the option. You would also need to call an E*TRADE Securities broker if the closing price is higher than $25.01 at expiration and you do not wish to exercise the call option. Index options $0.01 or more in the money will be automatically exercised for you unless you instruct us not to exercise them. Options that are out of the money will expire worthless. You may request to exercise American style options anytime prior to expiration. A request not to exercise options may be made only on the last trading day prior to expiration. If you'd like to exercise options or submit do-not-exercise instructions, call an E*TRADE Securities broker at 1-800-ETRADE-1. You won't be charged our normal fee for broker-assisted trades, but the regular options commission will apply. Requests are processed on a best-efforts basis. When equity options are exercised or assigned, you'll receive a Smart Alert message letting you know. You can also check View Orders to see which stock you bought or sold, the number of shares, and the strike price. Notes: If you do not have sufficient purchasing power in your account to accept the assignment or exercise, your expiring options positions may be closed, without notification, on the last trading day for the specific options series. Additionally, if your expiring position is not closed and you do not have sufficient purchasing power, E*TRADE Securities may submit do-not-exercise instructions without notification. Find out more about options expiration dates.",
"qid": 10710,
"docid": "324564",
"rank": 34,
"score": 90488
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you're talking about ADBE options, that is an American style option, which can be exercised at any time before expiration. You can exercise your options by calling your broker and instructing them to exercise. Your broker will charge you a nominal fee to do so. As an aside, you probably don't want to exercise the option right now. It still has a lot of time value left, which you'll lose if you exercise. Just sell the option if you don't think ADBE will keep going up.",
"qid": 10710,
"docid": "33394",
"rank": 35,
"score": 90264
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"4PM is the market close in NYC, so yes, time looks good. If \"\"out of the money,\"\" they expire worthless. If \"\"in the money,\"\" it depends on your broker's rules, they can exercise the option, and you'll need to have the money to cover on Monday or they can do an exercise/sell, in which case, you'd have two commissions but get your profit. The broker will need to tell you their exact procedure, I don't believe it's universal.\"",
"qid": 10710,
"docid": "242298",
"rank": 36,
"score": 89934
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Think of options as insurance. An insurance company makes money by selling the policies at a rate slightly higher than the average payout. Most options expire worthless. This is because most options are purchased by hedge funds. To 'hedge' means taking out insurance in case your position goes against you. So the sellers of options obtain a price that covers their (averaged) losses plus provides them with a profit for their trouble. An option has an amount that it declines in value each day (called theta). At the expiration date the option is worth zero (if it is out-of-the-money). So it is option writers that, typically, make money in the options market (as they are the sellers of insurance). If they didn't make money selling options they would not sell them. For example, the February call option on SPY strike 200 traded at 8.81 on 12/30. Since then it has crumbled in value to 0.14. The option writer currently stands to make a huge profit. So, just as with insurance, you (generally) never make money by buying insurance. But the sellers of insurance tend to make money as do the writers of options. Edit: Theta @ Investopedia",
"qid": 10710,
"docid": "512310",
"rank": 37,
"score": 89925
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Depending on the day and even time, you'd get your $2 profit less the $5 commission. Jack's warning is correct, but more so for thinly traded options, either due to the options having little open interest or the stock not quite so popular. In your case you have a just-in-the-money strike for a highly traded stock near expiration. That makes for about the best liquidity one can ask for. One warning is in order - Sometime friday afternoon, there will be a negative time premium. i.e. the bid might seem lower than in the money value. At exactly $110, why would I buy the option? Only if I can buy it, exercise, and sell the stock, all for a profit, even if just pennies.",
"qid": 10710,
"docid": "166307",
"rank": 38,
"score": 89310
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: It's unclear what you're asking. When I originally read your question, it seemed that you had closed out one options position and opened another. When I read your question the second time, it seemed that you were writing a second option while the first was still open. In the second case, you have one covered and one naked position. The covered call will expire worthless, the naked call will expire in the money. How your broker will resolve that is a question best left for them, but my expectation is that they will assign the non-worthless calls. Whereas, if both options expired in the money, you would be assigned and you would have to come up with the additional shares (and again, that depends on how your broker works). In general, for both cases, your net is the premiums you received, plus the difference between strike price and the price that you paid for the stock, minus any cost to close out the position. So whether you make a profit is very much dependent on how much you received for your premiums. Scenario #1: close first call, write second: Scenario #2: write covered + naked, one expires worthless Scenario #3: write covered + naked, both expire in the money Disclaimer: the SEC does not consider me a financial/investment advisor, so this is not financial/investment advice",
"qid": 10710,
"docid": "105373",
"rank": 39,
"score": 89233
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: This is exactly how I started, starting a simulation account on the CBOE website just to see what situation was profitable because it was all greek to me. Actually after learning the greeks, I realize that site was worse and eventually read some books and got better tools. The screenshot you have is telling you the strikes, but unfortunately they are showing you the technical name of the contract on the exchanges. For example, just like you type in AAPL to buy shares of AAPL stock, you can type in VIX1616K16E to get that one particular contract, expiration and strike. So lets break it down just by inferring, because this is what I just did with that picture: You know the current price of VIX, $17.06 Calls expiring November 16th, 2016: What is changing? SYMBOL / YEAR / EXPIRATION DAY / STRIKE / OPTION-STYLE (?) So knowing that in the money options will be more expensive, and near the money options will be slightly cheaper, and out the money will be even cheaper, you can see what is going on, per expiration.",
"qid": 10710,
"docid": "270166",
"rank": 40,
"score": 88719
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Yes, long calls, and that's a good point. Let's see... if I bought one contract at the Bid price above... $97.13 at expiry of $96.43 option = out of the money =- option price(x100) = $113 loss. $97.13 at expiry of $97.00 option = out of the money =- option price(x100) = $77 loss. $97.13 at expiry of $97.14 option = in the money by 1-cent=$1/contract profit - option price(x100) = $1-$58 = $57 loss The higher strike prices have much lower losses if they expire with the underlying stock at- or near-the-money. So, they carry \"\"gentler\"\" downside potential, and are priced much higher to reflect that \"\"controlled\"\" risk potential. That makes sense. Thanks.\"",
"qid": 10710,
"docid": "147361",
"rank": 41,
"score": 88580
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Firstly, going short on a stock and worrying if the price suddenly gaps up a lot due to good news is the same as being long on a stock and worrying that the price will suddenly collapse due to bad news. Secondly, an out of the money call option would be cheaper than an in the money call option, in fact the further out of the money the cheaper the premium will be, all other things being equal. So a good risk management strategy would be to set your stop orders as per your trading plan and if you wish to have added protection in case of a large gap is to buy a far out of the money call option. The premium should not be too expensive. Something you should also consider is the time until expiry for the option, if your time frame for trading is days to weeks you make consider a cheaper option that expires in about a month, but if you are planning on holding the position for more than a month you might need a longer expiry period on the option, which will increase the premium. Another option to consider, if your broker offers it, is to use a guaranteed stop loss order. You will pay a little premium for this type of order and not all brokers offer it, but if it is offered you will be protected against any price gaps past your guaranteed stop loss price.",
"qid": 10710,
"docid": "100103",
"rank": 42,
"score": 88547
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"If the strike price closest to the underlying has high open interest, the options expiration is a bigger event. For instance: stock is at $20 w/ average volume of 100,000 shares per day. 20 strike has 1000 open interest. In this example the stock will \"\"most likely\"\" pin at 20 if we were expiring tomorrow. As u prob know, long calls at 19.90 close, turn into stock....long puts at 20.10 turn into short stock. Option pros (high % of volume) dont want to be short or long after expiration. Long call holders will sell above 20 to hedge, and long put holders will buy below 20. 1000 open interest is equivalent to 100,000 shares. That's the same amount as the average volume. Stock can't really move until after expiration. If I am long 10 $20 calls, and short 1000 shares I am flat going into expiration.....unless the stock gets smoked and now I am synthetically long a put....Short stock + long call= Long Put Then watch out cause it was artificially locked down.\"",
"qid": 10710,
"docid": "72694",
"rank": 43,
"score": 87859
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You could buy some call options on the USD/INR. That way if the dollar goes up, you'll make the difference, and if the dollar goes down, then you'll lose the premium you paid. I found some details on USD/INR options here Looks like the furthest out you can go is 3 months. Note they're european style options, so they can only be exercised on the expiration date (as opposed to american style, which can be exercised at any time up to the expiration date). Alternatively, you could buy into some futures contracts for the USD/INR. Those go out to 12 months. With futures if the dollar goes up, you get the difference, if the dollar goes down, you pay the difference. I'd say if you were going to do something like this, stick with the options, since the most you could lose there is the premium you put up for the option contracts. With futures, if it suddenly moved against you you could find yourself with huge losses. Note that playing in the futures and options markets are an easy way to get burned -- it's not for the faint of heart.",
"qid": 10710,
"docid": "165357",
"rank": 44,
"score": 87375
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: It depends on the broker, each one's rules may vary. Your broker should be able to answer this question for how they handle such a situation. The broker I used would execute and immediately sell the stock if the option was 25 cents in the money at expiration. If they simply executed and news broke over the weekend (option expiration is always on Friday), the client could wake up Monday to a bad margin call, or worse.",
"qid": 10710,
"docid": "227399",
"rank": 45,
"score": 87331
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The difference between an American and European option is that the American option can be exercised at any time, whereas the European option can be liquidated only on the settlement date. The American option is \"\"continuous time\"\" instrument, while the European option is a \"\"point in time\"\" instrument. Black Scholes applies to the latter, European, option. Under \"\"certain\"\" (but by no means all) circumstances, the two are close enough to be regarded as substitutes. One of their disciples, Robert Merton, \"\"tweaked\"\" it to describe American options. There are debates about this, and other tweaks, years later.\"",
"qid": 10710,
"docid": "100021",
"rank": 46,
"score": 86573
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Suppose the stock is $41 at expiry. The graph says I will lose money. I think I paid $37.20 for (net debit) at this price. I would make money, not lose. What am I missing? The `net debit' doesn't have anything to do with your P/L graph. Your graph is also showing your profit and loss for NOW and only one expiration. Your trade has two expirations, and I don't know which one that graph is showing. That is the \"\"mystery\"\" behind that graph. Regardless, your PUTs are mitigating your loss as you would expect, if you didn't have the put you would simply lose more money at that particular price range. If you don't like that particular range then you will have to consider a different contract. it was originally a simple covered call, I added a put to protect from stock going lower.. Your strike prices are all over the place and NBIX has a contract at every whole number.... there is nothing simple about this trade. You typically won't find an \"\"always profitable\"\" combination of options. Also, changes in volatility can distort your projects greatly.\"",
"qid": 10710,
"docid": "457422",
"rank": 47,
"score": 85865
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: My understanding is that all ETF options are American style, meaning they can be exercised before expiration, and so you could do the staggered exercises as you described.",
"qid": 10710,
"docid": "373585",
"rank": 48,
"score": 85155
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I do this often and have never had a problem. My broker is TD Ameritrade and they sent several emails (and even called and left a message) the week of expiry to remind me I had in the money options that would be expiring soon. Their policy is to automatically exercise all options that are at least $.01 in the money. One email was vaguely worded, but it implied that they could liquidate other positions to raise money to exercise the options. I would have called to clarify but I had no intention of exercising and knew I would sell them before expiry. In general though, much like with margin calls, you should avoid being in the position where the broker needs to (or can do) anything with your account. As a quick aside: I can't think of a scenario where you wouldn't be able to sell your options, but you probably are aware of the huge spreads that exist for many illiquid options. You'll be able to sell them, but if you're desperate, you may have to sell at the bid price, which can be significantly (25%?) lower than the ask. I've found this to be common for options of even very liquid underlyings. So personally, I find myself adjusting my limit price quite often near expiry. If the quote is, say, 3.00-3.60, I'll try to sell with a limit of 3.40, and hope someone takes my offer. If the price is not moving up and nobody is biting, move down to 3.30, 3.20, etc. In general you should definitely talk to your broker, like others have suggested. You may be able to request that they sell the options and not attempt to exercise them at the expense of other positions you have.",
"qid": 10710,
"docid": "132288",
"rank": 49,
"score": 84815
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you think about it, the value of an option comes from the chance that the price at the expiration date can exceed the strike price. As it gets closer to the expiration date, the chance is getting smaller, because there is simply not enough time for an out-of-money option to hit that strike. Therefore, the value of an option decays.",
"qid": 10710,
"docid": "320184",
"rank": 50,
"score": 84814
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: An option gives you an option. That is, you aren't buying any security - you are simply buying an option to buy a security. The sole value of what you buy is the option to buy something. An American option offers more flexibility - i.e. it offers you more options on buying the stock. Since you have more options, the cost of the option is higher. Of course, a good example makes sense why this is the case. Consider the VIX. Options on the VIX are European style. Sometimes the VIX spikes like crazy - tripling in value in days. It usually comes back down pretty quick though - within a couple of weeks. So far out options on the VIX aren't worth just a whole lot more, because the VIX will probably be back to normal. However, if the person could have excercised them right when it got to the top, they would have made a fortune many times what their option was worth. Since they are Euroopean style, though, they would have to wait till their option was redeemable, right when the VIX would be about back to normal. In this case, an American style option would be far more valuable - especially for something that is difficult to predict, like the VIX.",
"qid": 10710,
"docid": "284540",
"rank": 51,
"score": 84745
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Here is the answer from my brokerage: Regular equity monthly options expire on the 3rd Friday of every month. The last time to trade them is by market close at 4 PM Eastern time. The weekly options will expire on the Friday of that week, also with a last trading time of 4 PM Eastern time. Options that expire in the money by .01 or more are automatically exercised. If you are long an option that is out of the money at expiration, it will expire worthless. If you are short an option, even if it expires out of the money, you are still at risk for possible assignment since the long option holder always has the right to exercise an option prior to expiration.*",
"qid": 10710,
"docid": "581672",
"rank": 52,
"score": 84615
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"So, if an out-of-the-money option (all time value) has a price P (say $3.00), and there are N days... The extrinsic value isn't solely determined by time value as your quote suggests. It's also based on volatility and demand. Here is a quote from http://www.tradingmarkets.com/options/trading-lessons/the-mystery-of-option-extrinsic-value-767484.html distinguishing between extrinsic time value and extrinsic non-time value: The time value of an option is entirely predictable. Time value premium declines at an accelerating rate, with most time decay occurring in the last one to two months before expiration. This occurs on a predictable curve. Intrinsic value is also predictable and easily followed. It is worth one point for every point the option is in the money. For example, a call with a strike of 30 has three points of intrinsic value when the current value of the underlying stock is $33 per share; and a 40 put has two points of intrinsic value when the underlying stock is worth $38. The third type of premium, extrinsic value, increases or decreases when the underlying stock changes and when the distance between current value of stock and strike of the option get closer together. As a symptom of volatility, extrinsic value may be greater for highly volatile underlying stock, and lower for less volatile stocks. Extrinsic value is the only classification of option premium that is unpredictable. The SPYs you point out probably had a volatility component affecting value. This portion is a factor of expectations or uncertainty. So an event expected to conclude prior to expiration, but of unknown outcome can cause theta to be higher than p/n. For example, a drug company is being sued and the outcome of a trial will determine whether that company pays out millions or not. The extrinsic will be higher than p/n prior to the outcome of the trial then drops after. Of course, the most common situation where this happens is earnings. After the announcement, it's not unusual to see a dramatic drop in the extrinsic portion of options. This is why sometimes a new option trader gets angry when buying calls prior to earnings. When 'surprise' good earnings are announced as hoped, the rise is stock price is largely offset by a fall in extrinsic value giving call holders little or no gain! As for the reverse situation where theta is lower than p/n would expect? Well you can actually have negative theta meaning the extrinsic portion rises over time. (this statement is a little confusing because theta is usually described as negative, but since you describe it as a positive number, negative here means the opposite of what you'd expect). This is a quote from \"\"Option Volatility & Pricing\"\". Keep in mind that they use 'positive' theta to mean the time value increases up over time: Is it ever possible for an option to have a positive theta such that if nothing changes the option will be worth more tomorrow than it is today? When futures options are subject to stock-type settlement, as they currently are in the United States, the carrying cost on a deeply in-the-money option, either a call or a put, can, under some circumstances, be greater than the volatility component. If this happens, and the option is European (no early exercise permitted), it will have a theoretical value less than parity (less than intrinsic value). As expiration approaches, the value of the option will slowly rise to parity. Hence, the option will have a positive theta. Sheldon Natenberg. Option Volatility & Pricing: Advanced Trading Strategies and Techniques (Kindle Locations 1521-1525). Kindle Edition.\"",
"qid": 10710,
"docid": "480337",
"rank": 53,
"score": 84302
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Equity options, at least those traded in the American exchanges, actually expire the Saturday after the 3rd Friday of the month. However, the choice to trade or exercise the options must be specified by the 3rd Friday. This is outlined by the CBOE, who oversees the exchange of equity options. Their FAQ regarding option expiration can be found at http://www.cboe.com/LearnCenter/Concepts/Beyond/expiration.aspx.",
"qid": 10710,
"docid": "358492",
"rank": 54,
"score": 84271
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: In the equity world, if a stock trades at 110 and is going to pay a dividend of 10 in a few days, an option expiring after the ex date would take the dividend into account and would trade as if the stock were trading at 100. (Negative) interest rates may also lead to a similar effect. In the commodity world the cost of carry needs to be taken into account.",
"qid": 10710,
"docid": "499874",
"rank": 55,
"score": 84199
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The liquidity is quite bad. I have seen open Intrest drop from thousands to zero. Theta and the lack of liquidity are strong reasons not to buy options. Instead, consider selling them. They say that most Option purchases expire worthless. Why is this so? Because hedge funds buy those out-of-the-money puts in case their position goes against them (like insurance). Make money selling insurance. No one makes money buying insurance.",
"qid": 10710,
"docid": "450910",
"rank": 56,
"score": 84086
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: There's a key assumption made in the calculation of theta: that the future price movement of the underlying is a random walk. The amount of life left in the option times the volatility of the underlying creates a probability distribution of the price of the underlying at expiration. At any given price point, you can calculate the theta of the option. The at-the-money values are the most likely. The way-in-or-way-out-of-the-money values are much less likely. Theta is constructed mathematically to decay linearly over time. So the strikes with the most theta lose the most theta each day. If you are looking for a more intuitive answer, the OTM calls have less theta than the ATM calls because, while they are both 100% time value, the OTM calls cost much less. So it's 100% of a smaller number. Remember decay is linear.",
"qid": 10710,
"docid": "244448",
"rank": 57,
"score": 84025
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Really all you need to know is that American style can be exercised at any point, European options cannot be exercised early. Read on if you want more detail. The American style Call is worth more because it can be exercised at any point. And when the company pays a dividend, and your option is in the money, if the extrinsic value is worth less than the dividend you can be exercised early. This is not the case for a European call. You cannot be exercised until expiration. I trade a lot of options, you wont be exercised early unless the dividend scenario I mentioned happens. Or unless the extrinsic value is nothing, but even then, unless the investor really wants that position, he is more likely to just sell the call for an equivalent gain on 100 shares of stock.",
"qid": 10710,
"docid": "358520",
"rank": 58,
"score": 83970
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"There are two reasons why most options aren't exercised. The first is obvious, and the second, less so. The obvious: An option that's practically worthless doesn't get exercised. Options that reach expiry and remain unexercised are almost always worthless bets that simply didn't pay off. This includes calls with strikes above the current underlying price, and puts with strikes below it. A heck of a lot of options. If an option with value was somehow left to expire, it was probably a mistake, or else the transaction costs outweighed the value remaining; not quite worthless, but not \"\"worth it\"\" either. The less obvious: An option with value can be cancelled any time before expiration. A trader that buys an option may at some point show a gain sooner than anticipated, or a loss in excess of his tolerance. If a gain, he may want to sell before expiry to realize the gain sooner. Similarly, if a loss, he may want to take the loss sooner. In both cases, his capital is freed up and he can take another position. And — this is the key part — the other end matched up with that option sale is often a buyer that had created (written) exactly such an option contract in the first place – the option writer – and who is looking to get out of his position. Option writers are the traders responsible, in the first place, for creating options and increasing the \"\"open interest.\"\" Anybody with the right kind and level of options trading account can do this. A trader that writes an option does so by instructing his broker to \"\"sell to open\"\" a new instance of the option. The trader then has a short position (negative quantity) in that option, and all the while may be subject to the obligations that match the option's exercise rights. The only way for the option writer to get out of that short position and its obligations are these: Not by choice: To get assigned. That is to say: a buyer exercised the option. The writer has to fulfill his obligation by delivering the underlying (if a call) to the option holder, or buying the underlying (if a put) from the option holder. Not by choice: The option expires worthless. This is the ideal scenario for a writer because 100% of the premium received (less transaction costs) is profit. By choice: The writer is free to buy back exactly the same kind of option before expiry using a \"\"buy to close\"\" order with their broker. Once the option has been purchased with a \"\"buy to close\"\", it eliminates the short position and obligation. The option is cancelled. The open interest declines. Options thus cancelled just don't live long enough to either expire or be exercised.\"",
"qid": 10710,
"docid": "557356",
"rank": 59,
"score": 83969
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I have traded options, but not professionally. I hadn't come across this terminology, but I expect it counts how far in-the-money, as an ordinal, an option is relative to the distinct strike prices offered for the option series — a series being the combination of underlying symbol, expiration date, and option type (call/put); e.g., all January 2015 XYZ calls, no matter the strike. For instance, if stock XYZ trades today at $11 and the available January 2015 XYZ calls have strike prices of $6, $8, $10, $12, $14, and $16, then I would expect the $10 call could be called one strike in the money, the $8 two strikes in the money, etc. Similarly, the $12 and $14 calls would be one and two strikes out of the money, respectively. However, if tomorrow XYZ moves to $13, then the $10 previously known as one strike in the money would now be two strikes in the money, and the $12 would be the new one strike in the money. Perhaps this terminology arose because many option strategies frequently involve using options that are at- or near-the-money, so the \"\"one strike in\"\" (or out) of the money contracts would tend to be those employed frequently? Perhaps it makes it easier for people to describe strategies in a more general sense, without citing specific examples. However, the software developer in me dislikes it, given that the measurement is relative to both the current underlying price (which changes quickly), and the strike prices available in the given option series. Hence, I wouldn't use this terminology myself and I suggest you eschew it, too, in favor of something concrete; e.g. specify your contract strikes in dollar terms — especially when it matters.\"",
"qid": 10710,
"docid": "163630",
"rank": 60,
"score": 83833
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The value of an option has 2 components, the extrinsic or time value element and the intrinsic value from the difference in the strike price and the underlying asset price. With either an American or European option the intrinsic value of a call option can be 'locked in' any time by selling the same amount of the underlying asset (whether that be a stock, a future etc). Further, the time value of any option can be monitised by delta hedging the option, i.e. buying or selling an amount of the underlying asset weighted by the measure of certainty (delta) of the option being in the money at expiry. Instead, the extra value of the American option comes from the financial benefit of being able to realise the value of the underlying asset early. For a dividend paying stock this will predominantly be the dividend. But for non-dividend paying stocks or futures, the buyer of an in-the-money option can realise their intrinsic gains on the option early and earn interest on the profits today. But what they sacrifice is the timevalue of the option. However when an option becomes very in the money and the delta approaches 1 or -1, the discounting of the intrinsic value (i.e. the extra amount a future cash flow is worth each day as we draw closer to payment) becomes larger than the 'theta' or time value decay of the option. Then it becomes optimal to early exercise, abandon the optionality and realise the monetary gains upfront. For a non-dividend paying stock, the value of the American call option is actually the same as the European. The spot price of the stock will be lower than the forward price at expiry discounted by the risk free rate (or your cost of funding). This will exactly offset the monetary gain by exercising early and banking the proceeds. However for an option on a future, the value today of the underlying asset (the future) is the same as at expiry and its possible to fully realise the interest earned on the money received today. Hence the American call option is worth more. For both examples the American put option is worth more, slightly more so for the stock. As the stock's spot price is lower than the forward price, the owner of the put option realises a higher (undiscounted) intrinsic profit from selling the stock at the higher strike price today than waiting till expiry, as well as realising the interest earned. Liquidity may influence the perceived value of being able to exercise early but its not a tangible factor that is added to the commonly used maths of the option valuation, and isn't really a consideration for most of the assets that have tradeable option markets. It's also important to remember at any point in the life of the option, you don't know the future price path. You're only modelling the distribution of probable outcomes. What subsequently happens after you early exercise an American option no longer has any bearing on its value; this is now zero! Whether the stock subsequently crashes in price is irrelevent. What is relevant is that when you early exercise a call you 'give up' all potential upside protected by the limit to your downside from the strike price.",
"qid": 10710,
"docid": "193303",
"rank": 61,
"score": 83737
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Short answer: Liquidity. Well, you have to see it from an exchange's point of view. Every contract they put up is a liability to them. You have to allocate resources for the order book, the matching engine, the clearing, etc. But only if the contract is actually trading they start earning (the big) money. Now for every new expiry they engage a long term commitment and it might take years for an option chain to be widely accepted (and hence before they're profitable). Compare the volumes and open interests of big chains versus the weeklies and you'll find that weeklies can still be considered illiquid compared to their monthly cousins. Having said that, like many things, this is just a question of demand. If there's a strong urge to trade July weeklies one day, there will be an option chain. But, personally I think, as long as there are the summer doldrums there will be no rush to ask for Jul and Aug chains.",
"qid": 10710,
"docid": "291134",
"rank": 62,
"score": 83403
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Options trading at $.01 have the same position limits as other options. Self regulatory organizations set the position limits for options which can be 250,000 contracts on one side of the book, as an example. Weeklies that are expiring soon have lots of liquidity while trading at $0.01, you can see this in Bank of America stock if interested",
"qid": 10710,
"docid": "399367",
"rank": 63,
"score": 83227
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Yes. If I own a call, an American call option can be exercised at my wish. A European call can only be exercised at expiration, by the way. Your broker doesn't give you anything but a current quote for a given strike price. There are a number of good option related questions here. A bit of searching and reading will help you understand the process.",
"qid": 10710,
"docid": "446856",
"rank": 64,
"score": 82958
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Options granted by an employer to an employee are generally different that the standardized options that are traded on public stock option exchanges. They may or may not have somewhat comparable terms, but generally the terms are fairly different. As a holder of an expiring employee option, you can only choose to exercise it by paying the specified price and receiving the shares, or not. It is common that the exercise system will allow you to exercise all the shares and simultaneously sell enough of the acquired shares to cover the option cost of all the shares, thus leaving you owning some of the stock without having to spend any cash. You will owe taxes on the gain on exercise, regardless of what you do with the stock. If you want to buy publicly-traded options, you should consider that completely separately from your employer options other than thinking about how much exposure you have to your company situation. It is very common for employees to be imprudently overexposed to their company's stock (through direct ownership or options).",
"qid": 10710,
"docid": "220147",
"rank": 65,
"score": 82827
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: It is possible to exercise an out of the money option contract. Reasons to do this: You want a large stake of voting shares at any price without moving the market and could not get enough options contracts at a near the money strike price, so you decided to go out of the money. Then exercised all the contracts and suddenly you have a large influential position in the stock and nobody saw it coming. This may be favorable if the paper loss is less than the loss of time value that would have been incurred if you chose contracts near the money at further expiration dates, in search of liquidity. Some convoluted tax reason.",
"qid": 10710,
"docid": "538054",
"rank": 66,
"score": 82388
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Option prices consist of two parts: the intrinsic value (the difference between the strike and the current price of the stock) and a time premium, representing the probability that the stock will end up above the strike for a call (or below for a put). All else being equal, options decline in value as time passes, since there is less uncertainty about the expected value of the stock at expiration and thus the time premium is smaller. Theta is the measure of the change in value in one day. So for every day that passes, the calls you sold are going down by $64.71 (which is positive to you since you sold them at a higher value) and the calls you sold are going down by $49.04. So your position (a short spread) is gaining $15.67 each day (assuming no change in stock price or volatility). In reality, the stock price and volatility also change every day, and those are much stronger drivers of the value of your options. In your case, however, the options are deep out of the money, meaning it's very likely that they'll expire worthless, so all you have left is time premium, which is decaying as time goes on.",
"qid": 10710,
"docid": "88892",
"rank": 67,
"score": 81954
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The liquidity primarily depends on the specific equity type / position you are looking at. You want to look for stocks or ETFs that have significant volume themselves before trying to jump into an option contract. The most important things you should look at are Volume and Open Interest for the specific contracts, strikes, and expiration. Near the money / in the money contracts from near term expiration tend to have the highest liquidity and the smallest (relative) spreads.",
"qid": 10710,
"docid": "30631",
"rank": 68,
"score": 81239
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"You could buy options. I do not know what your time horizon is but it makes all the difference due to theta burn. There are weekly, monthly, quarterly, yearly and even longer duration options called leaps. You have decided how long of a time frame. You also have to see what the implied volatility is for the underlying because if you think hypothetically that the price of the spy is 100 dollars currently. Today is hypothetically a Thursday and you buy a weekly option expiring on Friday ( the next day) of strike 100.5 and the call option is priced at .55 cents and you buy it. This means that the underlying has to move .5 dollars in one day to be considered in the money but at time 0, the option should only be worth its intrinsic value which is the underlying, (Say the SPY moved 55 cents up from 100 to 100.55), (100.55) minus the strike (100.5) = 5 cents, so if you payed 55 cents and one day later at expiration its worth 5 cents ,you lost almost 91% of your money, rather with buying and holding you lose a lot less. The leverage is on a 10x scale typically. That is why timing is so important. Anyone can say x stock is going to go up in the future, but if you know ****when**** you can make a killing if it is not already priced into the market. Another thing you can do is figure out how much MSFT contributes to the SPX movement in terms of points. What does a 1% move in MSFT doto SPX. If you can calculate that and you think you know where MSFT is going, you can just trade the spy options synthetically as if it were microsoft. You could also buy msft stock on margin as a retail investor, but be careful. Like Rhaskett said, look into an etf that has microsoft. The nasdaq has a nasdaq-100 which microsoft is in called the triple Q. The ticker is qqq. PowerShares QQQ™, formerly known as \"\"QQQ\"\" or the \"\"NASDAQ- 100 Index Tracking Stock®\"\", is an exchange-traded fund based on the Nasdaq-100 Index®. Best of luck and always understand what you are buying before you buy it, JL\"",
"qid": 10710,
"docid": "473552",
"rank": 69,
"score": 81032
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Exercising an option early if you can't sell the underlying stock being purchased is generally not advisable. You're basically locking in the worst price you can possibly pay, plus you're losing the time value on your money (which is, admittedly fairly low right now, but still). Let's say you have a strike price of $50. I get that you believe the stock to be worth more than $50. Let's assume that that's probably, but not certainly right. Whether it's worth $51, $151, or $5,100 when your options are going to expire, you still get the profit of $1, $101, or $5,050 if you wait until expiration and exercise then. By exercising now, you're giving up two things: The interest on the money you pay to exercise from now until expiration. The guarantee that you can't lose anything. If you buy it now, you get all the upside above your strike, but have all the downside below it. If you buy it later (at expiration), you still have all the upside above your strike, but no downside - in the (assumed to be unlikely) event that it's worth less than the strike you can simply do nothing, instead of having something you bought at the strike that's worth less now and taking that loss. By exercising early, you take on that loss risk, and give up the interest (or \"\"carry\"\" on the money you spend to exercise) for no additional updside. It's possible that there are tax benefits, as other posters mention, but the odds that \"\"starting the clock\"\" for LTCG is worth as much as the \"\"optionality\"\", or loss protection, plus the \"\"carry\"\", or interest that you're giving up is fairly unlikely.\"",
"qid": 10710,
"docid": "420722",
"rank": 70,
"score": 80779
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: As other uses have pointed out, your example is unusual in that is does not include any time value or volatility value in the quoted premiums, the premiums you quote are only intrinsic values. For well in-the-money options, the intrinsic value will certainly be the vast majority of the premium, but not the sole component. Having said that, the answer would clearly be that the buyer should buy the $40 call at a premium of $10. The reason is that the buyer will pay less for the option and therefore risk less money, or buy more options for the same amount of money. Since the buyer is assuming that the price will rise, the return that will be realised will be the same in gross terms, but higher in relative terms for the buyer of the $40 call. For example, if the underlying price goes to $60, then the buyer of the $40 call would (potentially) double their money when the premium goes from $10 to $20, while the buyer of the $30 call would realise a (potential) 50% profit when the premium goes from $20 to $30. Considering the situation beyond your scenario, things are more difficult if the bet goes wrong. If the underlying prices expires at under $40, then the buyer of the $40 call will be better off in gross terms but may be worse off in relative terms (if it expires above $30). If the underlying price expires between $40 and $50, then the buy of the $30 will be better off in relative term, having lost a smaller percentage of their money.",
"qid": 10710,
"docid": "162771",
"rank": 71,
"score": 80727
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"When you buy a put option, you're buying the right to sell stock at the \"\"strike\"\" price. To understand why you have to pay separately for that, consider the other side of the transaction. If I agree to trade stock for money at above market rates, I need to make up the difference somewhere or face bankruptcy. That risk of loss is what the option price is about. You might assume that means the market expects the price of AMD to fall to 8.01 from it's current price of 8.06 by the option expiration date. But that would also mean call options below the market price is worthless. But that's not quite true; people who price options need to factor in volatility, since things change with time. The price MIGHT fall, and traders need to account for that risk. So 1.99 roughly represents the probability of AMD rising to 10. There's probably some technical analysis one can do to the chain, but I don't see any abnormality of AMD here.\"",
"qid": 10710,
"docid": "167304",
"rank": 72,
"score": 80580
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I understand that ITM have little time value, so they will have small time decay(theta), but why OTM has a lesser theta than ATM? The Time value represents uncertainty. That uncertainty decreases the farther away from ATM you get (in either direction). At-the-money, there is roughly a 50% chance that the option expires worthless. As you get deeper in-the-money, the change that is expires worthless decreases, so there is less uncertainty (there is more certainty that the option will pay off). As you go deeper OTM, the probability that the option expires worthless increases, so there is also less uncertainty. At the TTM decreases, the uncertainty (theta) decreases as well, since there is less time for the option to cross the strike from either direction. Similarly, as volatility decreases, theta decreases, since low-volatility stocks have a less change of crossing the strike.",
"qid": 10710,
"docid": "372105",
"rank": 73,
"score": 80504
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I've been offered a package that includes 100k stock options at 5 dollars a share. They vest over 4 years at 25% a year. Does this mean that at the end of the first year, I'm supposed to pay for 25,000 shares? Wouldn't this cost me 125,000 dollars? I don't have this kind of money. At the end of the first year, you will generally have the option to pay for the shares. Yes, this means you have to use your own money. You generally dont have to buy ANY until the whole option vests, after 4 years in your case, at which point you either buy, or you are considered 'vested' (you have equity in the company without buying) or the option expires worthless, with you losing your window to buy into the company. This gives you plenty of opportunity to evaluate the company's growth prospects and viability over this time. Regarding options expiration the contract can have an arbitrarily long expiration date, like 17 years. You not having the money or not isn't a consideration in this matter. Negotiate a higher salary instead. I've told several companies that I don't want their equity despite my interest in their business model and product. YMMV. Also, options can come with tax consequences, or none at all. its not a raw deal but you need to be able to look at it objectively.",
"qid": 10710,
"docid": "558233",
"rank": 74,
"score": 80461
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Whether or not you make money here depends on whether you are buying or selling the option when you open your position. You certainly would not make money in the scenario where you are buying options at the open. If fact you would end up loosing quite a lot of money. You do not specify whether you are buying or selling the options, so let's assume that you are buying both the call and the put. We'll look a profitable trade at the bottom of my answer. Buying an in-the-money Call option with a strike price of $90 when the underlying asset price is $150 would cost you a small fraction over $6000 = (100 x $60) since the intrinsic value value of the option is $60. Add to this cost any commission charged by your broker. Buying an out-of-the-money Put option with a strike price of $110 when the underlying asset price is $150 would cost you a \"\"small\"\" premium - lets say a premium of something like $0.50. The option has no intrinsic value, only time value and a volatility value, so the exact cost would depend on the time to expiry and the implied volatility of the underlying asset. Since the strike price is \"\"well out of the money\"\", being about 27% below the underlying asset price, the premium would be small. So, assuming the premium of $0.50, you would pay $50 for the option plus any commission applicable. The cash settlement on expiry, with an underlying settlement price of $100, would be a premium of $10 for each of the two options, so you would receive cash of 100 x ($10 + $10) = $2000, less any commission applicable. However, you have paid $6000 + $50 to purchase the options, so you realise a net loss of $6050 - $2000 = $4050 plus any commissions applicable. Thus, you would make a profit on the put option, but you would realise a very large loss on the call option. On the other hand, if you open your position by selling the call option and buying the put option, then you would make money. For the sale of the call option you would receive about $6000. For the purchase of the put option you would pay about $50. On settlement, you would pay $1000 to buy back the call option and you would receive about $1000 when selling the put option. Thus you net profit would be about ($6000 - $1000) for the call position, and ($1000 - $50) for the put position. The net profit would then total $5950 less an commissions payable.\"",
"qid": 10710,
"docid": "154989",
"rank": 75,
"score": 80211
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The first thing that I learned the hard way (by trying my hand at actual options trading) is that liquidity matters. So few people are interested in trading the same options that I am that it is easy to get stuck holding profitable contracts into expiration unless I offer to sell them for a lot less than they are worth. I also learned that options are a kind of insurance,and no one makes money (in the long run) buying insurance. So you can use options to hedge and thereby prevent losses, but you also blunt your gains. Edit: IMO,options (in the long run) only make money for the brokers as you pay a commission both on the buy and on the sell. With my broker the commission on options is higher than the commission on stocks (or ETFs).",
"qid": 10710,
"docid": "120859",
"rank": 76,
"score": 80118
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Your bank does not know about any SEPA Mandat you declare, until it gets in use. When the optionees withdraw money from your Account, they have to authenticate with the given Mandat and at this point your bank knows about that Mandat wich has an expiry date. According to the guidelines of the European Central Bank, your bank is not in duty to bookmark the expiration date. However, I'd assume they do anyway due they are allowed to and it makes things easier. Additional, if you can tell who the optionee is, you can block the withdraw before it happened. In any case, you have to call your bank.",
"qid": 10710,
"docid": "326451",
"rank": 77,
"score": 80049
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Seems like you are concerned with something called assignment risk. It's an inherent risk of selling options: you are giving somebody the right, but not the obligation, to sell to you 100 shares of GOOGL. Option buyers pay a premium to have that right - the extrinsic value. When they exercise the option, the option immediately disappears. Together with it, all the extrinsic value disappears. So, the lower the extrinsic value, the higher the assignment risk. Usually, option contracts that are very close to expiration (let's say, around 2 to 3 weeks to expiration or less) have significantly lower extrinsic value than longer option contracts. Also, generally speaking, the deeper ITM an option contract is, the lower extrinsic value it will have. So, to reduce assignment risk, I usually close out my option positions 1-2 weeks before expiration, especially the contracts that are deep in the money. edit: to make sure this is clear, based on a comment I've just seen on your question. To \"\"close out an options position\"\", you just have to create the \"\"opposite\"\" trade. So, if you sell a Put, you close that by buying back that exact same put. Just like stock: if you buy stock, you have a position; you close that position by selling the exact same stock, in the exact same amount. That's a very common thing to do with options. A post in Tradeking's forums, very old post, but with an interesting piece of data from the OCC, states that 35% of the options expire worthless, and 48% are bought or sold before expiration to close the position - only 17% of the contracts are actually exercised! (http://community.tradeking.com/members/optionsguy/blogs/11260-what-percentage-of-options-get-exercised) A few other things to keep in mind: certain stocks have \"\"mini options contracts\"\", that would correspond to a lot of 10 shares of stock. These contracts are usually not very liquid, though, so you might not get great prices when opening/closing positions you said in a comment, \"\"I cannot use this strategy to buy stocks like GOOGL\"\"; if the reason is because 100*GOOGL is too much to fit in your buying power, that's a pretty big risk - the assignment could result in a margin call! if margin call is not really your concern, but your concern is more like the risk of holding 100 shares of GOOGL, you can help manage that by buying some lower strike Puts (that have smaller absolute delta than your Put), or selling some calls against your short put. Both strategies, while very different, will effectively reduce your delta exposure. You'd get 100 deltas from the 100 shares of GOOGL, but you'd get some negative deltas by holding the lower strike Put, or by writing the higher strike Call. So as the stock moves around, your account value would move less than the exposure equivalent to 100 shares of stock.\"",
"qid": 10710,
"docid": "362473",
"rank": 78,
"score": 80025
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: This can be done, you can be prosecuted for some forms of it, in any case there are more riskless ways of doing what you suggested. First, buying call options from market makers results in market makers buying shares at the same delta as the call option. (100 SHARES X DELTA = How many shares MM's bought). You can time this with the volume and depth of the shares market to get a bigger resulting move caused by your options purchase to get bigger quote changes in your option. So on expiration day you can be trade near at the money options back and forth between being out the money and in the money. You would exit the position into liquidity at a profit. The risk here is that you can be sitting on a big options position, where the commissions costs get really big, but you can spread this out amongst several options contracts. Second, you can again take advantage of market maker inefficiencies by getting your primary position (whether in the share market or options market) placed, and then your other position being a very large buy order a few levels below the best bid. Many market makers and algorithms will jump in front of your, they think they are being smart, but it will raise the best bid and likely make a few higher prints for the mark, raising the price of your call option. And eventually remove your large buy order. Again, you exit into liquidity. This is called spoofing. There have been some regulatory actions against people in doing this in the last few years. As for consequences, you need to put things into perspective. US capital market regulators have the most nuanced regulations and enforcement actions of worldwide capital market regulators, and even then they get criticized for being unable or unwilling to curb these practices. With that perspective American laws are basically a blueprint on what to do in 100 other country's stock exchanges, where the legislature has never gotten around to defining the same laws, the securities regulator is even more underfunded and toothless, and the markets more inefficient. Not advice, just reality.",
"qid": 10710,
"docid": "138703",
"rank": 79,
"score": 80012
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: In the money puts and calls are subject to automatic execution at expiration. Each broker has its own rules and process for this. For example, I am long a put. The strike is $100. The stock trades at the close, that final friday for $90. I am out to lunch that day. Figuratively, of course. I wake up Saturday and am short 100 shares. I can only be short in a margin account. And similarly, if I own calls, I either need the full value of the stock (i.e. 100*strike price) or a margin account. I am going to repeat the key point. Each broker has its own process for auto execution. But, yes, you really don't want a deep in the money option to expire with no transaction. On the flip side, you don't want to wake up Monday to find they were bought out by Apple for $150.",
"qid": 10710,
"docid": "40447",
"rank": 80,
"score": 79802
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"As already noted, options contain inherent leverage (a multiplier on the profit or loss). The amount of \"\"leverage\"\" is dictated primarily by both the options strike relative to the current share price and the time remaining to expiration. Options are a far more difficult investment than stocks because they require that you are right on both the direction and the timing of the future price movement. With a stock, you could choose to buy and hold forever (Buffett style), and even if you are wrong for 5 years, your unrealized losses can suddenly become realized profits if the shares finally start to rise 6 years later. But with options, the profits and losses become very final very quickly. As a professional options trader, the single best piece of advice I can give to investors dabbling in options for the first time is to only purchase significantly ITM (in-the-money) options, for both calls and puts. Do a web search on \"\"in-the-money options\"\" to see what calls or puts qualify. With ITM options, the leverage is still noticeably better than buying/selling the shares outright, but you have a much less chance of losing all your premium. Also, by being fairly deep in-the-money, you reduce the constant bleed in value as you wait for the expected move to happen (the market moves sideways more than people usually expect). Fairly- to deeply-ITM options are the ones that options market-makers like least to trade in, because they offer neither large nor \"\"easy\"\" premiums. And options market-makers make their living by selling options to retail investors and other people that want them like you, so connect the dots. By trading only ITM options until you become quite experienced, you are minimizing your chances of being the average sucker (all else equal). Some amateur options investors believe that similar benefits could be obtained by purchasing long-expiration options (like LEAPS for 1+ years) that are not ITM (like ATM or OTM options). The problem here is that your significant time value is bleeding away slowly every day you wait. With an ITM option, your intrinsic value is not bleeding out at all. Only the relatively smaller time value of the option is at risk. Thus my recommendation to initially deal only in fairly- to deeply-ITM options with expirations of 1-4 months out, depending on how daring you wish to be with your move timing.\"",
"qid": 10710,
"docid": "229626",
"rank": 81,
"score": 79096
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I think George's answer explains fairly well why the brokerages don't allow this - it's not an exchange rule, it's just that the brokerage has to have the shares to lend, and normally those shares come from people's margin, which is impossible on a non-marginable stock. To address the question of what the alternatives are, on popular stocks like SIRI, a deep In-The-Money put is a fairly accurate emulation of an actual short interest. If you look at the options on SIRI you will see that a $3 (or higher) put has a delta of -$1, which is the same delta as an actual short share. You also don't have to worry about problems like margin calls when buying options. The only thing you have to worry about is the expiration date, which isn't generally a major issue if you're buying in-the-money options... unless you're very wrong about the direction of the stock, in which case you could lose everything, but that's always a risk with penny stocks no matter how you trade them. At least with a put option, the maximum amount you can lose is whatever you spent on the contract. With a short sale, a bull rush on the stock could potentially wipe out your entire margin. That's why, when betting on downward motion in a microcap or penny stock, I actually prefer to use options. Just be aware that option contracts can generally only move in increments of $0.05, and that your brokerage will probably impose a bid-ask spread of up to $0.10, so the share price has to move down at least 10 cents (or 10% on a roughly $1 stock like SIRI) for you to just break even; definitely don't attempt to use this as a day-trading tool and go for longer expirations if you can.",
"qid": 10710,
"docid": "275199",
"rank": 82,
"score": 79061
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you're talking about just Theta, the amount of decay due to the passage of time (all else being equal), then theoretically, the time value is a continuous function, so it would decay throughout the day (although by the day of expiry the time value is very, very small). Which makes sense, since even with 15 minutes to go, there's still a 50/50 shot of an ATM option expiring in-the-money, so there should be some time value associated with that one-sided probability. The further away from ATM the option is, the smaller the time value will be, and will be virtually zero for options that are deep in- or out-of-the-money. If you're talking about total time value, then yes it will definitely change during the day, since the underlying components (volatility, underlying price, etc.) change more or less continuously.",
"qid": 10710,
"docid": "258986",
"rank": 83,
"score": 79030
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Money Manager Ex PROS: CONS",
"qid": 10710,
"docid": "488037",
"rank": 84,
"score": 78864
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: There is no reason to roll an option if the current market value is lower than the strike sold. Out-of-the-money strikes (as is the $12 strike) are all time value which is decaying constantly and that is to our advantage. If share price remains below the strike, the option will expire worthless, you will still have your shares and free to sell another option the Monday after expiration Friday. If share price is > $12 on expiration Friday and you want to keep those shares, you can roll out or out-and-up depending on your outlook for the stock. Good luck, Alan",
"qid": 10710,
"docid": "415887",
"rank": 85,
"score": 78834
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Options can have a negligible time premium. For American1 calls the time premium is never negative. If it had a negative premium it would be profitable to exercise it immediately. A deep in the money call has a delta of exactly one. That is, it's price movements completely mirror the price movements of the underlying stock. That means an option seller can buy stock and completely hedge his short option position. The seller of the option may be in an position to buy with very little margin and take your money and invest it. For example, consider a stock trading at $7.50, with its January 2014 $4 call option trading at $3.50. For one option, representing 100 shares, a trader could take your 350 dollars and invest it, and only use a small portion of the money to buy the stock on margin. Market-makers can typically borrow money at very low interest rates. If you have high borrowing costs, or are unable to buy on margin, then buying deep in the money calls can be a good strategy. Long story short, option sellers are making money off selling these deep in the money calls even with almost zero time premium. So, in general, there's no way to make money by buying them. 1. An American call is a call that can be exercised at any time up to and including its expiration date.",
"qid": 10710,
"docid": "305770",
"rank": 86,
"score": 78822
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Options that are not worth exercising just expire. Options that are worth exercising are typically exercised automatically as they expire, resulting in a transfer of stock between the entity that issued the option and the entity that holds it. OCC options automatically exercise when they expire if the value of the option exceeds the transaction cost for the stock transfer (1/4 point to 3/4 point depending).",
"qid": 10710,
"docid": "7733",
"rank": 87,
"score": 78262
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The breach was discovered by Equifax on July 29th.. On August 21st, someone bought 2600 put option contracts that were set to expire in September (and if the price of EFX remained above $135 until then, those options would have been worthless). On September 7th, Equifax makes the decision to announce the breach, and those put options (worth 60 cents a piece) skyrocket, earning the holder a cool $4.2 million+. For perspective, those 2600 put options were literally ten times the monthly volume of EFX options on a typical month. There was almost certainly insider trading going on, and it probably wasn't the hackers themselves logging into their (authenticated/identifiable) brokerage accounts and buying up oodles of put options expiring a month later..",
"qid": 10710,
"docid": "237223",
"rank": 88,
"score": 78215
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: In the first case, if you wish to own the stock, you just exercise the option, and buy it for the strike price. Else, you can sell the option just before expiration, it will be priced very close to its in-the-money value.",
"qid": 10710,
"docid": "236176",
"rank": 89,
"score": 78178
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Am I getting it right that in India in terms of short selling in F&O market its what in the rest of the world is called naked short and you actually make promise to depositary that you will deliver that security you sold on settlement without actually owning the security or going through SLB mechanism? In Future and Options; there is no concept of short selling. You buy a future for a security / index. On the settlement day; the exchange determines the settlement price. The trade is closed in cash. i.e. Based on the settlement price, you [and the other party] will either get money [other party looses money] or you loose money [other party gets the money]. Similarly for Options; on expiry, the all \"\"In Money\"\" [or At Money] Options are settled in cash and you are credit with funds [the option writer is debited with funds]. If the option is \"\"out of money\"\" it expires and you loose the premium you paid to exercise the option.\"",
"qid": 10710,
"docid": "576976",
"rank": 90,
"score": 78117
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: > The only problem I see with stock options is that they expire You're on to something: the reason why some prefer to write (sell) options instead of buying. Neutral to bullish on crude oil? Sell puts on /CL at 90-95% probability OTM. You keep your money if the underlying moves up or does nothing, within the days to expiration.",
"qid": 10710,
"docid": "480879",
"rank": 91,
"score": 77875
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: OK, my fault for not doing more research. Wikipedia explains this well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Option_style#Difference_in_value Basically, there are some cases where it's advantageous to exercise an American option early. For non-gold currency options, this is only when the carrying cost (interest rate differential aka swap rate or rollover rate) is high. The slight probability that this may occur makes an American option worth slightly more.",
"qid": 10710,
"docid": "364575",
"rank": 92,
"score": 77353
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I think it depends on your broker. Some brokers will not try to auto exercise in the money options. Others will try to do the exercise it if you have available funds. Your best bet, if find yourself in that situation, is to sell the option on the open market the day of or slightly before expiration. Put it on your calendar and don't forget, you could loose your profits. @#2 Its in the best interest of your broker to exercise because they get a commission. I think they are used to this situation where there is a lack of funds. Its not like bouncing a check. You will need to check with your broker on this. @#3 I think many or most options traders never intend on buying the underling stock. Therefore no, they do not always make sure there is enough funds to buy.",
"qid": 10710,
"docid": "255927",
"rank": 93,
"score": 77181
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: When dividend is announced the stock and option price may react to that news, but the actual payout of the dividend on the ex-dividend date is what you probably are referring to. The dividend payout affects the stock price on the ex-dividend date as the stock price will drop by the amount of paid out dividend (not taking into account other factors). This in turn drives the prices of all options. The amount of change in the option price for this event is not only dependent the dividend payout, but also on how far these are in our out of the money and what there time to expiration is. The price of a call option that is far out of the money would react less than the price of a put that would be far in the money. Therefore I would argue that these two will not necessarily offset each other.",
"qid": 10710,
"docid": "315748",
"rank": 94,
"score": 76991
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Unlike the stock market which offers growth long term, the derivatives market is a zero sum game. This phrase is how one describes a poker game. 7 people walk in, and walk out with the same total amount of money (note, the 7th guy is the 'house', and with nothing at risk, he gets his cut). No money is created, the total value doesn't change. When I buy or sell an option, there is someone on the other side of that trade with a gain or loss equal and opposite to my position. At option expiration, or a repurchase that closes an open contract, the whole series of trades resulted in no net gain of wealth. The huge losses were spread among the banks, the investors, the insurance companies, and the government. By government, I mean the taxpayer. You paid your share, my friend, as did I. Welcome to Money.SE. Get to 150 rep, and vote in the election.",
"qid": 10710,
"docid": "498056",
"rank": 95,
"score": 76571
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: No, something doesn't seem right here. There would be virtually no time value to the option 10 minutes before market close on the expiration day. What option is it, and what is the expiration? EDIT: It appears you were looking only at the ASK price. It was $2.05. However, the BID price was only $1.35 and the last transaction was $1.40. So the true value is right about $1.35 to $1.40 at this second. This is a pitfall that tends to occur when you trade options with almost no volume. For instance, the open interest in that option is only 1 contract (assuming that is yours). So the Bid and the Ask can often be very far apart as they are only being generated by computer traders or the result of outdated, irrelevant human orders.",
"qid": 10710,
"docid": "594948",
"rank": 96,
"score": 76245
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"As I stated in my comment, options are futures, but with the twist that you're allowed to say no to the agreed-on transaction; if the market offers you a better deal on whatever you had contracted to buy or sell, you have the option of simply letting it expire. Options therefore are the insurance policy of the free market. You negotiate a future price (actually you usually take what you can get if you're an individual investor; the institutional fund managers get to negotiate because they're moving billions around every day), then you pay the other guy up front for the right of refusal later. How much you pay depends on how likely the person giving you this option is to have to make good on it; if your position looks like a sure thing, an option's going to be very expensive (and if it's such a sure thing, you should just make your move on the spot market; it's thus useful to track futures prices to see where the various big players are predicting that your portfolio will move). A put option, which is an option for you to sell something at a future price, is a hedge against loss of value of your portfolio. You can take one out on any single item in your portfolio, or against a portion or even your entire portfolio. If the stock loses value such that the contract price is better than the market price as of the delivery date of the contract, you execute the option; otherwise, you let it expire. A call option, which is an option to buy something at a future price, is a hedge against rising costs. The rough analog is a \"\"pre-order\"\" in retail (but more like a \"\"holding fee\"\"). They're unusual in portfolio management but can be useful when moving money around in more complex ways. Basically, if you need to guarantee that you will not pay more than a certain per-share price to buy something in the future, you buy a call option. If the spot price as of the delivery date is less than the contract price, you buy from the market and ignore the contract, while if prices have soared, you exercise it and get the lower contract price. Stock options, offered as benefits in many companies, are a specific form of call option with very generous terms for whomever holds them. A swaption, basically a put and a call rolled into one, allows you to trade something for something else. Call it the free market's \"\"exchange policy\"\". For a price, if a security you currently hold loses value, you can exchange it for something else that you predicted would become more valuable at the same time. One example might be airline stocks and crude oil; when crude spikes, airline stocks generally suffer, and you can take advantage of this, if it happens, with a swaption to sell your airline stocks for crude oil certificates. There are many such closely-related inverse positions in the market, such as between various currencies, between stocks and commodities (gold is inversely related to pretty much everything else), and even straight-up cash-for-bad-debt arrangements (credit-default swaps, which we heard so much about in 2008).\"",
"qid": 10710,
"docid": "291600",
"rank": 97,
"score": 75432
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: http://www.marketwatch.com/optionscenter/calendar would note some options expiration this week that may be a clue as this would be the typical end of quarter stuff so I suspect it may happen each quarter. http://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/triplewitchinghour.asp would note in part: Triple witching occurs when the contracts for stock index futures, stock index options and stock options expire on the same day. Triple witching days happen four times a year on the third Friday of March, June, September and December. Triple witching days, particularly the final hour of trading preceding the closing bell, can result in escalated trading activity and volatility as traders close, roll out or offset their expiring positions. June 17 would be the 3rd Friday as the 3rd and 10th were the previous two in the month.",
"qid": 10710,
"docid": "224714",
"rank": 98,
"score": 74374
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The third Friday of each month is an expiration for the monthly options on each stock. Stock with standardized options are in one of three \"\"cycles\"\" and have four open months at any give time. See http://www.investopedia.com/terms/o/optioncycle.asp In addition some stocks have weekly options now. Those generally have less interest because they are necessarily short-term. Anything expiring on April 8 and 22 (Fridays this year but not third Fridays of the month) are weeklies. The monthly options are open for longer periods of time so they attract more interest over the time that they are open. They also potentially attract a different type of investor due to their length of term, although, as it gets close to their expiration date they may start to behave more like weeklies.\"",
"qid": 10710,
"docid": "364814",
"rank": 99,
"score": 74367
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you're into math, do this thought experiment: Consider the outcome X of a random walk process (a stock doesn't behave this way, but for understanding the question you asked, this is useful): On the first day, X=some integer X1. On each subsequent day, X goes up or down by 1 with probability 1/2. Let's think of buying a call option on X. A European option with a strike price of S that expires on day N, if held until that day and then exercised if profitable, would yield a value Y = min(X[N]-S, 0). This has an expected value E[Y] that you could actually calculate. (should be related to the binomial distribution, but my probability & statistics hat isn't working too well today) The market value V[k] of that option on day #k, where 1 < k < N, should be V[k] = E[Y]|X[k], which you can also actually calculate. On day #N, V[N] = Y. (the value is known) An American option, if held until day #k and then exercised if profitable, would yield a value Y[k] = min(X[k]-S, 0). For the moment, forget about selling the option on the market. (so, the choices are either exercise it on some day #k, or letting it expire) Let's say it's day k=N-1. If X[N-1] >= S+1 (in the money), then you have two choices: exercise today, or exercise tomorrow if profitable. The expected value is the same. (Both are equal to X[N-1]-S). So you might as well exercise it and make use of your money elsewhere. If X[N-1] <= S-1 (out of the money), the expected value is 0, whether you exercise today, when you know it's worthless, or if you wait until tomorrow, when the best case is if X[N-1]=S-1 and X[N] goes up to S, so the option is still worthless. But if X[N-1] = S (at the money), here's where it gets interesting. If you exercise today, it's worth 0. If wait until tomorrow, there's a 1/2 chance it's worth 0 (X[N]=S-1), and a 1/2 chance it's worth 1 (X[N]=S+1). Aha! So the expected value is 1/2. Therefore you should wait until tomorrow. Now let's say it's day k=N-2. Similar situation, but more choices: If X[N-2] >= S+2, you can either sell it today, in which case you know the value = X[N-2]-S, or you can wait until tomorrow, when the expected value is also X[N-2]-S. Again, you might as well exercise it now. If X[N-2] <= S-2, you know the option is worthless. If X[N-2] = S-1, it's worth 0 today, whereas if you wait until tomorrow, it's either worth an expected value of 1/2 if it goes up (X[N-1]=S), or 0 if it goes down, for a net expected value of 1/4, so you should wait. If X[N-2] = S, it's worth 0 today, whereas tomorrow it's either worth an expected value of 1 if it goes up, or 0 if it goes down -> net expected value of 1/2, so you should wait. If X[N-2] = S+1, it's worth 1 today, whereas tomorrow it's either worth an expected value of 2 if it goes up, or 1/2 if it goes down (X[N-1]=S) -> net expected value of 1.25, so you should wait. If it's day k=N-3, and X[N-3] >= S+3 then E[Y] = X[N-3]-S and you should exercise it now; or if X[N-3] <= S-3 then E[Y]=0. But if X[N-3] = S+2 then there's an expected value E[Y] of (3+1.25)/2 = 2.125 if you wait until tomorrow, vs. exercising it now with a value of 2; if X[N-3] = S+1 then E[Y] = (2+0.5)/2 = 1.25, vs. exercise value of 1; if X[N-3] = S then E[Y] = (1+0.5)/2 = 0.75 vs. exercise value of 0; if X[N-3] = S-1 then E[Y] = (0.5 + 0)/2 = 0.25, vs. exercise value of 0; if X[N-3] = S-2 then E[Y] = (0.25 + 0)/2 = 0.125, vs. exercise value of 0. (In all 5 cases, wait until tomorrow.) You can keep this up; the recursion formula is E[Y]|X[k]=S+d = {(E[Y]|X[k+1]=S+d+1)/2 + (E[Y]|X[k+1]=S+d-1) for N-k > d > -(N-k), when you should wait and see} or {0 for d <= -(N-k), when it doesn't matter and the option is worthless} or {d for d >= N-k, when you should exercise the option now}. The market value of the option on day #k should be the same as the expected value to someone who can either exercise it or wait. It should be possible to show that the expected value of an American option on X is greater than the expected value of a European option on X. The intuitive reason is that if the option is in the money by a large enough amount that it is not possible to be out of the money, the option should be exercised early (or sold), something a European option doesn't allow, whereas if it is nearly at the money, the option should be held, whereas if it is out of the money by a large enough amount that it is not possible to be in the money, the option is definitely worthless. As far as real securities go, they're not random walks (or at least, the probabilities are time-varying and more complex), but there should be analogous situations. And if there's ever a high probability a stock will go down, it's time to exercise/sell an in-the-money American option, whereas you can't do that with a European option. edit: ...what do you know: the computation I gave above for the random walk isn't too different conceptually from the Binomial options pricing model.",
"qid": 10710,
"docid": "590453",
"rank": 100,
"score": 74289
}
] |
How do you translate a per year salary into a part-time per hour job? | [
{
"content": "Title: Content: Rule of thumb: Double your hourly rate to get a yearly salary (in thousands). Halve your yearly salary to get your hourly rate. (assuming a 40hr/week job). eg: $50k/year = $25/hr.",
"qid": 10734,
"docid": "263481",
"rank": 1,
"score": 118832
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The fact that this is what’s being reported is horribly misleading. At the bottom of the same page of that report, there is data intended to show the difference between the pay rates in genders. This data accidently proves that individual incomes are still stagnant and that the reason for our increased household wages is that more people per household are working, and part timers are working longer hours. Following is how this conclusion is drawn: The section titled “Earnings of Full Time, Year-Round Workers,” can be used to find 2015’s average income per full time worker, and 2016’s average income per full time worker. The 2015 data shows that men made up 57.51% of the full time, year round working population (63,887/111,098) and earned $51,859.00. Women made up 42.49% of the full time, year round working population (47,211/111,098) and earned $41,257.00. This means that the average income for a full time, year round worker in 2015 was $47,353.69 (51,859 x .5751 + 41,257 x .4249). The 2016 data shows that men made up 57.34% of the full time, year round working population (64,953/113,281) and earned $51,640.00. Women made up 42.66% of the population (48,328/113,281) and earned $41,554.00. This means the average income for a full time, year round worker in 2016 was $47,337.11 (51,640 x .5734 + 41,554 x .4266). So while the news is reporting the increase in household income, the average income for a full time, year round worker actually fell by $16.58 in 2016.",
"qid": 10734,
"docid": "274722",
"rank": 2,
"score": 113103
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: There is no fixed formulae, its more of how much you can negotiate Vs how many others are willing to work at a lower cost. Typically in software industry the rates for part time work would be roughly in the range of 1.5 to 2 times that of the full time work for the same job. With the above premise roughly the company would be willing to pay $100,000 for 2000 hrs of Part time work(1), translating into around $50 per hour. How much you actually get would depend on if there is someone else who can work for less say at $30 at hour. (1) The company does not have 2000 hrs of work and hence its engaging part time worker instead of full time at lesser cost.",
"qid": 10734,
"docid": "225718",
"rank": 3,
"score": 110739
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: All things being equal, a $55,000/year job with 25% benefit load is about $68,750/year. That's a little more than $34/hr. Your rate really depends on the nature of the work. If it's strictly a part-time job where you are an employee, you're probably looking at a $28-38/hr range. If you're an independent contractor, the rate should be higher, as you're paying the taxes, doing other administrative stuff. How much higher depends on the industry... software/it rates are usually 1.5-2x, construction is driven by the union scale in many places, etc. Note that you need to meet criteria defined by the IRS to successfully maintain independent contractor status from a tax POV.",
"qid": 10734,
"docid": "470289",
"rank": 4,
"score": 106055
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You know what? I'd love it if I could work a part-time job, but make the same salary (scaled down to the number of hours, obviously). I spend entirely too much time away from the things I'd rather be doing (family, hobbies, relaxing) in my 40 hour hell-hole. I'd much rather take a reasonable cut and work less. Basically, I don't need to get rich, but if I can live off of a reduced salary *and* work fewer hours I'd be a very happy man. Now... working part time and not earning enough to survive- that's not acceptable at all. I'd be willing to bet the vast majority of part-time jobs are this way.",
"qid": 10734,
"docid": "120576",
"rank": 5,
"score": 103591
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Like I said in my original post, you could have two part time jobs paying at $15, restoring your hours, paying more. Again, the condition for this is the overall employment level (jobs availability). I say successful people, to show this is a widespread opinion verified by those who are successful, but being widespread it's believed by many people, including those getting min wage. It's a pretty simple concept, do you really think min wage people wouldn't get it?",
"qid": 10734,
"docid": "156705",
"rank": 6,
"score": 102462
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: To me it sounds like you need to come up with 67K (30+37), part of the time you can work in the current job, part of the time you could work a lower paying part time job (for a year). Lets assume that you can earn 15K for that year, and you can save 5K from your current job. (I'd try and save more, but what ever you can do.) 67 - 15 - 5 = 47 I'd sell the investment property. First you will have some funds to throw at this need, second you expense should go down as you don't have a payment on this property. 47 - 26 = 21 You have 32K in cash which is a lot for someone in your expense range. Six months would be 15K, so I would use some of that cash: 21 - 17 = 4 Now you are really close. If needed I'd use the investments to cover the last 4k or even more of the on hand cash. However, could you do something to reduce that amount further ...like working more.",
"qid": 10734,
"docid": "161010",
"rank": 7,
"score": 102425
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: What is the per capita increase that they are anticipating for full-time employees? This is not meant to be a political question, I'm just curious what the actual number is :P >The test entails increasing the number of workers on part-time status, meaning they work less than 30 hours a week. Under the new health care act, companies will be required to provide health care to full-time employees by 2014. That would significantly boost labor costs for businesses.",
"qid": 10734,
"docid": "93821",
"rank": 8,
"score": 100272
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"As an easy and rough rule of thumb, a job for $55,000 per year is $55 per hour as a contractor. That's roughly twice the hourly rate. In return, the company gets the rate to vary your hours or cease your employment with less financial, legal or managerial overhead than a full time employee. You have less stability, less benefits, perhaps need to put some time into finding another job sooner. Of course the ultimate, though less helpful, answer is \"\"whatever the market will bear.\"\"\"",
"qid": 10734,
"docid": "426278",
"rank": 9,
"score": 99433
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I was on a form of a retainer for a little over a year. My situation kind of sucked but there's ways in which it would be favourable. I was pretty green at the time and just agreed to what they wanted. I worked for them as an employee for over a year, but they didn't pay overtime so I asked to work part time for them instead. They bait and switched me to work contractor. I renegotiated pay to be higher to fit that. I was paid minimum 22.5 hours a week, on a monthly schedule, plus any extra hours I worked. In reality a retainer would pay in advance and you wouldn't have to actually be present for the minimum hours like I was. Still was better than being an employee. I worked as an \"\"application developer\"\". But this isn't an unheard of thing in the tech sector; former employees that built your systems to be contracted at a later date to provide their expertise at a higher rate because they are the most familiar with the system and/or have a track record of being very good at satisfying the business' specifications or needs.\"",
"qid": 10734,
"docid": "464821",
"rank": 10,
"score": 98844
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: It's difficult to quantify the intangible benefits, so I would recommend that you begin by quantifying the financials and then determine whether the difference between the pay of the two jobs justifies the value of the intangible benefits to you. Some Explainations You are making $55,000 per year, but your employer is also paying for a number of benefits that do not come free as a contractor. Begin by writing down everything they are providing you that you would like to continue to have. This may include: You also need to account for the FICA tax that you need to pay completely as a part time employee (normally a company pays half of it for you). This usually amounts to 7.8% of your income. Quantification Start by researching the cost for providing each item in the list above to yourself. For health insurance get quotes from providers. For bonuses average your yearly bonuses for your work history with the company. Items like stock options you need to make your best guess on. Calculations Now lets call your original salary S. Add up all of the costs of the list items mentioned above and call them B. This formula will tell you your real current annual compensation (RAC): Now you want to break your part time job into hours per year, not hours per month, as months have differing numbers of working days. Assuming no vacations that is 52 weeks per year multiplied by 20 hours, or 1040 hours (780 if working 15 hours per week). So to earn the same at the new job as the old you would need to earn an hourly wage of: The full equation for 20 hours per week works out to be: Assumptions DO NOT TAKE THIS SECTION AS REPRESENTATIVE OF YOUR SITUATION; ONLY A BALLPARK ESTIMATE You must do the math yourself. I recommend a little spreadsheet to simplify things and play what-if scenarios. However, we can ballpark your situation and show how the math works with a few assumptions. When I got quoted for health insurance for myself and my partner it was $700 per month, or $8400 per year. If we assume the same for you, then add 3% 401k matching that we'll assume you're taking advantage of ($1650), the equation becomes: Other Considerations Keep in mind that there are other considerations that could offset these calculations. Variable hours are a big risk, as is your status as a 'temporary' employee. Though on the flip side you don't need to pay taxes out of each check, allowing you to invest that money throughout the year until taxes are due. Also, if you are considered a private contractor you can write off many expenses that you cannot as a full time employee.",
"qid": 10734,
"docid": "62882",
"rank": 11,
"score": 97429
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The standard is actually 30 hours a week over a given period of time (3-12 months of the previous taxable year). The interesting problem for the prototypical employer who wants to offer benefits to as few employees as possible is ERISA Sec. 510. According to the above poster, companies want to avoid hiring full time positions. However, based on employer needs, only hiring part time workers will not be feasible for many businesses. Furthermore, if employers restrict hours for the purpose of denying access to benefits, they may be violating ERISA Sec. 510, which would lead to a major lawsuit for that business. As ERISA is an opt-in class action statute, as well as a generous attorney fee statute (it's easier for plaintiff's lawyers to make the defense pay their legal fees, see ERISA 502(g), CIGNA v. Amara), it would be unwise for employers to simply refuse to hire any more full time employees. Of course, companies will be looking to avoid \"\"overpaying\"\" for benefits in any way they can. But simplistic conclusions, such as vexu gave, that they will not hire full time workers fails to grasp both the complexity of PPACA and the consequences of a given employer's actions.\"",
"qid": 10734,
"docid": "216789",
"rank": 12,
"score": 97229
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: In addition to the other comments there are things like training costs. Lower paid employees tend to turn over more quickly so instead of training one employee for 4 weeks and staying for 3 years you spend 12 weeks over that same time period as the minimum wage employees each only stay for a year. Also, you aren't necessarily scheduling all three people at the same time, it might be 3 part time workers at $12 an hour covering one role vs. one full time $20 employee working 40 hours a week.",
"qid": 10734,
"docid": "286592",
"rank": 13,
"score": 97056
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I am a female that works for a photo studio in berlin. I work \"\"part time\"\" (as in, I started at four hours per day and now I can work up to 8 if there is enough work). I make 8 euro per hour (not a lot but I don't speak fluent German and I scan photos), I have health insurance, I have sick and vacation time (24 days). I am married to a German with a full time job so, of course, I have it better. However, if we didn't make enough money you can go and apply to get help from the government. My husband said they would give him at least 300euro per month. Trick is that since I am a US citizen and looking for a permanent visa in three years they check to make sure you haven't gotten any government aid. They don't want to support more people that can't or don't want to work. That being said my mother-in-law cannot work due to medical reasons and she lives very comfortably in a good apartment. Our last apartment was a studio/one room apartment and we paid 230 euro per month. Even making the money I do without my husband I could afford the basics. Even now we pay 57 euro for electricity. About 20 euro a month for our phones. 20 euro a month for internet. It is way less expensive than the USA. My mom pays about $90 per month (my aunt sometimes has $1,000 electricity bills). Water is another $30. Cellphone another $60, cable and internet another $120. I would say that living in the USA is far more expensive. Edit: to put it very simply. I used to make on my own in the USA about what my husband and I both make, combined, in Germany. In the USA I could barely make ends meet. I lived with my mom and sister. Paid as little rent as I could, barely had enough for food. I had a good job! I was lucky to have health insurance but it was still really expensive to go to the doctor. Here, in berlin, we have a large apartment in a nice neighborhood. With paying rent and all of our must haves every month we have over 500 euro left. That is pretty good. In the USA I was lucky if I had $20 by the end of the pay period.\"",
"qid": 10734,
"docid": "119468",
"rank": 14,
"score": 96749
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The cost of paying tax should be considered an additional financial expense, and the administrative burden of filing those taxes should be considered an additional labour 'expense'. Simplified, your question is asking how to determine whether these additional expenses are 'worth' it. There are many ways to calculate what your time is 'worth'. Consider two situations where you may consider picking up additional part time work at minimum wage: 1) If you are working 80 hours a week at a stressful but high-paying job, working another 5 hours a week at minimum wage would likely not be worth your time [both because you already make 'a lot' of money, and also because your time is limited and therefore precious]. 2) If you are working 20 hours a week at minimum wage, then another 5 hours a week at the same job would likely be worth your time [both because it would increase your income by 25%, and also because it would not put a heavy strain on your light schedule]. These two extreme examples highlight the inferred principle that I think generally applies to weigh such decisions: Competes with: In your specific example, the actual 'work' component will happen regardless of the money aspect. That is, your wife will be providing these services regardless. So your question is essentially \"\"would it be worth it for my wife to make $5k, given that she would pay tax on that money and would bear the burden of administrating the tax filings etc.?\"\" We can't answer this directly, because it relates to what your wife values. If doing this would make the activity (which is otherwise just a hobby) an unwanted chore, then it may not be worth the post-tax income. If doing this would not impact her enjoyment of the teaching, but would add on an unwanted ~1 hour / week of paperwork, is it worth spending 50 hours over the course of the year, to earn $5k? I assume the answer then would be \"\"yes\"\".\"",
"qid": 10734,
"docid": "587611",
"rank": 15,
"score": 96556
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Salary pay does not compute to hourly wages. As a salary employee you aren't being paid for hours worked, you are being paid for a week of work. Sometimes that requires more time other times less. You could just as well divide your salary by the amount of overtime you work and each week you work 40 hours say that you are being over paid or paid for time not worked.",
"qid": 10734,
"docid": "582308",
"rank": 16,
"score": 96078
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Sacrifices the union made to keep a health plan for PART TIME EMPLOYEES. This author is a self righteous fucking blowhard. Try working for minimum wage, 40 hours a week with no benefits like millions of others you prick.",
"qid": 10734,
"docid": "583176",
"rank": 17,
"score": 95685
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I would like to add my accolades in saving $3000, it is an accomplishment that the majority of US households are unable to achieve. source While it is something, in some ways it is hardly anything. Working part time at a entry level job will earn you almost three times this amount per year, and with the same job you can earn about as much in two weeks as this investment is likely to earn, in the market in one year. All this leads to one thing: At your age you should be looking to increase your income. No matter if it is college or a high paying trade, whatever you can do to increase your life time earning potential would be the best investment for this money. I would advocate a more patient approach. Stick the money in the bank until you complete your education enough for an \"\"adult job\"\". Use it, if needed, for training to get that adult job. Get a car, a place of your own, and a sufficient enough wardrobe. Save an emergency fund. Then invest with impunity. Imagine two versions of yourself. One with basic education, a average to below average salary, that uses this money to invest in the stock market. Eventually that money will be needed and it will probably be pulled out of the market at an in opportune time. It might worth less than the original 3K! Now imagine a second version of yourself that has an above average salary due to some good education or training. Perhaps that 3K was used to help provide that education. However, this second version will probably earn 25,000 to 75,000 per year then the first version. Which one do you want to be? Which one do you think will be wealthier? Better educated people not only earn more, they are out of work less. You may want to look at this chart.\"",
"qid": 10734,
"docid": "138102",
"rank": 18,
"score": 94725
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Take $100,000 base salary, x 1.5 = $150,000 contractor salary, divide by 1,872 hours = $80/hr",
"qid": 10734,
"docid": "486828",
"rank": 19,
"score": 94384
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Considering that they are paying non-waitstaff 2.13/hr is a pretty good indication that they are looking at the (short term) bottom line, employee satisfaction (and service) be-damned. While pushing people to part-time status might not have been 'in the parking lot', I'd be willing to bet that cutting costs in any legal manner possible is probably right in the decision maker's wheelhouse. This approach can make a lot of sense...if you aren't in the service industry.",
"qid": 10734,
"docid": "474007",
"rank": 20,
"score": 94127
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: One way to determine compensation is as a percentage per actual hour billed (and paid by client). Very common place to start is 33% for company overhead/administration (insurance, taxes, office expense, etc), 33% for sales commission/costs (roughly half as direct sales commission, half for marketing), 33% as gross 1099 pay compensation to the employee.",
"qid": 10734,
"docid": "9748",
"rank": 21,
"score": 92519
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"If you're really a part-time worker, then there are some simple considerations.... The remote working environment, choice of own hours, and non-guarantee of work availability point to your \"\"part-time\"\" situation being more like a consultancy, and that would normally double or triple the gross hourly rate. But if they're already offering or paying you a low hourly figure, they are unlikely to give you consultant rates.\"",
"qid": 10734,
"docid": "589970",
"rank": 22,
"score": 92164
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: 2,000 hours or 2,500 hours at time-and-a-half Yikes! OK, so let's say you work a full 40 hours a week, 50 weeks a year (2 weeks vacation.) That's 2000 hours right there. If you're pulling in 2000 hours of OT that means you're working 80 hours a week, 16 hour days. I make $27.88/hour on my current gig, OT would be 41.82 * 2000 hours would be $83,653 on top of the $58K I already make. $141K per year. In order to hit $221,000 their wage must be $43.51/hour with an annual income of 90,500.8 for 40 hours a week and then $130,530 for working the additional 40 hours a week.",
"qid": 10734,
"docid": "543584",
"rank": 23,
"score": 90855
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: An education. A new car. Houses are made bigger so that's not really fair. An article on here previously mentioned someone paying for a dependable car and a small apartment, along with school tuition working part time as a dishwasher. Tuition at my closest state school (in state cost) is just under $9k per year. If you could only work 20 hours per week, amortized the school loan, payed $250 a month for an apartment with a roommate, $100 a month for utilities, $150 a month for groceries (all very difficult to achive and be healthy), you would have to make $15.35 an hour after taxes to do it without debt. This is assuming you don't have a car.",
"qid": 10734,
"docid": "492186",
"rank": 24,
"score": 90749
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The answer depends on this: If you had to hire someone to do what you are doing in the S-corp, what would you pay them? If you are doing semi-unskilled work part-time, then $20k might be reasonable. If you are a professional working full time, it's too low. Don't forget that, in addition to \"\"billable\"\" work, you are also doing office tasks, such as invoicing and bookkeeping, that the IRS will also want to see you getting paid for. There was an important court ruling on this subject recently: Watson v. Commissioner. Watson owned an S-Corp where he was the sole employee. The S-Corp itself was a 25% owner in a very successful accounting firm that Watson worked through. All of the revenue that Watson generated at the accounting firm was paid to the S-Corp, which then paid Watson through salary and distributions. Watson was paying himself $24k a year in salary and taking over $175k a year in distributions. For comparison, even first-year accountants at the firm were making more than $24k a year in salary. The IRS determined that this salary amount was too low. To determine an appropriate amount for Watson's salary, the IRS did a study of the salaries of peers in firms of the same size as the firm Watson was working with, taking into account that owners of firms earn a higher salary than non-owners. The number that the IRS arrived at was $93k. Watson was allowed to take the rest ($80k+ each year) as distributions. Again, this number was based on a study of the salaries of peers. It was far short of the $200k+ that the S-Corp was pulling in from the accounting firm. Clearly, Watson was paying himself far too low of a salary. But even at this extreme example, where Watson's S-Corp was directly getting all of its revenue from one accounting firm in which Watson was an owner, the IRS still did not conclude that all of the revenue should have been salary and subject to payroll taxes. You should ask an accountant or attorney for advice. They can help you determine an appropriate amount for your salary. Don't be afraid of an audit, but make sure that you can defend your choices if you do get audited. If your choices are based on professional advice, that will help your case. See these articles for more information:\"",
"qid": 10734,
"docid": "556220",
"rank": 25,
"score": 90350
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you are a temp-to-hire, or you are asked to setup a company then you are not an employee. They expect you to fund everything from your hourly rate. This includes pay, insurance, taxes, social security, sick, vacation, holidays... The rule of thumb for an established company is 1.75 to 2.25 times the salary rate is the rate they need to charge a customer. For example: employee get paid checks for $25/hour x 80 hours x 26 times a year.: 2080 hours or $52,000 per year. Company can only bill customers for 1800 to 1900 hours of labor. They need to bill at 2 times the salary rate or $50 per hour. They will collect $90,000 (1800*50). The numbers have to be run by the particular company based on their actual costs for benefits, overhead and profits. If they were giving you $25 an hour as a contractor. They expect you to be making $12.50 an hour as an employee.",
"qid": 10734,
"docid": "517201",
"rank": 26,
"score": 90238
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Years ago I hired someone part time (not virtual however) to help me with all sorts of things. Yes it helps free up some time. However particularly with finances, it does take a leap of faith. If you have high value accounts that this person will be dealing with you can always get them bonded. Getting an individual with a clean credit history and no criminal background bonded usually costs < $600 a year (depending on $ risk exposure). I would start out small with tasks that do not directly put that person in control of your money. In my case I didn't have an official business, I worked a normal 9-5 job, but I owned several rental units, and an interest in a bar. My assistant also had a normal 9-5 job and worked 5-10 hours a week for me on various things. Small stuff at first like managing my calendar, reminding me when bills were due, shipping packages, even calling to set up a hair cut. At some point she moved to contacting tenants, meeting with contractors, showing apartments, etc... I paid her a fixed about each week plus expenses. I would pay her extra if I needed her more (say showing an apartment on a Saturday, or meeting a plumber). She would handled all sorts of stuff for me, and I gave her the flexibility when needed to fit things in with her schedule. After about a month I did get her a credit card for expenses. Obviously a virtual assistant would not be able to do some of these things but I think you get the point. Eventually when the trust had been built up I put her on most of my accounts and gave her some fiduciary responsibilities as well. I'm not sure that this level of trust would be possible to get to with a virtual assistant. However, with a virtual assistant you might be able to avoid one really big danger of hiring an assistant.... You see, several years later when I sold off my apartment buildings I no longer needed an assistant, so I married her. Now one good thing about that is I don't have to pay her now. ;)",
"qid": 10734,
"docid": "115055",
"rank": 27,
"score": 89662
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: > There were a lot of companies that cut full time jobs in favor of part time. 1) No, [employers didn't cut back full-time employees although some did cut hours of part-time employees to get them under 30 hours](https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/yes-some-companies-are-cutting-hours-in-response-to-obamacare/). 2) My objection is not about part-time but that the ACA would not somehow make your company drop insurance. Your company dropped it's plan because it chose to.",
"qid": 10734,
"docid": "152169",
"rank": 28,
"score": 88773
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Average hours worked actually increased that month. This is a better measure of job quality that simply the portion of jobs that are full or part time. It means that most of the full time jobs lost that month were low hour full time jobs and/or most of the part time jobs that were gained that month were high hour part time jobs. Cynics can always cherry pick, but if you look at the more meaningful numbers the economy is still slowly improving.",
"qid": 10734,
"docid": "497374",
"rank": 29,
"score": 87960
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: $125 bucks says that if the legislation were worded that way, these employers would switch their pay structure from hourly to salary, and then make everyone work 50-60 hours a week. Probably even fire a few people since they could make one worker do one and half times the work for free now. :/",
"qid": 10734,
"docid": "414694",
"rank": 30,
"score": 87817
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Where did you get the impression that it is a $70k per year job? Not even the apple picker is going to pick apples all year long. The seasonal nature of the work means that you'll put in time during certain times of year, but often you won't be needed at all. We're talking hourly pay here because it is an hourly, not a yearly, job. If you bring some skills to the table, I know some farms that would jump at the chance to pay you $70k per year. But most people don't have those skills and those that do can make even more elsewhere. Source: The real world. I don't know how to link to that. Sorry.",
"qid": 10734,
"docid": "306816",
"rank": 31,
"score": 86258
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Math time. 24 means 2 years out of college, or 6 years out of highschool, the latter being much more plausible given the poster's content quality. $100k / 6 = $16.7k/year 16.7k / 52 weeks = $321/week $321 / (11/hr * (1 - 15% taxes)) = 34 hours per week. So he worked 34 hours per week, without fail, for 6 years, with NO expenses of any kind whatsoever. OR, much more likely, he managed to save only $10k, not $100k in 6 years.",
"qid": 10734,
"docid": "406314",
"rank": 32,
"score": 85748
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I think that is the wrong approach. You certainly need to teach the value of work, but you cannot tie it to income levels as a hard and fast rule. If you do, how do you then explain athletes making millions per year and only 'working' half a year, at most. And, then comparing that person to a person working hard in a factory, 40-50 hours per week, 50 weeks per year, bringing home $50K per year? I've always taught my kids to work hard and with integrity. And, most importantly, you better enjoy the work you do because no matter how much money you make, if you dread getting up in the morning to go to work, your money won't make you happy. I've never focused on the amount of money they should be making.",
"qid": 10734,
"docid": "207354",
"rank": 33,
"score": 85520
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"This is a poor argument. If I could make $500 an hour but could only work 1 hour per week, I'd be broke and still \"\"more successful\"\" given your example. Salary divided by hours worked (or even effort for that matter) ignores economies of scale. Just because you're efficient on a per unit basis doesn't mean you have the same potential as someone else that can \"\"sell\"\" more units than you.\"",
"qid": 10734,
"docid": "394649",
"rank": 34,
"score": 85260
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: This sounds like it makes no difference if you behave in the same manner (i.e. take the same vacation time). For example, say you work 1 hour and take 1 hour of vacation and the current hourly rate is $1/hour. You would make $2. Using your formula, new rate = 1* (1+1)/1 = 1*2 = $2. So they would pay you $2 for the hour you worked and then you would take the 1 hour of vacation with no pay. If you plan on taking LESS vacation than used in the formula, you make more money. If you plan on taking MORE vacation, you make less money.",
"qid": 10734,
"docid": "563627",
"rank": 35,
"score": 85116
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Revisiting the topic one month later.... If we look at [Table A-8](http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t08.htm) again, \"\"Part time for noneconomic reasons\"\" declined by 218K, going from 19,880K to 19,662K. \"\"Part time for economic reasons\"\" has a slight decline of 33K, going from 7,544K to 7,511K. So that's a drop of 251K in part-time employment for July. Probably just noise.\"",
"qid": 10734,
"docid": "430138",
"rank": 36,
"score": 84871
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: They are already indirectly paying these expenses. They should be built into your rates. The amount per job or per hour needs to cover what would have been your salary, plus the what would have been sick, vacation, holidays, health insurance, life insurance, disability, education, overhead for office expenses, cost of accountants...and all taxes. In many companies the general rule of thumb is that they need to charge a customer 2x the employees salary to cover all this plus make a profit. If this is a side job some of these benefits will come from your main job. Some self employed get some of these benefits from their spouse. The company has said we give you money for the work you perform, but you need to cover everything else including paying all taxes. Depending on where you live you might have to send money in more often then once a year. They are also telling you that they will be reporting the money they give you to the government so they can claim it as a business expense. So you better make sure you report it as income.",
"qid": 10734,
"docid": "175889",
"rank": 37,
"score": 84833
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Very true. I work in corporate finance and the hours are typically 9-6, but when we have our annual operating plan or some sort of deliverable we'll stay past 8. But here, because analysts get overtime (time and a half) we rarely work past 10 (anything past 12 hours in double time!) The work life balance is quite fantastic! However, the pay is not what it would be if you chose banking or consulting (it's comparable $60k but no bonuses).",
"qid": 10734,
"docid": "250944",
"rank": 38,
"score": 84599
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Teachers make great money, get even better benefits, and work a part time job. In Dallas, they start at over 50k, get a benefits package including early retirement that is impossible to get in the private sector, and only work 180 days a year.",
"qid": 10734,
"docid": "440388",
"rank": 39,
"score": 84537
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"We cannot know if you owe them anything. But at the least I would expect that they don't just say \"\"you owe us\"\" but \"\"we found out that we were supposed to pay you $X, but we paid you $Y which is more\"\", and then we can go from there. There are things like \"\"we should have paid you $12.20 per hour for the last year, but we paid you $12.50 per hour\"\", where you can tell them that by paying you that rate, you assumed it was correct one, you wouldn't have worked for less, so they effectively gave you a raise. On the other hand, if they say \"\"you worked here for 38 hours a week, but we paid you for 40 hours a week\"\", and you did indeed work only 38 hours, then most likely they are correct.\"",
"qid": 10734,
"docid": "157239",
"rank": 40,
"score": 84520
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: From your comment: My salary through 7/31 could pass for an annual salary for the industry. I suppose that’s relevant? That information would certainly be relevant if you were the owner since the beginning of the year. If that were the case then I would say you'd be fine skipping the salary for the rest of the year. It would be equivalent to simply front-loading your salary. However, since you didn't own any part of the company during the time you received the salary, I believe you should think of that salary as if it came from an entirely different company. This means that during the 5 months you owned the company you will have taken $0 in salary, and I believe that would not be reasonable if this job is your main source of income. As a side note, regarding this statement you made: During this time, I'd like to avoid the employer half of FICA taxes incurred by paying myself through payroll. You'd actually be avoiding both the employer and employee portion of FICA, since both sides of FICA are paid for employee compensation. FICA is not paid by either side on company profits.",
"qid": 10734,
"docid": "127347",
"rank": 41,
"score": 84515
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Why would you just look at salary and not total comp for a first year? It's pretty misleading to say \"\"$60k to work 100 hours a week\"\" when you do in fact get paid well above that. Also, in my 2 years of consulting, I've never come anywhere close to 100 hour work weeks. It usually fluctuates between 45-60 hours. Not to mention Fridays are usually pretty casual/relaxed days since you're working from home or in your home office doing random firm activities/networking.\"",
"qid": 10734,
"docid": "329496",
"rank": 42,
"score": 84351
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Biweekly pay for salaried employees is typically calculated as Annual-salary / 26. Twice a month pay for salaried employees is typically calculated as Annual-salary / 24. If you were getting paid twice a month and now are getting paid every other week, your paycheck will be roughly ( Twice-a-month-paycheck-amount * 24 / 26 ). If you were paid $1000 twice a month, you'll be paid $923 every other week. $1000 * 24 = $24K and $923 * 26 = $24K. You will get paid every other week regardless of month boundaries on a biweekly pay cycle.",
"qid": 10734,
"docid": "70357",
"rank": 43,
"score": 84223
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Luck doesn't exist, any more than God or faeries. A full time class load at my university was 7-10 credit hours per semester. I averaged 25 credit hours and finished a 4 year program in 2. All while working 40+ hours a week at four part time jobs. My days began at 5:00 a.m. and ended well after 10:00 p.m., six days a week. I wouldn't have got the interview without *networking*, which for me involved joining a service club and serving as communications officer for a local professional association related to my industry. The president of the service club ended up being the stock broker of my future boss. The president of the professional association was in touch with the industry and was able to give me a lead on an internship weeks before it opened. Neither reference would have done me a damn bit of good if I hadn't *proven* to them that I was an outstanding candidate, something that's become obvious to me as I am now in the position to provide people with references myself. That's not luck, my intention at joining both organizations was to network and it's exactly what I did. If you're looking for a job and you aren't networking you're doing it wrong. EDIT: Oh man the butthurt on this thread is *sooooo* strong. **EDIT: SCUMBAG REDDIT. HATES RELIGION ALL DAY EVERY DAY, STILL BELIEVES IN LUCK**",
"qid": 10734,
"docid": "508666",
"rank": 44,
"score": 84097
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Yeah that's what I'm looking for. The problem, I run my business at a loss, I do it out of love for the topic. Trying to get someone to work full time at 10$/hr and be competent is difficult. Like you said, I'm giving many of these duties to part time contractors.",
"qid": 10734,
"docid": "303239",
"rank": 45,
"score": 83894
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If the 6 credits per semester working part time schedule includes no loans, consider this. Yes, it may take you twice as long to finish, BUT, you'll have a lot of working experience, AND zero student loans when you're done. Compare this to someone who graduates in four years and has 20k in student loans. If they set up a 20 year repayment for the loans, they'll still have 16-18k left to pay and 4 years of job experience. You'll have 8 years of half time job experience and zero debt. The key would be to find a job in your area of interest. More ideal would be one that pays for classes as a benefit. Then you might increase your class load and decrease the total time to graduate, AND have relevant job experience when you graduate.",
"qid": 10734,
"docid": "462609",
"rank": 46,
"score": 83823
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Because those are supplementary jobs not careers. Those are jobs that high school kids and the retired can pick up part time. People that are working full time can teach themselves value adding skills like coding for free from a public library. Especially if they're only working 40 hours a week, they have plenty of extra time. I've worked 90 hour weeks for years and still taught myself useful skills in my free time. If these people aren't willing to improve their skill set while working a supplementary job then they will be left able to afford an ok life for 1 person. They should not have a family.",
"qid": 10734,
"docid": "536431",
"rank": 47,
"score": 83498
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The unstated bit of info is that most minimum wage workers who want to work full time aren't able to. The employers prefer part-timers who get fewer benefits, and whose shifts can be altered at the last minute to match up to real or forecasted demand. If you are a retail clerk or fast food worker, you generally can't get a full time job and with the constantly shifting hours you find it a challenge to get a second part time job because you can't tell the hiring manager in advance when you'll be available to work.",
"qid": 10734,
"docid": "545434",
"rank": 48,
"score": 83301
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: ...Hmm..Very fair point...I mean, this is theoretically what the earlier stated rule is for, but in this case, it probably wouldn't work...Maybe some sort of blanket exception for small/starting businesses, as certain places that have $15 minimum wages already have? Also, I should note that a teenager would probably be exempt from any such law in the first place, as they're already getting support from their parents and, thusly, already have a livable wage, as it were. This is why I mentioned that part earlier regarding part-time jobs, since people working such jobs already generally have another resource for basic needs. I should note I'm about to go to bed, because it's midnight where I live. That said, this has actually been a very enlightening discussion. You've given me a lot to think about. I'll do some further research and, if you'd like to continue this discussion in roughly eight hours, that'd be just fine.",
"qid": 10734,
"docid": "387205",
"rank": 49,
"score": 82714
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Health insurance varies wildly per state and per plan and per provider - but check them out to have a baseline to know what it should cost if you did it yourself. Don't forget vacation time, too: many contract/comp-only jobs have no vacation time - how much is that 10 or 15 days a year worth to you? It effectively means you're getting paid for 2080 hours, but working 2000 (with the 2 week number). Is the comp-only offer allowing overtime, and will they approve it? Is the benefits-included job salaried? If it's truly likely you'll be working more than a normal 40 hour week on a routine basis (see if you can talk to other folks that work there), an offer that will pay overtime is likely going to be better than one that wouldn't .. but perhaps not in your setting if it also loses the PTO.",
"qid": 10734,
"docid": "373949",
"rank": 50,
"score": 81450
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"This is stupid. Employers don't pay overtime — they make you go home. But you need money to support your family. So you take another job. Now, instead of working 50-70 hours a week at one job, your working up to 40 at one and then 10-30 elsewhere. Add in the commute, changing uniforms, schedule conflicts, and it's an even worse hell than \"\"slaving away\"\" at your main job/career for over 40 hours. It discourages hard work, investing your time into learning your job and getting promoted faster, and decreases your base pay rate in case the employer has to pay for your time and a half in some situations. You can't legislate away the major economic problems our society faces in this way.\"",
"qid": 10734,
"docid": "563238",
"rank": 51,
"score": 81324
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \">They compensate me fairly for doing work that I mostly enjoy. I cant relate to your sentiment. I work for an intercontinental grocery company, as a Janitor and Stocker for one of their local stores in the US. I work swing shift for minimum wage as a Part Time employee. No benefits. Meanwhile, I sometimes work 15 hour shifts (anything over 12 is illegal for part timers, iirc). I have worked every hour of the 24 hour clock inside the span of three days, and still not seen a day off for another week, while still not earning overtime for that week. I've gotten 8 hours some weeks, and 39.8 hours other weeks, without any predictability. I cannot even fully trust the work schedule they publish on Thursday for the following week beginning that coming Sunday. With as little as three days notice with the posted schedule, I am on call to work, or have my shift cancelled, even after I am clocked in for that shift. In the end, I am on call 24/7. And I'm even expected to actively \"\"represent the company\"\" while off the clock, as free advertising. No, not simply the \"\"don't do anything that would reflect poorly on your employer,\"\" but to actively (without any structured guidance, because that would turn it into labor, and necessitate pay) talk with neighbors and strangers about our low low prices. If we don't spend our own free time to study the ads and specials, we recieve a public shaming among our peers. There is not a single thing that I enjoy about my job. Some of the other people working there aren't half bad. But the best ones usually walk out or get fired for wanting little things like \"\"respect\"\". I actually went to college. I have job skills. I almost didn't get hired because of this - but you know, I convinced them I was desperate to have *something* getting me by. A few former college classmates who also work/ed there vouched for me on that. I've charted how the quantity of most products going off of special that our computers order actually assumes the same number of sales as when it was *on special!* I was in the process of deriving a better algorithm for this... and I enjoy *that* work. But after I pointed this problem out to my manager, I was laughed at. We literally throw away entire dumpsters full of product every month because it passes the expiration date, and management groans and complains about this. Yet my observation of how this happens was laughed at and shrugged off. And just the icing on this cake: I still haven't gotten that second work shirt that I was promised after 90 days. I've been there for 8 months. Those long hours on back to back to back days don't always give me the opportunity to do laundry. Then they complain when I reek at work, sweating as I rush the 20+ pound boxes of cat litter onto the shelves. Fuck 'em. Fuck 'em hard, fuck 'em long, and fuck 'em with something hard, sandpapery, and with splinters. Gimme a few more months to demonstrate that I can hold a job, and I'm going to get a job at... Fuck, everywhere else around here is just like this, and I don't know the people or have a portfolio of works in fields where I could actually use my Math degree.\"",
"qid": 10734,
"docid": "87482",
"rank": 52,
"score": 81048
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: This is going to seem pretty far off the beaten path, but I hope when you finish reading it you'll see the point... Suppose someone offered you a part time job: Walk their dog once per day for at least 20 minutes, and once per week pick up the dog poo from their lawn. Your compensation is $300/month. Now suppose instead you are given two choices for a job: Your preference probably has more to do with your personality and interests than the finances involved.",
"qid": 10734,
"docid": "394768",
"rank": 53,
"score": 80209
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"You would add your daily earnings every day. For example, you work full time job (8 hours a day) at $20/hour. At the end of the 1st day of the month, you'd add $160 to your salary account. You've earned it, even though its still almost a month till you actually get paid. So its accrued. What if you don't get paid? You've accrued it already, its on your books, but not in your wallet. You might have paid taxes on it, etc. But you don't really have it. This is what is called \"\"bad debt\"\", and eventually, after you can show that the payee is not going to pay, you write it off - remove it from your books (and adjust your taxes etc that you paid on that income already). Generally, it is a very bad idea to use accrual method of accounting for an individual or a small business. For large volume business using accrual mode solves other accounting and revenue recognition problems.\"",
"qid": 10734,
"docid": "209107",
"rank": 54,
"score": 80182
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Your own fault for taking out loans to get a degree in philosophy. If you have an automobile I would say get a job as a delivery driver, Pretty solid way to earn at least 15 bucks an hour. but regardless find a part time job and save scrupilously. Look at what you spend your money on and see where you can chop out expenses. Also look to see how you can find cheaper food. This is a great website to learn how to live on peanuts earlyretirementextreme.com",
"qid": 10734,
"docid": "317027",
"rank": 55,
"score": 80105
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Could someone please explain to me how interest rates work? I like to think of interest rates as the price of money. It is specified as a percentage paid per unit of time (for example, 3%/year). To figure out how much interest money you get (or have to pay) for a given amount and time, multiply the amount with the interest rate and then divide by the time divided by the interest rate's specified time. That sounds awfully complicated, so let's look at a simple example instead. You deposit $1,000 at a fixed interest rate of 2% per year, for two and a half years, where the interest is paid at the end of the term. This means that you earn $1,000 * 2% = $20 per year in interest. Multiply this by [2.5 years] / [year] = 2.5, and you will have received $20 * 2.5 = $50 in interest over 2.5 years. If the interest is paid yearly, this gets slightly more complicated, but the principle is the same. Now imagine that you deposit $5,000 at a fixed 3% per year, for half a year. Again, the interest is paid at the end of the term. You now earn $5,000 * 3% [per year] * [[0.5 years] / [year]] = $75 in interest over six months. Variable interest rates makes this a little more complicated, but it is exactly the same thing in principle: calculate the interest paid for each period (taking any compounding into account), then add up all periods to get the total amount of interest paid over time. It also works the same way if you take out a loan rather than depositing money. Tax effects (capitals gains taxes or interest expense deductions) may make the actual amount paid or received different, but that does not change the fundamental aspect of how to calculate interest. Do CD's make more money with higher interest rates, or is it the other way around? Usually fixed interest rate instruments such as certificates of deposit, or loans with fixed rates, pay a higher interest rate for longer terms. This is because it is harder to judge credit risk in a longer term, so whoever gives the loan usually wants a premium for the additional risk. So a 6-month CD will normally pay a smaller percentage interest per year than a five-year CD. Note that this is not always the case; the technical term for when this does not hold is inverted yield curve. Interest rates are almost always formally specified in terms of percent per year, which makes it easy to compare rates. If you buy a $100 6-month CD paying 1% (I told you these were only examples :)) and then reinvest the money at the end of the term in another 6-month CD also paying 1%, the total amount paid will be ($100 * 1 + (1% * 6/12)) = $100.50 for the first term, then ($100.50 * 1 + (1% * 6/12)) = $101.0025 at the end of the second term. As you can see, the compounding of the interest makes this return slightly more than a single $100 12-month CD ($100 * 1 + 1% = $101), but unless you are dealing with large amounts of money, the difference is small enough to be negligible. If you were to put $100 in a 2% one-year CD, you'd get back $102 at the end of the year. Put the same amount in a 5% one-year CD, and you get back $105. So yes, higher interest rates means more interest money paid, for loans as well as deposits. Keep in mind that loans and deposits really are essentially the same thing, and interest calculations work the same way for both. The interest rate of a normal certificate of deposit does not change if the variable interest rates change, but rather is locked in when the money is deposited (or the CD is bought, whichever way you prefer to look at it).",
"qid": 10734,
"docid": "426559",
"rank": 56,
"score": 79940
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: It will take a bit of sacrifice. First, I'd review spending. Between you and all your family, try to separate the 'needs' from the 'wants' and cut out 75% of the 'wants.' Second, there's almost always part time work that can help raise extra money. Even if it's a small fraction of your current hourly pay, every bit you and your family can throw at that 30% debt will help get rid of it and help you get to the point when you can refinance the mortgage.",
"qid": 10734,
"docid": "35922",
"rank": 57,
"score": 79593
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: In general What does this mean? Assume 10 holidays and 2 weeks of vacation. So you will report to the office for 240 days (48 weeks * 5 days a week). If you are a w2 they will pay you for 260 days (52 weeks * 5 days a week). At $48 per hour you will be paid: 260*8*48 or $99,840. As a 1099 you will be paid 240*8*50 or 96,000. But you still have to cover insurance, the extra part of social security, and your retirement through an IRA. A rule of thumb I have seen with government contracting is that If the employee thinks that they make X,000 per year the company has to bill X/hour to pay for wages, benefits, overhead and profit. If the employee thinks they make x/hour the company has to bill at 2X/hour. When does a small spread make sense: The insurance is covered by another source, your spouse; or government/military retirement program. Still $2 per hour won't cover the 6.2% for social security. Let alone the other benefits. The IRS has a checklist to make sure that a 1099 is really a 1099, not just a way for the employer to shift the costs onto the individual.",
"qid": 10734,
"docid": "58937",
"rank": 58,
"score": 79496
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: >Salary divided by hours worked (or even effort for that matter) ignores economies of scale. No, not at all. Let's go back to Economics101. When more units of a good or a service can be produced on a larger scale, yet with (on average) less variable input costs, economies of scale are said to be achieved. The good produced in our comparison is salary. The variable input costs are hours worked. The fixed costs are an annual time period, ie, it takes them both one year to produce their annual salary output regardless. We have two guys, one is making 100k annually working 5 hours a week. The other makes 500k working 80 hours per week. They both have a the same fixed costs of time period of a year. If we plot them both on a graph, you're correct, the 500k salary output is a larger output, but at much greater variable costs. Efficiency is lost by the guy working 80 hour weeks. The guy getting 100k for 5 hour weeks is optimizing his variable costs much more effectively. Sure, he could make more, but would suffer diminishing returns on his output. Dude above claims that you're not successful unless you make 500k. I was just illustrating that success can be defined outside of straight compensation.",
"qid": 10734,
"docid": "355720",
"rank": 59,
"score": 79157
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Look for jobs you can do PRN - pro re nada or \"\"as the need arises.\"\" Basically very part-time work, where you are free to decide whether or not you want to work given shift offered. It's pretty common in medicine and in education. If you want to work a whole week, you probably can! If you don't, they just call the next person on the list. Obviously you'll need some extra education, but I'm assuming that isn't a problem. Beyond that, as far as 'leisure' pursuits - try to write a book! Fiction, nonfiction, doesn't matter. You'll suck at that for long enough to take up a few years of your life :). You could get a pilot's license - also pretty time intensive, and could lead to some interesting part-time gigs as a charter pilot down the line. General kind of tour guide/leisure activity instructor work seems to be very rewarding. I'm active in my local motorcycling community, and I've never met an instructor who didn't love his job. MSF instructor is a 12 hour per week gig. Good luck!\"",
"qid": 10734,
"docid": "220794",
"rank": 60,
"score": 78934
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Try reading about budgeting. Make a list of all income coming in and all expenses going out. Eliminate any unnecessary expenses and try to increase income, which could include a part-time second job. Try to always put a portion of the income away as savings - try 10%, but if this is too hard to start with try saving at least 5% of the income.",
"qid": 10734,
"docid": "426906",
"rank": 61,
"score": 78808
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Think of it like professional athlete salaries. For every 10,000 people with talent and drive there is one that makes it into the NFL with a multi-million dollar salary. Likewise there are thousands of people with banking related degrees working 80-100 hours a week for shit wages with the hope that they'll make the cut and eventually hit it big with some sweet super high paying job someday.",
"qid": 10734,
"docid": "272792",
"rank": 62,
"score": 78746
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Add accounting as a second major, you'll look extra good and will be able to get a good paying job straight out out of school. All of my friends who have been accountants (sample size of two) have gotten very high paying internships with BOA ($25-$35 an hour), with guaranteed well paying jobs straight out of school. I went to a decent school, not great or anything. I got into finance because of a family member. Finance and accounting are a great combo too, so it will increase your chances of breaking into finance. They often share a lot of courses, so it is not a difficult switch to make, and if you're going into your junior year it shouldn't add more than a year with a packed schedule; plus the classes are easy.",
"qid": 10734,
"docid": "356425",
"rank": 63,
"score": 78321
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Jobs don't mean anything by themselves. If you are increasing part time positions but not full time there may be no gain in income/productivity. Also if wages aren't increasing but debt is that means the portion of average take home wage that goes towards interest is increasing as well.",
"qid": 10734,
"docid": "544234",
"rank": 64,
"score": 78240
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: 1) Because it's a law specifically to prevent exploitation of uneducated people with unskilled labor 2) Because everyone else who gets paid by the hour gets paid 1.5x for hours above 40/week 3) People in skilled positions who are paid per hour are paid 1.5x for hours above 40/week",
"qid": 10734,
"docid": "467160",
"rank": 65,
"score": 78172
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Bi-weekly salaries often assume a 364-day year, and pay you 1/26 of your annual salary every two weeks. So you actually gain an extra week's salary every five or six years.",
"qid": 10734,
"docid": "387608",
"rank": 66,
"score": 77794
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: This would be my suggestion: I would approach the problem thinking about the loss of monthly income you (as a couple) will be facing due to your wife's change to a part time job and divide that loss between the two of you. This means that if she goes from 2200 to 1100 monthly, you'd be losing 1100 per month. To share this loss, you could repay your wife your part of the loss (550) so both of you are 550 euro down. However, this 550 loss is a bigger burden for your wife than it is for you, so this amount could be adjusted to make up for this inequality. To make calculations simple and avoid developing a complicated model, you could give the 800 euro above your 3k to your wife for as long as she has to work part time.",
"qid": 10734,
"docid": "506991",
"rank": 67,
"score": 77616
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Your plan won't work. Working 40 hours a week at federal minimum wage (currently $7.25 / hr) for 52 weeks is an annual income of just over $15,000. Even assuming you can reliably get a return of 15% (which you definitely can't), you'd need to start with $100,000 of assets to earn this poverty income. Assuming a more reasonable 7% bumps the required assets up to over $200,000, and even then you're dead the first time you need to make withdrawals after a mistake or after a major market downturn. As a fellow math Ph.D. student, I know your pain. I, too, struggled for a while with boredom in an earlier career, but it's possible to make it work. I think the secret is to find a job that's engaging enough that your mind can't wander too much at work, and set aside some hobby time to work on interesting projects. You likely have some marketable skills that can work for you outside of academia, if you look for them, to allow you to find an interesting job. I think there's not much you can do besides trying not to get fired from your next McJob until you can find something more interesting. There's no magic money-for-nothing in the stock market.",
"qid": 10734,
"docid": "6245",
"rank": 68,
"score": 77583
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: A company would have significantly less capital to pay a skilled worker at that point though. Keep that in mind. So, to circle back now. Small businesses make up a decent amount of our GDP and job creation. Let's say you have had it working fir someone else and want to strike out on your own. You decide to start an e-commerce site, reselling from a factory on amazon. Simple enough set up. Online marketing made simple through amazon, google and facebook. But you don't have any idea how to translate that info into QuickBooks and push out the financial info needed for taxes, payroll, etc. You need to hire a bookkeeper to sort it out, but it os only 5 hours worth of work per week. Do you hire them as a salaried employee giving them a liveable wage or pay them the rate you agreed upon for those 5 hours?",
"qid": 10734,
"docid": "391668",
"rank": 69,
"score": 76814
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Another thing to remember is that a lot of these one-off police jobs have 4 hour minimum pay requirements, even when they last half an hour (at least in Massachusetts). If you can schedule two jobs such that each one is half an hour, you could work one hour at lunch time and get paid for 8.",
"qid": 10734,
"docid": "268280",
"rank": 70,
"score": 76758
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: 10 years into my career. Here are my notes: 1. Don't work overtime as a salaried employee. If there's more work than people then management needs to hire more people. Sure, there are times when shit hits the fan and there's no other option, but that should be a 'once every two years' event, not a 'once every week' event. 2. Be a rockstar. If you're spending time 'looking busy' because you finished a 3 hour job in 1 hour ship the results to your manager and ask for more. Those results will be noticed and will move you from entry-level to mid-level to senior. 3. Skills pay the bills. Always work on learning new things to bring value to your employer. This is also required to move up the chain in your career, and leads into my #4. 4. Get paid what you're worth. Maintain an understanding of what similar skillsets are paying in your area and either maintain or exceed that. Your employer has an incentive to pay you as little as possible. Show them comparable salaries for the same position paying more and make them match it. If they won't match it find someone who will. 5. Don't correct your boss/salesperson when they are presenting to management/customers. Instead, let them know after the meeting. Your #2 points (both of them) are something that I struggled with when I was new in my career. It was incredibly frustrating to *know* something, but not have anyone listen due to the fact that I was a 'kid'. Unfortunately it's a part of life. If you can do #2 and #3 on my list for a couple of years people will start listening. It's a great feeling being a 24 year old kid in a room full of my boss's bosses, and my boss's boss's bosses and having them listen and consider my opinion, but it's not something that's given to everyone. You need to earn it.",
"qid": 10734,
"docid": "317260",
"rank": 71,
"score": 76571
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Well, with a (pretend) 40 hour work week, it comes out to about $480/hour, which is easily 10x what most people make, many of whom also have always-on-call jobs. Despite being always on call, 24/7 isn't quite the right description... I think it's more fair to assume/compare to 80-100 hours/week. That would still net comfortably around $200/hr. Yu als have to add in perks and bonuses, as CEO salary is typically 1/3 to 1/4 of their total compensation (remember, Steve Jobs was since 2003 the highest paid CEO in the country, with a 'salary' of $1/year). With the total package against total hours actually worked (including sorting email and taking phone calls at home on your own tine), I would still estimate the total package to be around $400-500/hour. A generous sum it is, but I still agree with your main point... I wouldn't want it. I feel like after you can afford a nice house with a room for each member of the family, a reliable car for each driver, and tuition to send kids to a bratty private school and college, the \"\"usefulness\"\" of money drops way, way off.\"",
"qid": 10734,
"docid": "333814",
"rank": 72,
"score": 76542
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The answer is simple -- your new job pays more than your old one. As such, you're in a higher tax withholding bracket, even with the same number of deductions as before. Your withholding is computed based on how much you make each pay period, and the number of pay periods in the year. So, if you were being paid weekly before then it was based on the assumption you made the same amount for every pay period in the calendar year. This is why tax varies from week to week for hourly employees and people being paid overtime. In your new job, you're being paid \"\"semi-monthly\"\", which makes for 24 pay periods rather than the 52 pay periods when you were paid weekly, so the amount of withholding (in dollar terms) is going to be much greater than when you were being paid weekly. Add in the fact you're making $2,000 more (a month, I presume?), so that's $24,000 a year more. It's definitely going to bump you into a different earning bracket for taxes, so even with the same number of deductions, you're going to pay more now. This isn't to say you won't be able to recoup some of that at the end of the year when you file your taxes, since your current withholding rate may have you over-paying. As such, you'll see a nice refund. One final note -- You always have the option of changing your withholding if you like. Many people will do that, claiming minimal deductions for the first few months of the year to let the maximum withholding take place, then they'll adjust their withholding deductions in the second half of the year to capture more in each paycheck. If done right, it makes no difference in the total amount withheld, but it does allow the checks at the latter part of the year to be bigger than if withholding deductions were kept the same throughout.\"",
"qid": 10734,
"docid": "317197",
"rank": 73,
"score": 76536
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Life is a lot more difficult if you accept the constraints that are sold to you. 80 hours per week for a $90k salary is completely unacceptable, imo, unless you're absolutely in love with your job and it's all you want to do anyway. You can earn money in proportion to how much value you create for people if you offer something of value. A degree in isolation, even from the best school in your field, is completely worthless though.",
"qid": 10734,
"docid": "359670",
"rank": 74,
"score": 76418
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: In addition to taking into account your deductions, as mentioned by @bstpierre, you also need to account for vacation, and other time off such as sick days. You also need to estimate what percentage of the year you expect to be working and pro-rate your salary accordingly. For example it is not uncommon to use 40 weeks out of the year which is about 77% of the time. Also check to see if you would be eligible for unemployment for the times you are not working. I suspect not. But in any case, you might want to use worst case scenario figures to see if it is worth it, especially in this economy.",
"qid": 10734,
"docid": "74958",
"rank": 75,
"score": 76317
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you are referring to salaried employees, the overall salary generally is higher if overtime is required on a regular basis. All hourly paid employees in most jurisdictions under normal rules are entitled to over-time pay if the work more than 40 hrs, even highly skilled positions.",
"qid": 10734,
"docid": "75642",
"rank": 76,
"score": 76111
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Plus healthcare/dental/vision That's an additional $6,000/year (bringing her wage to $17.13/hour) for one individual. I'm not sure if Walmart covers family plans though but if they do, that's $14,400/year for a family plan (bringin her wage to $21.50/hour). You always need to account for the benefits of a job. Taking a position that pays $14/hour with a full family plan is better than taking a $20/hour job with no health insurance.",
"qid": 10734,
"docid": "387463",
"rank": 77,
"score": 76011
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: There's a bit of working backwards that's required. This is a summary of a spreadsheet I wrote which helps to get to the answer. What you see here is that at age 25, one might have saved about a half year's salary, assuming they worked 5 years. The numbers grow exponentially to at 65, about 15 years salary saved. This will allow a withdrawal of about 60% final income each year using the 4% guideline. More will come from Social Security in the States to get closer to 100%. The sheet start with assumptions, a 10% per year rate of saving, and an 8% annual return. Salary is assumed to rise 3% per year. One can choose their age, enter their current numbers and their own assumptions. I had to include some numbers and at the time, 8% seemed reasonable. Not so sure today. What I do like is the concept of viewing savings in terms of 'years salary' as this leads to replacement rate. Will $1M be enough for you? Only you can answer that. But the goal of 80-100% replacement income is reasonable and this sheet can be used to understand the goals along the way. (note, the uploaded sheet had 15% saving rate, not the 10 I thought. I used 15 to show a 10% saving along with a 5% match to one's 401(k). Those interested are welcome to enter their own numbers. The one objection I've seen is the increase to salary. Increases tend to be higher in the first 20 than the second, or so I'm told.)",
"qid": 10734,
"docid": "143591",
"rank": 78,
"score": 75765
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Wall Street salaries are rather exorbitant but its influence is far from insignificant. Do you know where pensions come from? The money that veterans and retirees rely on to survive. Hedge funds. How do the firms and companies that employ all those workers listed in greater numbers? Institutional money management AKA hedge funds as a small subset. A company in distress and is in threat of laying off thousands of employees. What can help it? A private equity firm that will actively work to save and restore the company, for it's own profit, but the employees will still have jobs. NO large company with tens of thousands of employees can exist right now without the capital raising and transaction advisory services of an investment bank. Stock trading as a means to grow personal wealth would not exist. While true these institutions make a disproportionate amount money, you must consider why. Nearly all front office jobs on Wall Street have 6am-8pm hours. Investment banking analysts have up to 100 hours a week, that's sweatshop salary per hour. Hedge fund managers wake up at night sweating to check Asia markets to see if they'll still have a job. These are not the suburban 9-5 jobs where you can actually have weekends. The high salary comes from an extremely rare skillset that's taught only from experience not in schools, high stress and commitment, and the highest quality of labor (mostly ivy leaguers on Wall Street, they've worked their asses off for these jobs). Salary has to do with supply and demand. I have the upmost respect for janitorial workers because they do what we don't want to do, but their pay isn't great because anyone can be a janitor. If most people in the country could build a portfolio with a sharpe ratio higher than 2 that billions of pension dollars would rely on, then we won't have such high hedge fund salaries, for example",
"qid": 10734,
"docid": "515365",
"rank": 79,
"score": 75654
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The bottom line is you have an income problem. Your car payment seems very high relative to your income and your income is very low relative to your debt. Can you work extra jobs or start a small business to get that income up? In the US it would be fairly easy to work some part time jobs to get that income up about 1000 per month. With that kind of difference you could have this all knocked out (except for the car) in about a year. Then, six months later you could be done with your car. Most of the credit repair places are ripoffs in the US and I suspect it is similar around the world.",
"qid": 10734,
"docid": "422750",
"rank": 80,
"score": 75460
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You have multiple things going on some of which will work in opposite directions. This is a second job for the family so that their income will be added onto of the main income. This generally means that the 2nd income has too little tax withheld. The tax tables used by employers have no way of handling this situation. This 2nd job is being started part way though the tax year, so too much in taxes is withheld. If they make 2,000 a month for 4 months that would mean 8,000 in income; but the tax tables used by the employer withhold at the $24,000 per year rate. The third issue is the great variation in the number of hours per pay period. This means that too much is withheld in checks with the most hours, and too little in the ones with the least hours. For this year you have a reprieve. As long as you make the safe-harbor levels for federal withholding, you can avoid penalties when you file next spring. To do so just make sure that the withholding of all the jobs in the family equal or exceed the total income tax for the family last year. Note this isn't equal to last years withholding, or equal to the refund last year, but the total tax you should have paid. The general advice is to set the smaller income to have 0 exemptions, and use the W-4 for the larger income to make adjustments. In the past I have done this to make sure that we make the safe-harbor level. You can make adjustments in the new year once you know what the safe harbor goal is for the rest of the year.",
"qid": 10734,
"docid": "235825",
"rank": 81,
"score": 75148
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The statistics are misleading. The German autoworkers do not \"\"make\"\" $67/hour, that is basically a $140k job! Back in 2009, some sensationalist articles said that the average UAW worker \"\"made\"\" $75/hr sitting in the jobs bank. That is taking the total labor cost and dividing it by the number of existing employees. The most obvious example of why this number is so lopsided is through health care benefits and pensions. You get the illusion that the auto worker gets paid very high when labor cost per employee is very high, but the labor cost actually includes the current worker's cost as well as some past worker's costs, so it gets double counted. So yes, GM went bankrupt because labor costs were $75/hr. No, the UAW auto worker did not make $75 per hour. And yes, labor costs for the German workforce is a lot higher than the US workforce. But no, they don't actually get paid 2-3x more.\"",
"qid": 10734,
"docid": "173401",
"rank": 82,
"score": 75054
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If the $5000 is income, then you need to pay income taxes on it. That's simply the way it works. Hourly rate has nothing to do with whether or not you pay taxes. If it helps, try to think of the $5000 as the first $5000 you make for the year. Now it's covered by your standard deduction and you're not paying taxes on it.",
"qid": 10734,
"docid": "241030",
"rank": 83,
"score": 75004
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: .. No If I can make a job offer for $7 per hour and people apply.. Why would I ever pay more? I'm not forcing people to apply. They want the job. If $7 an hour is good enough for the workers who apply, then it's good enough for me. Why pay more when I can pay less? I'll need to hire people soon for packing and shipping and you bet I'll be paying the state minimum wage because I know I'll have people applying to work.",
"qid": 10734,
"docid": "16681",
"rank": 84,
"score": 74776
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Don't get me started about the law. I'm a lawyer and the business model is a mess. You'll hear about massive unemployment with lawyers. This is because lawyers are exempt from overtime. Firms slave associates for 70-100 weeks for years. No weekends, no holidays. Most associates make less per hour than their secretaries. Then they fire associates instead of making them partners and hire new associates desperate for a job. I know lawyers are hated, but please have some sympathy for associates who work 10-12 hour days and get paid less per hour than the staff. Happened to me. There are two necessary reforms. One is to allow ownership of law firms by non-lawyers. This has happened in the UK. If Costco or other companies could have law firms, it would kill the greedy partner aspect and make legal work accessible to many more people. I'm 100% in favor. I'll happily take a lower wage and serve more people. Everyone should be able to afford a lawyer. The other necessary reform is making *anyone* who isn't an owner entitled to 40 hour work weeks and overtime. If you own your own business and want to put in 90 hours, fine. But you should not be able to force an exempt employee to work 90 hours unless that employee is an owner. Those are entirely fair and reasonable and would transform the profession into what it should be. I've since started teaching. It doesn't pay as well, but at least I don't have to ram down a Christmas dinner and then go into the office. Or spend a Fourth of July on top of the parking structure to see a few fireworks before going back in to work more.",
"qid": 10734,
"docid": "23411",
"rank": 85,
"score": 74765
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: First off, great job on your finances so far. You are off on the right foot and have some sense of planning for the future. Also, it is a great question. First, I agree with @littleadv. Take advantage of your employer match. Do not drop your 401(k) contributions below that. Also, good job on putting your contributions into the Roth account. Second, I would ask: Are you out of debt? If not, put all your extra income towards paying off debt, and then you can work your plan. Third, time to do some math. What will your business look like? How much capital would you need to get started? Are there things you can do now on a part-time basis to start this business or prepare you to start the business? Come up with a figure, find some mutual funds that have a low beta, and back out how much money you need to save per month, so you have around that total. Then you have a figure. e.g. Assume you need $20,000, and you find a fund that has done 8% over the past 20 years. Then, you would need to save about $110/month to be ready to go in 10 years, or $273/month to go in about 5 years. (It's a time value of money calculation.) The house is really a long way off, but you could do the same kind of calculation. I feel that you think your income, and possibly locale, will change dramatically over the next few years. It might not be bad to double what you are saving for the business, and designate one half for the house.",
"qid": 10734,
"docid": "526383",
"rank": 86,
"score": 74711
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I can pretty much guarantee you that the vast majority of new small companies will NOT grow to have 50 workers (they probably won't even have 49 workers, or 48, or even 47). Once they approach 40, other \"\"solutions\"\" -- even beyond the \"\"part time employees\"\" suggested by the author (a thing I would expect will be \"\"addressed\"\" by a change in the detailed regulations -- the Federal government will attempt to stop this obvious loophole by redefining what constitutes a \"\"full time employee\"\") -- MANY other solutions will be executed (dividing the company into two or three distinct entities with slightly different ownership {for example wife owns one location, husband another, etc}, plus the obvious expanded use of temp agencies, contract and/or subcontract workers, subbing work {especially generic administrative work} out to other firms, etc). Any and all of those will probably cost far LESS than $40k a year (which is probably a woefully underestimated number).\"",
"qid": 10734,
"docid": "126751",
"rank": 87,
"score": 74484
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I thought the same thing when I was in high school. But I worked several jobs ranging from $7.25 to $12 an hour. It's about not being complacent and going out there to look for other, Better paying opportunities. And at the end of the day, if your labor can only command a shit wage then go get some skills. Go EARN a higher wage.",
"qid": 10734,
"docid": "350217",
"rank": 88,
"score": 74457
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The article doesn't say how many hours they worked, so let's work it out. If this was 12 hours a day 6 out of 7 days then it's a completely different ballgame and 220k is just what it costs. I don't care what they make in a year, I care what they would make if they were working 40 hrs a week. >The special-ops sergeant who made $265,059 is the highest paid policeman so far this year. His pay includes $115,394 in overtime. That means he made 115k by working past 8 hours a day, five days a week. Presumably. So 265k - 115k is still 140k per year at 40 hrs. That means that cop makes 70 dollars an hour.",
"qid": 10734,
"docid": "365850",
"rank": 89,
"score": 74427
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Right. We all get normal compensation, either salary or hourly depending on the nature of the job. The CEO salary is about 3.5 times that of the lowest paid worker. That is just salary and doesn't include benefits and the profit-sharing (which is completely even). If you included those things, it would be even flatter. There are no back-door golden parachutes or secret stock options.",
"qid": 10734,
"docid": "287200",
"rank": 90,
"score": 74216
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: With your wife's income, you're not doing to see a net difference if she stops working that job. You may actually yield a little more. At the end of the day, it's doable, but you're going to have to rationalize your spending and one or both of you should pick up a part-time job. Do you remember the last time you bought lunch or went out to dinner? You're wasting money. Even a 50% gig at a quality employer like Starbucks or Home Depot will let you make $15-20k. I respect your religious beliefs, but 17% of your income is steep, and you may want to revisit that.",
"qid": 10734,
"docid": "138428",
"rank": 91,
"score": 74153
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I saved all the money I made working part time in high school and paid for my first year of college, it was a big relief and really helped me. $15,000 is not that much now that I'm done with school.",
"qid": 10734,
"docid": "404121",
"rank": 92,
"score": 73823
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I think it varies with where you are located but in Ontario, Canada salaries cover up to 44 work hours a week. Anything beyond the 44 hours counts towards overtime. Eg. You normally make $1000 a week and this week you worked 50 hours. $1000/44 = $22.73/hr Overtime rate is 1.5x normal so... $22.73 x 1.5 = $34.10/hr You work 6 extra hours $34.10 x 6 = $204.60 Added together $1000 + $204.60 = $1204.60",
"qid": 10734,
"docid": "89040",
"rank": 93,
"score": 73612
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"This arrangement is a scam to get around certain tax and benefits laws, both State and Federal. I know they can't get away with this with a person-as-contractor, but this \"\"he's not a contractor, he's a business owner\"\" may move it into a gray area. (I used to know this stuff cold, but I've been retired for a while.) The fact that they asked you to do this is at all is, IMNSHO, a Red Flag®. They think that this way they won't be paying 1/2 your FICA, your Workman's Comp, health insurance, overtime, sick leave or vacation time ... you will. A somewhat simplistic rule of thumb for setting contracting rates is to take your targeted annual salary as a full-time, full-benefits employee and double it. So $50,000 becomes $100,000 a year; $25/hour becomes $50/hour. You can tell them that driving to their workplace from your company's location is now a \"\"site visit\"\" and charge them your hourly rate for the one-way commute time. You could also tell them that your company charges 150% for hours worked over 40 hours/week, plus 150% on Saturdays and 200% on Sundays. Your company may also have a minimum 30 days notice of termination with a penalty kicker. Get it all in writing and signed by someone who has the authority to sign it. Also, Get A Lawyer. The most expensive contracts I've ever signed were ones I thought I was smart enough to draw up myself.\"",
"qid": 10734,
"docid": "312131",
"rank": 94,
"score": 73562
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"You're getting paid by the job, not by the hour, so I don't see why you think the employer is obligated to pay you for the drive time. The only way that might be true, as far as I can see, is if he were avoiding paying you minimum wage by structuring your employment this way. It looks like to me you're over the minimum wage based on what you wrote. At maximum \"\"unpaid\"\" drive time (59 min each way) and maximum length of job (4 hours as you stated it), gives your minimum hourly rate of $8.83/hr. The federal minimum wage is currently $7.25/hr, so you're over that. A quick search online suggests that NV does have a higher minimum at $8.25/hr under some conditions, but you're still over that too. The fact that you're required to pick-up the helpers and that you have a company car at home probably does mean that you're \"\"on the clock\"\" from the moment that you leave your house, but, again, you're not actually being paid by the clock. As long as no other law is being broken (and it appears from your telling that there isn't), then the employer can set any policy for how to compute the compensation that he wants. Regarding taxes, the employer probably has no discretion there. You're making what you're making, and the employer needs to tax it in total. Since you're driving a company vehicle from home, I don't think that you're entitled to any reimbursement (vs. wages) that would not be taxed unless maybe you pay for gas yourself. The gas money, if applicable, should be reimbursable as a business expense and that generally would not be taxed.\"",
"qid": 10734,
"docid": "214143",
"rank": 95,
"score": 73315
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I'm trying to get the numbers to work. I built a quick spreadsheet that allocated the lost time as stated against the overall pay increase, assuming 1.5x for more than 40 hours. I can't find a reasonable number of hours worked where a 9% cut in hours outweighs the near 20% increase in wages.",
"qid": 10734,
"docid": "450081",
"rank": 96,
"score": 73146
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The comparisons are disingenuous. The lowest paid, part time worker at one factory is making almost twice the Chinese national median wage, and one at another factory is making as much as the median wage in one of China's wealthiest cities. It's okay to just say the wages suck.",
"qid": 10734,
"docid": "115428",
"rank": 97,
"score": 73059
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The low payroll does help. Keep that in mind next time you see someone working at walmart, especially if you see they're doing a pretty good job. They aren't getting paid a whole lot to do it. Also it's interesting to note that I didn't know a single one of us who didn't put a very large portion of our paychecks back into the store. Walmart has it pretty good with their associates... associates just don't always get a fair shake. Part time gets health insurance after a year tho... and it's not too expensive... doesn't cover a whole lot but it will get you into the doc and 4 dollar scrips from the pharmacy don't hurt either.",
"qid": 10734,
"docid": "445942",
"rank": 98,
"score": 72948
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: As you move toward retirement, your portfolio is supposed to move toward low risk, stable investments, more bonds, less stocks, etc. Your question implies that you want to increase your income, most likely because your income is not satisfying your desires. First, any idea that you have that risks your savings, just eliminate it. You are not able to replace those savings. The time for those kind of plays has passed. However, you can improve your situation. Do random odd jobs. Find a part time job that you're willing to do for 10 hours a week or something. Keep this money separate from your retirement savings. Research the stock trades you would like to make and use that 'extra' money to play in the market. Set a rule that you do not touch your nest egg for trading. You may find that being retired gives you the time to do the #1 thing that helps investors make good investments -- research. Then when you make your first million doing this, write a book. If you call it Retire - And Then Get Rich, I expect royalties and a dedication.",
"qid": 10734,
"docid": "454650",
"rank": 99,
"score": 72935
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"So, um... **what's the big fucking deal?** He works for the Port Authority, so any of you getting your panties in a bunch because you think \"\"OUR TAX DOLLARZ\"\" are going to pay his salary are just wrong. He works 80 hours a week, so he's basically got two $110k jobs. And he works in New York City, where $100k a year doesn't really even go that far unless you live in the ghetto and commute in every day. Really not sure what there is to be outraged about in this report. Clearly a lot of people here are just broke and jealous.\"",
"qid": 10734,
"docid": "144853",
"rank": 100,
"score": 72622
}
] |
How can I calculate a “running” return using XIRR in a spreadsheet? | [
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"You can calculate the \"\"return on investment\"\" using libreoffice, for example. Look at the xirr function. You would have 2 columns, one a list of dates (ie the dates of the deposits or dividends or whatever that you want to track, the last entry would be today's date and the value of the investment today. The xirr function calculates the internal rate of return for you. If you add money to the account, and the current value includes the original investment and the added funds, it will be difficult to calculate the ROI. If you add money by purchasing additional shares (or redepositing dividends by buying additional shares), and you only want to track the ROI of the initial investment (ignoring future investments), you would have to calculate the current value of all of the added shares (that you don't want to include in the ROI) and subtract that value from the current total value of the account. But, if you include the dates and values of these additional share purchases in the spreadsheet, xirr will calculate the overall IRR for you.\"",
"qid": 10792,
"docid": "204761",
"rank": 1,
"score": 170141
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You are looking for the Internal Rate of Return. If you have a spreadsheet like Microsoft Excel you can simply put in a list of the transactions (every time money went in or out) and their dates, and the spreadsheet's XIRR function will calculate a percentage rate of return. Here's a simple example. Investment 1 was 100,000 which is now worth 104,930 so it's made about 5% per year. Investment 2 is much more complicated, money was going in and out, but the internal rate of return was 7% so money in that investment, on average, grew faster than money in the first investment.",
"qid": 10792,
"docid": "435096",
"rank": 2,
"score": 167659
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The number you are trying to calculate is called the Internal Rate of Return (IRR). Google Spreadsheets (and excel) both have an XIRR function that can do this for you fairly simply. Setup a spreadsheet with 1 column for dates, 1 column for investment. Mark your investments as negative numbers (payment to invest). All investments will be negative. Mark your last row with today's date and today's valuation (positive). All withdrawals will be positive, so you are pretending to withdrawal your entire account for the purpose of calculation. Do not record dividends or other interim returns unless you are actually withdrawing money. The XIRR function will calculate your internal rate of return with irregularly timed investments. Links: Article explaining XIRR function (sample spreadsheet in google docs to modify)",
"qid": 10792,
"docid": "198606",
"rank": 3,
"score": 166504
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Treat each position or partial position as a separate LOT. Each time you open a position, a new lot of shares is created. If you sell the whole position, then the lot is closed. Done. But if you sell a partial quantity, you need to create a new lot. Split the original lot into two. The quantities in each are the amount sold, and the amount remaining. If you were to then buy a few more shares, create a third lot. If you then sell the entire position, you'll be closing out all the remaining lots. This allows you to track each buy/sell pairing. For each lot, simply calculate return based on cost and proceeds. You can't derive an annualized number for ALL the lots as a group, because there's no common timeframe that they share. If you wish to calculate your return over time on the whole series of trades, consider using TWIRR. It treats these positions, plus the cash they represent, as a whole portfolio. See my post in this thread: How can I calculate a \"\"running\"\" return using XIRR in a spreadsheet?\"",
"qid": 10792,
"docid": "479874",
"rank": 4,
"score": 166151
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Set your xirr formula to a very tall column, leaving lots of empty rows for future additions. In column C, instead of hardcoding the value, use a formula that tests if it's the current bottom entry, like this: =IF(ISBLANK(A7),-C6, C6) If the next row has no date entered (yet), then this is the latest value, and make it negative. Now, to digress a bit, there are several ways to measure returns. I feel XIRR is good for individual positions, like holding a stock, maybe buying more via DRIP, etc. For the whole portfolio it stinks. XIRR is greatly affected by timing of cash flows. Steady deposits and no withdrawals dramatically skew the return lower. And the opposite is true for steady withdrawals. I prefer to use TWRR (aka TWIRR). Time Weighted Rate of Return. The word 'time' is confusing, because it's the opposite. TWRR is agnostic to timing of cashflows. I have a sample Excel spreadsheet that you're welcome to steal from: http://moosiefinance.com/static/models/spreadsheets.html (it's the top entry in the list). Some people prefer XIRR. TWRR allows an apples-to-apples comparison with indexes and funds. Imagine twin brothers. They both invest in the exact same ideas, but the amount of cash deployed into these ideas is different, solely because one brother gets his salary bonus annually, in January, and the other brother gets no bonus, but has a higher bi-weekly salary to compensate. With TWRR, their percent returns will be identical. With XIRR they will be very different. TWRR separates out investing acumen from the happenstance timing of when you get your money to deposit, and when you retire, when you choose to take withdrawals. Something to think about, if you like. You might find this website interesting, too: http://www.dailyvest.com/",
"qid": 10792,
"docid": "195044",
"rank": 5,
"score": 158576
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I could not figure out a good way to make XIRR work since it does not support arrays. However, I think the following should work for you: Insert a column at D and call it \"\"ratio\"\" (to be used to calculate your answer in column E). Use the following equation for D3: =1+(C3-B3-C2)/C2 Drag that down to fill in the column. Set E3 to: =(PRODUCT(D$3:D3)-1)*365/(A3-A$2) Drag that down to fill in the column. Column E is now your annual rate of return.\"",
"qid": 10792,
"docid": "374956",
"rank": 6,
"score": 145875
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You probably want the Internal Rate of Return (IRR), see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_rate_of_return which is the compound interest rate that would produce your return. You can compute it in a spreadsheet with XIRR(), I made an example: https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AvuTW2HtDQfYdEsxVlM0RFdrRk1QS1hoNURxZkVFN3c&hl=en You can also use a financial calculator, or there are probably lots of web-based calculators such as the ones people have mentioned.",
"qid": 10792,
"docid": "521590",
"rank": 7,
"score": 138987
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Use TWIRR (aka TWRR). Time Weighted rate of return. It's sort of the opposite of XIRR. XIRR results change dramatically depending on the timing of the cashflows. It might be useful to also model returns that are unaffected by the timing. This is how funds report returns, and this number allows you to compare to funds and indices. During periods of steady deposits, XIRR will continually understate performance. And in retirement, when you have steady withdrawals, XIRR will overstate. TWRR is talked about here: http://www.dailyvest.com/PRR/prr_calcmethods.aspx#twrr I've made a simple spreadsheet that you can use as a starting point, if you like: http://moosiefinance.com/static/models/spreadsheets.html (top entry in the list)",
"qid": 10792,
"docid": "495418",
"rank": 8,
"score": 137020
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You could create your own spreadsheet of Cash Flows and use the XIRR function in Excel: The formula is:",
"qid": 10792,
"docid": "379299",
"rank": 9,
"score": 119715
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I use the following method. For each stock I hold long term, I have an individual table which records dates, purchases, sales, returns of cash, dividends, and way at the bottom, current value of the holding. Since I am not taking the income, and reinvesting across the portfolio, and XIRR won't take that into account, I build an additional column where I 'gross up' the future value up to today() of that dividend by the portfolio average yield at the date the dividend is received. The grossing up formula is divi*(1+portfolio average return%)^((today-dividend date-suitable delay to reinvest)/365.25) This is equivalent to a complex XMIRR computation but much simpler, and produces very accurate views of return. The 'weighted combined' XIRR calculated across all holdings then agrees very nearly with the overall portfolio XIRR. I have done this for very along time. TR1933 Yes, 1933 is my year of birth and still re investing divis!",
"qid": 10792,
"docid": "393987",
"rank": 10,
"score": 116099
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: What Jaydles said. I think of each strategy in terms of Capital at Risk (CaR). It's a good thing to know when considering any position. And then conveniently, the return is always profit / CaR. With covered calls it's pretty easy. Pay $1000 for stock, receive $80 in premium, net CaR is $920. If you own the stock and write calls many times (that expire worthless, or you that you buy back), there are two measurements to consider. First, treat every covered call as a buy-write. Even if you already own the stock, disregard the real cost basis, and calculate from the moment you write the call, using the stock price at that time. The second measure is more complicated, but involves using something like the XIRR function in a spreadsheet. This tracks the series as a whole, even accounting for times where there is no written call outstanding. For the written put, even though your broker may only require 30% collateral in a margin account, mentally treat them as cash-secured. Strike less premium is your true CaR. If the stock goes to zero by expiration, that's what you're on the hook for. You could just compute based on the 30% collateral required, but in my view that confuses cash/collateral needs with true risk. Note: a written put is exactly identical to a covered call at the same strike. If you tend to favor puts over CCs, ask yourself why. Just like a loaded gun, leverage isn't inherently bad, but you sure want to know when you're using it.",
"qid": 10792,
"docid": "402778",
"rank": 11,
"score": 114459
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: It's not compound interest. It is internal rate of return. If you have access to Excel look up the XIRR built-in function.",
"qid": 10792,
"docid": "245648",
"rank": 12,
"score": 113596
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The best way to do this is to use IRR. It's a complicated calculation, but will take into account multiple in/out cash flows over time along with \"\"idle periods\"\" where your money may not have been doing anything. Excel can calculate it for you using the XIRR function\"",
"qid": 10792,
"docid": "88889",
"rank": 13,
"score": 113104
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Yes, if your IRR is 5% per annum after three years then the total return (I prefer total rather than your use of actual) over those three years is 15.76%. Note that if you have other cashflows in and out, it gets a bit more complicated (e.g. using the XIRR function in Excel), but the idea is to find an effective annual percentage return that you're getting for your money.",
"qid": 10792,
"docid": "285238",
"rank": 14,
"score": 108229
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The Money Chimp site lets you choose two points in time to see the return. i.e. you give it the time (two dates) and it tells you the return. One can create a spreadsheet to look at multiple time periods and answer your question that way, but I've not seen it laid out that way in advance. For what it's worth, I am halfway to my retirement number. I can tell you, for example that at X%, I hit my number in Y years. 8.73% gets me 8/25/17 (kid off to college) 3.68% gets me 8/25/21 (kid graduates), so in a sense, we're after the same type of info. With the long term return being in the 10% range, you're going to get 3 years or so as average, but with a skewed bellish curve when run over time.",
"qid": 10792,
"docid": "371210",
"rank": 15,
"score": 94077
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: For this, the internal rate of return is preferred. In short, all cash flows need to be discounted to the present and set equal to 0 so that an implied rate of return can be calculated. You could try to work this out by hand, but it's practically hopeless because of solving for roots of the implied rate of return which are most likely complex. It's better to use a spreadsheet with this capability such as OpenOffice's Calc. The average return on equity is 9%, so anything higher than that is a rational choice. Example Using this simple tool, the formula variables can easily be input. For instance, the first year has a presumed cash inflow of $2,460 because the insurance has a 30% discount from $8,200 that is assumed to be otherwise paid, a cash inflow of $40,000 to finance the sprinklers, a cash outflow of $40,000 to fund the sprinklers, a $400 outflow for inspection, and an outflow in the amount of the first year's interest on the loan. This should be repeated for each year. They can be input undiscounted, as they are, for each year, and the calculator will do the rest.",
"qid": 10792,
"docid": "193783",
"rank": 16,
"score": 92038
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The Finance functions in spreadsheet software will calculate this for you. The basic functions are for Rate, Payment, PV (present value), FV (Future value), and NPER, the number of periods. The single calculation faces a couple issues, dealing with inflation, and with a changing deposit. If you plan to save for 30 years, and today are saving $500/mo, for example, in ten years I hope the deposits have risen as well. I suggest you use a spreadsheet, a full sheet, to let you adjust for this. Last, there's a strange effect that happens. Precision without accuracy. See the results for 30-40 years of compounding today's deposit given a return of 6%, 7%, up to 10% or so. Your forecast will be as weak as the variable with the greatest range. And there's more than one, return, inflation, percent you'll increase deposits, all unknown, and really unknowable. The best advice I can offer is to save till it hurts, plan for the return to be at the lower end of the range, and every so often, re-evaluate where you stand. Better to turn 40, and see you are on track to retire early, than to plan on too high a return, and at 60 realize you missed it, badly. As far as the spreadsheet goes, this is for the Google Sheets - Type this into a cell =nper(0.01,-100,0,1000,0) It represents 1% interest per month, a payment (deposit) of $100, a starting value of $0, a goal of $1000, and interest added at month end. For whatever reason, a starting balance must be entered as a negative number, for example - =nper(0.01,-100,-500,1000,0) Will return 4.675, the number of months to get you from $500 to $1000 with a $100/mo deposit and 1%/mo return. Someone smarter than I (Chris Degnen comes to mind) can explain why the starting balance needs to be entered this way. But it does show the correct result. As confirmed by my TI BA-35 financial calculator, which doesn't need $500 to be negative.",
"qid": 10792,
"docid": "480128",
"rank": 17,
"score": 90673
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: In my opinion, the simplest way to run these numbers is to first assume you are borrowing the full amount, including the points, if any. They run a spreadsheet, and while using the new rate, apply your full current payment each month. Then compare balances at month 48. You'll find it easy to calculate the breakeven. In the case of the negative points, it's immediate. For higher points, the B/E is later but then you are further ahead each month.",
"qid": 10792,
"docid": "56555",
"rank": 18,
"score": 89441
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: This link does it ok: http://investexcel.net/1979/calculate-historical-volatility-excel/ Basically, you calculate percentage return by doing stock price now / stock price before. You're not calculating the rate of return hence no subtraction of 100%. The standard is to do this on a daily basis: stock price today / stock price yesterday. The most important and most misunderstood part is that you now have to analyze the data geometrically not arithmetically. To easily do this, convert all percentage returns with the natural log, ln(). Next, you take the standard deviation of all of those results, and apply exp(). This answers the title of your question. For convenience's sake, it's best to annualize since volatility (implied or statistical) is now almost always quoted annualized. There are ~240 trading days each year. You multiply your stdev() result by (240 / # of trading days per return) ^ 0.5, so if you're doing this for daily returns, multiply the stdev() result by 240^0.5; if you were doing it weekly, you'd want to multiply by (240 / ~5)^0.5; etc. This is your number for sigma. This answers the intent of your question. For black-scholes, you do not convert anything back with exp(); BS is already set up for geometric analysis, so you need to stay there. The reason why analysis is done geometrically is because the distribution of stock returns is assumed to be lognormal (even though it's really more like logLaplace).",
"qid": 10792,
"docid": "99708",
"rank": 19,
"score": 89356
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The point of a total return index is that it already has accounted for the capital gains + coupon income. If you want to calculate it yourself you'll have to find the on-the-run 10y bond for each distinct period then string them together to calc your total return. Check XLTP if they have anything",
"qid": 10792,
"docid": "489706",
"rank": 20,
"score": 89090
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I was emailing back and forth with a manager in a different department on how real returns are being calculated, and he said that the industry standard is 1 + real returns*(1+inflation) - fees, and to not use my formula because it can double count inflation, making fees lower. However, real returns are not observable in the future, and I do not why he uses that formula. The returns were used in an Excel spreadsheet. What are your thoughts about this?",
"qid": 10792,
"docid": "381268",
"rank": 21,
"score": 88289
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Wow, this analysis really surprised me. Very complete and useful, but i think my teacher request was easier. He just said: \"\"Try to build a diversified portfolio. Then try to add a commodity (like silver or gold) and understand how the risk vary introducing an asset like this.\"\" So, i'm basically making a stocks portfolio and i'm calculating its expected return and risk. (for example 40%FB, 10%JNJ, 20%GS, 10%F and 20%MCD) then i'm adding GLD (so now i have something like 20%FB, 10%JNJ, 10%GS, 10%F and 20%MCD 30%GLD) and i'm actually making an excel spreadsheet where i calculate all the: -Expected returns -St Deviation -Covariance At the end i compare the returns and the risks on the 2 different portfolios.\"",
"qid": 10792,
"docid": "499008",
"rank": 22,
"score": 86645
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: There are at least a couple of ways you could view this to my mind: Make an Excel spreadsheet and use the IRR function to compute the rate of return you are having based on money being added. Re-invested distributions in a mutual fund aren't really an additional investment as the Net Asset Value of the fund will drop by the amount of the distribution aside from market fluctuation. This is presuming you want a raw percentage that could be tricky to compare to other funds without doing more than a bit of work in a way. Look at what is the fund's returns compared to both the category and the index it is tracking. The tracking error is likely worth noting as some index funds could lag the index by a sizable margin and thus may not be that great. At the same time there may exist cases where an index fund isn't quite measuring up that well. The Small-Growth Indexing Anomaly would be the William Bernstein article from 2001 that has some facts and figures for this that may be useful.",
"qid": 10792,
"docid": "470687",
"rank": 23,
"score": 86422
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The calculation is to figure out how many dollars you get in return for the amount of dollars you spend. In your case, you know you get 1000 points for $1000 dollars, and can redeem one movie ticket for 1000 points. Therefore, Granted that you could also redeem a $8-9 ticket, making your return 0.8-0.9%. In addition, this can get more complicated for some points cards that may give out free points, and is especially so if there's an intermediary such as AIR MILES, for which points can be earned in numerous ways. To get really nitty gritty, you could to keep a spreadsheet where you list number of dollars spent, number of points gained, number of points redeemed, and value of reward received. Thus, you can figure out exactly what your cost is for each point (second factor from above), as well as the ultimate value of each point with respect to rewards redeemed (first factor). I'm considering doing that myself since I'm prone to spreadsheet addiction, but this method is likely overkill for most points cards.",
"qid": 10792,
"docid": "135705",
"rank": 24,
"score": 85627
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you are using an Excel, the Function PV should be able to easily calculate this. Excel Formulae PV = (Rate,Nper,Pmt,Fv,Type) Where Rate: Rate of return. In this case you can use Inflation or assumed rate that would cost you. Say 3-5%. Note the Rate has to be for Nper. i.e. in Nper if you are counting yearly payments, then rate is yearly, if you are counting as monthly, then the rate should be monthly. NPer: Number of periods. If yearly in your case it would be 20. If Monthly 20*12, if Quarterly 20*4 etc. Pmt: Expected Payments for Nper. If you are saying 20 million over 20 years, it would be 1 million per year. Fv and Type can be blank So assuming a rate of 3%, and yearly payments of 1 million over 20 years. PV = $14,877,474.86 [It would show negative, just ignore the sign]",
"qid": 10792,
"docid": "548718",
"rank": 25,
"score": 84377
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Simple math. Take the sale proceeds (after trade expenses) and divide by cost. Subtract 1, and this is your return. For example, buy at 80, sell at 100, 100/80 = 1.25, your return is 25%. To annualize this return, multiply by 365 over the days you were in that stock. If the above stock were held for 3 months, you would have an annualized return of 100%. There's an alternative way to annualize, in the same example above take the days invested and dive into 365, here you get 4. I suggested that 25% x 4 = 100%. Others will ask why I don't say 1.25^4 = 2.44 so the return is 144%/yr. (in other words, compound the return, 1.25x1.25x...) A single day trade, noon to noon the next day returning just 1%, would multiply to 365% over a year, ignoring the fact there are about 250 trading days. But 1.01^365 is 37.78 or a 3678% return. For long periods, the compounding makes sense of course, the 8%/yr I hope to see should double my money in 9 years, not 12, but taking the short term trades and compounding creates odd results of little value.",
"qid": 10792,
"docid": "242849",
"rank": 26,
"score": 84261
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: R = I ^ P R = return (2 means double) I = (Intrest rate / 100) + 1 [1.104 = 10.4%] P = number of periods (7 years) 2 = 1.104 ^ 7 (you double your money in seven years with a yearly Intrest rate of 10.4%) I = R^(1/P) 1.104 = 2^(1/7) P = log(R) / log(I) 7 = log(2) / log(1.104)",
"qid": 10792,
"docid": "214446",
"rank": 27,
"score": 81688
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: A couple ideas: Use excel - it has an IRR (internal rate of return) that can handle a table of inputs as you describe, along with dates deposited to give you a precise number. Go simple - track total deposits over the year, assume half of that was present in January. So, for example, your account started the year with $10k, ended with $15k, but you deposited $4k over the year. It should be clear the return (gain) is $1k, right? But it's not 10%, as you added during the year. I'd divide $1k/$12k for an 8.3% return. Not knowing how your deposits were structured, the true number lies between the 10% and 6.7% as extremes. You'll find as you get older and have a higher balance, this fast method gaining accuracy, as your deposits are a tinier fraction of your account and likely spread out pretty smoothly over the year anyway.",
"qid": 10792,
"docid": "580586",
"rank": 28,
"score": 81440
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: That's a rearrangement of the fisher equation; which is the correct way to determine real rates. However, people often use the approximation real ≈ nominal - inflation; and if you're doing this for homework on software that is looking for exactly 1 numerical answer, they may be expecting you to use that instead. Real interest rate is less formal nomenclature and refers to using the approximation. Inflation-adjusted return is the fisher equation. In the real world you will use the approximation when you're figuring out a real rate while you're talking mid-sentence during a meeting; and use the fisher equation in spreadsheets/calculations.",
"qid": 10792,
"docid": "468225",
"rank": 29,
"score": 80682
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Regardless of how long the mortgage has left, the return you get on prepayments is identical to the mortgage rate. (What happens on your tax return is a different matter.) It's easier to get a decent financial calculator (The TI BA-35 is my favorite) than to construct spreadsheets which may or may not contain equation errors. When I duplicate John's numbers, $100K mortgage, 4% rate, I get a 60 mo remaining balance of 90,447.51 and with $50 extra, $87132.56, a diff of $3314.95. $314.95 return on the $3000. $315 over 5yrs is $63/yr, over an average $1500 put in, 63/1500 = 4.2%. Of course the simple math of just averaging the payment creates that .2% error. A 60 payment $50 returning $314.95 produces 4.000%. @Peter K - with all due respect, there's nothing for me about time value of money calculations that can be counter-intuitive. While I like playing with spreadsheets, the first thing I do is run a few scenarios and double check using the calculator. Your updated sheet is now at 3.76%? A time vaule of money calculation should not have rounding errors that larger. It's larger than my back of envelope calculation. @Kaushik - if you don't need the money, and would buy a CD at the rate of your mortgage, then pay early. Nothing wrong with that.",
"qid": 10792,
"docid": "206505",
"rank": 30,
"score": 80303
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Outside of software that can calculate the returns: You could calculate your possible returns on that leap spread as you ordinarily would, then place the return results of that and the return results for the covered call position side by side for any given price level of the stock you calculate, and net them out. (Netting out the dollar amounts, not percentage returns.) Not a great answer, but there ya go. Software like OptionVue is expensive",
"qid": 10792,
"docid": "508405",
"rank": 31,
"score": 78892
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: That's a rearrangement of the fisher equation; which is the correct way to determine real rates. However, people often use the approximation real ≈ nominal - inflation; and if you're doing this for homework on software that is looking for exactly 1 numerical answer, they may be expecting you to use that instead. Real interest rate is less formal nomenclature and refers to using the approximation. Inflation-adjusted return is the equation. In the real world you will use the approximation when you're figuring out a real rate while you're talking mid-sentence during a meeting; and use the equation in spreadsheets/calculations.",
"qid": 10792,
"docid": "562080",
"rank": 32,
"score": 78800
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: There are many ways to calculate the return, and every way will give you a different results in terms of a percentage-value. One way to always get something meaningful - count the cash. You had 977 (+ 31) and in the end you have 1.370, which means you have earned 363 dollars. But what is your return in terms of percentage? One way to look at it, is by pretending that it is a fund in which you invest 1 dollar. What is the fund worth in the beginning and in the end? The tricky part in your example is, you injected new capital into the equation. Initially you invested 977 dollars which later, in the second period became worth 1.473. You then sold off 200 shares for 950 dollars. Remember your portfolio is still worth 1.473, split between 950 in cash and 523 in Shares. So far so good - still easy to calculate return (1.473 / 977 -1 = 50.8% return). Now you buy share for 981 dollars, but you only had 950 in cash? We now need to consider 2 scenarios. Either you (or someone else) injected 31 dollars into the fund - or you actually had the 31 dollars in the fund to begin with. If you already had the cash in the fund to begin with, your initial investment is 1.008 and not 977 (977 in shares and 31 in cash). In the end the value of the fund is 1.370, which means your return is 1.370 / 1.007 = 36%. Consider if the 31 dollars was paid in to the fund by someone other than you. You will then need to recalculate how much you each own of the fund. Just before the injection, the fund was worth 950 in cash and 387 in stock (310 - 200 = 110 x 3.54) = 1.339 dollars - then 31 dollars are injected, bringing the value of the fund up to 1.370. The ownership of the fund is split with 1.339 / 1.370 = 97.8% of the value for the old capital and 2.2% for the new capital. If the value of the fund was to change from here, you could calculate the return for each investor individually by applying their share of the funds value respective to their investment. Because the value of the fund has not changed since the last period (bullet 3), the return on the original investment is (977 / 1.339 - 1 = 37.2%) and the return on the new capital is (31 / 31 = 0%). If you (and not someone else) injected the 31 dollar into the fund, you will need to calculate the weight of each share of capital in each period and get the average return for each period to get to a total return. In this specific case you will still get 37.2% return - but it gets even more comlex for each time you inject new capital.",
"qid": 10792,
"docid": "438547",
"rank": 33,
"score": 78698
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I wrote a spreadsheet (<< it may not be obvious - this is a link to pull down the spreadsheet) a while back that might help you. You can start by putting your current salary next to your age, adjust the percent of income saved (14% for you) and put in the current total. The sheet basically shows that if one saves 15% from day one of working and averages an 8% return, they are on track to save over 20X their final income, and at the 4% withdrawal rate, will replace 80% of their income. (Remember, if they save 15% and at retirement the 7.65% FICA /medicare goes away, so it's 100% of what they had anyway.) For what it's worth, a 10% average return drops what you need to save down to 9%. I say to a young person - try to start at 15%. Better that when you're 40, you realize you're well ahead of schedule and can relax a bit, than to assume that 8-9% is enough to save and find you need a large increase to catch up. To answer specifically here - there are those who concluded that 4% is a safe withdrawal rate, so by targeting 20X your final income as retirement savings, you'll be able to retire well. Retirement spending needs are not the same for everyone. When I cite an 80% replacement rate, it's a guess, a rule of thumb that many point out is flawed. The 'real' number is your true spending need, which of course can be far higher or lower. The younger investor is going to have a far tougher time guessing this number than someone a decade away from retiring. The 80% is just a target to get started, it should shift to the real number in your 40s or 50s as that number becomes clear. Next, I see my original answer didn't address Social Security benefits. The benefit isn't linear, a lower wage earner can see a benefit of as much as 50% of what they earned each year while a very high earner would see far less as the benefit has a maximum. A $90k earner will see 30% or less. The social security site does a great job of giving you your projected benefit, and you can adjust target savings accordingly. 2016 update - the prior 20 years returned 8.18% CAGR. Considering there were 2 crashes one of which was called a mini-depression, 8.18% is pretty remarkable. For what it's worth, my adult investing life started in 1984, and I've seen a CAGR of 10.90%. For forecasting purposes, I think 8% long term is a conservative number. To answer member \"\"doobop\"\" comment - the 10 years from 2006-2015 had a CAGR of 7.29%. Time has a way of averaging that lost decade, the 00's, to a more reasonable number.\"",
"qid": 10792,
"docid": "5673",
"rank": 34,
"score": 78286
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The TWRR calculation will work even with negative values: TWRR = (1 + 0.10) x (1 + (-0.191) ) x (1 + 0.29) ^ (1/3) = 1.047 which is a 4.7% return. Your second question concerns the -19% return calculated for the second quarter. You seem to think this return is \"\"way-off\"\". Not really. The TWRR calculates a return by accounting for cash that was added or deducted to/from the account. So if I started with $100,000, added $10,000 to the account, and ended up with $110,000, what should be the return on my investment? My answer would be 0% since the only reason my account balance went up was due to me adding cash to it. Therefore, if I started with $100,000, added $10,000 in cash to the account, and ended up with $100,000 in my account, then my return would be a negative value since I lost the $10,000 that I deposited in the account. In the second quarter you started with $15,000, deposited $4,000, and ended with $15,750. You essentially lost almost all of the $4,000 you deposited. That is a significant loss.\"",
"qid": 10792,
"docid": "1699",
"rank": 35,
"score": 76793
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Your investment is probably in a Collective Investment Trust. These are not mutual funds, and are not publicly traded. I.e. they are private to plan participants in your company. Because of this, they are not required* to distribute dividends like mutual funds. Instead, they will reinvest dividends automatically, increasing the value of the fund, rather than number of shares, as with dividend reinvestment. Sine you mention the S&P 500 fund you have tracks closely to the S&P Index, keep in mind there's two indexes you could be looking at: Without any new contributions, your fund should closely track the Total Return version for periods 3 months or longer, minus the expense ratio. If you are adding contributions to the fund, you can't just look at the start and end balances. The comparison is trickier and you'll need to use the Internal Rate of Return (look into the XIRR function in Excel/Google Sheets). *MFs are not strictly required to pay dividends, but are strongly tax-incentivized to do so, and essentially all do.",
"qid": 10792,
"docid": "52908",
"rank": 36,
"score": 76024
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The equation is the same one used for mortgage amortization. You first want to calculate the PV (present value) for a stream of $50K payments over 20 years at a10% rate. Then that value is the FV (future value) that you want to save for, and you are looking to solve the payment stream needed to create that future value. Good luck achieving the 10% return, and in knowing your mortality down to the exact year. Unless this is a homework assignment, which need not reflect real life. Edit - as indicated above, the first step is to get that value in 20 years: The image is the user-friendly entry screen for the PV calculation. It walks you though the need to enter rate as per period, therefore I enter .1/12 as the rate. The payment you desire is $50K/yr, and since it's a payment, it's a negative number. The equation in excel that results is: =PV(0.1/12,240,-50000/12,0) and the sum calculated is $431,769 Next you wish to know the payments to make to arrive at this number: In this case, you start at zero PV with a known FV calculated above, and known rate. This solves for the payment needed to get this number, $568.59 The excel equation is: =PMT(0.1/12,240,0,431769) Most people have access to excel or a public domain spreadsheet application (e.g. Openoffice). If you are often needing to perform such calculations, a business finance calculator is recommended. TI used to make a model BA-35 finance calculator, no longer in production, still on eBay, used. One more update- these equations whether in excel or a calculator are geared toward per period interest, i.e. when you state 10%, they assume a monthly 10/12%. With that said, you required a 20 year deposit period and 20 year withdrawal period. We know you wish to take out $4166.67 per month. The equation to calculate deposit required becomes - 4166.67/(1.00833333)^240= 568.59 HA! Exact same answer, far less work. To be clear, this works only because you required 240 deposits to produce 240 withdrawals in the future.",
"qid": 10792,
"docid": "217222",
"rank": 37,
"score": 75619
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: A 15% discount is a 17.6% return. (100/85 = 1.176). For a holding period that's an average 15.5 days, a half month. It would be silly to compound this over a year as the numbers are limited. The safest way to do this is to sell the day you are permitted. In effect, you are betting, 12 times a year, that the stock won't drop 15% in 3 days. You can pull data going back decades, or as long as your company has been public, and run a spreadsheet to see how many times, if at all, the stock has seen this kind of volatility over 3 day periods. Even for volatile stocks, a 15% move is pretty large, you're likely to find your stock doing this less than once per year. It's also safest to not accumulate too many shares of your company for multiple reasons, having to do with risk spreading, diversification, etc. 2 additional points - the Brexit just caused the S&P to drop 4% over the last 3 days trading. This was a major world event, but, on average we are down 4%. One would have to be very unlucky to have their stock drop 15% over the specific 3 days we are discussing. The dollars at risk are minimal. Say you make $120K/yr. $10K/month. 15% of this is $1500 and you are buying $1765 worth of stock. The gains, on average are expected to be $265/mo. Doesn't seem like too much, but it's $3180 over a years' time. $3180 in profit for a maximum $1500 at risk at any month's cycle.",
"qid": 10792,
"docid": "121480",
"rank": 38,
"score": 75442
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The answer to this question requires looking at the mathematics of the Qualified Dividends and Capital Gains Worksheet (QDCGW). Start with Taxable Income which is the number that appears on Line 43 of Form 1040. This is after the Adjusted Gross Income has been reduced by the Standard Deduction or Itemized Deductions as the case may be, as well as the exemptions claimed. Then, subtract off the Qualified Dividends and the Net Long-Term Capital Gains (reduced by Net Short-Term Capital Losses, if any) to get the non-cap-gains part of the Taxable Income. Assigning somewhat different meanings to the numbers in the OPs' question, let's say that the Taxable Income is $74K of which $10K is Long-Term Capital Gains leaving $64K as the the non-cap-gains taxable income on Line 7 of the QDCGW. Since $64K is smaller than $72.5K (not $73.8K as stated by the OP) and this is a MFJ return, $72.5K - $64K = $8.5K of the long-term capital gains are taxed at 0%. The balance $1.5K is taxed at 15% giving $225 as the tax due on that part. The 64K of non-cap-gains taxable income has a tax of $8711 if I am reading the Tax Tables correctly, and so the total tax due is $8711+225 = $8936. This is as it should be; the non-gains income of $64K was assessed the tax due on it, $8.5K of the cap gains were taxed at 0%, and $1.5K at 15%. There are more complications to be worked out on the QDCGW for high earners who attract the 20% capital gains rate but those are not relevant here.",
"qid": 10792,
"docid": "477172",
"rank": 39,
"score": 75405
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The net return reported to you (as a percentage) by a mutual fund is the gross return minus the expense ratio. So, if the gross return is X% and the expense ratio is Y%, your account will show a return of (X-Y)%. Be aware that X could be negative too. So, with Y = 1, If X = 10 (as you might get from a stock fund if you believe historical averages will continue), then the net return is 9% and you have lost (Y/X) times 100% = 10% of the gross return. If X = 8 (as you might get from a bond fund if you believe historical averages will continue), then the net return is 7% and you have lost (Y/X) times 100% = 12.5% of the gross return. and so on and so forth. The numbers used are merely examples of the returns that have been obtained historically, though it is worth emphasizing that 10% is an average return, averaged over many decades, from investments in stocks, and to believe that one will get a 10% return year after year is to mislead oneself very badly. I think the point of the illustrations is that expense ratios are important, and should matter a lot to you, but that their impact is proportionately somewhat less if the gross return is high, but very significant if the gross return is low, as in money-market funds. In fact, some money market funds which found that X < Y have even foregone charging the expense ratio fee so as to maintain a fixed $1 per share price. Personally, I would need a lot of persuading to invest in even a stock fund with 1% expense ratio.",
"qid": 10792,
"docid": "361013",
"rank": 40,
"score": 75086
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If annualized rate of return is what you are looking for, using a tool would make it a lot easier. In the post I've also explained how to use the spreadsheet. Hope this helps.",
"qid": 10792,
"docid": "550642",
"rank": 41,
"score": 74721
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: R has really good package that lets you calculate the return of rebalanced portfolios. The package is called: PerformanceAnalytics (see: http://www.inside-r.org/packages/cran/PerformanceAnalytics/docs/Return.portfolio). I quickly wrote a small script for you that lets you do exactly what you want. Code: By default the portfolio is rebalanced to an equally weighted portfolio. It is also possible to rebalance your portfolio using custom weights. See the documentation on how to do this. In order for this code to work you need to have your data already in return terms. You can do this easily in Excel. Make sure your data in excel looks like this: Than export your data to a CSV file. Note: before you run the code make sure you have installed the package PerformanceAnalytics. You can do this as follows: Let me know if you have any questions regarding the above.",
"qid": 10792,
"docid": "235592",
"rank": 42,
"score": 74597
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Whether you're self-employed or not, knowing exactly how much tax you will pay is not always an easy task. Various actions you can take (e.g., charitable donations, IRA contributions, selling stocks) may increase or reduce your tax liability. One tool I've found useful for estimating federal taxes is the Excel 1040 spreadsheet. This is a spreadsheet version of the income tax return form. It is not official and is not created by the IRS, but is maintained as a labor of love by a private individual. In practice, however, it is pretty much an accurate implementation of the tax calculation algorithms encoded in the tax forms and instructions. The nice thing about it is that it's a spreadsheet. You can plug numbers into various slots in the spreadsheet and see how they affect your federal tax liability. (You may also owe state taxes depending on what state you live in.) Of course, the estimates you get by doing this are only (at most) as accurate as your estimates of the various numbers you plug in. Still, I think it's a free and useful way to get a ballpark estimate of your tax liability based on numbers that you can more easily estimate (e.g., how much money you expect to earn).",
"qid": 10792,
"docid": "260795",
"rank": 43,
"score": 74350
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: So hopefully you are not spending the money before you make it. If you are, you are asking for trouble. If not the solution is easy. If you use a spreadsheet for tracking have a item in your checking account running total that is simply CC to pay. Lets say you just got paid, and your balance is like this: You can then do virtual withdrawals for each category In this case you have 70 left to spend. Whoops the car gets a flat which costs you 5 that you put on the card and you also pay your rent by CC. Then your spreadsheet should look like this: You still have the 70 left to spend, and when the CC bill comes due you are free to write the check.",
"qid": 10792,
"docid": "19875",
"rank": 44,
"score": 73843
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"One way to do these sorts of calculations is to use the spreadsheet version of IRS form 1040 available here. This is provided by a private individual and is not an official IRS tool, but in practice it is usually accurate enough for these purposes. You may have to spend some time figuring out where to enter the info. However, if you enter your self-employment income on Schedule C, this spreadsheet will calculate the self-employment tax as well as the income tax. An advantage is that it is the full 1040, so you can also select the standard deduction and the number of exemptions you are entitled to, enter ordinary W-2 income, even capital gains, etc. Of course you can also make use of other tax software to do this, but in my experience the \"\"Excel 1040\"\" is more convenient, as most websites and tax-prep software tend to be structured in a linear fashion and are more cumbersome to update in an ad-hoc way for purposes like tax estimation. You can do whatever works for you, but I would recommend taking a look at the Excel 1040. It is a surprisingly useful tool.\"",
"qid": 10792,
"docid": "450808",
"rank": 45,
"score": 73822
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I wrote a little program one time to try to do this. I think I wrote it in Python or something. The idea was to have a list of \"\"projected expenses\"\" where each one would have things like the amount, the date of the next transaction, the frequency of the transaction, and so on. The program would then simulate time, determining when the next transaction would be, updating balances, and so on. You can actually do a very similar thing with a spreadsheet where you basically have a list of expenses that you manually paste in for each month in advance. Simply keep a running balance of each row, and make sure you don't forget any transactions that should be happening. This works great for fixed expenses, or expenses that you know how much they are going to be for the next month. If you don't know, you can estimate, for instance you can make an educated guess at how much your electric bill will be the next month (if you haven't gotten the bill yet) and you can estimate how much you will spend on fuel based on reviewing previous months and some idea of whether your usage will differ in the next month. For variable expenses I would always err on the side of a larger amount than I expected to spend. It isn't going to be possible to budget to the exact penny unless you lead a very simple life, but the extra you allocate is important to cushion unexpected and unavoidable overruns. Once you have this done for expenses against your bank account, you can see what your \"\"low water mark\"\" is for the month, or whatever time period you project out to. If this is above your minimum, then you can see how much you can safely allocate to, e.g. paying off debt. Throwing a credit card into the mix can make things a bit more predictable in the current month, especially for unpredictable amounts, but it is a bit more complicated as now you have a second account that you have to track that has to get deducted from your first account when it becomes due in the following month. I am assuming a typical card where you have something like a 25 day grace period to pay without interest along with up to 30 days after the expense before the grace period starts, depending on the relationship between your cut-off date and when the actual expense occurs.\"",
"qid": 10792,
"docid": "416523",
"rank": 46,
"score": 73698
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Since you have the balance at equal periods and the cash flows at the period ends, the best return calculation in this case is the true time-weighted return. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time-weighted_return#Formulae So, notwithstanding some ambiguity about your figures, here is a calculation using the first three periods from your second table. Giving a total return over the three periods of -23.88% If the periods are months, multiply by four to annualise.",
"qid": 10792,
"docid": "220025",
"rank": 47,
"score": 73162
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Here's a few demo steps, first calculating the year to date return, then calculating the Q4 quarterly return based on the cumulative returns for Q3 and Q4. It's fine to use closing price to closing price as return periods.",
"qid": 10792,
"docid": "402466",
"rank": 48,
"score": 73162
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you mean the internal rate of return, then the quarterly rate of return which would make the net present value of these cash flows to be zero is 8.0535% (found by goal seek in Excel), or an equivalent compound annual rate of 36.3186% p.a. The net present value of the cash flows is: 10,000 + 4,000/(1+r) - 2,000/(1+r)^2 - 15,125/(1+r)^3, where r is the quarterly rate. If instead you mean Modified Dietz return, then the net gain over the period is: End value - start value - net flow = 15,125 - 10,000 - (4,000 - 2,000) = 3,125 The weighted average capital invested over the period is: 1 x 10,000 + 2/3 x 4,000 - 1/3 x 2,000 = 12,000 so the Modified Dietz return is 3,125 / 12,000 = 26.0417%, or 1.260417^(1/3)-1 = 8.0201% per quarter, or an equivalent compound annual rate of 1.260417^(4/3)-1 = 36.1504%. You are using an inappropriate formula, because we know for a fact that the flows take place at the beginning/end of the period. Instead, you should be combining the returns for the quarters (which have in fact been provided in the question). To calculate this, first calculate the growth factor over each quarter, then link them geometrically to get the overall growth factor. Subtracting 1 gives you the overall return for the 3-quarter period. Then convert the result to a quarterly rate of return. Growth factor in 2012 Q4 is 11,000/10,000 = 1.1 Growth factor in 2013 Q1 is 15,750/15,000 = 1.05 Growth factor in 2013 Q2 is 15,125/13,750 = 1.1 Overall growth factor is 1.1 x 1.05 x 1.1 = 1.2705 Return for the whole period is 27.05% Quarterly rate of return is 1.2705^(1/3)-1 = 8.3074% Equivalent annual rate of return is 1.2705^(4/3)-1 = 37.6046% ========= I'd recommend you to refer to Wikipedia.",
"qid": 10792,
"docid": "563169",
"rank": 49,
"score": 72983
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"So, there is no truly \"\"correct\"\" way to calculate return. Professionals will often calculate many different rates of return depending on what they wish to understand about their portfolio. However, the two most common ways of calculating multi-period return though are time-weighted return and money-weighted return. I'll leave the details to this good Investopeadia article, but the big picture is time-weighted returns help you understand how the stock performed during the period in question independent of how you invested it it. Whereas money-weighted return helps you understand how you performed investing in the stock in question. From your question, it appears both methods would be useful in combination to help you evaluate your portfolio. Both methods should be fairly easy to calculate yourself in a spread sheet, but if you are interested there are plenty of examples of both in google docs on the web.\"",
"qid": 10792,
"docid": "559168",
"rank": 50,
"score": 72918
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"> My issue understanding this is I've been told that banks actually don't hold 10% of the cash and lend the other 90% but instead hold the full 100% in cash and lend 900%. Is this accurate? That's the money multiplier effect being poorly described. You take a loan out, but that loan eventually makes its way to other banks as cash deposits, which then are loaned out, and go to other banks, and loaned, etc., so that the economy is \"\"running\"\" on 10x cash, where 1x is in physical cash, and the other 9x is in this deposit-loan-deposit phenomenon. > The issue I see with it is that it becomes exponential growth that is uncapped. Not true. If there is $1B outstanding \"\"physical\"\" cash (the money supply) with a 10% reserve, then the maximum amount of \"\"money\"\" flowing through is $1B / 10% = $10B. This assumes EVERYTHING legally possible is loaned out or saved in the banking system. As such, it represents a cap. If you have an Excel spreadsheet handy, you can easily model this out in four columns. Label the first row as follows: Deposit, Reserve, Cash Reserve, Loan Amount A2 will be your money supply. For simplicity, put $100. B2, your reserve column, will be 10%. C2 should be =A2 * B2, which will be the cash reserve in the bank. D2 should be A2 - C2, which is the new loan amount extended. A3 should be = D2, as the loans extended from the last step become deposits in the next. B3 = B2. Now, drag the formulas down, say, 500 rows. If you then sum the \"\"deposits\"\" column, it'll total $1,000. The cash reserve will total $100, and the loan amount will be $900. Thus, there is a cap.\"",
"qid": 10792,
"docid": "235055",
"rank": 51,
"score": 72878
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You can evaluate portfolio raw returns or risk adjusted returns. To evaluate raw returns, I would personally compute the total returns over the time period in question for both portfolios. To compute total returns, split the time into a bunch of subperiods by the dates at which you contributed money. Compute each subperiod return by dividing the value of the portfolio at the end of the subperiod (but before adding additional cash on that day) by the value at the beginning of the subperiod (after adding cash on that day). Then multiply all these returns together. Finally, subtract 1. That's your total return. For the portfolio where you didn't add any money it's easy: just divide the end value by the beginning and subtract 1. Whichever has a higher return performed better. To compute risk adjusted returns, get the portfolio returns from both portfolios (daily or monthly) and use OLS to regress on a benchmark portfolio return (something like the S&P500). The intercept of the regression is a measure of the risk-adjusted peformance of your portfolio. Higher the better. More sophisticated models will do multiple regression using a few benchmark portfolios at the same time.",
"qid": 10792,
"docid": "435470",
"rank": 52,
"score": 71966
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Generally speaking. 1. Take the position size / average daily volume. 2. Multiply that number by 10 or whatever 1/whatever % of volume you think you can execute, ( you can at best acct for 10 percent of traded volume on a day). 3. You now have days until liquidation (x) 4. Take the days until liquidation sample the return over time x. I.e. if days until liquidation is 10, you would sample 10 day returns. 5. Calculate the distribution characteristics of this window (mean, var, skew, kurt) and calculate VaR based on some confidence. You can now have a liquidity risk expected loss and a VaR. If position is on margin don't forget to add the interest cost. Note: Instead of taking 10 day return, you can take the 10 day VWAP and calculate return between Open and 10 day vwap.",
"qid": 10792,
"docid": "277579",
"rank": 53,
"score": 71932
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: IRR is the acronym for internal rate of return. And it appears that you do understand how it works. It's not the phrase most investors use for their own returns. I'd typically talk about my own return last year, or over the last decade, etc, as well as what the S&P did during that time, and might even use the term CAGR, compound annual growth rate, although I wouldn't pronounce it 'kegger' or anything like that. Aside from discussing company investments in some MBA class, the only time I'd use IRR is in an excel spreadsheet to calculate the return over time of a series of my own investments. The nothing magic about this, it's a function of an initial dollar investment, time passing, and the final value. All else is addition complexity based on multiple deposits/withdrawals, etc. If I deposit $100 and get back $200 in a year, it's a 100% IRR. Disclosure - I am no fan of Investopedia or re-explaining its wording on these topics. I've caught multiple errors in their articles, and unlike the times I've emailed my friends at the IRS who quickly fix typos and mistakes I've caught, Investopedia authors are no better than bloggers (which I am) who take offense at any criticism (which I do not).",
"qid": 10792,
"docid": "511984",
"rank": 54,
"score": 71557
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You need to solve the money-weighted return equation. It cannot be expressed as a formula for the interest, but it can be solved numerically as shown here. Using the OP's figures, with monthly withdrawals of $100,000. The summation for the withdrawals can be replaced with the standard annuity formula. The resulting monthly return is converted to a nominal annual return compounded monthly. Money-weighted return equation with start and end balances s0 and s1 The interest is 2.63282 % per annum, nominal compounded monthly. Selectable equation",
"qid": 10792,
"docid": "179365",
"rank": 55,
"score": 71530
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Rate of return is (Current value - initial value) divided by initial value. Buy $10,000 worth of put options and sell them for $15,000, and your rate of return is 0.5, or 50%.",
"qid": 10792,
"docid": "478480",
"rank": 56,
"score": 71513
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You could use the Gordon growth model implied expected return: P = D/(r-g) --> r = D/P (forward dividend yield) + g (expected dividend growth). But obviously there is no such thing as a good market return proxy.",
"qid": 10792,
"docid": "249360",
"rank": 57,
"score": 71378
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Total Return is the percent change in value (including andy dividends) of an instrument. The \"\"trailing 12-month\"\" means that your starting point is the value 12 months ago. So the formula is: where V is the value of the instrument on the reference date, V0 is the value of the instrument 12 months prior to the reference date, and D is the amount of dividends paid between the two dates.\"",
"qid": 10792,
"docid": "143302",
"rank": 58,
"score": 70945
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: At its simplest level it's an application of basic statistics/probability: Suppose you have n independent and identically distributed assets with the return on asset i denoted R_i which has mean m and variance s^2 (same for all assets). You can easily weaken these assumptions but I make them to simplify the exposition [Square brackets show a numerical example with n=20, m=8%, s=2%] if you invest in one of these assets you expect to get a return of m [8%] with standard deviation s [2%] (so you expect with probability 95% (approx) to get a return between m-2*s and m+2*s. [between 4% and 12%] Now suppose you split your money equally among the n-assets. Your return is now R = (1/n)\\Sum{i=1}^n R_i your expected return is E(R) = (1/n)\\Sum{i=1}^n E(R_i) = (1/n)\\Sum{i=1}^n m = m [8%] the variance of your return is Var(R) = Var( (1/n)\\Sum{i=1}^n R_i ) = (1/n^2)\\Sum{i=1}^n Var(R_i) = n * s^2 / n^2) = s^2/n So, the standard deviation is SD(R) = Sqrt(V(R)) = s/Sqrt(n) [2%/Sqrt(20) = 0.44%] Now, with 95% probability we get a return between E(R)-2*SD(R) and E(R)+2*SD(R) [between 7.12% and 8.88%]. This interval is smaller than when we invested in the single asset, so in effect with this portfolio we are achieving the same return m [8%] but with lower variance (risk) [0.44% instead of 2%]. This is the result of diversification. You can assume the assets are not independent (and most book expositions of this topic do indeed do that). In that case the calculation is modified because the variance of the portfolio now depends on the correlation between returns, as does the reduction in variance caused by the diversification. If assets are negatively correlated the result of the diversification will be more reduction in risk and vice versa. You can also assume the assets are not identically distributed and the above analysis does not change too much. You might look for some references on CAPM (Capital Asset Pricing Model) or portfolio theory but broadly these are based on what I have described above - finding the portfolio with minimum variance for a given return by investing proportionally in treasury bonds and risky assets.",
"qid": 10792,
"docid": "365189",
"rank": 59,
"score": 70678
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Annualize quarterly returns: AR = (1+QR)^4 Where *QR* is a decimal return, e.g. 0.05. Standard deviations are similar: Annual SD = SD * sqrt(T) If you have quarterly deviations, *T=4*, if you have daily, *T=252*, etc. As an aside, for work with money riding on it, it is *not* okay to aggregate standard deviations if there's autocorrelation amongst observations at a smaller time scale. Volatility is often quoted this way and that's fine, but it is dangerous to do any sort of risk management with this and you'll require more due diligence. It's a good enough approximation for napkin math, though.",
"qid": 10792,
"docid": "574974",
"rank": 60,
"score": 70671
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Thanks for showing me that. I can see it now. I have always used my formula, and even a senior at another company confirmed the way I calculated the returns. Luckily, I do not work with that manager, and he has his own model, and so do I. But he was pretty cool about it when I asked about his calculations.",
"qid": 10792,
"docid": "83987",
"rank": 61,
"score": 70595
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Basically, your CC is (if normal) compounded monthly, based on a yearly APR. To calculate the amount of interest you'd pay on each of these accounts in a year, pull up a spreadsheet like Office Excel. Put in your current balance, then multiply it by the annual interest rate divided by 12, and add that quantity to the balance. Subtract any payment you make, and the result is your new balance. You can project this out for several months to get a good estimate of what you'll pay; in accounting or finance terms, what you're creating is an \"\"amortization table\"\". So, with a $10,000 balance, at 13.99% interest and making payments of $200/mo, the amortization table for one year's payments might look like: As you can see, $200 isn't paying down this card very quickly. In one year, you will have paid $2,400, of which $1,332.25 went straight into the bank's pockets in interest charges, reducing your balance by only $1,067.75. Up the payments to $300/mo, and in 1 year you will have paid $3,600, and only been charged $1,252.24 in interest, so you'll have reduced your balance by $2,347.76 to only $7,652.24, which further reduces interest charges down the line. You can track the differences in the Excel sheet and play \"\"what-ifs\"\" very easily to see the ramifications of spending your $5,000 in various ways. Understand that although, for instance, 13.99% may be your base interest rate, if the account has become delinquent, or you made any cash advances or balance transfers, higher or lower interest rates may be charged on a portion of the balance or the entire balance, depending on what's going on with your account; a balance transfer may get 0% interest for a year, then 19.99% interest after that if not paid off. Cash advances are ALWAYS charged at exorbitantly high rates, up to 40% APR. Most credit card bills will include what may be called an \"\"effective APR\"\", which is a weighted average APR of all the various sub-balances of your account and the interest rates they currently have. Understand that your payment first pays off interest accrued during the past cycle, then pays down the principal on the highest-interest portion of the balance first, so if you have made a balance transfer to another card and are using that card for purchases, the only way to avoid interest on the transfer at the post-incentive rates is to pay off the ENTIRE balance in a year. The minimum payment on a credit card USED to be just the amount of accrued interest or sometimes even less; if you paid only the minimum payment, the balance would never decrease (and may increase). In the wake of the 2008 credit crisis, most banks now enforce a higher minimum payment such that you would pay off the balance in between 3 and 5 years by making only minimum payments. This isn't strictly required AFAIK, but because banks ARE required by the CARD Act to disclose the payoff period at the minimum payment (which would be \"\"never\"\" under most previous policies), the higher minimum payments give cardholders hope that as long as they make the minimum payments and don't charge any more to the card, they will get back to zero.\"",
"qid": 10792,
"docid": "117602",
"rank": 62,
"score": 70555
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You can use google docs to create a spreadsheet. In field A2, I put Google will load the prices into the sheet. At that point, I add the following into C12, then copy that line all the way down to the botton of column C. You can find my spreadsheet here. It calculates the moving 10 day standard deviation as a percentage of average price for that time period.",
"qid": 10792,
"docid": "190603",
"rank": 63,
"score": 70491
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You are comparing a risk-free cost with a risky return. If you can tolerate that level of risk (the ups and downs of the investment) for the chance that you'll come out ahead in the long-run, then sure, you could do that. So the parameters to your equation would be: If you assume that the risky returns are normally distributed, then you can use normal probability tables to determine what risk level you can tolerate. To put some real numbers to it, take the average S&P 500 return of 10% and standard deviation of 18%. Using standard normal functions, we can calculate the probability that you earn more than various interest rates: so even with a low 3% interest rate, there's roughly a 1 in 3 chance that you'll actually be worse off (the gains on your investments will be less than the interest you pay). In any case there's a 3 in 10 chance that your investments will lose money.",
"qid": 10792,
"docid": "309037",
"rank": 64,
"score": 70376
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: There are different perspectives from which to calculate the gain, but the way I think it should be done is with respect to the risk you've assumed in the original position, which the simplistic calculation doesn't factor in. There's a good explanation about calculating the return from a short sale at Investopedia. Here's the part that I consider most relevant: [...] When calculating the return of a short sale, you need to compare the amount the trader gets to keep to the initial amount of the liability. Had the trade in our example turned against you, you (as the short seller) would owe not only the initial proceeds amount but also the excess amount, and this would come out of your pocket. [...] Refer to the source link for the full explanation. Update: As you can see from the other answers and comments, it is a more complex a Q&A than it may first appear. I subsequently found this interesting paper which discusses the difficulty of rate of return with respect to short sales and other atypical trades: Excerpt: [...] The problem causing this almost uniform omission of a percentage return on short sales, options (especially writing), and futures, it may be speculated, is that the nigh-well universal and conventional definition of rate of return involving an initial cash outflow followed by a later cash inflow does not appear to fit these investment situations. None of the investment finance texts nor general finance texts, undergraduate or graduate, have formally or explicitly shown how to resolve this predicament or how to justify the calculations they actually use. [...]",
"qid": 10792,
"docid": "158520",
"rank": 65,
"score": 70089
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Let P denote the amount of the investment, R the rate of return and I the rate of inflation. For simplicity, assume that the payment p is made annually right after the return has been earned. Thus, at the end if the year, the investment P has increased to P*(1+R) and p is returned as the annuity payment. If I = 0, the entire return can be paid out as the payment, and thus p = P*R. That is, at the end of the year, when the dust settles after the return P*R has been collected and paid out as the annuity payment, P is again available at the beginning of the next year to earn return at rate R. We have P*(1+R) - p = P If I > 0, then at the end of the year, after the dust settles, we cannot afford to have only P available as the investment for next year. Next year's payment must be p*(1+I) and so we need a larger investment since the rate of return is fixed. How much larger? Well, if the investment at the beginning of next year is P*(1+I), it will earn exactly enough additional money to pay out the increased payment for next year, and have enough left over to help towards future increases in payments. (Note that we are assuming that R > I. If R < I, a perpetuity cannot be created.) Thus, suppose that we choose p such that P*(1+R) - p = P*(1+I) Multiplying this equation by (1+I), we have [P(1+I)]*(1+R) - [p*(1+I)] = P*(1+I)^2 In words, at the start of next year, the investment is P*(1+I) and the return less the increased payout of p*(1+I) leaves an investment of P*(1+I)^2 for the following year. Each year, the payment and the amount to be invested for the following year increase by a factor of (1+I). Solving P*(1+R) - p = P*(1+I) for p, we get p = P*(R-I) as the initial perpetuity payment and the payment increases by a factor (1+I) each year. The initial investment is P and it also increases by a factor of (1+I) each year. In later years, the investment is P*(1+I)^n at the start of the year, the payment is p*(1+I)^n and the amount invested for the next year is P*(1+I)^{n+1}. This is the same result as obtained by the OP but written in terms that I can understand, that is, without the financial jargon about discount rates, gradients, PV, FV and the like.",
"qid": 10792,
"docid": "71552",
"rank": 66,
"score": 69928
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Calculating beta is finding the correlation between the dependent variable, MSCI world benchmark, and the independent variable, your companies. If you know how to run liner regression models, run each company as the independent variable with the dependent MSCI. You can use Excel to gather this result (Y = MSCI price change at closing hour while X = company stock price closing prince). Running the regression will give you the Beta (and alpha when doing portfolios); which (from linear algebra) is the \"\"m\"\" in y = mx + b\"",
"qid": 10792,
"docid": "21530",
"rank": 67,
"score": 69618
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I hope that there are no significant differences between the things you list once the formulas for compounding interest are understood. I will, again, lay out these formulas below. First, definition of the variables: R means Total Return ratio. The sum of all money you get, both dividends (or interest payments) and return of initial capital. I is a ratio. It is the percent (10.4%) divided by 100 (0.104) then added to one (1.104). P means the number of periods in which the interest rate is paid and compounded. R = I^P I = R^(1/P) P = log(R) / log(I) Once you have R you multiply it by the amount of your initial investment to find out how much total money is returned. For simplicity the following amounts are approximate: 2 = 1.104^7 1.104 = 2^(1/7) 7 = log(2) / log(1.104) So to double your money in seven years you need a yearly interest rate of 10.4, if compounded yearly.",
"qid": 10792,
"docid": "366509",
"rank": 68,
"score": 68985
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: For implied volatility it is okey to use Black and scholes but what to do with the historical volatility which carry the effect of past prices as a predictor of future prices.And then precisely the conditional historical volatility.i suggest that you must go with the process like, for stock returns 1) first download stock prices into excel sheet 2) take the natural log of (P1/po) 3) calculate average of the sample 4) calculate square of (X-Xbar) 5) take square root of this and you will get the standard deviation of your required data.",
"qid": 10792,
"docid": "105607",
"rank": 69,
"score": 68774
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Well, one can easily have rates below -100%. Suppose I start with $100, and end up with $9 after a year. What was my rate of return? It could be -91%, -181%, -218%, or -241%, or something else, depending on the compounding method. We always have that the final amount equals the initial amount times a growth factor G, and we can express this using a rate r and a day count fraction T. In this case, we have T = 1, and B(T) = B(0) * 0.09, so: So, depending on how we compound, we have a rate of return of -91%, -181%, -218%, or -241%. This nicely illustrates that:",
"qid": 10792,
"docid": "114423",
"rank": 70,
"score": 68435
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: To calculate any daily return, all one need do is divide the final value by the initial value, subtract 1, and multiply by 100%: This can be applied to either the futures alone, the investments used as margin collateral alone, or all together. Margin collateral as a factor of a derivative's return Collateral can take many forms. Many suggest that cost and revenue for a derivative trade should also take into account margin requirements. This can become problematic. If a futures position moved against the trader, yet the margin was secured with equities at the maximum, and the equities moved with the trader, the futures trade could be interpreted as less of a loss because the collateral, which is probably totally disassociated with the futures position, increased in value. Then again, if a futures position moved with the trader, yet the margin collateral moved against the trader then taken together, the futures trade would look less profitable. Furthermore, most likely the result of a futures position and its collateral would never produce the same result, so extrapolation would become ever more difficult. For ease of analysis, a position's cost and revenue should be segmented from another unless if those positions are meant to hedge each other. Margin is not a cost, but it is a liability, so margin will affect the balance sheet of a futures trade but not its income statement, again unless if the collateral is also used to hedge such futures position.",
"qid": 10792,
"docid": "422922",
"rank": 71,
"score": 68401
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: It is pretty easy to setup a spreadsheet for calculating interest payments and remaining balance. Do a quick search online. You may want to put it in something like Google Docs, where brother can view the status, but only you can edit it. When you get a payment, a portion goes to interest and another to principle. The formulas will do the work for you. However, I feel that there is a bigger issue. The math may seem like a good deal for the both of you, but I would be very hesitant to loan a family member money. What if he does not pay? What if he is late with a payment and goes on a vacation himself? What if his significant other resents the payment that you collect which precludes her from buying a new TV, etc... People come to hate/resent big corporations that they have to make payments. How much more so one that has a face....that comes over and eats? While this loan is outstanding holidays may never be the same. Is the loan a real need? Are you in a position to give them the money? You may want to consider the latter. Is there a reason he can't just borrow the money from the bank?",
"qid": 10792,
"docid": "49354",
"rank": 72,
"score": 68357
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I believe the following formula provides a reasonable approximation. You need to fill in the following variables: The average annual return you need on investing the 15% = (((MP5 - MP20) * 12) + (.0326 * .95 * PP / Y)) / (PP *.15) Example assuming an interest rate of 4% on a 100K home: If you invest the $15K you'll break even if you make a 9.86% return per year on average. Here's the breakdown per year using these example numbers: Note this does not consider taxes.",
"qid": 10792,
"docid": "113457",
"rank": 73,
"score": 68306
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: In this case, it looks like the interest is simply the nominal daily interest rate times number of days in the period. From that you can use a spreadsheet to calculate the total payment by trial and error. With the different number of days in each period, any formula would be very complicated. In the more usual case where the interest charge for each period is the same, the formula is: m=P*r^n*(r-1)/(r^n-1) where * is multiplication ^ is exponentiation / is division (Sorry, don't know if there's a way to show formulas cleanly on here) P=original principle r=growth factor per payment period, i.e. interest rate + 100% divided by 100, e.g. 1% -> 1.01 n=number of payments Note the growth factor above is per period, so if you have monthly payments, it's the rate per month. The last payment may be different because of rounding errors, unequal number of days per period, or other technicalities. Using that formula here won't give the right answer because of the unequal periods, but it should be close. Let's see: r=0.7% times an average of 28.8 days per period gives 20.16% + 1 = 1.2016. n=5 P=500 m=500*1.2016^5*(1.2016-1)/(1.2016^5-1) =167.78 Further off than I expected, but ballpark.",
"qid": 10792,
"docid": "260569",
"rank": 74,
"score": 68253
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Re. question 2 If I buy 20 shares every year, how do I get proper IRR? ... (I would have multiple purchase dates) Use the money-weighted return calculation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rate_of_return#Internal_rate_of_return where t is the fraction of the time period and Ct is the cash flow at that time period. For the treatment of dividends, if they are reinvested then there should not be an external cash flow for the dividend. They are included in the final value and the return is termed \"\"total return\"\". If the dividends are taken in cash, the return based on the final value is \"\"net return\"\". The money-weighted return for question 2, with reinvested dividends, can be found by solving for r, the rate for the whole 431 day period, in the NPV summation. Now annualising And in Excel\"",
"qid": 10792,
"docid": "517637",
"rank": 75,
"score": 67888
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Another way to look at this is if we separate the owner's account from the business's account. At the start of the year, the owner puts $9 into the business account to get the business started. At the end of the first day, the business account has $10, and at the end of the second day, the business account has $11. The owner doesn't need to add any more of his own money into the business account. At the end of the 365th day, the business will have $374, which is $365 profit + $9 investment. Assuming the business has no other expenses, the business will calculate profit for the year like this: The author is making a strange point. The two numbers he is talking about are two different quantities. The business owner's return on investment is $365 / $9 = 4056%. But the business's profit margin is $365 / $3650 = 10%. Both are useful numbers when running the business. I disagree with the author's insinuation that a business is doing something tricky when calculating profit margin. Remember that, in addition to the business owner's monetary investment, he worked every day for a year to earn that $365.",
"qid": 10792,
"docid": "426343",
"rank": 76,
"score": 67730
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Variance of a single asset is defined as follows: σ2 = Σi(Xi - μ)2 where Xi's represent all the possible final market values of your asset and μ represents the mean of all such market values. The portfolio's variance is defined as σp2 = Σiwi2σi2 where, σp is the portfolio's variance, and wi stands for the weight of the ith asset. Now, if you include the borrowing in your portfolio, that would classify as technically shorting at the borrowing rate. Thus, this weight would (by the virtue of being negative) increase all other weights. Moreover, the variance of this is likely to be zero (assuming fixed borrowing rates). Thus, weights of risky assets rise and the investor's portfolio's variance will go up. Also see, CML at wikipedia.",
"qid": 10792,
"docid": "82294",
"rank": 77,
"score": 67675
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you don't have a good knowledge of finance, maybe you should not put too much money in individual stocks. But if you really want to invest, you can just compare the rate of return of the most known stocks available to you (like the one from the S&P for the US). The rate of return is very simple to compute, it's 100*dividend/share price. For example a company with a current share price of 50.12 USD that delivered a dividend of 1.26 USD last year would have a rate of return of 100 * 1.26/50.12= 2.51% Now if you only invest in the most known stocks, since they are already covered by nearly all financial institutions and analysts: If you are looking for lower risk dividend companies, take a sample of companies and invest those with the lowest rates of return (but avoid extreme values). Of course since the stock prices are changing all the time, you have to compare them with a price taken at the same time (like the closing price of a specific day) and for the dividend, they can be on several basis (yearly, quartely, etc..) so you have to be sure to take the same basis. You can also find the P/E ratio which is the opposite indicator (= share price/dividend) so an higher P/E ratio means a lower risk. Most of the time you can find the P/E ratio or the rate of return already computed on specialized website or brokers.",
"qid": 10792,
"docid": "533140",
"rank": 78,
"score": 67610
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You are calculating using different methods. For example, to obtain 6.45% 6.44647 This is effectively the same as the money-weighted return calculation. In arriving at 6.06% you have calculated the true time-weighted return. Both answers are right, but they are different measures. To use time-weighted returns you need to know the value of the investment at the time of every cash flow. Modified Dietz uses a simple approximation to avoid that requirement. Money-weighted return gives results that are more accurate for back calculating than Modified Dietz, (also without requiring interim valuations), but the calculation is more complex. See How to Calculate your Portfolio's Rate of Return for a decent reference.",
"qid": 10792,
"docid": "83587",
"rank": 79,
"score": 67510
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Strictly by the numbers, putting more than 20% down is a losing proposition. With interest rates still near all time lows, you're likely able to get a mortgage for less than 4%. The real rate of a return on the market (subtracting inflation and taxes) is going to be somewhere around 5-6%. So by this math, you'd be best off paying the minimum to get out of PMI, and then investing the remainder in a low fee index fund. The question becomes how much that 1-2% is worth to you vs how much the job flexibility is worth. It boils down to your personal risk preference, life conditions, etc. so it is difficult to give good advice. The 1-2% difference in your rate of return is not going to be catastrophic. Personally, I would run the numbers with your fiance. Build a spreadsheet tracking your estimated net worth under the assumption that you make a 20% down payment and invest the rest. Then hold all other factors equal, and re-build the spreadsheet with the higher down payment. Factor in one of you losing your job for a few years, or one of you taking off for a while to raise the kids. You can make a judgement call based how the two of you feel about those numbers.",
"qid": 10792,
"docid": "207564",
"rank": 80,
"score": 67482
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you just want to know total return, either as dollars or a percentage, just add up the total amount spent on buys and compare this to current value plus money received on sales. In this case, you spent (310 x $3.15 + $19.95) + (277 x $3.54 + $19.95). So your total investment is ... calculator please ... $1996.98. You received 200 x $4.75 on the sale minus the $19.95 = $930.05. The present value of your remaining shares is 387 x $6.06 = $2345.22. So you have realized plus unrealized value of $2345.22 + $930.05 = $3275.27. Assuming I didn't mix up numbers or make an arithmetic mistake, your dollar gain is $3275.27 - $1996.98 = $1278.29, which comes to 1278.29 / 1996.98 = 64%. If you want to know percentage gain as an annual rate, we'd have to know buy and sell dates, and with multiple buys and sells the calculation gets messier.",
"qid": 10792,
"docid": "175107",
"rank": 81,
"score": 67416
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you didn't have deposits, then the growth rate is simply ((p1/p0)^(1/t))-1, where p0 is the initial balance, p1 is the current balance, and t is the number of periods. For example, suppose you started the account with $100,000 in 2000. It's now 2015 -- 15 years later -- and the balance is $240,000. So the growth is: If you're making regular deposits, especially if you're making deposits of unequal amounts, the problem becomes much more complex. The easiest thing to do is probably to create a spreadsheet. Make a column for principle, a column for deposit amount, and a column for percent growth that period. Assuming A is principle and B is deposit, then the formula for growth C is =((A2-A1-B1)/A1-1)*100. Copy this formula down the column and Excel should automatically adjust the row numbers. Assuming you put one row for each month you can see the growth (or loss) month by month. You can get a general idea of what your overall growth rate has been by taking the average of the monthly amounts, but this would not be a truly accurate measure of your total growth because presumably (hopefully) you have more money in the later months than the earlier months. But it would be a good measure of how your investments are doing.",
"qid": 10792,
"docid": "538687",
"rank": 82,
"score": 67016
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/credit/cre27.pdf if you are in the US Look at section 805 and 805 about how they may contact you and what they are and aren't allowed to do. You can simply send a Certified Mail, Return Receipt (CMRR) letter explaining you have no part of it, and that they are not allowed to contact you by any means other than in writing from this point forward. Then you can either put return to sender on the letters (it costs them money) or open them and delete anything you don't need.",
"qid": 10792,
"docid": "153443",
"rank": 83,
"score": 66869
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Line one shows your 1M, a return with a given rate, and year end withdrawal starting at 25,000. So Line 2 starts with that balance, applies the rate again, and shows the higher withdrawal, by 3%/yr. In Column one, I show the cumulative effect of the 3% inflation, and the last number in this column is the final balance (903K) but divided by the cumulative inflation. To summarize - if you simply get the return of inflation, and start by spending just that amount, you'll find that after 20 years, you have half your real value. The 1.029 is a trial and error method, as I don't know how a finance calculator would handle such a payment flow. I can load the sheet somewhere if you'd like. Note: This is not exactly what the OP was looking for. If the concept is useful, I'll let it stand. If not, downvotes are welcome and I'll delete.",
"qid": 10792,
"docid": "281495",
"rank": 84,
"score": 66793
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You should invest your money. To figure out what rate of return you need, use this equation: (How Much Money You Want Per Year) / (Total Amount of Cash You Have) = (Annualized Interest Rate) If we plug in the amount of annualized interest you can expect to safely get while not managing your money personally, 2% by my estimate, we get X / 1.2m = 0.02%; X=24K/year A measly $24,000 / year. Many people say that you can get 10, 12, even 30% return on your investment. I won't speculate on if this is true, but I will guarantee that you cannot get those returns simply by handing your money over to a money manager. So your options are, 1) Earn a guaranteed $24,000 and earn the rest you need to live by working 2) Learn to invest your money (and then do so intelligently) and earn enough to live off the interest To learn how to invest your money, read Beating the Street, by Peter Lynch. https://www.amazon.ca/Beating-Street-Peter-Lynch/dp/0671891634 Good luck!",
"qid": 10792,
"docid": "121160",
"rank": 85,
"score": 66101
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: See this spread sheet I worked up for fun. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ZhI-Rls4FpwpdpEYgdn20lWmcqkIEhB-2AH0fQ7G2wY/edit?usp=sharing If you are really crazy you can do what I did and model the rates (modified normal) and expenses (large items like the roofing being replaced on exponential) distribution and run a monte carlo simulation to get maximum likely losses by years and ranges of final values. P.S. As a side note, this spreadsheet makes a lot of assumptions and I would consider it absolutely necessary to be able to build a sheet like this and understand all the assumptions and play with it to see how quickly this can turn into a losing investment before making any business investments.",
"qid": 10792,
"docid": "595759",
"rank": 86,
"score": 66050
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I'm not sure that you're considering all the options. So you may not subtract $X from B, but you do compare NPV(B) to $Y. Also, remember that we're not trying to figure out the return on B. We're trying to figure out what to do next. In terms of planning, the sunk cost is irrelevant. But in terms of calculating return, A was a turkey. And to calculate the return, we would include $X in our costs for B. And for the second option, we'd subtract $X from $Y (may be negative). Sunk costs are irrelevant to planning, but they are very relevant to retrospective analysis. Please don't confuse the two. When looking back, part of the cost for B will be that $X. But in the middle, after paying $X and before starting B, the $X is gone. You only have the building and have to make your decision based on the options you have at that moment. You will sometimes hear $Y called the opportunity cost of B. You could sell out for $Y or you could do B. You should only do B if it is worth more than $Y. The sunk cost fallacy would be comparing B to $X. Assuming $Y is less than $X, this would make you not do B when it is your best path forward from that moment. I.e. $Y < NPV(B) < $X means that you should do the project. You will lose money (apparently that's a foregone conclusion), but you will lose less money than if you just sold out. You should also do B if $Y < $X < NPV(B) or $X < $Y < NPV(B). In general, you should do B any time $Y < NPV(B). The only time you should not do B is if NPV(B) < $Y. If they are exactly equal, then it doesn't matter financially whether you do B or not.",
"qid": 10792,
"docid": "94858",
"rank": 87,
"score": 65879
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I got $3394.83 The first problem with this is that it is backwards. The NPV (Net Present Value) of three future payments of $997 has to be less than the nominal value. The nominal value is simple: $2991. First step, convert the 8% annual return from the stock market to a monthly return. Everyone else assumed that the 8% is a monthly return, but that is clearly absurd. The correct way to do this would be to solve for m in But we often approximate this by dividing 8% by 12, which would be .67%. Either way, you divide each payment by the number of months of compounding. Sum those up using m equal to about .64% (I left the calculated value in memory and used that rather than the rounded value) and you get about $2952.92 which is smaller than $2991. Obviously $2952.92 is much larger than $2495 and you should not do this. If the three payments were $842.39 instead, then it would about break even. Note that this neglects risk. In a three month period, the stock market is as likely to fall short of an annualized 8% return as to beat it. This would make more sense if your alternative was to pay off some of your mortgage immediately and take the payments or yp pay a lump sum now and increase future mortgage payments. Then your return would be safer. Someone noted in a comment that we would normally base the NPV on the interest rate of the payments. That's for calculating the NPV to the one making the loan. Here, we want to calculate the NPV for the borrower. So the question is what the borrower would do with the money if making payments and not the lump sum. The question assumes that the borrower would invest in the stock market, which is a risky option and not normally advisable. I suggest a mortgage based alternative. If the borrower is going to stuff the money under the mattress until needed, then the answer is simple. The nominal value of $2991 is also the NPV, as mattresses don't pay interest. Similarly, many banks don't pay interest on checking these days. So for someone facing a real decision like this, I'd almost always recommend paying the lump sum and getting it over with. Even if the payments are \"\"same as cash\"\" with no premium charged.\"",
"qid": 10792,
"docid": "188384",
"rank": 88,
"score": 65844
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You should use the Gordon Growth model, but you are using the wrong rate. required return = rf + market premium x Beta rm = 0,12, premium = 0,08 --> rf = 0,04 thus rr = 0.04 + 0.08 * 1.5 = 0.16 then you get $15/(0.16-0.05) = $136,36",
"qid": 10792,
"docid": "19613",
"rank": 89,
"score": 65843
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I would use neither method. Taking a short example first, with just three compounding periods, with interest rate 10%. The start value y0 is 1. So after three years the value is 1.331, the same as y0 (1 + 0.1)^3. Depreciating (like inflation) by 10% (to demonstrate) gets us back to y0 = 1 Appreciating and depreciating by 10% cancels out: Appreciating by 10% interest and depreciating by 3% inflation: This is the same as y0 (1 + 0.1)^3 (1 + 0.03)^-3 = 1.21805 So for 50 years the result is y0 (1 + 0.1)^50 (1 + 0.03)^-50 = 26.7777 Note You can of course use subtraction but the not using the inflation figure directly. E.g. (edit: This appears to be the Fisher equation.) 2nd Note Further to comments, here is a chart to illustrate how much the relative performance improves when inflation is accounted for. The first fund's return is 6% and the second fund's return varies from 3% to 6%. Inflation is 3%.",
"qid": 10792,
"docid": "35533",
"rank": 90,
"score": 65737
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Specific stock advice isn't permitted on these boards. I'm discussing the process of a call spread with the Apple Jan 13 calls as an example. In effect, you have $10 to 'bet.' Each bet you'd construct offers a different return (odds). For example, If you bought the $750 call at $37.25, you'd need to look to find what strike has a bid of $27 or higher. The $790 is bid $27.75. So this particular spread is a 4 to 1 bet the stock will close in January over $790, with a $760 break even. You can pull the number from Yahoo to a spreadsheet to make your own chart of spread costs, but I'll give one more example. You think it will go over $850, and that strike is now ask $18.85. The highest strike currently listed is $930, and it's bid $10.35. So this spread cost is $850, and a close over $930 returns $8000 or over 9 to 1. Again, this is not advice, just an analysis of how spreads work. Note, any anomalies in the pricing above is the effect of a particular strike having no trades today, not every strike is active so 'last trade' can be days old. Note: My answer adds to AlexR's response in that once you used the word bet and showed a desire to make a risky move, options are the answer. You acknowledged you understand the basic concept, but given the contract size of 100 shares, these suggestions are ways to bet under your $1000 limit and profit from the gain in the underlying stock you hope to see.",
"qid": 10792,
"docid": "380351",
"rank": 91,
"score": 65657
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"My question is, using previous data how do I calculate my returns? \"\"Stupid\"\" is the person who does not ask. Better to have visited first, but even asking after the fact will get you an education, at a very low cost. You would only see those returns had you invested at the beginning of the period advertised. \"\"Past results are not a guarantee of future returns.\"\" Since we have no idea where you are in life, there's little advice I can give you except to invite you to learn. You can easily spend 100 hours on this Stack reading advice on the beginning investor, and every stage after that. We all needed to start somewhere, and in your case, just showing up was a great first step.\"",
"qid": 10792,
"docid": "593183",
"rank": 92,
"score": 65637
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Interesting. When you say DIY you mean pencil and paper. For most of us the choice came down to using a professional vs using the software. Your second bullet really hits the point. The tax return is a giant spreadsheet with multiple cells depending on each other. Short of building my own spreadsheet to perform the task, I found the software, at $30-$50, to be the happy medium between the full DIY and the Pro at $400+. With a single W2, and no other items, the form is likely just a 1040-EZ, and there shouldn't be any recalculating so long as you have the data you need. Pencil/paper is fine. There's no exact time to say go with the software, except, perhaps, when you realize there are enough fields to fill out where the recalculating might be cumbersome, or the need to see the exact tax bracket has value for you. You are clearly in the category that can fill out the one form. At some point, you might have investment income (Schedule D) enough mortgage interest to itemize deductions (Schedule A) etc. You'll know when it's time to go the software route. Keep in mind, there are free online choices from each of the tax software providers. Good for simple returns up to a certain level. Thanks to Phil for noting this in comments. I'll offer an anecdote exemplifying the distinction between using the software as a tool vs having a high knowledge of taxes. I wrote an article The Phantom Tax Zone, in which I explained how the process of taxing Social Security benefits at a certain level created what I called a Phantom Tax Rate. I knew that $1000 more in income could cause $850 of the benefit to be taxed as well, but with a number of factors to consider, I wanted to create a chart to show the tax at each incremental $1000 of income added. Using the software, I simply added $1000, noted the tax due, and repeated. Doing this by hand would have taken a day, not 30 minutes. For you, the anecdote may have no value, Social Security is too far off. For others, who in March are doing their return, the process may hold value. Many people are deciding whether to make their IRA deposit be pre-tax or the Post tax Roth IRA. The software can help them quickly see the effect of +/- $1000 in income and choose the mix that's ideal for them.",
"qid": 10792,
"docid": "494808",
"rank": 93,
"score": 65578
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I use a spreadsheet for that. I provide house value, land value, closing/fix-up costs, mortgage rate and years, tax bracket, city tax rate, insurance cost, and rental income. Sections of the spreadsheet compute (in obvious ways) the values used for the following tables: First I look at monthly cash flow (earnings/costs) and here are the columns: Next section looks at changes in taxable reported income caused by the house, And this too is monthly, even though it'll be x12 when you write your 1040. The third table is shows the monthly cash flow, forgetting about maintenance and assuming you adjust your quarterlies or paycheck exemptions to come out even: Maintenance is so much of a wildcard that I don't attempt to include it. My last table looks at paper (non-cash) equity gains: I was asked how I compute some of those intermediate values. My user inputs (adjusted for each property) are: My intermediate values are:",
"qid": 10792,
"docid": "33304",
"rank": 94,
"score": 65550
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You can fairly simply make a spreadsheet in your favorite spreadsheet application (or in Google Docs if you want portability). I like to make an overview page that shows how much I take in per month and what fixed bills come out of that, then break the remaining total into four to get a weekly budget. Then, I make one page per month with four columns (one per week), with each row being a category. Sum the categories at the bottom, and subtract from your weekly total: voila, a quick reference of how much you can spend that week without going over budget. I then make a page for each month that lists what I bought and how much I spent on it, so I can trace where my money's gone; the category total is just a summation of the items from that page that belong in that category. Once you have a system, stop checking your bank balance except to ensure your paycheck is going in alright. Use the spreadsheet to determine how much you can spend at any time. Then make sure you pay off everything on the card before the end of the month so you don't incur interest.",
"qid": 10792,
"docid": "281361",
"rank": 95,
"score": 65427
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Probably the best way to investigate this is to look at an example. First, as the commenters above have already said, the log-return from one period is log(price at time t/price at time t-1) which is approximately equal to the percentage change in the price from time t-1 to time t, provided that this percentage change is not big compared to the size of the price. (Note that you have to use the natural log, ie. log to the base e -- ln button on a calculator -- here.) The main use of the log-return is that is a proxy for the percentage change in the price, which turns out to be mathematically convenient, for various reasons which have mostly already been mentioned in the comments. But you already know this; your actual question is about the average log-return over a period of time. What does this indicate about the stock? The answer is: if the stock price is not changing very much, then the average log-return is about equal to the average percentage change in the price, and is very easy and quick to calculate. But if the stock price is very volatile, then the average log-return can be wildly different to the average percentage change in the price. Here is an example: the closing prices for Pitchfork Oil from last week's trading are: 10, 5, 12, 5, 10, 2, 15. The percentage changes are: -0.5, 1.4, -0.58, 1, -0.8, 6.5 (where -0.5 means -50%, etc.) The average percentage change is 1.17, or 117%. On the other hand, the log-returns for the same period are -0.69, 0.88, -0.88, 0.69, -1.6, 2, and the average log-return is about 0.068. If we used this as a proxy for the average percentage change in the price over the whole seven days, we would get 6.8% instead of 117%, which is wildly wrong. The reason why it is wrong is because the price fluctuated so much. On the other hand, the closing prices for United Marshmallow over the same period are 10, 11, 12, 11, 12, 13, 15. The average percentage change from day to day is 0.073, and the average log-return is 0.068, so in this case the log-return is very close to the percentage change. And it has the advantage of being computable from just the first and last prices, because the properties of logarithms imply that it simplifies to (log(15)-log(10))/6. Notice that this is exactly the same as for Pitchfork Oil. So one reason why you might be interested in the average log-return is that it gives a very quick way to estimate the average return, if the stock price is not changing very much. Another, more subtle reason, is that it actually behaves better than the percentage return. When the price of Pitchfork jumps from 5 to 12 and then crashes back to 5 again, the percentage changes are +140% and -58%, for an average of +82%. That sounds good, but if you had bought it at 5, and then sold it at 5, you would actually have made 0% on your money. The log-returns for the same period do not have this disturbing property, because they do add up to 0%. What's the real difference in this example? Well, if you had bought $1 worth of Pitchfork on Tuesday, when it was 5, and sold it on Wednesday, when it was 12, you would have made a profit of $1.40. If you had then bought another $1 on Wednesday and sold it on Thursday, you would have made a loss of $0.58. Overall, your profit would have been $0.82. This is what the average percentage return is calculating. On the other hand, if you had been a long-term investor who had bought on Tuesday and hung on until Thursday, then quoting an \"\"average return\"\" of 82% is highly misleading, because it in no way corresponds to the return of 0% which you actually got! The moral is that it may be better to look at the log-returns if you are a buy-and-hold type of investor, because log-returns cancel out when prices fluctuate, whereas percentage changes in price do not. But the flip-side of this is that your average log-return over a period of time does not give you much information about what the prices have been doing, since it is just (log(final price) - log(initial price))/number of periods. Since it is so easy to calculate from the initial and final prices themselves, you commonly won't see it in the financial pages, as far as I know. Finally, to answer your question: \"\"Does knowing this single piece of information indicate something about the stock?\"\", I would say: not really. From the point of view of this one indicator, Pitchfork Oil and United Marshmallow look like identical investments, when they are clearly not. Knowing the average log-return is exactly the same as knowing the ratio between the final and initial prices.\"",
"qid": 10792,
"docid": "173052",
"rank": 96,
"score": 65401
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You simply add the dividend to the stock price when calculating its annual return. So for year one, instead of it would be",
"qid": 10792,
"docid": "332567",
"rank": 97,
"score": 65297
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: This essentially depends on how you prefer to measure your performance. I will just give a few simple examples to start. Let me know if you're looking for something more. If you just want to achieve maximum $ return, then you should always use maximum margin, so long as your expected return (%) is higher than your cost to borrow. For example, suppose you can use margin to double your investment, and the cost to borrow is 7%. If you're investing in some security that expects to return 10%, then your annual return on an account opened with $100 is: (2 * $100 * 10% - $100 * 7%) / $100 = 13% So, you see the expected return, amount of leverage, and cost to borrow will all factor in to your return. Suppose you want to also account for the additional risk you're incurring. Then you could use the Sharpe Ratio. For example, suppose the same security has volatility of 20%, and the risk free rate is 5%. Then the Sharpe Ratio without leverage is: (10% - 5%) / 20% = 0.25 The Sharpe Ratio using maximum margin is then: (13% - 5%) / (2 * 20%) = 0.2, where the 13% comes from the above formula. So on a risk-adjusted basis, it's better not to utilize margin in this particular example.",
"qid": 10792,
"docid": "499331",
"rank": 98,
"score": 65251
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The 1.140924% is calculated by taking 13.69%/12 = 1.140924%. Dividing this number by 100 gives you the answer 1.140924 / 100 = .01140924. When dealing with decimals it's important to remember the relationship between a decimal and a percent. 1% = .01 To return .01 to a percent you must multiple that number by 100. So .01 x 100 = 1% In order to get a decimal from a percent, which is what is used in calculations, you must divide by 100. So, here if we are trying to calculate how much interest you are paying each month we can do this: 9800 * .1369 = $1341.62 (interest you will pay that year IF the principal balance never changed) 1341.62 / 12 = ~111.81 Now, month two 9578.34 * .1369 = 1311.274746 1311.274746 / 12 = 109.28 In order to get your monthly payments (which won't change) for the life of the loan, you can use this formula: Monthly payment = r(PV) / (1-(1+r)^-n) Where: r= Interest Rate (remember if calculating monthly to do .1369/12) PV= Present Value of loan n=time of loan ( in your case 36 since we are talking monthly and 12*3 = 36) from here we get: [(.1369/12)*9800]/(1-(1+.1369/12)^-36) = $333.467 when rounding is $333.47 As far as actual applied interest rate, I'm not even sure what that number is, but I would like to know once you figure out, since the interest rate you're being charged is most definitely 13.69%.",
"qid": 10792,
"docid": "465059",
"rank": 99,
"score": 65248
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Let's suppose your friend gave your $100 and you invested all of it (plus your own money, $500) into one stock. Therefore, the total investment becomes $100 + $500 = $600. After few months, when you want to sell the stock or give back the money to your friend, check the percentage of profit/loss. So, let's assume you get 10% return on total investment of $600. Now, you have two choices. Either you exit the stock entirely, OR you just sell his portion. If you want to exit, sell everything and go home with $600 + 10% of 600 = $660. Out of $660, give you friend his initial capital + 10% of initial capital. Therefore, your friend will get $100 + 10% of $100 = $110. If you choose the later, to sell his portion, then you'll need to work everything opposite. Take his initial capital and add 10% of initial capital to it; which is $100 + 10% of $100 = $110. Sell the stocks that would be worth equivalent to that money and that's it. Similarly, you can apply the same logic if you broke his $100 into parts. Do the maths.",
"qid": 10792,
"docid": "197389",
"rank": 100,
"score": 65160
}
] |
What are a few sites that make it easy to invest in high interest rate mutual funds? | [
{
"content": "Title: Content: Nothing beats statistics like that found on Morning Star, Yahoo or Google Finance. When you are starting out, there is no need to reinvent the wheel. Pick a couple of mutual funds with good track records and start there. Keep in mind the financial press, to some degree, has a vested interest in having their readership chase the next hot thing. So while sites like Seeking Alpha, Kiplingers, or Money do provide some good advice, there is also an element that placates their advertisers. The only peer-to-peer lending I would consider is Lending Club. However, you are probably better off in the long run investing in mutual funds. One way to get involved in individual stocks without getting burned is to participate in Dividend Reinvestment Plans (DRIPs). Companies that have them tend to be very well established, and they are structured to discourage trading. Buying is easy, dividend reinvestment is easy, dividend payouts are easy; but, starting and selling is kind of a pain. That is a good thing.",
"qid": 10808,
"docid": "40227",
"rank": 1,
"score": 149485
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"If you want a ~12% rate of return on your investments.... too bad. For returns which even begin to approach that, you need to be looking at some of the riskiest stuff. Think \"\"emerging markets\"\". Even funds like Vanguard Emerging Markets (ETF: VWO, mutual fund, VEIEX) or Fidelity Advisor Emerging Markets Income Trust (FAEMX) seem to have yields which only push 11% or so. (But inflation is about nil, so if you're used to normal 2% inflation or so, these yields are like 13% or so. And there's no tax on that last 2%! Yay.) Remember that these investments are very risky. They go up lots because they can go down lots too. Don't put any money in there unless you can afford to have it go missing, because sooner or later you're likely to lose something half your money, and it might not come back for a decade (or ever). Investments like these should only be a small part of your overall portfolio. So, that said... Sites which make investing in these risky markets easy? There are a good number, but you should probably just go with vanguard.com. Their funds have low fees which won't erode your returns. (You can actually get lower expense ratios by using their brokerage account to trade the ETF versions of their funds commission-free, though you'll have to worry more about the actual number of shares you want to buy, instead of just plopping in and out dollar amounts). You can also trade Vanguard ETFs and other ETFs at almost any brokerage, just like stocks, and most brokerages will also offer you access to a variety of mutual funds as well (though often for a hefty fee of $20-$50, which you should avoid). Or you can sign up for another fund providers' account, but remember that the fund fees add up quickly. And the better plan? Just stuff most of your money in something like VTI (Vanguard Total Stock Market Index) instead.\"",
"qid": 10808,
"docid": "28291",
"rank": 2,
"score": 126884
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: That is a loaded question but I'll give it a shot. First things first you need to determine if you are ready to invest in stocks. If you have a lot of high interest debt you would be much better served paying that off before investing in stocks. Stocks return around 8%-10% in the long run, so you'd be better off paying off any debt you have that is higher than 8%-10%. Most people get their start investing in stocks through mutual funds in their 401k or a Roth IRA. If you want to invest in individual stocks instead of mutual funds then you will need to do a lot of reading and learning. You will need a brokerage account or if you have a stock in mind they might have a dividend reinvestment plan (DRIP) that you could invest in directly with the company. You will have to compare the different brokerage firms to determine which is best for you. Since you seem to be internet savvy, I suggest you use a discount brokerage that let's you buy stocks online with cheaper commissions. A good rule of thumb is to keep commissions below 1% of the amount invested. Once you have your online brokerage account open with money in there the process of actually buying the stock is fairly straightforward. Just place an order for the amount of shares you want. That order can be a market order which means the purchase will occur at the current market price. Or you can use a limit order where you control at what price your purchase will occur. There are lots of good books out there for beginners. Personally I learned from the Motley Fool. And last but not least is to have fun with it. Learn as much as you can and welcome to the club.",
"qid": 10808,
"docid": "155677",
"rank": 3,
"score": 126119
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Don't do it until you have educated yourself enough to know what you are doing. I hope you won't take this personally, but given that you are wandering around asking random strangers on the Internet how to \"\"get into investing,\"\" I feel safe in concluding that you are by no means a sophisticated enough investor to be choosing individual investments, nor should you be trusting financial advisors to choose investments for you. Believe me, they do not have your interests at heart. I usually advise people in your position to start by reading one book: A Random Walk Down Wall Street by Burton Malkiel. Once you've read the book by Malkiel you'll understand that the best strategy for all but the most sophisticated investors is to buy an index fund, which simply purchases a portfolio of ALL available stocks without trying to pick winners and losers. The best index funds are at Vanguard (there is also a Vanguard site for non-US residents). Vanguard is one of the very, very, very few honest players in the business. Unlike almost any other mutual fund, Vanguard is owned by its investors, so it has no profit motive. They never try to pick individual stocks, so they don't have to pay fancy high-priced analysts to pick stocks. If you find it impossible to open a Vanguard account from wherever you're living, find a local brokerage account that will allow you to invest in the US stock market. Many Vanguard mutual funds are available as ETFs which means that you buy and sell them just like any other stock on the US market, which should be easy to do from any reasonably civilized place.\"",
"qid": 10808,
"docid": "328477",
"rank": 4,
"score": 121514
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"There is a site that treats you like a fund manager in the real market, Marketoracy, http://marketocracy.com/. Each user is given 1 million in cash. You can have multiple \"\"mutual funds\"\", and the site allows use to choose between two types of strategies, buy/sell, short/cover. Currently, options are not supported. The real value of the site is that users are ranked against each other (of course, you can op out of the rankings). This is really cool because you can determine the real worth of your returns compared to the rest of investors across the site. A couple years back, the top 100 investors were invited to come on as real mutual fund managers - so the competition is legitimate. Take a look at the site, it's definitely worth a try. Were there other great sites you looked at?\"",
"qid": 10808,
"docid": "483168",
"rank": 5,
"score": 120666
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Nowhere. To back up a bit, mutual funds are the stock market (and the bond market). That is, when you invest in a mutual fund, your money is ultimately buying stocks on the open market. Some of it might be buying bonds. The exact mix of stocks and bonds depends on the mutual fund. But a mutual fund is just a basket of stocks and/or bonds (and/or other, more exotic investments). At 25, you probably should just be investing your Roth IRA in index stock mutual funds and index bond mutual funds. You probably shouldn't even be doing peer-to-peer lending (unless you're willing to think of any losses as the cost of a hobby); the higher interest rate you're getting is a reflection of the risk that your borrowers will default. I'm not even sure if peer-to-peer lending is allowed in Roth IRA's. Investing in just stocks, bonds, and cast is boring, but these are easy investments to understand. The harder the investment is to understand, the easier it is for it to be a scam (or just a bad investment). There's not necessarily anything wrong with boring.",
"qid": 10808,
"docid": "324012",
"rank": 6,
"score": 120270
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: A CDIC-insured high-interest savings bank account is both safe and liquid (i.e. you can withdraw your money at any time.) At present time, you could earn interest of ~1.35% per year, if you shop around. If you are willing to truly lock in for 2 years minimum, rates go up slightly, but perhaps not enough to warrant loss of liquidity. Look at GIC rates to get an idea. Any other investments – such as mutual funds, stocks, index funds, ETFs, etc. – are generally not consistent with your stated risk objective and time frame. Better returns are generally only possible if you accept the risk of loss of capital, or lock in for longer time periods.",
"qid": 10808,
"docid": "532179",
"rank": 7,
"score": 116901
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: As always with investments, it depends on your risk adversity. I don't want to repeat the content of hundreds of recommendations here, so just the nutshell: (For qualified investments,) the more risk you are willing to take, the more returns you'll get. The upper end is the mutual funds and share market, where you have long-term expectations of 8 - 10 % (and corresponding risks of maybe +/- 50% per year), the lower end is a CD, where you can expect little to no interest, corresponding to little to no risk. Investing in shares/funds is not 'better' than investing in CDs, it is different. Not everybody likes financial roller-coasters, and some people mainly consider the high risk, which gives them sleepless nights; while others just consider the expected high long-term gains as all that counts. Find out what your personal risk adversity is, and then pick accordingly.",
"qid": 10808,
"docid": "448890",
"rank": 8,
"score": 116091
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Paying off the debt is low-risk, low-reward. You're effectively guaranteed a 4% return. If you buy a mutual fund, you're going to have to take some risk to have a decent chance of getting better than 4% and change return in the long run, which probably means a fund that invests primarily in stocks. Buying a stock mutual fund is high-risk, high reward, especially when you're in significant debt. On the other hand, 4% and change is very low-interest. If you wanted to buy stocks on margin, financing stock investments directly with debt, you'd pay a heck of a lot more. Bottom line: It comes down to your personal risk tolerance.",
"qid": 10808,
"docid": "439459",
"rank": 9,
"score": 115008
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"You may want to hold onto the $5000 and keep it in savings. Interest rates are for crap, even in \"\"high yield\"\" accounts, so you can rightly not consider it investing. You should be graduating college soon. It would suck if an emergency crops up to prevent you from graduating. I assume that you are going into a high paying career given your nice income from internships. Your best investment is yourself at this point. Completing your education, and obtaining your degree trumps all. You could use that extra 5000 as a hedge/insurance policy/emergency fund to help insure you graduate. Also you are likely to have some moving expenses once you graduate. That 5K could be used to help cover those costs. The worst case is you graduate with no emergencies, you get a nice signing bonus and relocation package, and you still have the $5000. Well you still have until 15 April 2015 to put money in your ROTH for 2014. This holds true for every tax year. Given your current financial status, you are likely to find yourself soon contributing the max to your 401K and ROTH. Once that happens, money beyond that can be invested into mutual funds stocks that are not tax advantaged, real estate, or some other choices. Well then you have some things to think about.\"",
"qid": 10808,
"docid": "409854",
"rank": 10,
"score": 114837
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: In general, the higher the return (such as interest), the higher the risk. If there were a high-return no-risk investment, enough people would buy it to drive the price up and make it a low-return no-risk investment. Interest rates are low now, but so is inflation. They generally go up and down together. So, as a low risk (almost no-risk) investment, the savings account is not at all useless. There are relatively safe investments that will get a better return, but they will have a little more risk. One common way to spread the risk is to diversify. For example, put some of your money in a savings account, some in a bond mutual fund, and some in a stock index fund. A stock index fund such as SPY has the benefit of very low overhead, in addition to spreading the risk among 500 large companies. Mutual funds with a purchase or sale fee, or with a higher management fee do NOT perform any better, on average, and should generally be avoided. If you put a little money in different places regularly, you'll be fairly safe and are likely get a better return. (If you trade back and forth frequently, trying to outguess the market, you're likely to be worse off than the savings account.)",
"qid": 10808,
"docid": "323228",
"rank": 11,
"score": 114392
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The S&P 500 is a stock market index, which is a list of 500 stocks from the largest companies in America. You could open a brokerage account with a broker and buy shares in each of these companies, but the easiest, least expensive way to invest in all these stocks is to invest in an S&P 500 index mutual fund. Inside an index mutual fund, your money will be pooled together with everyone else in the fund to purchase all the stocks in the index. These types of funds are very low expense compared to managed mutual funds. Most mutual fund companies have an S&P 500 index fund; two examples are Vanguard and Fidelity. The minimum investment in most of these mutual funds is low enough that you will be able to open an account with your $4000. Something you need to keep in mind, however: investing in any stock mutual fund is not non-risk. It's not even low-risk, really. It is very possible to lose money by investing in the stock market. An S&P 500 index fund is diversified in the sense that you have money in lots of different stocks, but it is also not diversified, in a sense, because it is all in large cap American stocks. Before investing in the stock market, you should have a goal for the money you are investing. If you are investing for something several years away, an index fund can be a good place to invest, but if you will need this money within the next few years, the stock market might be too risky for you.",
"qid": 10808,
"docid": "161445",
"rank": 12,
"score": 114121
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Liquid cash (emergency, rainy day fund) should be safe from a loss in value. Mutual funds don't give you this, especially stock funds. You can find \"\"high yield\"\" savings accounts that are now at around .8% to .9% APY which is much better than .05% and will hopefully go up. Barclays US and American Express are two big banks that normally have the highest rates. Most/all Savings and Money Market accounts should be FDIC insured. Mutual funds are not, though the investment IRA, etc. holding them may be.\"",
"qid": 10808,
"docid": "253614",
"rank": 13,
"score": 114015
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"One alternative to bogleheadism is the permanent portfolio concept (do NOT buy the mutual fund behind this idea as you can easily obtain access to a low cost money market fund, stock index fund, and bond fund and significantly reduce the overall cost). It doesn't have the huge booms that stock plans do, but it also doesn't have the crushing blows either. One thing some advisers mention is success is more about what you can stick to than what \"\"traditionally\"\" makes sense, as you may not be able to stick to what traditionally makes sense (all people differ). This is an excellent pro and con critique of the permanent portfolio (read the whole thing) that does highlight some of the concerns with it, especially the big one: how well will it do in a world of high interest rates? Assuming we ever see a world of high interest rates, it may not provide a great return. The authors make the assumption that interest rates will be rising in the future, thus the permanent portfolio is riskier than a traditional 60/40. As we're seeing in Europe, I think we're headed for a world of negative interest rates - something in the past most advisers have thought was very unlikely. I don't know if we'll see interest rates above 6% in my lifetime and if I live as long as my father, that's a good 60+ years ahead. (I realize people will think this is crazy to write, but consider that people are willing to pay governments money to hold their cash - that's how crazy our world is and I don't see this changing.)\"",
"qid": 10808,
"docid": "69184",
"rank": 14,
"score": 113377
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Any investment company or online brokerage makes investing in their products easy. The hard part is choosing which fund(s) will earn you 12% and up.",
"qid": 10808,
"docid": "487052",
"rank": 15,
"score": 112573
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"If you are buying and selling mutual funds in the same family of funds (e.g. Vanguard), then you can set up an on-line account on the Vanguard website (www.vanguard.com) and it is easy: Vanguard offers a \"\"Transaction\"\" service that allows you to sell shares of VFINX, say, and buy shares of VBTLX, say, from the proceeds of the sale all in one swell foop. But, if you are holding the VFINX shares through your on-line account with, say, eTrade, then it depends on what services eTrade provides to you. Will it allow doing all that in one transaction, or will it wait for the cash to come from Vanguard, and then send the money back to Vanguard to invest in VBTLX? In any case, selling VFINX shares and investing the proceeds in PRWCX shares, say, cannot be done on the Vanguard site only; Vanguard will send the proceeds of the sale of the VFINX shares only to your bank account, not anywhere else. You then need to tell T. Rowe Price (where you presumably have an account already) that you want to invest $X in PRWCX shares and to withdraw the cash from your bank account. If you are doing it all through eTrade, then the money from the sale of VFINX goes from Vanguard to eTrade (into something called a sweep account, or maybe your cash account at eTrade) and you invest it in PRWCX after appropriate delays in receiving the money from Vanguard into eTrade, etc. If your cash account (bank or eTrade) has enough of a balance, you could sell VFINX and buy PRWCX on the same day. where the purchase is made from the money in the cash account and replaced a few days later by the proceeds from Vanguard. Bouncing of checks (or inability to act on a hot tip to invest in something) in the interim is your problem; not the bank's or eTrade's.\"",
"qid": 10808,
"docid": "84368",
"rank": 16,
"score": 112124
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: edit: nevermind. i glanced and thought you meant total market mutual funds. For fixed income - if you want to get a good analysis of the bond market/interest rates, i would suggest you read some of bill gross' letters off the pimco site - a lot of discussion about our current zero bound interest rates. For equities - I have the view that if the economy is doing well, people are less inclined to focus on dividend yield...thereby lowering the relative multiples on dividend/fcf yielding stocks. So total return fund may be trading slightly cheaper.",
"qid": 10808,
"docid": "488622",
"rank": 17,
"score": 111966
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You can invest more that 20,000 in Infrastructure bonds, however the tax benefit is only on 20,000. Further the interest earned is taxable. The best guaranteed post tax returns is on PPF. So invest a substantial sum in this. As your age group low you can afford to take risk and hence could also look at investing in ELSS [Mutual Fund]. A note on each of these investments: LIC: If you have taken any of the endowment / Money Back plan, remember the returns are very low around 5-6%. It would make more sense to buy a pure term plan at fraction of the cost and invest the remaining premium into even PPF or FD that would give you more return. NSC/Postal Savings: They are a good option, however the interest is taxable. There is a locking of 6 years. PPF: The locking is large 15 years although one can do partial withdrawals after 7 years. The interest is not taxable. ULIP: These are market linked plans with Insurance and balance invested into markets. The charges for initial few years is quite high, plus the returns are not comparable to the normal Mutual Funds. Invest in this only if one needs less paper and doesn't want to track things separately. ELSS/Mutual Fund: These offer good market returns, but there is a risk of market. As you are young you can afford to take the risk. Most of the ELSS have given average results that are still higher than FD or PPF. Pension Plan: This is a good way to accumulate for retirement. Invest some small amount in this and do not take any insurance on it. Go for pure equity as you can still take the risk. This ensures that you have a kit for retirement. Check out the terms and conditions as to how you need to purchase annuity at the term end etc.",
"qid": 10808,
"docid": "93073",
"rank": 18,
"score": 111550
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: This is literally the worst article ever. First dividends are not guaranteed, and the higher the yield the higher the risk for a dividend paying stock. When buying a stock that pays dividends make sure they have the cash flows to cover it long term. Utility stocks are interest rate sensitive. If we head into a period of high interest rates, utility stocks are going to underperform, if not get killed. Exchange traded funds can be extremely risky, and some have much higher fees than mutual funds. Variable Annuities should never be purchased unless you have exhausted all other tax deferred strategies, and then probably still to be avoided because of high fees. Money markets and CDs aren't really investments. They're a cash alternatives that May not keep up with inflation.",
"qid": 10808,
"docid": "460402",
"rank": 19,
"score": 111246
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The company that runs the fund (Vanguard) on their website has the information on the general breakdown of their investments of that fund. They tell you that as of July 31st 2016 it is 8.7% emerging markets. They even specifically list the 7000+ companies they have purchased stocks in. Of course the actual investment and percentages could [change every day]. Vanguard may publish on this Site, in the fund's holdings on the webpages, a detailed list of the securities (aggregated by issuer for money market funds) held in a Vanguard fund (portfolio holdings) as of the most recent calendar-quarter-end, 30 days after the end of the calendar quarter, except for Vanguard Market Neutral Fund (60 calendar days after the end of the calendar quarter), Vanguard index funds (15 calendar days after the end of the month), and Vanguard Money Market Funds (within five [5] business days after the last business day of the preceding month). Except with respect to Vanguard Money Market Funds, Vanguard may exclude any portion of these portfolio holdings from publication on this Site when deemed in the best interest of the fund.",
"qid": 10808,
"docid": "530938",
"rank": 20,
"score": 111174
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you have money and may need to access it at any time, you should put it in a savings account. It won't return much interest, but it will return some and it is easily accessible. If you have all your emergency savings that you need (at least six months of income), buy index-based mutual funds. These should invest in a broad range of securities including both stocks and bonds (three dollars in stocks for every dollar in bonds) so as to be robust in the face of market shifts. You should not buy individual stocks unless you have enough money to buy a lot of them in different industries. Thirty different stocks is a minimum for a diversified portfolio, and you really should be looking at more like a hundred. There's also considerable research effort required to verify that the stocks are good buys. For most people, this is too much work. For most people, broad-based index funds are better purchases. You don't have as much upside, but you also are much less likely to find yourself holding worthless paper. If you do buy stocks, look for ones where you know something about them. For example, if you've been to a restaurant chain with a recent IPO that really wowed you with their food and service, consider investing. But do your research, so that you don't get caught buying after everyone else has already overbid the price. The time to buy is right before everyone else notices how great they are, not after. Some people benefit from joining investment clubs with others with similar incomes and goals. That way you can share some of the research duties. Also, you can get other opinions before buying, which can restrain risky impulse buys. Just to reiterate, I would recommend sticking to mutual funds and saving accounts for most investors. Only make the move into individual stocks if you're willing to be serious about it. There's considerable work involved. And don't forget diversification. You want to have stocks that benefit regardless of what the overall economy does. Some stocks should benefit from lower oil prices while others benefit from higher prices. You want to have both types so as not to be caught flat-footed when prices move. There are much more experienced people trying to guess market directions. If your strategy relies on outperforming them, it has a high chance of failure. Index-based mutual funds allow you to share the diversification burden with others. Since the market almost always goes up in the long term, a fund that mimics the market is much safer than any individual security can be. Maintaining a three to one balance in stocks to bonds also helps as they tend to move in opposite directions. I.e. stocks tend to be good when bonds are weak and vice versa.",
"qid": 10808,
"docid": "464297",
"rank": 21,
"score": 109963
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"It is difficult to find investment banks that offer both low fees and low minimum investments. If you google around for \"\"no-fee low-minimum mutual funds\"\" you can find various articles with recommendations, such as this one. One fund they mention that looks promising is the Schwab Total Stock Market Index Fund, which apparently has a minimum investment of only $100 and an expense ratio of 0.09%. (I've never heard of this fund before, so I'm just repeating the info from the site. Be sure to look into it more thoroughly to see if there are any hidden costs here. I'm not recommending this fund, just mentioning it as an example of what you may be able to find.) Another possibility is to make use of funds in an existing brokerage account that you use for yourself. This could allow you to make use of Craig W.'s suggestion about ETFs. For instance, if you already have a brokerage account at Vanguard or another firm, you could add $100 to the account and buy some particular fund, mentally earmarking it as your daughter's.\"",
"qid": 10808,
"docid": "443951",
"rank": 22,
"score": 109634
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: At what point does my investment benefit from compounded interest? Monthly? Quarter? Yearly? Does it even benefit? I think you are mixing things. There is no concept of interest or compounding in Mutual Funds. When you buy a mutual fund, it either appreciates in value or depreciates in value; both can happen depending on the time period you compare. Now, let's assume at the end of the year I have a 5% return. My $10,000 is now $10,500. The way you need to look at this is Given you started with $10,000 and its now $10,500 the return is 5%. Now if you want to calculate simple return or compounded return, you would have to calculate accordingly. You may potentially want to find a compounded return for ease of comparison with say a Bank FD interest rate or some other reason. So if $10,000 become $10,500 after one year and $11,000 after 2 year. The absolute return is 10%, the simple yearly return is 5%. Or the Simple rate of return for first year is 5% and for second year is 4.9%. Or the Average Year on Year return is 4.775%.",
"qid": 10808,
"docid": "112223",
"rank": 23,
"score": 109576
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Good job. Assuming that you are also contributing to retirement, you are bound to be a wealthy person. I'm not really sure how Australia works as far as retirement, but I am pretty sure you are taking care of that too. Given your time frame (more than 5 years) I would consider investing at least a portion of the money. If I was you, I would tend to make that amount significant, say 75% in mutual funds, 25% in your high interest savings. The ratio you choose is up to you, but I would be heavier in the investment than savings side. As the time for home purchase approaches, you may want more in savings and less in investments. You may want to look at a mutual fund with a low beta. Beta is a measure of the price volatility. I did a google search on low beta funds, and came up with a number of good articles that explains this further. Having a fund with a low beta insulates you, a bit, from radical swings in the market allowing you to count more on the money being there when needed. One way to get to the proper ratio, is to contribute all new money to the mutual fund until it is in proper balance. This way you don't lower your interest rate for a month. Given your time frame, salary, and sense of responsibility you may be able to do the 100% down plan. Again, good work!",
"qid": 10808,
"docid": "75326",
"rank": 24,
"score": 109344
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Vanguard (and probably other mutual fund brokers as well) offers easy-to-read performance charts that show the total change in value of a $10K investment over time. This includes the fair market value of the fund plus any distributions (i.e. dividends) paid out. On Vanguard's site they also make a point to show the impact of fees in the chart, since their low fees are their big selling point. Some reasons why a dividend is preferable to selling shares: no loss of voting power, no transaction costs, dividends may have better tax consequences for you than capital gains. NOTE: If your fund is underperforming the benchmark, it is not due to the payment of dividends. Funds do not pay their own dividends; they only forward to shareholders the dividends paid out by the companies in which they invest. So the fair market value of the fund should always reflect the fair market value of the companies it holds, and those companies' shares are the ones that are fluctuating when they pay dividends. If your fund is underperforming its benchmark, then that is either because it is not tracking the benchmark closely enough or because it is charging high fees. The fact that the underperformance you're seeing appears to be in the amount of dividends paid is a coincidence. Check out this example Vanguard performance chart for an S&P500 index fund. Notice how if you add the S&P500 index benchmark to the plot you can't even see the difference between the two -- the fund is designed to track the benchmark exactly. So when IBM (or whoever) pays out a dividend, the index goes down in value and the fund goes down in value.",
"qid": 10808,
"docid": "584128",
"rank": 25,
"score": 107842
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The best predictor of mutual fund performance is low expense ratio, as reported by Morningstar despite the fact that it produces the star ratings you cite. Most of the funds you list are actively managed and thus have high expense ratios. Even if you believe there are mutual fund managers out there that can pick investments intelligently enough to offset the costs versus a passive index fund, do you trust that you will be able to select such a manager? Most people that aren't trying to sell you something will advise that your best bet is to stick with low-cost, passive index funds. I only see one of these in your options, which is FUSVX (Fidelity Spartan 500 Index Fund Fidelity Advantage Class) with an exceptionally low expense ratio of 0.05%. Do you have other investment accounts with more choices, like an IRA? If so you might consider putting a major chunk of your 401(k) money into FUSVX, and use your IRA to balance your overall porfolio with small- and medium-cap domestic stock, international stock, and bond funds. As an aside, I remember seeing a funny comment on this site once that is applicable here, something along the lines of \"\"don't take investment advice from coworkers unless they're Warren Buffett or Bill Gross\"\".\"",
"qid": 10808,
"docid": "106620",
"rank": 26,
"score": 107758
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"There's already an excellent answer here from @BenMiller, but I wanted to expand a bit on Types of Investments with some additional actionable information. You can invest in stocks, bonds, mutual funds (which are simply collections of stocks and bonds), bank accounts, precious metals, and many other things. Discussing all of these investments in one answer is too broad, but my recommendation is this: If you are investing for retirement, you should be investing in the stock market. However, picking individual stocks is too risky; you need to be diversified in a lot of stocks. Stock mutual funds are a great way to invest in the stock market. So how does one go about actually investing in the stock market in a diversified way? What if you also want to diversify a bit into bonds? Fortunately, in the last several years, several products have come about that do just these things, and are targeted towards newer investors. These are often labeled \"\"robo-advisors\"\". Most even allow you to adjust your allocation according to your risk preferences. Here's a list of the ones I know about: While these products all purport to achieve similar goals of giving you an easy way to obtain a diversified portfolio according to your risk, they differ in the buckets of stocks and funds they put your money into; the careful investor would be wise to compare which specific ETFs they use (e.g. looking at their expense ratios, capitalization, and spreads).\"",
"qid": 10808,
"docid": "187124",
"rank": 27,
"score": 107274
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I'd recommend investing in a mutual fund that diversifies your purchase across a number of stocks (and bonds, depending on the fund). Vanguard has some of the lowest fees around, and have a large number of funds to choose from. Take a look at their offerings for a data point if nothing else.",
"qid": 10808,
"docid": "511664",
"rank": 28,
"score": 107087
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: First off, I do not recommend buying individual bonds yourself. Instead buy a bond fund (ETF or mutual fund). That way you get some diversification. The risk-reward ratio will be evident in what you find to invest in. Junk bond funds pay the highest rates. Treasury bond funds pay the lowest. So you have to ask yourself how comfortable are you with risk? Buy the funds that pay the highest rate but still let you sleep at night.",
"qid": 10808,
"docid": "269055",
"rank": 29,
"score": 107018
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: In almost every circumstance high expense ratios are a bad idea. I would say every circumstance, but I don't want backlash from anyone. There are many other investment companies out there that offer mutual funds for FAR less than 1.5% ratio. I couldn't even imagine paying a 1% expense ratio for a mutual fund. Vanguard offers mutual funds that are significantly lower, on average, than the industry. Certainly MUCH lower than 1.5%, but then again I'm not sure what mutual funds you have, stock, bonds, etc. Here is a list of all Vanguard's mutual funds. I honestly like the company a lot, many people haven't heard of them because they don't spend nearly as much money on advertisements or a flashy website - but they have extremely low expense ratios. You can buy into many of their mutual funds with a 0.10%-0.20% expense ratio. Some are higher, but certainly not even close to 1.5%. I don't believe any of them are even half of that. Also, if you were referring to ETF's when you mentioned Index Fund (assuming that since you have ETFs in your tag), then 0.20% for ETF's is steep, check out some identical ETFs on Vanguard. I am not a Vanguard employee soliciting their service to you. I'm just trying to pass on good information to another investor. I believe you can buy vanguard funds through other investment companies, like Fidelity, for a good price, but I prefer to go through them.",
"qid": 10808,
"docid": "135405",
"rank": 30,
"score": 106994
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Index funds can be a very good way to get into the stock market. It's a lot easier, and cheaper, to buy a few shares of an index fund than it is to buy a few shares in hundreds of different companies. An index fund will also generally charge lower fees than an \"\"actively managed\"\" mutual fund, where the manager tries to pick which stocks to invest for you. While the actively managed fund might give you better returns (by investing in good companies instead of every company in the index) that doesn't always work out, and the fees can eat away at that advantage. (Stocks, on average, are expected to yield an annual return of 4%, after inflation. Consider that when you see an expense ratio of 1%. Index funds should charge you more like 0.1%-0.3% or so, possibly more if it's an exotic index.) The question is what sort of index you're going to invest in. The Standard and Poor's 500 (S&P 500) is a major index, and if you see someone talking about the performance of a mutual fund or investment strategy, there's a good chance they'll compare it to the return of the S&P 500. Moreover, there are a variety of index funds and exchange-traded funds that offer very good expense ratios (e.g. Vanguard's ETF charges ~0.06%, very cheap!). You can also find some funds which try to get you exposure to the entire world stock market, e.g. Vanguard Total World Stock ETF, NYSE:VT). An index fund is probably the ideal way to start a portfolio - easy, and you get a lot of diversification. Later, when you have more money available, you can consider adding individual stocks or investing in specific sectors or regions. (Someone else suggested Brazil/Russia/Indo-China, or BRICs - having some money invested in that region isn't necessarily a bad idea, but putting all or most of your money in that region would be. If BRICs are more of your portfolio then they are of the world economy, your portfolio isn't balanced. Also, while these countries are experiencing a lot of economic growth, that doesn't always mean that the companies that you own stock in are the ones which will benefit; small businesses and new ventures may make up a significant part of that growth.) Bond funds are useful when you want to diversify your portfolio so that it's not all stocks. There's a bunch of portfolio theory built around asset allocation strategies. The idea is that you should try to maintain a target mix of assets, whatever the market's doing. The basic simplified guideline about investing for retirement says that your portfolio should have (your age)% in bonds (e.g. a 30-year-old should have 30% in bonds, a 50-year-old 50%.) This helps maintain a balance between the volatility of your portfolio (the stock market's ups and downs) and the rate of return: you want to earn money when you can, but when it's almost time to spend it, you don't want a sudden stock market crash to wipe it all out. Bonds help preserve that value (but don't have as nice of a return). The other idea behind asset allocation is that if the market changes - e.g. your stocks go up a lot while your bonds stagnate - you rebalance and buy more bonds. If the stock market subsequently crashes, you move some of your bond money back into stocks. This basically means that you buy low and sell high, just by maintaining your asset allocation. This is generally more reliable than trying to \"\"time the market\"\" and move into an asset class before it goes up (and move out before it goes down). Market-timing is just speculation. You get better returns if you guess right, but you get worse returns if you guess wrong. Commodity funds are useful as another way to diversify your portfolio, and can serve as a little bit of protection in case of crisis or inflation. You can buy gold, silver, platinum and palladium ETFs on the stock exchanges. Having a small amount of money in these funds isn't a bad idea, but commodities can be subject to violent price swings! Moreover, a bar of gold doesn't really earn any money (and owning a share of a precious-metals ETF will incur administrative, storage, and insurance costs to boot). A well-run business does earn money. Assuming you're saving for the long haul (retirement or something several decades off) my suggestion for you would be to start by investing most of your money* in index funds to match the total world stock market (with something like the aforementioned NYSE:VT, for instance), a small portion in bonds, and a smaller portion in commodity funds. (For all the negative stuff I've said about market-timing, it's pretty clear that the bond market is very expensive right now, and so are the commodities!) Then, as you do additional research and determine what sort investments are right for you, add new investment money in the places that you think are appropriate - stock funds, bond funds, commodity funds, individual stocks, sector-specific funds, actively managed mutual funds, et cetera - and try to maintain a reasonable asset allocation. Have fun. *(Most of your investment money. You should have a separate fund for emergencies, and don't invest money in stocks if you know you're going need it within the next few years).\"",
"qid": 10808,
"docid": "45970",
"rank": 31,
"score": 106392
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: As observed above, 1.5% for 3 years is not attractive, and since due to the risk profile the stock market also needs to be excluded, there seems about 2 primary ways, viz: fixed income bonds and commodity(e,g, gold). However, since local bonds (gilt or corporate) are sensitive and follow the central bank interest rates, you could look out investing in overseas bonds (usually through a overseas gilt based mutual fund). I am specifically mentioning gilt here as they are government backed (of the overseas location) and have very low risk. Best would be to scout out for strong fund houses that have mutual funds that invest in overseas gilts, preferably of the emerging markets (as the interest is higher). The good fund houses manage the currency volatility and can generate decent returns at fairly low risk.",
"qid": 10808,
"docid": "576688",
"rank": 32,
"score": 106314
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You will not get a vote on any issues of the underlying stock. The mutual fund owner/manager will do the voting. In 2004, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) required that fund companies disclose proxy votes, voting guidelines and conflicts of interest in the voting process. All funds must make these disclosures to the SEC through an N-PX filing, which must either be available to shareholders on the fund company's websites or upon request by telephone. You can also find your fund's N-PX filing on the SEC website. -- http://www.investopedia.com/articles/mutualfund/08/acting-in-interest.asp",
"qid": 10808,
"docid": "244711",
"rank": 33,
"score": 105988
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The mortgage has a higher interest rate, how can it make sense to pay off the HELOC first?? As for the mutual fund, it comes down to what returns you are expecting. If the after-tax return is higher than the mortgage rate then invest, otherwise \"\"invest\"\" in paying down the mortgage. Note that paying down debt is usually the best investment you have.\"",
"qid": 10808,
"docid": "387722",
"rank": 34,
"score": 105905
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Waiting for the next economic downturn probably isn't the best plan at this point. While it could happen tomorrow, you may end up waiting a long time. If you would prefer not to think much about your investment and just let them grow then mutual funds are a really good option. Make sure you research them before you buy into any and make sure to diversify, as in buy into a lot of different mutual funds that cover different parts of the market. If you want to be more active in investing then start researching the market and stick to industries you have very good understanding of. It's tough to invest in a market you know nothing about. I'd suggest putting at least some of that into a retirement savings account for long term growth. Make sure you look at both your short term and long term goals. Letting an investment mature from age 20 through to retirement will net you plenty of compound interest but don't forget about your short term goals like possible cars, houses and families. Do as much research as you can and you will be fine!",
"qid": 10808,
"docid": "393009",
"rank": 35,
"score": 105850
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The big question is whether you will be flexible about when you'll get that house. The overall best investment (in terms of yielding a good risk/return ratio and requiring little effort) is a broad index fund (mutual or ETF), especially if you're contributing continuously and thereby take advantage of cost averaging. But the downside is that you have some volatility: during an economic downturn, your investment may be worth only half of what it's worth when the economy is booming. And of course it's very bad to have that happening just when you want to get your house. Then again, chances are that house prices will also go down in such times. If you want to avoid ever having to see the value of your investment go down, then you're pretty much stuck with things like your high-interest savings account (which sounds like a very good fit for your requirements.",
"qid": 10808,
"docid": "518664",
"rank": 36,
"score": 105589
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I am not interested in watching stock exchange rates all day long. I just want to place it somewhere and let it grow Your intuition is spot on! To buy & hold is the sensible thing to do. There is no need to constantly monitor the stock market. To invest successfully you only need some basic pointers. People make it look like it's more complicated than it actually is for individual investors. You might find useful some wisdom pearls I wish I had learned even earlier. Stocks & Bonds are the best passive investment available. Stocks offer the best return, while bonds are reduce risk. The stock/bond allocation depends of your risk tolerance. Since you're as young as it gets, I would forget about bonds until later and go with a full stock portfolio. Banks are glorified money mausoleums; the interest you can get from them is rarely noticeable. Index investing is the best alternative. How so? Because 'you can't beat the market'. Nobody can; but people like to try and fail. So instead of trying, some fund managers simply track a market index (always successfully) while others try to beat it (consistently failing). Actively managed mutual funds have higher costs for the extra work involved. Avoid them like the plague. Look for a diversified index fund with low TER (Total Expense Ratio). These are the most important factors. Diversification will increase safety, while low costs guarantee that you get the most out of your money. Vanguard has truly good index funds, as well as Blackrock (iShares). Since you can't simply buy equity by yourself, you need a broker to buy and sell. Luckily, there are many good online brokers in Europe. What we're looking for in a broker is safety (run background checks, ask other wise individual investors that have taken time out of their schedules to read the small print) and that charges us with low fees. You probably can do this through the bank, but... well, it defeats its own purpose. US citizens have their 401(k) accounts. Very neat stuff. Check your country's law to see if you can make use of something similar to reduce the tax cost of investing. Your government will want a slice of those juicy dividends. An alternative is to buy an index fund on which dividends are not distributed, but are automatically reinvested instead. Some links for further reference: Investment 101, and why index investment rocks: However the author is based in the US, so you might find the next link useful. Investment for Europeans: Very useful to check specific information regarding European investing. Portfolio Ideas: You'll realise you don't actually need many equities, since the diversification is built-in the index funds. I hope this helps! There's not much more, but it's all condensed in a handful of blogs.",
"qid": 10808,
"docid": "231195",
"rank": 37,
"score": 105407
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Your idea is a good one, but, as usual, the devil is in the details, and implementation might not be as easy as you think. The comments on the question have pointed out your Steps 2 and 4 are not necessarily the best way of doing things, and that perhaps keeping the principal amount invested in the same fund instead of taking it all out and re-investing it in a similar, but different, fund might be better. The other points for you to consider are as follows. How do you identify which of the thousands of conventional mutual funds and ETFs is the average-risk / high-gain mutual fund into which you will place your initial investment? Broadly speaking, most actively managed mutual fund with average risk are likely to give you less-than-average gains over long periods of time. The unfortunate truth, to which many pay only Lipper service, is that X% of actively managed mutual funds in a specific category failed to beat the average gain of all funds in that category, or the corresponding index, e.g. S&P 500 Index for large-stock mutual funds, over the past N years, where X is generally between 70 and 100, and N is 5, 10, 15 etc. Indeed, one of the arguments in favor of investing in a very low-cost index fund is that you are effectively guaranteed the average gain (or loss :-(, don't forget the possibility of loss). This, of course, is also the argument used against investing in index funds. Why invest in boring index funds and settle for average gains (at essentially no risk of not getting the average performance: average performance is close to guaranteed) when you can get much more out of your investments by investing in a fund that is among the (100-X)% funds that had better than average returns? The difficulty is that which funds are X-rated and which non-X-rated (i.e. rated G = good or PG = pretty good), is known only in hindsight whereas what you need is foresight. As everyone will tell you, past performance does not guarantee future results. As someone (John Bogle?) said, when you invest in a mutual fund, you are in the position of a rower in rowboat: you can see where you have been but not where you are going. In summary, implementation of your strategy needs a good crystal ball to look into the future. There is no such things as a guaranteed bond fund. They also have risks though not necessarily the same as in a stock mutual fund. You need to have a Plan B in mind in case your chosen mutual fund takes a longer time than expected to return the 10% gain that you want to use to trigger profit-taking and investment of the gain into a low-risk bond fund, and also maybe a Plan C in case the vagaries of the market cause your chosen mutual fund to have negative return for some time. What is the exit strategy?",
"qid": 10808,
"docid": "476517",
"rank": 38,
"score": 105087
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I'd go to specialist community web sites such as The Motley Fool and read their investing articles, and their forums, and everything. You cannot get enough information and advice to get going, as it is really easy to think investing is easy and returns are guaranteed. A lot of people found that out in 2008 and 2000! For example, they have a 'beginners portfolio' that will teach you the very basics of investing (though not necessarily what to invest in)",
"qid": 10808,
"docid": "218285",
"rank": 39,
"score": 104935
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Your \"\"money market\"\" is cash or a \"\"sweep account\"\" that your broker is holding for you and on which the broker is paying you interest. The mutual fund is paying you dividends, not interest, even if it is a money-market mutual fund (often bearing a name such as Prime Reserve Fund) or bond mutual fund that is collecting interest on its investments and passing them on to you.\"",
"qid": 10808,
"docid": "110744",
"rank": 40,
"score": 103374
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you are looking to invest for 1-2 years I would suggest you not invest in mutual funds at all. Your time horizon is too short for it to be smart to invest in the stock market. I'd suggest a high-yield savings account or CD. I know they both have crappy returns, but the stock market can swing wildly with no notice. If you are ready to buy your house and the market is down 50% (it has happened multiple times in history) are you going to have to put off buying your home for an indefinite amount of time waiting to them to recover? If you are absolutely committed to investing in a mutual fund anyway against my advise I'd suggest an indexed fund that contains mostly blue chip stocks (indexed against the DOW).",
"qid": 10808,
"docid": "301224",
"rank": 41,
"score": 102606
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I quite like the Canadian Couch Potato which provides useful information targeted at investors in Canada. They specifically provide some model portfolios. Canadian Couch Potato generally suggests investing in indexed ETFs or mutual funds made up of four components. One ETF or mutual fund tracking Canadian bonds, another tracking Canadian stocks, a third tracking US stocks, and a fourth tracking international stocks. I personally add a REIT ETF (BMO Equal Weight REITs Index ETF, ZRE), but that may complicate things too much for your liking. Canadian Couch Potato specifically recommends the Tangerine Streetwise Portfolio if you are looking for something particularly easy, though the Management Expense Ratio is rather high for my liking. Anyway, the website provides specific suggestions, whether you are looking for a single mutual fund, multiple mutual funds, or prefer ETFs. From personal experience, Tangerine's offerings are very, very simple and far cheaper than the 2.5% you are quoting. I currently use TD's e-series funds and spend only a few minutes a year rebalancing. There are a number of good ETFs available if you want to lower your overhead further, though Canadians don't get quite the deals available in the U.S. Still, you shouldn't be paying anything remotely close to 2.5%. Also, beware of tax implications; the website has several articles that cover these in detail.",
"qid": 10808,
"docid": "120133",
"rank": 42,
"score": 102380
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I assume that with both companies you can buy stock mutual funds, bonds mutual funds, ETFs and money market accounts. They should both offer all of these as IRAs, Roth IRAs, and non-retirement accounts. You need to make sure they offer the types of investments you want. Most 401K or 403b plans only offer a handful of options, but for non-company sponsored plans you want to have many more choices. To look at the costs see how much they charge you when you buy or sell shares. Also look at the annual expenses for those funds. Each company website should show you all the fees for each fund. Take a few funds that you are likely to invest in, and have a match in the other fund family, and compare. The benefit of the retirement accounts is that if you make a less than perfect choice now, it is easy to move the money within the family of funds or even to another family of funds later. The roll over or transfer doesn't involve taxes.",
"qid": 10808,
"docid": "434734",
"rank": 43,
"score": 102313
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Do not do investing with a bank. Do investing with a low cost investment company like Vanguard, Fidelity, or Charles Schwab. The lower the expenses of the fund the better. The additional money your account earns because of lower overhead expenses is so dramatic over the course of your investing it is mind boggling to me. The lower the expenses, the more of your money you keep, which feeds the power of compound interest. http://www.fool.com/investing/mutual-funds/2008/09/03/this-fund-charges-what.aspx",
"qid": 10808,
"docid": "346398",
"rank": 44,
"score": 102274
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The 20%+ returns you have observed in the mutual funds are not free money. They are compensation for the risk associated with owning those funds. Given the extraordinarily high returns you are seeing I would expect extremely high risk. This means there is a good possibility of extreme losses at some point. By putting a lot of money in those mutual funds you are taking a gamble that may or may not pay off. Assuming what your friend is paying you for rent is fair, you are not losing money on your house relative to the market. You are earning less because you are invested in a less risky asset. If you want a higher return, you should borrow some money (or sell your house) and invest in the market. You may make more money that way. But if you do that, you will have a larger chance of losing a lot of money at some point. That's the way risk works. No one can promise a 20% return on a risky asset, they can only hint that it may do in the future what it did in the past. A reasonable approach to investment is to get invested in lots of different things: stocks, bonds, real estate. If you are afraid of risk and willing to earn less, keep more money in safe assets. If you are willing to take big risks in exchange for the possibility of high returns, move more assets into risky stuff. If you want extreme returns and are willing to take extreme risk, borrow and use the money to invest in risky assets. As you look over investment options, remember that anything that pays high returns most likely has high risk as well.",
"qid": 10808,
"docid": "445782",
"rank": 45,
"score": 102069
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Personally, I invest in mutual funds. Quite a bit in index funds, some in capital growth & international.",
"qid": 10808,
"docid": "54190",
"rank": 46,
"score": 102034
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: What is the question? A total return fund seeks to just maximize total returns, as opposed to benchmark tracking, low vol, high vol, sectoral, whatever, this is just a name you gotta read the long prospectus to see how they are supposed to go about doing it. Fixed income investing DOES NOT rely on on interest rates, it relies on the movements of interest rates (this is a key difference). When economies are doing poorly, there is a flight to quality (everyone is scared and lends only to governments) driving government interest rate downs and increasing the spread between government rates and corporates. My usual advice is There is never a good time to buy a mutual fund :P, better to buy an ETF or a portfolio of ETF's that correspond to your views. You need to sit down and ask yourself what type of risk tolerances you're willing to take as mutual funds by construction deliver negative alpha due to fees.",
"qid": 10808,
"docid": "83230",
"rank": 47,
"score": 102030
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I am sorry for your loss, this person blessed you greatly. For now I would put it in a savings account. I'd use a high yield account like EverBank or Personal Savings from Amex. There are others it is pretty easy to do your own research. Expect to earn around 2200 if you keep it there a year. As you grieve, I'd ask myself what this person would want me to do with the money. I'd arrive at a plan that involved me investing some, giving some, and spending some. I have a feeling, knowing that you have done pretty well for yourself financially, that this person would want you to spend some money on yourself. It is important to honor their memory. Giving is an important part of building wealth, and so is investing. Perhaps you can give/purchase a bench or part of a walkway at one of your favorite locations like a zoo. This will help you remember this person fondly. For the investing part, I would recommend contacting a company like Fidelity or Vanguard. The can guide you into mutual funds that suit your needs and will help you understand the workings of them. As far as Fidelity, they will tend to guide you toward their company funds, but they are no load. Once you learn how to use the website, it is pretty easy to pick your own funds. And always, you can come back here with more questions.",
"qid": 10808,
"docid": "495774",
"rank": 48,
"score": 101820
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Banks in general will keep saving rates as low as possible especially if there is a surplus of funds or alternative access for funding as in the case of the Fed in the USA. Generally speaking, why would bank pay you a high interest rate when they cannot generate any income from your money? Usually we will expect to see a drop in the loan interest rate when their is a surplus of funds so as to encourage investment. But if the market is volatile then no banks will allow easy access to money through loans. The old traditional policy of lending money without proper security and no control from the central bank has created serious problems for savings account holders when some of these banks went into bankruptcy. It is for this reason most countries has modified their Financial Act to offer more protection to account holders. At the moment banks must follow rigid guidelines before a loan can be approved to a customer. In my country (Guyana) we have seen the collapse of a few banks which sent a shock wave across the county for those that have savings held at those bank. We have also seen unsecured loans having to be written off thus putting serious pressure of those banks. So government stepped in a few years ago and amended the act to make it mandatory to have commercial banks follow certain strict guidelines before approving a loan.",
"qid": 10808,
"docid": "257495",
"rank": 49,
"score": 101817
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Not according to the SEC: A mutual fund is an SEC-registered open-end investment company that pools money from many investors and invests the money in stocks, bonds, short-term money-market instruments, other securities or assets, or some combination of these investments. The combined securities and assets the mutual fund owns are known as its portfolio, which is managed by an SEC-registered investment adviser. Each mutual fund share represents an investor’s proportionate ownership of the mutual fund’s portfolio and the income the portfolio generates. And further down: Mutual funds are open-end funds.",
"qid": 10808,
"docid": "180196",
"rank": 50,
"score": 101731
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Why is that? With all the successful investors (including myself on a not-infrequent basis) going for individual companies directly, wouldn't it make more sense to suggest that new investors learn how to analyse companies and then make their best guess after taking into account those factors? I have a different perspective here than the other answers. I recently started investing in a Roth IRA for retirement. I do not have interest in micromanaging individual company research (I don't find this enjoyable at all) but I know I want to save for retirement. Could I learn all the details? Probably, as an engineer/software person I suspect I could. But I really don't want to. But here's the thing: For anyone else in a similar situation to me, the net return on investing into a mutual fund type arrangement (even if it returns only 4%) is still likely considerably higher than the return on trying to invest in stocks (which likely results in $0 invested, and a return of 0%). I suspect the overwhelming majority of people in the world are more similar to me than you - in that they have minimal interest in spending hours managing their money. For us, mutual funds or ETFs are perfect for this.",
"qid": 10808,
"docid": "523810",
"rank": 51,
"score": 101422
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Are you looking for something like Morningstar.com? They provide information about lots of mutual funds so you can search based on many factors and find good candidate mutual funds. Use their fund screener to pick funds with long track records of beating the S&P500.",
"qid": 10808,
"docid": "484599",
"rank": 52,
"score": 100670
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I think this is a good question with no single right answer. For a conservative investor, possible responses to low rates would be: Probably the best response is somewhere in the middle: consider riskier investments for a part of your portfolio, but still hold on to some cash, and in any case do not expect great results in a bad economy. For a more detailed analysis, let's consider the three main asset classes of cash, bonds, and stocks, and how they might preform in a low-interest-rate environment. (By \"\"stocks\"\" I really mean mutual funds that invest in a diversified mixture of stocks, rather than individual stocks, which would be even riskier. You can use mutual funds for bonds too, although diversification is not important for government bonds.) Cash. Advantages: Safe in the short term. Available on short notice for emergencies. Disadvantages: Low returns, and possibly inflation (although you retain the flexibility to move to other investments if inflation increases.) Bonds. Advantages: Somewhat higher returns than cash. Disadvantages: Returns are still rather low, and more vulnerable to inflation. Also the market price will drop temporarily if rates rise. Stocks. Advantages: Better at preserving your purchasing power against inflation in the long term (20 years or more, say.) Returns are likely to be higher than stocks or bonds on average. Disadvantages: Price can fluctuate a lot in the short-to-medium term. Also, expected returns are still less than they would be in better economic times. Although the low rates may change the question a little, the most important thing for an investor is still to be familiar with these basic asset classes. Note that the best risk-adjusted reward might be attained by some mixture of the three.\"",
"qid": 10808,
"docid": "127689",
"rank": 53,
"score": 100623
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"When we talk about compounding, we usually think about interest payments. If you have a deposit in a savings account that is earning compound interest, then each time an interest payment is made to your account, your deposit gets larger, and the amount of your next interest payment is larger than the last. There are compound interest formulas that you can use to calculate your future earnings using the interest rate and the compounding interval. However, your mutual fund is not earning interest, so you have to think of it differently. When you own a stock (and your mutual fund is simply a collection of stocks), the value of the stock (hopefully) grows. Let's say, for example, that you have $1000 invested, and the value goes up 10% the first year. The total value of your investment has increased by $100, and your total investment is worth $1100. If it grows by another 10% the following year, your investment is then $1210, having gained $110. In this way, your investment grows in a similar way to compound interest. As your investment pays off, it causes the value of the investment to grow, allowing for even higher earnings in the future. So in that sense, it is compounding. However, because it is not earning a fixed, predictable amount of interest as a savings account would, you can't use the compound interest formula to calculate precisely how much you will have in the future, as there is no fixed compounding interval. If you want to use the formula to estimate how much you might have in the future, you have to make an assumption on the growth of your investment, and that growth assumption will have a time period associated with it. For example, you might assume a growth rate of 10% per year. Or you might assume a growth rate of 1% per month. This is what you could use in a compound interest formula for your mutual fund investment. By reinvesting your dividends and capital gains (and not taking them out in cash), you are maximizing your \"\"compounding\"\" by allowing those earnings to cause your investment to grow.\"",
"qid": 10808,
"docid": "210939",
"rank": 54,
"score": 100505
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Avoiding tobacco, etc is fairly standard for a fund claiming ethical investing, though it varies. The hard one on your list is loans. You might want to check out Islamic mutual funds. Charging interest is against Sharia law. For example: http://www.saturna.com/amana/index.shtml From their about page: Our Funds favor companies with low price-to-earnings multiples, strong balance sheets, and proven businesses. They follow a value-oriented approach consistent with Islamic finance principles. Generally, these principles require that investors avoid interest and investments in businesses such as liquor, pornography, gambling, and banks. The Funds avoid bonds and other conventional fixed-income securities. So, it looks like it's got your list covered. (Not a recommendation, btw. I know nothing about Amana's performance.) Edit: A little more detail of their philosophy from Amana's growth fund page: Generally, Islamic principles require that investors share in profit and loss, that they receive no usury or interest, and that they do not invest in a business that is prohibited by Islamic principles. Some of the businesses not permitted are liquor, wine, casinos, pornography, insurance, gambling, pork processing, and interest-based banks or finance associations. The Growth Fund does not make any investments that pay interest. In accordance with Islamic principles, the Fund shall not purchase conventional bonds, debentures, or other interest-paying obligations of indebtedness. Islamic principles discourage speculation, and the Fund tends to hold investments for several years.",
"qid": 10808,
"docid": "523415",
"rank": 55,
"score": 100494
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: In summary, you are correct that the goal of investing is to maximize returns, while paying low management fees. Index investing has become very popular because of the low fees. There are many actively traded mutual funds out there with very high management fees of 2.5% and up that do not beat the market. This begs the question of why you are paying high management fees and not just investing in index funds. Consider maxing out your tax sheltered accounts (401(k) and ROTH IRA) to avoid even more fees on your returns. Also consider having a growth component of your portfolio which is generally filled with equity, along with a secure component for assets such as bonds. Bonds may not have the exciting returns of equity, but they help to smooth out the volatility of your portfolio, which may help to keep peace of mind when the market dips.",
"qid": 10808,
"docid": "81652",
"rank": 56,
"score": 100289
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you are in an economy which has a decent liquid debt market (corporate bonds, etc.), then you may look into investing in AA or AA+ rated bonds. They can provide higher returns than bank deposits and are virtually risk-free. (Though in severe economic downturns, you can see defaults in even very high-rated bonds, leading to partial or complete loss of value however, this is statistically quite rare). You can make this investment through a debt mutual fund but please make sure that you read through the offer document carefully to understand the investment style of the mutual fund and their expense ratio (which directly affect your returns). In any case, it is always recommended to reach out to an investment adviser who is good with local tax laws to minimize taxes and maximize returns.",
"qid": 10808,
"docid": "117875",
"rank": 57,
"score": 100269
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: There is a strange puzzle today where savings account interest rates are not rising in-line with the Federal Funds rate. Either customers are apathetic to their alternative uses of cash, or banks have some-how formed a cartel to keep their cost of funding low. I'm leaning towards the former since bank customers today likely value readily accessible cash more than the interest rate they could earn by investing in money market mutual funds.",
"qid": 10808,
"docid": "433340",
"rank": 58,
"score": 99945
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Let's say I have $10,000, and I invest said monies in mutual fund XXXXX at $100/share, effectively giving me 100 shares. Now, let's assume at the end of the year I have a 5% return. My $10,000 is now $10,500. At what point does my investment benefit from compounded interest? Monthly? Quarter? Yearly? Does it even benefit? Daily would be my answer as your investment, unless you are selling shares or not re-investing distributions is getting the following day's change that impacts the overall return. Consider how if your fund went up 2% one day and then 2% another day from that $10,000 initial investment. The first gain brings it up to $10,200 and then the second makes it $10,402 where the extra $2 is from the compounding. The key though is that these are generally small movements that have to be multiplied together. Note also that if your fund goes up and down, you may end up down overall given how the returns compound. Consider that your $10,000 goes up 10% to $11,000 and then down 10% to result in $9,900 as the return for up x% and down x% is (1+x)(1-x)=1-x^2 which in this case is 1% as 10% of 10% is 1%. The key is how long do you keep all the money in there so that the next day is applied to that amount rather than resetting back to the initial investment.",
"qid": 10808,
"docid": "543223",
"rank": 59,
"score": 99884
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I think the real answer to your question here is diversification. You have some fear of having your money in the market, and rightfully so, having all your money in one stock, or even one type of mutual fund is risky as all get out, and you could lose a lot of your money in such a stock-market based undiversified investment. However, the same logic works in your rental property. If you lose your tennant, and are unable to find a new one right away, or if you have some very rare problem that insurance doesn't cover, your property could become very much not a \"\"break even\"\" investment very quickly. In reality, there isn't any single investment you can make that has no risk. Your assets need to be balanced between many different market-investments, that includes bonds, US stocks, European stocks, cash, etc. Also investing in mutual funds instead of individual stocks greatly reduces your risk. Another thing to consider is the benefits of paying down debt. While investments have a risk of not performing, if you pay off a loan with interest payments, you definitely will save the money you would have paid in interest. To be specific, I'd recommend the following plan -\"",
"qid": 10808,
"docid": "371392",
"rank": 60,
"score": 99869
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Yahoo Finance is definitely a good one, and its ultimately the source of the data that a lot of other places use (like the iOS Stocks app), because of their famous API. Another good dividend website is Dividata.com. It's a fairly simple website, free to use, which provides tons of dividend-specific info, including the highest-yield stocks, the upcoming ex-div dates, and the highest-rated stocks based on their 3-metric rating system. It's a great place to find new stocks to investigate, although you obviously don't want to stop there. It also shows dividend payment histories and \"\"years paying,\"\" so you can quickly get an idea of which stocks are long-established and which may just be flashes in the pan. For example: Lastly, I've got a couple of iOS apps that really help me with dividend investing: Compounder is a single-stock compound interest calculator, which automatically looks up a stock's info and calculates a simulated return for a given number of years, and Dividender allows you to input your entire portfolio and then calculates its growth over time as a whole. The former is great for researching potential stocks, running scenarios, and deciding how much to invest, while the latter is great for tracking your portfolio and making plans regarding your investments overall.\"",
"qid": 10808,
"docid": "378427",
"rank": 61,
"score": 99852
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: This is a very interesting question. I'm going to attempt to answer it. Use debt to leverage investment. Historically, stock markets have returned 10% p.a., so today when interest rates are very low, and depending on which country you live in, you could theoretically borrow money at a very low interest rate and earn 10% p.a., pocketing the difference. This can be done through an ETF, mutual funds and other investment instruments. Make sure you have enough cash flow to cover the interest payments! Similar to the concept of acid ratio for companies, you should have slightly more than enough liquid funds to meet the monthly payments. Naturally, this strategy only works when interest rates are low. After that, you'll have to think of other ideas. However, IMO the Fed seems to be heading towards QE3 so we might be seeing a prolonged period of low interest rates, so borrowing seems like a sensible option now. Since the movements of interest rates are political in nature, monitoring this should be quite simple. It depends on you. Since interest rates are the opportunity cost of spending money, the lower the interest rates, the lower the opportunity costs of using money now and repaying it later. Interest rates are a market mechanism so that people who prefer to spend later can lend to people who prefer to spend now for the price of interest. *Disclaimer: Historically stocks have returned 10% p.a., but that doesn't mean this trend will continue indefinitely as we have seen fixed income outperform stocks in the recent past.",
"qid": 10808,
"docid": "346064",
"rank": 62,
"score": 99844
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Morningstar is often considered a trusted industry standard when it comes to rating mutual funds and ETFs. They offer the same data-centric information for other investments as well, such as individual stocks and bonds. You can consult Morningstar directly if you like, but any established broker will usually provide you with Morningstar's ratings for the products it is trying to sell to you. Vanguard offers a few Emerging Markets stock and bond funds, some actively managed, some index funds. Other investment management companies (Fidelity, Schwab, etc.) presumably do as well. You could start by looking in Morningstar (or on the individual companies' websites) to find what the similarities and differences are among these funds. That can help answer some important questions: I personally just shove a certain percentage of my portfolio into non-US stocks and bonds, and of that allocation a certain fraction goes into \"\"established\"\" economies and a certain fraction into \"\"emerging\"\" ones. I do all this with just a few basic index funds, because the indices make sense (to me) and index funds cost very little.\"",
"qid": 10808,
"docid": "459596",
"rank": 63,
"score": 99801
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you just want to save for retirement, start with a financial planning book, like this one: http://www.amazon.com/Smart-Simple-Financial-Strategies-People/dp/0743269942 and here's my editorial on the investing part: http://blog.ometer.com/2010/11/10/take-risks-in-life-for-savings-choose-a-balanced-fund/ If you're thinking of spending time stock-picking or trading for fun, then there are lots of options. Web site: Morningstar Premium (http://morningstar.com) has very good information. They analyze almost all large-cap stocks and some small caps too, plus mutual funds and ETFs, and have some good general information articles. It doesn't have the sales-pitch hot-blooded tone of most other sites. Morningstar analyzes companies from a value investing point of view which is probably what you want unless you're day trading. Also they analyze funds, which are probably the most practical investment. Books: If you want to be competent (in the sense that a professional investor trying to beat the market or control risk vs. the market would be) then I thought the CFA curriculum was pretty good: However, this will quickly teach you how much is involved in being competent. The level 1 curriculum when I did it was 6 or 7 thick textbooks, equivalent to probably a college semester courseload. I didn't do level 2 or 3. I don't think level 1 was enough to become competent, it's just enough to learn what you don't know. The actual CFA charter requires all three levels and years of work experience. If you more want to dabble, then Benjamin Graham's The Intelligent Investor certainly isn't a bad place to start, but you'd also want to read some efficient markets stuff (Random Walk Down Wall Street, or something by Bogle, or The Intelligent Asset Allocator http://www.amazon.com/Intelligent-Asset-Allocator-Portfolio-Maximize/dp/0071362363, are some options). It wouldn't be bad to just read a textbook like http://www.amazon.com/Investments-Irwin-Finance-Zvi-Bodie/dp/0256146381 which would be the much-abridged version of the CFA level 1 stuff. If you're into day trading / charting, then I don't know much about that at all, some of the other answers may have some ideas. I've never been able to find info on this that didn't seem like it had a sketchy sales pitch kind of vibe. Honestly in a world of high-frequency trading computers I'm skeptical this is something to get into. Unless you want to program HFT computers: http://howtohft.wordpress.com/",
"qid": 10808,
"docid": "78249",
"rank": 64,
"score": 99725
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: At the moment the interest rate... implies a variable rate mortgage. I believe rates are only going to go up from here. So, if I were in your position, I would pay off the mortgage first. If you don't have 3-6 months in savings for an emergency, I would invest that much money in low risk investments. Anything remaining I would invest in a balanced portfolio of mutual funds. The biggest benefit to this is the flexibility it gives you. Not being burdened by a monthly mortgage frees you up to invest. This may be in your stock portfolio each month or it may be in your community or charitable causes. You have financial margin.",
"qid": 10808,
"docid": "493336",
"rank": 65,
"score": 99692
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The article \"\"Best Stock Fund of the Decade: CGM Focus\"\" from the Wall Street Journal in 2009 describe the highest performing mutual fund in the USA between 2000 and 2009. The investor return in the fund (what the shareholders actually earned) was abysmal. Why? Because the fund was so volatile that investors panicked and bailed out, locking in losses instead of waiting them out. The reality is that almost any strategy will lead to success in investing, so long as it is actually followed. A strategy keeps you from making emotional or knee-jerk decisions. (BTW, beware of anyone selling you a strategy by telling you that everyone in the world is a failure except for the few special people who have the privilege of knowing their \"\"secrets.\"\") (Link removed, as it's gone dead)\"",
"qid": 10808,
"docid": "399149",
"rank": 66,
"score": 99509
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"If you don't want to take any risk and you want your money to be liquid, then the best place to \"\"invest\"\" such money is in an insured bank deposit, such as a high interest savings account. However, you aren't likely to find a savings account interest rate that comes close to that charged by your mortgage, so the better decision from a numbers perspective is to pay down more on your mortgage or other debt. Paying down your debt has almost no risk, but has a better payoff than simply saving the money in a bank account. However, if you choose to pay down more debt, I suggest you still keep aside enough cash to have an adequate emergency fund. Since you want safety and liquidity, don't expect high returns from such money.\"",
"qid": 10808,
"docid": "2393",
"rank": 67,
"score": 99427
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Everything that I'm saying presumes that you're young, and won't need your money back for 20+ years, and that you're going to invest additional money in the future. Your first investments should never be individual stocks. That is far too risky until you have a LOT more experience in the market. (Once you absolutely can't resist, keep it to under 5% of your total investments. That lets you experiment without damaging your returns too much.) Instead you would want to invest in one or more mutual funds of some sort, which spreads out your investment across MANY companies. With only $50, avoiding a trading commission is paramount. If you were in the US, I would recommend opening a free online brokerage account and then purchasing a no-load commission-free mutual fund. TD Ameritrade, for example, publishes a list of the funds that you can purchase without commission. The lists generally include the type of fund (index, growth, value, etc.) and its record of return. I don't know if Europe has the same kind of discount brokerages / mutual funds the US has, but I'd be a little surprised if it didn't. You may or may not be able to invest until you first scrape together a $500 minimum, but the brokerages often have special programs/accounts for people just starting out. It should be possible to ask. One more thing on picking a fund: most charge about a 1% annual expense ratio. (That means that a $100 investment that had a 100% gain after one year would net you $198 instead of $200, because 1% of the value of your asset ($200) is $2. The math is much more complicated, and depends on the value of your investment at every given point during the year, but that's the basic idea.) HOWEVER, there are index funds that track \"\"the market\"\" automatically, and they can have MUCH lower expense fees (0.05%, vs 1%) for the same quality of performance. Over 40 years, the expense ratio can have a surprisingly large impact on your net return, even 20% or more! You'll want to google separately about the right way to pick a low-expense index fund. Your online brokerage may also be able to help. Finally, ask friends or family what mutual funds they've invested in, how they chose those funds, and what their experience has been. The point is not to have them tell you what to do, but for you to learn from the mistakes and successes of other experienced investors with whom you can follow up.\"",
"qid": 10808,
"docid": "312821",
"rank": 68,
"score": 99005
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Milliondollarjourney.com has a couple of articles on this topic. How Investing Taxes Work part 1 and part 2. The following is a summary of that article. Capital gains and dividends are taxed at a preferred rate, while interest tax is taxed at your regular rate. Interest is taxed at your marginal rate, but capital gains are taxed at only 50% of your marginal rate. That means that it makes sense to place the interest bearing account inside the RRSP but keep stocks outside. Additionally, you can claim your losses on your capital appreciating stocks against your gains if they are outside of your RRSP. Hopefully, your stocks will never go down but that's not very realistic. Dividends from Canadian companies are eligible for a dividend tax credit, but not dividends from foreign companies. [I actually understood that dividends from U.S. companies are treated as a special case] It's not clear to me from reading the article how much of this applies to mutual funds. The summary is as follows:",
"qid": 10808,
"docid": "370469",
"rank": 69,
"score": 98720
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Just sticking to equities: If you are investing directly in a share/stock, depending on various factors, you may have picked up a winner or to your dismay a loser. Say you just have Rs 10,000/- to invest, which stock would you buy? If you don't know, then it’s better to buy a Mutual Fund. Now if you say you would buy a few of everything, then even to purchase say Rs 5000/- worth of each stock in the NIFTY Index [50 companies] you would require at least an investment of 250,000/-. When you are investing directly you always have to buy in whole numbers, i.e. you can't buy 1/2 share or 1.6 share of some stock. The way Mutual funds work is they take 10,000 from 250 people and invest in all the stocks. There are fund managers who's job is to pick good stocks, however even they cannot predict winners all the time. Normally a few of the picks become great winners, most are average, and a few are losers; this means that overall your returns are average VS if you had picked the winning stock. The essential difference between you investing on your own and via mutual funds are: It is good to begin with a Mutual Fund, and once you start understanding the stocks better you can invest directly into the equities. The same logic holds true for Debt as well.",
"qid": 10808,
"docid": "336218",
"rank": 70,
"score": 98611
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Unfortunately, in this market environment your goal is not very realistic. At the moment real interest rates are negative (and have been for some time). This means if you invest in something that will pay out for sure, you can expect to earn less than you lose through inflation. In other words, if you save your $50K, when you withdraw it in a few years you will be able to buy less with it then than you can now. You can invest in risky securities like stocks or mutual funds. These assets can easily generate 10% per year, but they can (and do) also generate negative returns. This means you can and likely will lose money after investing in them. There's an even better chance that you will make money, but that varies year by year. If you invest in something that expects to make 10% per year (meaning it makes that much on average), it will be extremely risky and many years it will lose money, perhaps a lot of it. That's the way risk is. Are you comfortable taking on large amounts of risk (good chances of losing a lot of your money)? You could make some kind of real investment. $50K is a little small to buy real estate, but you may be able to find something like real estate that can generate income, especially if you use it as a down payment to borrow from the bank. There is risk in being a landlord as well, of course, and a lot of work. But real investments like that are a reasonable alternative to financial markets for some people. Another possibility is to just keep it in your bank account or something else with no risk and take $5000 out per year. It will only last you 10 years that way, but if you are not too young, that will be a significant portion of your life. If you are young, you can work and add to it. Unfortunately, financial markets don't magically make people rich. If you make a lot of money in the market, it's because you took a risk and got lucky. If you make a comfortable amount with no risk, it means you invested in a market environment very different from what we see today. --------- EDIT ------------ To get an idea of what risk free investments (after inflation) earn per year at various horizons see this table at the treasury. At the time of this writing you would have to invest in a security with maturity almost 10 years in order to break even with inflation. Beating it by 10% or even 3% per year with minimal risk is a pipe dream.",
"qid": 10808,
"docid": "449745",
"rank": 71,
"score": 98594
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: At 22 years old, you can afford to be invested 100% in the stock market. Like many others, I recommend that you consider low cost index funds if those are available in your 401(k) plan. Since your 401(k) contributions are usually made with each paycheck this gives you the added benefit of dollar cost averaging throughout your career. There used to be a common rule that you should put 100 minus your age as the percentage invested in the stock market and the rest in bonds, but with interest rates being so low, bonds have underperformed, so many experts now recommend 110 or even 120 minus your age for stocks percentage. My recommendation is that you wait until you are 40 and then move 25% into bonds, then increase it to 40% at 55 years old. At 65 I would jump to a 50-50 stock/bonds mix and when you start taking distributions I would move to a stable-value income portfolio. I also recommend that you roll your funds into a Vanguard IRA when you change jobs so that you take advantage of their low management fee index mutual funds (that have no fees for trading). You can pick whatever mix feels best for you, but at your age I would suggest a 50-50 mix between the S&P 500 (large cap) and the Russell 2000 (small cap). Those with quarterly rebalancing will put you a little ahead of the market with very little effort.",
"qid": 10808,
"docid": "216365",
"rank": 72,
"score": 98492
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The advice I have is short and sweet. Be an investor, not a speculator. Adopt the philosophy of Warren Buffet which is the 'buy and hold' philosophy. Avoid individual stocks and buy mutual funds or ETFs. Pick something that pays dividends and reinvest those dividends. Don't become a speculator, meaning avoid the 'buy low, sell high' philosophy. EDIT:For some reason I cannot add a comment, so I am putting my response here. @jad The 'buy low, sell high' approach makes money for the stock broker, not necessarily you. As we learn in the movie Trading Places, each buy or sell creates a commission for the broker. It is those commission expenses that eat away at your nestegg. Just don't sell. If a security is trading at $10 a share and pays $0.25 a share each quarter then you are getting 10% ROI if you buy that security (and if it continues to pay $0.25 a share each quarter). If the price goes up then the ROI for new buyers will go down, but your ROI will still be the same. You will continue to get 10% for as long as you hold that security. A mutual fund buys the individual stocks for you. The value of the fund is only calculated at the end of the day. An ETF is like a mutual fund but the value of the ETF is calculated moment by moment.",
"qid": 10808,
"docid": "299284",
"rank": 73,
"score": 98385
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"A TFSA is a tax free savings account. It is a type of account where you can buy various investments like stocks, bonds, or funds (mutual, exchange traded, and money market). There are some other options but it's best to see what your bank or broker will allow. You probably specified the type of investment when you opened the account. You can look at your statements or maybe online to see what you're invested in. My guess is some kind of HISA (high interest savings account). This is kind of the default option for banks. The government created these accounts for a variety of reasons. The main stated reason was to encourage people to save. Obviously they also do things to get votes. There was an outcry after the change to a type of investment called \"\"investment trusts\"\". This could be seen as a consolation prize. These can be valuable to seniors for many reasons and they tend to vote more often. There was also an election promise to eliminate capital gains taxes in some fashion. It's not profitable for the government, in fact it supposedly cost the federal government $410 million in 2013. Banks make money by investing your deposit or by charging fees. You can see what every tax break 'costs' the government in lost revenue here http://www.fin.gc.ca/taxexp-depfisc/2013/taxexp1301-eng.asp#toc7\"",
"qid": 10808,
"docid": "392852",
"rank": 74,
"score": 98148
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: My suggestion is that you speak with a financial adviser that specializes in Islamic investing. For the long term there are Islam approved mutual funds that only invest in non-banking organizations, and I would assume there are more conservative options for the short term as well (3-4 years). Although you may not feel the effects of inflation all that much in just a few years, it would still be beneficial to utilize programs that allow you to earn a return on your money. (I may not have said that for $2,500 but for $25,000 I think it's worth looking into.) Also, some scholars suggest that it is even allowed to invest in mutual funds that deal with banks, as long as you calculate the portion of your return that came from the bank charging interest, and donate that amount to charity.",
"qid": 10808,
"docid": "282375",
"rank": 75,
"score": 98040
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I think you can do better than the straight indexes. For instance Vanguard's High Yield Tax Exempt Fund has made 4.19% over the past 5 years. The S&P 500 Index has lost -2.25% in the same period. I think good mutual funds will continue to outperform the markets because you have skilled managers taking care of your money. The index is just a bet on the whole market. That said, whatever you do, you should diversify. List of Vanguard Funds",
"qid": 10808,
"docid": "445322",
"rank": 76,
"score": 97897
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I can't find a decent duplicate, so here are some general guidelines: First of all by \"\"stocks\"\" the answers generally mean \"\"equities\"\" which could be either single stocks or mutual funds that consist of stocks. Unless you have lots of experience that can help you discern good stocks from bad, investing in mutual funds reduces the risk considerably. If you want to fine-tune the plan, you can weigh certain categories higher to change your risk/return profile (e.g. equity funds will have higher returns and risk than fixed income (bond) funds, so if you want to take a little more risk you can put more in equity funds and less in fixed income funds). Lastly, don't stress too much over the individual investments. The most important thing is that you get as much company match as you can. You cannot beat the 100% return that comes from a company match. The allocation is mostly insignificant compared to that. Plus you can probably change your allocation later easily and cheaply if you don't like it. Disclaimer: these are _general_ guidelines for 401(k) investing in general and not personal advice.\"",
"qid": 10808,
"docid": "201391",
"rank": 77,
"score": 97867
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Not sure of your locality. In the USA, there are many options. There are many corporate bonds that pay interest monthly. You can invest in a handful of bonds, chosen so at least one of them pays interest each month. (Minimum investment requirements make this an expensive option) Unit Trusts made of bonds (a handful of bonds wrapped into a single fixed investment) usually pay monthly interest. As the bonds begin to mature, the interest payments shrink (but you begin to get principal payments which can be reinvested). Bond mutual funds and ETFs usually provide monthly dividends (that come from the interest and capital gains of the bonds held by the fund). Dividends are usually consistent, but not necessarily fixed. You can produce a monthly income from stocks in the same way as the above mentioned bond methods. Income can be consistent, but not fixed.",
"qid": 10808,
"docid": "33389",
"rank": 78,
"score": 97732
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I got started by reading the following two books: You could probably get by with just the first of those two. I haven't been a big fan of the \"\"for dummies\"\" series in the past, but I found both of these were quite good, particularly for people who have little understanding of investing. I also rather like the site, Canadian Couch Potato. That has a wealth of information on passive investing using mutual funds and ETFs. It's a good next step after reading one or the other of the books above. In your specific case, you are investing for the fairly short term and your tolerance for risk seems to be quite low. Gold is a high-risk investment, and in my opinion is ill-suited to your investment goals. I'd say you are looking at a money market account (very low risk, low return) such as e.g. the TD Canadian Money Market fund (TDB164). You may also want to take a look at e.g. the TD Canadian Bond Index (TDB909) which is only slightly higher risk. However, for someone just starting out and without a whack of knowledge, I rather like pointing people at the ING Direct Streetwise Funds. They offer three options, balancing risk vs reward. You can fill in their online fund selector and it'll point you in the right direction. You can pay less by buying individual stock and bond funds through your bank (following e.g. one of the Canadian Couch Potato's model portfolios), but ING Direct makes things nice and simple, and is a good option for people who don't care to spend a lot of time on this. Note that I am not a financial adviser, and I have only a limited understanding of your needs. You may want to consult one, though you'll want to be careful when doing so to avoid just talking to a salesperson. Also, note that I am biased toward passive index investing. Other people may recommend that you invest in gold or real estate or specific stocks. I think that's a bad idea and believe I have the science to back this up, but I may be wrong.\"",
"qid": 10808,
"docid": "531005",
"rank": 79,
"score": 97612
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: On reading couple of articles & some research over internet, I got to know about diversified investment where one should invest 70% in equity related & rest 30% in debt related funds Yes that is about right. Although the recommendation keeps varying a bit. However your first investment should not aim for diversification. Putting small amounts in multiple mutual funds may create paper work and tracking issues. My suggestion would be to start with an Index EFT or Large cap. Then move to balanced funds and mid caps etc. On this site we don't advise on specific funds. You can refer to moneycontrol.com or economictimes or quite a few other personal finance advisory sites to understand the top funds in the segments and decide on funds accordingly. PS: Rather than buying paper, buy it electronic, better you can now buy it as Demat. If you already have an Demat account it would be best to buy through it.",
"qid": 10808,
"docid": "281865",
"rank": 80,
"score": 97394
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: sell drugs? (joking) In all seriousness though, your options to legally invest this money are limited, which leaves you to extra-legal options..... which many young people engage, different kind of candy I guess. Ok so you cannot invest into stocks, to day trade. Because you're not an adult. You can put the money in a bank, but the interest rate on that amount of money is in the realm of ~0.1%. You can use the money to seed another legal business venture, say another kind of better candy. My advice is to get a parental unit to put the cash into a mutual fund, in your name... then hand that over to you when you turn 18.",
"qid": 10808,
"docid": "496170",
"rank": 81,
"score": 97360
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Funds - especially index funds - are a safe way for beginning investors to get a diversified investment across a lot of the stock market. They are not the perfect investment, but they are better than the majority of mutual funds, and you do not spend a lot of money in fees. Compared to the alternative - buying individual stocks based on what a friend tells you or buying a \"\"hot\"\" mutual fund - it's a great choice for a lot of people. If you are willing to do some study, you can do better - quite a bit better - with common stocks. As an individual investor, you have some structural advantages; you can take significant (to you) positions in small-cap companies, while this is not practical for large institutional investors or mutual fund managers. However, you can also lose a lot of money quickly in individual stocks. It pays to go slow and to your homework, however, and make sure that you are investing, not speculating. I like fool.com as a good place to start, and subscribe to a couple of their newsletters. I will note that investing is not for the faint of heart; to do well, you may need to do the opposite of what everybody else is doing; buying when the market is down and selling when the market is high. A few people mentioned the efficient market hypothesis. There is ample evidence that the market is not efficient; the existence of the .com and mortgage bubbles makes it pretty obvious that the market is often not rationally valued, and a couple of hedge funds profited in the billions from this.\"",
"qid": 10808,
"docid": "312591",
"rank": 82,
"score": 97346
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The fund will take a small percentage of its assets to cover the expenses. Reported returns come after the expense ratio has been factored into things. Money market mutual funds can have a zero yield in some cases though breaking the buck can happen in some cases as noted on Wikipedia: The first money market mutual fund to break the buck was First Multifund for Daily Income (FMDI) in 1978, liquidating and restating NAV at 94 cents per share. An argument has been made that FMDI was not technically a money market fund as at the time of liquidation the average maturity of securities in its portfolio exceeded two years.[7] However, prospective investors were informed that FMDI would invest \"\"solely in Short-Term (30-90 days) MONEY MARKET obligations.\"\" Furthermore, the rule, which restricts the maturities which money market funds are permitted to invest in, Rule 2-a7 of the Investment Company Act of 1940, was not promulgated until 1983. Prior to the adoption of this rule, a mutual fund had to do little other than present itself as a money market fund, which FMDI did. Seeking higher yield, FMDI had purchased increasingly longer maturity securities and rising interest rates negatively impacted the value of its portfolio. In order to meet increasing redemptions the fund was forced to sell a certificate of deposit at a 3% loss, triggering a restatement of its NAV and the first instance of a money market fund \"\"breaking the buck\"\". The Community Bankers US Government Fund broke the buck in 1994, paying investors 96 cents per share. This was only the second failure in the then 23-year history of money funds and there were no further failures for 14 years. The fund had invested a large percentage of its assets into adjustable rate securities. As interest rates increased, these floating rate securities lost value. This fund was an institutional money fund, not a retail money fund, thus individuals were not directly affected. No further failures occurred until September 2008, a month that saw tumultuous events for money funds. However, as noted above, other failures were only averted by infusions of capital from the fund sponsors. Thus consider how likely is Fidelity Investments prepared to have people question how safe is their money with them which is why fund sponsors rarely break the buck.\"",
"qid": 10808,
"docid": "182042",
"rank": 83,
"score": 97324
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Bond aren't necessarily any safer than the stock market. Ultimately, there is no such thing as a low risk mutual fund. You want something that will allow you get at your money relatively quickly. In other words, CDs (since you you can pick a definite time period for your money to be tied up), money market account or just a plain old savings account. Basically, you want to match inflation and have easy access to the money. Any other returns on top of that are gravy, but don't fret too much about it. See also: Where can I park my rainy-day / emergency fund? Savings accounts don’t generate much interest. Where should I park my rainy-day / emergency fund?",
"qid": 10808,
"docid": "376148",
"rank": 84,
"score": 96936
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I strongly suggest you go to www.investor.gov as it has excellent information regarding these types of questions. A mutual fund is a company that pools money from many investors and invests the money in securities such as stocks, bonds, and short-term debt. The combined holdings of the mutual fund are known as its portfolio. Investors buy shares in mutual funds. Each share represents an investor’s part ownership in the fund and the income it generates. When you buy shares of a mutual fund you're buying it at NAV, or net asset value. The NAV is the value of the fund’s assets minus its liabilities. SEC rules require funds to calculate the NAV at least once daily. Different funds may own thousands of different stocks. In order to calculate the NAV, the fund company must value every security it owns. Since each security's valuation is changing throughout the day it's difficult to determine the valuation of the mutual fund except for when the market is closed. Once the market has closed (4pm eastern) and securities are no longer trading, the company must get accurate valuations for every security and perform the valuation calculations and distribute the results to the pricing vendors. This has to be done by 6pm eastern. This is a difficult and, more importantly, a time consuming process to get it done right once per day. Having worked for several fund companies I can tell you there are many days where companies are getting this done at the very last minute. When you place a buy or sell order for a mutual fund it doesn't matter what time you placed it as long as you entered it before 4pm ET. Cutoff times may be earlier depending on who you're placing the order with. If companies had to price their funds more frequently, they would undoubtedly raise their fees.",
"qid": 10808,
"docid": "245867",
"rank": 85,
"score": 96902
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Let's say that you want to invest in the stock market. Choosing and investing in only one stock is risky. You can lower your risk by diversifying, or investing in lots of different stocks. However, you have some problems with this: When you buy stocks directly, you have to buy whole shares, and you don't have enough money to buy even one whole share of all the stocks you want to invest in. You aren't even sure which stocks you should buy. A mutual fund solves both of these problems. You get together with other investors and pool your money together to buy a group of stocks. That way, your investment is diversified in lots of different stocks without having to have enough money to buy whole shares of each one. And the mutual fund has a manager that chooses which stocks the fund will invest in, so you don't have to pick. There are lots of mutual funds to choose from, with as many different objectives as you can imagine. Some invest in large companies, others small; some invest in a certain sector of companies (utilities or health care, for example), some invest in stocks that pay a dividend, others are focused on growth. Some funds don't invest in stocks at all; they might invest in bonds, real estate, or precious metals. Some funds are actively managed, where the manager actively buys and sells different stocks in the fund continuously (and takes a fee for his services), and others simply invest in a list of stocks and rarely buy or sell (these are called index funds). To answer your question, yes, the JPMorgan Emerging Markets Equity Fund is a mutual fund. It is an actively-managed stock mutual fund that attempts to invest in growing companies that do business in countries with rapidly developing economies.",
"qid": 10808,
"docid": "199493",
"rank": 86,
"score": 96717
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Instead of buying in bulk, I invest the money in equity mutual funds, for an expected return of 12%, which is more than inflation. So, I make more returns. But at the cost of a slight risk, which I'm comfortable with.",
"qid": 10808,
"docid": "515024",
"rank": 87,
"score": 96651
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Would my high-risk investment choices, aside from the main question, have any bearing on the road I want to go down and test (managing mutual/hedge funds)? Absolutely! First of all, understand that hedge fund managers are managing other people's money. Those people desire a certain risk profile and expected return, so your hedge fund will need to meet those expectations. Plus, hedge fund managers don't typically get fixed fees alone - they also get a percentage of any gains the fund makes; so managers have a vested interest in making sure that hedge funds perform well.",
"qid": 10808,
"docid": "179657",
"rank": 88,
"score": 96306
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Mutual funds buy (and sell) shares in companies in accordance with the policies set forth in their prospectus, not according to the individual needs of an investor, that is, when you invest money in (or withdraw money from) a mutual fund, the manager buys or sells whatever shares that, in the manager's judgement, will be the most appropriate ones (consistent with the investment policies). Thus, a large-cap mutual fund manager will not buy the latest hot small-cap stock that will likely be hugely profitable; he/she must choose only between various large capitalization companies. Some exchange-traded funds are fixed baskets of stocks. Suppose you will not invest in a company X as a matter of principle. Unless a mutual fund prospectus says that it will not invest in X, you may well end up having an investment in X at some time because the fund manager bought shares in X. With such an ETF, you know what is in the basket, and if the basket does not include stock in X now, it will not own stock in X at a later date. Some exchange-traded funds are constructed based on some index and track the index as a matter of policy. Thus, you will not be investing in X unless X becomes part of the index because Standard or Poor or Russell or somebody changed their minds, and the ETF buys X in order to track the index. Finally, some ETFs are exactly like general mutual funds except that you can buy or sell ETF shares at any time at the price at the instant that your order is executed whereas with mutual funds, the price of the mutual fund shares that you have bought or sold is the NAV of the mutual fund shares for that day, which is established based on the closing prices at the end of the trading day of the stocks, bonds etc that the fund owns. So, you might end up owning stock in X at any time based on what the fund manager thinks about X.",
"qid": 10808,
"docid": "479420",
"rank": 89,
"score": 96281
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Yes, definitely. Many municipalities and local governments issue bonds to fund various projects (schools, hospitals, infrastructure, etc). You can buy these bonds and in that way invest in these things. In the US these kinds of bonds are tax-free, i.e.: the income they provide is not taxed (by the US government, may be taxed by your State, check local tax laws). There are also dedicated mutual funds that that is all they invest in, if you don't want to deal with picking individual bonds. As to mom-and-pop stores - that would not be as easy, as mom-and-pop stores are by definition family owned and you can invest in them only if you are personally acquainted with them. Instead, you can invest in small regional/local chains, that while not being mom-and-pop, still small enough to be considered \"\"local\"\", but are publicly traded so that you can easily invest in them. You'll have to look for these. You can also use social lending platforms, like Lending Club, which I reviewed on my blog, or others, where you can participate in a lending pool to other people. You can invest in a credit union by opening an account there. Credit unions are owned by their account holders.\"",
"qid": 10808,
"docid": "288126",
"rank": 90,
"score": 96053
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If your money market funds are short-term savings or an emergency fund, you might consider moving them into an online saving account. You can get interest rates close to 1% (often above 1% in higher-rate climates) and your savings are completely safe and easily accessible. Online banks also frequently offer perks such as direct deposit, linking with your checking account, and discounts on other services you might need occasionally (i.e. money orders or certified checks). If your money market funds are the lowest-risk part of your diversified long-term portfolio, you should consider how low-risk it needs to be. Money market accounts are now typically FDIC insured (they didn't used to be), but you can get the same security at a higher interest rate with laddered CD's or U.S. savings bonds (if your horizon is compatible). If you want liquidity, or greater return than a CD will give you, then a bond fund or ETF may be the right choice, and it will tend to move counter to your stock investments, balancing your portfolio. It's true that interest rates will likely rise in the future, which will tend to decrease the value of bond investments. If you buy and hold a single U.S. savings bond, its interest payments and final payoff are set at purchase, so you won't actually lose money, but you might make less than you would if you invested in a higher-rate climate. Another way to deal with this, if you want to add a bond fund to your long-term investment portfolio, is to invest your money slowly over time (dollar-cost averaging) so that you don't pay a high price for a large number of shares that immediately drop in value.",
"qid": 10808,
"docid": "559927",
"rank": 91,
"score": 96051
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: In addition to the other excellent answers here, check out Mr. Money Mustache's site, it's based in the US but the basics still hold here in the UK. Another great site is the Monevator which is UK based and gives some great information on passive investing. Well done on getting to this point at your age - you've got plenty of time for the miracle of compound interest to work for you. EDIT: Once you have any existing debts paid off, take a look at passive/index investing. This could be a good way to make your £150 work for you by capturing the gains of the stock market. Invest it long-term (buy and hold) to make the most of the compound interested effect and over time that money will become something substantial - especially if you can increase payments over time as your income increases. You could also look at reducing your outgoings as recommended on the Mustache site linked above so you can increase your monthly investment amount.",
"qid": 10808,
"docid": "431775",
"rank": 92,
"score": 96017
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: When interest rates rise, the price of bonds fall because bonds have a fixed coupon rate, and since the interest rate has risen, the bond's rate is now lower than what you can get on the market, so it's price falls because it's now less valuable. Bonds diversify your portfolio as they are considered safer than stocks and less volatile. However, they also provide less potential for gains. Although diversification is a good idea, for the individual investor it is far too complicated and incurs too much transaction costs, not to mention that rebalancing would have to be done on a regular basis. In your case where you have mutual funds already, it is probably a good idea to keep investing in mutual funds with a theme which you understand the industry's role in the economy today rather than investing in some special bonds which you cannot relate to. The benefit of having a mutual fund is to have a professional manage your money, and that includes diversification as well so that you don't have to do that.",
"qid": 10808,
"docid": "31581",
"rank": 93,
"score": 95903
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Littleadv has given you excellent general advice, but to my mind, the most important part of it all and the path which I will strongly recommend you follow, is the suggestion to look into a mutual fund. I would add even more strongly, go to a mutual fund company directly and make an investment with them directly instead of making the investment through a brokerage account. Pick an index fund with low expenses, e.g. there are S&P 500 index funds available with expenses that are a fraction of 1%. (However, many also require minimum investments on the order of $2500 or $3000 except for IRA accounts). At this time, your goal should be to reduce expenses as much as possible because expenses, whether they be in brokerage fees which may be directly visible to you or mutual fund expenses which are invisible to you, are what will eat away at your return far more than the difference between the returns of various investments.",
"qid": 10808,
"docid": "224816",
"rank": 94,
"score": 95895
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: It sounds like you are soliciting opinions a little here, so I'll go ahead and give you mine, recognizing that there's a degree of arbitrariness here. A basic portfolio consists of a few mutual funds that try to span the space of investments. My choices given your pot: I like VLTCX because regular bond index funds have way too much weight in government securities. Government bonds earn way too little. The CAPM would suggest a lot more weight in bonds and international equity. I won't put too much in bonds because...I just don't feel like it. My international allocation is artificially low because it's always a little more costly and I'm not sure how good the diversification gains are. If you are relatively risk averse, you can hold some of your money in a high-interest online bank and only put a portion in these investments. $100K isn't all that much money but the above portfolio is, I think, sufficient for most people. If I had a lot more I'd buy some REIT exposure, developing market equity, and maybe small cap. If I had a ton more (several million) I'd switch to holding individual equities instead of funds and maybe start looking at alternative investments, real estate, startups, etc.",
"qid": 10808,
"docid": "146679",
"rank": 95,
"score": 95464
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: For your purposes, I would recommend using direct investment in a no-load mutual fund. I mostly use Vanguard and would recommend them. They just about invented index funds, usually have the lowest (internal) expenses for index and many other funds, if you take electronic instead of paper statements there is no maintenance fee, have no transaction commission, can do periodic automatic investment from a bank account etc. A typical index fund there would require an initial $3000 investment and would have a minimum of $100 for each additional investment. If you can't come up with an initial sum of that size, you might be able to find a broker with a lower minimum and suitable free ETFs trades as others have suggested.",
"qid": 10808,
"docid": "122679",
"rank": 96,
"score": 95373
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Thanks for the info, things are starting to make more sense now. For some reason I've always neglected learning about investments, now that Im in a position to invest (and am still fairly young) I'm motivated to start learning. As for help with TD Ameritrade, I was looking into Index Funds (as another commenter mentioned that I should) on their site and am a little overwhelmed with the options. First, I'm looking at Mutual Funds, going to symbol lookup and using type = \"\"indeces\"\". I'm assuming that's the same thing as an \"\"Index Fund\"\" but since the language is slightly different I'm not 100% sure. However, at that point I need some kind of search for a symbol in order to see any results (makes sense, but I dont know where to start looking for \"\"good\"\" index funds). So my first question is: If I FIND a good mutual fund, is it correct to simply go to \"\"Buy Mutual Funds\"\" and find it from there? and if so, my second question is: How do I find a good mutual fund? My goal is to have my money in something that will likely grow faster than a savings account. I don't mind a little volatility, I can afford to lose my investment, I'd plan on leaving my money in the fund for a several years at least. My last question is: When investing in these types of funds (or please point me in another direction if you think Index Funds aren't the place for me to start) should I be reinvesting in the funds, or having them pay out dividends? I would assume that reinvesting is the smart choice, but I can imagine situations that might change that in order to mitigate risk...and as I've said a few times in this thread including the title, I'm a complete amateur so my assumptions aren't necessarily worth that much. Thanks for the help, I really appreciate all the info so far.\"",
"qid": 10808,
"docid": "61575",
"rank": 97,
"score": 95352
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The S&P500 is an index, not an investment by itself. The index lists a large number of stocks, and the value of the index is the price of all the stocks added together. If you want to make an investment that tracks the S&P500, you could buy some shares of each stock in the index, in the same proportions as the index. This, however, is impractical for just about everyone. Index mutual funds provide an easy way to make this investment. SPY is an ETF (exchange-traded mutual fund) that does the same thing. An index CFD (contract for difference) is not the same as an index mutual fund. There are a number of differences between investing in a security fund and investing in a CFD, and CFDs are not available everywhere.",
"qid": 10808,
"docid": "173967",
"rank": 98,
"score": 95322
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I think you may be confused on terminology here. Financial leverage is debt that you have taken on, in order to invest. It increases your returns, because it allows you to invest with more money than what you actually own. Example: If a $1,000 mutual fund investment returns $60 [6%], then you could also take on $1,000 of debt at 3% interest, and earn $120 from both mutual fund investments, paying $30 in interest, leaving you with a net $90 [9% of your initial $1,000]. However, if the mutual fund 'takes a nose dive', and loses money, you still need to pay the $30 interest. In this way, using financial leverage actually increases your risk. It may provide higher returns, but you have the risk of losing more than just your initial principle amount. In the example above, imagine if the mutual fund you owned collapsed, and was worth nothing. Now, you would have lost $1,000 from the money you invested in the first place, and you would also still owe $1,000 to the bank. The key take away is that 'no risk' and 'high returns' do not go together. Safe returns right now are hovering around 0% interest rates. If you ever feel you have concocted a mix of options that leaves you with no risk and high returns, check your math again. As an addendum, if instead what you plan on doing is investing, say, 90% of your money in safe(r) money-market type funds, and 10% in the stock market, then this is a good way to reduce your risk. However, it also reduces your returns, as only a small portion of your portfolio will realize the (typically higher) gains of the stock market. Once again, being safer with your investments leads to less return. That is not necessarily a bad thing; in fact investing some part of your portfolio in interest-earning low risk investments is often advised. 99% is basically the same as 100%, however, so you almost don't benefit at all by investing that 1% in the stock market.",
"qid": 10808,
"docid": "427300",
"rank": 99,
"score": 95300
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The simple answer is: YES, the JP Morgan emerging markets equity fund is a mutual fund. A mutual fund is a pooling of money from investors to invest in stocks and bonds. Investors in mutual funds arrive there in different ways. Some get there via their company 401K, others by an IRA, still others as a taxable account. The fund can be sold by the company directly or through a broker. You can also have a fund of funds. So the investors are other funds. Some investors are only indirect investors. They are owed a pension by a past or current employer, and the pension fund has invested in a mutual fund.",
"qid": 10808,
"docid": "578728",
"rank": 100,
"score": 95262
}
] |
Definitions of leverage and of leverage factor | [
{
"content": "Title: Content: This would clear out a lot more. 1) Leverage is the act of taking on debt in lieu of the equity you hold. Not always related to firms, it applies to personal situations too. When you take a loan, you get a certain %age of the loan, the bank establishes your equity by looking at your past financial records and then decides the amount it is going to lend, deciding on the safest leverage. In the current action leverage is the whole act of borrowing yen and profiting from it. The leverage factor mentions the amount of leverage happening. 10000 yen being borrowed with an equity of 1000 yen. 2) Commercial banks: 10 to 1 -> They don't deal in complicated investments, derivatives except for hedging, and are under stricter controls of the government. They have to have certain amount of liquidity and can loan out the rest for business. Investment banks: 30 to 1 -> Their main idea is making money and trade heavily. Their deposits are limited by the amount clients have deposited. And as their main motive is to get maximum returns from the available amount, they trade heavily. Derivatives, one of the instruments, are structured on underlyings and sometimes in multiple layers which build up quite a bit of leverage. And all of the trades happen on margins. You don't invest $10k to buy $10k of a traded stock. You put in, maybe $500 to take up the position and borrow the rest of the amount per se. It improves liquidity in the markets and increases efficiency. Else you could do only with what you have. So these margins add up to the leverage the bank is taking on.",
"qid": 10809,
"docid": "286141",
"rank": 1,
"score": 141391
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Leverage here is referring to \"\"financial leverage\"\". This is the practice of \"\"levering\"\" [ie increasing, like the use of a lever to increase the amount of weight you can lift] the value of your investment by taking on debt. For example: if you have 100k in cash, you can buy a 100k rental property. Assume the property makes 10k a year, net of expenses [10%]. Now assume the bank will also give you a 100k mortgage, at 3%. You could take the mortgage, plus your cash, and buy a 200k rental property. This would earn you 20k from the rental property, less 3k a year in interest costs [the 3%]. Your total income would be 17k, and since you only used 100k of your own money, your rate of return would now be 17% instead of 10%. This is financial leveraging. Note that this increases your risk, because if your investment fails not only have you lost your own money, you now need to pay back the bank. \"\"Beta riders\"\" appears to be negative commentary on investors who use Beta to calculate the value of a particular stock, without regard to other quantitative factors. Therefore \"\"leveraged beta riders\"\" are those who take on additional risk [by taking on debt to invest], and invest in a manner that the author would perhaps considered \"\"blindly\"\" following Beta. However, I have never seen this term before, and it appears tainted by the author's views on Quants. A \"\"quant process driven discipline\"\" appears to be positive commentary on investors who use detailed quantitative analysis to develop rules which they rigorously follow to invest. I have never seen this exact phrasing before, and like the above, it appears tainted by the author's views on Quants. I am not providing any opinion on whether \"\"beta riding\"\" or \"\"quant processes\"\" are good or bad things; this is just my attempt to interpret the quote as you presented it. Note that I did not go to the article to get context, so perhaps something else in the article could skew the language to mean something other than what I have presented.\"",
"qid": 10809,
"docid": "597679",
"rank": 2,
"score": 118471
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Leverage means you can make more investments with the same amount of money. In the case of rental properties, it means you can own more properties and generate more rents. You exchange a higher cost of doing business (higher interest fees) and a higher risk of total failure, for a larger number of rents and thus higher potential earnings. As with any investment advice, whenever someone tells you \"\"Do X and you are guaranteed to make more money\"\", unless you are a printer of money that is not entirely true. In this case, taking more leverage exposes you to more risk, while giving you more potential gain. That risk is not only on the selling front; in fact, for most small property owners, the risk is primarily that you will have periods of time of higher expense or lower income. These can come in several ways: If you weather these and similar problems, then you will stand to make more money using higher leverage, assuming you make more money from each property than your additional interest costs. As long as you're making any money on your properties this is likely (as interest rates are very low right now), but making any money at all (above and beyond the sale value) may be challenging early on. These sorts of risks are magnified for your first few years, until you've built up a significant reserve to keep your business afloat in downturns. And of course, any money in a reserve is money you're not leveraging for new property acquisition - the very same trade-off. And while you may be able to sell one or more properties if you did end up in a temporarily bad situation, you also may run into 2008 again and be unable to do so.\"",
"qid": 10809,
"docid": "297764",
"rank": 3,
"score": 110035
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: In a business environment, this phenomenon could be easily explained by 'operational leverage'. Operational leverage is the principle that increasing revenues by a small amount can have a disproportionately large impact on net income. Consider this example: you run a business that rents out a factory and produces goods to sell to consumers. The rent costs you $10k / month, and all of your other costs depend on how many goods you produce. Assume each good gives you $10 in profit, after factoring your variable costs. If you sell 1,000 units, you break-even, because your variable profit will pay for your rent. If you sell 1,100 units, you make $1,000 net profit. If you sell 1,200 units, you double your overall profit, making $2,000 for the month. Operational leverage is the principle that adding incremental revenue will have a greater impact than the revenue already received, because your fixed costs are already 'paid for'. Similarly in personal finance, consider these scenarios: You have $1,000 in monthly expenses, and make $1,000 - your monthly savings (and therefore your wealth) will be zero. You have $1,000 in monthly expenses, and make $1,100 - your monthly savings will be $100 per month. You have $1,000 in monthly expenses, and make $1,200 - increasing your income by ~10% has allowed your monthly savings double, at $200 per month. You have $1,000 in monthly expenses, and make $2,000 - your monthly savings are 5 times higher, when your income only increased by ~80%. Now in the real world, when someone makes more money, they will increase their expenses. This is because spending money can increase one's quality of life. So the incline does not happen quite so quickly - as pointed out by @Pete & @quid, there comes a point where increased spending provides someone with less increase in quality of life - at that point, savings really would quickly ramp up as income increases incrementally. But assuming you live the same making $2,000 / month as $1,000 / month, you can save, every month, a full month's worth of living expenses. This doesn't even factor in the impact of earning investment income on those savings. As to why the wealth exceeds income at that specific point, I couldn't say, but what I've outlined above should show how it is quite reasonable that the data is as-reported.",
"qid": 10809,
"docid": "70738",
"rank": 4,
"score": 109860
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The main difference between a bull market and a bear market is due the \"\"the leverage effect\"\". http://www.princeton.edu/~yacine/leverage.pdf The leverage effect refers to the observed tendency of an asset’s volatility to be negatively correlated with the asset’s returns. Typically, rising asset prices are accompanied by declining volatility, and vice versa. The term “leverage” refers to one possible economic interpretation of this phenomenon, developed in Black (1976) and Christie (1982): as asset prices decline, companies become mechanically more leveraged since the relative value of their debt rises relative to that of their equity. As a result, it is natural to expect that their stock becomes riskier, hence more volatile. More volatile assets in a bear market are not such good investments as less volatile assets in a bull market.\"",
"qid": 10809,
"docid": "93890",
"rank": 5,
"score": 108085
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Leverage is when you borrow in order to invest. Mind you, most people aren't going to just give you money to gamble on the stock market completely unsecured; rather, you deposit (say) $10,000 and buy a stock... and then you have $10k in assets which you can borrow against, so you can buy another $10,000 of that stock. Now if the stock goes up you'll make twice the gain (2x leverage). However, if it goes down, you'll lose twice as much as well. If the value of your stock falls, your line of credit will be reduced as well; in this case, since you used all your credit and are now over your limit, your broker will issue a margin call (they will demand a deposit of additional funds, or they will sell some of your stock at their discretion). This protects you from owing more than you invested, but it's still sometimes possible (for instance, if a company spontaneously goes bankrupt and becomes worthless, and your stock becomes worthless). There are also things like leveraged index funds and commodity funds which aim to return some multiple of the market's earnings. These are designed for intraday trading, though, and usually end up underperforming significantly over the long term. [edit] Mose people who accept borrowed funds should generally accept real cash as well. However, if you're trying to short sell, i.e. borrow shares and sell them (in the hopes you can get them back cheaper later after the stock falls) you will need a margin line of credit to do so as well. [edit 2] clarified margin calls",
"qid": 10809,
"docid": "419138",
"rank": 6,
"score": 106204
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Leverage increase returns, but also risks, ie, the least you can pay, the greater the opportunity to profit, but also the greater the chance you will be underwater. Leverage is given by the value of your asset (the house) over the equity you put down. So, for example, if the house is worth 100k and you put down 20k, then the leverage is 5 (another way to look at it is to see that the leverage is the inverse of the margin - or percentage down payment - so 1/0.20 = 5). The return on your investment will be magnified by the amount of your leverage. Suppose the value of your house goes up by 10%. Had you paid your house in full, your return would be 10%, or 10k/100k. However, if you had borrowed 80 dollars and your leverage was 5, as above, a 10% increase in the value of your house means you made a profit of 10k on a 20k investment, a return of 50%, or 10k/20k*100. As I said, your return was magnified by the amount of your leverage, that is, 10% return on the asset times your leverage of 5 = 50%. This is because all the profit of the house price appreciation goes to you, as the value of your debt does not depend on the value of the house. What you borrowed from the bank remains the same, regardless of whether the price of the house changed. The problem is that the amplification mechanism also works in reverse. If the price of the house falls by 10%, it means now you only have 10k equity. If the price falls enough your equity is wiped out and you are underwater, giving you an incentive to default on your loan. In summary, borrowing tends to be a really good deal: heads you win, tails the bank loses (or as happened in the US, the taxpayer loses).",
"qid": 10809,
"docid": "469125",
"rank": 7,
"score": 105318
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I think you may be confused on terminology here. Financial leverage is debt that you have taken on, in order to invest. It increases your returns, because it allows you to invest with more money than what you actually own. Example: If a $1,000 mutual fund investment returns $60 [6%], then you could also take on $1,000 of debt at 3% interest, and earn $120 from both mutual fund investments, paying $30 in interest, leaving you with a net $90 [9% of your initial $1,000]. However, if the mutual fund 'takes a nose dive', and loses money, you still need to pay the $30 interest. In this way, using financial leverage actually increases your risk. It may provide higher returns, but you have the risk of losing more than just your initial principle amount. In the example above, imagine if the mutual fund you owned collapsed, and was worth nothing. Now, you would have lost $1,000 from the money you invested in the first place, and you would also still owe $1,000 to the bank. The key take away is that 'no risk' and 'high returns' do not go together. Safe returns right now are hovering around 0% interest rates. If you ever feel you have concocted a mix of options that leaves you with no risk and high returns, check your math again. As an addendum, if instead what you plan on doing is investing, say, 90% of your money in safe(r) money-market type funds, and 10% in the stock market, then this is a good way to reduce your risk. However, it also reduces your returns, as only a small portion of your portfolio will realize the (typically higher) gains of the stock market. Once again, being safer with your investments leads to less return. That is not necessarily a bad thing; in fact investing some part of your portfolio in interest-earning low risk investments is often advised. 99% is basically the same as 100%, however, so you almost don't benefit at all by investing that 1% in the stock market.",
"qid": 10809,
"docid": "427300",
"rank": 8,
"score": 101748
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"As others have pointed out, leveraged investing is investing borrowed money. To do so, you need to convince a lender that you're good for the loan. This usually means you need to have collateral worth what you're trying to borrow, or you need to pay a higher rate to account for the fact that they're gambling that you will remain employed and pay off the loan. Leveraged investing is, in general, a risky move for exactly this reason. You can lose not just your original investment, but everything you borrowed as well. The only time it really makes sense, in my admittedly conservative opinion, is when you (a) can afford to suffer that loss, (b) are pretty confident of your investment, and (c) have assets which you have no intention to sell for the duration of the loan. An \"\"unneeded\"\" mortgage on a house is a classic example, thusly: When I purchased my house, I had enough savings that I could have bought it without taking a mortgage. Instead, I took out a mortgage for a large part of that, and left the remainder in my investment accounts -- essentially building the leveraging loan into the mortgage. I then got obscenely \"\"lucky\"\" when interest rates fell through the floor due to the Great Recession, and was able to refinance the mortgage to near record low rates. As a result, on that loan -- which, as I say, I'm in the position of being able to pay off at any time without killing my finances -- I'm currently paying about 3.5%, while the cash this has let me leave in my investments is earning several times that... a net win. But again, note that this required collateral. Essentially, all I'm doing is paying a bit to to borrow my own money (part of the value of the house). There really is no easy way to \"\"convert 25k to 250k\"\" -- if there was, everyone would be doing it. There's no magic in investment. Just time and compounding returns and trading off risk against potential gain. The more you try to push it and win big, the more you risk losing big. I really recommend not attempting anything fancy until you're wealthy enough that you can afford those losses. But if you insist on playing in this space, the answer to your question is to buy options. Options are a packaged form of borrowing to invest. Note that they're still considered high-risk unless you know EXACTLY what you're doing, and again I strongly recommend you not put money into them unless you can afford to lose it -- options have a nasty habit of turning from apparent gains on paper to losses remarkably quickly.\"",
"qid": 10809,
"docid": "582161",
"rank": 9,
"score": 98927
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: What I meant by leverage was not borrowing money in order to buy more. What I am getting at is the purchasing power your dollar has in relation to the number of dollars you have (which may mean using leverage, but not per se).",
"qid": 10809,
"docid": "329923",
"rank": 10,
"score": 97984
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: More leverage means more risk. There is more upside. There is also more downside. If property prices and/or rents fall then your losses are amplified. If you leverage at 90% then a 5% fall means you've lost half your money.",
"qid": 10809,
"docid": "63091",
"rank": 11,
"score": 96370
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: How are unions leverage in this situation? The jobs demonstrably *can* be done elsewhere, the questions is one total cost (both monetary and with respect to other factors, such as quality, timeliness, and intangibles such as company reputation and public opinion). Unions are great when the jobs are not easily mobile, or when the issues at hand are legal and the collective resources of the union allows for more effective legal action. They're also effective when the issues are incremental (i.e. of relatively low overall cost), because the union serves (almost by definition) to organize and focus the resources of the group into addressing the groups concerns and desires. The only *really* effective leverage is to have a skill set that is costly to replace.",
"qid": 10809,
"docid": "546801",
"rank": 12,
"score": 95316
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you are calculating simple ROI, the answer is straightforward math. See This Answer for some examples, but yes, with more leverage you will always see better ROI on a property IF you can maintain a positive cash flow. The most complete answer is to factor in your total risk. That high ROI of a leveraged property is far more volatile and sensitive to any unexpected expenses. Additionally, a loss of equity in the property (or an upside-down mortgage) will further impact your long term position. To put this more simply (as noted in the comments below), your losses will be amplified. You cannot say a leveraged property will always give you a better ROI because you cannot predict your losses.",
"qid": 10809,
"docid": "89509",
"rank": 13,
"score": 93458
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"leverage amplifies gains and losses, when returns are positive leverage makes them more positive, but when returns are negative leverage makes them more negative. since most investments have a positive return in \"\"the long run\"\", leverage is generally considered a good idea for long term illiquid investments like real estate. that said, to quote keynes: in the long run we are all dead. in the case of real estate specifically, negative returns generally happen when house prices drop. assuming you have no intention of ever selling the properties, you can still end up with negative returns if rents fall, mortgage rates increase or tax rates rise (all of which tend to correlate with falling property values). also, if cash flow becomes negative, you may be forced to sell during a down market, thereby amplifying the loss. besides loss scenarios, leverage can turn a small gain into a loss because leverage has a price (interest) that is subtracted from any amplified gains (and added to any amplified losses). to give a specific example: if you realize a 0.1% gain on x$ when unleveraged, you could end up with a 17% loss if leveraged 90% at 2% interest. (gains-interest)/investment=(0.001*x-0.02*0.9*x)/(x/10)=-0.017*10=-0.17=17% loss one reason leveraged investments are popular (particularly with real estate), is that the investor can file bankruptcy to \"\"erase\"\" a large negative net worth. this means the down side of a leveraged investment is limited for the highly leveraged investor. this leads to a \"\"get rich or start over\"\" mentality common among the self-made millionaire (and failed entrepreneurs). unfortunately, this dynamic also leads to serious problems for the banking sector in the event of a large nation-wide devaluation of real estate prices.\"",
"qid": 10809,
"docid": "482077",
"rank": 14,
"score": 93155
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I think to some extent you may be confusing the terms margin and leverage. From Investopedia Two concepts that are important to traders are margin and leverage. Margin is a loan extended by your broker that allows you to leverage the funds and securities in your account to enter larger trades. In order to use margin, you must open and be approved for a margin account. The loan is collateralized by the securities and cash in your margin account. The borrowed money doesn't come free, however; it has to be paid back with interest. If you are a day trader or scalper this may not be a concern; but if you are a swing trader, you can expect to pay between 5 and 10% interest on the borrowed money, or margin. Going hand-in-hand with margin is leverage; you use margin to create leverage. Leverage is the increased buying power that is available to margin account holders. Essentially, leverage allows you to pay less than full price for a trade, giving you the ability to enter larger positions than would be possible with your account funds alone. Leverage is expressed as a ratio. A 2:1 leverage, for example, means that you would be able to hold a position that is twice the value of your trading account. If you had $25,000 in your trading account with 2:1 leverage, you would be able to purchase $50,000 worth of stock. Margin refers to essentially buying with borrowed money. This must be paid back, with interest. You also may have a \"\"margin call\"\" forcing you to liquidate assets if you go beyond your margin limits. Leverage can be achieved in a number of ways when investing, one of which is investing with a margin account.\"",
"qid": 10809,
"docid": "543811",
"rank": 15,
"score": 92845
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"None of the previous answers (which are all good) mention margin accounts (loans from your broker). You may also have heard them described as \"\"leverage\"\". It may seem odd to mention this rather narrow form of debt here, but it's important because overuse of leverage has played a large part in pretty much every financial crisis you can think of (including the most recent one). As the Investopedia definitions indicate, leverage magnifies gains, but also magnifies losses. I consider margin/leverage to be \"\"bad\"\" debt.\"",
"qid": 10809,
"docid": "314410",
"rank": 16,
"score": 92801
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Exposure is the amount of money that you are at risk of losing on a given position (i.e. on a UST 10 year bond), portfolio of positions, strategy (selling covered calls for example), or counterparty, usually represented as a percentage of your total assets. Interbank exposure is the exposure of banks to other banks either through owning debt or stock, or by having open positions with the other banks as counterparties. Leveraging occurs when the value of your position is more than the value of what you are trading in. One example of this is borrowing money (i.e. creating debt for yourself) to buy bonds. The amount of your own funds that you are using to pay for the position is \"\"leveraged\"\" by the debt so that you are risking more than 100% of your capital if, for example, the bond became worthless). Another example would be buying futures \"\"on margin\"\" where you only put up the margin value of the trade and not the full cost. The problem with these leveraged positions is what happens if a credit event (default etc.) happens. Since a large amount of the leverage is being \"\"passed on\"\" as banks are issuing debt to buy other banks' debt who are issuing debt to buy debt there is a risk that a single failure could cause an unravelling of these leveraged positions and, since the prices of the bonds will be falling resulting in these leveraged positions losing money, it will cause a cascade of losses and defaults. If a leveraged position becomes worth less than the amount of real (rather than borrowed or margined) money that was put up to take the position then it is almost inevitable that the firm in that position will default on the requirements for the leverage. When that firm defaults it sparks all of the firms who own that debt to go through the same problems that it did, hence the contagion.\"",
"qid": 10809,
"docid": "549254",
"rank": 17,
"score": 92107
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Step 2 is wrong. Leverage is NOT necessary. It increases possible gain, but increases risk of loss by essentially the same amount. Those two numbers are pretty tightly linked by market forces. See many, many other answers here showing that one can earn \"\"market rate\"\" -- 8% or so -- with far less risk and effort, if one is patient, and some evidence that one can do better with more effort and not too much more risk. And yes, investing for a longer time horizon is also safer.\"",
"qid": 10809,
"docid": "552496",
"rank": 18,
"score": 92061
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The opposite of a hedge is leverage (aka gearing). A hedge is where you spend money to reduce your exposure. Leverage is where you spend money to increase your exposure. Spread bets are a form of leverage - that's what makes them such an effective way to lose all your money, quickly.",
"qid": 10809,
"docid": "536043",
"rank": 19,
"score": 90890
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Its the relative leverage available to retail traders between the two. In the US one can trade equities with 2:1 leverage while with commodities the leverage can go much higher. Combine this with the highly volatile nature of commodities, and it makes losing BIG too easy for the average trader.",
"qid": 10809,
"docid": "153179",
"rank": 20,
"score": 89449
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Yes, more leverage increases the variance of your individual portfolio (variance of your personal net worth). The simple way to think about it is that if you only own only 50% of your risky assets, then you can own twice as many risky assets. That means they will move around twice as much (in absolute terms). Expected returns and risk (if risk is variance) both go up. If you lend rather than borrow, then you might have only half your net worth in risky assets, and then your expected returns and variation in returns will go down. Note, the practice of using leverage differs from portfolio theory in a couple important ways.",
"qid": 10809,
"docid": "306815",
"rank": 21,
"score": 89240
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Diversification is one aspect to this question, and Dr Fred touches on its relationship to risk. Another aspect is leverage: So it again comes down to your appetite for risk. A further factor is that if you are successfully renting out your property, someone else is effectively buying that asset for you, or at least paying the interest on the mortgage. Just bear in mind that if you get into a situation where you have 10 properties and the rent on them all falls at the same time as the property market crashes (sound familiar?) then you can be left on the hook for a lot of interest payments and your assets may not cover your liabilities.",
"qid": 10809,
"docid": "329226",
"rank": 22,
"score": 88007
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"While it's not true that you have to use leverage to participate in Forex, the alternative makes it impractical for most people to be able to do so. You need to be able to put a lot of money into it in order to not trade on leverage. The fact is, most accounts for \"\"normal\"\" people require leverage because the size of the typical contract is more than the average person can afford to risk (or usually more than the average person has). Leverage, however, in the Forex market is not like Leverage in the stock or commodities market (well, they're the same thing in theory, but they are executed differently). In Forex, the broker is the one lending you the money in nearly all cases, and they will cash out your position when your account balance is exhausted. Thus, there is no risk for them (barring fraud or other illegal issues). Technically, I don't believe they guarantee that you will not accrue a debt, but I've never heard of anyone having their position cashed out and then owed more money. They've very good about making sure you can only spend money you've deposited. To put this another way, if you have $1,000 in your account and you are leveraged to 100,000. Once your trade drops to $1000 in losses your position is automatically cashed out. There is no risk to the broker, and no risk to you (other than your $1000)... So trading without leverage has little value, while traiding with leverage has lots of potential gain and no downsides (other than a faster rate of loss, but if you're worried about that, just trade smaller lots.)\"",
"qid": 10809,
"docid": "309976",
"rank": 23,
"score": 87017
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I am assuming you mean derivatives such as speeders, sprinters, turbo's or factors when you say \"\"derivatives\"\". These derivatives are rather popular in European markets. In such derivatives, a bank borrows the leverage to you, and depending on the leverage factor you may own between 50% to +-3% of the underlying value. The main catch with such derivatives from stocks as opposed to owning the stock itself are: Counterpart risk: The bank could go bankrupt in which case the derivatives will lose all their value even if the underlying stock is sound. Or the bank could decide to phase out the certificate forcing you to sell in an undesirable situation. Spread costs: The bank will sell and buy the certificate at a spread price to ensure it always makes a profit. The spread can be 1, 5, or even 10 pips, which can translate to a the bank taking up to 10% of your profits on the spread. Price complexity: The bank buys and sells the (long) certificate at a price that is proportional to the price of the underlying value, but it usually does so in a rather complex way. If the share rises by €1, the (long) certificate will also rise, but not by €1, often not even by leverage * €1. The factors that go into determining the price are are normally documented in the prospectus of the certificate but that may be hard to find on the internet. Furthermore the bank often makes the calculation complex on purpose to dissimulate commissions or other kickbacks to itself in it's certificate prices. Double Commissions: You will have to pay your broker the commission costs for buying the certificate. However, the bank that issues the derivative certificate normally makes you pay the commission costs they incur by hiding them in the price of the certificate by reducing your effective leverage. In effect you pay commissions twice, once directly for buying the derivative, and once to the bank to allow it to buy the stock. So as Havoc P says, there is no free lunch. The bank makes you pay for the convenience of providing you the leverage in several ways. As an alternative, futures can also give you leverage, but they have different downsides such as margin requirements. However, even with all the all the drawbacks of such derivative certificates, I think that they have enough benefits to be useful for short term investments or speculation.\"",
"qid": 10809,
"docid": "511587",
"rank": 24,
"score": 86899
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"When portfolio positions are reported in percentages, those percentages are relative to the portfolio's base equity. When you start out, that is equal to the cash you have in a portfolio. Later it's the net equity of the portfolio (i.e., how much money you could withdraw if you were to exit all your positions). If you put $5,000 into your account and are long and short 50%, then you are long $2,500 and short $2,500. If it's 100% and -100%, then long and short $5,000. \"\"Leverage\"\" is often computed gross (as if all positions were long). So if you have 100% and -100%, then your broker may say you are \"\"levered 2 to 1.\"\" That is, your gross exposure is twice as large as your underlying base equity.\"",
"qid": 10809,
"docid": "99131",
"rank": 25,
"score": 85858
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Leverage comes in many forms. You'll learn about things like operational leverage, financial leverage, and total leverage throughout school. In the real world, tier 1 capital ratio has become the most commonly scrutinized because it is essentially a ratio of the core equity capital of a firm divided by the risk weighted assets (assets multiplied by a credit weighting which for most banks now a days is using the standard of Basel 2.5 and moving towards Basel III). The multiples you talked about were references to the reciprocal of this formula. You could reciprocate the T1C ratio and get a whole number that is the multiplier. This multiplier would show for every 1$ in core capital, how much the firm held in risk weighted assets. The 30x number would have represented a tier 1 cap of 3.33%. The concept behind it being, a 10% growth in risk weighted assets with a 3.33% T1CR would result in a 300% growth in core equity capital value. As proven in 2008, it is a double edge blade and works the same way in both directions.",
"qid": 10809,
"docid": "163641",
"rank": 26,
"score": 84793
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Your question indicates that you might have a little confusion about put options and/or leveraging. There's no sense I'm aware of in which purchasing a put levers a position. Purchasing a put will cost you money up front. Leveraging typically means entering a transaction that gives you extra money now that you can use to buy other things. If you meant to sell a put, that will make money up front but there is no possibility of making money later. Best case scenario the put is not exercised. The other use of the term \"\"leverage\"\" refers to purchasing an asset that, proportionally, goes up faster than the value of the underlying. For example, a call option. If you purchase a put, you are buying downside protection, which is kind of the opposite of leverage. Notice that for an American put you will most likely be better off selling the put when the price of the underlying falls than exercising it. That way you make the money you would have made by exercising plus whatever optional value the put still contains. That is true unless the time value of money is greater than the optional (insurance) value. Since the time value of money is currently exceptionally low, this is unlikely. Anyway, if you sell the option instead of exercising, you don't need to own any shares at all. Even if you do exercise, you can just buy them on the market and sell right away so I wouldn't worry about what you happen to be holding. The rules for what you can trade with a cash instead of a margin account vary by broker, I think. You can usually buy puts and calls in a cash account, but more advanced strategies, such as writing options, are prohibited. Ask your broker or check their help pages to see what you have available to you.\"",
"qid": 10809,
"docid": "528052",
"rank": 27,
"score": 84137
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"There is actually a recent paper that attempted to decompose Buffett's outperformance. I've quoted the abstract below: \"\"Berkshire Hathaway has realized a Sharpe ratio of 0.76, higher than any other stock or mutual fund with a history of more than 30 years, and Berkshire has a significant alpha to traditional risk factors. However, we find that the alpha becomes insignificant when controlling for exposures to Betting-Against-Beta and Quality-Minus-Junk factors. Further, we estimate that Buffett’s leverage is about 1.6-to-1 on average. Buffett’s returns appear to be neither luck nor magic, but, rather, reward for the use of leverage combined with a focus on cheap, safe, quality stocks. Decomposing Berkshires’ portfolio into ownership in publicly traded stocks versus wholly-owned private companies, we find that the former performs the best, suggesting that Buffett’s returns are more due to stock selection than to his effect on management. These results have broad implications for market efficiency and the implementability of academic factors.\"\"\"",
"qid": 10809,
"docid": "506618",
"rank": 28,
"score": 83571
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: There are two obvious cases in which your return is lower with a heavily leveraged investment. If a $100,000 investment of your own cash yields $1000 that's a 1% return. If you put in $50,000 of your own money and borrow $50,000 at 2%, you get a 0% return (After factoring in the interest as above.) If you buy an investment for $100,000 and it loses $1000, that's a -1% return. If you borrow $100,000 and buy two investments, and they both lose $1000, that's a -2% return.",
"qid": 10809,
"docid": "345294",
"rank": 29,
"score": 83555
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"First it is worth noting the two sided nature of the contracts (long one currency/short a second) make leverage in currencies over a diverse set of clients generally less of a problem. In equities, since most margin investors are long \"\"equities\"\" making it more likely that large margin calls will all be made at the same time. Also, it's worth noting that high-frequency traders often highly levered make up a large portion of all volume in all liquid markets ~70% in equity markets for instance. Would you call that grossly artificial? What is that volume number really telling us anyway in that case? The major players holding long-term positions in the FX markets are large banks (non-investment arm), central banks and corporations and unlike equity markets which can nearly slow to a trickle currency markets need to keep trading just for many of those corporations/banks to do business. This kind of depth allows these brokers to even consider offering 400-to-1 leverage. I'm not suggesting that it is a good idea for these brokers, but the liquidity in currency markets is much deeper than their costumers.\"",
"qid": 10809,
"docid": "429704",
"rank": 30,
"score": 82617
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"IF the price of the property (1) increases A LOT, you will just break even, on the huge expenses of home owning. IF the price of the property (2) increases A HUGE AMOUNT, you will make lots of money, due to the leverage. IF the price of the property (3) stays even, you will LOSE a tremendous amount of money. It's much like owning a car - constant expenses. That's all there is to it. It's well worth bearing in mind that property prices for your area / your property need to be constantly increasing for you to merely break even. Note that over long periods of time prices tend to go up (most anywhere - but not everywhere). Many people basically base their thinking on that. It will be OK \"\"in the long run\"\". Which is fair enough. I believe one huge factor is that it is enforced saving. That is the number one advantage for most. Note too that in most/all jurisdictions, there are tremendous tax advantages, even if it turns out to be situation (1) (i.e. a waste of time, you only break-even). Note finally that there are, indeed, tremendous social/financial advantages to having the equity: it gets incredibly easy to get other loans (for business or the like) once you own a house; this is undeniably an advantage (perhaps press your husband on that one).\"",
"qid": 10809,
"docid": "488870",
"rank": 31,
"score": 82506
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: long deep ITM calls is equivalent to owning the equity. You're going to pay alot and hence will start off in a hole already, and you aren't getting too much leverage there at all depending how deep ITM you go. Covariance scales, but assuming B-S in order to get nice scaling and ignoring the risks you are actually taking with options (unlimited down-size ie you can lose your entire investment in the option, people forget this) will screw you unless you really know what you are dong. Leverage means increasing your risk. long dep ITM is not obtaining much leverage and therefore not risking too much. but you aren't going ot get 3-4x leverage this way. you get leverage by saying: oh, i have 100, i could invest in 1 share of stock OR I could buy 100 worth of some option. If I pick a deep ITM (think strike = 0) it's identical to owing the stock. If i pick ATM, i have a ~50/50 chance of wining, so i should be able to double my upside. If I go OTM, i can increase my exposure to the upside while increasing hte chance that my options expire worthless. So really, i have no idea why deep ITM do what you are trying to do. and If you don't either, you probably shouldn't do it.",
"qid": 10809,
"docid": "80871",
"rank": 32,
"score": 82494
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I would say that you should keep in mind one simple idea. Leverage was the principal reason for the 2008 financial meltdown. For a great explanation on this, I would HIGHLY recommend Michael Lewis' book, \"\"The Big Short,\"\" which does an excellent job in spelling out the case against being highly leveraged. As Dale M. pointed out, losses are greatly magnified by your degree of leverage. That being said, there's nothing wrong with being highly leveraged as a short-term strategy, and I want to emphasize the \"\"short-term\"\" part. If, for instance, an opportunity arises where you aren't presently liquid enough to cover then you could use leverage to at least stay in the game until your cash situation improves enough to de-leverage the investment. This can be a common strategy in equities, where you simply substitute the term \"\"leverage\"\" for the term \"\"margin\"\". Margin positions can be scary, because a rapid downturn in the market can cause margin calls that you're unable to cover, and that's disastrous. Interestingly, it was the 2008 financial crisis which lead to the undoing of Bernie Madoff. Many of his clients were highly leveraged in the markets, and when everything began to unravel, they turned to him to cash out what they thought they had with him to cover their margin calls, only to then discover there was no money. Not being able to meet the redemptions of his clients forced Madoff to come clean about his scheme, and the rest is history. The banks themselves were over-leveraged, sometimes at a rate of 50-1, and any little hiccup in the payment stream from borrowers caused massive losses in the portfolios which were magnified by this leveraging. This is why you should view leverage with great caution. It is very, very tempting, but also fraught with extreme peril if you don't know what you're getting into or don't have the wherewithal to manage it if anything should go wrong. In real estate, I could use the leverage of my present cash reserves to buy a bigger property with the intent of de-leveraging once something else I have on the market sells. But that's only a wise play if I am certain I can unwind the leveraged position reasonably soon. Seriously, know what you're doing before you try anything like this! Too many people have been shipwrecked by not understanding the pitfalls of leverage, simply because they're too enamored by the profits they think they can make. Be careful, my friend.\"",
"qid": 10809,
"docid": "177563",
"rank": 33,
"score": 82482
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: 1 reason is Leverage.... If you are buying out of the money options you get much more bang for your buck if the stock moves in your favor. The flipside is it is much more likely that you would lose all of your investment.",
"qid": 10809,
"docid": "590561",
"rank": 34,
"score": 82248
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"No one is FORCED to use leverage. But most people do. Trading companies like it because, the more leverage, the more \"\"business\"\" (and total commissions). If someone starts with $1 million and leverages it up ten times to ten million, companies would rather do ten million of business than one. That's a given. On the other hand, if you're Warren Buffett or Bill Gates, and you say I want to do $1 billion of FX, no leverage, no trading company is going to turn it down. More often, it's a company like IBM or Exxon Mobil that wants to do FX, no leverage, because they just earned, say $1 billion Euros. Individuals USUALLY want to use more leverage in order to earn (or lose) more with their capital.\"",
"qid": 10809,
"docid": "379314",
"rank": 35,
"score": 81746
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"It's called leverage. Here's an example from real estate. The underlying appreciation on a house in certain parts of America is something like 7% a year. So if you bought the house \"\"all cash,\"\" your return would be something like 7% a year. (Actually, a little more, because of the rent you would be collecting, or saving, if you were the \"\"renter.\"\") Suppose you buy the same house, 20% down, 80% mortgage. The rent pays for your mortgage, taxes, insurance, etc. like it is supposed to. The house goes up the same 7% each year. But now your rate of return is 35%, that is 7%/20% (your down payment). You get the whole appreciation but put up only 20% of the money. The bank (and your renter) did the rest.\"",
"qid": 10809,
"docid": "393591",
"rank": 36,
"score": 81309
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Degree of Operating Leverage (DOL) measures the percent change in EBIT given a 1% change in Revenue. In other words, if DOL is 1.5, then increasing Revenue by 1% will increase EBIT by 1.5%. Degree of Financial Leverage (DFL) measures the percent change in NI given a 1% change in EBIT. Degree of Total Leverage (DTL) cuts EBIT out and measures the percent change in NI given a 1% change in Revenue. What all three of these numbers measure is “elasticity.” The elasticity between two variables is always the percentage change effect on one due to a 1% change in the other. Before we talk about why you would multiply elasticities, let’s first just look at absolute changes between a change of three variables, X Y and Z. Lets say X impacts Y (X->Y) and Y impacts Z (Y->Z). To make it even more concrete, let’s imagine a classroom where every student is required to have 2 books and every book has 100 pages. So X = # students, Y = # of books, and Z = # of pages. If we add one student to the class, we need to add 2 books. If we add 1 book to the class, we have added 100 pages. With absolute changes like this it is obvious that we don’t add, we multiply. In other words, to directly see the impact of a new student on the number of pages (X -> Z), we would say 1 student -> 2 books -> 200 pages. To say 102 pages would obviously be silly. For percent changes, this looks pretty similar. To make it easy say the class has 100 students. So adding 1 student is a 1% change. Then we go from 200 books to 202 books, a 1% change. So the degree of Student to Book Leverage is 1 (which make sense there are no “fixed pages”). We go from 20,000 pages to 20,200 pages, also a 1% change so the degree of Book to Page leverage is also 1. Thus, the Student to Page leverage is also just a flat 1. Let’s add fixed amounts. The teacher has a single 2,000 page book on how to teach. We’ll assume the class has 20 students. So we start with 20*2 + 1 = 41 books and 40*100 + 2,000 = 6,000 pages. Let’s add a student. We have a 21/20 -1 = 4% increase in students. 43/41 -1 = 4.89% increase in books. 6,200/6,000 – 1 = 3.33% increase in pages. So the Degree of Student to Book Leverage is 4.00/4.89 = 0.818 and the Degree of Book to Page Leverage is 4.89/3.33 = 1.47. And the direct Student to Page Leverage is 4.00/3.33 = 1.20. Again, note that here it would be silly to add the degrees of leverage, and when we do multiply them we get 0.82*1.47 = 1.2, the right answer. From here the application to EBIT [= Sales - Fixed Cost - Variable Cost = (Gross Margin * Sales) - Fixed Cost] and the application to EPS [= EBIT - Interest – Taxes = (1 – tax rate)*(EBIT – Interest)] should be obvious. I can supply the full proof mathematically, however, if you would like.",
"qid": 10809,
"docid": "475199",
"rank": 37,
"score": 80851
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: People just love becoming more well-off than they currently are, and one of the ways they do it is with leverage. Leverage requires credit. That desire is not exclusive to people who are not already well-off. For a well-off person who wants to become more well-off by expanding their real estate ventures, paying cash for property is a terrible way to go about it. The same goes for other types of business or market investment. Credit benefits the well-off even more greatly than it benefits the poor or the middle-class.",
"qid": 10809,
"docid": "435716",
"rank": 38,
"score": 80182
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you don't need leverage, then it's a better idea to just buy the underlying sock itself. This will net you the following benefits: Leverage is for speculating. If you don' want to be leveraged, then invest long term.",
"qid": 10809,
"docid": "325787",
"rank": 39,
"score": 80086
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Low interest rates and tax breaks caused large co and PE firms to leverage buyout other firms, didnt stop people from issuing equity. For example, if you follow semiconductors, a lot of M&A has happened over past 4 years and some analysts coverage list went from high teens to a dozen. Also, it exacerbate debt levered co going bankrupt, e.g., solar and wind co.",
"qid": 10809,
"docid": "506523",
"rank": 40,
"score": 79774
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"There are five main drivers to real estate returns: Income (cash flow from rental payments); Depreciation (as an expense that can be used to reduce taxes); Equity (the gradual paydown of the mortgage the increases underlying equity in the property); Appreciation (any increase in the overall value of the property); Leverage (the impact of debt financing on the deal, increasing the effective \"\"cash-on-cash\"\" return). (Asset Rover has a detailed walk-through of the components, and a useful comparison to stocks) So interest rates are certainly a component (as they increase the expenses), but they are just one factor. Depending on a particular market's conditions, appreciation or rent increases could offset or (exceed) any increase in the interest expense. My own experience is mostly with non-listed REITs (including Reg A+ investments like the ones from Fundrise) and commercial syndicates, and for right now in both cases there's plenty of capital chasing yield to go around (and in fact competition among new funding sources like Reg D and Reg A+ platforms seems to be driving down borrowing rates as platforms compete both for borrowers and for investors). Personally I pay more attention to where each local market (and the broader national market) is along the ~18-year real estate cycle (spoiler: the last trough was 2008...). Dividend Capital puts out a quarterly report that's super useful.\"",
"qid": 10809,
"docid": "509197",
"rank": 41,
"score": 79009
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: It's based on potential. Things like market share, market size, competitive analysis and growth opportunity. Ex: being as big as reddit is + the fact they are a large player = how they could leverage this to drive even more value than they currently have in the future Also everything is inflated right now and the value factors in how much someone might (over) pay to acquire them.",
"qid": 10809,
"docid": "570285",
"rank": 42,
"score": 78721
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Levarge in simple terms is how of your own money to how much of borrowed money. So in 2008 Typical leverage ratios were Investment Banks 30:1 means that for every 1 Unit of Banks money [shareholders capital/ long term debts] there was 30 Units of borrowed money [from deposits/for other institutions/etc]. This is a very unstable situation as typically say you lent out 31 to someone else, half way through repayments, the depositors and other lends are asking you 30 back. You are sunk. Now lets say if you lent 31 to some one, but 30 was your moeny and 1 was from deposits/etc. Then you can anytime more easily pay back the 1 to the depositor. In day trading, usually one squares away the position the same day or within a short period. Hence say you want to buy something worth 1000 in the morning and are selling it say the same day. You are expecting the price to by 1005 and a gain 5. Now when you buy via your broker/trader, you may not be required to pay 1000. Normally one just needs to pay a margin money, typically 10% [varies from market to market, country to country]. So in the first case if you put 1000 and get by 5, you made a profit of 0.5%. However if you were to pay only 10 as margin money [rest 990 is assumed loan from your broker]. You sell at 1005, the broker deducts his 990, and you get 15. So technically on 10 you have made 5 more, ie 50% returns. So this is leveraging of 10:1. If say your broker allowed only 5% margin money, then you just need to pay 5 for the 1000 trade, get back 5. You have made a 100% profit, but the leveraging is 20:1. Now lets say at this high leveraging when you are selling you get only 990. So you still owe the broker 5, if you can't pay-up and if lot of other such people can't pay-up, then the broker will also go bankrupt and there is a huge risk. Hence although leveraging helps in quite a few cases, there is always an associated risk when things go wrong badly.",
"qid": 10809,
"docid": "103362",
"rank": 43,
"score": 78082
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: It is easier to get a loan on a rental than a flip, which is a huge advantage to rental properties. Leverage allows you to increase your returns and make more money off appreciation and higher rents. I use ARMs to finance my rental properties that are amortized over 30 years. I have to put 20 percent down, but my portfolio lender lets me get as many loans as I want. Because I put 20 percent down on my rental properties and they still have great cash flow I can buy three times as many properties as I could with cash purchases. Buying more rental properties amplifies the other advantages like cash flow, equity pay down and the tax advantages.",
"qid": 10809,
"docid": "26339",
"rank": 44,
"score": 77378
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"JoeTaxpayer's answer adequately explained leverage and some of your risks. Your risks also include: The firm's risk is that you will figure out a way to leave them with a negative account that contributes to another customer's profit and yet you disappear in a way that makes the negative account impossible to collect. Another risk is that you are not who you say you are, or that the money you invest is not yours. These are called \"\"know your customer\"\" risks.\"",
"qid": 10809,
"docid": "74369",
"rank": 45,
"score": 75844
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"As already noted, options contain inherent leverage (a multiplier on the profit or loss). The amount of \"\"leverage\"\" is dictated primarily by both the options strike relative to the current share price and the time remaining to expiration. Options are a far more difficult investment than stocks because they require that you are right on both the direction and the timing of the future price movement. With a stock, you could choose to buy and hold forever (Buffett style), and even if you are wrong for 5 years, your unrealized losses can suddenly become realized profits if the shares finally start to rise 6 years later. But with options, the profits and losses become very final very quickly. As a professional options trader, the single best piece of advice I can give to investors dabbling in options for the first time is to only purchase significantly ITM (in-the-money) options, for both calls and puts. Do a web search on \"\"in-the-money options\"\" to see what calls or puts qualify. With ITM options, the leverage is still noticeably better than buying/selling the shares outright, but you have a much less chance of losing all your premium. Also, by being fairly deep in-the-money, you reduce the constant bleed in value as you wait for the expected move to happen (the market moves sideways more than people usually expect). Fairly- to deeply-ITM options are the ones that options market-makers like least to trade in, because they offer neither large nor \"\"easy\"\" premiums. And options market-makers make their living by selling options to retail investors and other people that want them like you, so connect the dots. By trading only ITM options until you become quite experienced, you are minimizing your chances of being the average sucker (all else equal). Some amateur options investors believe that similar benefits could be obtained by purchasing long-expiration options (like LEAPS for 1+ years) that are not ITM (like ATM or OTM options). The problem here is that your significant time value is bleeding away slowly every day you wait. With an ITM option, your intrinsic value is not bleeding out at all. Only the relatively smaller time value of the option is at risk. Thus my recommendation to initially deal only in fairly- to deeply-ITM options with expirations of 1-4 months out, depending on how daring you wish to be with your move timing.\"",
"qid": 10809,
"docid": "229626",
"rank": 46,
"score": 75313
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Hi, accounting major here! A lot of people mentioned both tax advantages and \"\"cheap\"\" money (money you can borrow at a low interest rate). Another reason businesses do this is to reward investors. Generally people with stock in a company want to see some of its operations financed with debt, instead of all of it financed from investors' money or profit. This way the company can grow more and still pay better dividends to its investors. However, you don't want too much debt either. It's a balance, and a way to see how much debt vs equity a company has is called a leverage ratio (leverage=debt). Hope this helps!\"",
"qid": 10809,
"docid": "271643",
"rank": 47,
"score": 75058
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: NO. All the leveraged ETFs are designed to multiply the performance of the underlying asset FOR THAT DAY, read the prospectus. Their price is adjusted at the end of the day to reflect what is called a NAV unit. Basically, they know that their price is subject to fluctuations due to supply and demand throughout the day - simply because they trade in a quote driven system. But the price is automatically corrected at the end of the day regardless. In practice though, all sorts of crazy things happen with leveraged ETFs that will simply make them more and more unfavorable to hold long term, the longer you look at it.",
"qid": 10809,
"docid": "214281",
"rank": 48,
"score": 74903
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Very likely this refers to trading/speculating on leverage, not investing. Of course, as soon as you put leverage into the equation this perfectly makes sense. 2007-2009 for example, if one bought the $SPX at its highs in 2007 at ~$1560.00 - to the lows from 2009 at ~$683.00 - implicating that with only 2:1 leverage a $1560.00 account would have received a margin call. At least here in Europe I can trade index CFD's and other leveraged products. If i trade lets say >50:1 leverage it doesn’t take much to get a margin call and/or position closed by the broker. No doubt, depending on which investments you choose there’s always risk, but currency is a position too. TO answer the question, I find it very unlikely that >90% of investors (referring to stocks) lose money / purchasing power. Anyway, I would not deny that where speculators (not investors) use leverage or try to trade swings, news etc. have a very high risk of losing money (purchasing power).",
"qid": 10809,
"docid": "507284",
"rank": 49,
"score": 74283
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I guess I wasn't clear. I want to modestly leverage (3-4x) my portfolio using options. I believe long deep-in-the-money calls would be the best way to do this? (Let me know if not.) It's important to me that the covariance matrix from the equity portfolio scales up but doesn't fundamentally change. (I liken it to systemic change as opposed to idiosyncratic change.) This is what I was thinking: * For the same expiry date, find each positions lowest lambda. * Match all option to the the highest of the lowest lambda. * Adjust number of contracts to compensate for higher leverage. I don't think this will work because if I matched the lowest lambda of options on bond etfs to my equity options they would be out-of-the-money. By the way, thanks for your time.",
"qid": 10809,
"docid": "274839",
"rank": 50,
"score": 73918
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: First, corporate profits can grow relative to GDP. If companies succeed in growing revenue without paying much more to workers, then corporate profits and stock prices will grow relative to GDP. That has been happening for the last couple decades. If you require that we keep corporate profits vs GDP constant, then borrowing/leverage is how you do it. Companies can expand their operations on a fixed amount of shareholder equity, and as long as they can grow their profits faster than the cost of the debt, then shareholders keep the upside. But this also means that share prices will quickly fall if profits decline even a small amount, because the debt must still be paid off.",
"qid": 10809,
"docid": "40160",
"rank": 51,
"score": 73834
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Assuming you're in the United States, then International Equity is an equity from a different country. These stocks or stock funds (which reside in a foreign country) are broken out seperately becuase they are typically influenced by a different set of factors than equities in the United States: foreign currency swings, regional events and politics of various countries.",
"qid": 10809,
"docid": "175389",
"rank": 52,
"score": 73407
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Congratulations on saving up $75,000. That requires discipline and tenacity. There are a lot of factors that would go into making your decision. First and foremost is the security of the income stream you have now. Being leveraged during times of hardship is not a pleasant experience. Unexpected job losses can and do happen. Only you can determine how secure your and your spouse's situation is. Second, I would consider the job market in the location that you live. If you live in a small town it will be hard to find income levels like you have now. Rental properties are additional ties to an area. Are you happy in the area in which you live? If you were laid off are there opportunities in the same area. Being a long distance landlord is again not a pleasant experience. I can throw being forced to sell to relocate at a reduced price into this same bucket. Third, you need to have 3 to 6 months of expenses saved for emergencies. This is in addition to having no consumer debt (credit cards, car loans, student loans). $75,000 feels like a lot. Life can throw you curve balls. You need to be prepared for them because of the fundamental nature of Murphy's Law. If you were to be a landlord you should err closer to the six month end of the scale. I own two rentals and can speak to people being late a given month, heating and air problems, plumbing issues, washers and dryers breaking, weather related issues, and even a tenant leaving behind for truckloads of trash. Over 20 years I guess I have seen it all. A rental agency will only act as a minor buffer. Fourth, your family situation is important. I personally save 10% of my income for my child's education. If you haven't started doing so or have different feelings on what you might contribute think about it before any financial move. Fifth, any mortgage payment you are making should be 25% or less than your take home pay for a 15 year fixed rate mortgage. Anything less than 20% down and you start burning up money on PMI insurance. 'House Poor' is a term for people that make high incomes but have too much being spent for housing. It is the cause of a lot of financial stress. Sixth, you need to save for retirement. The absolute minimum I recommend is 15% of your income. Even if the match is 6% you should invest the full 15% making it 21%. Social Security is a scary thing and depending on it is not wise. I think your income still qualifies you for contributions to a Roth IRA. If you aren't personally contributing 15% do so before making a move. There is an old joke that homeless people who have a 0 net worth often are richer than people driving fancy cars and living in fancy houses. Ultimately no one can tell you the right answer. Every situation is unique. You have a complex tapestry to your financial life that no else one knows.",
"qid": 10809,
"docid": "562934",
"rank": 53,
"score": 73335
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"In an attempt to express this complicated fact in lay terms I shall focus exclusively on the most influential factor effecting the seemingly bizarre outcome you have noted, where the price chart of VIX ETFs indicates upwards of a 99% decrease since inception. Other factors include transaction costs and management fees. Some VIX ETFs also provide leveraged returns, describing themselves as \"\"two times VIX\"\" or \"\"three times VIX\"\", etc. Regarding the claim that volatility averages out over time, this is supported by your own chart of the spot VIX index. EDIT It should be noted that (almost) nobody holds VIX ETFs for anything more than a day or two. This will miminise the effects described above. Typical daily volumes of VIX ETFs are in excess of 100% of shares outstanding. In very volatile markets, daily volumes will often exceed 400% of shares outstanding indicating an overwhelming amount of day trading.\"",
"qid": 10809,
"docid": "598238",
"rank": 54,
"score": 73239
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"If you don't use leverage you can't lose more than you invested because you \"\"play\"\" with your own money. But even with leverage when you reach a certain limit (maintenance margin) you will receive a margin call from your broker to add more funds to your account. If you don't comply with this (meaning you don't add funds) the broker will liquidate some of the assets (in this case the currency) and it will restore the balance of the account to meet with his/her maintenance margin. At least, this is valid for assets like stocks and derivatives. Hope it helps! Edit: I should mention that\"",
"qid": 10809,
"docid": "101343",
"rank": 55,
"score": 73147
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: A little birdy says, the Octupus miracle is little more than smoke and mirrors . . .by the time the dust settles, its going to make Bears and Sterns look like a good deal. Leverage is a double edged sword . . .hell a chop stick is a sword against a squishy old octopus with cooked books",
"qid": 10809,
"docid": "201913",
"rank": 56,
"score": 72800
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: FX is often purchased with leverage by both retail and wholesale speculators on the assumption daily movements are typically more restrained than a number of other asset classes. When volatility picks up unexpectedly these leveraged accounts can absolutely be wiped out. While these events are relatively rare, one happened as recently as 2016 when the Swiss National Bank unleashed the Swiss Franc from its Euro mooring. You can read about it here: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-swiss-snb-brokers-idUSKBN0KP1EH20150116",
"qid": 10809,
"docid": "588877",
"rank": 57,
"score": 72742
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"A \"\"junk bond\"\" is one that pays a high yield UP FRONT because there is a good chance that it could default. So the higher interest rate is necessary to try to compensate for the default Junk bonds are used in leveraged buyouts (LBOs) because such deals are INHERENTLY risky. \"\"Normal\"\" companies may have 20%-30% debt and the rest equity, so that the company will have to lose 70%-80% of its value before the debtholders start losing money on \"\"normal\"\" bonds. But in an LBO, the company may have only 10%-20% equity and the rest debt. Meaning that if it loses that small equity cushion, the value of the \"\"junk\"\" bonds will be impaired.\"",
"qid": 10809,
"docid": "549640",
"rank": 58,
"score": 72644
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"QUICK ANSWER When it comes to fixed income assets, whether rental real estate or government bonds, it's unusual for highly-leveraged assets to yield less than the same asset unleveraged or lowly-leveraged. This is especially so in countries where interest costs are tax deductible. If we exclude capital losses (i.e. the property sells in future at a price less than it was purchased) or net rental income that doesn't keep up with maintenance, regulatory, taxation, inflation and / or other costs, there is one primary scenario where higher leverage results in lower yields compared to lower leverage, even if rental income keeps up with non-funding costs. This occurs when variable rate financing is used and rates substantially increase. EXPLANATION Borrowers and lenders in different countries have different mortgage rate customs. Some are more likely to have long-term fixed rates; some prefer variable rates; and others are a hybrid, i.e. fixed for a few years and then become variable. If variable rates are used for a mortgage and the reference rates increase substantially, as they did in the US during the 1970s, the borrower can easily become \"\"upside-down,\"\" i.e. owe more on the mortgage than the property is then worth, and have mortgage service costs that exceed the net rental income. Some of those costs aren't easy to pass along to renters, even when there are periodic lease renewals or base rent increases referencing inflation rates. Central banks set policies for what would be the lowest short-term rates in a country that has such a bank. Private sector rates are established broadly by supply and demand for credit and can thus diverge markedly from central bank rates. Over time, the higher finance-carrying-cost-to-net-rental-income ratio should abate as (1) rental market prices change to reflect the costs and (2) the landlord can reinvest his net rental income at a higher rate. In the short-term though, this can result in the landlord having to \"\"eat\"\" the costs making his yield on his leveraged fixed income asset less than what he would have without leverage, even if the property was later sold at same price regardless of financing method. ========== Interestingly, and on the flip side, this is one of the quirks in finance where an accounting liability can become, at least in part, an economic asset. If a landlord borrows at a high loan-to-value ratio for a fixed interest rate for the life of the mortgage and rates, variable and fixed, were to increase substantially, the difference between his original rate and the present rates accrues to him. If he's able to sell the property with the loan attached (which is not uncommon for commercial, industrial and sometimes municipal real estate), the buyer will be assuming a liability with a lower carrying cost than his present alternatives and will hence pay a higher price for the property than if it were unleveraged. With long-term rates in many economically advanced countries at historic lows, if a borrower today were to take a long-term fixed rate loan and rates shortly after increased substantially, he may have an instant profit in this scenario even if his property hasn't increased in value.\"",
"qid": 10809,
"docid": "360621",
"rank": 59,
"score": 72566
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The fundamental issue with leverage (of any sort, really) is that the amplified downsides are extremely likely to more than cancel out amplified equivalent upsides. Example without using a major swing: 2x leverage on a 5% decline (so a 10% decline). The 5% decline needs a 5.26% increase to get back level. However, the 2x leverage needs an 5.55% increase to get back. So a cycle for the unleveraged returns of -5%, +5.4% would see the unleveraged asset go up by a net +0.13% but 2x leverage would leave you at -0.28%. Conversely, imagine 0.5x leverage (it's easy to do that: 50% cash allocation): after an underlying -5%, the 0.5x leverage needs only +5.13% to reach par. This is basically the argument for low volatility funds. Of course, if you can leverage an asset that doesn't go down, then the leverage is great. And for an asset with an overall positive compound return, a little leverage is probably not going to hurt, simply because there are likely to be enough upsides to cancel out downsides.",
"qid": 10809,
"docid": "62955",
"rank": 60,
"score": 72348
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Because they don't leverage using credit but by shorting stocks. eg they short $400 of microsoft, and use the proceed to buy $400 of Apple. That's a 4x \"\"leverage\"\". It's one of the main characteristics of hedge fund vs traditional fund, they can short while your vanilla long only mutual fund cannot. And they limit capital from outside investors due to decreasing marginal return and liquidity consideration.\"",
"qid": 10809,
"docid": "25550",
"rank": 61,
"score": 72041
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I agree with a lot of what you said, and I know a great many esteemed economists are trying to point the big finger of blame at the rating agencies who could have and should have scrutinized what they were evaluating as opposed to capitulating because of cash. However, you did not mention leveraging. Leveraging, when left unchecked becomes very dangerous. Although you have an opportunity to make far more than the initial investment would supply without the added leverage, any loss becomes exponentially more devastating, and quickly your loss from this one transaction is more than your initial investment. Not to mention when everyone finds out, and nobody wants to buy the bullshit funds you were peddling, and you can't repay the person who gave you leverage.......then kabbboooom",
"qid": 10809,
"docid": "150867",
"rank": 62,
"score": 71953
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: > It seems like another way to have more artificial leverage in the future market, without having to borrow any money. Leverage is plentiful in the futures markets, and without borrowing. > Why aren't future options talked about more? Because they don't as easily connect to predictions that people mean to make. Because they have worse pricing because people are paying more along the way. Because they lack volume. But they're talked about and used plenty. There's not much to them that there isn't to equity options at a low level. > It seems like a safer way to play commodities compared to just futures. You mean hedging your futures contracts? Yes, the people who want to do that buy options.",
"qid": 10809,
"docid": "87548",
"rank": 63,
"score": 71794
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: This essentially depends on how you prefer to measure your performance. I will just give a few simple examples to start. Let me know if you're looking for something more. If you just want to achieve maximum $ return, then you should always use maximum margin, so long as your expected return (%) is higher than your cost to borrow. For example, suppose you can use margin to double your investment, and the cost to borrow is 7%. If you're investing in some security that expects to return 10%, then your annual return on an account opened with $100 is: (2 * $100 * 10% - $100 * 7%) / $100 = 13% So, you see the expected return, amount of leverage, and cost to borrow will all factor in to your return. Suppose you want to also account for the additional risk you're incurring. Then you could use the Sharpe Ratio. For example, suppose the same security has volatility of 20%, and the risk free rate is 5%. Then the Sharpe Ratio without leverage is: (10% - 5%) / 20% = 0.25 The Sharpe Ratio using maximum margin is then: (13% - 5%) / (2 * 20%) = 0.2, where the 13% comes from the above formula. So on a risk-adjusted basis, it's better not to utilize margin in this particular example.",
"qid": 10809,
"docid": "499331",
"rank": 64,
"score": 71704
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: > Also the institutional investor only has the advantage of leverage And, you know, capital, better data, better technical knowledge, and better just about everything else. It's the same reason why the average investor is better off buying a blue-chip stock while a buy-side guy buys more complex financial products.",
"qid": 10809,
"docid": "272166",
"rank": 65,
"score": 71630
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: In addition to the excellent answers here I might suggest a reason for investing in leveraged funds and the original purpose for their existence. Lets say you run a mutual fund that is supposed to track the performance of the S&P 500. If you have cash inflows and outflows from your fund due to people investing and selling shares of your fund you may have periods where not all funds are invested appropriately because some of the funds are in cash. Lets say 98% of your funds are invested in the securities that reflect the stocks in the S&P 500. You will will miss matching the S&P 500 because you have 2% not invested in some money market account. If you take 1/3 of the cash balance and invest in a triple leveraged fund or take 1/2 of the funds and invest in a double leveraged fund you will more accurately track the index to which your fund is supposed to track. I am not sure what percentage mutual fund owners keep in cash but this is one use that I know these ETFs are used for. The difference over time that compounding effects have on leveraged funds is called Beta Slippage. There are many fine articles explaining it at you can find one located at this link.",
"qid": 10809,
"docid": "189894",
"rank": 66,
"score": 71623
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I know some derivative markets work like this, so maybe similar with futures. A futures contract commits two parties to a buy/sell of the underlying securities, but with a futures contract you also create leverage because generally the margin you post on your futures contract is not sufficient to pay for the collateral in the underlying contract. The person buying the future is essentially \"\"borrowing\"\" money while the person selling the future is essentially \"\"lending\"\" money. The future you enter into is generally a short term contract, so a perfectly hedged lender of funds should expect to receive something that approaches the fed funds rate in the US. Today that would be essentially nothing.\"",
"qid": 10809,
"docid": "549040",
"rank": 67,
"score": 71510
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Your original example is a little confusing because just shorting for 1k and buying for 1k is 100% leveraged or an infinitive leverage ratio. (and not allowed) Brokerage houses would require you to invest some capital in the trade. One example might be requiring you to hold $100 in the brokerage. This is where the 10:1 ratio comes from. (1000/10) Thus a return of 4.5% on the 1000k bond and no movement on the short position would net you $45 and voila a 45% return on your $100 investment. A 40 to 1 leverage ratio would mean that you would only have to invest $25 to make this trade. Something that no individual investor are allowed to do, but for some reason some financial firms have been able to.",
"qid": 10809,
"docid": "242524",
"rank": 68,
"score": 71068
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Essentially, what you're describing is a leveraged investment. As others noted, the question is how confident you can be that (a) the returns on the investment will exceed what you're paying in interest, and (b) that if you lose the bet you'll still be able to pay off the loan without severely injuring yourself. I did essentially this when I bought my house, taking out a larger loan than necessary and leaving more money in my investments, which had been returning more than the mortgage's interest rate. I then got indecently lucky during the recession and was able to refinance down to under 4%, which I am very certain my investment will beat. I actually considered lengthening the term of the loan for that reason, or borrowing a bit more, but decided not to double down on the bet; that was my own risk-comfort threshold. Know exactly what your risks are, including secondary effects of these risks. Run the numbers to see what the likely return is. Decide whether you like the odds enough to go for it.",
"qid": 10809,
"docid": "5152",
"rank": 69,
"score": 70882
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The reason that UltraLong funds and the like are bad isn't because of the leverage ratio. It's because they're compounded daily, and the product of all the doubled daily returns is not mathematically equivalent to the double the long-term return. I'd consider providing big fancy equations using uppercase pi as the 'product of elements in a sequence' operator and other calculus fanciness, but that would be overkill, I don't think I can do TeX here, and I don't know the relevant TeX anyway. Anyway. From the economics theory perspective, the ideal leverage ratio is 1X - that is, unlevered, straight investment. Consider: Using leverage costs money. You know that, surely. If someone could borrow money at N% and invest at an expected N+X%, where X > 0, then they would. They would borrow all the money they could and buy all the S&P500 they could. But when they bought all that S&P500, they'd eventually run out of people who were willing to sell it for that cheap. That would mean the excess return would be smaller. Eventually you'd get to a point where the excess return is... zero? .... well, no, empirically, we can see that it's definitely not zero, and that in the real world that stocks do return more than bonds. Why? Because stocks are riskier than bonds. The difference in expected return between an index like the S&P500 and a US Treasury bond is due to the relative riskiness of the S&P500, which isn't guaranteed by the US Government to return your principal. Any money that you make off of leverage comes from assuming some sort of a risk. Now, assuming risk can be a profitable thing to do, but there are also a lot of people out there with higher risk tolerance than you, like insurance companies and billionaires, so the market isn't exactly short of people willing to take risks, and you shouldn't expect the returns of \"\"assuming risk\"\" in the general case to be qualitatively awesome. Now, it's true that investing in an unlevered fashion is risky also. But that's not an excuse to go leveraged anyway; it's a reason to hold back. In fact, regular stocks are sufficiently risky that most people probably shouldn't be holding a 100% stock portfolio. They should be tempering that risk with bonds, instead, and increasing the size of their bond holdings over time. The appropriate time to use leverage is when you have information which limits your risk. You have done research, and have reason to believe that you understand the future of an individual stock/index better than the rest of the stock market does. You calculate that the potential for achieving returns with leverage outweighs the risks. Then you dump your money into the leveraged position. (In exchange for this, the market receives information about anticipated future returns of this instrument, because of the price movement which occurs as a result of someone putting his money where his mouth is.) If you're just looking to dump money into broad market indicies in a leveraged fashion, you're doing it wrong. There is no free money. (Ed. Which is not to say there's not money. There's lots of money. But if you go looking for the free kind, you won't find it, and may end up with money that you thought was free but was actually quite expensive.) Edit. Okay, so you don't like my answer. I'm not surprised. I'm giving you a real answer instead of a \"\"make free money\"\" answer. Okay. Here's your \"\"how to make free money\"\" answer. Assume you are using a constant leverage ratio over the length of time you've invested your money, and you don't get to just jump into and out of the market (that's market-timing, not leverage) so you have to stay invested. You're going to have a scenario which falls into one of these categories: The S&P500 historically rises over time. The average rate of return probably exceeds the average interest rate. So the ideal leverage ratio is infinite. Of course, this is a stupid answer in real life because you can't pull that off. Your risk tolerance is too low and you will have trouble finding a lender willing to lend you unsecured money, and you'll probably lose all your money in a crash sooner or later. Ultimately it's a stupid answer because you're asking the wrong question. You should probably ask a better question: \"\"when I use leverage to gain additional exposure to risk, am I being properly compensated for assuming that risk?\"\"\"",
"qid": 10809,
"docid": "457584",
"rank": 70,
"score": 70783
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Yes. The definition of unreasonable shows as \"\"not guided by or based on good sense.\"\" 100% years require a high risk. Can your one stock double, or even go up three fold? Sure, but that would likely be a small part of your portfolio. Overall, long term, you are not likely to beat the market by such high numbers. That said, I had 2 years of returns well over 100%. 1998, and 1999. The S&P was up 26.7% and 19.5%, and I was very leverage in high tech stock options. As others mentioned, leverage was key. (Mark used the term 'gearing' which I think is leverage). When 2000 started crashing, I had taken enough off the table to end the year down 12% vs the S&P -10%, but this was down from a near 50% gain in Q1 of that year. As the crash continued, I was no longer leveraged and haven't been since. The last 12 years or so, I've happily lagged the S&P by a few basis points (.04-.02%). Also note, Buffet has returned an amazing 15.9%/yr on average for the last 30 years (vs the S&P 11.4%). 16% is far from 100%. The last 10 year, however, his return was a modest 8.6%, just .1% above the S&P.\"",
"qid": 10809,
"docid": "339989",
"rank": 71,
"score": 70712
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"how can I get started knowing that my strategy opportunities are limited and that my capital is low, but the success rate is relatively high? A margin account can help you \"\"leverage\"\" a small amount of capital to make decent profits. Beware, it can also wipe out your capital very quickly. Forex trading is already high-risk. Leveraged Forex trading can be downright speculative. I'm curious how you arrived at the 96% success ratio. As Jason R has pointed out, 1-2 trades a year for 7 years would only give you 7-14 trades. In order to get a success rate of 96% you would have had to successful exploit this \"\"irregularity\"\" at 24 out of 25 times. I recommend you proceed cautiously. Make the transition from a paper trader to a profit-seeking trader slowly. Use a low leverage ratio until you can make several more successful trades and then slowly increase your leverage as you gain confidence. Again, be very careful with leverage: it can either greatly increase or decrease the relatively small amount of capital you have.\"",
"qid": 10809,
"docid": "450178",
"rank": 72,
"score": 70670
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: It's an artifact of risk-neutral pricing, but the intuition is this: A call option can be viewed as a levered equity position - meaning, you can get the same exposure by borrowing money and buying the stock. Say you can buy some call options for $150 with a position delta of 1 (so it looks just like the stock). You could also buy the stock outright for $1000 (by borrowing $850 at the risk-free rate and using your $150 cash). If the risk-free rate rises, your cost of carry on the stock position increases. In the case of the call option, the change in price can be viewed as the cost of *leverage* increasing.",
"qid": 10809,
"docid": "192721",
"rank": 73,
"score": 70577
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I made an investing mistake many (eight?) years ago. Specifically, I invested a very large sum of money in a certain triple leveraged ETF (the asset has not yet been sold, but the value has decreased to maybe one 8th or 5th of the original amount). I thought the risk involved was the volatility--I didn't realize that due to the nature of the asset the value would be constantly decreasing towards zero! Anyhow, my question is what to do next? I would advise you to sell it ASAP. You didn't mention what ETF it is, but chances are you will continue to lose money. The complicating factor is that I have since moved out of the United States and am living abroad (i.e. Japan). I am permanent resident of my host country, I have a steady salary that is paid by a company incorporated in my host country, and pay taxes to the host government. I file a tax return to the U.S. Government each year, but all my income is excluded so I do not pay any taxes. In this way, I do not think that I can write anything off on my U.S. tax return. Also, I have absolutely no idea if I would be able to write off any losses on my Japanese tax return (I've entrusted all the family tax issues to my wife). Would this be possible? I can't answer this question but you seem to be looking for information on \"\"cross-border tax harvesting\"\". If Google doesn't yield useful results, I'd suggest you talk to an accountant who is familiar with the relevant tax codes. Are there any other available options (that would not involve having to tell my wife about the loss, which would be inevitable if I were to go the tax write-off route in Japan)? This is off topic but you should probably have an honest conversation with your wife regardless. If I continue to hold onto this asset the value will decrease lower and lower. Any suggestions as to what to do? See above: close your position ASAP For more information on the pitfalls of leveraged ETFs (FINRA) What happens if I hold longer than one trading day? While there may be trading and hedging strategies that justify holding these investments longer than a day, buy-and-hold investors with an intermediate or long-term time horizon should carefully consider whether these ETFs are appropriate for their portfolio. As discussed above, because leveraged and inverse ETFs reset each day, their performance can quickly diverge from the performance of the underlying index or benchmark. In other words, it is possible that you could suffer significant losses even if the long-term performance of the index showed a gain.\"",
"qid": 10809,
"docid": "244303",
"rank": 74,
"score": 70426
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"There's a hellova lot to be said for investing in real estate (simple residential real estate), even though it's grandma's advice. The two critical elements are 1) it's the only realistic way for a civilian to get leverage. this is why it almost always blows away \"\"tinkering in the stock markets\"\" in the 10-year frame. 2) but perhaps more importantly - it's a really \"\"enforced\"\" saving plan. you just have to pay it off every month. There are other huge advantages like, it's the best possible equity for a civilian, so you can get loans in the future to start your dotcom, etc. Try to buy yourself a very modest little flat (perhaps to rent out?) or even something like a garage or storeroom. Real estate can crash, but it's very unlikely; it only happens in end of the world situations where it won't matter anyway. When real estate drops say 30% everyone yells about that being a \"\"crash\"\" - I've never, ever owned a stock that hasn't had 30% down times. Food for thought!\"",
"qid": 10809,
"docid": "428236",
"rank": 75,
"score": 69675
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Are you considering using it? Is that the point of the post? If that's the case, I would say it's always a good idea to fully leverage your assets for investment. I recommend leveraging everything you can to maximize your profits. If you own a house, car, or anything else of value, you should use it as collateral. Then, typically any stock trading for $0.01 is a good investment - they almost never go to $0 and all it takes is a movement of $0.01 to double your money. Roulette also has similar payouts, but remember to always bet on red, never black. Good luck - send pictures of your mansion soon!",
"qid": 10809,
"docid": "177768",
"rank": 76,
"score": 69635
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: > one of the most highly leveraged Not even close. In general joint retail-investment banking institutions are less leveraged than primary IB's. BOA is sitting at a T1CR under Basel III of 8.1%. JPM 9.18% DB 7.2 MS 8.5% GS 7.3% UBS 8.8% This is all as of Q2 reports.",
"qid": 10809,
"docid": "197056",
"rank": 77,
"score": 69578
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I'm not in the industry, but the point of the quoted section suggests that hybrid debt (instruments with both debt and equity features) count as acceptable capital against upcoming required capital positions. These instruments are going to be cheaper than using common equity, and provide a leverage effect that can improve the return on equity (same income/cash flow over lower required equity).",
"qid": 10809,
"docid": "101295",
"rank": 78,
"score": 69361
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I put about that down on my place. I could have purchased it for cash, but since my investments were returning more interest than the loan was costing me (much easier to achieve now!), this was one of the safest possible ways of making \"\"leverage\"\" work for me. I could have put less down and increased the leverage, but tjis was what I felt most comfortable with. Definitely make enough of a down payment to avoid mortgage insurance. You may want to make enough of a down payment that the bank trusts you to handle your property insurance and taxes yourself rather than insisting on an escrow account and building that into the loan payments; I trust myself to mail the checks on time much more than I trust the bank. Beyond that it's very much a matter of personal preference and what else you might do with the money.\"",
"qid": 10809,
"docid": "475566",
"rank": 79,
"score": 68887
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: As a general rule of thumb, and assuming you have a choice, my advice is to pay cash for things things that depreciate, expenses, and consumables. Consider credit (even if you have cash) for things that will appreciate in value or generate cash flow. That is, use credit as leverage.",
"qid": 10809,
"docid": "78754",
"rank": 80,
"score": 68827
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I was wondering how do we calculate the total capital of a company? Which items should I look for in the financial statements? Total capital usually refers to the sum of long-term debt and total shareholder equity; both of these items can be found on the company's balance sheet. This is one of the calculations that's traditionally used when determining a company's return on capital. I'll use the balance sheet from Gilead Sciences' (GILD) 2012 10-K form as an example. Net long-term debt was $7,054,555,000 and total stockholder equity was $9,550,869,000 which should give a grand total of $16,605,424,000 for total capital. (I know you can do the math, but I always find an example helpful if it uses realistic numbers). You may sometimes hear the term \"\"total capital\"\" referring to \"\"total capital stock\"\" or \"\"total capital assets,\"\" in which case it may be referring to physical capital, i.e. assets like inventory, PP&E, etc., instead of financial capital/leverage. And how do I calculate notes payable? Is the same as accounts payable? As the word \"\"payable\"\" suggests, both are liabilities. However, I've always been taught that accounts payable are debts a business owes to its suppliers, while notes payable are debts a business owes to banks and other institutions with which it has signed a formal agreement and which use formal debt instruments, e.g. a loan contract. This definition seems to match various articles I found online. On a balance sheet, you can usually determine notes payable by combining the short-term debt of the company with the current portion of the long-term debt. These pieces comprise the debt that is due within the fiscal year. In the balance sheet for Gilead Sciences, I would only include the $1,169,490,000 categorized as \"\"Current portion of long-term debt and other obligations, net\"\" term, since the other current liabilities don't look like they would involve formal debt contracts. Since the notes payable section of GILD's balance sheet doesn't seem that diverse and therefore might not make the best example, I'll include the most recent balance sheet Monsanto as well.1 Monsanto's balance sheet lists a term called \"\"Short-term debt, including current portion of long-term debt\"\" with a value of $36 million. This looks like almost the exact definition of notes payable. 1. Note that this financial statement is called a Statement of Consolidated Financial Position on Monsanto's 10-K.\"",
"qid": 10809,
"docid": "473963",
"rank": 81,
"score": 68653
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"If you're looking to leverage your capital more efficiently, at the money options offer the best balance. Options deep in the money will have little time premium remaining on them, but don't allow for greater leverage. On the other hand deep out of the money options may be thinly traded, or might not offer the \"\"mirroring\"\" you'd like of the underlying. By purchasing ATM you will likely be buying some time premium, but still be leveraging your capital, potentially several times over.\"",
"qid": 10809,
"docid": "103528",
"rank": 82,
"score": 68648
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"A \"\"leveraged/trade program\"\"? What exactly is that? So let me get this straight. You put just 10% of the total amount of what you're trading into an account with Citi (Citi's going to give you 10-1 leverage on your money...why?), and then in 90 days they'll give you your money back and a loan for ten times the amount? Either the heat has gotten to me or this is the craziest thing I've read today. You didn't specify what it is you'd be \"\"trading\"\", and if your \"\"acquaintance\"\" didn't share that with you either then it sounds beyond suspect -- it sounds like total fraud. I couldn't imagine a scenario whereby Citi would be involved in a scheme like this, whatever \"\"it\"\" is. I suspect that your \"\"friend\"\" has you opening an account at Citi because it makes the whole scam sound more legitimate by tying to a big bank name. It might be worth your time to actually call Citi (I looked up their number for you. It's 1-800-685-0935) and ask them about this particular idea. When they get done snickering, they'll tell you the same thing everyone else is -- RUN from this. You're very right to suspect that you can't leverage money without encumbering it. What would be the point for someone to essentially give you credit on a 10-to-1 basis and then not encumber the collateral? If you don't know anything about trading and how leverage works then it would be highly inadvisable for you to jump into something that you don't understand. Your \"\"acquaintance\"\" may have been sucked into investing their own money, and now they think they're doing you a \"\"favor\"\" by telling you about this \"\"incredible opportunity\"\". It's how most scams work. They get the suckers to sign up friends and relatives, because they're playing on the trust between those people. Stick to what you know or what someone can give you a clear and reasonable explanation of. And have someone you really know and trust (preferably a friend or family member who is reasonably successful in managing their own finances) to act as a sounding board when things like this come along to help keep you from doing something stupid that you'll really regret. Hope this helps. Good luck!\"",
"qid": 10809,
"docid": "497901",
"rank": 83,
"score": 68479
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The crucial question not addressed by other answers is your ability to repay the debt. Borrowing is always about leverage, and leverage is always about risk. In the home improvement loan case, default comes with dire consequences-- to extinguish the debt you might have to sell your home. With a stable job, reliable income, and sufficient cash flow (and, of course, comfort that the project will yield benefits you're happy to pay for), then the clear answer is, go ahead and borrow. But if you work in a highly cyclical industry, have very little cash saved, or for whatever other reason are uncertain about your future ability to pay, then don't borrow. Save until you are more comfortable you can handle the loan. That doesn't necessarily mean save ALL the money; just save enough that you are highly confident in your ability to pay whatever you borrow.",
"qid": 10809,
"docid": "565985",
"rank": 84,
"score": 68162
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: > Other values out there? What? Assets like businesses and private estates. They have values. I think this is what is called CCM (Credit Counterparts of Money)? > which do not properly consider - or even ignore - the concept of leverage. If you by leverage refers to the FRB, I think central banks understands this mechanism? That is what they use the interest rate control, as well as regulations. > all that debt will either have to be paid back or defaulted upon Does it really? M2 and M3 doesn't have to be payed back. It can grow for all future, as long as they match the assets.",
"qid": 10809,
"docid": "512567",
"rank": 85,
"score": 67954
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Well, let me take your question for baremetal, and aknowledge you did not asked about the difference between daytrading and investing which is obviously leverage. I would not consider daytrading more risky as long as you keep leverageout of the equation. Daytrading can be turbolent and confusing, where things unfold in a very short amount of time, (let trade nfp payroll or some breaking event, yay), eventually the risk is more overseeable in long term trading, as soon as you put leverage into the equation things look vary different, indeed.",
"qid": 10809,
"docid": "558466",
"rank": 86,
"score": 67822
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Efficient Frontier has an article from years ago about the small-cap and value premiums out there that would be worth noting here using the Fama and French data. Eugene Fama and Kenneth French (F/F) have shown that one can explain almost all of the returns of equity portfolios based on only three factors: market exposure, market capitalization (size), and price-to-book (value). Wikipedia link to the factor model which was the result of the F/F research.",
"qid": 10809,
"docid": "572069",
"rank": 87,
"score": 67749
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Money factor is a term coined by leasing companies to make car leasing that much more convoluted. It's basically a decimal value that you multiply by 2400 in order to arrive at your actual annual percentage rate or interest rate. Here's a really good article detailing how you can calculate your interest rate based on other criteria in your leasing contract, because most of the time you won't even be given money factor on your leasing contract",
"qid": 10809,
"docid": "521060",
"rank": 88,
"score": 67688
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The answer to your question depends on your answer to this question: Would you be willing to take out a loan at that interest rate and invest that money straight into stocks? That's basically what you're planning to do. You leverage your stock investment, which is a valid and often used way to improve returns. Better returns ALWAYS come with more risk. Depending on your location there might be a tax advantage to a mortage, which you can take into account.",
"qid": 10809,
"docid": "587358",
"rank": 89,
"score": 67569
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The word equity always refers to the ownership of something, whether it be a company or a home. The wikipedia article is differentiating companies by how they raised money for operations. Equity companies, by their definition are those that sold an interest in the company in exchange for capital. Debt based companies, again by their definition, are those that borrow money from investors, but instead of an ownership stake they promise to pay back the money presumably with interest.",
"qid": 10809,
"docid": "375992",
"rank": 90,
"score": 67513
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: My favorite part: Any bank with a leverage ratio greater than 10% can elect to be exempt from: >(1) Any Federal law, rule, or regulation addressing capital or liquidity requirements or standards. >(2) Any Federal law, rule, or regulation that permits an appropriate Federal banking agency to object to a capital distribution. >(3) Any consideration by an appropriate Federal banking agency of the following: >(A) Any risk the qualifying banking organization may pose to “the stability of the financial system of the United States”, under section 5(c)(2) of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956. >(B) The “extent to which a proposed acquisition, merger, or consolidation would result in greater or more concentrated risks to the stability of the United States banking or financial system”, under section 3(c)(7) of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, so long as the banking organization, after such proposed acquisition, merger, or consolidation, would maintain a quarterly leverage ratio of at least 10 percent. >(C) Whether the performance of an activity by the banking organization could possibly pose a “risk to the stability of the United States banking or financial system”, under section 4(j)(2)(A) of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956. >(D) Whether the acquisition of control of shares of a company engaged in an activity described in section 4(j)(1)(A) of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 could possibly pose a “risk to the stability of the United States banking or financial system”, under section 4(j)(2)(A) of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, so long as the banking organization, after acquiring control of such company, would maintain a quarterly leverage ratio of at least 10 percent. >(E) Whether a merger would pose a “risk to the stability of the United States banking or financial system”, under section 18(c)(5) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, so long as the banking organization, after such proposed merger, would maintain a quarterly leverage ratio of at least 10 percent. >(F) Any risk the qualifying banking organization may pose to “the stability of the financial system of the United States”, under section 10(b)(4) of the Home Owners' Loan Act. >(4) Subsections (i)(8) and (k)(6)(B)(ii) of section 4 and section 14 of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956. >(5) Section 18(c)(13) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act. >(6) Section 163 of the Financial Stability Act of 2010. >(7) Section 10(e)(2)(E) of the Home Owners’ Loan Act. >(8) Any Federal law, rule, or regulation implementing standards of the type provided for in subsections (b), (c), (d), (e), (g), (h), (i), and (j) of section 165 of the Financial Stability Act of 2010. >(9) Any Federal law, rule, or regulation providing limitations on mergers, consolidations, or acquisitions of assets or control, to the extent such limitations relate to capital or liquidity standards or concentrations of deposits or assets, so long as the banking organization, after such proposed merger, consolidation, or acquisition, would maintain a quarterly leverage ratio of at least 10 percent. yeah, what could go wrong?",
"qid": 10809,
"docid": "35414",
"rank": 91,
"score": 67369
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I'm afraid the great myth of limited liability companies is that all such vehicles have instant access to credit. Limited liability on a company with few physical assets to underwrite the loan, or with insufficient revenue, will usually mean that the owners (or others) will be asked to stand surety on any credit. However, there is a particular form of \"\"credit\"\" available to businesses on terms with their clients. It is called factoring. Factoring is a financial transaction whereby a business sells its accounts receivable (i.e., invoices) to a third party (called a factor) at a discount in exchange for immediate money with which to finance continued business. Factoring differs from a bank loan in three main ways. First, the emphasis is on the value of the receivables (essentially a financial asset), not the firm’s credit worthiness. Secondly, factoring is not a loan – it is the purchase of a financial asset (the receivable). Finally, a bank loan involves two parties whereas factoring involves three. Recognise that this can be quite expensive. Most banks catering to small businesses will offer some form of factoring service, or will know of services that offer it. It isn't that different from cheque encashment services (pay-day services) where you offer a discount on future income for money now. An alternative is simply to ask his clients if they'll pay him faster if he offers a discount (since either of interest payments or factoring would reduce profitability anyway).\"",
"qid": 10809,
"docid": "285255",
"rank": 92,
"score": 67216
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"That's definitely a good point; thanks for noting that. Leverage was definitely an issue. Re: the ratings agencies, I just wanted to clarify that I was talking about something a bit different than the problem of \"\"ratings shopping\"\" (I assume this is what you meant what you mentioned the ratings agencies \"\"capitulating\"\"). \"\"Ratings shopping\"\" is essentially the tendency for a \"\"race to the bottom\"\" in ratings when banks pay for ratings. That has always been an issue for the ratings agencies since the 1970s (I think?) when they started having the rated entities pay for their ratings. What I was talking about is more unique to the structured products industry in the mid-2000s -- i.e. how the ratings agencies gave banks an opportunity for essentially risk-less profit by merely repackaging MBSs into CDOs. So banks would buy up MBSs, repackage them into CDOs, sell shares of the CDOs to investors, and then hedge all of the residual risk away by writing a CDS contract with a monoline insurer like AIG. This has more to do with the relationship *between* ratings for different products, and not the absolute \"\"level\"\" of the ratings for any given product. Sorry if that sounds nit-picky, but I think it's an extremely important detail that is generally lost upon -- as you pointed out -- economists who are pushing the \"\"ratings shopping\"\" theory. I would guess this is because moral hazard is a story they are already familiar with.\"",
"qid": 10809,
"docid": "495898",
"rank": 93,
"score": 66675
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The catch is that you're doing a form of leveraged investing. In other words, you're gambling on the stock market using money that you've borrowed. While it's not as dangerous as say, getting money from a loan shark to play blackjack in Vegas, there is always the chance that markets can collapse and your investment's value will drop rapidly. The amount of risk really depends on what specific investments you choose and how diversified they are - if you buy only Canadian stocks then you're at risk of losing a lot if something happened to our economy. But if your Canadian equities only amount to 3.6% of your total (which is Canada's share of the world market), and you're holding stocks in many different countries then the diversification will reduce your overall risk. The reason I mention that is because many people using the Smith Maneuver are only buying Canadian high-yield dividend stocks, so that they can use the dividends to accelerate the Smith Maneuver process (use the dividends to pay down the mortgage, then borrow more and invest it). They prefer Canadian equities because of preferential tax treatment of the dividend income (in non-registered accounts). But if something happened to those Canadian companies, they stand to lose much of the investment value and suddenly they have the extra debt (the amount borrowed from a HELOC, or from a re-advanceable mortgage) without enough value in the investments to offset it. This could mean that they will not be able to pay off the mortgage by the time they retire!",
"qid": 10809,
"docid": "290831",
"rank": 94,
"score": 66633
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Quite honestly, with the current interest rates, you're better off getting a loan, putting the cash into some top performing equity funds and paying down on the loan. If for some reason you're in need of the capital, the stocks are going to be much more liquid. Being debt free is a good thing, but there is also a right way to leverage yourself. At the end of the day though, and despite what anyone on this site tells you, you need to run the numbers, make the long term projections to determine what's the best route to take.",
"qid": 10809,
"docid": "261382",
"rank": 95,
"score": 66601
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I would not claim to be a personal expert in rental property. I do have friends and family and acquaintances who run rental units for additional income and/or make a full time living at the rental business. As JoeTaxpayer points out, rentals are a cash-eating business. You need to have enough liquid funds to endure uncertainty with maintenance and vacancy costs. Often a leveraged rental will show high ROI or CAGR, but that must be balanced by your overall risk and liquidity position. I have been told that a good rule-of-thumb is to buy in cash with a target ROI of 10%. Of course, YMMV and might not be realistic for your market. It may require you to do some serious bargain hunting, which seems reasonable based on the stagnant market you described. Some examples: The main point here is assessing the risk associated with financing real estate. The ROI (or CAGR) of a financed property looks great, but consider the Net Income. A few expensive maintenance events or vacancies will quickly get you to a negative cash flow. Multiply this by a few rentals and your risk exposure is multiplied too! Note that i did not factor in appreciation based on OP information. Cash Purchase with some very rough estimates based on OP example Net Income = (RENT - TAX - MAINT) = $17200 per year Finance Purchase rough estimate with 20% down Net Income = (RENT - MORT - TAX - MAINT) = $7500 per year",
"qid": 10809,
"docid": "178501",
"rank": 96,
"score": 66538
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: As Chris pointed out: If your expenses are covered by the income exactly, as you have said to assume, then you are basically starting with a $40K asset (your starting equity), and ending with a $200K asset (a paid for home, at the same value since you have said to ignore any appreciation). So, to determine what you have earned on the $40K you leveraged 5x, wouldn't it be a matter of computing a CAGR that gets you from $40K to $200K in 30 years? The result would be a nominal return, not a real return. So, if I set up the problem correctly, it should be: $40,000 * (1 + Return)^30 = $200,000 Then solve for Return. It works out to be about 5.51% or so.",
"qid": 10809,
"docid": "409207",
"rank": 97,
"score": 66336
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I think, generally speaking, people who say things like that don't have a firm grasp of their finances. On the other hand, if you take a mortgage as a vehicle for leveraged investment the interest can pay for itself in gains made elsewhere. Paying mortgage interest is otherwise only good for the banks, but our system reinforces the idea that everyone should be in debt instead of profiting from their capital.",
"qid": 10809,
"docid": "45683",
"rank": 98,
"score": 66325
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: This is your best answer so far. A detail left out is that derivatives are mostly known for the amount of leverage allowed, which is typically about 20-1, or 5% down. This is legal because it's generally assumed that someone is not going to buy or sell the underlying asset, that they will offset their long or short position long before the contract's delivery date. Your derivative broker(typically futures instead of forwards, because they're a standardized size, traded on an exchange and more liquid) will call you when you lose about half of your 5% to tell you to either transfer some money to cover your position or to ask you to exit your position at a loss. Fowards are traded through clearinghouses, not exchanges, and they can be for any underlying asset, for any delivery date, for any price, so long as parties agree on it. Just think of it as a contract.",
"qid": 10809,
"docid": "10090",
"rank": 99,
"score": 66290
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Starting with small amount of money is definitely a good idea, as it is a fact that majority of the online traders lose their initial investment. No wonder that for example in the UK, FCA decided to make steps to raise the chances of clients staying in business by limiting leverage to 1:50 and 1:25. http://www.financemagnates.com/forex/bloggers/new-fca-regulations-going-affect-retail-brokers/ Trading leveraged products is risky and you will lose some, or all your money with very high chance. But that doesn't mean necessarily it is a \"\"bad investment\"\" to trade on your own. Imagine you have a $1000 account, and you trade max 0,1 lot fx position at once maximum (=$10.000 position size, that is 1:10 leverage max). Beginner steps are very challenging and exiting, but turning back to your initial question: is there a better way to invest with a small amount of money Obviously you could purchase a cheap ETF that follows a broad market index or an already existing successful portfolio.\"",
"qid": 10809,
"docid": "282947",
"rank": 100,
"score": 66249
}
] |
Is is possible to dispute IRS underpayment penalties? | [
{
"content": "Title: Content: didn't pay the extra underpayment penalty on the grounds that it was an honest mistake. You seem to think a penalty applies only when the IRS thinks you were trying to cheat the system. That's not the case. A mistake (honest or otherwise) still can imply a penalty. While you can appeal just about anything, on any grounds you like, it's unlikely you will prevail.",
"qid": 10812,
"docid": "314455",
"rank": 1,
"score": 141089
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"When you say \"\"set aside,\"\" you mean you saved to pay the tax due in April? That's underpaying. It's a rare exception the IRS makes for this penalty, hopefully it wasn't too large, and you now know how much to withhold through payroll deductions. Problem is, this wasn't unusual, it was an oversight. You have no legitimate grounds to dispute. Sorry.\"",
"qid": 10812,
"docid": "451935",
"rank": 2,
"score": 129105
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The underpayment \"\"penalty\"\" is just interest on the late payments--willful or not has nothing to do with it. When they feel it's willful there will be additional penalties.\"",
"qid": 10812,
"docid": "342756",
"rank": 3,
"score": 123616
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The only way you will incur underpayment penalties is if you withhold less than 90% of the current year's tax liability or 100% of last years tax liability (whichever is smaller). So as long as your total tax liability last year (not what you paid at filing, but what you paid for the whole year) was more than $1,234, you should not have any penalty. What you pay (or get back) when you file will be your total tax liability less what was withheld. For example, you had $1,234 withheld from your pay for taxes. If after deduction and other factors, your tax liability is $1,345, you will owe $111 when you file. On the other hand, if your tax liability is only $1,000, you'll get a refund of $234 when you file, since you've had more withheld that what you owe. Since your income was only for part of the year, and tax tables assume that you make that much for the whole year, I would suspect that you over-withheld during your internship, which would offset the lack of withholding on the other $6,000 in income.",
"qid": 10812,
"docid": "594652",
"rank": 4,
"score": 120397
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I went through this too. There's a safe-harbor provision. If you prepay as estimated tax payments, 110% of your previous year's tax liability, there's no penalty for underpayment of the big liquidity-event tax liability. https://www.irs.gov/publications/p17/ch04.html That's with the feds. Your state may have different rules. You would be very wise indeed to hire an accountant to prepare your return this year. If I were you I'd ask your company's CFO or finance chief to suggest somebody. Congratulations, by the way.",
"qid": 10812,
"docid": "291460",
"rank": 5,
"score": 117525
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I just got hit with the late payment penalty due to a bug in the H&R Block tax program. The underpayment was only $2 and the penalty was a whopping 1 cent. The letter that informed me of the error also said that they did not consider the $2.01 worth collecting, the amount owed had been zeroed.",
"qid": 10812,
"docid": "46767",
"rank": 6,
"score": 117043
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: While the US tax code does not directly impose an obligation to pay estimated taxes, it does impose a penalty on individuals for failure to pay enough taxes either through withholding or estimated tax. USMTG Anyone can choose how s/he wants to pay their taxes but they better deal with any consequences of not paying them instead of just complaining about it like most people do. Most people get the hatred towards the IRS but most complaints are misdirected and should be directed towards Congress who creates and messes around with the US Tax Code. Some people actually do not make estimated payments and pay any possible taxes with their returns knowing that there may be underpayment penalty. For those people, the penalty is relatively small compared to what they can do with the cash over a year's time (i.e. investing or paying down debt). It's their choice!",
"qid": 10812,
"docid": "505553",
"rank": 7,
"score": 117019
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You have made a good start because you are looking at your options. Because you know that if you do nothing you will have a big tax bill in April 2017, you want to make sure that you avoid the underpayment penalty. One way to avoid it is to make estimated payments. But even if you do that you could still make a mistake and overpay or underpay. I think the easiest way to handle it is to reach the safe harbor. If your withholding from your regular jobs and any estimated taxes you pay in 2016 equal or exceed your total taxes for 2015, then even if you owe a lot in April 2017 you can avoid the underpayment penalty. If you AGI is over 150K you have to make sure your withholding is 110% of your 2015 taxes. Then set aside what you think you will owe in your bank account until you have to pay your taxes in April 2017. You only have to adjust your withholding to make the safe harbor. You can make sure easily enough once your file this years taxes. You only have to make sure that you reach the 100% or 110% threshold. From IRS PUB 17 Who Must Pay Estimated Tax If you owe additional tax for 2015, you may have to pay estimated tax for 2016. You can use the following general rule as a guide during the year to see if you will have enough withholding, or if you should increase your withholding or make estimated tax payments. General rule. In most cases, you must pay estimated tax for 2016 if both of the following apply. You expect to owe at least $1,000 in tax for 2016, after subtracting your withholding and refundable credits. You expect your withholding plus your refundable credits to be less than the smaller of: a. 90% of the tax to be shown on your 2016 tax return, or b. 100% of the tax shown on your 2015 tax return (but see Special rules for farmers, fishermen, and higher income taxpayers , later). Your 2015 tax return must cover all 12 months. Reminders Estimated tax safe harbor for higher income taxpayers. If your 2015 adjusted gross income was more than $150,000 ($75,000 if you are married filing a separate return), you must pay the smaller of 90% of your expected tax for 2016 or 110% of the tax shown on your 2015 return to avoid an estimated tax penalty.",
"qid": 10812,
"docid": "28172",
"rank": 8,
"score": 115531
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: There is the underpayment penalty, and of course the general risk of any balloon-style loan. While you think that you have enough self-discipline, you never know what may happen that may prevent you from having enough cash at hands to pay the accumulated tax at the end of the year. If you try to do more risky investments (trying to maximize the opportunity) you may lose some of the money, or have some other kind of emergency that may preempt the tax payment.",
"qid": 10812,
"docid": "299724",
"rank": 9,
"score": 111123
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you have a one-time event, you are allowed to make a single estimated payment for that quarter on Form 1040-ES. People seem to fear that if they make one such payment they will need to do it forevermore, and that is not true. The IRS instructions do kind of read that way, but that's because most people who make estimated payment do so because of some repeating circumstance like being self-employed. In addition, you may qualify for one or more waivers on a potential underpayment penalty when you file your Form 1040 even if you don't make an estimated payment, and you may reduce or eliminate any penalty by annualizing your income - which is to say breaking it down by quarter rather than the full year. Check on the instructions for Form 2210 for more detail, including Schedule AI for annualizing income. This is some work, but it might be worthwhile depending on your situation. https://www.irs.gov/instructions/i2210/ch02.html",
"qid": 10812,
"docid": "444246",
"rank": 10,
"score": 110455
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: In addition to the other answers, which cover the risks of what is essentially leveraged investing, I'd like to point out that the 2.6% penalty is a flat rate. If you are responsible for withholding your own taxes then you are paying tax four times a year. So any underpayment on your first quarterly tax payment will have much more time to accrue in the stock market than your last payment, although each underpayment will be penalized by the 2.6%. It may make sense for someone to make full payments on later payments but underpay on earlier ones.",
"qid": 10812,
"docid": "141939",
"rank": 11,
"score": 109919
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I actually think your boss is creating a problem for you. Of course it's taxable. The things IRS will look at (and they very well might, as it does stand out) what kind of payment is that. Why did it not go through payroll? The company may be at risk here for avoiding FICA/FUTA/workers' compensation insurance/State payroll taxes. Some are mandatory, and cannot be left to the employee to pay. On your side it raises your taxable income without the appropriate withholding, you may end up paying underpayment penalties for that (that is why you've been suggested to keep proofs of when you were paid). Also, it's employment income. If it is not wages - you're liable for self-employment taxes (basically the portion of FICA that the employer didn't pay, and your own FICA withholding). When you deposit the check is of no matter to the IRS, its when you got it that determines when you should declare the income. You don't have a choice there. I suggest asking the company payroll why it didn't go through them, as it may be a problem for you later on.",
"qid": 10812,
"docid": "531356",
"rank": 12,
"score": 109412
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"As long as you paid 100% of your last year's tax liability (overall tax liability, the total tax to pay on your 1040) or 90% of the total tax liability this year, or your underpayment is no more than $1000, you won't be penalized as long as you pay the difference by April 15th. That's per the IRS. I don't know where the \"\"10% of my income\"\" came from, I'm not aware of any such rule.\"",
"qid": 10812,
"docid": "407316",
"rank": 13,
"score": 108430
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"You should dispute the transaction with the credit card. Describe the story and attach the cash payment receipt, and dispute it as a duplicate charge. There will be no impact on your score, but if you don't have the cash receipt or any other proof of the alternative payment - it's your word against the merchant, and he has proof that you actually used your card there. So worst case - you just paid twice. If you dispute the charge and it is accepted - the merchant will pay a penalty. If it is not accepted - you may pay the penalty (on top of the original charge, depending on your credit card issuer - some charge for \"\"frivolous\"\" charge backs). It will take several more years for either the European merchants to learn how to deal with the US half-baked chip cards, or the American banks to start issue proper chip-and-PIN card as everywhere else. Either way, until then - if the merchant doesn't know how to handle signatures with the American credit cards - just don't use them. Pay cash. Given the controversy in the comments - my intention was not to say \"\"no, don't talk to the merchant\"\". From the description of the situation it didn't strike me as the merchant would even bother to consider the situation. A less than honest merchant knows that you have no leverage, and since you're a tourist and will probably not be returning there anyway - what's the worst you can do to them? A bad yelp review? You can definitely get in touch with the merchant and ask for a refund, but I would not expect much to come out from that.\"",
"qid": 10812,
"docid": "583321",
"rank": 14,
"score": 107677
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Your question begins with a misunderstanding. When you prepare your tax return (Form 1040/1040A/1040EZ) you always try to minimize your total tax bill. When you fill out form W4 you trying to estimate how much tax will be shown on next years tax return. The penalty for having too much tax withheld is not having the use of the money until you get a tax refund. At the moment interest rates are very low and your economic loss is the temporary loss of access to the money. One exception would be if you are carrying credit card debt. In that case you are, in effect, paying 20-30% interest to borrow money you lending to the US Treasury for 0% interest. The penalty for having too little tax withheld is having to make a large payment with your tax return. If your pre-payments aren't at least as much as your total income tax from last year there may also be modest underpayment penalty based on the difference between your pre-payments and your total income tax from last year or this year whichever is less. A large underpayment will trigger a different larger underpayemnt penalty. The W4 combined with the withholding rates tends to over-withhold income tax for most, but not all, taxpayers. Most people don't have enough savings to pay a large tax due, which leads to more penalties and an even larger bill. Over-witholding protects the overall tax system from the consequences of those events. People tend to be very unhappy, not quietly. On balance your greatest economic benefit depends on whether or not you have high interest debt. If you do, then accurate and even slightly under-withholding will probably work to your advantage as long as you can pay next 4/15. If not, avoiding the chance of having any unexpected balance due next year may be more important.",
"qid": 10812,
"docid": "80994",
"rank": 15,
"score": 106977
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: In practice the IRS seems to apply the late payment penalty when they issue a written paper notice. Those notices typically have a pay-by date where no additional penalty applies. The IRS will often waive penalties, but not interest or tax due, if the taxpayer presses the issue.",
"qid": 10812,
"docid": "423892",
"rank": 16,
"score": 104712
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: >According to the IRS, penalties and fines are only non-deductible when they are paid for actual violations of laws/regulations. That's not quite correct. Section 162(f) says [bolding is mine]: >No deduction shall be allowed under subsection (a) for any fine or similar penalty **paid to a government** for the violation of any law. That means they can only claim a deduction on the portion of the fine that isn't paid to the US government. I'm doing a little research to see if I can find out what the dealy-o is.",
"qid": 10812,
"docid": "126007",
"rank": 17,
"score": 102210
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"If you file the long-form Form 2210 in which you have to figure out exactly how much you should have had withheld (or paid via quarterly payments of estimated tax), you might be able to reduce the underpayment penalty somewhat, or possibly eliminate it entirely. This often happens because some of your income comes late in the year (e.g. dividend and capital gain distributions from stock mutual funds) and possibly because some of your itemized deductions come early (e.g. real estate tax bills due April 1, charitable deductions early in the year because of New Year resolutions to be more philanthropic) etc. It takes a fair amount of effort to gather up the information you need for this (money management programs help), and it is easy to make mistakes while filling out the form. I strongly recommend use of a \"\"deluxe\"\" or \"\"premier\"\" version of a tax program - basic versions might not include Form 2210 or have only the short version of it. I also seem to remember something to the effect that the long form 2210 must be filed with the tax return and cannot be filed as part of an amended return, and if so, the above advice would be applicable to future years only. But you might be able to fill out the form and appeal to the IRS that you owe a reduced penalty, or don't owe a penalty at all, and that your only mistake was not filing the long form 2210 with your tax return and so please can you be forgiven this once? In any case, I strongly recommend paying the underpayment penalty ASAP because it is increasing day by day due to interest being charged. If the IRS agrees to your eloquent appeal, they will refund the overpayment.\"",
"qid": 10812,
"docid": "46737",
"rank": 18,
"score": 102134
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Assuming that what you want to do is to counter the capital gains tax on the short term and long term gains, and that doing so will avoid any underpayment penalties, it is relatively simple to do so. Figure out the tax on the capital gains by determining your tax bracket. Lets say 25% short term and 15% long term or (0.25x7K) + (0.15*8K) or $2950. If you donate to charities an additional amount of items or money to cover that tax. So taking the numbers in step 1 divide by the marginal tax rate $2950/0.25 or $11,800. Money is easier to donate because you will be contributing enough value that the IRS may ask for proof of the value, and that proof needs to be gathered either before the donation is given or at the time the donation is given. Also don't wait until December 31st, if you miss the deadline and the donation is counted for next year, the purpose will have been missed. Now if the goal is just to avoid the underpayment penalty, you have two other options. The safe harbor is the easiest of the two to determine. Look at last years tax form. Look for the amount of tax you paid last year. Not what was withheld, but what you actually paid. If all your withholding this year, is greater than 110% of the total tax from last year, you have reached the safe harbor. There are a few more twists depending on AGI Special rules for farmers, fishermen, and higher income taxpayers. If at least two-thirds of your gross income for tax year 2014 or 2015 is from farming or fishing, substitute 662/3% for 90% in (2a) under the General rule, earlier. If your AGI for 2014 was more than $150,000 ($75,000 if your filing status for 2015 is married filing a separate return), substitute 110% for 100% in (2b) under General rule , earlier. See Figure 4-A and Publication 505, chapter 2 for more information.",
"qid": 10812,
"docid": "176105",
"rank": 19,
"score": 101861
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Not illegal. With respect to littleadv response, the printing of a check isn't illegal. I can order checks from cheap check printers, and they have no relationship to any bank, so long as they have my routing number and checking account number, they print. Years ago (25+) I wrote my account details on a shirt in protest to owing the IRS money, and my bank cashed it. They charged a penalty of some nominal amount, $20 or so for 'non-standard check format' or something like that. But, in fact, stupid young person rants aside, you may write a check out by hand on a piece of paper and it should clear. The missing factor is the magnetic ink. But, I often see a regular check with a strip taped to the bottom when the mag strip fails, proving that bad ink will not prevent a check from clearing. So long as the person trying to send you the funds isn't going to dispute the transaction (and the check is made out to you, so I suppose they couldn't even do that) this process should be simple. I see little to no risk so long as the image isn't intercepted along the way.",
"qid": 10812,
"docid": "500403",
"rank": 20,
"score": 100972
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"There's no such thing as \"\"leniency\"\" when enforcing the law. Not knowing the law, as you have probably heard, is not a valid legal defence. Tax law is a law like any other. That said, some penalties and fines can be abated if the error was done in good faith and due to a reasonable cause. First time penalties can be abated in many cases assuming you're compliant otherwise (for example - first time late filing penalty can be abated if you're compliant in the last 5 years. Not many people know about that.). Examples for a reasonable cause (from the IRS IRM 20.1.1): Reliance on the advice of a tax advisor generally relates to the reasonable cause exception in IRC 6664(c) for the accuracy-related penalty under IRC 6662. See IRM 20.1.5, Return Related Penalties, and If the taxpayer does not meet the criteria for penalty relief under IRC 6404(f), the taxpayer may qualify for other penalty relief. For instance, taxpayers who fail to meet all of the IRC 6404(f) criteria may still qualify for relief under reasonable cause if the IRS determines that the taxpayer exercised ordinary business care and prudence in relying on the IRS’s written advice. IRM 20.1.1.3.2.2.5 - Erroneous Advice or Reliance. Treas. Reg. 1.6664–4(c). There are more. IRM is the \"\"Internal Revenue Manual\"\" - the book of policies for the IRS agents. Of course, you should seek a professional advice when you're non-compliant and want to ask for abatement and become compliant again. Talk to a CPA/EA licensed in your state.\"",
"qid": 10812,
"docid": "555406",
"rank": 21,
"score": 100631
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The IRS provides a little more information on the subject on this FAQ: Will I be charged interest and penalties for filing and paying my taxes late?: If you did not pay your tax on time, you will generally have to pay a late-payment penalty, which is also called a failure to pay penalty. Some guidance on what constitutes \"\"reasonable cause\"\" is found on the IRS page Penalty Relief Due to Reasonable Cause: The IRS will consider any sound reason for failing to file a tax return, make a deposit, or pay tax when due. Sound reasons, if established, include: Note: A lack of funds, in and of itself, is not reasonable cause for failure to file or pay on time. However, the reasons for the lack of funds may meet reasonable cause criteria for the failure-to-pay penalty. In this article from U.S. News and World Report, it is suggested that the IRS will generally waive the penalty one time, if you have a clean tax history and ask for the penalty to be waived. It is definitely worth asking them to waive the penalty.\"",
"qid": 10812,
"docid": "62811",
"rank": 22,
"score": 100331
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you're under audit - you should get a proper representation. I.e.: EA or CPA licensed in California and experienced with the FTB audit representation. There's a penalty on failure to file form 1099, but it is with the IRS, not the FTB. If I remember correctly, it's something like $50 or $100 per instance. Technically they can disqualify deductions claiming you paid under the table and no taxes were paid on the other side, however I doubt they'd do it in a case of simple omission of filing 1099 forms. Check with your licensed tax adviser. Keep in mind that for the IRS 2011 is now closed, since the 3-year statute of limitations has passed. For California the statute is 4 years, and you're almost at the end of it. However since you're already under audit they may ask you to agree to extend it.",
"qid": 10812,
"docid": "237331",
"rank": 23,
"score": 99595
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: There are penalties for failure to file and penalties for failure to pay tax. The penalties for both are based on the amount of tax due. So you would owe % penalties of zero, otherwise meaning no penalties at all. The IRS on late 1040 penalties: Here are eight important points about penalties for filing or paying late. A failure-to-file penalty may apply if you did not file by the tax filing deadline. A failure-to-pay penalty may apply if you did not pay all of the taxes you owe by the tax filing deadline. The failure-to-file penalty is generally more than the failure-to-pay penalty. You should file your tax return on time each year, even if you’re not able to pay all the taxes you owe by the due date. You can reduce additional interest and penalties by paying as much as you can with your tax return. You should explore other payment options such as getting a loan or making an installment agreement to make payments. The IRS will work with you. The penalty for filing late is normally 5 percent of the unpaid taxes for each month or part of a month that a tax return is late. That penalty starts accruing the day after the tax filing due date and will not exceed 25 percent of your unpaid taxes. If you do not pay your taxes by the tax deadline, you normally will face a failure-to-pay penalty of ½ of 1 percent of your unpaid taxes. That penalty applies for each month or part of a month after the due date and starts accruing the day after the tax-filing due date. If you timely requested an extension of time to file your individual income tax return and paid at least 90 percent of the taxes you owe with your request, you may not face a failure-to-pay penalty. However, you must pay any remaining balance by the extended due date. If both the 5 percent failure-to-file penalty and the ½ percent failure-to-pay penalties apply in any month, the maximum penalty that you’ll pay for both is 5 percent. If you file your return more than 60 days after the due date or extended due date, the minimum penalty is the smaller of $135 or 100 percent of the unpaid tax. You will not have to pay a late-filing or late-payment penalty if you can show reasonable cause for not filing or paying on time. If the IRS owes you a refund, April 15 isn't much of a deadline. I suppose the real deadline is April 15, three years later - that's when the IRS keeps your refund and it becomes property of the Treasury. Of course, there's little reason to wait that long. Don't let the Treasury get all your interest.",
"qid": 10812,
"docid": "595121",
"rank": 24,
"score": 99052
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The heart of the question is: why can't Bill just pay whatever he owes based on his income in that quarter? If Q2 is gang busters, he'll increase his tax payment. Then if Q3 is surprisingly slow, he'll pay less than he paid in Q2. I think what's most interesting about this question is that the other answers are geared towards how a taxpayer is supposed to estimate taxes. But that's not my objective -- nor is it Bill's objective. My [his] real objective is: In other words, the answer to this question either needs to deal with not overpaying, or it needs to deal with mitigating the underpayment penalty. AFAICT, there are 2 solutions: Solution 1 Figure your estimated taxes based on last year's tax. You won't owe a penalty if your withholding + estimated tax payments in each quarter are 25% or more of your previous year's tax liability. Here's the section that I am basing this on: http://www.irs.gov/publications/p505/ch04.html Minimum required each period. You will owe a penalty for any 2011 payment period for which your estimated tax payment plus your withholding for the period and overpayments for previous periods was less than the smaller of: 22.5% of your 2011 tax, or 25% of your 2010 tax. (Your 2010 tax return must cover a 12-month period.) Solution 2 Use the \"\"Annualized Income Installment Method\"\". This is not a method for calculating estimated taxes, per se. It's actually a method for reducing or eliminating your underpayment penalty. It's also intended to assist tax payers with unpredictable incomes. If you did not receive your income evenly throughout the year (for example, your income from a shop you operated at a marina was much larger in the summer than it was during the rest of the year), you may be able to lower or eliminate your penalty by figuring your underpayment using the annualized income installment method. Emphasis added. In order to take advantage of this, you'll need to send in a Schedule AI at the end of the year along with a Form 2210. The downside to this is that you're basically racking up underpayment penalties throughout the year, then at the end of the year you're asking the IRS to rescind your penalty. The other risk is that you still pay estimated taxes on your Q2 - Q4 earnings in Q1, you just pay much less than 25%. So if you have a windfall later in the year, I think you could get burned on your Q1 underpayment.\"",
"qid": 10812,
"docid": "488954",
"rank": 25,
"score": 98346
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: ADP does not know your full tax situation and while the standard exemption system (actually designed by the IRS not ADP) works fairly well for most people it is an approximation. This system is designed so most people will end up with a small refund while some people will end up owing small amounts. So, while it is possible that ADP has messed up the calculations it is unlikely this is the cause. The most likely cause is that approximation ends ups making you pay less tax during the year than you actually owe. A few people like your friend may end up owing large amounts due to various circumstances. It is always your responsibility to make sure you pay enough tax throughout the year. While this technically means that you need to do your taxes every quarter during the year to make sure you pay the correct tax during the year, for most people this ends up being unnecessary as the approximation works fine. It is possible the exemption system failed your friend, but much more commonly people owe penalties because they put the wrong number of exemptions or had other side income. On a related note, most people in finance would argue that your situation where you owe some money at tax time, but not so much that you have to pay a penalty, is actually the best way to go. Getting a tax refund actually means you paid more tax than you needed to. This is similar to giving an interest-free loan to the government.",
"qid": 10812,
"docid": "261003",
"rank": 26,
"score": 98339
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You can file a revised W-4 with your employer claiming more allowances than you do now. More allowances means less Federal tax and (if applicable and likely with a separate form) less state tax. This doesn't affect social security and Medicare with holding, though. That being said, US taxes are on a pay-as-you-go system. If the IRS determines that you're claiming more allowances than you're eligible for and not paying the proper taxes throughout the year, they will hit you with an underpayment penalty fee, which would likely negate the benefits of keeping that money in the first place. This is why independent contractors and self-employed people pay quarterly or estimated taxes. Depending on the employer, they may require proof of the allowances for adjustment before they accept the revised W-4.",
"qid": 10812,
"docid": "227197",
"rank": 27,
"score": 98271
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The W4 specifies withholding for income taxes, FICA taxes are not impacted. The tax withholding is do that you do not need to make estimated tax payments. Failing to make sufficient quarterly estimated tax payments or withholding a sufficient amount could result in you being hit with under payment penalties but nothing more. The under payment penalties will be figured out as part of you income tax return. What you should have done when you discovered this was use the extra withholding line on the W4 to further increase your withholding. The nice thing about withholding is that you back load it and the IRS does not care. The company has no liability here. It is your responsibility to update them when your personal circumstances change. You will be fully responsible for the tax bill. There is no company paid portion of your income tax so they are not impacted. The company only pays an employer share of FICA and that is not impacted by how you fill out the W4. First thing to do is figure out how much you owe the IRS. Then determine if you can pay it or if you need to investigate an installment option. In any case make sure to file your return on time.",
"qid": 10812,
"docid": "283374",
"rank": 28,
"score": 97417
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Yes, you can send in a 2012 1040-ES form with a check to cover your tax liability. However, you will likely have to pay penalties for not paying tax in timely fashion as well as interest on the late payment. You can have the IRS figure the penalty and bill you for it, or you can complete Form 2210 (on which these matters are figured out) yourself and file it with your Form 1040. The long version of Form 2210 often results in the smallest extra amount due but is considerably more time-consuming to complete correctly. Alternatively, if you or your wife have one or more paychecks coming before the end of 2012, it might be possible to file a new W-4 form with the HR Department with a request to withhold additional amounts as Federal income tax. I say might because if the last paycheck of the year will be issued in just a few days' time, it might already have been sent for processing, and HR might tell you it is too late. But, depending on the take-home pay, it might be possible to have the entire $2000 withheld as additional income tax instead of sending in a 1040-ES. The advantage of doing it through withholding is that you are allowed to treat the entire withholding for 2012 as satisfying the timely filing requirements. So, no penalty for late payment even though you had a much bigger chunk withheld in December, and no interest due either. If you do use this approach, remember that Form W-4 applies until it is replaced with another, and so HR will continue to withhold the extra amount on your January paychecks as well. So, file a new W-4 in January to get back to normal withholding. (Fix the extra exemption too so the problem does not recur in 2013).",
"qid": 10812,
"docid": "442146",
"rank": 29,
"score": 96354
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I don't do this at all, but it's the internet, so hey, why not? According to the IRS, penalties and fines are only non-deductible when they are paid for actual violations of laws/regulations. So what crushedbyadwarf said is probably correct. The penalty/fine reduces their income, and they become entitled to a refund on the tax they paid on that income. It's still a questionable tax treatment of the penalty/fine.",
"qid": 10812,
"docid": "301266",
"rank": 30,
"score": 95865
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Assuming U.S. law, there are \"\"safe harbor\"\" provisions for exactly this kind of situation. There are several possibilities, but the most likely one is that if your withholding and estimated tax payments for 2016 totaled at least as much as your tax bill for 2015 there's no penalty. For the full rules, see IRS Publication 17.\"",
"qid": 10812,
"docid": "11454",
"rank": 31,
"score": 95394
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: There is a shortcut you can use when calculating federal estimated taxes. Some states may allow the same type of estimation, but I know at least one (my own--Illinois) that does not. The shortcut: you can completely base your estimated taxes for this year on last year's tax return and avoid any underpayment penalty. A quick summary can be found here (emphasis mine): If your prior year Adjusted Gross Income was $150,000 or less, then you can avoid a penalty if you pay either 90 percent of this year's income tax liability or 100 percent of your income tax liability from last year (dividing what you paid last year into four quarterly payments). This rule helps if you have a big spike in income one year, say, because you sell an investment for a huge gain or win the lottery. If wage withholding for the year equals the amount of tax you owed in the previous year, then you wouldn't need to pay estimated taxes, no matter how much extra tax you owe on your windfall. Note that this does not mean you will not owe money when you file your return next April; this shortcut ensures that you pay at least the minimum allowed to avoid penalty. You can see this for yourself by filling out the worksheet on form 1040ES. Line 14a is what your expected tax this year will be, based on your estimated income. Line 14b is your total tax from last year, possibly with some other modifications. Line 14c then asks you to take the lesser of the two numbers. So even if your expected tax this year is one million dollars, you can still base your estimated payments on last year's tax.",
"qid": 10812,
"docid": "127974",
"rank": 32,
"score": 93696
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I just want to point out something that seems to be generally true: If you are supposed to report something to the IRS, and you don't, the IRS will probably send you a letter assuming the maximum possible tax liability, and it's up to you to prove that scenario is incorrect. In your case you obviously owe no tax, but since you didn't report it, the IRS simply assumed that you do owe tax until you prove otherwise. You're one form away from fixing the issue. I have first hand experience that this is also true if you forget to report an HSA distribution. I received a letter considering my entire distribution as if it was for non eligible medical expenses. This made the amount taxable and had an additional 20% penalty to boot. Of course I have medical receipts for all of the distributions which makes them not taxable, and had I simply put the correct number on my return to begin with I wouldn't have had to fill out the additional form to correct my mistake.",
"qid": 10812,
"docid": "183688",
"rank": 33,
"score": 92968
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Yes, they're referring to the credit card dispute (chargeback) process. In the case of dispute, credit card company will refund/freeze your charge so you don't have to pay until the dispute is resolved (or at all, if resolved in your favor). If the dispute is resolved in your favor, your credit card company will charge back the merchant's service provider which in turn will charge back (if it can) the merchant itself. So the one taking the most risk in this scenario is the merchant provider, this is why merchants that are high risk pay significantly higher fees or get dropped.",
"qid": 10812,
"docid": "328760",
"rank": 34,
"score": 92625
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You can and are supposed to report self-employment income on Schedule C (or C-EZ if eligible, which a programmer likely is) even when the payer isn't required to give you 1099-MISC (or 1099-K for a payment network now). From there, after deducting permitted expenses, it flows to 1040 (for income tax) and Schedule SE (for self-employment tax). See https://www.irs.gov/individuals/self-employed for some basics and lots of useful links. If this income is large enough your tax on it will be more than $1000, you may need to make quarterly estimated payments (OR if you also have a 'day job' have that employer increase your withholding) to avoid an underpayment penalty. But if this is the first year you have significant self-employment income (or other taxable but unwithheld income like realized capital gains) and your economic/tax situation is otherwise unchanged -- i.e. you have the same (or more) payroll income with the same (or more) withholding -- then there is a 'safe harbor': if your withholding plus estimated payments this year is too low to pay this year's tax but it is enough to pay last year's tax you escape the penalty. (You still need to pay the tax due, of course, so keep the funds available for that.) At the end of the first year when you prepare your return you will see how the numbers work out and can more easily do a good estimate for the following year(s). A single-member LLC or 'S' corp is usually disregarded for tax purposes, although you can elect otherwise, while a (traditional) 'C' corp is more complicated and AIUI out-of-scope for this Stack; see https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/business-structures for more.",
"qid": 10812,
"docid": "434351",
"rank": 35,
"score": 92249
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: 1040ES uses the smaller number because that's what triggers the penalties. (That is, you are penalized if what you prepay is less than your total 2013 liability and less than 90% of your 2014 liability.) However, estimated taxes are just estimates. If you pay too little, you could face a penalty, but there's no penalty for paying too much -- you'll just get a refund as usual. It seems that your concern stems from the fact that this is the first year you're in this tax situation and so you're unsure if your estimates are accurate. In your comment to Pete Belford's answer, you also indicated you aren't worried about being unable to pay, but only about accidentally underpaying. In this case, you could just err on the side of caution and pay more than 1040ES says you owe. (You don't actually file the 1040ES, the calculations are just for your own use.) For instance, you could prepay based on the higher of your two estimates, if you can afford it; or, if you can't afford that much, hedge the estimate payments up a bit to an amount you can afford that is closer to the higher estimate. At the end of the year if you paid too much you can get a refund as usual. After this year, you will presumably have a better sense of your income and your tax liability, and can make more accurate estimates for next year.",
"qid": 10812,
"docid": "274937",
"rank": 36,
"score": 92042
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Estimated tax payments should be a reasonable estimate of what you owe for that time period. If it seems reasonable to you, it is probably reasonable. Sure, you can adjust for varying-length periods. As long as, in the end, you can and do pay what you owe, and don't underpay the estimated/withholding by enough that you owe a penalty, the IRS isn't all that picky about how the money is actually distributed through the year.",
"qid": 10812,
"docid": "203173",
"rank": 37,
"score": 91229
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: employed under the table and doesn't have a bank account If I could make that size 10,000,000 font I would. Your friend likely also isn't paying taxes. The student loan penalties will be nothing compared to what the IRS does to you. Avoid taking financial advice from that person.",
"qid": 10812,
"docid": "560749",
"rank": 38,
"score": 90585
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The difference is whether or not you have a contract that stipulates the payment plan, interest, and late payment penalties. If you have one then the IRS treats the transaction as a load/loan servicing. If not the IRS sees the money transfer as a gift.",
"qid": 10812,
"docid": "214934",
"rank": 39,
"score": 90319
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"If you don't withhold enough you'll pay penalties. The best would be to withhold just enough not to have any additional liabilities or refunds at the end of the year. IRS gives you some space to play in case you miscalculate and withhold a little bit less (they'll \"\"look the other way\"\" if you end up withholding up to as low as 90% of your tax liability). Anything below that triggers penalties, interests and fees. IRS pub 505 for details.\"",
"qid": 10812,
"docid": "507077",
"rank": 40,
"score": 89436
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: In how much trouble can I get exactly if the IRS finds out? I understand that there's a 6 year statute of limitations on criminal charges and no limitation at all on fraud. Is this considered fraud? I'm assuming not. There's no statute of limitations for fraud (which is a criminal charge). The statute of limitations is for failure to report income which is not fraud. In your case, since you willingly decided to not report it knowingly that you should, it can most definitely account for fraud, so I wouldn't count on statute of limitations in this case. I should amend my taxes for those years That would be the easiest way to go. would the IRS go all the way and file criminal charges considering the amount of money I owe They have the legal right to, and if you do get caught - likely they will. Easy money for them, since you obviously have income and can pay all the fines and penalties. Practically speaking, what's the worst case scenario? Theoretically - can be jail as well. Being charged in a criminal court, even if the eventual punishment is just a penalty, is a punishment of its own. You'll have troubles finding jobs, passing security checks, getting loans approved, etc. For $3200, when you're in 25% bracket as an individual for years, I'd say not worth it.",
"qid": 10812,
"docid": "590234",
"rank": 41,
"score": 88639
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: As long as you paid 90% of the taxes you owed, you are good, and there will be no negative consequences. These calculations are supposed to help you find the right amount, not to bind you to it, so you don't need to worry too much about exactness. The most common problem is that people underpay, and not come up to the 90% limit (and don't have the cash to pay when tax-day comes). If you happen to come in under 90% (which will come out when you file taxes), you will owe interest for the underpayment (as you should have paid it some time ago); typically 0.5% per month; also up to 10% in addition, depending on the situation. This is expensive, so you should avoid it; and playing to hit 90.01% is dangerous - better try to hit about 100% and use the 90% limit as safety margin, as intended.",
"qid": 10812,
"docid": "305914",
"rank": 42,
"score": 88626
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: First, if you haven't seen it yet, check out the IRS Taxpayer Advocate Service's I Don't Have My Refund page. It discusses different things that can go wrong with receiving your refund and what to do about it. From your post, it sounds like you've tried all of the normal things to do, and you've tried calling in to the IRS. What you might not know is that there are local IRS offices that you can visit and talk to a real person face-to-face. Hopefully, you'll find someone helpful there who can either explain to you what is going on or put you in touch with someone who can help. To find your local IRS office, go to the Contact Your Local IRS Office page and click on the Office Locator button. Office visits are generally by appointment only, so you'll need to call the number for the office you want to visit and make an appointment. Alternatively, if you can't get anywhere with the IRS, you could contact the Taxpayer Advocate Service, which is an independent organization within the IRS that exists to help people with disputes with the IRS, and they have an office in every state. You could try contacting them and seeing if they can help you with your issue. To answer your question about this year's tax return: At least for the federal return, your refund from last year does not really affect this year's tax return. You should be able to file this year's return no matter what happens with last year's refund. That having been said, you should get the refund matter straightened out as soon as you can. Good luck.",
"qid": 10812,
"docid": "53496",
"rank": 43,
"score": 88121
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: In general, you are expected to pay all the money you owe in taxes by the end of the tax year, or you may have to pay a penalty. But you don't have to pay a penalty if: The amount you owe (i.e. total tax due minus what you paid in withholding and estimated taxes) is less than $1000. You paid at least 90% of your total tax bill. You paid at least 100% of last year's tax bill. https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc306.html I think point #3 may work for you here. Suppose that last year your total tax liability was, say, $5,000. This year your tax on your regular income would be $5,500, but you have this additional capital gain that brings your total tax to $6,500. If your withholding was $5,000 -- the amount you owed last year -- than you'll owe the difference, $1,500, but you won't have to pay any penalties. If you normally get a refund every year, even a small one, then you should be fine. I'd check the numbers to be sure, of course. If you normally have to pay something every April 15, or if your income and therefore your withholding went down this year for whatever reason, then you should make an estimated payment. The IRS has a page explaining the rules in more detail: https://www.irs.gov/help-resources/tools-faqs/faqs-for-individuals/frequently-asked-tax-questions-answers/estimated-tax/large-gains-lump-sum-distributions-etc/large-gains-lump-sum-distributions-etc",
"qid": 10812,
"docid": "267466",
"rank": 44,
"score": 87495
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: From personal experience, stick with the IRS. As @littleadv pointed out I found the APR to be significantly lower (and for me it stayed the same through out the years I was on the plan - the penalty amount shown on the statement increases as it accumulates, but the APR stays the same) and, unlike credit cards, the debt does not show on your credit report. So unless you tell the bank about it, they won't know (not speaking to to ethical side of not telling them, that'd be up to you).",
"qid": 10812,
"docid": "521102",
"rank": 45,
"score": 86961
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: IANAL but I'd think common sense would say that if you take advantage of one of the special cases that allow you to withdraw from a retirement plan without penalty, and then for whatever reason you don't use the money for a legal purpose, you would have to either return the money or pay the tax penalty. And I'll go out on a limb here without any documentation and guess that if you lie to the IRS and say that you withdrew the money for an exempt purpose and instead use it to go on vacation and you get caught, that you will not only have to pay the tax penalty but will also be liable for criminal charges of tax fraud. If the law and/or IRS regulations say that the only legal exceptions are A, B, and C, that pretty clearly means that if you do D, you are breaking the law. And in the eyes of the government, failing to pay the taxes you owe is way worse than robbery, murder, or rape.",
"qid": 10812,
"docid": "261189",
"rank": 46,
"score": 86836
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Every year, you save your receipts, track your expenses and - when April comes around - pay your taxes. But what if you know of someone who isn't as honest as you are? Someone who skims on their income or misreports information in order to be placed in a lower bracket. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) estimates that Americans underpay their [taxes](http://www.investopedia.com/articles/taxes/09/reporting-tax-cheats.asp) by about $345 billion every year, according to Barron's, the popular financial news website and magazine. In fiscal 2009, the IRS collected $48.9 billion in enforcement revenue. This process required the employment of thousands of revenue officers, agents and special agents. Unfortunately, this type of enforcement happens every year and often spans to multiple previous years. In the end, there is still a large amount of tax money that goes unpaid. There's definitely a gap between the tax evader and the IRS. Evaders are usually exposed due to a slip-up on their part or a tip from a bystander. If you'd like to help close that gap, you can. But why should you, and how is it done? **Why Help the IRS?** Nobody likes paying more than their fair share of taxes in order to compensate for others who intentionally evade theirs. Why shouldn't tax evaders give up a portion of their incomes to provide things that benefit the general good, like roads and sewers, when you do? Reporting a tax cheat is like reporting a shoplifter - you're just asking them to pay for something they're trying to unfairly get for free. **Gather the Evidence** The IRS is not likely to pursue someone without good reason. If the time and resources are going to be spent, the odds need to be good that the efforts will result in a payoff. Besides determining who, what, where, when and why the person evaded his or her taxes, the IRS will need specific information (type of violation, availability of books or records). Having a hunch without supporting details just isn't good enough. Also ensure that the evasion is financially significant enough. For example, stating that your neighbor failed to report a $50 babysitting earning is not going to interest the IRS. On the other hand, if you work for a large business that you suspect is underreporting its income, the IRS will likely be very interested. **Blowing the Whistle on a Tax Cheat** The IRS may pay awards in exchange for valuable information that leads to the collection of \"\"taxes, penalties, interest or other amounts from the noncompliant taxpayer,\"\" according to the agency's website. There are various types of awards granted, depending on the evader's income level and classification (business or individual). The IRS likely chooses to focus its efforts on these larger cases because they have a higher payoff. It has also been suggested that higher income individuals have been found to cheat more frequently and for higher sums of money, mostly because they tend to earn more self-reported income. **Cover Your Assets** Fabricating a complaint in order to spite an undesirable neighbor who does, in fact, pay taxes is not a good way to get revenge. When you sign off on the IRS form providing your report, you are stating, \"\"I declare under penalty of perjury that I have examined this application, my accompanying statement and supporting documentation, and aver that such application is true, correct, and complete to the best of my knowledge.\"\" You don't want to be found guilty of perjury. **Keep It Legal** Breaking into the CFO's office at work to get evidence to support your claim is not a good idea. The IRS doesn't want you to break the law to help find a tax cheat. However, if you are the bookkeeper for a company that is cheating on its taxes and part of your job involves working with documents that prove the company is cheating, that paperwork would be acceptable to submit to the IRS. While the IRS wants to maintain your privacy, if the case against the person you report ends up going to trial, you could be asked to be a witness. If you're comfortable with that possibility, go ahead and put your name on the report. **Reasons Not to Report a Cheat** If your \"\"information\"\" is really just speculation, it's probably best to keep it to yourself. As explained earlier in this article, the IRS does not have the resources to pursue your hunch. If you, yourself, are a tax cheat, it might be best to stay in the clear. There's nothing that says that people who submit claims of cheating by others will have their own tax returns examined more carefully. Still, it stands to reason that you wouldn't want to do anything to call IRS attention to yourself if you're not in compliance with its rules. If you helped plan or initiate the cheating of the person you are reporting, it might be smart to think twice. If you decide to report a crime in which you took part, be prepared for the consequences, and definitely don't expect to receive a reward. As with many government processes, there's a lot of red tape to cut through. Therefore, if you're looking for fast cash, you might want to look elsewhere. It can take several years to complete an investigation of tax evasion – and if there is no conviction, there is no award. Not only does the IRS have to determine guilt, it has to actually collect the amount owed before paying you. What's more, if the IRS determines that your tip did not \"\"substantially contributed to the Service's detection and recovery of tax,\"\" you will not receive an award. It's also important to note that, under some circumstances, like attorney-client confidentiality, you may not be able to report tax cheating. **Other Considerations** If you earn a whistle blower award, it will need to be reported when you file your taxes. If you're blowing the whistle on your employer and you're not planning to change jobs, an IRS audit could make your work situation extremely unpleasant. This isn't to say that you shouldn't report someone who is cheating, but it is something to consider. **What's Next** If you decide to report the person or business you suspect of cheating, use IRS form3949-A. This form asks for basic information on the tax evader you are reporting, the types of violations you believe to be committed, the details of the violation and how you learned about it. If you do not want to fill out this form, you can also simply write the IRS a letter. If you are providing your name and want the possibility of receiving an award, also submit IRS Form 211 which is an application for the award. **The Bottom Line** Underpayment of federal income taxes (and, subsequently, state income taxes) is a serious problem. The IRS encourages people to submit tips by allowing anonymous submissions and offering generous rewards for informants who are willing to identify themselves. If you can substantiate your claims and are willing to accept the potential consequences of squealing, reporting a tax cheat can be lucrative not only for the government, but also for you. **Take Control of Your Money** Whether you’re buying a home, consolidating debt or Planning a Yearly Budget, Investopedia has the guide to overhauling your personal spending, saving and investing. [Click here](http://www.investopedia.com/accounts/signupnewsletter/?list=pf) to start managing your money like the pros.\"",
"qid": 10812,
"docid": "216274",
"rank": 47,
"score": 86607
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: There are probably specific laws that control landlord/tenant rent disputes. But your friend's argument assumes that there aren't. Let's assume that there aren't. So there are two possibilities. Either the contract directly addresses this issue or it doesn't. If the contract directly and specifically addresses this issue, then that controls. Your friend is not claiming that it is specifically addressed. So the general principle is this -- when something occurs within a contract that wasn't explicitly discussed by the parties, courts will try to figure out what the parties likely would have agreed to had they discussed the specific issue (without changing the agreed terms of the contract). This should produce the result that is fair to both parties. Your friend is arguing then that had he and the landlord discussed the issue, the landlord would have agreed that in the event he is no longer able to accept credit cards easily, your friend could live there rent free. That doesn't seem right to me. Does it seem right to you? Much more likely they would have agreed that he might have some leeway to work out a new payment scheme and maybe some late rent should be forgiven if he made an attempt to pay on time but couldn't make arrangements. But I don't see more than that being reasonable.",
"qid": 10812,
"docid": "221838",
"rank": 48,
"score": 86308
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"You need to hire a tax professional and have them sort it out for you properly and advise you on how to proceed next. Don't do it yourself, you're way past the stage when you could. You're out of compliance, and you're right - there are penalties that a professional might know how to mitigate, and maybe even negotiate a waiver with the IRS, depending on the circumstances of the case. Be careful of answers like \"\"you don't need to pay anything\"\" that are based on nothing of facts. Based on what you said in the question and in the comments, it actually sounds like you do have to pay something, and you're in trouble with the IRS already. It might be that you misunderstood something in the past (e.g.: you said the business had filed taxes before, but in fact that might never happened and you're confusing \"\"business filed taxes\"\" with \"\"I filed schedule C\"\") or it might be the actual factual representation of things (you did in fact filed a tax return for your business with the IRS, either form 1120 of some kind or 1065). In any case a good licensed (CPA or EA) professional will help you sort it out and educate you on what you need to do in the future.\"",
"qid": 10812,
"docid": "142623",
"rank": 49,
"score": 86009
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: As others have mentioned yes it is taxable. Whether it goes through payroll and has FICA taken out is your issue in terms that you need to report it and you will an extra 7.5% self employment taxes that would normally be covered by your employer. Your employer may have problems but that isn't your issue. Contrary to what other users are saying chances are there won't be any penalties for you. Best case you have already paid 100% of last years tax liability and you can file your normal tax return with no issues. Worst case you need to pay quarterly taxes on that amount in the current quarter. IRS quarters are a little weird but I think you need to pay by Jan 15th for a December payment. You don't have to calculate your entire liability you can just fill out the very short form and attach a check for about what you will owe. There is a form you can fill out to show what quarter you received the money and you paid in it is a bit more complex but will avoid the penalty. For penalties quarterly taxes count in the quarter received where as payroll deductions count as if they were paid in the first quarter of the year. From the IRS The United States income tax is a pay-as-you-go tax, which means that tax must be paid as you earn or receive your income during the year. You can either do this through withholding or by making estimated tax payments. If you do not pay your tax through withholding, or do not pay enough tax that way, you might also have to pay estimated taxes. If you did not pay enough tax throughout the year, either through withholding or by making estimated tax payments, you may have to pay a penalty for underpayment of estimated tax. Generally, most taxpayers will avoid this penalty if they owe less than $1,000 in tax after subtracting their withholdings and credits, or if they paid at least 90% of the tax for the current year, or 100% of the tax shown on the return for the prior year, whichever is smaller.",
"qid": 10812,
"docid": "259924",
"rank": 50,
"score": 85842
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I wouldn't do this. There is a chance that your check could get lost/misdirected/misapplied, etc. Then you would need to deal with the huge bureaucracy to try to get it fixed while interest and penalties pile up. What you can do is have the IRS withdraw the money themselves by providing the rounting number and account number of your bank. This should work whether is it a traditional brick and mortar bank or an online bank.",
"qid": 10812,
"docid": "525200",
"rank": 51,
"score": 85814
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Your simplest option, and probably the only reasonable one, is to dispute the original charge with your bank. Since you used a debit card and not a credit card, you don't have quite as much protection, but you still can dispute the charge and ask your bank to step in and help. See this debit card dispute article for more information on disputing a charge for a debit card. You may or may not have a case here, depending on the specifics. If the merchant accepted your payment without letting you know you should have used paypal, you may have a shot at getting the full refund; but if it was clearly labelled that you should have used paypal, it may be harder.",
"qid": 10812,
"docid": "169287",
"rank": 52,
"score": 85687
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I believe that recharacterizing a contribution for a given year can only be done before the tax filing deadline for that year. So it would be too late to recharacterize them now. At this point, I believe the only things you can do are (see What if You Contribute Too Much?): The implications are not at the time of retirement -- rather, the implications are that every year since the excess contribution, you have to pay a penalty of 6% of the excess contribution, until you take it out (or it is absorbed into a future year's contribution limit). If you haven't been reporting that penalty on your tax returns in the last few years since your contribution, that also means you have been underpaying your taxes and you need to go back and fix that.",
"qid": 10812,
"docid": "194654",
"rank": 53,
"score": 85362
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: As a general premise: In most of the online transactions in case of dispute the benefit of doubt is given to the customer. IE if the customer refuses to pay and claims that its not his transaction, the card company reverses the charges and does not pay the merchant (or recovers if its already paid). There are many types of online vendors who use a variety of methods to ensure that they are not at loss. Some of these are:",
"qid": 10812,
"docid": "430377",
"rank": 54,
"score": 85165
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I'm mostly guessing based on existing documentation, and have no direct experience, so take this with a pinch of salt. My best understanding is that you need to file Form 843. The instructions for the form say that it can be used to request: A refund or abatement of a penalty or addition to tax due to reasonable cause or other reason (other than erroneous written advice provided by the IRS) allowed under the law. The \"\"reasonable cause\"\" here is a good-faith confusion about what Line 79 of the form was referring to. In Form 843, the IRC Section Code you should enter is 6654 (estimated tax). For more, see the IRC Section 6654 (note, however, that if you already received a CP14 notice from the IRS, you should cross-check that this section code is listed on the notice under the part that covers the estimated tax penalty). If your request is accepted, the IRS should issue you Notice 746, item 17 Penalty Removed: You can get more general information about the tax collection process, and how to challenge it, from the pages linked from Understanding your CP14 Notice\"",
"qid": 10812,
"docid": "568165",
"rank": 55,
"score": 85132
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I'm also self employed. Your circumstances may be different, but my accountant told me there was no reason to pay more than 100% of last years' taxes. (Even if this years' earnings are higher.) So I divide last year by 4 and make the quarterlies. As an aside, I accidentally underpaid last year (mis-estimated), and the penalty was much smaller than I expected.",
"qid": 10812,
"docid": "85672",
"rank": 56,
"score": 85020
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"There is no penalty for foreigners but rather a 30% mandatory income tax withholding from distributions from 401(k) plans. You will \"\"get it back\"\" when you file the income tax return for the year and calculate your actual tax liability (including any penalties for a premature distribution from the 401(k) plan). You are, of course, a US citizen and not a foreigner, and thus are what the IRS calls a US person (which includes not just US citizens but permanent immigrants to the US as well as some temporary visa holders), but it is entirely possible that your 401(k) plan does not know this explicitly. This IRS web page tells 401(k) plan administrators Who can I presume is a US person? A retirement plan distribution is presumed to be made to a U.S. person only if the withholding agent: A payment that does not meet these rules is presumed to be made to a foreign person. Your SSN is presumably on file with the 401(k) plan administrator, but perhaps you are retired into a country that does not have an income tax treaty with the US and that's the mailing address that is on file with your 401(k) plan administrator? If so, the 401(k) administrator is merely following the rules and not presuming that you are a US person. So, how can you get around this non-presumption? The IRS document cited above (and the links therein) say that if the 401(k) plan has on file a W-9 form that you submitted to them, and the W-9 form includes your SSN, then the 401(k) plan has valid documentation to associate the distribution as being made to a US person, that is, the 401(k) plan does not need to make any presumptions; that you are a US person has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. So, to answer your question \"\"Will I be penalized when I later start a regular monthly withdrawal from my 401(k)?\"\" Yes, you will likely have mandatory 30% income tax withholding on your regular 401(k) distributions unless you have established that you are a US person to your 401(k) plan by submitting a W-9 form to them.\"",
"qid": 10812,
"docid": "489790",
"rank": 57,
"score": 84893
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Can I write off the $56,000 based on demand letters? Or do I need to finish suing him to write-off the loss? No and no. You didn't pay taxes on the money (since you didn't file tax returns...), so what are you writing off? If you didn't get the income - you didn't get the income. Nothing to write off. Individuals in the US are usually cash-based, so you don't write off income \"\"accrued but never received\"\" since you don't pay taxes on accrued income, only income you've actually received. Should I file the 2012 taxes now? Or wait until the lawsuit finishes? You should have filed by April 2013, more than a year ago. You might have asked for an extension till October 2013, more than half a year ago. Now - you're very very late, and should file your tax return ASAP. If you have some tax due - you're going to get hit with high penalties for underpaying and late filing. If the lawsuit finishes in 2014, does it apply to the 2012 taxes? Probably not, but talk to your lawyer. In any case - it is irrelevant to the question whether to file the tax return or not. If because of the lawsuit results something changes - you file an amended return.\"",
"qid": 10812,
"docid": "163199",
"rank": 58,
"score": 84892
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I know nothing about this stuff. Am I in trouble? You might be. If you don't file your return the IRS may \"\"make up\"\" one for you based on the (partial) information they have. Then they'll assess taxes and penalties and will go after you to pay those. Will I be hit with interest/penalties? You may if any money is owed. You may also lose the refund if you wait for too long (3 years after the due date). You may also be hit with the penalties for non-filing/late filing by your State. Not owing to IRS doesn't mean you also don't owe to the State - you can get hit with interest and late payment penalties there too. He has all my paperwork (I probably have copies... somewhere...) Should I go somewhere else and start fresh? He must return all the original paperwork you gave him. He can be disbarred if he doesn't. If you did 2013 yourself - what was significantly different in 2012 that you couldn't do yourself? If nothing - then just do it yourself and be done with it. You can buy 2012 preparation software at very deep discounts now. Otherwise - yes, go somewhere else. Busy season is over and it shouldn't be difficult to find another preparer/EA/CPA to do the work for you.\"",
"qid": 10812,
"docid": "225511",
"rank": 59,
"score": 84430
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Generally if you're a sole S-Corp employee - it is hard to explain how the S-Corp earned more money than your work is worth. So it is reasonable that all the S-Corp profits would be pouring into your salary. Especially when the amounts are below the FICA SS limits when separating salary and distributions are a clear sign of FICA tax evasion. So while it is hard to say if you're going to be subject to audit, my bet is that if you are - the IRS will claim that you underpaid yourself. One of the more recent cases dealing with this issue is Watson v Commissioner. In this case, Watson (through his S-Corp which he solely owned) received distributions from a company in the amounts of ~400K. He drew 24K as salary, and the rest as distributions. The IRS forced re-characterizing distributions into salary up to 93K (the then-SS portion of the FICA limit), and the courts affirmed. Worth noting, that Watson didn't do all the work himself, and that was the reason that some of the income was allowed to be considered distribution. That wouldn't hold in a case where the sole shareholder was the only revenue producer, and that is exactly my point. I feel that it is important to add another paragraph about Nolo, newspaper articles, and charlatans on the Internet. YOU CANNOT RELY ON THEM. You cannot defend your position against IRS by saying \"\"But the article on Nolo said I can not pay SE taxes on my earnings!\"\", you cannot say \"\"Some guy called littleadv lost an argument with some other guy called Ben Miller because Ben Miller was saying what everyone wants to hear\"\", and you can definitely not say \"\"But I don't want to pay taxes!\"\". There's law, there are legal precedents. When some guy on the Internet tells you exactly what you want to hear - beware. Many times when it is too good to be true - it is in fact not true. Many these articles are written by people who are interested in clients/business. By the time you get to them - you're already in deep trouble and will pay them to fix it. They don't care that their own \"\"advice\"\" got you into that trouble, because it is always written in generic enough terms that they can say \"\"Oh, but it doesn't apply to your specific situation\"\". That's the main problem with these free advice - they are worth exactly what you paid for them. When you actually pay your CPA/Attorney - they'll have to take responsibility over their advice. Then suddenly they become cautious. Suddenly they start mentioning precedents and rulings telling you to not do things. Or not, and try and play the audit roulette, but these types are long gone when you get caught.\"",
"qid": 10812,
"docid": "388704",
"rank": 60,
"score": 84115
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: That's true for the tax return. The T1135 has some late penalties. These only apply if you had to file one, some/most people don't. http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/nnrsdnts/cmmn/frgn/pnlts_grd-eng.html",
"qid": 10812,
"docid": "406390",
"rank": 61,
"score": 83432
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: In the U.S., there are laws that protect both employees and employers. Ask for proof of overpayment, and time to respond. If you feel you have a case, consult a lawyer that specializes in wage disputes. Otherwise, let them have their money, out of your last check if necessary. You don't want to have to go to court if you really do owe them. If you tell them a lawyer has accepted your case based on evidence, they may choose to settle out of court to avoid public embarrassment and legal fees, since, if you win, they also have to pay your court fees and legal fees, plus possible punitive damages. Conversely, if you go to court, but you owe them, you'll be subject to pay back what you owe plus their legal fees, which will be far more than you intend to pay them, or even what you'd get if you won. Losing would cost you dearly. Nobody can tell you what the outcome of your specific case will be, but unless the sum is significant, I would recommend that you accept the losses and walk away. While I know this can be hard, as someone who also lives the middle class paycheck-to-paycheck life, you probably can't afford to lose, and your company has expensive lawyers. Losing a few thousand dollars is easier than losing tens of thousands (or more) in a court battle. You can always seek assistance, such as unemployment, welfare, utility assistance, and other government programs to get back on your feet. If you owe them more than you can actually repay, try to negotiate. You want to stay out of court if at all practical. Their lawyers run hundreds of dollars per hour, so if they choose to, they can bury you financially if they have a case.",
"qid": 10812,
"docid": "393334",
"rank": 62,
"score": 83399
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: There are too many nuances to the question asked to explore fully but here are a few points to keep in mind. If you are a cash-basis taxpayer (most individuals are), then you are not required to pay taxes on the money that has been billed but not received as yet. If you operate on an accrual basis, then the income accrues to you the day you perform the service and not on the day you bill the client. You can make four equal payments of estimated tax on the due dates, and if these (together with any income tax withholding from wage-paying jobs) are at least 90% of your tax liability for that year, then you owe no penalties for underpayment of tax regardless of how your income varied over the year. If your income does vary considerably over the year (even for people who only have wages but who invest in mutual funds, the income can vary quite a bit since mutual funds typically declare dividends and capital gains in December), then you can pay different amounts in each quarterly installment of estimated tax. This is called the annualization method (a part of Form 2210 that is best avoided unless you really need to use it). Your annualized income for the payment due on June 15 is 2.4 = 12/5 times your taxable income through May 31. Thus, on Form 2210, you are allowed to assume that your average monthly taxable income through May 31 will continue for the rest of the year. You then compute the tax due on that annualized income and you are supposed to have paid at least 45% of that amount by June 15. Similarly for September 15 for which you look at income through August 31, you use a multiplier of 1.5 = 12/8 and need to pay 67.5% of the tax on the annualized income, and so on. If you miscalculate these numbers and pay too little tax in any installment, then you owe penalties for that quarter. Most people find that guesstimating the tax due for the entire year and paying it in equal installments is simpler than keeping track of nuances of the annualized method. Even simpler is to pay 100% of last year's tax in four equal installments (110% for high earners) and then no penalty is due at all. If your business is really taking off and your income is going to be substantially higher in one year, then this 100%/110% of last year's tax deal could allow you to postpone a significant chunk of your tax bill till April 15.",
"qid": 10812,
"docid": "449001",
"rank": 63,
"score": 83335
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Yes, the penalty is the tax you pay on it again when you withdraw the money. The withdrawal of the excess contribution is taxed as your wages (but no penalty). Excess contribution cannot be added to the basis or considered \"\"after-tax\"\" (hence the double taxation). Note that allowing you to keep the excess contribution in the plan may lead to disqualifying the plan, so it is likely that the plan administrator will force you to remove the excess contribution if they become aware of it. Otherwise you may end up forcing early 401(k) withdrawal on all of your co-workers. More on this IRS web page. And this one.\"",
"qid": 10812,
"docid": "257782",
"rank": 64,
"score": 83310
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"No, it is not true. That is one of the many \"\"conspiracy theorists'\"\" claims to not pay taxes, and is considered as frivolous (i.e.: punishable by very harsh penalties and criminal prosecution). Specifically to your question, the current Federal income tax framework was laid down in 1986, with the Tax Reform Act of 1986. It is codified under the title 26 of the US Code. It is usually referred to as the \"\"Internal Revenue Code\"\", or IRC.\"",
"qid": 10812,
"docid": "297676",
"rank": 65,
"score": 83151
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"You don't actually have to make four equal payments on US federal taxes; you can pay different amounts each quarter. To avoid penalties, you must have paid \"\"enough\"\" at the end of each quarter. If you pay too much in an early quarter, the surplus counts towards the amount due in later quarters. If you have paid too little as of the end of a quarter, that deficit counts against you for interest and penalties until it is made up in later quarters (or at year-end settlement). How much is \"\"enough\"\"? There are a number of ways of figuring it. You can see the list of exceptions to the penalty in the IRS documentation. Using unequal payments may require more complicated calculation methods to avoid or reduce penalties at year-end. If you have the stomach for it, you may want to study the Annualized Income Installment Method to see how uneven income might affect the penalty.\"",
"qid": 10812,
"docid": "292811",
"rank": 66,
"score": 83125
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: According the FSCS: If the bank fails FSCS would refund the maximum under our rules (currently £75,000 per person). Any credit balance over and above this would be offset against the mortgage by the insolvency practitioner responsible for the winding up of the bank. FSCS would play no part in that process. (Unless the savings were larger than the debts, but then it wouldn't make sense to have them in a zero interest offset account!) So the money would not be completely lost as such. Whether that would count as an overpayment is an open question, but perhaps a moot point anyway if the bank went under. (Finally, arguably, a pension or other investment might also be better for such amounts.)",
"qid": 10812,
"docid": "274922",
"rank": 67,
"score": 83120
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Your friend would have only been liable for a tax penalty if he withdrew more 529 money than he reported for qualified expenses. That said, if he took the distribution in his name, it triggers a 1099-Q report to the IRS in his name rather than his beneficiaries. This will likely be flagged by the IRS, since it looks like he withdrew the money, but didn't pay taxes and penalties on it, not the beneficiary. In other words, qualified education expenses only apply to the beneficiary, not the plan owner/contributor. In this case, the IRS would request additional documentation to show that the expenses were indeed qualified. To avoid this hassle, it's easiest to make sure the distribution is payed directly to the beneficiary rather than yourself. Once he or she has the check, then have them sign the check over to you or transfer it into your account. Otherwise you trigger an IRS 1099-Q in your name rather than your beneficiary.",
"qid": 10812,
"docid": "437405",
"rank": 68,
"score": 82893
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: As the name says, its for income earned in a Foreign country. If you have been paying US income tax on this while living in the US, nothing is going to change here. You should be informing yourself on how to avoid double taxation in your new country of residence. Passive income earned abroad (dividends, interest) also do not fall under this exemption. The purpose of the Foreign Earned Income Exclusion is to make it easy for expats who work abroad to avoid double income taxation without going through the complicated process of applying for tax credits. The US is the only industrial country that taxes its residents regardless of where they reside. That is also why it only goes to about $100,000 a year. If you are a high earner, they want to make it more difficult. Also as a side note, since you are going to be abroad for a year. I will point out that if you have more than $10,000 in foreign accounts at any point in the year you need to declare this in an FBAR form. This is not advertised as well as it should be and carries ridiculous penalties for non-compliance. I can't count the number of times I have heard a US expat say that they were unaware of this.",
"qid": 10812,
"docid": "385221",
"rank": 69,
"score": 82675
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: According to this section in Publication 15: Collecting underwithheld taxes from employees. If you withheld no income, social security, or Medicare taxes or less than the correct amount from an employee's wages, you can make it up from later pay to that employee. But you’re the one who owes the underpayment. Reimbursement is a matter for settlement between you and the employee. [...] it seems that if the employer withheld less than the correct amount of FICA taxes from you, it is still the employer who owes your FICA taxes to the government, not you. I do not believe there is a way for you, an employee (not self-employed), to directly pay FICA taxes to the government without going through the employer. The employer can deduct the underwithheld amount from you future paychecks (assuming you still work for them), or settle it with you in some other way. In other words, you owe the employer, and the employer owes the government, but you do not directly owe the government. If they do deduct it from your future pay, then they can issue a corrected W-2, to reflect the amount deducted from you. But they cannot issue a corrected W-2 that says FICA were deducted from you if it wasn't.",
"qid": 10812,
"docid": "88214",
"rank": 70,
"score": 82540
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: This is possible. In fact in the cases of debt settlement the collection companies typically issue a 1099 for the difference on what is owed and what is settled, making that taxable income. So the IRS sees it as income (in the US). However, this kind of dishonesty is not conducive to building long term wealth or wealth of significant means. As others have said this is fraud, but provided that one is truthful on the loan application, it would be impossible to prove. How can one prove that a person has no intention of paying a loan back? Doing this once or twice may ruin your ability to receive a loan for legitimate purposes for life.",
"qid": 10812,
"docid": "313500",
"rank": 71,
"score": 82080
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Not correct. First - when you say they don't tax the reimbursement, they are classifying it in a way that makes it taxable to you (just not withholding tax at that time). In effect, they are under-withholding, if these reimbursement are high enough, you'll have not just a tax bill, but penalties for not paying enough all year. My reimbursements do not produce any kind of pay stub, they are a direct deposit, and are not added to my income, not as they occur, nor at year end on W2. Have you asked them why they handle it this way? It's wrong, and it's costing you.",
"qid": 10812,
"docid": "233423",
"rank": 72,
"score": 81050
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Hearing somewhere is a level or two worse than \"\"my friend told me.\"\" You need to do some planning to forecast your full year income and tax bill. In general, you should be filing a quarterly form and tax payment. You'll still reconcile the year with an April filing, but if you are looking to save up to pay a huge bill next year, you are looking at the potential of a penalty for under-withholding. The instructions and payment coupons are available at the IRS site. At this point I'm required to offer the following advice - If you are making enough money that this even concerns you, you should consider starting to save for the future. A Solo-401(k) or IRA, or both. Read more on these two accounts and ask separate questions, if you'd like.\"",
"qid": 10812,
"docid": "208216",
"rank": 73,
"score": 80995
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Yes, it's taxable. If anyone suggests it's a gift, they are mistaken. There's a line on the 1040 for \"\"other\"\" and as long as you claim it, you're fine with the IRS. It's 2012 income as you already got it. Edit - mhoran makes two good points I'm not really able to address. (a) does a late bonus such as this effect one's penalty? (b) since it skipped payroll, will there be an issue by not having FICA withheld?\"",
"qid": 10812,
"docid": "95435",
"rank": 74,
"score": 80868
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Mortgages with a prepayment penalty usually do not charge points as a condition of issue. The points, usually in the range 1%-3% of the amount borrowed, are paid from the buyer's funds at the settlement, and are effectively the prepayment penalty. Once upon a time (e.g. 30 years ago), in some areas, buyers had a choice of This last option usually had a higher interest rate than the first two. It was advantageous for a buyer to accept this option if the buyer was sure that the mortgage would indeed be paid off in a short time, e.g. because a windfall of some kind (huge bonus, big inheritance, a killing in the stock market, a successful IPO) was anticipated, where the higher interest charged for only a few years did not make much of a difference. Taking this third option and hanging on to the mortgage over the full 15 or 20 or 25 or 30 year term would have been a very poor choice. I do not know if all three options are still available in the current mortgage market. The IRS treats points for original morttgages and points for re-financed mortgages differently for the purposes of Schedule A deductions. Points paid on an original mortgage are deductible as mortgage interest in the year paid, whereas points paid on a refinance must be amortized over the life of the loan so that the mortgage interest deduction is the sum of the interest paid in the monthly payments plus a fraction of the points paid for the refinance. The undeducted part of the points get deducted in the year that the mortgage is paid off early (or refinanced again). Prepayment penalties are, of course, deductible as mortgage interest in the year of the prepayment.",
"qid": 10812,
"docid": "397455",
"rank": 75,
"score": 80834
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"A reason to get an accountant is to avoid penalties for possible mistakes. That is, if you make a mistake, the IRS can impose penalties on you for negligence. If the professional makes the SAME mistake, the burden of proof for \"\"negligence\"\" shifts to the IRS, which probably means that you'll pay more taxes and interest, but NO penalties; hiring an accountant is prima facie evidence of NOT being negligent. I would get an accountant since this the first time for you in the present situation, when mistakes are most likely. If you feel that s/he did the same for you that you would have done for yourself, then you might go back to doing your own taxes in later years.\"",
"qid": 10812,
"docid": "325348",
"rank": 76,
"score": 80669
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I think you're off base here. The bureaus only remove information if the creditor cannot verify any dispute within 30 days, or if the information's super old. If the creditor can provide corrected information, then the credit bureau is required to apply it to its own database. A dispute can be about the entire account, or it can be about payment status within a given span (or spans) of time. Of course, it's the consumer who has to initiate the dispute.",
"qid": 10812,
"docid": "268777",
"rank": 77,
"score": 80368
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Assuming US/IRS: If you filed on time and paid what you believed was the correct amount, they might be kind and let it go. But don't assume they will. If you can't file on time, you are supposed to file estimated taxes before the deadline, and to make that payment large enough to cover what you are likely to owe them. If there is excess, you get it back when you file the actual forms. If there is a shortfall, you may be charged fees, essentially interest on the money you still owe them calculated from the submission due date. If you fail to file anything before the due date, then the fees/interest surcharge is calculated on the entire amount still due; effectively the same as if you had filled an estimated return erroneously claiming you owed nothing. Note that since the penalty scales with the amount still due, large errors do cost you more than small ones. And before anyone asks: no, the IRS doesn't pay interest if you submit the forms early and they owe you money. I've sometimes wondered whether they're missing a bet there, and if it would be worth rewarding people to file earlier in order to spread out the work a bit better, but until someone sells them on that idea...",
"qid": 10812,
"docid": "151699",
"rank": 78,
"score": 80315
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: First off... If you provide good service than you shouldn't worry... Since you are providing a service and your customers send payment to your PayPal, if there is no dispute made within 90 days, the customer cannot dispute further. However if it is disputed within 90 days than you may run into some trouble. But it may be in your favor if PayPal finds no signs of fraud and since it's a service payment, PayPal cannot really track it compared to if your customers paid you for a product which can be disputed up to 180 Days?? I may be wrong on that one. However if it does get disputed and PayPal favors your clients than you have to pay it back one way or another. You may want to ask your customers or put yourself a description of the service and terms in the invoice. It may help resolve future disputes. I know this because I have called PayPal customer service and ask which I suggest you do too.",
"qid": 10812,
"docid": "191291",
"rank": 79,
"score": 80024
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Personally, I would just dispute this one with your CC. I had a situation where a subscription I had cancelled the prior year was billed to me. I called up to have a refund issued, they couldn't find me in their system under three phone numbers and two addresses. The solution they proposed was \"\"send us your credit card statement with the charge circled,\"\" to which I responded \"\"there's no way in hell I'm sending you my CC statement.\"\" Then I disputed the charge with the CC bank and it was gone about two days later. I partially expect to have the same charge appear next year when they try to renew my non-existent subscription again. Now, whether or not this is a normal practice for the company, or just a call center person making a good-faith but insecure attempt to solve your problem is irrelevant. Fact of the matter is, you tried to resolve this with the merchant and the merchant asked for something that's likely outside the bounds of your CC Terms and Conditions; sending your entire number via email. Dispute it and move on. The dispute process exists for a reason.\"",
"qid": 10812,
"docid": "176742",
"rank": 80,
"score": 80002
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"3) NOT to claim her as my dependent. No additional tax return (since she is NOT my dependent), but also no penalty. My end of year balance would be $0 No. Not claiming her as a dependent does not save you from being responsible for her penalty. You are responsible for her penalty if she is your dependent (i.e. she meets the conditions for being your dependent), regardless of whether you claim her on your tax return or not. If you have the option of claiming her or not, then she is your dependent, and you are responsible for her penalty. 26 CFR 1.5000A-1(c)(2)(i): For a month when a nonexempt individual does not have minimum essential coverage, if the nonexempt individual is a dependent (as defined in section 152) of another individual for the other individual's taxable year including that month, the other individual is liable for the shared responsibility payment attributable to the dependent's lack of coverage. An individual is a dependent of a taxpayer for a taxable year if the individual satisfies the definition of dependent under section 152, regardless of whether the taxpayer claims the individual as a dependent on a Federal income tax return for the taxable year. [...] Form 1040 instructions, Line 61: [...] If you had qualifying health care coverage (called minimum essential coverage) for every month of 2015 for yourself, your spouse (if filing jointly), and anyone you can or do claim as a dependent, check the box on this line and leave the entry space blank. Otherwise, do not check the box on this line. If you, your spouse (if filing jointly), or someone you can or do claim as a dependent didn’t have coverage for each month of 2015 you must either claim a coverage exemption on Form 8965 or report a shared responsibility payment on line 61. [...] So you cannot check the box and must report exemptions for your sister, or report a shared responsibility payment. Form 8965 instructions, Definitions, \"\"Tax household\"\": For purposes of Form 8965, your tax household generally includes you, your spouse (if filing a joint return), and any individual you claim as a dependent on your tax return. It also generally includes each individual you can, but don't, claim as a dependent on your tax return. [...] Your sister is part of your tax household regardless of whether you claim her, and you must compute her shared responsibility payment for any months she did not have insurance and did not qualify for an exemption.\"",
"qid": 10812,
"docid": "15319",
"rank": 81,
"score": 79720
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"It is the presupposition that makes this a rather ridiculous question. Makes me curious, would this be a civil or criminal crime? If you are convinced that this presupposition of illegality is a thing, talk to a lawyer. Yes, there may be consequences of doing any variety of actions while you owe the IRS, and while you do not owe the IRS. As an unincorporated business the IRS does not stop you from gaining an additional source of income to pay them with. Perhaps lenders might not help you with capital. As an incorporated business no state is going to ask you if you \"\"owe back taxes\"\" before they allow you to pay them to register your business in their state. This isn't legal advice, I'm just assuming there is no legal advice to give based on your presupposition, to your original question, I'm going to go with no.\"",
"qid": 10812,
"docid": "538699",
"rank": 82,
"score": 79610
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: With a $40,000 payment there is a 100% chance that the owner will be claiming this as a business expense on their taxes. The IRS and the state will definitely know about it, and the risk of interest and penalties if it is not claimed as income make the best course of action to see a tax adviser. Because taxes will not be taken out by the property owner, the tax payer should also make sure that the estimated $10,000 in federal taxes, if they are in the 25% tax bracket, doesn't trigger other tax issues that could result in penalties, or the need to file quarterly taxes next year. This kind of extra income could also result in a change or an elimination of a health care subsidy. A unexpected mid-year change could trigger the need to refund the subsidy received this year via the tax form next April.",
"qid": 10812,
"docid": "444899",
"rank": 83,
"score": 79348
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Generally for tax questions you should talk to a tax adviser. Don't consider anything I write here as a tax advice, and the answer was not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used by any taxpayer, for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer. Does IRS like one payment method over other or they simply don't care as long as she can show the receipts? They don't care as long as she withholds the taxes (30%, unless specific arrangements are made for otherwise). She should withhold 30% of the payment and send it to the IRS. The recipient should claim refund, if the actual tax liability is lower. It's only consulting work at the moment, so most of the communication is done over phone. Should they start engaging in written communication to keep records of the work done? Yes, if she wants it to be a business expense. Is it okay to pay in one go to save money-transferring fees? Can she pay in advance? Again, she can do whatever she wants, but if she wants to account for it on her tax returns she should do it the same way she would pay any other vendor in her business. She cannot use different accounting methods for different vendors. Basically, she has not outsourced work in previous years, and she wants to avoid any red flags. Then she should start by calling on her tax adviser, and not an anonymous Internet forum.",
"qid": 10812,
"docid": "599336",
"rank": 84,
"score": 79252
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The key for you this year (2015) be aggressive in paying the taxes quarterly so that you do not have to do the quarterly filings or pay penalties for owing too much in taxes in future years. The tax system has a safe harbor provision. If you have withheld or sent via the estimated quarterly taxes an amount equal to 100% of the previous years taxes then you are safe. That means that if you end to the IRS in 2015 an amount equal to 100% of your 2014 taxes then in April 2016 you can avoid the penalties. You should note that the required percentage is 110% for high income individual. Because you can never be sure about your side income, use your ability to adjust your W-4 to cover your taxes. You will know early in 2016 how much you need to cover via withholding, so make the adjustments. Yes the risk is what you over pay, but that may be what you need to do to avoid the quarterly filing requirements. From IRS PUB 17: If you owe additional tax for 2014, you may have to pay estimated tax for 2015. You can use the following general rule as a guide during the year to see if you will have enough withholding, or if you should increase your withholding or make estimated tax payments. General rule. In most cases, you must pay estimated tax for 2015 if both of the following apply. You expect to owe at least $1,000 in tax for 2015, after subtracting your withholding and refundable credits. You expect your withholding plus your refundable credits to be less than the smaller of: 90% of the tax to be shown on your 2015 tax return, or 100% of the tax shown on your 2014 tax return (but see Special rules for farmers, fishermen, and higher income taxpayers , later). Your 2014 tax return must cover all 12 months. and Estimated tax safe harbor for higher income taxpayers. If your 2014 adjusted gross income was more than $150,000 ($75,000 if you are married filing a separate return), you must pay the smaller of 90% of your expected tax for 2015 or 110% of the tax shown on your 2014 return to avoid an estimated tax penalty.",
"qid": 10812,
"docid": "223042",
"rank": 85,
"score": 79203
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Use with moderation. Powerful stuff. Your caller could be an offshore scammer too. Summarizing from http://www.creditinfocenter.com/rebuild/debt-validation.shtml: You can dispute the debt, and demand that the collector give you the name and address of the original creditor and show that it isn't past the statute of limitations. If they can't \"\"validate\"\" the debt by providing that info, in writing, they must drop it until they can do so. You can sue (though generally not for very much) if they don't. You may have to make this request in writing, so it has a paper trail. A valid verification respond must include: If they don't respond within 30 days, they are in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FDCPA section 809b), and you can send registered mail threatening them with a lawsuit if they don't immediately drop it and remove it from your credit report. They should respond to that within two weeks, and if they don't have darned good evidence will probably cave. If they can prove you do owe the money ... Well, you can hope they aren't licensed to collect in your state; if they aren't you can try to challenge them on that basis. Unlikely to work. If they agree, remember to send a copy of the letter to the credit reporting agencies to make sure it's taken off your record. If this isn't enough to resolve it, you'll probably need to bring suit. That's another long list of steps; I'm going to refer you to the linked site rather than summarize them here since at that point you should get a lawyer involved to make sure it's done promptly.\"",
"qid": 10812,
"docid": "546028",
"rank": 86,
"score": 79154
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: It might be reasonable, or it might be their error. Right now you have their assertion that they overpaid. So the range of outcomes runs from them collecting $0 to the full amount they assert. You are in a negotiation now, get your mind in this game. If they demonstrate to your satisfaction that they overpaid, you should pay. If the reason is not convincing, well, can they collect it? If there is a final pay then thats their last shot to do it internally. Is the amount in question more than the pay? When you were hired you may have authorized them to make correction withdrawls from direct deposit. I don't know if your new orders to your bank override this. If this is a risk ask the bank for a new account and close this one. Did you already sign exit interview paperwork that may ask you to do certain things like not work for a direct competitor, release and hold them harmless, or not discuss the company publicly? If not then there are two negotiations in play and it is fair to ask, in condideration for your signature, to settle any potential overpayment claims for $0 or as the money now stands. Do they do this to other people who leave?",
"qid": 10812,
"docid": "520516",
"rank": 87,
"score": 78596
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The safe harbor provision is based on the tax you or the prior year. So in 2016 this helped you as your tax was substantially increased from 2015. However, by the same token in 2017 your safe harbor amount is going to be very high. Therefore if 2017 is similar you will owe penalties. The solution here is to make estimated tax payments in the quarters that you realize large gains. This is exactly what the estimated tax payments are for. Your estimate tax payments do not have to be the same. In fact if you have a sudden boost in earnings in quarter 3, then the IRS expects that quarter 3 estimated tax payment to be boosted.",
"qid": 10812,
"docid": "448589",
"rank": 88,
"score": 78330
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"You can simply use the previous year's tax liability as your basis for payments. Take the amount of tax you owed the previous year, divide by four, and use that amount for your estimated payments. As long as you're paying 100% of what you owed last year, you won't have any penalty. Except if your AGI is above a certain limit ($150k for married filing jointly in 2011), then you have to pay 110%. See IRS Pub 505 for details (general rule, special rule, under \"\"Higher Income Taxpayers\"\"). (H/T to @Dilip Sarwate for pointing out the 110% exception in a comment below.)\"",
"qid": 10812,
"docid": "418871",
"rank": 89,
"score": 78152
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Open a dispute for the preauth. It is effectively a double charge, since you have already paid for the item. You can provide evidence of the other transaction. This forces them to go through some hassle and waste some time on the issue.",
"qid": 10812,
"docid": "380595",
"rank": 90,
"score": 78040
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you withdraw the money, regardless of how small the balance is, the IRS will still insist you pay a 10% penalty when you file your taxes (assuming you're under 59 1/2). Your 401K plan provider might have a policy that allows you to avoid the usual automatic withholding. You should check with them. $600 in additional income isn't likely to move your tax bill much, unless you're really close to a boundary in the tax brackets. Rather than withdrawing the money, you can transfer the 401K to your next 401K, or roll it over to an IRA (plenty of no-fee options around). Once in a traditional IRA, you can convert the money to a Roth IRA. You pay the taxes on the amount, but no 10% penalty. Converting to a Roth has eligibility rules. You should double check with your financial institution before doing it. Edit: You can withdraw without the 10% penalty if you leave your job after age 55 (credit to @JoeTaxpayer for the correction). This IRS Page lists the conditions under which the penalty can be avoided. Edit: The original question has been edited to add more background details. Due to OP's investment preferences, I would also recommend that he simply withdraw the funds, pay the taxes and the $60 penalty and put the $500 or so dollars somewhere else.",
"qid": 10812,
"docid": "500562",
"rank": 91,
"score": 77935
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"In Britain it's standard practice to use an electronic bank transfer, otherwise known as a \"\"standing order\"\" for the monthly rent payment. Many letting agents insist on it here in Britain. It's rare to hear of fraud. It is possible to setup a Direct Debit with the account numbers, as happened in a famous case where Jeremy Clarkson claimed losing account numbers wasn't a problem. If a direct debit is taken from your account, then you are protected by the the Direct Debit guarantee which means that you get a full and immediate refund if there is any fraud or unexpected payments spotted. Some landlords, particularly of bedsits accept plain old cash, however that's not recommended as there is no trace of it being paid, which could lead to legal disputes.\"",
"qid": 10812,
"docid": "440824",
"rank": 92,
"score": 77772
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"There are many people who have deductions far above the standard deduction, but still don't itemize. That's their option even though it comes at a cost. It may be foolish, but it's not illegal. If @littleadv citation is correct, the 'under penalty of perjury' type issue, what of those filers who file a Schedule A but purposely leave off their donations? I've seen many people discuss charity, and write that they do not want to benefit in any way from their donation, yet, still Schedule A their mortgage and property tax. Their returns are therefore fraudulent. I am curious to find a situation in which the taxpayer benefits from such a purposeful oversight, or, better still, a cited case where they were charged with doing so. I've offered advice on filings return that wasn't \"\"truthful\"\". When you own a stock and cannot find cost basis, there are times that you might realize the basis is so low that just entering zero will cost you less than $100 in extra tax. You are not truthful, of course, but this kind of false statement isn't going to lead to any issue. If it gets noticed within an audit, no agent is going to give it more than a moment of time and perhaps suggest, \"\"you didn't even know the year it was bought?\"\" but there would be no consequence. My answer is for personal returns, I'm sure for business, accuracy to the dollar is actually important.\"",
"qid": 10812,
"docid": "331925",
"rank": 93,
"score": 77708
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I'm going to go with \"\"ridiculous notion.\"\" :) The vast majority of businesses are legitimate, run by honest people trying to earn a living for themselves and their employees. These days, almost all of them accept credit cards. Crooked businesses are a very small minority. When a bad business over charges you, you dispute the charge, and you get your money back. But that's not all that happens. The bad merchant pays penalties for this, and if it happens more than a couple of times, the merchant loses their merchant account with their bank, which means that they lose their ability to accept credit card payments anymore. A crooked business is not able to rob people via credit card for very long at all. A whitelist would certainly not be able to include every legitimate business. And a blacklist would never be able to be kept up-to-date, as bad businesses come and go continuously; as soon as a business was added to the blacklist, they would lose their merchant account and would no longer need to be on the list. What you are describing is very rare. My brother once had a bad experience with a tech support company where they were repeatedly charging him for a service they never performed. But a credit card chargeback took care of it. If that company made a habit of that, I'm sure that they got in trouble with their bank. Instead, the most common credit card fraud happens when crooks use your credit card at perfectly legitimate businesses. But your whitelist/blacklist wouldn't help you with that at all.\"",
"qid": 10812,
"docid": "401254",
"rank": 94,
"score": 77448
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Unfortunately, it's a simple 'no'. Once the IRS has your money, you need to wait until early next year to settle up. He can increase his allowances via form W4, and have less money withheld from pay checks the rest of this year, but no chance for a lump sum return before tax time. For sake of a comprehensive answer, early withdrawals are subject to a 10% penalty along with regular income tax. It sounds like the son is in the 15% bracket, and a total 25% would have been the right number to choose.",
"qid": 10812,
"docid": "149742",
"rank": 95,
"score": 77376
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: With your income so high, your marginal tax rate should be pretty easy to determine. You are very likely in the 33% tax bracket (married filing jointly income range of $231,450 to $413,350), so your wife's additional income will effectively be taxed at 33% plus 15% for self-employment taxes. Rounding to 50% means you need to withhold $19,000 over the year (or slightly less depending on what business expenses you can deduct). You could use a similar calculation for CA state taxes. You can either just add this gross additional amount to your withholdings, or make an estimated tax payment every quarter. Any difference will be made up when you file your 2017 taxes. So long as you withhold 100% of your total tax liability from last year, you should not have any underpayment penalties.",
"qid": 10812,
"docid": "360925",
"rank": 96,
"score": 77006
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"You have several issues at work. If in the next few years you have a leak in the roof that causes another insurance claim, they may decide not to cover it because they already paid you to replace the roof, and it is your fault that it wasn't. That might also mean they don't pay you for the stuff that is damaged because of the \"\"new\"\" leak. If you minimize the claim that may make it less likely that they will drop you in the future, or increase you rate next year. But if you don't return the excess funds they will evaluate you on the larger claim size. Of course if they are sending the money directly to the repair company they will only pay the bill up to a maximum amount. Usually the issue has been that the repair company wants to do a larger repair. The dispute resolves around some aspect of the building code. I had a car repair that had to be increased because the roof damage was within x inches of the windshield, so the windshield had to be replaced. The insurance company eventually agreed but it slowed down the process for a couple of days because they wanted to measure it. It is possible that the insurance company has rules related to the age of the roof and the amount of damage that triggers a total replacement.\"",
"qid": 10812,
"docid": "491707",
"rank": 97,
"score": 76805
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I assume the OP is the US and that he is, like most people, a cash-basis tax payer and not an accrual basis tax payer. Suppose the value of the rental of the unit the OP is occupying was reported as income on the OP's 2010 and 2011 W-2 forms but the corresponding income tax was not withheld. If the OP correctly transcribed these income numbers onto his tax returns, correctly computed the tax on the income reported on his 2010 and 2011 1040 forms, and paid the amount due in timely fashion, then there is no tax or penalty due for 2010 and 2011. Nor is the company entitled to withhold tax on this income for 2010 and 2011 at this time; the tax on that income has already been paid by the OP directly to the IRS and the company has nothing to do with the matter anymore. Suppose the value of the rental of the unit the OP is occupying was NOT reported as income on the OP's 2010 and 2011 W-2 forms. If the OP correctly transcribed these income numbers onto his tax returns, correctly computed the tax on the income reported on his 2010 and 2011 1040 forms, and paid the amount due in timely fashion, then there is no tax or penalty due for 2010 and 2011. Should the OP have declared the value of the rental of the unit as additional income from his employer that was not reported on the W-2 form, and paid taxes on that money? Possibly, but it would be reasonable to argue that the OP did nothing wrong other than not checking his W-2 form carefully: he simply assumed the income numbers included the value of the rental and copied whatever the company-issued W-2 form said onto his 1040 form. At least as of now, there is no reason for the IRS to question his 2010 and 2011 returns because the numbers reported to the IRS on Copy A of the W-2 forms match the numbers reported by the OP on his tax returns. My guess is that the company discovered that it had not actually declared the value of the rental payments on the OP's W-2 forms for 2010 and 2011 and now wants to include this amount as income on subsequent W-2 forms. Now, reporting a lump-sum benefit of $38K (but no actual cash) would have caused a huge amount of income tax to need to be withheld, and the OP's next couple of paychecks might well have had zero take-home pay as all the money was going towards this tax withholding. Instead, the company is saying that it will report the $38K as income in 78 equal installments (weekly paychecks over 18 months?) and withhold $150 as the tax due on each installment. If it does not already do so, it will likely also include the value of the current rent as a benefit and withhold tax on that too. So the OP's take-home pay will reduce by $150 (at least) and maybe more if the current rental payments also start appearing on the paychecks and tax is withheld from them too. I will not express an opinion on the legality of the company withholding an additional $150 as tax from the OP's paycheck, but will suggest that the solution proposed by the company (have the money appear as taxable benefits over a 78-week period, have tax withheld, and declare the income on your 2012, 2013 and 2014 returns) is far more beneficial to the OP than the company declaring to the IRS that it made a mistake on the 2010 and 2011 W-2's issued to the OP, and that the actual income paid was higher. Not only will the OP have to file amended returns for 2010 and 2011 but the company will need to amend its tax returns too. In summary, the OP needs to know that He will have to pay taxes on the value of the waived rental payments for 2010 and 2011. The company's mistake in not declaring this as income to the OP for 2010 and 2011 does not absolve him of the responsibility for paying the taxes What the company is proposing is a very reasonable solution to the problem of recovering from the mistake. The alternative, as @mhoran_psprep points out, is to amend your 2010 and 2011 federal and state tax returns to declare the value of the rental during those years as additional income, and pay taxes (and possibly penalties) on the additional amount due. This takes the company completely out of the picture, but does require a lot more work and a lot more cash now rather than in the future.",
"qid": 10812,
"docid": "257443",
"rank": 98,
"score": 76586
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Your 401K (and IRA) is a legally distinct entity from yourself. In fact, it is a \"\"trust,\"\" and your Administrator is a \"\"trustee,\"\" while you are both creator and benefactor. This fact, and the 10% early withdrawal penalty, makes it immune from most judgments. The IRS can \"\"levy\"\" your 401K or IRA for back taxes, but must waive the 10% penalty (under the 1997 Tax Reform law). That gives them the power to do what most others can't. A \"\"tricky\"\" banker may persuade you to take money out of your 401K to pay the bank. If you do, s/he has won. But s/he can't go after your 401k.\"",
"qid": 10812,
"docid": "591495",
"rank": 99,
"score": 76501
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Additionally my understanding is that a Faster Payment is as good as cash once received. Yes it is but there is a caveat. Read on unauthorized payments on Faster Payments website. Either the sender is fraudulently claiming this was unauthorised, or their bank doesn't have adequate security standards - why is it me who loses out here? Agreed. You should take this up [dispute the action] with your bank asking why your account was closed as there is no fraud from your side. Make sure you do all the follow-up with writing and provide evidence of the trade being genuine.",
"qid": 10812,
"docid": "38990",
"rank": 100,
"score": 76450
}
] |
How much should I be contributing to my 401k given my employer's contribution? | [
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Your contribution limit to a 401(k) is $18,000. Your employer is allowed to contribute to your 401(k), usually a \"\"matching contribution\"\". That matching contribution comes from your employer, so is not subject to your personal contribution limit. A contribution to a regular 401(k) is typically made with pre-tax money (i.e. you don't pay payroll taxes on the money you contribute) so you pay less taxes for the current tax year. However when you retire and you take money out, you pay taxes on the money you take out. On one hand, your tax rate may be lower when you have retired, but on the other hand, if your investments have appreciated over time, the total amount of tax you pay would be higher. If your company offers a Roth 401(k) plan, you can contribute $18,000 of after tax money. This way you pay the tax on the $18,000 today, as you would if you did not put the money in the 401(k), but when you take the money out at retirement, you would not have to pay tax. In my opinion, that serves as a way to pay effectively more money into your 401(k). Some firms put vesting provisions on the amount that they match in your 401(k), e.g. 4 years at 25% per year. So you have to work 1 full year to be entitled to 25% of their matching contribution, 2 years for 50%, and 4 years to receive all of it. Check your company's Summary Plan Description of the 401(k) to be sure. You are not allowed to invest pre-tax money into a Traditional IRA if you are already contributing to a 401(k) plan and have reached the income limits ($62,000 AGI for single head of household). You are allowed to contribute post-tax money to a Traditional IRA plan if you have already contributed to a 401(k), which you can then Roll-over into a Roth IRA (look up 'backdoor IRA'). The IRA contribution limit applies to all IRA accounts over that calendar year. You could put some money in a traditional IRA, a Roth IRA, another traditional IRA, etc. so long as the total amount is not more than the contribution limit. This gives you an upper limit of 5.5k + 18k = 23.5 investments in retirement accounts. Note however, once you reach age 50, these limits increase to 6.5k (IRA) + 24k (401(k)). They also are adjusted periodically with the rate of inflation. The following approach may be more efficient for building wealth: This ordering is the subject of debate and people have different opinions. There is a separate discussion of these priorities here: Best way to start investing, for a young person just starting their career? Note however, a 401(k) loan becomes payable if you leave your company, and if not repaid, is an unauthorised distribution from your 401k (and therefore subject to an additional 10% tax penalty). You should also be careful putting money into an IRA, as you will be subject to an additional 10% tax penalty if you take out the money (distribution) before retirement, unless one of the exceptions defined by the IRA applies (e.g. $10,000 for first time home purchase), which could wipe out more than any gains you made by putting it in there in the first place. Your specific circumstances may vary, so this approach may not be best for you. A registered financial advisor may be able to help - ensure they are legitimate: https://adviserinfo.sec.gov\"",
"qid": 10827,
"docid": "38532",
"rank": 1,
"score": 146670
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I would hire an accountant to help set this up, given the sums of money involved. $53,000 would be the minimum amount of compensation needed to maximize the 401k. The total limit of contributions is the lesser of: 100% of the participant's compensation, or $53,000 ($59,000 including catch-up contributions) for 2015 and 2016. and they don't count contributions as compensation Your employer's contributions to a qualified retirement plan for you are not included in income at the time contributed. (Your employer can tell you whether your retirement plan is qualified.) On the bright side, employer contributions aren't subject to FICA withholdings.",
"qid": 10827,
"docid": "290105",
"rank": 2,
"score": 144098
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You're correct about the 401(k). Your employer's contributions don't count toward the $18k limit. You're incorrect about the IRAs though. You can contribute a maximum of $5500 total across IRA and Roth IRA, not $5500 to each. There are also limits once you reach higher levels of income. from IRS.gov: Retirement Topics - IRA Contribution Limits: For 2015, 2016, and 2017, your total contributions to all of your traditional and Roth IRAs cannot be more than:",
"qid": 10827,
"docid": "441632",
"rank": 3,
"score": 143696
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I'm in a similar situation as I have a consulting business in addition to my regular IT job. I called the company who has my IRA to ask about setting up the Individual 401k and also mentioned that I contribute to my employer's 401k plan. The rep was glad I brought this up because he said the IRS has a limit on how much you can contribute to BOTH plans. For me it would be $24K max (myAge >= 50; If you are younger than 50, then the limit might be lower). He said the IRS penalties can be steep if you exceed the limit. I don't know if this is an issue for you, but it's something you need to consider. Be sure to ask your brokerage firm before you start the process.",
"qid": 10827,
"docid": "101490",
"rank": 4,
"score": 142358
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I am not 100% sure, but I think the answer is this: You can't max out both. You could theoretically max out the SIMPLE IRA ($11,500) and then contribute $4,000 to your 401k, but your total can't exceed the 401k limit of $16,500. This also means you could max out your 401k at $16,500, but you couldn't contribute anything to the SIMPLE IRA. Note that no matter what, you can't contribute more than $11,500 to your SIMPLE IRA. (Note that this is all independent from your Traditional or Roth IRA, which are subject to their own limits, and not affected by your participation in employer-sponsored plans.) As I understand it, a 401k and a SIMPLE IRA both fall under the umbrella of \"\"employer-sponsored plans\"\". Just like you can't max out two 401k's at two different employers, you can't do it with the 401k and the SIMPLE IRA. The only weird thing is the contribution limit differences between SIMPLE IRA and 401k, but I don't think the IRS could/would penalize you for working two jobs (enforcing the lower SIMPLE IRA limit for all employer-sponsored retirement accounts). You should probably run the numbers, factoring in the employer match, and figure out which account-contribution scenario makes the most financial sense for you. However, I'm not sure how the employer match helps you when you're talking about a small business that you own/run. You may also want to look at how the employer match of the SIMPLE IRA affects the taxes your business pays. Disclaimer #1: I couldn't find a definitive answer on your specific scenario at irs.gov. I pieced the above info from a few different \"\"SIMPLE IRA info\"\" sites. That's why I'm not 100% sure. It seems intuitively correct to me, though. Does your small business have an accountant? Maybe you should talk to him/her. Disclaimer #2: The $ amounts listed above are based on the IRS 2010 limits.\"",
"qid": 10827,
"docid": "163865",
"rank": 5,
"score": 141905
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Your assumptions are flawed or miss crucial details. An employer sponsored 401k typically limits the choices of investments, whereas an IRA typically gives you self directed investment choices at a brokerage house or through a bank account. You are correct in noticing that you are limited in making your own pre-tax contributions to a traditional IRA in many circumstances when you also have an employer sponsored 401k, but you miss the massive benefit you have: You can rollover unlimited amounts from a traditional 401k to a traditional IRA. This is a benefit that far exceeds the capabilities of someone without a traditional 401k who is subject to the IRA contribution limits. Your rollover capabilities completely gets around any statutory contribution limit. You can contribution, at time of writing, $18,000 annually to a 401k from salary deferrals and an additional $35,000 from employer contributions for a maximum of $53,000 annually and roll that same $53,000 into an IRA if you so desired. That is a factor. This should be counterweighed with the borrowing capabilities of a 401k, which vastly exceeds an IRA again. The main rebuttal to your assumptions is that you are not necessarily paying taxes to fund an IRA.",
"qid": 10827,
"docid": "81148",
"rank": 6,
"score": 141887
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Yes, you should be saving for retirement. There are a million ideas out there on how much is a reasonable amount, but I think most advisor would say at least 6 to 10% of your income, which in your case is around $15,000 per year. You give amounts in dollars. Are you in the U.S.? If so, there are at least two very good reasons to put money into a 401k or IRA rather than ordinary savings or investments: (a) Often your employer will make matching contributions. 50% up to 6% of your salary is pretty common, i.e. if you put in 6% they put in 3%. If either of your employers has such a plan, that's an instant 50% profit on your investment. (b) Any profits on money invested in an IRA or 401k are tax free. (Effectively, the mechanics differ depending on the type of account.) So if you put $100,000 into an IRA today and left it there until you retire 30 years later, it would likely earn something like $600,000 over that time (assuming 7% per year growth). So you'd pay takes on your initial $100,000 but none on the $600,000. With your income you are likely in a high tax bracket, that would make a huge difference. If you're saying that you just can't find a way to put money away for retirement, may I suggest that you cut back on your spending. I understand that the average American family makes about $45,000 per year and somehow manages to live on that. If you were to put 10% of your income toward retirement, then you would be living on the remaining $171,000, which is still almost 4 times what the average family has. Yeah, I make more than $45,000 a year too and there are times when I think, How could anyone possibly live on that? But then I think about what I spend my money on. Did I really need to buy two new computer printers the last couple of months? I certainly could do my own cleaning rather than hiring a cleaning lady to come in twice a month. Etc. A tough decision to make can be paying off debt versus putting money into an investment account. If the likely return on investment is less than the interest rate on the loan, you should certainly concentrate on paying off the loan. But if the reverse is true, then you need to decide between likely returns and risk.",
"qid": 10827,
"docid": "35680",
"rank": 7,
"score": 141872
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The error in the example is here: \"\"Now, if you contribute 5% to a Roth 401(k), your employer would match your after-tax 5% contribution. If the tax rate is 25%, that would be 5% of $60,000, which is $3,000. However, that $3,000 is put in to a traditional 401(k), so it is taxed when withdrawn. Assuming the tax rate is still 25% when you withdraw, you are only getting $2,250. Essentially you are giving up $750 of free money in this case.\"\" You set your contribution to Roth 401k as a function of the gross, 80,000. You choose 5% and contribute 4000 Your employer matches 4000. At the end of the year, your taxable income to the IRS is 80000, and you pay 30% or 24000. You have 80K-4K-24K to live on, or 52K If you chose the alternate regular 401k,then you contribute 4K, your income to the IRS is (80-4=) 76k, and you pay 30%, 22.8K in tax. You have 80-4-22.8 or 53.2K to live on. Or, to come at it the other way, you have 4000*30% =1200 extra tax reduction in your income this year. If the extra income in 401k versus extra current year tax in Roth IRA means you have to reduce less, like 2800K to the roth so you maintain a 53.2K lifestyle, then yes, the Roth IRA match is reduced. If you have the cash flow to prepay the current year tax and maximum-match contribution, you will get the full match based on your gross income.\"",
"qid": 10827,
"docid": "379911",
"rank": 8,
"score": 141481
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Your employer sends the money that you choose to contribute, plus employer match if any, to the administrator of the 401k plan who invests the money as you have directed, choosing between the alternatives offered by the administrator. Typically, the alternatives are several different mutual funds with different investment styles, e.g. a S&P 500 index fund, a bond fund, a money-market fund, etc. Now, a statement such as \"\"I see my 401k is up 10%\"\" is meaningless unless you tell us how you are making the comparison. For example, if you have just started employment and $200 goes into your 401k each month and is invested in a money-market fund (these are paying close to 0% interest these days), then your 11th contribution increases your 401k from $2000 to $2200 and your 401k is \"\"up 10%\"\". More generally, suppose for simplicity that all the 401k investment is in just one (stock) mutual fund and that you own 100 shares of the fund as of right now. Suppose also that your next contribution will not occur for three weeks when you get your next paycheck, at which time additional shares of the mutual fund will be purchased Now, the value of the mutual fund shares (often referred to as net asset value or NAV) fluctuates as stock prices rise and fall, and so the 401k balance = number of shares times NAV changes in accordance with these fluctuations. So, if the NAV increases by 10% in the next two weeks, your 401k balance will have increased by 10%. But you still own only 100 shares of the mutual fund. You cannot use the 10% increase in value to buy more shares in the mutual fund because there is no money to pay for the additional shares you wish to purchase. Notice that there is no point selling some of the shares (at the 10% higher NAV) to get cash because you will be purchasing shares at the higher NAV too. You could, of course, sell shares of the stock mutual fund at the higher NAV and buy shares of some other fund available to you in the 401k plan. One advantage of doing this inside the 401k plan is that you don't have to pay taxes (now) on the 10% gain that you have made on the sale. Outside tax-deferred plans such as 401k and IRA plans, such gains would be taxable in the year of the sale. But note that selling the shares of the stock fund and buying something else indicates that you believe that the NAV of your stock mutual fund is unlikely to increase any further in the near future. A third possibility for your 401k being up by 10% is that the mutual fund paid a dividend or made a capital gains distribution in the two week period that we are discussing. The NAV falls when such events occur, but if you have chosen to reinvest the dividends and capital gains, then the number of shares that you own goes up. With the same example as before, the NAV goes up 10% in two weeks at which time a capital gains distribution occurs, and so the NAV falls back to where it was before. So, before the capital gains distribution, you owned 100 shares at $10 NAV which went up to $11 NAV (10% increase in NAV) for a net increase in 401k balance from $1000 to $1100. The mutual fund distributes capital gains in the amount of $1 per share sending the NAV back to $10, but you take the $100 distribution and plow it back into the mutual fund, purchasing 10 shares at the new $10 NAV. So now you own 110 shares at $10 NAV (no net change in price in two weeks) but your 401k balance is $1100, same as it was before the capital gains distribution and you are up 10%. Or, you could have chosen to invest the distributions into, say, a bond fund available in your 401k plan and still be up 10%, with no change in your stock fund holding, but a new investment of $100 in a bond fund. So, being up 10% can mean different things and does not necessarily mean that the \"\"return\"\" can be used to buy more shares.\"",
"qid": 10827,
"docid": "184077",
"rank": 9,
"score": 141312
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Does your employer provide a matching contribution to your 401k? If so, contribute enough to the 401k that you can fully take advantage of the 401k match (e.g. if you employer matches 3% of your income, contribute 3% of your income). It's free money, take advantage of it. Next up, max out your Roth IRA. The limit is $5000 currently a year. After maxing your Roth, revisit your 401k. You can contribute up to 16,500 per year. You savings account is a good place to keep a rainy day fund (do you have one?), but it lacks the tax advantages of a Roth IRA or 401k, so it is not really suitable for retirement savings (unless you have maxed out both your 401k and Roth IRA). Once you have take care of getting money into your 401k and Roth IRA accounts, the next step is investing it. The specific investment options available to you will vary depending on who provides your retirement account(s), so these are general guidelines. Generally, you want to invest in higher-risk, higher-return investments when you are young. This includes things like stocks and developing countries. As you get older (>30), you should look at moving some of your investments into things that less volatile. Bond funds are the usual choice. They tend to be safer than stocks (assuming you don't invest in Junk bonds), but your investment grows at a slower rate. Now this doesn't mean you immediately dump all of your stock and buy bonds. Rather, it is a gradual transition over time. As you get older and older, you gradually shift your investments to bond funds. A general rule of thumb I have seen: 100 - (YOUR AGE) = Percentage of your portfolio that should be in stocks Someone that is 30 would have 70% of their portfolio in stock, someone that is 40 would have 60% in stock, etc. As you get closer to retirement (50s-60s), you will want to start looking at investments that are more conservatie than bonds. Start to look at fixed-income and money market funds.",
"qid": 10827,
"docid": "399543",
"rank": 10,
"score": 141108
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: One factor to consider is that some employers have a 401k contribution match policy that only allows a certain percentage of any given paycheck to be matched. So if the company is willing to match 4% of each paycheck, you could run into a problem here where you lose out on some of your company match. For example, suppose you get a $20,000 bonus. You can contribute $18,000 per year to your 401k and this bonus could be a nice way to knock most of that out and then take home your full paycheck the rest of the year. Sounds pretty nice, but there's a problem. The company will only match 4% of your $20,000 ($800) when they otherwise would have matched up to 4% of your annual salary ($4,000 if you're making $100,000 in this example). I'd say it's definitely worth it to make a big contribution to your 401k when you get a bonus as it's an easy way to get a lot of money in there without really feeling a loss (since it's extra money on top of your normal paycheck). But I'd definitely be careful about this situation. You don't want to throw away free money. To avoid this problem, make sure that you leave enough of your annual limit so you can contribute enough to get your 4% company match on every paycheck of the year.",
"qid": 10827,
"docid": "436071",
"rank": 11,
"score": 140979
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Are the $18,000 401k 2017 limit and the $5,500 IRA limit mutually exclusive for a combined limit of $23,500 (under 49)? Yes, but the amount that you can deduct from a traditional IRA depends on your gross income and marital status - See publication 590-A for details. Also note that the limit applies to your combined traditional and Roth IRA contributions (meaning you can't contribute $5,500 to both; just a total of $5,500 between the two). I'm also assuming employee match $ count towards these limits - is this correct No - the limit for combined contributions between you and your employer is $54,000 in 2017. So if you contribute $18,000 your employer can only contribute $36,000.",
"qid": 10827,
"docid": "189989",
"rank": 12,
"score": 139250
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: 401k contributions are exempt from employee and employer FICA withholding. The employer withholding is approximately 7% of the gross. The closer the employer match ratio is to 7%, the closer it is to paying for itself. Example: Assuming an employee is match-maximizing and in very round numbers grosses 100,000 per year. A 50% match schedule is about $350 cheaper per employee than a 100% match schedule: Default non participant: The employee will see about 7000 deducted for FICA, and the employer will pay 7000 to FICA if they don't participate. First case: the match is 100%, 1-for-1 to a 5% cap, the employee will deduct 5000, and have 6650 withheld for FICA. The employer will pay 6650 to FICA. The total employer cost of withholding and match is 11,650. Second case: If the match is 50%, 1-for-2 to a 5% cap, the employee will deduct 10000, and have 6300 withheld for FICA. The employer will pay 6300 to FICA. The total employer cost of withholding and match is 11,300.",
"qid": 10827,
"docid": "240259",
"rank": 13,
"score": 138473
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Don't over think about your choices. The most important thing to start now and keep adjusting and tuning your portfolio as you move along in your life. Each individual's situation is unique. Start with something simple and straight forward, like 100 - your age, in Total Stock market Index fund and the remaining total bond market index fund. For your 401k, at least contribute so much as to get the maximum employer match. Its always good if you can contribute the yearly maximum in your 401k or IRA. Once you have built up a substantial amount of assets (~ $50k+) then its time to think more about asset allocation and start buying into more specific investments as needed. Remember to keep your investment expenses low by using index funds. Also remember to factor in tax implications on your investment decisions. eg. buying an REIT fund in a tax advantaged account like 40k is more tax efficient than buying it in a normal brokerage account.",
"qid": 10827,
"docid": "363753",
"rank": 14,
"score": 138444
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The best option for maximizing your money long-term is to contribute to the 401(k) offered by your employer. If you park your inheritance in a savings account you can draw on it to augment your income while you max out your contributions to the 401(k). You will get whatever the employer matches right off the bat and your gains are tax deferred. In essence you will be putting your inheritance into the 401(k) and forcing your employer to match at whatever rate they do. So if your employer matches at 50 cents on the dollar you will turn your 50 thousand into 75 thousand.",
"qid": 10827,
"docid": "171196",
"rank": 15,
"score": 138372
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If your employer offers a 401k retirement plan then you can contribute a portion of your salary to your retirement and that will lower your effective income to remain in the 15% bracket (although as others have pointed out, only the dollars that exceed the 15% bracket will be taxed at the higher rate anyway). AND if your employer offers any kind of 401k matching contribution, that's effectively a pay-raise or 100% return on investment (depending on how you prefer to look at it).",
"qid": 10827,
"docid": "361510",
"rank": 16,
"score": 138287
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: They are mutually exclusive. Provided you meet the income limits you can contribute to both. Employer match do not count toward the 18K. On the other hand traditional IRA and Roth IRA are inclusive. So if single and making having a MAGI under 118K, you could do the 18K of your own money into a 401(k), and $5,500 into a Roth. You can put in $23,500 of your own money with the employer match on top of that.",
"qid": 10827,
"docid": "75766",
"rank": 17,
"score": 137308
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I am in a similar situation (sw developer, immigrant waiting for green card, no debt, healthy, not sure if I will stay here forever, only son of aging parents). I am contributing to my 401k to max my employer contribution (which is 3.5%, you should find that out from your HR). I don't have any specific financial goal in my mind, so beside an emergency fund (I was recommended to have at least 6 months worth of salary in cash) I am stashing away 10% of my income which I invest with a notorious robot-adviser. The rate is 80% stocks, 20% bonds, as I don't plan to use those funds anytime soon. Should I go back to my country, I will bring with me (or transfer) the cash, and leave my investments here. The 401K will keep growing and so the investments, and perhaps I will be able to retire earlier than expected. It's quite vague I know, but in the situation we are, it's hard to make definite plans.",
"qid": 10827,
"docid": "538238",
"rank": 18,
"score": 136243
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You can only contribute up to 5% of your salary? Odd. Usually 401(k) contributions are limited to some dollar amount in the vicinity of $15,000 or so a year. Normal retirement guidelines suggest that putting away 10-15% of your salary is enough that you probably won't need to worry much when you retire. 5% isn't likely to be enough, employer match or no. I'd try to contribute 10-15% of my salary. I think you're reading the rules wrong. I'm almost certain. It's definitely worth checking. If you're not, you should seriously consider supplementing this saving with a Roth IRA or just an after-tax account. So. If you're with Fidelity and don't know what to do, look for a target date fund with a date near your retirement (e.g. Target Retirement 2040) and put 100% in there until you have a better idea of what going on. All Fidelity funds have pretty miserable expense ratios, even their token S&P500 index fund from another provider, so you might as let them do some leg work and pick your asset allocation for you. Alternatively, look for the Fidelity retirement planner tools on their website to suggest an asset allocation. As a (very rough) rule of thumb, as you're saving for retirement you'll want to have N% of your portfolio in bonds and the rest in stocks, where N is your age in years. Your stocks should probably be split about 70% US and 30% rest-of-world, give or take, and your US stocks should be split about 64% large-cap, 28% mid-cap and 8% small-cap (that's basically how the US stock market is split).",
"qid": 10827,
"docid": "42301",
"rank": 19,
"score": 135868
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Adding to the excellent answers already given, we typically advise members to contribute as much as needed to get a full employer match in their 401K, but not more. We then redirect any additional savings to a traditional IRA or ROTH IRA (depending on their age, income, and future plans). Only once they've exhausted the $5000 maximum in their IRA will we look at putting more money into the 401K. The ROTH IRA is a beautiful and powerful vehicle for savings. The only reason to consider taking money out of the ROTH is in a case of serious catastrophe.",
"qid": 10827,
"docid": "140330",
"rank": 20,
"score": 135655
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"typically, your employer will automatically stop making contributions once you hit the 18k$ limit. it is worth noting that employer contributions (e.g. \"\"matching\"\") do not count towards the 18k$ employee pre-tax contribution limit. however, if you have 2 employers during the year their combined payroll deductions might exceed the limit if you do not inform your later employer of the contributions you made at your former employer (or they ignore the info). in which case, you must request a refund of \"\"excess contributions\"\" from one of the plans (your choice). you must report the refund as taxable income on your taxes. if you do not make this request by the time you file your taxes, the tax man will reject your filing and \"\"adjust\"\" your return with more taxes and penalties. sometimes requesting a refund of excess contributions might cause your employer to remove \"\"matching\"\" funds, but i am not clear on the rules behind that. there are some 401k plans that allow \"\"supplemental after-tax contributions\"\" up to the combined employee/employer limit (53k$ in 2015 and 2016). it is a rare feature, and if your company offers it, you probably already know. however, generally it is governed by a separate contribution election that only take effect once you hit the employee pre-tax contribution limit (18k$ in 2015 and 2016). you could ask your hr department to be sure. 401k plans can be changed if there is enough employee demand for a rule change. especially in a small company, simply asking for them to allow dollar based contributions instead of percent based contributions can cause them to change the plan to allow it. similarly, you could request they allow \"\"supplemental after-tax contributions\"\", but that might be a harder change to get.\"",
"qid": 10827,
"docid": "427997",
"rank": 21,
"score": 134902
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: My understanding is that to make the $18,000 elective deferral in this case, you need to pay yourself at least $18,000. There will be some tax on that for social security and Medicare, so you'll actually need to pay yourself a bit more to cover that too. The employer contribution is limited to 25% of your total compensation. The $18,000 above counts, but if you want to max out on the employer side, you'll need to pay yourself $140,000 salary since 25% of $140,000 is the $35,000 that you want to put into the 401k from the employer side. There are some examples from the IRS here that may help: https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/one-participant-401-k-plans I know that you're not a one-participant plan, but some of the examples may help anyway since they are not all specific to one-participant plans.",
"qid": 10827,
"docid": "244412",
"rank": 22,
"score": 134844
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: All data for a single adult in tax year 2010. Roth IRA 401K Roth 401k Traditional IRA and your employer offers a 401k Traditional IRA and your employer does NOT offer a 401k So, here are your options. If you have a 401k at work, you could max that out. If you make close to $120K, you could reduce your AGI enough to contribute to a Roth IRA. If you do not have a 401k at work, you could contribute to a Traditional IRA and deduct the $5K from your AGI similar to how a 401k works. Other than that, I think you are looking at investing outside of a retirement plan which means more flexibility, but no tax advantage.",
"qid": 10827,
"docid": "110114",
"rank": 23,
"score": 134438
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"To answer the first part of your question: yes, I've done that! I did even a bit more. I once had a job that I wasn't sure I'd keep and the economy wasn't great either. In case my next employer wouldn't let me contribute to a 401(k) from day one, and because I didn't want to underfund my retirement and be stuck with a higher tax bill - I \"\"front-loaded\"\" my 401(k) contributions to be maxed out before the end of the year. (The contribution limits were lower than $16,500/year back then :-)) As for the reduced cash flow - you need of course a \"\"buffer\"\" account containing several months worth of living expenses to afford maxing out or \"\"front-loading\"\" 401(k) contributions. You should be paying your bills out of such buffer account and not out of each paycheck. As for the reduced cash flow - I think large-scale 401(k)/IRA contributions can crowd out other long-term saving priorities such as saving for a house down payment and the trade-off between them is a real concern. (If they're crowding out basic and discretionary consumer expenses, that's a totally different kind of problem, which you don't seem to have, which is great :-)) So about the trade-off between large-scale 401(k) contributions and saving for the down payment. I'd say maxing out 401(k) can foster the savings culture that will eventually pay its dividends. If, after several years of maxing out your 401(k) you decide that saving for the house is the top priority, you'll see money flow to the money-market account marked for the down payment at a substantial monthly rate, thanks to that savings culture. As for the increasing future earnings - no. Most people I've known for a long time, if they saved 20% when they made $20K/year, they continued to save 20% or more when they later made $100K/year. People who spent the entire paycheck while making $50K/year, always say, if only I got a raise to $60K/year, I'd save a few thousand. But they eventually graduate to $100K/year and still spend the entire paycheck. It's all about your savings culture. On the second part of your question - yes, Roth is a great tool, especially if you believe that the future tax rates will be higher (to fix the long-term budget deficits). So, contributing to 401(k) to maximize the match, then max out Roth, as others suggested, is a great advice. After you've done that, see what else you can do: more 401(k), saving for the house, etc.\"",
"qid": 10827,
"docid": "3104",
"rank": 24,
"score": 134357
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: So I learned that your employer CAN force you to make employee contributions. However, this source seems to think that the mandatory employee contributions do not count against the 402(g) limit of $18,000.",
"qid": 10827,
"docid": "2369",
"rank": 25,
"score": 134214
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: My perspective is from the US. Many employers offer 401(k)s and you can always contribute to an IRA for either tax deferred or tax free investment growth. If you're company offers a 401(k) match you should always contribute the maximum amount they max or you're leaving money on the table. Companies can't always support pensions and it isn't the best idea to rely on one entirely for retirement unless your pension is from the federal government. Even states such as Illinois are going through extreme financial difficulties due to pension funding issues. It's only going to get worse and if you think pension benefit accrual isn't going to be cut eventually you'll have another thing coming. I'd be worried if I was a state employee in the middle of my career with no retirement savings outside of my pension. Ranting: Employees pushed hard for some pretty absurd commitments and public officials let the public down by giving in. It seems a little crazy to me that someone can work for the state until they're in their 50's and then earn 70% of their 6 figure salary for the rest of their life. Something needs to be done but I'd be surprised if anyone has the political will to make tough choices now before thee options get much much worse and these states are forced to make a decision.",
"qid": 10827,
"docid": "2103",
"rank": 26,
"score": 133659
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I have worked for companies that have done this. One did have a match and the other did not. When they figured their profit at the end of the year a portion was given to the employees as a 401K deposit. retirement-topics-401k-and-profit-sharing-plan-contribution-limits Total annual contributions (annual additions) to all of your accounts in plans maintained by one employer (and any related employer) are limited. The limit applies to the total of: elective deferrals employer matching contributions employer nonelective contributions allocations of forfeitures The annual additions paid to a participant’s account cannot exceed the lesser of: 100% of the participant's compensation, or $54,000 ($60,000 including catch-up contributions) for 2017; $53,000 ($59,000 including catch-up contributions) for 2016. So as long as everything stays below that $54,000 limit you are good. In one case the decision was made by the company for the employee, the other company gave us the option of bonus check or 401K. I heard that most of the employees wanted the money in the 401K.",
"qid": 10827,
"docid": "15841",
"rank": 27,
"score": 133445
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: In addition to the normal limits, A Solo 401(k) allows you to contribute up to 20% of net profits (sole proprietor) or 50% of salary (if a corporation), up to $49,000. Note that the fees for 401(k) accounts are higher than with the IRA. See 401(k)s for small business.",
"qid": 10827,
"docid": "195637",
"rank": 28,
"score": 133356
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I'd hazard that Jim is mostly worried that people are getting ripped off by high employer 401(k) fund fees. A lot of employers offer funds with fees over 1% a year. This sounds low-ish if you don't realize that the real (inflation-adjusted) return for the fund will probably average out to about 4%, so it's really something like a quarter of your earnings gone. With an IRA, you don't have to do that. You can get an IRA provider which offers good, cheap index funds and the like (cough Vanguard cough). Fund fees will probably be closer to 0.1%-ish. HOWEVER. The maximum IRA contribution in 2013 will be $5,500. The maximum for a 401(k) contribution will be $17,500. That extra capacity is enough to recommend a 401(k) over an IRA for many people. These people may be best served by putting money into the 401(k) and then rolling it over into a rollover IRA when they change jobs. Also, certain people have retirement plans which offer them good cheap index funds. These people probably don't need to worry quite as much. Finally, having two accounts is more complicated. Please contact someone who knows more about taxes than I am to figure out what limitations apply for contributing to both IRAs and 401(k)s in the same year.",
"qid": 10827,
"docid": "231012",
"rank": 29,
"score": 132833
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The maximum you can contribute to both the 403(b) and 401(k) is $18,000. Take the amount you already contributed and subtract it from $18,000. That's how much you have left to contribute before maxing out.",
"qid": 10827,
"docid": "41330",
"rank": 30,
"score": 132740
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I think this article explains it pretty well: Contributions to a SEP are limited to 20% of your business income (which is business income minus half of your self-employment tax), up to a maximum of $45,000. With a solo 401(k), on the other hand, you can contribute up to $15,500 plus 20% of your business income (defined the same way as above), with a maximum contribution of $45,000 in 2007. You can make an extra $5,000 catch-up contribution if you're 50 or older",
"qid": 10827,
"docid": "280021",
"rank": 31,
"score": 132069
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"In asnwer to your questions: As @joetaxpayer said, you really should look into a Solo 401(k). In 2017, this allows you to contribute up to $18k/year and your employer (the LLC) to contribute more, up to $54k/year total (subject to IRS rules). 401(k) usually have ROTH and traditional sides, just like IRA. I believe the employer-contributed funds also see less tax burden for both you and your LLC that if that same money had become salary (payroll taxes, etc.). You might start at irs.gov/retirement-plans/one-participant-401k-plans and go from there. ROTH vs. pre-tax: You can mix and match within years and between years. Figure out what income you want to have when you retire. Any year you expect to pay lower taxes (low income, kids, deductions, etc.), make ROTH contributions. Any year you expect high taxes (bonus, high wage, taxable capital gains, etc.), make pre-tax payments. I have had a uniformly bad experience with target date funds across multiple 401(k) plans from multiple plan adminstrators. They just don't perform well (a common problem with almost any actively managed fund). You probably don't want to deal with individual stocks in your retirement accounts, so rather pick passively managed index funds that track various markets segments you care about and just sit on them. For example, your high-risk money might be in fast-growing but volatile industries (e.g. tech, aerospace, medical), your medium-risk money might go in \"\"total market\"\" or S&P 500 index funds, and your low-risk money might go in treasury notes and bonds. The breakdown is up to you, but as an 18 year old you have a ~50 year horizon and so can afford to wait out anything short of another Great Depression (and maybe even that). So you'd want generally you want more or your money in the high-risk high-return category, rebalancing to lower risk investments as you age. Diversifying into real estate, foreign investments, etc. might also make sense but I'm no expert on those.\"",
"qid": 10827,
"docid": "31462",
"rank": 32,
"score": 131981
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Your employer's matching contribution is calculated based on the dollar amounts you end up putting in. The nature of your 401(k) contribution—whether pre-tax or Roth after-tax—doesn't matter with respect to how their match gets calculated, and their match always goes into a pre-tax account, even if you are contributing after-tax. The onus is on you to choose a contribution amount that maximizes your employer match regardless of the nature of your contribution. Maximizing your employer match using Roth after-tax contributions will eat up more of your annual gross salary, but as long as you are willing to do that then you won't leave free employer match money on the table. Roth after-tax contributions don't get the tax deduction inherent in a pre-tax contribution. The tradeoff is that you end up with less take-home pay per period if you contribute the same number of dollars on a Roth after-tax basis to your 401(k) as opposed to on a pre-tax basis. For instance, to make a maximum $18,000 Roth after-tax contribution to a 401(k), it's going to cost you a lot more than $18,000 of your annual gross salary to net the same $18,000 number. (On the flip side, the Roth money is worth more in retirement than pre-tax money, because it won't be subject to taxes then.) However, 401(k) plan contribution amounts are almost always expressed as a percentage of gross salary, i.e. in pre-tax terms, even when electing to make after-tax contributions! So when electing after-tax, one is implicitly accepting that the contribution will cost more than the percentage of gross salary, because you'll need to pay the tax on a gross amount that would yield the same number of dollars but as an after-tax amount.",
"qid": 10827,
"docid": "463892",
"rank": 33,
"score": 131326
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: A good general rule is to save 15% of your income for retirement. As for where you put it: Put as much as it takes to maximize your employer match into your 401(k), but no more. The employer match is free money, and you can't beat free money If you still haven't put in 15%, put the rest into a Roth IRA. By historical standards, taxes are pretty low today. They are almost certainly going to be higher in retirement, especially since you likely won't have the deductions in retirement that you may have now (kids, mortgage, etc). If you've maxed our the allowed contribution for your Roth and still haven't saved 15%, put the rest in a traditional IRA.",
"qid": 10827,
"docid": "169232",
"rank": 34,
"score": 131205
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Your 401k IRA will now have three different sub-accounts, the one holding your Traditional (pre-tax) 401k contributions, the one holding your Roth 401k contributions, and the one holding the employer match contributions (which, as has been pointed out to you, cannot be considered to be Roth 401k contributions). That is, it is not true that So my next month's check shows $500+$500 going to the regular 401k, and $82+$82 going to the Roth 401k. Your next month's paystub will show $500 going into the regular 401k, $100 going into the Roth 401k, and if employer matching contributions are listed on the paystub, it will still show $600 going into the employer match. If you have chosen to invest your 401k in mutual funds (or stocks), shares are purchased when the 401k administrator receives the money and are also segregated in the three subaccounts. If you are paid monthly, then you will know on a month-by-month basis how many shares you hold in the three separate subaccounts, and there is no end-of-year modification of how many shares were purchased with Roth 401k contributions versus how many were purchased with pretax contributions or with employer matching funds as you seem to think.",
"qid": 10827,
"docid": "448358",
"rank": 35,
"score": 131040
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"There are two types of 401(k) contributions: \"\"elective contributions,\"\" which are the part put in by the employee and \"\"nonelective contributions,\"\" which are the part put in by the company. Elective contributions are summed across all the plans she is contributing to. So she can contribute $18,000 minus whatever she put in her 403(b). Additionally she can contribute 20% of the net profit of the company (before the elective contributions) as nonelective contributions (these contributions must be designated as such). You will notice that the IRS document says 25%, but that's what you can do if her business is incorporated. For a sole proprietorship, nonelective contributions ends up being limited at 20% of profit. Additionally, the sum of these two and her contribution to her 403(b) cannot exceed $53,000. Example: line 31 of her schedule C is $30,000 and she has contributed $10,000 to her 403(b). Maximum contribution to her solo 401(k) is ($18,000 - $10,000) + 0.2 * $30,000 = $14,000 Her total contributions for the year are $10,000 from her 403(b) plus $14,000 in her solo 401(k). This is less than $53,000 so this limit does not bind. If she made a ton of 1099 money, her contribution maximum would follow the above until it hit $53,000 and then it would stop there. The IRS describes this in detail in Publication 560, which also has a worksheet for figuring out your maximum explicitly. It's unpleasant reading and the worksheets are painful, but if you do it right, it will end up being as I just described it. Using the language of that publication, hers is a \"\"qualified plan\"\" of the \"\"defined contribution\"\" variety.\"",
"qid": 10827,
"docid": "367556",
"rank": 36,
"score": 130966
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You should be saving as much money as you can afford in your 401k up to the maximum allowed. If you don't contribute at least 6%, then you are essentially throwing away the match money that your employer is offering. Start out with the target date fund. You can always change your investment option later once you learn more about investing, but get started saving right away and get that match!",
"qid": 10827,
"docid": "576391",
"rank": 37,
"score": 130466
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"From a purely analytical standpoint, assuming you are investing your Roth IRA contributions in broad market securities (such as the SPDR S&P 500 ETF, which tracks the S&P 500), the broader market has historically had more upward movement than downward, and therefore a dollar invested today will have a greater expected value than a dollar invested tomorrow. So from this perspective, it is better to \"\"max out\"\" your Roth on the first day of the contribution year and immediately invest in broad market (or at least well diversified) securities. That being said, opportunity costs must also be taken into account--every dollar you use to fund your Roth IRA is a dollar that is no longer available to be invested elsewhere (hence, a lost opportunity). With this in mind, if you are currently eligible for a 401k in which your employer matches some portion of your contributions, it is generally advised that you contribute to the 401k up to the employer-match. For example, if your employer matches 75% of contributions up to 3.5% of your gross salary, then it is advisable that you first contribute this 3.5% to your 401k before even considering contributing to a Roth IRA. The reasoning behind this is two-fold: first, the employer-match can be considered as a guaranteed Return on Investment--so for example, for an employer that matches 75%, for every dollar you contribute you already have earned a 75% return up to the employer's limit. Secondly, 401k contributions have tax implications: not only is the money contributed to the 401k pre-tax (i.e., contributions are not taxed), it also reduces your taxable income, so the marginal tax benefit of these contributions must also be taken into account. Keep in mind that in the usual circumstances, 401k disbursements are taxable. Finally, many financial advisors will also suggest establishing an \"\"emergency fund\"\", which is money that you will not use unless you suffer an emergency that has an impact on your normal income--loss of job, medical emergency, etc. These funds are often kept in highly liquid accounts (savings accounts, money-market funds, etc.) so they can be accessed immediately when you run into one of \"\"life's little surprises\"\". Generally, it is advised that an emergency fund between $500-$1000 is established ASAP, and over time the emergency fund should be increased until it has reached a value equivalent to the sum of 8 months' worth of expenses. If funding an IRA is preventing you from working towards such an emergency fund, then you may want to consider waiting on maxing out the IRA before you have that EF established. Of course, it goes without saying that credit card balances with APRs other than 0.00% (or similar) should be paid off before an IRA is funded, since while you can only hope to match the market at best (between 10-15% a year) in your IRA investments, paying down credit card balances is an instant \"\"return\"\" of whatever the APR is, which usually tends to be between a 15-30% APR. In a nutshell, assuming you are maxing out your 401k (if applicable), have an emergency fund established, are not carrying any high-APR credit card balances, and are able to do so, historical price movements in the markets suggest that funding your Roth IRA upfront and investing these funds immediately in a broadly diversified portfolio will yield a higher expected return than funding the account periodically throughout the year (using dollar cost averaging or similar strategies). If this is not the case, take some time to consider the opportunity costs you are incurring from not fully contributing to your 401k, carrying high credit card balances, or not having a sufficient emergency fund established. This is not financial advice specific to any individual and your mileage may vary. Consider consulting a Certified Financial Planner, Certified Public Accountant, etc. before making any major financial decisions.\"",
"qid": 10827,
"docid": "551403",
"rank": 38,
"score": 130419
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: One possible downside is contribution limit. The 401K contribution limit is $18,000 for 2016, which is more than three times the limit for IRA contributions ($5,500).",
"qid": 10827,
"docid": "396852",
"rank": 39,
"score": 130283
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Traditional and Roth 401k share a contribution limit of $16.5k. This means you could actually contribute to both if you wished to (say, if you weren't 100% on how taxes will change come retirement time), but the combined contributions for the year cannot exceed that limit.",
"qid": 10827,
"docid": "569651",
"rank": 40,
"score": 129543
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You can transfer 401(k) funds from a previous employer to an IRA, and invest it as you wish. That $600 should go to the current 401(k) or IRA. Edit - OP has edited his question. I agree with him that each situation is unique, therefore 100% of the details are needed up front to avoid the answers that would be right for everyone else. He offered a valid reason for rejecting the current advice. There is no solution except to simply withdraw the money. It went in pretax, so taxing on way out is not a penalty. The 10% is the real penalty, and it's $60 in this case.",
"qid": 10827,
"docid": "514968",
"rank": 41,
"score": 129386
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you are working for a small company, the expense ratios on the funds in the 401k account are likely much higher than you can get with a similar IRA. Depending on your income, whether you are married and want to contribute to a spouse's IRA, your limit on what can be contributed to an IRA may vary, but the compelling reason to contribute to a 401k is that the contribution limit is higher ($17,500 vs $5,500 for people on the lower end of the income scale) so you may need to contribute to a 401k to meet your retirement savings goals.",
"qid": 10827,
"docid": "39071",
"rank": 42,
"score": 128542
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I suggest rolling it over to the 401(k) with your new employer. Particularly if they match any percentage of your contribution, it would be in your interest to take as much of that money as possible. When it comes to borrowing money from your 401(k), it looks like the issues AbraCadaver mentioned only apply if you don't pay back the money (http://www.kiplinger.com/article/real-estate/T010-C000-S002-borrowing-from-your-retirement-plan-to-buy-a-home.html). The reasonable argument against taking money out of your 401(k) to buy a home is that it leaves a dent in your retirement nest egg (and its earning power) during key earning years. On the plus side for borrowing from your 401(k), it's very low interest--and it's interest you're paying back to yourself over a 5-year period. At its current value, the most you could borrow from your 401(k) is $35K. If you're fortunate in where you live, that could be most or all of the downpayment. In my own experience, my wife borrowed against her 401(k) balance for the earnest money when we purchased a new home. Fortunately for us, an investor snapped up my previous home within 4 days of us listing it, so she was able to pay back her loan in full right away.",
"qid": 10827,
"docid": "436331",
"rank": 43,
"score": 128376
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Many employees don't contribute enough to maximize the match, so the cost to the employer is not the same. Under the 50% of 6% strategy an employee contributing 5% would get a 2.5% match not a 3% and that saves the company 0.5%. @TTT provided an excellent link in the comments below to a study titled \"\"How much employer 401(k) matching contributions do employees leave on the table?\"\" performed by Financial Engines, an independent financial advisory service. The information meaningful to this answer is on Page 5 (Page 7 of the PDF): 4,378,445 eligible employees were included in the study 1,077,775 of the eligible employees did not contribute enough for the full match; of them, 285,386 Received zero match funds 792,389 Received some match funds, but not the full match available So 792,389 or 18% of the employees studied contributed in to employer 401(k) plans but not enough to maximize their available match.\"",
"qid": 10827,
"docid": "296405",
"rank": 44,
"score": 127885
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"It seems I can make contributions as employee-elective, employer match, or profit sharing; yet they all end up in the same 401k from my money since I'm both the employer and employee in this situation. Correct. What does this mean for my allowed limits for each of the 3 types of contributions? Are all 3 types deductible? \"\"Deductible\"\"? Nothing is deductible. First you need to calculate your \"\"compensation\"\". According to the IRS, it is this: compensation is your “earned income,” which is defined as net earnings from self-employment after deducting both: So assuming (numbers for example, not real numbers) your business netted $30, and $500 is the SE tax (half). You contributed $17.5 (max) for yourself. Your compensation is thus 30-17.5-0.5=12. Your business can contribute up to 25% of that on your behalf, i.e.: $4K. Total that you can contribute in such a scenario is $21.5K. Whatever is contributed to a regular 401k is deferred, i.e.: excluded from income for the current year and taxed when you withdraw it from 401k (not \"\"deducted\"\" - deferred).\"",
"qid": 10827,
"docid": "336917",
"rank": 45,
"score": 127868
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: This is an older question but things have changed. Its a common misconception on what the contribution cap is. A few things. In 2014, the IRS did not adjust the maximum contribution from the previous year which include 401(k) accounts, 403(b) accounts, most 457 plans, and Thrift Savings Plans, will be $18,000, up $500 from $17,500. Savers and investors aged 50 or older can take advantage of a catch-up contribution. In 2015, taxpayers who meet this age-based criterion can contribute an additional $6,000 above the regular maximum of $18,000, thus you can contribute a maximum of $24,000 into these tax-advantaged accounts. The total contribution limit, including employer contributions, has increased to $53,000 You can actually contribute up to 53k (including matching) so the exact amount you contribute from your actual income may end up being more or less than 24k. If you get a poor employer match you can actually contribute more but it would go in as after tax dollars and not claim the tax deduction. Note: after tax does NOT equal Roth. However if your a high salaried individual you can use this as a potential loop hole for funding a Roth IRA. Chances are if your making enough money to contribute 53k Total Contributions then your not going to qualify for a roth. However once you retire (or possibly before depending on the plan withdraw terms) you can roll the after tax money into a Roth IRA. This is a gray area on the tax policy. The IRS may come back and change their mind about this. If considering this option talk to a tax adviser.",
"qid": 10827,
"docid": "360533",
"rank": 46,
"score": 127864
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Specifically on the subject of maxing out your 401k, there are several downsides: The employer match usually only applies to the first 6%. Some employers offer no match at all. You listed the match as a pro, but I think it should be pointed out that you can usually get this benefit without maxing out your plan. The investment options are limited. Usually there is at least one fund available from all the common investment classes, but these may not be your preferred funds if you were able to choose for yourself. Fees can be very high. If you are working for a small to medium size company, the fees for each fund will often be higher than for the same funds in a plan offered by a large company. Fees are usually related to the dollar amount of assets under management. Each person has a different tax situation, so if you are single and making 6 figures, you might still be in the 25% bracket even after maxing out your 401k, but the same person filing jointly with a spouse that makes less could get down to the 15% bracket with a smaller contribution. I meet my retirement savings goals without maxing out the 401k. As long as the amount is above the employer match amount, my second priority is to funnel as much money as possible in to my IRA (because I get lower fees and better investment options from Vanguard).",
"qid": 10827,
"docid": "430931",
"rank": 47,
"score": 127840
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"401k plans are required to not discriminate against the non-HCE participants, and one way they achieve this is by limiting the percentage of wages that HCEs can contribute to the plan to the average annual percentage contribution by the non-HCE participants or 3% whichever is higher. If most non-HCE employees contribute only 3% (usually to capture the employer match but no more), then the HCEs are stuck with 3%. However, be aware that in companies that award year-end bonuses to all employees, many non-HCEs contribute part of their bonuses to their 401k plans, and so the average annual percentage can rise above 3% at the end of year. Some payroll offices have been known to ask all those who have not already maxed out their 401k contribution for the year (yes, it is possible to do this even while contributing only 3% if you are not just a HCE but a VHCE) whether they want to contribute the usual 3%, or a higher percentage, or to contribute the maximum possible under the nondiscrimination rules. So, you might be able to contribute more than 3% if the non-HCEs put in more money at the end of the year. With regard to NQSPs, you pretty much have their properties pegged correctly. That money is considered to be deferred compensation and so you pay taxes on it only when you receive it upon leaving employment. The company also gets to deduct it as a business expense when the money is paid out, and as you said, it is not money that is segregated as a 401k plan is. On the other hand, you have earned the money already: it is just that the company is \"\"holding\"\" it for you. Is it paying you interest on the money (accumulating in the NQSP, not paid out in cash or taxable income to you)? Would it be better to just take the money right now, pay taxes on it, and invest it yourself? Some deferred compensation plans work as follows. The deferred compensation is given to you as a loan in the year it is earned, and you pay only interest on the principal each year. Since the money is a loan, there is no tax of any kind due on the money when you receive it. Now you can invest the proceeds of this loan and hopefully earn enough to cover the interest payments due. (The interest you pay is deductible on Schedule A as an Investment Interest Expense). When employment ceases, you repay the loan to the company as a lump sum or in five or ten annual installments, whatever was agreed to, while the company pays you your deferred compensation less taxes withheld. The net effect is that you pay the company the taxes due on the money, and the company sends this on to the various tax authorities as money withheld from wages paid. The advantage is that you do not need to worry about what happens to your money if the company fails; you have received it up front. Yes, you have to pay the loan principal to the company but the company also owes you exactly that much money as unpaid wages. In the best of all worlds, things will proceed smoothly, but if not, it is better to be in this Mexican standoff rather than standing in line in bankruptcy court and hoping to get pennies on the dollar for your work.\"",
"qid": 10827,
"docid": "49614",
"rank": 48,
"score": 127331
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Sure it is quite easy depending on income. If one receives a bonus that is high in relationship to their income, it is very easy to max out a 401K prior to when one intended. The later in the year such a bonus occurs the more likely that one will max out prematurely. If one only has a single employer in the year, the custodial company will not accept amounts above the max, so one need not worry about that case. If there is more than one employer, a refund is typically issued with the appropriate tax withheld. Assume that a person makes about 60K per year. They intend to put 12k into their 401K, thus have their contribution set to 20%. By the beginning of September, they have 8K into their retirement, but they also receive a bonus of 50K. Their 401K contribution for that bonus will be 10K, and thus they have maxed out their individual contribution for the year. So they will not be able to contribute for the rest of the year, including the first paycheck in September. They will miss out on any match that the company may supply. While that sucks, it should be relieved by the bless of receiving such a large bonus.",
"qid": 10827,
"docid": "271233",
"rank": 49,
"score": 127143
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Click on the ? icon next to \"\"Employer Plan\"\". This is used to determine if you can deduct your annual contributions from your taxes. For more information on how an employer plan can affect your IRA tax deduction, see the definition for non-deductible contributions. So, we look there: The total of your Traditional IRA contributions that were deposited without a tax deduction. Traditional IRA contributions are normally tax deductible. However, if you have an employer-sponsored retirement plan, such as a 401(k), your tax deduction may be limited. The $20K difference between $272K and $252K just happens to be $15% of $132,500 which is the amount of your non-deductible contributions.\"",
"qid": 10827,
"docid": "62281",
"rank": 50,
"score": 126627
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Rather than rolling the 401(k) to a new employer's plan, you should roll it into a traditional IRA. You get more options for the money, there's no limit on how much you can roll over, and you have more control over the money. If you do a direct rollover, there's no taxes or penalties involved. I'd recommend against taking any money out of the 401(k). With the numbers you give above, it's like borrowing money at 31.5% interest, which is pretty high, and you're sacrificing your future retirement. If you leave that money alone to grow with compounding, you'll have a lot more when you retire. If you're not familiar with the concept of compound interest, it's worth reading up on - the numbers will blow you away. At the very least, if you desperately need to get $3000 out of it, take out just enough to net $3000 after taxes and penalties (not quite $4400 using the numbers you give) and do a rollover with the rest. At least that way, you're keeping more in the IRA (just over $8600, vs the $5000 in your proposed scenario). Overall, I really recommend you find a way to accomplish your goals without touching your retirement savings.",
"qid": 10827,
"docid": "526271",
"rank": 51,
"score": 125817
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The matching funds are free money, so it is a very good idea to take that money off the table. Look at it as free 100% return: you deposit $1000, your employer matches that $1000, you now have $2000 in your 401(k). (Obviously, I'm keeping things simple. Vesting schedules mean that the employer match isn't yours to keep immediately, but rather after some time; usually in chunks.) Beyond the employer match, you need to consider what is available for investment in a 401(k). Typically, your options are more limited then in an IRA. The cost of the 401(k) should be considered, as it isn't trivial for most. (The specifics will of course vary, but in large IRA accounts are cheaper.) So, it's about the opportunity costs. Up to the employer match, it doesn't matter as much that your investment choices are more limited in a 401(k), because you're getting 100% return just on the matching funds. Once that is exhausted, you have more opportunity for returns, due to having more options available to you, by going with an account that provides more choices. The overall principle here is that you have to look at the whole picture. This is similar to the notion that you should pay-down your high interest debt before investing, because from the perspective of investing the interest you're paying represent a loss, or negative return on investment, since money is going out of your accounts. Specific to your question, you have to consider the various types of investment vehicles available to you. It is not just about 401(k) and IRA accounts. You may also consider a straight brokerage account, a savings account, CDs, etc. The costs and returns that you can typically expect are your guides through the available choices.",
"qid": 10827,
"docid": "371886",
"rank": 52,
"score": 125717
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: On the statement it now tracks how much is contributed to the account pre and post tax. This is the key. Your withdrawals will be proportional. Assuming you have contributed 90% in regular contributions (pre-tax) and 10% in Roth (post tax), when you withdraw $1000, it will be $900 from the regular (taxed fully) and $100 from the Roth (not taxed, assuming its a qualified distribution). Earnings attributed proportionally to the contributions. I agree with you that it is not the best option, and would also prefer separate accounts, but with 401k - the account is per employee. Instead of doing 401k Roth/Non-Roth consider switching to Regular 401k and Roth IRA - then you can separate the funds easily as you wish.",
"qid": 10827,
"docid": "501290",
"rank": 53,
"score": 125649
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The only time to stop saving money for retirement is when you have enough money to retire tomorrow. Not all of your \"\"retirement savings\"\" need to be in a 401k, it is just better if you can. Be sure to get as much as you can from the employer matching program. Unfortunately some employer matching programs discourage you from putting in too much. I've been able to max out the 401k contribution a number of times, which helps. Remember: you are likely to live to 100, so you better save enough to live that long. I don't trust social security to be there. I recommend saving so that you end up with \"\"enough to be comfortable\"\" -- this is usually about 25x your current income - PLUS inflation between now and when you plan to retire (age 62 is a good target). It is worth knowing your \"\"retirement savings number\"\". If you are making $100K per year now, you need to target $2.5M - PLUS allowance for inflation between now and when you plan to retire. This usually means you need to also arrange to make more money as well as save as much as you can and to use passive investing. Finance advisors are not worth it if you have less than $1M to invest.\"",
"qid": 10827,
"docid": "337561",
"rank": 54,
"score": 125346
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Summary: It's because you are effectively contributing more money in the second case, so you have more money at the end. The effect of being covered by an employer retirement plan (in the case of a 401(k), that means either you or your employer contributed to it during the year) is that it prevents you from deducting Traditional IRA contributions unless your income is below a very low level (for Single filing status, it phases out at an MAGI of between $62k and $72k). Since you are unable to deduct the Traditional IRA contribution, but you entered that you are still making the full $5500 contribution every year, that means you are making a non-deductible contribution of $5500 every year instead of a deductible contribution. Nondeductible contributions are \"\"after-tax\"\", whereas deductible contributions are \"\"pre-tax\"\" (because your taxable income is reduced by the amount of the contribution, so you effectively don't pay income tax on the income you used to contribute). $1 of pre-tax money is not the same as $1 of after-tax money. If your marginal tax rate is 25%, then $1 of pre-tax money is equivalent to $0.75 of after-tax money. However, since in both cases you are putting in the same nominal amount of contribution ($5500), but one is pre-tax and one is after-tax, in the after-tax case you are effectively contributing more money, i.e. more money is taken out from your bank account that year. The $5500 pre-tax contribution is equivalent to only $5500 * 0.75 = $4125 after-tax, i.e. you are only short $4125 from your bank account at the end of the year after making a $5500 deductible contribution, whereas you are short $5500 after making a $5500 non-deductible contribution, so it's not a fair comparison. The non-deductible Traditional IRA contributions are not taxed when withdrawn (though the earnings earned from those contributions are still taxed), so that's why you are left with a greater amount. This is a similar situation to what happens when you try to compare a $5500 deductible Traditional IRA contribution to a $5500 Roth IRA contribution -- it will look like the Roth IRA case leaves you with much more money, but that's again because you are effectively contributing more money, because the Roth IRA contribution is after-tax, so it's not a fair comparison. (The Roth IRA case will produce a much greater \"\"advantage\"\" than the non-deductible Traditional IRA contribution case, because for a Roth IRA, both the contributions and earnings will not be taxed at withdrawal.)\"",
"qid": 10827,
"docid": "139059",
"rank": 55,
"score": 124872
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Are you obligated to do what they ask? Probably not, with one big caveat discussed below. Your employer sent your money and their money after every paycheck to the 401K management company. Then after a while the 401K management company followed your instructions to roll it over into an IRA. Now the IRA management company has it. Pulling it out of the IRA would be very hard, and the IRA company would be required to report it to the IRS as a withdraw. Here is the caveat. If the extra funds you put in allowed you to exceed the annual contribution amount set by the law, or if it allowed you to put more than 100% of your income into the fund, then this would be an excess contribution, and you and your employer would have to resolve or face the excess contribution penalties. Though if the 401K company and HR allowed you to exceed the annual limit they have a much more complex problem with their payroll system. The bigger concern is why they want you to pull out your $27.50 and their $27.50. Unless you were hitting the maximum limit, your $27.50 could have been invested by adjusting the percentage taken out of each check. You could have picked a percentage to reach a goal. That money is yours because you contributed it and unless you exceed the IRS set limits it is still pre-tax retirement money. The return of matching funds may be harder to calculate. The returns for 2013 were very good. Each $1.06 of matching funds each paycheck purchased a fraction of some investment. That investment went up and down, ok mostly up, if it was invested in the broad market. I guess you should be glad they aren't asking for more due to the increase in value. It would be very hard to calculate what happened if you have moved it around since then. Which of course you did when you moved it into an IRA. If the average employee was also given a $55 gift last year, then the suggestion to the employer is that the tax complexity you and your fellow employees face would exceed the cost of the extra funds. They should chalk it up to an expensive lesson and move on.",
"qid": 10827,
"docid": "140349",
"rank": 56,
"score": 124758
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I can only address this part of it: For instance with a 10k net income, 9293 is the limit for 401k from employee. How is this calculated? I believe this limit is total for all sources too, which I'm confused about. How it's calculated is that when you are self-employed you also pay the employer portion of the FICA taxes. This comes off above the line and is not considered income. The 401k contribution limit takes this into account.",
"qid": 10827,
"docid": "247473",
"rank": 57,
"score": 124415
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: if you have a work-sponsored retirement plan A 401k plan counts as a work-sponsored retirement plan. If you are a highly compensated employee (this is $115,000 for 2012), even your 401k contributions are limited. Given that, is there any difference at all between having a traditional IRA and a normal, taxable (non-retirement) investment account? You should consider a Roth IRA if you are making too much for a traditional IRA. When you make even more, then you can't contribute to a Roth, but can only contribute post-tax money to a traditional IRA. Use Form 8606 to keep track of non-deductable contributions over the years. Publication 590 is the official IRS explanation of what is deductable or not.",
"qid": 10827,
"docid": "447482",
"rank": 58,
"score": 124380
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: See Started new job. Rollover previous employer 401k to new 401k, IRA or Roth IRA? for a start. Kevin, the discussion is far more complex than you might think. Say your account grows by X, (pretend it's 10 if you wish) and your tax rate is Y (25%?). If you take the initial sum, tax it at Y, but then grow it X, the result is identical to doing it in the reverse order. So $1000 to start can grow to $10,000, then after tax, $7500. Or $1000 taxed to $750, then grow to $7500. For pretax deposits, the key is that you deposit those contributions at your marginal rate, i.e. the rate you'd pay on the last $X taxed. But withdrawals start at zero. In the perfect scenario, you will save 25-28% tax on deposits, but at retirement, enjoy taxation at 0%,10%,15% for a large portion or all of the withdrawals. (Note, others can suggest rates will rise, and they may be right. My answer is based on the current tax structure.) A new earner, at 10 or 15% may be better off starting with Roth, and as they earn their way to 25% or higher slide over to pre-tax deposits. My 14 year old baby sits, and makes enough to fund a Roth, but pays no tax as she earns less than her own standard deduction for what that's worth.",
"qid": 10827,
"docid": "374803",
"rank": 59,
"score": 123241
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"You might consider working on getting your new employer to sponsor a 401k, there may be options where you can invest and they aren't required to add anything as a match (which gives you higher limits). If they don't match, they may just be liable for some administration fees. If you have any side business that you do, you might also be eligible for other \"\"self-employed\"\" options that have higher limits (SEP, Simple - I think they may go up to $15k) although, I'm not sure the nitty gritties of them.\"",
"qid": 10827,
"docid": "220459",
"rank": 60,
"score": 123186
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You can invest another $5,500 in your Roth IRA each year, so you can invest up to $11,000 between the two tax years. Additionally you can make investments for the previous year up until 15 April the following year. In your case that will be close to graduation time, and you may decide to max out the contribution for 2014, but wait until you are settled into a new job before setting those savings aside long-term. When you start your first job, there will likely also be an option to invest in a 401k. You can still have the advantages of a Roth, but you will be limited to the investments available in the plan. Most employers I've seen today still offer a low-cost index fund, but you may have to speak up at a company meeting to pressure them to include one of those options in the plan. With a 401k your limit increases to $17,500/year. Make sure that the index fund you invest in has the lowest possible expense ratio. I use VOO. Depending on trading fees, etc., you might pick something else.",
"qid": 10827,
"docid": "204992",
"rank": 61,
"score": 123146
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You cannot contribute directly to that 401k account if you no longer work at the sponsoring company - you have to be on their payroll. You can, however, roll the 401k over into an IRA, and contribute to the IRA. Note that in both cases, you are only allowed to contribute from earned income (which includes all the taxable income and wages you get from working or from running your own business). As long as you are employed (and have made more than $5k this year) you should have no problem. I am not certain whether contributing your $5k to a roth IRA would help you achieve your tax goals, someone else here certainly can advise.",
"qid": 10827,
"docid": "372014",
"rank": 62,
"score": 122883
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: According to the 401K information from the IRS' website, it seems that you could seemingly get away with a salary as low as $53,000. It's tough, and I'd suggest speaking with an Accounting professional to get the clear answers, because as Brick's answer suggests, the IRS isn't super clear about it. An excerpt from a separate page regarding 401K contributions: The annual additions paid to a participant’s account cannot exceed the lesser of: There are separate, smaller limits for SIMPLE 401(k) plans. Example 1: Greg, 46, is employed by an employer with a 401(k) plan and he also works as an independent contractor for an unrelated business. Greg sets up a solo 401(k) plan for his independent contracting business. Greg contributes the maximum amount to his employer’s 401(k) plan for 2015, $18,000. Greg would also like to contribute the maximum amount to his solo 401(k) plan. He is not able to make further elective deferrals to his solo 401(k) plan because he has already contributed his personal maximum, $18,000. He has enough earned income from his business to contribute the overall maximum for the year, $53,000. Greg can make a nonelective contribution of $53,000 to his solo 401(k) plan. This limit is not reduced by the elective deferrals under his employer’s plan because the limit on annual additions applies to each plan separately. https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/plan-participant-employee/retirement-topics-401k-and-profit-sharing-plan-contribution-limits",
"qid": 10827,
"docid": "17166",
"rank": 63,
"score": 122843
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: 4% of 30k ($1,200) is dwarfed by an $18,000 base pay increase. At 48k maxing out IRA will take ~11.5% of gross income, so at current position (30k salary) 401k contributions would likely be limited to the matching portion anyway. The long-term benefit of a deferred tax retirement plan can't fully be known since tax rates can change over time. If rates increase, the benefit can be mitigated. Personally, I only contribute to 401k enough to get full employer matching, and then I prioritize HSA, IRA, after those, some people like to go back to 401k to max, but I prefer other investments. At this low of an income range, the increase in base pay is far too significant to worry over potential differences in tax-deferred vs after tax investments.",
"qid": 10827,
"docid": "198825",
"rank": 64,
"score": 122592
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"if you have 401k with an employer already, has the following features: Your contributions are taxed That's only true if you're a high income earner. https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/2017-ira-deduction-limits-effect-of-modified-agi-on-deduction-if-you-are-covered-by-a-retirement-plan-at-work For example, married filing jointly allows full deduction up to $99,000 even if you have a 401(k). \"\"the timing is just different\"\" And that's a good thing, since if your retirement tax rate is less than your current tax rate, you'll pay less tax on that money.\"",
"qid": 10827,
"docid": "361509",
"rank": 65,
"score": 121995
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Yes. Two years after your first contribution to the SIMPLE IRA, you can roll it to a traditional IRA. You can still contribute \"\"pre-tax\"\", but the mechanism will be slightly different, since with an employer plan the contribution was automatically deducted from your paycheck. With an individual plan, you make the contributions yourself and then get a tax deduction when you file. Since contributions to traditional and Roth IRAs combined are capped at $5,500 if you're under 50, some sort of employer-sponsored plan might be better from a contribution standpoint. If your institution offers some sort of plan other than a 401(k), you might still want to roll to a traditional IRA, since you will have much more flexibility in the investments you choose. On the flip side, if that thought is overwhelming, having a smaller set of options might be better for your peace of mind.\"",
"qid": 10827,
"docid": "244084",
"rank": 66,
"score": 121811
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Is there any benefit to investing in a Roth 401(k) plan, as opposed to a Roth IRA? They have separate contribution limits, so how much you contribute to one does not change the amount you can contribute to the other. Which is relevant to your question because you said the earnings on that account compounded over the next 40 years growing tax-free will be much higher than what I'd save on current taxes on a traditional 401(k). This is only true if you max out your contribution limits. If you start with the same amount of money and have the same marginal tax rate in both years, it doesn't matter which one you pick. Start with $10,000 to invest. With the traditional, you can invest all $10,000. With the Roth, you pay taxes on it and then invest it. Let's assume a tax rate of 25%. So invest $7500. Let's assume that you invest either amount long enough to double four times (forty years at 7% return after inflation is about right). So the traditional has $160,000 and the Roth has $120,000. Now you withdraw them. For simplicity's sake, we'll pretend it's all one year. It's probably over several years, but the math is easier in a single year. With the Roth, you have $120,000. With the traditional, you have to pay tax. Again, let's assume 25%. So that's $40,000, leaving you with $120,000 from the traditional. That is the same amount as the Roth! So it would make sense to If you can max out both, great. You do that for forty years and your retirement will be as financially secure as you can make it. If you can't max them out, the most important thing is the employer match. That's free money. Then you may prefer your Roth IRA to the 401k. Note that you can also roll over your Roth 401k to a Roth IRA. Then you can withdraw your contributions from the Roth IRA without penalty or additional tax. Alternate source. Beyond answering your question, I would still like to reiterate that Roth or traditional does not have a big effect on your investment unless you max them out or you have different tax rates now versus in retirement. It may change other things. For example, you can roll over a Roth 401k to a Roth IRA without paying taxes. And the Roth IRA will act like it was contributed directly. You have to check with your employer what their rollover rules are. They may allow it any time or only at employment separation (when you leave the job). If you do max out your Roth accounts, then they will perform better than the traditional accounts at the same nominal contribution. This is because they are tax free while your returns in the other accounts will have to pay taxes. But it doesn't matter until you hit the limits. Until then, you could just invest the tax savings of the traditional as well as the money you could invest in a Roth.",
"qid": 10827,
"docid": "92442",
"rank": 67,
"score": 121695
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"If you are the sole owner (or just you and your spouse) and expect to be that way for a few years, consider the benefits of an individual 401(k). The contribution limits are higher than an IRA, and there are usually no fees involved. You can google \"\"Individual 401k\"\" and any of the major investment firms (Fidelity, Schwab, etc) will set one up free of charge. This option gives you a lot of freedom to decide how much money to put away without any plan management fees. The IRS site has all the details in an article titled One-Participant 401(k) Plans. Once you have employees, if you want to set up a retirement plan for them, you'll need to switch to a traditional, employer-sponsored 401k, which will involve some fees on your part. I seem to recall $2k/yr in fees when I had a sponsored 401(k) for my company, and I'm sure this varies widely. If you have employees and don't feel a need to have a company-wide retirement plan, you can set up your own personal IRA and simply not offer a company plan to your employees. The IRA contribution limits are lower than an individual 401(k), but setting it up is easy and fee-free. So basically, if you want to spend $0 on plan management fees, get an individual 401(k) if you are self-employed, or an IRA for yourself if you have employees.\"",
"qid": 10827,
"docid": "289064",
"rank": 68,
"score": 121482
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The limit on SEP IRA is 25%, not 20%. If you're self-employed (filing on Schedule C), then it's taken on net earning, which in your example would be 25% of $90,000. (https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/retirement-plans-for-self-employed-people) JoeTaxpayer is correct as regards the 401(k) limits. The elective deferrals are per person - That's a cap in sum across multiple plans and across both traditional and Roth if you have those. In general, it's actually across other retirement plan types too - See below. If you're self-employed and set-up a 401(k) for your own business, the elective deferral is still aggregated with any other 401(k) plans in which you participate that year, but you can still make the employer contribution on your own plan. This IRS page is current a pretty good one on this topic: https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/one-participant-401k-plans Key quotes that are relevant: The business owner wears two hats in a 401(k) plan: employee and employer. Contributions can be made to the plan in both capacities. The owner can contribute both: •Elective deferrals up to 100% of compensation (“earned income” in the case of a self-employed individual) up to the annual contribution limit: ◦$18,000 in 2015 and 2016, or $24,000 in 2015 and 2016 if age 50 or over; plus •Employer nonelective contributions up to: ◦25% of compensation as defined by the plan, or ◦for self-employed individuals, see discussion below It continues with this example: The amount you can defer (including pre-tax and Roth contributions) to all your plans (not including 457(b) plans) is $18,000 in 2015 and 2016. Although a plan's terms may place lower limits on contributions, the total amount allowed under the tax law doesn’t depend on how many plans you belong to or who sponsors those plans. EXAMPLE Ben, age 51, earned $50,000 in W-2 wages from his S Corporation in 2015. He deferred $18,000 in regular elective deferrals plus $6,000 in catch-up contributions to the 401(k) plan. His business contributed 25% of his compensation to the plan, $12,500. Total contributions to the plan for 2015 were $36,500. This is the maximum that can be contributed to the plan for Ben for 2015. A business owner who is also employed by a second company and participating in its 401(k) plan should bear in mind that his limits on elective deferrals are by person, not by plan. He must consider the limit for all elective deferrals he makes during a year. Notice in the example that Ben contributed more that than his elective limit in total (his was $24,000 in the example because he was old enough for the $6,000 catch-up in addition to the $18,000 that applies to everyone else). He did this by declaring an employer contribution of $12,500, which was limited by his compensation but not by any of his elective contributions. Beyond the 401(k), keep in mind that elective contributions are capped across different types of retirement plans as well, so if you have a SEP IRA and a solo 401(k), your total contributions across those plans are also capped. That's also mentioned in the example. Now to the extent that you're considering different types of plans, that's a whole question in itself - One that might be worth consulting a dedicated tax advisor. A few things to consider (not extensive list): As for payroll / self-employment tax: Looks like you will end up paying Medicare, including the new \"\"Additional Medicare\"\" tax that came with the ACA, but not SS: If you have wages, as well as self-employment earnings, the tax on your wages is paid first. But this rule only applies if your total earnings are more than $118,500. For example, if you will have $30,000 in wages and $40,000 in selfemployment income in 2016, you will pay the appropriate Social Security taxes on both your wages and business earnings. In 2016, however, if your wages are $78,000, and you have $40,700 in net earnings from a business, you don’t pay dual Social Security taxes on earnings more than $118,500. Your employer will withhold 7.65 percent in Social Security and Medicare taxes on your $78,000 in earnings. You must pay 15.3 percent in Social Security and Medicare taxes on your first $40,500 in self-employment earnings and 2.9 percent in Medicare tax on the remaining $200 in net earnings. https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10022.pdf Other good IRS resources:\"",
"qid": 10827,
"docid": "406561",
"rank": 69,
"score": 121231
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"You are legally able to contribute more than 4% to your 401(k) (unless you've hit the actual limit). There is no reason you need to pull out your \"\"extra\"\" contribution. So basically they just want their $27.50 back. So offer (via email or writing) to send them a check. You obviously don't work there any more, so if they insist it comes from your IRA or are not willing to accept a check, tell them to @%#&* off (OK, not really, that would be unprofessional, but that's the general idea). They overpaid you by $27.50, and you are legally bound to return the extra pay, but not to put up with their BS. Tell them you've offered to pay, and if they don't want to accept a check, they can sue you for it to try to get it in the form they prefer (which they won't do, and even if they did, at most the judge would just tell you to write a check - which you offered from the outset, so they'd probably owe your legal fees).\"",
"qid": 10827,
"docid": "433587",
"rank": 70,
"score": 121165
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Your retirement PLAN is a lifelong plan and shouldn't be tied to your employer status. Max out your 401(k) contribution to the maximum that your employer matches (that's a 100% ROI!) and as much as you can afford. When you leave the work force rollover your 401(k) to an IRA account (e.g.: you can create an IRA account with any of the online brokerage firms Schwab, E-Trade, Sharebuilder, or go with a brick-and-mortar firm like JP Morgan, Stifel Nicolaus, etc.). You should have a plan: How much money do you need/month for your expenses? Accounting for inflation, how much is that going to be at retirement (whatever age you plan to retire)? How much money do you need to have so that 4.5% of that money will provide for your annual living expenses? That's your target retirement amount of savings. Now figure out how to get to that target. Rule #1 Invest early and invest often! The more money you can sock away early in your career the more time that money has to grow. If you aren't comfortable allocating your investments yourself then you could go with a Targeted Retirement Fund. These funds have a general \"\"date\"\" for retirement and the assets are allocated as appropriate for the amount of risk appropriate for the time to retirement.\"",
"qid": 10827,
"docid": "449828",
"rank": 71,
"score": 121072
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Post-86 After tax contributions to a 401k are after tax. The earnings on that money is taxable, but not the contributions. This means: You'll have $15,000 in the 401k and $10,000 is considered after-tax and $5,000 is considered pre-tax. The after-tax portion can be converted to a Roth IRA without paying taxes or penalties. New in September 2014 The IRS has made substantial changes that now enable this to happen. You can request a distribution from your 401k provider where they divide the money into pre-tax and after-tax funds. In my example, you'd get a check for $10,000 that you could send to a Roth IRA and a check for $5,000 you could add to a traditional Roll-over IRA. Neither of those would be taxable events and you'd end with a Roth IRA with $10K and a Traditional, Rollover IRA with $5K in it. Notes:",
"qid": 10827,
"docid": "388021",
"rank": 72,
"score": 120711
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Please note that if you are self employed, then the profit sharing limit for both the SEP and Solo 401(k) is 20% of compensation, not 25%. There is no need for a SEP-IRA in this case. In addition to the 401(k) at work, you have a solo-401(k) for your consulting business. You can contribute $18,000 on the employee side across the two 401(k) plans however you wish. You can also contribute profit sharing up to 20% of compensation in your solo 401(k) plan. However, the profit sharing limit aggregates across all plans for your consulting business. If you max that out in your solo 401(k), then you cannot contribute to the SEP IRA. In other words, the solo 401(k) dominates the SEP IRA in terms of contributions and shares a limit on the profit-sharing contribution. If you have a solo 401(k), there is never a reason to have a SEP for the same company. Example reference: Can I Contribute to a solo 401(k) and SEP for the same company?",
"qid": 10827,
"docid": "104934",
"rank": 73,
"score": 120403
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you have self-employment income you can open a Solo 401k. Your question is unclear as to what your employment status is. If you are self-employed as an independent contractor, you can open a Solo 401k. You can still do this even if you also earn non-self-employment income (i.e., you are an employee and receive a W-2). However, the limits for contributions to a Solo 401k are based on your self-mployment income, not your total income, so if you have only a small amount of self-employment income, you won't be able to contribute much to the Solo 401k. You may be able to reduce your taxes somewhat, but it's not like you can earn $1000 of self-employment income, open a Solo 401k, and dump $5000 into it; the limits don't work that way.",
"qid": 10827,
"docid": "181652",
"rank": 74,
"score": 119835
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Congratulations on your raise! Is my employer allowed to impose their own limit on my contributions that's different from the IRS limit? No. Is it something they can limit at will, or are they required to allow me to contribute up to the IRS limit? The employer cannot limit you, you can contribute up to the IRS limit. Your mistake is in thinking that the IRS limit is 17K for everyone. That is not so. You're affected by the HCE rules (Highly Compensated Employees). These rules define certain employees as HCE (if their salary is significantly higher than that of the rest of the employees), and limit the ability of the HCE's to deposit money into 401k, based on the deposits made by the rest of the employees. Basically it means that while the overall maximum is indeed 17K, your personal (and other HCE's in your company) is lowered down because those who are not HCE's in the company don't deposit to 401k enough. You can read more details and technical explanation about the HCE rules in this article and in this blog post.",
"qid": 10827,
"docid": "312369",
"rank": 75,
"score": 119169
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you were looking to maximize your ability to save in a qualified plan, why not setup a 401K plan in Company A and keep the SEP in B? Setup the 401K in A such that any employee can contribute 100% of their salary. Then take a salary for around 19K/year (assuming under age 50), so you can contribute and have enough to cover SS taxes. Then continue to move dividends to Company A, and continue the SEP in B. This way if you are below age 50, you can contribute 54K (SEP limit) + 18K (IRA limit) + 5500 (ROTH income dependent) to a qualified plan.",
"qid": 10827,
"docid": "363591",
"rank": 76,
"score": 118865
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: From a long-term planning point of view, is the bump in salary worth not having a 401(k)? In this case, absolutely. At $30k/year, the 4% company match comes to about $1,200 per year. To get that you need to save $1,200 yourself, so your gross pay after retirement contributions is about $28,800. Now you have an offer making $48,000. If you take the new job, you can put $2,400 in retirement (to get to an equivalent retirement rate), and now your gross pay after retirement contributions is $45,600. Now if the raise in salary were not as high, or you were getting a match that let you exceed the individual contribution max, the math might be different, but in this case you can effectively save the company match yourself and still be way ahead. Note that there are MANY other factors that may also be applicable as to whether to take this job or not (do you like the work? The company? The coworkers? The location? Is there upward mobility? Are the benefits equivalent?) but not taking a 67% raise just because you're losing a 4% 401(k) match is not a wise decision.",
"qid": 10827,
"docid": "69042",
"rank": 77,
"score": 118446
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: There are a couple of cases where I'd argue in favor of the 401k: Employer matching - If the employer matches your contributions, then it makes sense to get these additional investments which if you are in a low bracket may exist as highly-compensated employees may want those in the lower brackets to contribute as much as they can. Investment options - If the employer has enough assets in the plan, there could be access to institutional versions of those funds. For example, compare Vanguard Institutional Index Instl Pl (VIIIX) with Vanguard 500 Index Inv (VFINX), where the expense ratio in the former is just .02% while the latter is .17%. Granted this is a minor difference in expenses, there is something to be said for how much a .15% drag year over year could add up.",
"qid": 10827,
"docid": "150883",
"rank": 78,
"score": 118331
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"All right, I will try to take this nice and slow. This is going to be a little long; try to bear with me. Suppose you contribute $100 to your newly opened 401(k). You now have $100 in cash and $0 in mutual funds in your 401(k) (and $100 less than you used to somewhere else). At some later date, you use that money within the 401(k) to buy a single share of the Acme World All-Market Index Fund which happens to trade at exactly $100 per share on the day your purchase goes through. As a result, you have $0 in cash and exactly one share of that fund (corresponding to $100) within your 401(k). Some time later, the price of the fund is up 10%, so your share is now worth $110. Since you haven't contributed anything more to your 401(k) for whatever reason, your cash holding is still $0. Because your holding is really denominated in shares of this mutual fund, of which you still have exactly one, the cash equivalent of your holding is now $110. Now, you can basically do one of two things: By selling the share, you protect against it falling in price, thus in a sense \"\"locking in\"\" your gain. But where do you put the money instead? You obviously can't put the money in anything else that might fall in price; doing so would mean that you could lose a portion of your gains. The only way to truly \"\"lock in\"\" a gain is to remove the money from your investment portfolio altogether. Roughly speaking, that means withdrawing the money and spending it. (And then you have to consider if the value of what you spent the money on can fluctuate, and as a consequence, fall. What's the value of that three weeks old jug of milk in the back of your refrigerator?) The beauty of compounding is that it doesn't care when you bought an investment. Let's say that you kept the original fund, which was at $110. Now, since that day, it is up another 5%. Since we are looking at the change of price of the fund over some period of time, that's 5% of $110, not 5% of the $100 you bought at (which was an arbitrary point, anyway). 5% of $110 is $5.50, which means that the value of your holding is now at $115.50 from a gain first of 10% followed by another 5%. If at the same day when the original fund was at $110 you buy another $100 worth of it, the additional 5% gain is realized on the sum of the two at the time of the purchase, or $210. Thus after the additional 5% gain, you would have not $210 (($100 + $100) + 5%), nor $205 (($100 + 5%) + $100), but $220.50 (($110 + $100) + 5%). See how you don't need to do anything in particular to realize the beauty of compounding growth? There is one exception to the above. Some investments pay out dividends, interest or equivalent in cash equivalents. (Basically, deposit money into an account of yours somewhere; in the case of retirement plans, usually within the same container where you are holding the investment. These dividends are generally not counted against your contribution limits, but check the relevant legal texts if you want to be absolutely certain.) This is somewhat uncommon in mutual funds, but very common in other investments such as stocks or bonds that you purchase directly (which you really should not do if you are just starting out and/or feel the need to ask this type of question). In that case, you need to place a purchase order yourself for whatever you want to invest the dividend in. If you don't, then the extra money of the dividend will not be growing along with your original investment.\"",
"qid": 10827,
"docid": "79083",
"rank": 79,
"score": 117806
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If your employer does not offer contribution matching, and you don't like the range of investment options provided by the company 401k, then you probably are better off investing in your own IRA instead. In an IRA held at a bank or brokerage, you can invest in multiple stocks or funds and move money around within the IRA pretty freely in most cases. If your company is doing well and is actually sharing profit into the 401k, you might consider leaving your 5% contribution to the 401k where it is and put the other 5% you are planning to contribute into a new IRA of your own. This straddles the risk of you losing money if your company 401k tanks (or profit sharing dries up) and your missing out on profit sharing if it continues to pay well.",
"qid": 10827,
"docid": "97805",
"rank": 80,
"score": 117708
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Some companies allow you to make a post-tax contribution to the 401K. This is not a Roth contribution. This can be money beyond the 18,000 or 24,000 401k limit. The best news is that eventually that money can be rolled into 1 Roth-IRA. Not all companies allow this option. One company I worked for did this automatically when you hit the annual max. Of course that was made more complex if you had multiple employers that year.",
"qid": 10827,
"docid": "353009",
"rank": 81,
"score": 117621
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"You seem to be treating your Roth IRA as a sort of savings account for use in emergency situations. I would use a savings account for savings as withdrawing money from an IRA will have penalties under various circumstances (more than contributions, Roth IRA less than 5 years old, more than $10k for a down payment). Also, you mention folding your IRA into your 401k so that it will \"\"grow faster\"\". However, this will not have that effect. Imagine you have $30k in an IRA and $100k in a 401k and you are averaging a return of 8% / year on each. This will be identical to having a single 401k with $130k and an 8% / year return. This is not one of your questions, but employer matches are not counted in the 401k contribution limit. If your 22% calculation of your salary includes the match to reach the max contribution, you can still contribute more.\"",
"qid": 10827,
"docid": "270818",
"rank": 82,
"score": 117619
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You might want to bring this fancy new IRS rule to your employer's attention. If your employer sets it up, an After-Tax 401(k) Plan allows employees to contribute after-tax money above the $18k/year limit into a special 401(k) that allows deferral of tax on all earnings until withdrawal in retirement. Now, if you think about it, that's not all that special on its own. Since you've already paid tax on the contribution, you could imitate the above plan all by yourself by simply investing in things that generate no income until the day you sell them and then just waiting to sell them until retirement. So basically you're locking up money until retirement and getting zero benefit. But here's the cool part: the new IRS rule says you can roll over these contributions into a Roth 401(k) or Roth IRA with no extra taxes or penalties! And a Roth plan is much better, because you don't have to pay tax ever on the earnings. So you can contribute to this After-Tax plan and then immediately roll over into a Roth plan and start earning tax-free forever. Now, the article I linked above gets some important things slightly wrong. It seems to suggest that your company is not allowed to create a brand new 401(k) bucket for these special After-Tax contributions. And that means that you would have to mingle pre-tax and post-tax dollars in your existing Traditional 401(k), which would just completely destroy the usefulness of the rollover to Roth. That would make this whole thing worthless. However, I know from personal experience that this is not true. Your company can most definitely set up a separate After-Tax plan to receive all of these new contributions. Then there's no mingling of pre-tax and post-tax dollars, and you can do the rollover to Roth with the click of a button, no taxes or penalties owed. Now, this new plan still sits under the overall umbrella of your company's total retirement plan offerings. So the total amount of money that you can put into a Traditional 401(k), a Roth 401(k), and this new After-Tax 401(k) -- both your personal contributions and your company's match (if any) -- is still limited to $53k per year and still must satisfy all the non-discrimination rules for HCEs, etc. So it's not trivial to set up, and your company will almost certainly not be able to go all the way to $53k, but they could get a lot closer than they currently do.",
"qid": 10827,
"docid": "417257",
"rank": 83,
"score": 117526
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"As the comments above have been trying to get across, the prospective employer is offering to pay you for the bonus/unvested compensation that you would be losing by jumping ship right now to go work for them. They are not offering to buy any securities that you already hold, regardless of whether they're profitable or unprofitable. Example 1. You participate in your current company's 401(k), and your company matches your contributions at 50%. However, the matching funds are not yours immediately; they vest in 20%/year increments until you have been at the company for 5 years. Let's say you've been there for 3 years and have contributed $50K to the plan. Your company has matched you at $25K, but only 60% of that ($15K) has vested. If you leave right now for the new employer, you're leaving $10K behind. So the new employer might offer to \"\"buy out\"\" (i.e. pay you) that $10K to help encourage you to switch now. You might then counter their offer by pointing out that if you stay where you are that $10K is coming to you tax-deferred, whereas their $10K signing bonus would be taxed. So you ask for $15K instead. Example 2. You work for a Wall Street investment bank. Each December you receive a performance bonus. Since you began working there, your three yearly bonuses have been (in chronological order) $500K, $750K, and $1M. It's June, so you've worked halfway towards your next bonus. You have a lot of incentive to NOT leave your current employer. A competing employer may offer to \"\"buy you out\"\" of your anticipated bonus by giving you a $1.25M signing bonus (since you'd almost certainly not be eligible for a performance bonus during your first year there). You might negotiate with them and say \"\"I'm on track for $2M this year\"\", and then they would figure out if you're really worth that much to them. So you can see this all has to do with the prospective employer trying to compensate you for any income you're already counting on receiving from your current employer. By jumping ship now you would be foregoing that guaranteed/expected income, so the competitor wants to remove that anchor that might be holding you back from making the move. Stocks/options that you already own are irrelevant to the prospective employer. Since you wouldn't be giving those up by changing jobs, there's no reason for them to factor into the equation.\"",
"qid": 10827,
"docid": "145864",
"rank": 84,
"score": 117318
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I'm of the opinion that it doesn't matter much unless something in your life changes in retirement. And since many retirement planners assume a default income target of 80 percent of pre-retirement income, I figure many people's tax bracket isn't moving much. The most interesting reason I know to Go Roth in a 401k is limits. You can only contribute like $17k, whether Roth or not. In a traditional contribution, some of the 17k you put in goes to taxes when taken out, but in a Roth contribution you pay taxes up front. So if you have more than $17k to invest, Roth lets you sneak some more into the system.",
"qid": 10827,
"docid": "586909",
"rank": 85,
"score": 116915
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Does your employer offer a 401(k) match? If so, contribute enough to maximize that--it's free money. After that, contribute to an IRA where you can invest in funds with low expenses. After you max that out, if you still have money left over, max out your 401(k) despite the high expenses for the tax advantages. Remember when you leave the company you can roll over the balance into an IRA and switch to lower-cost investments. Of course this is general advice without knowing your situation. If you're looking to buy a home soon, for example, you might want to keep extra money in a taxable account for a downpayment rather than maxing out your 401(k).",
"qid": 10827,
"docid": "140917",
"rank": 86,
"score": 116835
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Since your comment on @JoeTaxpayer's answer says that you are still under the 2012 contribution limits if the extra money is left in your 401k account, I do not think that there is any problem for you if the money is left in the 401k account. As I understand it, your salary is $X for 2012 of which you contribute some percentage per paycheck to your 401k account. Your contributions would have totaled $Y for 2012 if the glitch of extra money being out into your 401k account had not occurred. In the absence of the glitch, your W-2 form would have reported $X as gross wages, $(X-Y) as taxable wages and $Y as 401k contributions. Since an additional $z has been put into your 401k account, but not deducted from your paycheck, your employer could do one of two things. The extra money could be withdrawn from your 401k account by your employer. If this is done, then your W-2 form will be as described above. The extra money is not withdrawn by your employer. Your W-2 form will still report $(X-Y) as taxable wages, but $(Y+z) as the 401k contribution and $(X+z) as gross wages. Since $(Y+z) is less than the maximum 2012 contribution, everything is fine. In your position, I would very much prefer the latter alternative over the former, not just because there is a larger contribution to the 401k account with no change in tax liability, but also because there is always the possibility that HR/Payroll will screw up the withdrawal of the excess contribution so that it appears as a premature withdrawal by the participant. In this case, the participant not only has to pay income tax on $z but also a 10% excise tax for premature withdrawal, without actually getting even a penny from that $z taken out, which will go right back into the employer's coffers.",
"qid": 10827,
"docid": "403930",
"rank": 87,
"score": 116456
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Poster forgot to mention his age (range). If you're aged 50 or more, you are allowed a catch-up of $6000 in addition to the $18000 max deferral amount to your 401k (2015-2017) IRS Retirement Topics - Catch-Up Contributions",
"qid": 10827,
"docid": "159921",
"rank": 88,
"score": 116181
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The Forbes article IRS Announces 2014 Retirement Plan Contribution Limits For 401(k)s And More spells this out pretty clearly. For your wife - \"\"an IRA contributor who is not covered by a workplace retirement plan and is married to someone who is covered, the deduction is phased out if the couple’s income is between $181,000 and $191,000.\"\" So, with your wife not covered by a 401(k), and your income below the stated limit, she can deduct the IRA contribution. When your income gets beyond that limit, she can make a non-deductible contribution and convert to Roth, if she wishes.\"",
"qid": 10827,
"docid": "481802",
"rank": 89,
"score": 116179
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Does you job offer a retirement plan? (401k, SIMPLE, etc) Does your employer offer a match on contributions? Typically an employer will match what you put in, up to a certain percentage (e.g. 3%). So, say you contribute 3% of your paycheck into your retirement plan. If your employer mathes that, you've effectively contributed 6%. You've just doubled your money! The best thing a young professional can do is to contribute to your employer-matched retirement plan, up to the maximum amount they will match. You should do it immediately. If not, you are leaving money on the table.",
"qid": 10827,
"docid": "392371",
"rank": 90,
"score": 116026
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The strength of your plan is that you have considered that if you contribute early the the 401K you might not get the match, so you do stretch it out for the entire year.. One benefit to putting money into the HSA early is that it will be available if you need it early in the year if you have a major medical emergency in the first quarter. If you need to pay a $4,000 deductible in January because of Appendicitis you would hate to have to use post tax money to pay the bill. Of course If you have had the HSA for several years then this might not be a problem. If you haven't maxed the Roth IRA for 2013, you could make contributions to the IRA up until April 15 2014 to count for the previous year. A risk with the HSA is if you leave your employer mid-year. You can keep the money, and use it for medical expenses, but if the new company doesn't have a an HSA/High Deductible plan you might have contributed too much. The 401K, HSA, and IRA are annual limits. So if you will switch companies you are responsible for not going over the limit.",
"qid": 10827,
"docid": "122061",
"rank": 91,
"score": 116006
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: These are the basics in order: Max your employer contributions to your 401k if available Pay off any loans Contribute to an IRA Perhaps max out your 401k Look into other investment options (refinance your mortgage, buy stocks) Those are the typical rules, special situations may need specials actions...",
"qid": 10827,
"docid": "480036",
"rank": 92,
"score": 115899
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Don't steal from the 401k. If you take the money out, you'll pay 28% in taxes and 10% in penalties -- only getting $12,960 out. Before you do anything, consult an online refi calculator to make sure you'll be in the house beyond the break-even point. With the numbers you've given and some reasonable guesses I made, it looks like you'll break even within a year. If your new employer's plan allows for loans, roll it into the new plan. Based on what you say you're putting in, you should be able to take a loan out of about $15-20k, which would get you to your LTV goal. Before you do this, calculate: and make sure you will comfortably be able to handle all of the payments. Make sure you're aware of the loan terms on your 401k loan. Understand the penalties associated with failing to make timely payments. Finally, beware of sinking all of your liquid cash into this -- how will you handle an emergency that comes up soon after closing on the new loan before you have a chance to rebuild your emergency fund?",
"qid": 10827,
"docid": "421586",
"rank": 93,
"score": 115838
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Your question is very widely scoped, making it difficult to reply to, but I can provide my thoughts on at least the following part of the question: I have a 401k plan with T. Rowe Price, should I use them for other investments too? Using your employer's decision, on which 401k provider they've chosen, as a basis for making your own decision on a broker for investing $100k when you don't even know what kind of investments you want seems relatively unwise to me, even if one of your focuses is simplicity. That is, unless your $100k is tax-advantaged (e.g. an IRA or other 401k) and your drive for simplicity means you'd be happy to add $100k to any of your existing 401k investments. In which case you should look into whether you can roll the $100k over into your employer's 401k program. For the rest of my answer, I'll assume the $100k is NOT tax-advantaged. I assume you're suggesting this idea because of some perceived bundling of the relationship and ease of dealing with one company & website? Yes, they may be able to combine both accounts into a single login, and you may be able to interact with both accounts with the same basic interface, but that's about where the sharing will end. And even those benefits aren't guaranteed. For example, I still have a separate site to manage my money in my employer's 401k @ Fidelity than I do for my brokerage/banking accounts @ Fidelity. The investment options aren't the same for the two types of accounts, so the interface for making and monitoring investments isn't either. And you won't be able to co-mingle funds between the 401k and non-tax-advantaged money anyway, so you'll have two different accounts to deal with even if you have a single provider. Given that you'll have two different accounts, you might as well pick a broker/provider for the $100k that gives you the best investment options, lowest fees, and best UI experience for your chosen type/goal of investments. I would strongly recommend figuring out how you want to invest the $100k before trying to figure out which provider to use as a broker for doing the investment.",
"qid": 10827,
"docid": "391896",
"rank": 94,
"score": 115636
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If she does take this job and not have a 401k, tell her to make sure she opens up an IRA account. It has a lower contribution limit ($5,500 a year for people under 55) and no sort of company matching, but has the same tax benefits a 401k has. It's definitely a wise investment if she doesn't have access to a 401k (still a wise investment even if she does)",
"qid": 10827,
"docid": "485883",
"rank": 95,
"score": 115466
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If I were in your shoes (I would be extremely happy), here's what I would do: Get on a detailed budget, if you aren't doing one already. (I read the comments and you seemed unsure about certain things.) Once you know where your money is going, you can do a much better job of saving it. Retirement Savings: Contribute up to the employer match on the 401(k)s, if it's greater than the 5% you are already contributing. Open a Roth IRA account for each of you and make the max contribution (around $5k each). I would also suggest finding a financial adviser (w/ the heart of a teacher) to recommend/direct your mutual fund investing in those Roth IRAs and in your regular mutual fund investments. Emergency Fund With the $85k savings, take it down to a six month emergency fund. To calculate your emergency fund, look at what your necessary expenses are for a month, then multiply it by six. You could place that six month emergency fund in ING Direct as littleadv suggested. That's where we have our emergency funds and long term savings. This is a bare-minimum type budget, and is based on something like losing your job - in which case, you don't need to go to starbucks 5 times a week (I don't know if you do or not, but that is an easy example for me to use). You should have something left over, unless your basic expenses are above $7083/mo. Non-retirement Investing: Whatever is left over from the $85k, start investing with it. (I suggest you look into mutual funds) it. Some may say buy stocks, but individual stocks are very risky and you could lose your shirt if you don't know what you're doing. Mutual funds typically are comprised of many stocks, and you earn based on their collective performance. You have done very well, and I'm very excited for you. Child's College Savings: If you guys decide to expand your family with a child, you'll want to fund what's typically called a 529 plan to fund his or her college education. The money grows tax free and is only taxed when used for non-education expenses. You would fund this for the max contribution each year as well (currently $2k; but that could change depending on how the Bush Tax cuts are handled at the end of this year). Other resources to check out: The Total Money Makeover by Dave Ramsey and the Dave Ramsey Show podcast.",
"qid": 10827,
"docid": "483777",
"rank": 96,
"score": 115022
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Make sure you can really do what you plan on doing: Look at the maximum loan length and the maximum loan amount. From the IRS- retirement plans faqs regarding loans A qualified plan may, but is not required to provide for loans. If a plan provides for loans, the plan may limit the amount that can be taken as a loan. The maximum amount that the plan can permit as a loan is (1) the greater of $10,000 or 50% of your vested account balance, or (2) $50,000, whichever is less ... A plan that provides for loans must specify the procedures for applying for a loan and the repayment terms for the loan. Repayment of the loan must occur within 5 years, and payments must be made in substantially equal payments that include principal and interest and that are paid at least quarterly. Loan repayments are not plan contributions. The referenced documents also discuss the option regarding multiple loans, and the maximum amount of all active and recent loans Having a 401K loan will still count against the maximum amount of monthly payments you can afford. Also check the interest rate, and yes they required to charge interest. Some companies will not allow you to make contributions to a 401K while you have an outstanding loan. If that is true with your company then you will miss out on the matching funds.",
"qid": 10827,
"docid": "102345",
"rank": 97,
"score": 114994
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: A 401k is pretty good, but it's not magic. Personally, I'd consider a 30k salary with a 401k and a 2k employer match less valuable than a 36k salary, let alone a 48k salary. If worried about retirement savings simply set up that IRA and put in the full 5.5k allowance.",
"qid": 10827,
"docid": "6595",
"rank": 98,
"score": 114836
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I'd argue that you should be focusing on avoiding taxation and maximizing employer matching funds as your first objective. Over a longer period, quality of investment options and fees will both drive your account value. A personal IRA account is usually a better value over time -- so contribute as much as possible to your IRA, and rollover 401k accounts whenever you have an opportunity to do so.",
"qid": 10827,
"docid": "88550",
"rank": 99,
"score": 114544
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Couple points: 1) Since the Roth is after tax, you can effectively contribute more than you could with the Traditional IRA before hitting the limits. So in your example, if you had extra money you wanted to invest in an IRA, you could invest up to $1,750 more into the Roth but only $500 more into the Traditional (current limits are $5,500 per year for single filers under 50). Your example assumes that you have exactly $3,750 in spare money looking for an IRA home. 2) The contributions (but not earnings) can be withdrawn from the Roth at any time, penalty and tax free. 3) The tax rate \"\"lock-in\"\" can be significant, especially early on when you are at a relatively low tax bracket, say 15%, but expect to be higher at retirement. 4) Traditional IRAs and 401(k) are taxed as ordinary income, so you go through the tax brackets. Even if the marginal rate is 25%, the effective rate may be lower. If you have a Roth, conceivably you could reduce the amount you need to withdrawal from the Trad IRA/401(k) to reduce the effective tax rate on those (of course subject to minimum distributions and all that). This is more an argument to have a mix of pre- and post-tax retirement accounts than strictly a pro-Roth reason.\"",
"qid": 10827,
"docid": "466626",
"rank": 100,
"score": 114533
}
] |
Rationale behind using 12, 26 and 9 to calculate MACD | [
{
"content": "Title: Content: The values of 12, 26 and 9 are the typical industry standard setting used with the MACD, however other values can be substituted depending on your trading style and goals. The 26d EMA is considered the long moving average when in this case it is compared to the shorter 12d EMA. If you used a 5d EMA and a 10d EMA then the 10d EMA would be considered the long MA. It is based on what you are comparing it with. Apart from providing signals for a reversal in trend, MACD can also be used as an early indication to a possible end to a trend. What you look out for is divergence between the price and the MACD. See chart below of an example: Here I have used 10d & 3d EMAs and 1 for the signal (as I did not want the signal to show up). I am simply using the MACD as a momentum indicator - which work by providing higher highs in the MACD with higher highs in price. This shows that the momentum in the trend is good so the trend should continue. However the last high in price is not met with a higher high in the MACD. The green lines demonstrate bearish divergence between price and the MACD, which is an indication that the momentum of the trend is slowing down. This could provide forewarning that the trend may be about to end and to take caution - i.e. not a good time to be buying this stock or if you already own it you may want to tighten up your stop loss.",
"qid": 10845,
"docid": "191588",
"rank": 1,
"score": 146277
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you're interested in slower scale changes, one option is to use indexes that value a common commodity in different currencies such as the Big Mac Index. If a Big Mac costs more in AUD but stays the same in USD, then AUD have gone up.",
"qid": 10845,
"docid": "304580",
"rank": 2,
"score": 70062
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Mostly some custom work i've done myself, bayesian and time series models, but there is some pattern matching. Most TA functions such as MA's, MACD's, BollingerBands, are simple ways of doing time series analysis. MA's are basic filters. MACD is essentially a way of viewing acceleration, as its the informational difference between filters. BB's are mean reverters based on standard deviation/ RSI is a ratio of filtered up to down moves basically generating an indicator based on how strong the market has moved.",
"qid": 10845,
"docid": "67229",
"rank": 3,
"score": 66321
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Part 2 = 12% -5000/0.12 (1 - 1/(1.12^2 ) = -8450.26 Then subtract year 0s 5000 payment if you havent = -13450.26 and then compare to option 2 -2000/0.12 (1 - 1/(1.12^10) = -11300.46 and subtract 20000 -31300.46 As you can see both values are substantially smaller compared to a 4% discount rate.",
"qid": 10845,
"docid": "388256",
"rank": 4,
"score": 64699
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"First, it's much safer to be shorting stocks over $5 than stocks under $5. I use 3 indicators to show that a stock has topped out and about to drop. Key is the timing cause the initial drop is often the biggest. More close you get in at the top, the higher the risk. Using 1D Charts ONLY: - MACD Indicator: I use the histogram, when it reaches a peak height, and the next day it is down 1 \"\"Step\"\". If you wait til the MACD lines cross, you are pretty late IMHO. Need to get in earlier. Timing is everything. - RSI(15) - Needs to topped out and above 67 meaning, \"\"Over bought\"\" - Do not buy when RSI is high above 70. Often stocks go on a Run up when RSI is over 70! - I use Stoch RSI or CCI to confirm my status on RSI. I like to see that all 3 indicators agree. This gives me a 75% chance that the stock will drop. It may take a day or 2.. so you need patience.\"",
"qid": 10845,
"docid": "459979",
"rank": 5,
"score": 64388
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I was afraid of this. If you are using 12 P/Y and 12 C/Y, then your interest rate should not be divided by 12. Also, you should use \"\"END\"\" as this means monthly payments are made at the end of the month - a usual default.\"",
"qid": 10845,
"docid": "492801",
"rank": 6,
"score": 61045
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: At my first job (moderate sized quant prop fund) we inexplicably used Macs. Excel on a mac is a nightmare- if you tried to graph more than, say, 2000 data points it would grind to a halt, though this was some time ago. In retrospect maybe they were conditioning us to program rather than use excel...",
"qid": 10845,
"docid": "475888",
"rank": 7,
"score": 58588
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: generally Forward P/E is computed as current price / forward earnings. The rationale behind this is that buying the stock costs you the current price, and it gives you a claim on the future earnings.",
"qid": 10845,
"docid": "403224",
"rank": 8,
"score": 58483
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://web.stanford.edu/~chadj/AI.pdf) reduced by 99%. (I'm a bot) ***** > The share of factor payments going to capital is given by and the long-run growth rate of y Y /L is gy = g , 1&minus;&alpha; where g is the growth rate of A. An increase in automation will therefore increase the capital share and, because of the multiplier effect associated with capital accumulation, increase the long-run growth rate. > 10 Can A.I. affect innovation and growth through potential effects it might have on 9 1&minus;&rho; &middot;&theta;+n Substituting in for other solutions, the long-run growth rate of the economy is gy = , where 1&minus;&phi; n is the rate of population growth. > S&macr;L1&minus;&alpha; 1&minus;&alpha; Kt Kt A˙ t Kt&beta; = S 1&minus;&phi; At At It is easy to show that these growth rates cannot be constant if &gt; 1.13 If the growth rates are rising over time to infinity, then eventually either gAt &gt; gKt , or the reverse, or the two growth rates are the same. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/70vurg/artificial_intelligence_and_economic_growth_by/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ \"\"Version 1.65, ~212175 tl;drs so far.\"\") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr \"\"PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.\"\") | *Top* *keywords*: **growth**^#1 **AI**^#2 **automation**^#3 **share**^#4 **capital**^#5\"",
"qid": 10845,
"docid": "445591",
"rank": 9,
"score": 57877
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: No, inaction is not always the rational choice in your scenario. To give an extreme example as proof: Let's say that you have $1,000. The expected value of inaction is $0 - you will end up with the same amount (minus inflation, but we can ignore that for this exercise). If your only other option is an investment which has a 75% chance of losing all of your money, and a 25% chance of doubling your money, then your expected value is ((75% * -$1,000)+ (25% * $1,000)) = -$500. In that case your best option is obviously inaction. However, let's say that you have a 75% chance of losing all of your money, but a 25% chance of making $1,000,000 on your investment. In that case, the expected value of investing is ((75% * -$1,000)+ (25% * $1,000,000)) = $249,250. This means that the rational thing is to make the investment. Basically, the 25% chance of making $1M is worth the 75% chance of losing everything.",
"qid": 10845,
"docid": "167756",
"rank": 10,
"score": 57689
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"You've been taking the RMDs. Each year the RMD is calculated by taking the prior 12/31 balance and dividing by the divisor, calculated when you inherited, and dropping by 1 each year. Some great trades and your account balance goes up. That's great, but of course it sends the next RMD higher. I'd understand how marginal rates work and use the withdrawal to \"\"top off\"\" your current bracket. This will help slow the growth and runaway RMD increases.\"",
"qid": 10845,
"docid": "51884",
"rank": 11,
"score": 56620
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"**Big Mac Index** The Big Mac Index is published by The Economist as an informal way of measuring the purchasing power parity (PPP) between two currencies and provides a test of the extent to which market exchange rates result in goods costing the same in different countries. It \"\"seeks to make exchange-rate theory a bit more digestible\"\". The index, created in 1986, takes its name from the Big Mac, a hamburger sold at McDonald's restaurants. *** ^[ [^PM](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=kittens_from_space) ^| [^Exclude ^me](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiTextBot&message=Excludeme&subject=Excludeme) ^| [^Exclude ^from ^subreddit](https://np.reddit.com/r/finance/about/banned) ^| [^FAQ ^/ ^Information](https://np.reddit.com/r/WikiTextBot/wiki/index) ^| [^Source](https://github.com/kittenswolf/WikiTextBot) ^] ^Downvote ^to ^remove ^| ^v0.24\"",
"qid": 10845,
"docid": "553391",
"rank": 12,
"score": 55727
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The short answer is you'd be much better off paying up front in this case. The present value of $2,500 plus 12 $500 monthly payments is $8,128 at a 12% discount rate, which is much higher then the $6,000 you could pay now. The long answer is how you get that present value. How can I use time value of money to find the present value of money if I choose to go with option A? First of all, I'd question your discount rate. A 12% discount rate means that you can safely reinvest the money that you're not spending today at a 12% annual (1% monthly) rate, which seems very high. Normally for short-term spending decisions you'd use a risk-free rate, which would be closer to 1%-2%. However, to discount at 1% monthly you'd just divide each monthly payment by 1 plus the discount rate raised to the power of the number of periods until each payment. So the total is which is $8,127.54 You could also use the NPV function in Excel. It seems like to get an accurate answer the calculation of the interest rate should take into account compounding period as well? Correct, and in the example above the compounding is assumed to be monthly since that's the periodicity of the cash flows. You could calculate it with a different compounding period but it gets much more complicated and probably wouldn't make a significant difference. The discount rate does take compounding into effect, meaning if you saved the $5,628 (the PV of $8,128 minus the $2,500 initial payment), you'd earn 1% interest on $5,628 the first month, $5,128 plus that interest the second month, etc.",
"qid": 10845,
"docid": "131696",
"rank": 13,
"score": 54608
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The 1.140924% is calculated by taking 13.69%/12 = 1.140924%. Dividing this number by 100 gives you the answer 1.140924 / 100 = .01140924. When dealing with decimals it's important to remember the relationship between a decimal and a percent. 1% = .01 To return .01 to a percent you must multiple that number by 100. So .01 x 100 = 1% In order to get a decimal from a percent, which is what is used in calculations, you must divide by 100. So, here if we are trying to calculate how much interest you are paying each month we can do this: 9800 * .1369 = $1341.62 (interest you will pay that year IF the principal balance never changed) 1341.62 / 12 = ~111.81 Now, month two 9578.34 * .1369 = 1311.274746 1311.274746 / 12 = 109.28 In order to get your monthly payments (which won't change) for the life of the loan, you can use this formula: Monthly payment = r(PV) / (1-(1+r)^-n) Where: r= Interest Rate (remember if calculating monthly to do .1369/12) PV= Present Value of loan n=time of loan ( in your case 36 since we are talking monthly and 12*3 = 36) from here we get: [(.1369/12)*9800]/(1-(1+.1369/12)^-36) = $333.467 when rounding is $333.47 As far as actual applied interest rate, I'm not even sure what that number is, but I would like to know once you figure out, since the interest rate you're being charged is most definitely 13.69%.",
"qid": 10845,
"docid": "465059",
"rank": 14,
"score": 53607
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The equation is the same one used for mortgage amortization. You first want to calculate the PV (present value) for a stream of $50K payments over 20 years at a10% rate. Then that value is the FV (future value) that you want to save for, and you are looking to solve the payment stream needed to create that future value. Good luck achieving the 10% return, and in knowing your mortality down to the exact year. Unless this is a homework assignment, which need not reflect real life. Edit - as indicated above, the first step is to get that value in 20 years: The image is the user-friendly entry screen for the PV calculation. It walks you though the need to enter rate as per period, therefore I enter .1/12 as the rate. The payment you desire is $50K/yr, and since it's a payment, it's a negative number. The equation in excel that results is: =PV(0.1/12,240,-50000/12,0) and the sum calculated is $431,769 Next you wish to know the payments to make to arrive at this number: In this case, you start at zero PV with a known FV calculated above, and known rate. This solves for the payment needed to get this number, $568.59 The excel equation is: =PMT(0.1/12,240,0,431769) Most people have access to excel or a public domain spreadsheet application (e.g. Openoffice). If you are often needing to perform such calculations, a business finance calculator is recommended. TI used to make a model BA-35 finance calculator, no longer in production, still on eBay, used. One more update- these equations whether in excel or a calculator are geared toward per period interest, i.e. when you state 10%, they assume a monthly 10/12%. With that said, you required a 20 year deposit period and 20 year withdrawal period. We know you wish to take out $4166.67 per month. The equation to calculate deposit required becomes - 4166.67/(1.00833333)^240= 568.59 HA! Exact same answer, far less work. To be clear, this works only because you required 240 deposits to produce 240 withdrawals in the future.",
"qid": 10845,
"docid": "217222",
"rank": 15,
"score": 51925
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You cannot use continuous compounding for returns less than or equal to 100% because a natural logarithm can only be taken for a positive amount. This answer includes the accurate way to ascertain r, for which many people use an approximation. For example, using -20% monthly return for 12 months:- -0.2 -0.223144 0.0687195 Checking: 0.0687195 True Now trying -100% monthly return:- -1. Indeterminate Why? Because a natural logarithm can only be taken for a positive amount. So the latter calculation can not be done using (logarithmic) continuous compounding. Of course, the calculation can still be done using regular compounding. For -100% the results go to zero in the first month, but -150% produces a more interesting result: -1.5 -11920.9",
"qid": 10845,
"docid": "42639",
"rank": 16,
"score": 51591
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Straight line in this example should be just the $2MM per year. I don't think the author of the problem intended you to use anything in the actual tax code like MACRS. I think the goal of the problem is to get you to identify the value of the depreciation tax shield and how the depreciation does affect your cash flow by reducing your taxes, even though depreciation itself is not a cash event.",
"qid": 10845,
"docid": "46511",
"rank": 17,
"score": 51405
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Yes if and only if you properly use P/Y and C/Y. For your familiarity, I recommend also trying it with I = 7.56% / 12, and P/Y and C/Y = 1. I like to think of P/Y and C/Y as \"\"per period\"\" and prefer to divide the interest rate by the number of periods per year, but so long as you keep everything coherent in the solver, you will get the correct answer with both approaches.\"",
"qid": 10845,
"docid": "310714",
"rank": 18,
"score": 51105
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: (12 * 100) * 1.01 = 1212 Assuming the $12 ask can absorb your whole 100 share order.",
"qid": 10845,
"docid": "414172",
"rank": 19,
"score": 51064
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"In a rational market, the market caps (total value of all shares of the company) should be determined by the expected future profits of the company, plus the book value (that is the value of all assets that the company holds). The share price is then calculated as market caps divided by number of shares - a company worth a billion dollar could have a million shares at $1000 each or a billion shares at $1 each or anything in between. When profits drop, every investor has to re-think what the expected future profits of the company are. If all the investors say \"\"I thought this company would make a billion profit in the next ten years, but based on the drop in profits I changed my mind and I think they will only make 500 million\"\", then the share price drops. On the other hand, if profits dropped because of some predictable event, then that drop was already priced into the share price. If the profits dropped less than expected, the share price might even go up. You can see the opposite effect: Share price might be very high because everyone expects huge growth in profits over the next ten years. If profits grow less than expected, the share price will drop. Share price depends on predicted future profits, not on profits today.\"",
"qid": 10845,
"docid": "317363",
"rank": 20,
"score": 50794
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: For this, the internal rate of return is preferred. In short, all cash flows need to be discounted to the present and set equal to 0 so that an implied rate of return can be calculated. You could try to work this out by hand, but it's practically hopeless because of solving for roots of the implied rate of return which are most likely complex. It's better to use a spreadsheet with this capability such as OpenOffice's Calc. The average return on equity is 9%, so anything higher than that is a rational choice. Example Using this simple tool, the formula variables can easily be input. For instance, the first year has a presumed cash inflow of $2,460 because the insurance has a 30% discount from $8,200 that is assumed to be otherwise paid, a cash inflow of $40,000 to finance the sprinklers, a cash outflow of $40,000 to fund the sprinklers, a $400 outflow for inspection, and an outflow in the amount of the first year's interest on the loan. This should be repeated for each year. They can be input undiscounted, as they are, for each year, and the calculator will do the rest.",
"qid": 10845,
"docid": "193783",
"rank": 21,
"score": 50634
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Here at Supplements Wise Ltd, we have Maca Root extract supplements tailored for parents who want to have children. The supplement contains free fatty and amino acids that are known to enhance the fertility of both women and men. Taking Maca Root extract also improves health and balances the hormones. Visit us at https://www.supplementswise.com/ for more details.",
"qid": 10845,
"docid": "527901",
"rank": 22,
"score": 50544
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Question is, what is this number 0.01140924 13.69/12=0.01140924 In addition, how does one come out with the EIR as 13.69% pa? When calculating payments, PV = 9800, N=36 (months), PMT=333.47, results in a rate of 1.140924% per period, and rate of 13.69%/yr. No idea how they claim 7.5% In Excel, type =RATE(36,333.47,-9800,0,0) And you will get 1.141% as the result. 36 = #payments, 333.47 = payment per period, -9800 is the principal (negative, remember this) And the zeros are to say the payments are month end, second zero is the guess. Edit - I saw the loan is from a Singapore bank. It appears they have different rules on the rates they quote. As quid's answer showed the math, here's the bank's offer page - The EIR is the rate that we, not just US, but most board members, are used to. I thought I'd offer an example using a 30 year mortgage. Yo can see above, a 6% fixed rate somehow morphs into a 3.86% AR. No offense to the Singapore bankers, but I see little value in this number. What surprises me most, is that I've not seen this before. What's baffling is when I change a 15yr term the AP drops to less than half. It's still a 6% loan and there's nothing about it that's 2 percent-ish, in my opinion. Now we know.",
"qid": 10845,
"docid": "316363",
"rank": 23,
"score": 50239
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Yeah, too subjective of a question I shorted BP last year during the deep water crisis, using a leveraged account 20 times larger than the amount of cash I actually had, instantly profitable. I was long Freddie Mac in March 2009 and that took several months to turn to move and turned a 100% gain I've flipped penny stocks trading at .0001 cents, bought a few million shares and sold them at .0002 cents. Sometimes instantly, sometimes over several months because they were illiquid I'm primarily a derivatives trader right now, which I did not know about or understand less than a year ago. Dont have crazy targets, that how you will blow up your account. Have meticulously calculated plans. Also you need to determine what kind of trader you are.",
"qid": 10845,
"docid": "56379",
"rank": 24,
"score": 49288
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Create an account called, say, \"\"Paycheck\"\". When you get paid, create an entry with your gross income as a deposit. For each deduction in your paycheck, create a minus (or expense) entry. After doing that, what will be left in the Paycheck account will be your net income. Simply transfer this amount to the real account your paycheck goes into (your checking account, probably). Almost all the time, the value of your Paycheck account will be 0. It will be nonzero only for a moment every two weeks (or however often you get paid). I don't know if this is the standard way of doing it (in the professional accounting world). It's a way I developed on my own and it works well, I think. I think it's better than just adding a deposit entry in your checking account for your net income as it lets you keep track of all your deductions. (I use Quicken for the Mac. Before they added a Paycheck feature, I used this method. Then they removed the Paycheck feature from the latest version of Quicken for the Mac and I now use this method again.)\"",
"qid": 10845,
"docid": "52741",
"rank": 25,
"score": 49221
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: [Macabus](http://macabacus.com/learn) is one of my favorite resources. It walks you through the model, top to bottom - and best of all it's free. When you get closer to understanding what you want to do long term, your firm will probably recommend/pay for a more comprehensive program like Training the Street or Wall Street Prep. It's really hard to master this without working in the field, but if you can demonstrate that you have a strong grasp of the finance, accounting, and modeling (mainly excel) concepts, you will be a rockstar in your interviews.",
"qid": 10845,
"docid": "390164",
"rank": 26,
"score": 47986
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: > is there anything that Excel on a Mac will really put me at a disadvantage? Yes. Dozens of things. Solver, for the most basic. Get Windows/Boot Camp or virtualization software for Windows like VMWare or Parallels. Excel on Mac (and office, in general) is garbage and vastly inferior to the Windows version. The b-school at my undergrad flat out refused to allow students to use Excel for Mac.",
"qid": 10845,
"docid": "294625",
"rank": 27,
"score": 47725
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I agree they are able to reduce prices in store to thin margins and rely on on a large amount of sales. My point is that the cost increase on product from wages is proportionally smaller than the increase in pay the worker is taking home. So yes, a Big Mac would cost about 17 cents more at a minimum wage of $15 an hour to maintain the same margins ( https://www.google.com/amp/s/thinkprogress.org/amp/p/184b7523b273 ), but the workers wage is doubled.",
"qid": 10845,
"docid": "54278",
"rank": 28,
"score": 47670
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I use iBank for Mac to keep track of my expenses. I also use the iPhone version since they can sync over Wi-Fi and I can capture expenses right on the spot instead of trying to remember what I spent on when I turn on my laptop.",
"qid": 10845,
"docid": "322716",
"rank": 29,
"score": 47442
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"> 26 It’s about synergies/1 + 1 = 3 = I don’t get the math either, but it sounds like more and more is better, right? This isn't correct. Synergies multiply, rather than add. That's where the increase comes from. You can see this with a cheap gradualistic combination lock, ie a lock that gives \"\"tells\"\" at each correctly guessed number. In that case, X + X + X tries are required to get the lock open, where X equals the numbers of characters on the dial, presuming a 3 numbered combination. If the lock is of high quality and doesn't give tells, the number of tries becomes X * X * X, which is much harder. This is a synergy. I'm assuming that you had to try ever number on the dial, which probably wouldn't be the case, but you get the idea. This is essentially how Turing defeated the German Enigma secret code machine in WWII. Also, evolution is like a gradualistic combination lock, because the environment gives \"\"tells\"\", ie positive feedback to an organism that mutates in a way that favors survival. Dawkings shows this in one of his Christmas Lectures.\"",
"qid": 10845,
"docid": "197283",
"rank": 30,
"score": 47217
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: This is more a question for /r/personalfinance, but I'll answer it anyways. Just use the RATE formula in excel. =RATE(numperiods,monthly payment,amount financed)*12 Just make sure the number of periods is in months, the payment is negative, and to multiply the whole thing by 12 to get the annual interest rate.",
"qid": 10845,
"docid": "50912",
"rank": 31,
"score": 46872
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Total Return is the percent change in value (including andy dividends) of an instrument. The \"\"trailing 12-month\"\" means that your starting point is the value 12 months ago. So the formula is: where V is the value of the instrument on the reference date, V0 is the value of the instrument 12 months prior to the reference date, and D is the amount of dividends paid between the two dates.\"",
"qid": 10845,
"docid": "143302",
"rank": 32,
"score": 46843
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Thanks very much. 12b1 is a form that explains how a fund uses that .25-1% fee, right? So that's part of the puzzle im getting at. I'm not necessarily trying to understand my net fees, but more who pays who and based off of what. For a quick example, betterment bought me a bunch of vanguard ETFs. That's cool. But vanguard underperformed vs their blackrock and ssga etfs. I get that vanguard has lower fees, but the return was less even taking those into account. I'm wondering, first what sort of kickback betterment got for buying those funds, inclusive of wholesale deals, education fees etc. I'm also wondering how this food chain goes up and down the sponsor, manager tree. I'm sure it's more than just splitting up that 1%",
"qid": 10845,
"docid": "502271",
"rank": 33,
"score": 46654
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: For Mac it's definitely iFinance.",
"qid": 10845,
"docid": "281322",
"rank": 34,
"score": 46566
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: To answer your question, plugins aren't cross-platform, so if you need Bloomberg or other third-party vendor data feeds, you're probably out of luck. Now, for the rant: Hot keys, hot keys, hot keys. Using Excel on a Mac is like working with your fingers glued together if you use Windows Excel all day at work. I have a windows laptop at home just for Bloomberg + Excel. If you make money using Excel, you need to consider at least getting VMWare Fusion or Parallels and running windows on your Mac. Once you are decent in Excel, you'll hate the lack of page up/down and home/end keys on your Mac, as I do with mine. The Fn+Ctrl+Left/Down/Up/Left just isn't the same.",
"qid": 10845,
"docid": "518387",
"rank": 35,
"score": 46192
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I'm actually building a UK stock screener right now. It's more of an exercise in finding out how to work out technical things like MACD and EMA calculations, but if those are the things you're interested in, it's at http://www.pifflevalve.co.uk/screen-builder/ As I say, it's more of a personal project than anything commercial, but it's fun to play with.",
"qid": 10845,
"docid": "319922",
"rank": 36,
"score": 46007
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Another way to look at this is if we separate the owner's account from the business's account. At the start of the year, the owner puts $9 into the business account to get the business started. At the end of the first day, the business account has $10, and at the end of the second day, the business account has $11. The owner doesn't need to add any more of his own money into the business account. At the end of the 365th day, the business will have $374, which is $365 profit + $9 investment. Assuming the business has no other expenses, the business will calculate profit for the year like this: The author is making a strange point. The two numbers he is talking about are two different quantities. The business owner's return on investment is $365 / $9 = 4056%. But the business's profit margin is $365 / $3650 = 10%. Both are useful numbers when running the business. I disagree with the author's insinuation that a business is doing something tricky when calculating profit margin. Remember that, in addition to the business owner's monetary investment, he worked every day for a year to earn that $365.",
"qid": 10845,
"docid": "426343",
"rank": 37,
"score": 45977
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Simple math: 50-25=25, hence decline from 50 to 25 is a 50% decline (you lose half), while an advance from 25 to 50 is 100% gain (you gain 100%, double your 25 to 50). Their point is that if you have more upswings than downswings - you'll gain more on long positions during upswings than on short positions during downswings on average. Again - simple math.",
"qid": 10845,
"docid": "207325",
"rank": 38,
"score": 45797
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I'm using iBank on my Mac here and that definitely supports different currencies and is also supposed to be able to track investments (I haven't used it to track investments yet, hence the 'supposed to' caveat).",
"qid": 10845,
"docid": "538787",
"rank": 39,
"score": 45790
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Osx interface is not intuitive. Closing stuff doesn't even close it... also installing applications makes no sense. Dual booting is pointless if he is going to use excel most of the time is he really going to reboot when he doesn't want to work. Also why pay the premium for Mac if you are not gonna make use of it already half the time.",
"qid": 10845,
"docid": "402977",
"rank": 40,
"score": 45669
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Using parallels is fantastic. There's a new parallels 10 coming out in less than a week that speeds up excel on a Mac up to 50%. Coming from PC for over 15 years, if you need a ms office on Mac, parallels is a must.",
"qid": 10845,
"docid": "73648",
"rank": 41,
"score": 45653
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I'm not sure I'm following what you said. GDP PPP standardizes prices across countries to better compare how much is produced in each country. So 2 Big Macs sold at a low price in china results in a lower GDP than 1 expensive Big Mac in the US. Although with GDP PPP, china would have the bigger figure after adjusting for price differences since it produces more.",
"qid": 10845,
"docid": "161130",
"rank": 42,
"score": 45536
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I wonder if it's detecting the same IP so that it won't set off any alarms. Edit: I just realized that I had a Mac I could borrow. Same results for NYC. PC using IE9 and Mac using Safari (both have Flashblock on Mozilla and wanted to eliminate that from the equation)",
"qid": 10845,
"docid": "173471",
"rank": 43,
"score": 45534
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If the market rate and coupon were equal, the bond would be valued at face value, by definition. (Not 100% true, but this is an exercise, and that would be tangent to this discussion). Since the market rate is higher than the coupon rate, the value I am willing to pay drops a bit, so my return is the same as the market rate. This can be done by hand, a time value of money calculation for each payment. Discount by the years till received at the market rate to get the present value for each payment, and sum up the numbers. The other way is to use a finance calculator and solve for rate. The final payment of $10,000 (ignore final coupon just now) is $10,000/(1.1^5). In other words, that single chunk of cash is worth 10% less if it's one year away, (1.1)^2 if 2 years away, etc. Draw a timetable with each payment and divide by 1.1 for each year it's away from present. If the 9% coupon is really 4.5% twice a year, it's $450 in 6 month intervals, and each 6 mo interval is really 5% you discount. Short durations like this can be done by hand, a 30 year bond with twice a year payments is a pain. Welcome to Money.SE.",
"qid": 10845,
"docid": "222924",
"rank": 44,
"score": 45504
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I love technical analysis, and use candlesticks as part of my technical analysis system for trading mutual funds in my 401K. However, I would never use a candlestick chart on its own. I use combination of candlesticks, 2 different EMAs, MACD, bollinger bands, RSI and hand drawn trend lines that I constantly tweak. That's about as much data input as I can handle, but it is possible to graph it all at once and see it at a glance if you have the right trading platform. My approach is very personal, not very aggressive, and took me years to develop. But it's fairly effective - 90% + of my trades are winners. The big advantage of technical analysis is that it forces you to create repeatable rules around which you base your trading. A lot of the time I have little attention at all on what fund I am trading or why it is doing well in that particular market condition. It's basically irrelevant as the technical system tells when to buy and sell, and stops you trying to second guess whether housing, chemicals, gold or asian tigers are is doing well right now. If you don't keep to your own rules, you have only yourself to blame. This keeps you from blaming the market, which is completely out of your control. I explain many of my trades with anotated graphs at http://neurotrade.blogspot.com/",
"qid": 10845,
"docid": "361976",
"rank": 45,
"score": 44950
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"> Some locations are typical ghetto dumps, and other locations are VERY pleasant, like Starbucks. The \"\"cafe\"\" concept will work if they push it. Aside from McDs simply being unhealthy, This is one of the reasons I shy away from there (except for the once/twice yearly big mac combo); it looks like a dump and it just feels unclean standing there. They really need to class their places up. Presentation means something.\"",
"qid": 10845,
"docid": "238881",
"rank": 46,
"score": 44612
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Why there is this huge difference? I am not able to reconcile Yahoo's answer of 5.75%, even using their definition for ROA of: Return on Assets Formula: Earnings from Continuing Operations / Average Total Equity This ratio shows percentage of Returns to Total Assets of the company. This is a useful measure in analyzing how well a company uses its assets to produce earnings. I suspect the \"\"Average Total Equity\"\" in their formula is a typo, but using either measure I cannot come up with 5.75% for any 12-month period. I can, however, match MarketWatch's answer by looking at the 2016 fiscal year totals and using a \"\"traditional\"\" formula of Net Income / Average Total Assets: I'm NOT saying that MatketWatch is right and Yahoo is wrong - MW is using fiscal year totals while Yahoo is using trailing 12-month numbers, and Yahoo uses \"\"Earnings from Continuing Operations\"\", but even using that number (which Yahoo calculates) I am not able to reconcile the 5.75% they give.\"",
"qid": 10845,
"docid": "523303",
"rank": 47,
"score": 44462
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Well said. And I get it, really I do. Rational means something very specific in the theoretical model of EMH, and it's not the same way that \"\"rational\"\" is usually used. When a person actually gets to the point where he can trade on the stock market, you expect they would have information like \"\"know which stock you're trading\"\". Maybe these people didn't. And even if we assume people have perfect information, they still make mistakes. Regularly. Repeatedly. Sometimes predictably. And those mistakes can overwhelm the right-price-finding effect of EMH.\"",
"qid": 10845,
"docid": "404471",
"rank": 48,
"score": 44393
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I just used the formula in below link and did some math. I have that book too but haven't looked at it yet really. Lots of maths to have fun with. Let me know if this is correct or needs fixing. Source: http://wiki.fool.com/How_to_Calculate_Beta_From_Volatility_%26_Correlation",
"qid": 10845,
"docid": "272190",
"rank": 49,
"score": 44147
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: if I have a asset A with expected return of 100% and risk(measured by standard deviation) 1%, and asset B with expected return of 1% and risk 100%, would it be rational to put asset B into the portfolio ? In the capital asset pricing model (CAPM), investors are rational and have access to perfect information. Asset A sounds like an excellent investment, B like a lousy one -- B is probably very far from the efficient frontier. Investors know this, so A's market capitalization will be high, B's low. According to the CAPM, you should then do the same rational thing everyone else is doing, which is to buy a lot of A and very little of B (each in proportion to its market capitalization). Of course the CAPM is just a model, and like any model it is only as good as its assumptions. However, I think this particular application of the model gives a pretty reasonable common-sense answer to the question.",
"qid": 10845,
"docid": "378403",
"rank": 50,
"score": 43862
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Here's another rational reason: Discount. This typically works only in smaller stores, where you're talking directly to the owners, but it is sometimes possible to negotiate a few percent off the price when paying by check, since otherwise they'd have to give a few percent to the credit card company. (Occasionally the sales reps at larger stores have the authority to cut this deal, but it's far less common.) Not worth worrying about on small items, but if you're making a large purchase (a bedroom suite, for example) it can pay for lunch. And sometimes the store's willing to give you more discount than that, simply because with checks they don't have to worry about chargebacks or some of the other weirdnesses that can occur in credit card processing. Another reason: Nobody's very likely to steal you check number and try to write themselves a second check or otherwise use it without authorization. It's just too easy to steal credit card info these days to make printing checks worth the effort. But, in the end, the real answer is that there's no rational reason not to use checks. So it takes you a few seconds more to complete the transaction. What were you going to do with those seconds that makes them valuable? Especially if they're seconds that the store is spending bagging your purchase, so there's no lost time... and the effort really isn't all that different from signing the credit card authorization. Quoting Dean Inge: \"\"There are two kinds of fool. One says 'this is old, and therefore good.' The other says 'this is new, and therefore better.'\"\"\"",
"qid": 10845,
"docid": "302823",
"rank": 51,
"score": 43602
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Y'know, this was on the TV this morning and they made it sound like Mac users were being charged more *for the same hotel.* As the story continued, it was becoming clear that that was not the case. TV: \"\"*Mac users charged more!* ...for hotels that cost more!\"\" Me: &#3232;\\_&#3232;\"",
"qid": 10845,
"docid": "303418",
"rank": 52,
"score": 43586
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Taking the last case first, this works out exactly. (Note the Bank of England interest rate has nothing to do with the calculation.) The standard loan formula for an ordinary annuity can be used (as described by BobbyScon), but the periodic interest rate has to be calculated from an effective APR, not a nominal rate. For details, see APR in the EU and UK, where the definition is only valid for effective APR, as shown below. 2003 BMW 325i £7477 TYPICAL APR 12.9% 60 monthly payments £167.05 How does this work? See the section Calculating the Present Value of an Ordinary Annuity. The payment formula is derived from the sum of the payments, each discounted to present value. I.e. The example relates to the EU APR definition like so. Next, the second case doesn't make much sense (unless there is a downpayment). 2004 HONDA CIVIC 1.6 i-VTEC SE 5 door Hatchback £6,999 £113.15 per month \"\"At APR 9.9% [as quoted in advert], 58 monthly payments\"\" 58 monthly payments at 9.9% only amount to £5248.75 which is £1750.25 less than the price of the car. Finally, the first case is approximate. 2005 TOYOTA COROLLA 1.4 VVTi 5 door hatchback £7195 From £38 per week \"\"16.1% APR typical, a 60 month payment, 260 weekly payments\"\" A weekly payment of £38 would imply an APR of 14.3%.\"",
"qid": 10845,
"docid": "293501",
"rank": 53,
"score": 43468
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Isn't Big Mac sauce just a 1000 island dressing or something edit: heres the recipe 1/2 cup mayonnaise. 2 tablespoons French dressing. 4 teaspoons sweet pickle relish. 1 tablespoon finely minced white onion. 1 teaspoon white vinegar. 1 teaspoon sugar. 1/8 teaspoon salt.",
"qid": 10845,
"docid": "520629",
"rank": 54,
"score": 43378
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I had to install Parallels to run another piece of (trading) software, so I typically just use Windows Excel within Parallels when I need extensive statistical analysis--then I get the best of both worlds: Mac environment on everything but in depth Excel (run of the mill Excel for Mac works fine). I hate Windows.",
"qid": 10845,
"docid": "503117",
"rank": 55,
"score": 43241
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Quicken for Mac will track stocks and mutual funds and allows you to set the \"\"home\"\" currency.\"",
"qid": 10845,
"docid": "152045",
"rank": 56,
"score": 43012
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I currently use Moneydance on my Mac. Before that I had used Quicken on a PC until version 2007. It is pretty good, does most simple investment stuff just fine. It can automatically download prices for regular stocks. Mutual funds I have to input by hand.",
"qid": 10845,
"docid": "277544",
"rank": 57,
"score": 42938
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Banks have to disclose up front the Annual Percentage Rate or interest rate that will be charged if you have an outstanding balance on a credit card. However, the APR of 19.9% is not charged all at once. For example if you had a $100 dollar balance on your credit card you would not be charged 19.9% interest or 19.90 making your new balance 119.90. Instead you would be charged the periodic rate which is one month's interest. You can easily calculate the period rate by dividing the APR by 12. So, 19.9% equals 1.65833% per month. This means if you had a $100 balance you would be charged 1.65833% interest or 1.66 making your new balance 101.66. Ask the bank or look on the website for a document called \"\"Cardholders Agreement\"\". If you can't find a link ask them for a copy so you can read all the fine print ahead of time.\"",
"qid": 10845,
"docid": "263949",
"rank": 58,
"score": 42936
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Get a Mac, then partition part of the drive for Windows. This is the best of both worlds, honestly. Windows has yet to come close to the intuitive and fluid interface that is OSX. Excel for OSX is terrible (poor macro/VBA support, formulas produce different outcomes, etc) so you'll want to use Windows.",
"qid": 10845,
"docid": "122963",
"rank": 59,
"score": 42917
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The Big Mac with that tangy Thousand Island-like sauce and those little diced onions is perhaps my greatest guilty pleasure. I like to think my palate is on the more refined side, but damn if I can't resist a Big Mac every now and again.",
"qid": 10845,
"docid": "387667",
"rank": 60,
"score": 42868
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I think you have succumbed to a category error. The rational course forward is to classify all property as either his, hers, or family's. Each contributes a portion of wages to the family. Each logs hours spent performing familial duties and is \"\"paid\"\" in virtual dollars into their family account at market rates for that service. At any point actual plus virtual dollars are summed to assess the value of the family and percentages are allocated to each party on this basis. Put this into a pre-nuptual agreement. At the time of the inevitable divorce you leave with yours, she leaves with hers, family's assets are divided as described, and division of children should be as King Solomon suggested. Or you could do what I did: Put all your property (and debts) into one pot. Make sure each partner can competently manage bookkeeping and investments. Accumulate a family net worth sufficient to divide in two and each have financial independence. (I'm working on this last step.)\"",
"qid": 10845,
"docid": "352613",
"rank": 61,
"score": 42867
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: How much should a rational investor have in individual stocks? Probably none. An additional dollar invested in a ETF or low cost index fund comprised of many stocks will be far less risky than a specific stock. And you'd need a lot more capital to make buying, voting, and selling in individual stocks as if you were running your own personal index fund worthwhile. I think in index funds use weightings to make it easier to track the index without constantly trading. So my advice here is to allocate based not on some financial principal but just loss aversion. Don't gamble with more than you can afford to lose. Figure out how much of that 320k you need. It doesn't sound like you can actually afford to lose it all. So I'd say 5 percent and make sure that's funded from other equity holdings or you'll end up overweight in stocks.",
"qid": 10845,
"docid": "135765",
"rank": 62,
"score": 42781
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Is my math correct? The Math is correct, however Dividends don't work this way. The Yield is Post Facto. i.e. Given the dividend that is declared every quarter, once calculates the yield. The dividends are not fixed or guaranteed. These change from Quarter to Quarter or at times they are not given at all. The yield is 3.29% and the value is $114 per share. Assuming that the price remains exactly the same for an entire year, and that I purchase only one share, then this should be the math for calculating the yield: 114 x 0.0329 = 3.7506 What the Link is showing is that last dividend of MCD was 0.94 for Q3; that means total for a year will be 0.94*4 [3.76], this means yield will be 3.29%. Note this year there were only 3 Dividend was 0.89 on 26-Feb, 0.89 on 2-Jun and 0.94 on 29-Nov. It is unlikely that there will be one more dividend this year. So for this year the correct post facto calculation would be 0.89+0.89+.94 = 2.72 and hence an yield of 2.38% Also, are there any fees/deductions, or would I receive the amount in full, which should be $3.75? There are no fee deducted. Not sure about US tax treatment on Dividends.",
"qid": 10845,
"docid": "535659",
"rank": 63,
"score": 42690
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"You absolutely should consider expenses. Why do they matter when the \"\"sticker price\"\" already includes them? Because you can be much more certain about what the expense ratio will be in the future than you can about what the fund performance will be in the future. The \"\"sticker price\"\" mixes generalized economic growth (i.e., gains you could have gotten from other funds) with gains specific to the fund, but the expense ratio is completely fund-specific. In other words, when looking at the \"\"sticker price\"\" performance of a fund, it's difficult to determine how that performance will extend into the future. But the expense ratio will definitely carry into the future. It is rare for funds to drastically change their expense ratios, but common for funds to change their performance. Suppose you find a fund that has returned a net of 8% over some time period and has a 1% expense ratio, and another fund that has returned a net of 10% but has a 2% expense ratio. So the first fund returned 9%-1% = 8% and the second returned 12%-2%=10%. There are decent odds that, over some future time period, the first fund will return 10%-1%=9% while the second fund will return 10%-2%=8%. In order for the second fund to be better than the first, it has to reliably outperform it by 1%; this is harder than it may sound. Simply put, there is a lot of \"\"noise\"\" in the fund performance, but the expense ratio is \"\"all signal\"\". Of course, if you find a fund that will reliably return 20% after expenses of 3%, it would probably make sense to choose that over one that returns 10% after expenses of 1%. But \"\"will reliably return\"\" is not the same as \"\"has returned over the past N years\"\", and the difference between the two phrases becomes greater and greater the smaller N is. When you find a fund that seems to have performed staggeringly well over some time period, you should be cautious; there is a good chance that the future holds some regression to the mean, and the fund will not continue to be so stellar. You may want to take a look at this question which asked about Morningstar fund ratings, which are essentially a measure of past performance. My answer references a study done by Morningstar comparing its own star ratings vs. fund expenses as a predictor of overall results. I'll repeat here the take-home message: How often did it pay to heed expense ratios? Every time. How often did it pay to heed the star rating? Most of the time, with a few exceptions. How often did the star rating beat expenses as a predictor? Slightly less than half the time, taking into account funds that expired during the time period. In other words, Morningstar's own study showed that its own star ratings (that is, past fund performance) are not as good at predicting success as simply looking at the expense ratios of the funds.\"",
"qid": 10845,
"docid": "59249",
"rank": 64,
"score": 42568
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: if I have a asset A with expected return of 100% and risk(measured by standard deviation) 1%, and asset B with expected return of 1% and risk 100%, would it be rational to put asset B into the portfolio ? No, because Modern Portfolio Theory would say that if there is another asset (B2) with the same (or higher) return but less risk (which you already have in asset A), you should invest in that. If those are the only two assets you can choose from, you would invest completely in Asset A. The point of diversification is that, so long as two assets aren't perfectly positively correlated (meaning that if one moves up the other always moves up), then losses in one asset will sometimes be offset by gains in another, reducing the overall risk.",
"qid": 10845,
"docid": "370777",
"rank": 65,
"score": 42365
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The solution is x = 8.92. This assumes that Chuck's six years of deposits start from today, so that the first deposit accumulates 10 years of gain, i.e. 20*(1 + 0.1)^10. The second deposit gains nine years' interest: 20*(1 + 0.1)^9 and so on ... If you want to do this calculation using the formula for an annuity due, i.e. http://www.financeformulas.net/Future-Value-of-Annuity-Due.html where (formula by induction) you have to bear in mind this is for the whole time span (k = 1 to n), so for just the first six years you need to calculate for all ten years then subtract another annuity calculation for the last four years. So the full calculation is: As you can see it's not very neat, because the standard formula is for a whole time span. You could make it a little tidier by using a formula for k = m to n instead, i.e. So the calculation becomes which can be done with simple arithmetic (and doesn't actually need a solver).",
"qid": 10845,
"docid": "568220",
"rank": 66,
"score": 42284
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: This is a present value calculation, which excel or any financial calculator can handle. N = 300 (months) %i = 5/12 or .05/12 depending on the program/calculator PMT = $5000 (the monthly payment) FV = 0 (you want to end at zero balance) This calculates a PV (present value of $855,300) Chad had it right, but used a calculator that didn't offer the PV function, so he guessed and changed numbers til the answer was clear. user379 makes a good point, but why start inflation calculations at 65, and not now? You look like you're in your 30's, so there's 30 years of inflation, and $60K/yr in today's value will need to be closer to $150K/yr, given about 30 years of 3% inflation.",
"qid": 10845,
"docid": "341930",
"rank": 67,
"score": 42132
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"P/E is Price divided by Earnings Per Share (EPS). P/E TTM is Price divided by the actual EPS earned over the previous 12 months - hence \"\"Trailing Twelve Month\"\". In Forward P/E is the \"\"E\"\" is the average of analyst expectations for the next year in EPS. Now, as to what's being displayed. Yahoo shows EPS to be 1.34. 493.90/1.34 = P/E of 368.58 Google shows EPS to be 0.85. 493.40/0.85 = P/E of 580.47 (Prices as displayed, respectively) So, by the info that they are themselves displaying, it's Google, not Yahoo, that's displaying the wrong P/E. Note that the P/E it is showing is 5.80 -- a decimal misplacement from 580 Note that CNBC shows the Earnings as 0.85 as well, and correctly show the P/E as 580 http://data.cnbc.com/quotes/BP.L A quick use of a currency calculator reveals a possible reason why EPS is listed differently at yahoo. 0.85 pounds is 1.3318 dollars, currently. So, I think the Yahoo EPS listing is in dollars. A look at the last 4 quarters on CNBC makes that seem reasonable: http://data.cnbc.com/quotes/BP.L/tab/5 those add up to $1.40.\"",
"qid": 10845,
"docid": "465536",
"rank": 68,
"score": 42109
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You've flipped the numerator and denominator around, and need to multiply by 100 to get percentage rather than 10: I like to use a simple example to assess reasonableness of an approach, if you had invested $100 and after 1 year had $150, your approach would yield: But since $50 is half of $100, we know the rate of return should be 50%, so we know that approach is off. But, flipping the numerator and denominator and multiplying by 100 gets us the 50% we expected: Edit: Good catch by @DJohnM you've called it 9 years, but it's actually 11, so you'd want to adjust accordingly.",
"qid": 10845,
"docid": "456667",
"rank": 69,
"score": 42089
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: However, you have to remember that not all dividends are paid quarterly. For example one stock I recently purchased has a price of $8.03 and the Div/yield = 0.08/11.9 . $.08 * 4 = $0.32 which is only 3.9% (But this stock pays monthly dividends). $.08 * 12 = $0.96 which is 11.9 %. So over the course of a year assuming the stock price and the dividends didn't change you would make 11.9%",
"qid": 10845,
"docid": "276860",
"rank": 70,
"score": 42028
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The equation for the payment is This board does not support Latex (the number formatting code) so the above is an image, the code is M is the payment calculated, n is the number of months or periods to pay off, and i is the rate per period. You can see that with i appearing 3 times in this equation, it's not possible to isolate to the form i=.... so a calculator will 'guess,' and use, say, 10%. It then raises or lowers the rate until the result is within the calculator's tolerance. I've observed that unlike other calculations, when you hit the button to calculate, a noticeable time lag occurs. I hope I haven't read too much into your question, it seemed to me this was what you asked.",
"qid": 10845,
"docid": "266319",
"rank": 71,
"score": 42025
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I used H&R Block this year 2013 to do my 2012 taxes and it was a snap! Ubuntu 12.10 with Firefox 20 and everything worked great! Although it is not listed as one of the \"\"supported\"\" platforms, Firefox breezed through the application without any problems. I used the deluxe version of H&R to calculate my mortgage and home business deductions, but I would guess any of the H&R versions work.\"",
"qid": 10845,
"docid": "412819",
"rank": 72,
"score": 42013
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Because companies (big or small) only pay taxes on *profits* rather than *revenues*. It can't be any other way, really, because of the $5 you pay for the big mac, most of that goes to pay suppliers and employees and only perhaps $0.50 would be profit. But that fact also opens up all sorts of loopholes. For example, a US company can license a patent from a Cayman Islands company, and make yearly payments. Thus, the US company no longer has any profits, and all of that money winds up in the Caymans. That's a trivial example, but there's an entire industry dedicated to doing this shit. I'd be impressed if you could craft any law that banned this without also banning legitimate international commerce.",
"qid": 10845,
"docid": "286383",
"rank": 73,
"score": 41985
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I just want to point out a couple of things, and I do not have enough reputation to comment. Saving 50% is totally possible. I know people saving 65%. For more see here EDIT: Let me repeat that 4% it the maximum you can assume if you want to be sure to have at least that return in the long term. It's not the average, it's the minimum, the value you can expect and plan with. Just to reinforce the claim, I can cite Irrational Exuberance of Robert Schiller, who explicitly says, on page 135 of the 2015 edition, that from January 1966 to January 1992 the real annual return was just 4.1%. Sure, this does not matter so much if you are investing all the way through, but it's still a 26 year period.",
"qid": 10845,
"docid": "591516",
"rank": 74,
"score": 41867
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: ( t2 / t1 ) - 1 Where t2 is the value today, t1 is the value 12 months ago. Be sure to include dividend payments, if there were any, to t2. That will give you total return over 12 months.",
"qid": 10845,
"docid": "573928",
"rank": 75,
"score": 41764
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The formula you need is: M = (r * PV) / (1 - ((1+r)^(-n))) M = monthly payment ($350) r = interest per period (7.56% / 12) = 0.63% n = number of periods (36 months) PV = present value, or here, your max loan amount given M Therefore: $350 = (0.63% * PV) / (1 - ((1+0.63%)^(-36))) The denominator on the right ends up equal to ~ 0.2025 when you do the math in your calculator. Carry that over to the by multiplying both sides of the equation by 0.2025 This results in $70.82 = 0.63% * PV Divide $70.82 by 0.63% to get PV = $11,242 (roughly). Hope this helps explain it algebraically!!",
"qid": 10845,
"docid": "123395",
"rank": 76,
"score": 41762
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"There are two common types of P/E ratio calculations: \"\"trailing\"\" and \"\"forward\"\" (and then there are various mixes of the two). Trailing P/E ratios are calculated as [current price] / [trailing 12-month EPS]. An alternative is the Forward P/E ratio, which is based on an estimate of earnings in the coming 12 months. The estimate used is usually called \"\"consensus\"\" and, to answer your question, is the average estimate of analysts who cover the stock. Any reputable organization will disclose how they calculate their financials. For example, Reuters uses a trailing ratio (indicated by \"\"TTM\"\") on their page for BHP. So, the first reason a PE ratio might not jump on an announcement is it might be forward looking and therefore not very sensitive to the realized earnings. The second reason is that if it is a trailing ratio, some of the annual EPS change is known prior to the annual announcement. For example, on 12/31 a company might report a large drop in annual earnings, but if the bulk of that loss was reported in a previous quarterly report, then the trailing EPS would account partially for it prior to the annual announcement. In this case, I think the first reason is the culprit. The Reuters P/E of nearly 12 is a trailing ratio, so if you see 8 I'd think it must be based on a forward-looking estimate.\"",
"qid": 10845,
"docid": "491358",
"rank": 77,
"score": 41708
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The house that sells for $200,000 might rent for a range of monthly numbers. 3% would be $6000/yr or $500/mo. This is absurdly low, and favors renting, not buying. 9% is $1500/mo in which case buying the house to live in or rent out (as a landlord) is the better choice. At this level \"\"paying rent\"\" should be avoided. I'm simply explaining the author's view, not advocating it. A quote from the article - annual rent / purchase price = 3% means do not buy, prices are too high annual rent / purchase price = 6% means borderline annual rent / purchase price = 9% means ok to buy, prices are reasonable Edit to respond to Chuck's comment - Mortgage rates for qualified applicants are pretty tight from low to high, the 30 year is about 4.4% and the 15, 3.45%. Of course, a number of factors might mean paying more, but this is the average rate. And it changes over time. But the rent and purchase price in a given area will be different. Very different based on location. See what you'd pay for 2000 sq feet in Manhattan vs a nice town in the Mid-West. One can imagine a 'heat' map, when an area might show an $800 rent on a house selling for $40,000 as a \"\"4.16\"\" (The home price divided by annual rent) and another area as a \"\"20\"\", where the $200K house might rent for $1667/mo. It's not homogeneous through the US. As I said, I'm not taking a position, just discussing how the author formulated his approach. The author makes some assertions that can be debatable, e.g. that low rates are a bad time to buy because they already pushed the price too high. In my opinion, the US has had the crash, but the rates are still low. Buying is a personal decision, and the own/rent ratios are only one tool to be added to a list of factors in making the decision. Of course the article, as written, does the math based on the rates at time of publication (4%/30years). And the ratio of income to mortgage one can afford is tied to the current rate. The $60K couple, at 4%, can afford just over a $260K mortgage, but at 6%, $208K, and 8%, $170K. The struggle isn't with the payment, but the downpayment. The analysis isn't too different for a purchase to invest. If the rent exceeds 1% of the home price, an investor should be able to turn a profit after expenses.\"",
"qid": 10845,
"docid": "532667",
"rank": 78,
"score": 41365
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: - On average, Mac users will select rooms 20$-30$ more per night than windows users. - Therefore, **orbitz charges more.** - Therefore, the user pays more (*for a non substitute*) - i.e. Better rooms cost more. - Therefore Mac users like better quality. Seems legit.",
"qid": 10845,
"docid": "113321",
"rank": 79,
"score": 41312
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: What everyone else is missing is that it's 9% paid with after tax money. Any income you earn on an investment will also be taxed, so you'd need to make a fair bit more than 9% in order to break even with paying off your loan. For example, if your tax bracket is 20%, you have to earn $1.36 for every $1 in loan payment. Take $100 x 0.09 x 1.36 = $12.24 in pre-tax earnings just for interest every year on $100. Multiply that out for whatever the size Pay off your loans first - it's a no-brainer.",
"qid": 10845,
"docid": "207798",
"rank": 80,
"score": 41189
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Damn, helpful Harry above me. So, in general, when compounding the value of an investment, if you're seeing an annualized interest rate of 4%, and the interest compounds monthly (or n number of times per year), you're going to multiply the Principal P by the growth rate (the interest rate), adjusted for the number of periods that your investment grows in a year. P_end = P * (1 + 0.04/n)^(n * t), where n = number of periods, and t = number of years. If the interest compounds annually, you earn P *(1.04), if it compounds monthly, you earn (1 + 0.04/12)^(12 * 1). Apply this logic to discounting future cash flows to their net present value. When discounting future cash flows, you're essentially determing the opportunity cost of now being unable to put your investment elsewhere and earning that corresponding interest (discount) rate. Thus, you would discount $1000 by (1 + 0.08/12)^1, and $2000, $3000 in a similar fashion. Then, as icing on the cake, sum up to get your cumulative net present value. Please let me know if any portion of my explanation is unclear; I would be happy to elaborate!",
"qid": 10845,
"docid": "36405",
"rank": 81,
"score": 41178
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The idea is correct; the details are a little off. You need to apply it to the actual cash flow the bond would create. The best advice I can give you is to draw a time-line diagram. Then you would see that you receive £35 in 6 months, £35 in 12 months, £35 in 18 months, and £1035 in 24 months. Use the method you've presented in your question and the interest rate you've calculated, 3% per 6 months, to discount each payment the specified amount, and you're done. PS: If there were more coupons, say a 20 year quarterly bond, it would speed things up to use the Present Value of an Annuity formula to discount all the coupons in one step...",
"qid": 10845,
"docid": "581318",
"rank": 82,
"score": 41131
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Interest is calculated daily. Doing the math: Between 6-17 and 7-25 are 38 days, 200.29 / 38 = 5.27 interest per day. Between 7-25 and 8-17 are 23 days. 120.02 / 23 = 5.22 interest per day. The minimal difference is because the principal has already gone down a little bit. So you should expect ~5.20 x number of days for the next interest number coming up; slowly decreasing as the remaining principal debt decreases. Note that this is equivalent of an annual interest rate of over 20 %, which is beyond acceptable. In the current economy, this is ridiculously high. I recommend trying to get a refinancing with another provider; you should be able to get it for a third of that.",
"qid": 10845,
"docid": "261968",
"rank": 83,
"score": 41124
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Just a real-world counterpoint, in the UK, we negotiate the \"\"before tax\"\" salary as some number of pounds per period of time. Out of this amount, income tax is typically deducted and this calculation is quoted on the payslip. (Like most of the rest of the world.) However, there's another grade of income tax called \"\"Employer’s National Insurance\"\". This is calculated just like the other forms of income tax, paid by the employer directly, but the employee never sees this on their payslip and it is not part of the negotiated salary. https://www.gov.uk/national-insurance-rates-letters/contribution-rates So say you're an employer and you've budgeted £1000/month for a potential employee's salary. You'd have to offer that person £878.73/month salary to bring the amount you'd actually be paying to the £1000 you've budgeted. Why they do this, I have no idea. https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/4917/what-is-the-rationale-for-employers-national-insurance-in-the-uk\"",
"qid": 10845,
"docid": "171557",
"rank": 84,
"score": 41098
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Personally I solve this by saving enough liquid capital (aka checking and savings) to cover pretty much everything for six months. But this is a bad habit. A better approach is to use budget tracking software to make virtual savings accounts and place payments every paycheck into them, in step with your budget. The biggest challenge you'll likely face is the initial implementation; if you're saving up for a semi-annual car insurance premium and you've got two months left, that's gonna make things difficult. In the best case scenario you already have a savings account, which you reapportion among your various lumpy expenses. This does mean you need to plan when it is you will actually buy that shiny new Macbook Pro, and stick to it for a number of months. Much more difficult than buying on credit. Especially since these retailers hate dealing in cash.",
"qid": 10845,
"docid": "287630",
"rank": 85,
"score": 41073
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Of course, but that's not relevant to my example. Let me clarify: say you hold a highly-appreciated $10M position in AAPL and you have good reason to believe the next iPhone is going to be a flop, causing the stock to decline 20%. You can sell now to avoid the (probable) decline, but by doing so you will be left with, let's say, $6.67M after paying $3.33M of state and federal LTCG taxes on the appreciation ($9M of the $10M, because you bought a long time ago). However, by simply doing nothing and \"\"eating\"\" the 20% decline, you'll end up with $8M instead of $6.67M. Many economists would criticize the tax in this example, as it has led to the investor rationally suffering a $2M loss, instead of reallocating all $10M of his/her capital to a more promising enterprise. Furthermore, if/when many investors act that way, they can create inefficiency in the equity markets (prices not declining by as much as they should to reflect a firm's reduced prospects).\"",
"qid": 10845,
"docid": "539548",
"rank": 86,
"score": 41054
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I started my business about 4 years ago. I heard bad things about Quickbooks for Mac so I steered clear. I used an open source program called GnuCash and it does a good job. It's free and fairly easy to set up.",
"qid": 10845,
"docid": "509365",
"rank": 87,
"score": 41050
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The latest version of Office for Mac is much improved, but still falls well short of the Windows version. Biggest issue is keyboard shortcuts - they are all either different or missing. Everything takes soooo much longer to do manually. Plugins are also another issue. The MS charts are horrible and I can't find a good charting plugin for Macs. You can build models on a Mac, and I sometimes do, but if you do a lot of serious modelling you'd be well advised to install Windows.",
"qid": 10845,
"docid": "291424",
"rank": 88,
"score": 40761
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: A quick Excel calculation tells me that, if you are earning a guaranteed post-tax return of 12% in a liquid investment, then it doesn't matter which one you pick. According to the following Excel formula: You would be able to invest ₹2,124 now at 12% interest, and you could withdraw ₹100 every month for 24 months. Which means that the ₹100/month option and the ₹2100/biennium option are essentially the same. This, of course, is depending on that 12% guaranteed return. Where I come from, this type of investment is unheard of. If I was sure I'd still be using the same service two years from now, I would choose the biennial payment option. You asked in the comments how to change the formula to account for risk in the investment. Risk is a hard thing to quantify. However, if you are certain that you will be using this service in two years from now, you are essentially achieving 13% in a guaranteed return by pre-paying your fee. In my experience, a 13% guaranteed return is worth taking. Trying to achieve any more than that in an investment is simply a gamble. That having been said, at the amount we are talking about, each percent difference in return is only about ₹22. The biggest risk here is the fact that you might want to change services before your term is up. If these amounts are relatively small for you, then if there is any chance at all that you will want to drop the service before the 2 years is up, just pay the monthly fee.",
"qid": 10845,
"docid": "38868",
"rank": 89,
"score": 40759
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"This is an attitude that I feel equal parts scorn and sympathy for. On the one hand, of course it's easier to believe something once you've investigated the topic and played with the equations yourself. On the other hand, you have the knowledge and skills required to be an exquisitely rational actor and you're going through your life with \"\"*probably other people can't do math*\"\" as a heuristic.\"",
"qid": 10845,
"docid": "84451",
"rank": 90,
"score": 40692
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I use KMyMoney in Linux. They distribute a Mac version too. Plus, it is free!",
"qid": 10845,
"docid": "55601",
"rank": 91,
"score": 40672
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Profit after tax can have multiple interpretations, but a common one is the EPS (Earnings Per Share). This is frequently reported as a TTM number (Trailing Twelve Months), or in the UK as a fiscal year number. Coincidentally, it is relatively easy to find the total amount of dividends paid out in that same time frame. That means calculating div cover is as simple as: EPS divided by total dividend. (EPS / Div). It's relatively easy to build a Google Docs spreadsheet that pulls both values from the cloud using the GOOGLEFINANCE() function. I suspect the same is true of most spreadsheet apps. With a proper setup, you can just fill down along a column of tickers to get the div cover for a number of companies at once.",
"qid": 10845,
"docid": "404840",
"rank": 92,
"score": 40618
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Rational in the economics context means making expected utility maximizing decisions with known information. That's it. See those red berries? You were hungry and rational, so you ate them. Turns out they're poisonous. Now you're dying. Still rational. Footnote implication: unless you're already doing it, the phrase \"\"I'd rather be [fishing]\"\" is necessarily untrue. That you're not, means that you'd rather be doing what you're doing.\"",
"qid": 10845,
"docid": "397545",
"rank": 93,
"score": 40466
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: This is a clear example of annuities, where you are trying to find Net Present Value (NPV). To find a quick solution you can use the excel function (=NPV). Solving it without excel is slightly more complicated. You have to use the annuities formula: (Payment/rate) * (1 - 1/(1+r)^n ) This formula can be written in many different ways, this is one of the simplest. So how do we translate that to your problem? For the first option: -5000/0.04 * (1 - 1/(1.04^2 ) = -9430.47 If you haven't made this years 5000 payment you have to subtract this years 5000, so option 1 would equal -14430,47. Option 2 is similar -2000/0.04 (1 - 1/(1.04^10 ) = -16221.79 WAIT! You also have to subtract the initial cost so option 2 is -36221.79 So in essence, option 1 is better (but you will have to buy a machine sooner or later). Part 2 (discount rate = 12%) is for you to understand the importance of high rates in long periods of time (like option 2's 10 years) EDIT: For clearer formulas. Also made a mistake calculating option 2",
"qid": 10845,
"docid": "262070",
"rank": 94,
"score": 40442
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The formula for determining the number of payments (months) you'll need to make on your loan is: where i=monthly interest rate (annual rate / 12), A=loan amount (principal), and P=monthly payment. To determine the total interest that you will pay, you can use the following formula: where P=monthly payment, N=number of payments (from above formula), and A=loan amount (principal). A quick example: using the numbers in the screenshot above ($10,000 loan, $500 monthly payment, 10% APR), the number of payments ends up to be 21.97 (which means that payment number 22 is slightly less than the rest). In the second formula, you take that number times your $500 payment and determine that you have paid $10,984.81 over the course of the entire loan period. Subtracting the principal, you have paid $984.81 in total interest. On your spreadsheet, the function you are looking for is NPER: NPER(rate, payment_amount, present_value, [future_value, end_or_beginning]) rate - The interest rate. (This should be the monthly rate, or the annual rate divided by 12.) payment_amount - The amount of each payment made. (For a loan payment, this should be a negative number.) present_value - The current value of the annuity. (The initial principal of the loan) future_value - [ OPTIONAL ] - The future value remaining after the final payment has been made. (This should be 0, the default if omitted.) end_or_beginning - [ OPTIONAL - 0 by default ] - Whether payments are due at the end (0) or beginning (1) of each period.",
"qid": 10845,
"docid": "16051",
"rank": 95,
"score": 40140
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The problem with predicting with accuracy what a stock price will do in any given situation is that there are two main factors that affect a stocks price. The first factor is based somewhat in math as it takes into account numbers such as supply and demand, earnings per share, expected earnings, book value, debt ratio and a wide variety of other numbers. You can compile all those numbers into a variety of formulas and come up with a rational estimate of what the stock should sell for. This is all well and good and if the market were entirely rational it would rarely make news because it would be predictable and boring. This is where our second factor throws a wrench in the works. The second factor affecting stock price is emotional. There are many examples of people's emotions affecting stock price but if you would like a good example look up the price fluctuations of Apple (AAPL) after their last couple earnings reports. Numerically their company looks good, their earnings were healthy, their EPS is below average yet their price fell following the report. Why is that? There really isn't a rational reason for it, it is driven by the emotions behind unmet expectations. In a more general sense sometimes price goes down and people get scared and sell causing further decline, sometimes people get excited and see it as opportunity to buy in and the price stabilizes. It is much more difficult to anticipate the reaction the market will have to people's emotional whims which is why predicting stock price with accuracy is near impossible. As a thought along the same line ask yourself this question; if the stock market were entirely rational and price could be predicted with accuracy why is there such a wide range of available strike prices available in the options market? It seems that if stock price could be predicted with anything remotely reassembling accuracy the options market need a much smaller selection of available strike prices.",
"qid": 10845,
"docid": "329527",
"rank": 96,
"score": 39964
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Simple math. Take the sale proceeds (after trade expenses) and divide by cost. Subtract 1, and this is your return. For example, buy at 80, sell at 100, 100/80 = 1.25, your return is 25%. To annualize this return, multiply by 365 over the days you were in that stock. If the above stock were held for 3 months, you would have an annualized return of 100%. There's an alternative way to annualize, in the same example above take the days invested and dive into 365, here you get 4. I suggested that 25% x 4 = 100%. Others will ask why I don't say 1.25^4 = 2.44 so the return is 144%/yr. (in other words, compound the return, 1.25x1.25x...) A single day trade, noon to noon the next day returning just 1%, would multiply to 365% over a year, ignoring the fact there are about 250 trading days. But 1.01^365 is 37.78 or a 3678% return. For long periods, the compounding makes sense of course, the 8%/yr I hope to see should double my money in 9 years, not 12, but taking the short term trades and compounding creates odd results of little value.",
"qid": 10845,
"docid": "242849",
"rank": 97,
"score": 39914
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: This is a note from my broker, CMC Markets, who use Morningstar: Morningstar calculate the P/E Ratio using a weighted average of the most recent earnings and the projected earnings for the next year. This may result in a different P/E Ratio to those based solely on past earnings as reported on some sites and other publications. They show the P/E as being 9.93. So obviously past earnings would usually be used but you would need to check with your source which numbers they are using. Also, as BHP's results just came out yesterday it may take a while for the most recent financial details to be updated.",
"qid": 10845,
"docid": "87667",
"rank": 98,
"score": 39882
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The weird thing is that if you use the credit impact simulators with the credit monitoring services, they show that the impact of paying your credit cards off completely is more negative than carrying a small balance, which doesn't make a great deal of sense, one would think. From what I can gather, the rationale is that carrying a small balance shows you making payments over time, as opposed to having a zero balance. This doesn't quite compute with me, but I don't truly understand the inner workings of the scoring models. To confirm this, I used simulators with both TransUnion and Experian, and both showed this. I know that it's easy to find people on both sides of this argument, so I can't say which is the best option (certainly whichever side someone falls on is the one they'll argue is the right one! chuckle). In all fairness, your best tool is time. The effects of your prior bad decisions will lessen over time as they move further away in your history and then disappear altogether. Obtaining a credit card just because you think you need one is not a compelling argument, by any means. If you can't rationalize reasons why you need it then maybe you should question the wisdom of such a decision. If you don't have a particular need for better credit right now, why be in a hurry to take on debt? Whatever the formulas are for calculating credit scores, the specific details are a pretty closely-guarded secret (they're proprietary for starters, plus it theoretically prevents people from \"\"gaming the system\"\" for a better score), but if you do enough research online, you can get a pretty good sense of how they work in general. Whatever you do with your credit should be in line with your overall financial goals. If you want to remain debt-free (at least for now) then having a credit card you can't otherwise justify a need for just introduces temptations which could prove tough to resist (\"\"wants\"\" quickly turn into \"\"needs\"\" when you can put it on a card you pay later), then you're right back in the same place you were earlier in your life. Instead of trying to figure out the \"\"best strategy\"\" for a credit card, first ask yourself how necessary it is to you right now in light of your financial objectives, then go from there. I hope this helps. Good luck!\"",
"qid": 10845,
"docid": "137414",
"rank": 99,
"score": 39571
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: It's not so much the rate of the debt as it is the total cost of the debt relative to the gain you expect to see from using it to purchase something of value. I've known people who were quite happy to pay 12% on personal loans used to buy investment properties for flipping. They're happy to pay that because conventional loans from banks require too much documentation and out-of-pocket expense. For some investors, 12% without all of the documentation burden is money well spent. So if I'm the investor, and the interest on this 12% loan is $5,000 and I can flip a property for $20,000 after all of the other expenses, then the 12% loan was an enabler to netting $15,000 profit.",
"qid": 10845,
"docid": "497596",
"rank": 100,
"score": 39542
}
] |
Forex independent investments | [
{
"content": "Title: Content: No, it's not a good idea. You started by saying you'd like to invest, but then mentioned something that's not an investment, it's a speculation. Both Forex and CFDs are not really investments. They are a zero sum game where over time, it's a pool of your money, the other trader's money, and the broker, redistributed over time. If you truly wish to invest, you'll read up on the process, understand your own long term goals, and put aside X% (say 5-15) of your monthly income. You should look into investments that are long term, and will fund your retirement 30-40 years hence.",
"qid": 10912,
"docid": "597285",
"rank": 1,
"score": 137775
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"With Forex trading - physical currency is not involved. You're playing with the live exchange rates, and it is not designed for purchasing/selling physical currency. Most Forex trading is based on leveraging, thus you're not only buying money that you're not going to physically receive - you're also paying with money that you do not physically have. The \"\"investment\"\" is in fact a speculation, and is akin to gambling, which, if I remember correctly, is strictly forbidden under the Islam rules. That said, the positions you have - are yours, and technically you can demand the physical currency to be delivered to you. No broker will allow online trading on these conditions, though, similarly to the stocks - almost no broker allows using physical certificates for stocks trading anymore.\"",
"qid": 10912,
"docid": "374410",
"rank": 2,
"score": 126034
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Forex. I will employ my skill for \"\"suspension of disbelief\"\" and answer with no visceral reaction to Bitcoin itself. The Euro is not an 'investment.' It's a currency. People trade currencies in order to capture relative movements between pairs of currencies. Unlike stocks, that have an underlying business and potential for growth (or failure, of course) a currency trade is a zero sum game, two people on opposite sides of a bet. Bitcoin has no underlying asset either, no stock, no commodity. It trades, de facto, like a currency, and for purposes of objective classification, it would be considered a currency, and held similar to any Forex position.\"",
"qid": 10912,
"docid": "594655",
"rank": 3,
"score": 118756
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The answer to your question is Forex trading. You can get to 250K quicker than any other \"\"investment\"\" scheme. You'll just need to start with at least 500K.\"",
"qid": 10912,
"docid": "527522",
"rank": 4,
"score": 117829
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: For a time period as short as a matter of months, commercial paper or bonds about to mature are the highest returning investments, as defined by Benjamin Graham: An investment operation is one which, upon thorough analysis, promises safety of principal and a satisfactory return. Operations not meeting these requirements are speculative. There are no well-known methods that can be applied to cryptocurrencies or forex for such short time periods to promise safety of principal. The problem is that with $1,500, it will be impossible to buy any worthy credit directly and hold to maturity; besides, the need for liquidity eats up the return, risk-adjusted. The only alternative is a bond ETF which has a high probability of getting crushed as interest rates continue to rise, so that fails the above criteria. The only alternative for investment now is a short term deposit with a bank. For speculation, anything goes... The best strategy is to take the money and continue to build up a financial structure: saving for risk-adjusted and time-discounted future annual cash flows. After the average unemployment cycle is funded, approximately six or so years, then long-term investments should be accumulated, internationally diversified equities.",
"qid": 10912,
"docid": "272174",
"rank": 5,
"score": 115179
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Foreign Exchange (Forex) trading is extremely difficult to do profitably over time – for retail investors and institutional investors alike. Many Forex traders enter the markets with hope of a profitable trading adventure, only to find themselves overwhelmed by the complexity of the markets. Binary options trading enables traders who have experienced difficulty in the Forex market to trade options.",
"qid": 10912,
"docid": "245931",
"rank": 6,
"score": 115042
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I think I have a better answer for this since I have been an investor in the stock markets since a decade and most of my money is either made through investing or trading the financial markets. Yes you can start investing with as low as 50 GBP or even less. If you are talking about stocks there is no restriction on the amount of shares you can purchase the price of which can be as low as a penny. I stared investing in stocks when I was 18. With the money saved from my pocket money which was not much. But I made investments on a regular period no matter how less I could but I would make regular investments on a long term. Remember one thing, never trade stock markets always invest in it on a long term. The stock markets will give you the best return on a long term as shown on the graph below and will also save you money on commission the broker charge on every transaction. The brokers to make money for themselves will ask you to trade stocks on short term but stock market were always made to invest on a long term as Warren Buffet rightly says. And if you want to trade try commodities or forex. Forex brokers will offer you accounts with as low as 25 USD with no commissions. The commission here are all inclusive in spreads. Is this true? Can the average Joe become involved? Yes anyone who wants has an interest in the financial markets can get involved. Knowledge is the key not money. Is it worth investing £50 here and there? Or is that a laughable idea? 50 GBP is a lot. I started with a few Indian Rupees. If people laugh let them laugh. Only morons who don't understand the true concept of financial markets laugh. There are fees/rules involved, is it worth the effort if you just want to see? The problem with today's generation of people is that they fear a lot. Unless you crawl you dont walk. Unless you try something you dont learn. The only difference between a successful person and a not successful person is his ability to try, fail/fall, get back on feet, again try untill he succeeds. I know its not instant money, but I'd like to get a few shares here and there, to follow the news and see how companies do. I hear that BRIC (brasil, russia, india and china) is a good share to invest in Brazil India the good thing is share prices are relatively low even the commissions. Mostly ROI (return on investment) on a long term would almost be the same. Can anyone share their experiences? (maybe best for community wiki?) Always up for sharing. Please ask questions no matter how stupid they are. I love people who ask for when I started I asked and people were generous enough to answer and so would I be.",
"qid": 10912,
"docid": "551627",
"rank": 7,
"score": 111950
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Generally, yes. Rather than ask, \"\"why are these guys so cheap?\"\", you should be asking why the big names are so expensive. :) Marketing spend plays a big role there. Getting babies to shill for your company during the super bowl requires a heck of a lot of commissions. Due to the difficulties involved in setting up a brokerage, it's unlikely that you'll see a scam. A brokerage might go bankrupt for random reasons, but that's what investor insurance is for. \"\"Safeness\"\" is mostly the likelihood that you'll be able to get access to your funds on deposit with the broker. Investment funds are insured by SIPC for up to $500,000, with a lower limit on cash. The specific limits vary by broker, with some offering greater protection paid for on their own dime. Check with the broker -- it's usually on their web pages under \"\"Security\"\". Funds in \"\"cash\"\" might be swept into an interest-earning investment vehicle for which insurance is different, and that depends on the broker, too. A few Forex brokers went bankrupt last year, although that's a new market with fewer regulatory protections for traders. I heard that one bankruptcy in the space resulted in a 7% loss for traders with accounts there, and that there was a Ponzi-ish scam company as well. Luckily, the more stringent regulation of stock brokerages makes that space much safer for investors. If you want to assess the reliability of an online broker, I suggest the following: It's tempting to look at when the brokerage was founded. Fly-by-night scams, by definition, won't be around very long -- and usually that means under a few months. Any company with a significant online interface will have to have been around long enough to develop that client interface, their backend databases, and the interface with the markets and their clearing house. The two brokerages you mentioned have been around for 7+ years, so that lends strength to the supposition of a strong business model. That said, there could well be a new company that offers services or prices that fit your investment need, and in that case definitely look into their registrations and third-party reviews. Finally, note that the smaller, independent brokerages will probably have stiffer margin rules. If you're playing a complex, novel, and/or high-risk strategy that can't handle the volatility of a market crash, even a short excursion such as the 2010 flash crash, stiff margin rules might have consequences that a novice investor would rather pretend didn't exist.\"",
"qid": 10912,
"docid": "586649",
"rank": 8,
"score": 110638
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I would strongly recommend investing in assets and commodities. I personally believe fiat money is losing its value because of a rising inflation and the price of oil. The collapse of the euro should considerably affect the US currency and shake up other regions of the world in forex markets. In my opinion, safest investment these days are hard assets and commodities. Real estate, land, gold, silver(my favorite) and food could provide some lucrative benefits. GL mate!",
"qid": 10912,
"docid": "465430",
"rank": 9,
"score": 108713
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I took a course in forex trading for 3 months. I also studied financial markets in the Uni. I have been saving in order to start investing but I face the same question. I have gathered some advantages and disadventages that I would like to know your opinion. Forex market is more liquid, its more easy to identify what makes the currency change and to \"\"predict\"\" it. For small investors its an intraday trading. The risk is huge but the return can be also huge. Stocks are for long term investements. Its difficult to have a bigger return unless you know something that others dont. Its more difficult to predict price change since its easier to anyone influence it. The risk is less.\"",
"qid": 10912,
"docid": "208916",
"rank": 10,
"score": 108500
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: >You were an unsecured creditor. Yes, but his situation was more complicated than your run of the mill unsecured creditor. He had a trading account. It may very well have been technically *structured*, for accounting purposes, as unsecured credit - but the reasonable assumption for the average person is that trading/deposit accounts are held in trust rather than as individual investments/grants which the company can use how it pleases with just the promise to pay you back later. Now, granted, somebody with a Refco forex account should be sophisticated enough to understand the difference - but that doesn't change the fact that even such investors might normally just assume that their accounts are being sequestered. It would make the most sense. It sounds to me like Refco's accountants, and everybody involved in the process, were thieving scumbags.",
"qid": 10912,
"docid": "126460",
"rank": 11,
"score": 106078
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The currency market, more often referred as Forex or FX, is the decentralized market through which the currencies are exchanged. To trade currencies, you have to go through a broker or an ECN. There are a lot's of them, you can find a (small) list of brokers here on Forex Factory. They will allow you to take very simple position on currencies. For example, you can buy EUR/USD. By doing so, you will make money if the EUR/USD rate goes up (ie: Euro getting stronger against the US dollar) and lose money if the EUR/USD rate goes down (ie: US dollar getting stronger against the Euro). In reality, when you are doing such transaction the broker: borrows USD, sell it to buy EUR, and place it into an Euro account. They will charge you the interest rate on the borrowed currency (USD) and gives you the interest and the bought currency (EUR). So, if you bought a currency with high interest rate against one with low interest rate, you will gain the interest rate differential. But if you sold, you will lose the differential. The fees from the brokers are likely to be included in the prices at which you buy and sell currencies and in the interest rates that they will charge/give you. They are also likely to gives you big leverage to invest far more than the money that you deposited in their accounts. Now, about how to make money out of this market... that's speculation, there are no sure gains about it. And telling you what you should do is purely subjective. But, the Forex market, as any market, is directed by the law of supply and demand. Amongst what impacts supply and demands there are: Also, and I don't want to judge your friends, but from experience, peoples are likely to tell you about their winning transaction and not about their loosing ones.",
"qid": 10912,
"docid": "87057",
"rank": 12,
"score": 105860
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Forex vs Day Trading: These can be one and the same, as most people who trade forex do it as day trading. Forex is the instrument you are trading and day trading is the time frame you are doing it in. If your meaning from your question was comparing trading forex vs stocks, then it depends on a number of things. Forex is more liquid so most professional traders prefer it as it can be easier to get in and out without being gapped. However, if you are not trading large amounts of money and you stay away from more volatile stocks, this should not matter too much. It may also depend on what you understand more and prefer to trade. You need to be comfortable with what you are trading. If on the other hand you are referring to day trading vs longer term trading and/or investing, then this can depend largely on the instrument you are trading and the time frame you are more comfortable with. Forex is used more for shorter term trading, from day trading to having a position open for a couple of days. Stocks on the other hand can be day traded to traded over days, weeks, months or years. It is much more common to have positions open for longer periods with stocks. Other instruments like commodities, can also be traded over different time frames. The shorter the time frame you trade the higher risk involved as you have to make quick decisions and be happy with making a lot of smaller gains with the potential to make a large loss if things go wrong. It is best once again to chose a time frame you are comfortable with. I tend to trade Australian stocks as I know them well and am comfortable with them. I usually trade in the medium to long term, however I let the market decide how long I am in a position and when I get out of it. I try to follow the trend and stay in a position as long as the trend continues. I put automatic stop losses on all my positions, so if the market turns against me I am automatically taken out. I can be in a position for as little as a day (can happen if I buy one day and the next day the stock falls by 15% or more) to over a year (as long as the trend continues). By doing this I avoid the daily market noise and let my profits run and keep my losses small. No matter what instrument you end up trading and the time frame you choose to trade in, you should always have a tested trading plan and a risk management strategy in place. These are the areas you should first gain knowledge in to further your pursuits in trading.",
"qid": 10912,
"docid": "506078",
"rank": 13,
"score": 104515
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Are you in the US? Because if so, there are tax discrepancies. Gains from sale of stocks held for less than one year are subject to ordinary income tax, so probably around 30%. If you hold those stocks for a year or more, gains will be taxed as capital gains tax, 15%. For Forex, taxes on your earnings will be split 60/40. 60% will be traded at the lower 15% rate, while the remaining 40& will be taxed at a higher rate, approximately 30%. So purely short-term, there is a tax advantage to dabbling in Forex. HOWEVER - these are both incredibly risky things to do with your money! I never would recommend anyone invest short-term looking to make quick cash! In fact, the tax code DISCOURAGES people from short-term investments.",
"qid": 10912,
"docid": "413015",
"rank": 14,
"score": 104199
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: It was a forex account (foreign exchange trading). At that time forex brokers were not regulated or required to be regulated so it was like the wild west. It was indeed a learning experience and thankfully I was diversified so the hit hurt but did not ruin me.",
"qid": 10912,
"docid": "124477",
"rank": 15,
"score": 104173
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Forex trading contracts are generally fairly short dated as you mention. Months to weeks. Professional forex traders often extend the length of their bet by rolling monthly or quarterly contracts. Closing a contract out a few days before it would expire and reopening a new contract for the next quarter/month. This process can be rather expensive and time consuming for a retail investor however. A more practical (but also not great) method would be to look into currency ETFs. The ETFs generally do the above process for you and are significantly more convenient. However, depending on the broker these may not be available and when available can be illiquid and/or expensive even in major currency pairs. It's worth a bunch of research before you buy. Note, in both cases you are in a practical sense doubling your NOK exposure as your home currency is NOK as well. This may be riskier than many people would care to be with their retirement money. An adverse move would, at the same time you would lose money, make it much to buy foreign goods, which frankly is most goods in a small open country like Norway. The most simple solution would be to overweight local NOK stocks or if you believe stocks are overvalued as you mention NOK denominated bonds. With this you keep your NOK exposure (a currency you believe will appreciate) without doubling it as well as add expected returns above inflation from the stock growth/dividends or bond real interest rates.",
"qid": 10912,
"docid": "347556",
"rank": 16,
"score": 103944
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Forex is really not that volatile compared to other major asset classes like stocks and commodities. But still markets are generally unencumbered in the major pairs and therefore spikes in volatility can happen. Take what happened with the Swiss Franc a few years ago for example, or GBPUSD recently with news of Brexit. This is less the case with highly regulated currencies like the Chinese Yuan (CNY) Volatility is caused by excessive buy or sell pressure in relation to the available liquidity at the current price. This is usually caused by large buy or sell orders placed with interbank desks by institutions (often including other banks) and central banks. News can also sometimes have a dramatic impact and cause traders to adjust their prices significantly and very quickly.",
"qid": 10912,
"docid": "248794",
"rank": 17,
"score": 103838
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Diversify between high risk, medium risks investments as well as \"\"safe\"\" ones like bonds authored directly from the EU. All in all you re much better off than lending money to the bank through a savings account for no more than 1% in interest rate(given the current NL situation). Congratulations on becoming financially independent(your investments covering your living expenses) in as low as 9-15years from now.\"",
"qid": 10912,
"docid": "387723",
"rank": 18,
"score": 102681
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The vast majority of retail Forex brokers are market makers, rather than ECNs. With that said, the one that fits your description mostly closely is Interactive Brokers, is US-based, and well-respected. They have a good amount of exoitcs available. Many ECNs don't carry these because of the mere fact that they make money on transactions, versus market makers who make money on transactions and even more on your losses. So, if the business model is to make money only on transactions, and they are as rarely traded as exotics are, there's no money to be made.",
"qid": 10912,
"docid": "376126",
"rank": 19,
"score": 102439
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: CreditKarma review I don't personally use HelloWallet, but I have also heard very good things about it. Independence from financial products is a HUGE thing in the field because so many investment advisers place the firm before the customer (c.f. Too Big To Fail), so having an independent resource is a huge benefit.",
"qid": 10912,
"docid": "100087",
"rank": 20,
"score": 101719
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Banking vs. speculating isn't a relevant dichotomy here. If my broker-dealer goes belly-up, I'm covered for up to $500K to replace the cash and securities I had on deposit with them. If he was doing forex investing, he fell into one of the few areas which is not covered by SIPC deposit insurance.",
"qid": 10912,
"docid": "471789",
"rank": 21,
"score": 101030
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Interactive Brokers advertises the percent of profitable forex accounts for its own customers and for competitors. They say they have 46.9% profitable accounts which is higher than the other brokers listed. It's hard to say exactly how this data was compiled- but I think the main takeaway is that if a broker actually advertises that most accounts lose money, it is probably difficult to make money. It may be better for other securities because forex is considered a very tough market for retail traders to compete in. https://www.interactivebrokers.com/en/?f=%2Fen%2Ftrading%2Fpdfhighlights%2FPDF-Forex.php",
"qid": 10912,
"docid": "394924",
"rank": 22,
"score": 100888
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Oanda.com is a very respectable broker. They don't offer ridiculous leverage options of 200 to 1 that prove the downfall of people starting out in Forex. When I used them a few years back, they had good customer service and some nice charting tools.",
"qid": 10912,
"docid": "25487",
"rank": 23,
"score": 99581
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I've had a small forex investment in the AUDUSD since Oct of 2010 at 50:1 leverage, and have more than doubled my investment on the swap alone. Granted this is high risk with virtually every guarantee that it will fail *eventually*, but the AUD hasn't dropped at anytime during this trade enough to stop me out so far. With a higher interest rate, there's a natural scarcity in the AUD, especially when compared to the USD. Unless there's another crash like 2008, Asian trading with Aus significantly weakens, or the RBA screws the pooch, the AUD doesn't have many factors with a high probability for devastating impact on the currency.",
"qid": 10912,
"docid": "330683",
"rank": 24,
"score": 99479
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I'm in the US as well, but some basic things are still the same. You need to trade through a broker, but the need for a full service broker is no longer necessary. You may be able to get by with a web based brokerage that charges less fees. If you are nervous, look for a big name, and avoid a fly by night company. Stick with non-exotic investments. don't do options, or futures or Forex. You may even want to skip shares all together and see if UK offers something akin to an index fund which tracks broad markets (like the whole of the FTSE 100 or the S&P 500) as a whole.",
"qid": 10912,
"docid": "57841",
"rank": 25,
"score": 99066
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"This is an old post I feel requires some more love for completeness. Though several responses have mentioned the inherent risks that currency speculation, leverage, and frequent trading of stocks or currencies bring about, more information, and possibly a combination of answers, is necessary to fully answer this question. My answer should probably not be the answer, just some additional information to help aid your (and others') decision(s). Firstly, as a retail investor, don't trade forex. Period. Major currency pairs arguably make up the most efficient market in the world, and as a layman, that puts you at a severe disadvantage. You mentioned you were a student—since you have something else to do other than trade currencies, implicitly you cannot spend all of your time researching, monitoring, and investigating the various (infinite) drivers of currency return. Since major financial institutions such as banks, broker-dealers, hedge-funds, brokerages, inter-dealer-brokers, mutual funds, ETF companies, etc..., do have highly intelligent people researching, monitoring, and investigating the various drivers of currency return at all times, you're unlikely to win against the opposing trader. Not impossible to win, just improbable; over time, that probability will rob you clean. Secondly, investing in individual businesses can be a worthwhile endeavor and, especially as a young student, one that could pay dividends (pun intended!) for a very long time. That being said, what I mentioned above also holds true for many large-capitalization equities—there are thousands, maybe millions, of very intelligent people who do nothing other than research a few individual stocks and are often paid quite handsomely to do so. As with forex, you will often be at a severe informational disadvantage when trading. So, view any purchase of a stock as a very long-term commitment—at least five years. And if you're going to invest in a stock, you must review the company's financial history—that means poring through 10-K/Q for several years (I typically examine a minimum ten years of financial statements) and reading the notes to the financial statements. Read the yearly MD&A (quarterly is usually too volatile to be useful for long term investors) – management discussion and analysis – but remember, management pays themselves with your money. I assure you: management will always place a cherry on top, even if that cherry does not exist. If you are a shareholder, any expense the company pays is partially an expense of yours—never forget that no matter how small a position, you have partial ownership of the business in which you're invested. Thirdly, I need to address the stark contrast and often (but not always!) deep conflict between the concepts of investment and speculation. According to Seth Klarman, written on page 21 in his famous Margin of Safety, \"\"both investments and speculations can be bought and sold. Both typically fluctuate in price and can thus appear to generate investment returns. But there is one critical difference: investments throw off cash flow for the benefit of the owners; speculations do not. The return to the owners of speculations depends exclusively on the vagaries of the resale market.\"\" This seems simple and it is; but do not underestimate the profound distinction Mr. Klarman makes here. (and ask yourself—will forex pay you cash flows while you have a position on?) A simple litmus test prior to purchasing a stock might help to differentiate between investment and speculation: at what price are you willing to sell, and why? I typically require the answer to be at least 50% higher than the current salable price (so that I have a margin of safety) and that I will never sell unless there is a material operating change, accounting fraud, or more generally, regime change within the industry in which my company operates. Furthermore, I then research what types of operating changes will alter my opinion and how severe they need to be prior to a liquidation. I then write this in a journal to keep myself honest. This is the personal aspect to investing, the kind of thing you learn only by doing yourself—and it takes a lifetime to master. You can try various methodologies (there are tons of books) but overall just be cautious. Money lost does not return on its own. I've just scratched the surface of a 200,000 page investing book you need to read if you'd like to do this professionally or as a hobbyist. If this seems like too much or you want to wait until you've more time to research, consider index investing strategies (I won't delve into these here). And because I'm an investment professional: please do not interpret anything you've read here as personal advice or as a solicitation to buy or sell any securities or types of securities, whatsoever. This has been provided for general informational purposes only. Contact a financial advisor to review your personal circumstances such as time horizon, risk tolerance, liquidity needs, and asset allocation strategies. Again, nothing written herein should be construed as individual advice.\"",
"qid": 10912,
"docid": "528475",
"rank": 26,
"score": 98946
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The definition I use for financial independence is 99% confidence that, at a specific estimated spending rate per year (allowing for estimated inflation, and budgeting for likely medical emergencies, and taxes on taxable investments), the money will outlast me. This translates to needing an average annual return on investment which covers the average yearly spending. For my purposes, that works out to my relying on being able to draw only a 4% income from the money each year, which should give me good odds of the money not just being sufficient but being able to deliver that rate \"\"forever\"\". (Historically, average US stock market rate if return is around 8%.) That is overkill, if course, I could plan on the money just barely lasting past my 120th birthday or something of that sort, but the goal us to be pretty sure not only that I won't run out but that I will have some cash unexpected needs. Which in turn means that I estimate I need investments 1/.04 times the yearly spending estimate to declare the \"\"forever\"\" independence/retirement, or 25x the yearly. From that, I can calculate how much longer, at a given savings rate and rate of return, it'll take for me to reach that target. Obviously you need to adjust all these numbers to reflect your opinions/understanding if the market, your own needs, your priorities and expected maximum age, and the phase of Saturn's moons. But that's the basic rationale. Or you can pay a financial planner to give you this number, and a strategy for getting there, based on the numbers you give him or her plus some statistical analysis of the market's overall history.\"",
"qid": 10912,
"docid": "406409",
"rank": 27,
"score": 98770
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I think there are two options: You invest for very close friends, who trust you completely. In this case, I don't see why you need legal formalities. Just take their money, invest, and return the profits (or losses) to them. They'll know that you invest it as well as you can (rather than spend it on your dream vacation), simply because they trust you. And in case they never get to see most of their money back - they'll know that you've tried your best, and won't be upset with you. You invest for people who trust you, but not 100%. In this case, don't take their money. If you lose (and in Forex, you most likely will) then you'll lose not only money, but also your friends. Even if the legal documents would prove that you were honset, and that they knew what they're getting into, they'll still be mad at you.",
"qid": 10912,
"docid": "151412",
"rank": 28,
"score": 98519
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Starting with the Dummy Forex account is a wise move for every new forex trader. Do forex trading with a dummy account at least for a year. Startling directly with real money is a terribly costly move. Therefore, it is wise to have a solid trading strategy to execute. Make sure that your strategy is realistic and practical. Most importantly, using your dummy forex account, it is must for you to make at least one or two profits in a year. At last, be sure to invest money that you can recover without any tension.",
"qid": 10912,
"docid": "80826",
"rank": 29,
"score": 98443
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Forex trading is easy, but developing the discipline and skills necessary to trade and be consistent in profits over an extended period of time takes years to achieve. As a beginner in currency trading it is quite normal to have the potential profits as your driving force, but when you jump into the trade without a plan, your chances of making at profits remain just hopes and you may never succeed. Fortunately, you can always borrow a leaf from the experts to help you start with a firm foundation to increase your success rates.",
"qid": 10912,
"docid": "264474",
"rank": 30,
"score": 98421
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The underlying investment is usually somewhat independent of your mortgage, since it encompasses a bundle of mortgages, and not only yours. It works similarly to a fund. When, you pay off the old mortgage while re-financing, the fund receives the outstanding debt in from of cash, which can be used to buy new mortgages.",
"qid": 10912,
"docid": "58353",
"rank": 31,
"score": 98309
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Investopedia has a section in their article about currency trading that states: The FX market does not have commissions. Unlike exchange-based markets, FX is a principals-only market. FX firms are dealers, not brokers. This is a critical distinction that all investors must understand. Unlike brokers, dealers assume market risk by serving as a counterparty to the investor's trade. They do not charge commission; instead, they make their money through the bid-ask spread. Principals-only means that the only parties to a transaction are agents who actively bear risk by taking one side of the transaction. There are forex brokers who charge what's called a commission, based on the spread. Investopedia has another article about the commission structure in the forex market that states: There are three forms of commission used by brokers in forex. Some firms offer a fixed spread, others offer a variable spread and still others charge a commission based on a percentage of the spread. So yes, there are forex brokers who charge a commission, but this paragraph is saying mostly the same thing as the first paragraph. The brokers make their money through the bid-ask spread; how they do so varies, and sometimes they call this charge a commission, sometimes they don't. All of the information above differs from the stock markets, however, in which The broker takes the order to an exchange and attempts to execute it as per the customer's instructions. For providing this service, the broker is paid a commission when the customer buys and sells the tradable instrument. The broker isn't taking a side in the trade, so he's not making money on the spread. He's performing the service of taking the order to an exchange an attempting to execute it, and for that, he charges a commission.",
"qid": 10912,
"docid": "35340",
"rank": 32,
"score": 97539
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You can do this via many online FOREX brokers. All you need to do is set up and fund an account with them and then trade via their online platform. Some examples of brokers that do this are:",
"qid": 10912,
"docid": "380241",
"rank": 33,
"score": 97275
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Stick with stocks, if you are not well versed in forex you will get fleeced or in over your head quickly. The leverage can be too much for the uninitiated. That said, do what you want, you can make money in forex, it's just more common for people to not do so well. In a related story, My friend (let's call him Mike Tyson) can knock people out pretty easy. In fact it's so easy he says all you have to do is punch people in the face and they'll give you millions of dollars. Since we are such good friends and he cares so much about my financial well-being, he's gotten me a boxing match with Evander Holyfield, (who I've been reading about for years). I guess all I have to do is throw the right punches and then I'll have millions to invest in the stock market. Seems pretty easy, right ?",
"qid": 10912,
"docid": "146947",
"rank": 34,
"score": 97259
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: There aren't and for a good reason. The long term trend of INR against USD, GBP, EUR and other harder currencies is down. Given the inflation differential between these economies and India's, fund managers and investors should expect this to continue. Therefore, if you are invested for any reasonable length of time, you would expect the forex movements to add to your returns. Historically, this has been true of international funds run in India.",
"qid": 10912,
"docid": "283774",
"rank": 35,
"score": 96897
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Capital is an Asset. Decreasing value of capital is the decreasing value of an asset. When you buy the forex asset * DR Forex Asset * CR Cash When you sell * DR Cash * CR Forex Asset The difference is now accounted for Here is how: Gains (and losses) are modifications to your financial position (Balance sheet). At the end of the period you take your financial performance (Profit and Loss) and put it into your balance sheet under equity. Meaning that afterwards your balance sheet is better or worse off (Because you made more money = more cash or lost it, whatever). You are wanting to make an income account to reflect the forex revaluation so at the end of the period it is reflected in profit then pushed into your balance sheet. Capital gains directly affect your balance sheet because they increase/decrease your cash and your asset in the journal entry itself (When you buy and sell it). If making money this way is actually how you make you make an income it is possible to make an account for it. If you do this you periodically revalue the asset and write off the changes to the revaluation account. You would do something like *DR Asset *CR Forex Revaluation account; depending on the method you take. Businesses mostly do this because if the capital gains are their line of business they will be taxed on it like it is income. For simplicity just account for it when you buy and sell the assets (Because you as an individual will only recognise a profit/loss when you enter and exit). Its easier to think about income and expenses are extensions of equity. Income increases your equity, expenses decrease it. This is how they relate to the accounting formula (Assets = Liabilities + Owners Equity)",
"qid": 10912,
"docid": "8200",
"rank": 36,
"score": 96400
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: This would depend on what transfer methods your Forex broker allows. Most will allow you to have a check or wire transfer sent...best thing would be to call/email your broker and ask how to get the money into your account. Keep in mind, many brokers will force you to withdraw using the same funding method you used to deposit, up to the amount of the deposit. For example, if I fund my Forex account with $500 on a credit card and make $500 profit, I now have $1,000 sitting in my Forex account. The broker will force me to withdraw $500 as a credit to my credit card before allowing me to use another withdrawal method. This is an anti-money laundering precaution.",
"qid": 10912,
"docid": "277245",
"rank": 37,
"score": 96325
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Starting with small amount of money is definitely a good idea, as it is a fact that majority of the online traders lose their initial investment. No wonder that for example in the UK, FCA decided to make steps to raise the chances of clients staying in business by limiting leverage to 1:50 and 1:25. http://www.financemagnates.com/forex/bloggers/new-fca-regulations-going-affect-retail-brokers/ Trading leveraged products is risky and you will lose some, or all your money with very high chance. But that doesn't mean necessarily it is a \"\"bad investment\"\" to trade on your own. Imagine you have a $1000 account, and you trade max 0,1 lot fx position at once maximum (=$10.000 position size, that is 1:10 leverage max). Beginner steps are very challenging and exiting, but turning back to your initial question: is there a better way to invest with a small amount of money Obviously you could purchase a cheap ETF that follows a broad market index or an already existing successful portfolio.\"",
"qid": 10912,
"docid": "282947",
"rank": 38,
"score": 96286
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"While it's not true that you have to use leverage to participate in Forex, the alternative makes it impractical for most people to be able to do so. You need to be able to put a lot of money into it in order to not trade on leverage. The fact is, most accounts for \"\"normal\"\" people require leverage because the size of the typical contract is more than the average person can afford to risk (or usually more than the average person has). Leverage, however, in the Forex market is not like Leverage in the stock or commodities market (well, they're the same thing in theory, but they are executed differently). In Forex, the broker is the one lending you the money in nearly all cases, and they will cash out your position when your account balance is exhausted. Thus, there is no risk for them (barring fraud or other illegal issues). Technically, I don't believe they guarantee that you will not accrue a debt, but I've never heard of anyone having their position cashed out and then owed more money. They've very good about making sure you can only spend money you've deposited. To put this another way, if you have $1,000 in your account and you are leveraged to 100,000. Once your trade drops to $1000 in losses your position is automatically cashed out. There is no risk to the broker, and no risk to you (other than your $1000)... So trading without leverage has little value, while traiding with leverage has lots of potential gain and no downsides (other than a faster rate of loss, but if you're worried about that, just trade smaller lots.)\"",
"qid": 10912,
"docid": "309976",
"rank": 39,
"score": 96007
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The current FED's spend is to encourage spends by putting in more liquidity, SOME of this funds [directly or indirectly] reach emerging markets and get invested in stocks ... so without these forex inflows, the Balance of Payments would be under pressure ... so these forex are artificially keeping the Exchange rate down. For example the USD vs INR rate was in the range of 1 USD to around INR 50 for nearly 4-5 years. In the period the inflation in India was around 10-15%, so ideally the rate should have slowly moved towards INR 60, however it took a news of FED cut-back to more the rates in the range of INR 65 before stabilizing to Rs 60",
"qid": 10912,
"docid": "273478",
"rank": 40,
"score": 95941
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Simply because forex brokers earn money from the spread that they offer you. Spread is the difference between buyers and sellers. If the buy price is at 1.1000 and the sell price is at 1.1002 then the spread is 2 pips. Now think that this broker is getting spread from its liquidity cheaper (for example 1 pip spread). As you can understand this broker makes a profit of 1 pip for each trade you place... Now multiply 1 pip X huge volume, and then you will understand why most forex brokers don't charge commissions.",
"qid": 10912,
"docid": "585236",
"rank": 41,
"score": 95627
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: One simplest way is to to do Forex trading. You can do this by buying Foreign Currency Futures when you feel Rupee is going down or by selling those Futures when you feel Rupee will go up.",
"qid": 10912,
"docid": "420672",
"rank": 42,
"score": 94030
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"It looks like these types of companies have to disclose the health of their accounts to CFTC (Commodity Futures Trading Commission). That is the gist I get at least from this article about the traders that lost money due to the Swiss removing the franc’s cap against the euro. The article says about the U.S. retail FOREX brokerage: Most of FXCM’s retail clients lost money in 2014, according to the company’s disclosures mandated by the CFTC. The percentage of losing accounts climbed from 67 percent in the first and second quarters to 68 percent in the third quarter and 70 percent in the fourth quarter. Side note: The Swiss National Bank abandoned the cap on the currency's value against the euro in mid-January 2015. But above paragraph provides data on FXCM’s retail clients in 2014. It could consequently be concluded that, even without \"\"freak events\"\" (such as Switzerland removing the franc cap), it is more likely for an investor to NOT make a profit on the FOREX market. This is also in line with what \"\"sdfasdf\"\" and \"\"Dario Fumagalli\"\" say in their answers.\"",
"qid": 10912,
"docid": "76466",
"rank": 43,
"score": 93917
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I used Oanda.com for Forex trading a couple years ago. I am in the US but I think it's available in the UK as well. At the time, they had no commissions and their spreads were comparable or better than other brokers. The spreads would just quite considerably when a big event like a Fed meeting or the unemployment figures come out, but I suspect that that is the same everywhere (or they have constant spreads and reject trades). They did not push the high leverages like other brokers were at the time. I considered this to be very reputable, because though the profits to be gotten through 100:1 leverage are great advertising, the reality is that one unexpected spike and a newbie would lose a bunch of money in a margin call.",
"qid": 10912,
"docid": "69419",
"rank": 44,
"score": 93640
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Because you are new to forex trading, you would be wise to trade long-term and not short-term. For example, watch the Daily and Weekly charts for trends, not the 15 Minute and 1 Hour. Doing this, there is little concern for the best time of day. You will ideally have trades setup many days in advance, just waiting for them to be triggered. It doesn't really matter if you're present or not.",
"qid": 10912,
"docid": "320734",
"rank": 45,
"score": 93507
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You find a broker who handles futures accounts. Search on the word Forex and you'll find a number of companies happy to take your money. I trust you understand how futures work, the contract values, margin requirements, etc? You just don't have an account yet, right?",
"qid": 10912,
"docid": "67063",
"rank": 46,
"score": 93223
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"how can I get started knowing that my strategy opportunities are limited and that my capital is low, but the success rate is relatively high? A margin account can help you \"\"leverage\"\" a small amount of capital to make decent profits. Beware, it can also wipe out your capital very quickly. Forex trading is already high-risk. Leveraged Forex trading can be downright speculative. I'm curious how you arrived at the 96% success ratio. As Jason R has pointed out, 1-2 trades a year for 7 years would only give you 7-14 trades. In order to get a success rate of 96% you would have had to successful exploit this \"\"irregularity\"\" at 24 out of 25 times. I recommend you proceed cautiously. Make the transition from a paper trader to a profit-seeking trader slowly. Use a low leverage ratio until you can make several more successful trades and then slowly increase your leverage as you gain confidence. Again, be very careful with leverage: it can either greatly increase or decrease the relatively small amount of capital you have.\"",
"qid": 10912,
"docid": "450178",
"rank": 47,
"score": 93118
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You cannot lose more than what you have in your account (equity). You'll get margin called. No broker will allow you to go negative, at least if they aren't caught off guard like when the Swiss decided to decouple their currency. If you want to understand the basics of forex I suggest you read the following: http://www.babypips.com/school This part explains the basics about leverage and margin. They do a good job so no need in repeating it here: http://www.babypips.com/school/undergraduate/senior-year/the-number-1-cause-of-death-of-forex-traders/leverage-defined.html You you need to keep the following in mind when trading forex:",
"qid": 10912,
"docid": "222135",
"rank": 48,
"score": 92524
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Sometimes the market has to be left alone. Too much interference of the policy makers to stabilize the falling market can actually result in a major crisis. Every change stabilises after sometime and it is also applicable in the Forex trading market. So, the eager investors should learn to have some patience and wait for the market to stabilise itself rather than make random predictions on the policies released by policy makers",
"qid": 10912,
"docid": "452434",
"rank": 49,
"score": 92102
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: > Are you saying that OP was just unlucky because he didn't realize that forex wasn't covered under SIPC? Pretty much. Opening an investing account has tons of T&C. You're not going to read every single bit of it.",
"qid": 10912,
"docid": "135130",
"rank": 50,
"score": 91579
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: It really depends on your specific goals. Since you are considering trading FOREX, I assume you hate money. It's more efficient to withdraw your money from the bank and light it on fire. Perhaps you like trading FOREX like some old ladies like to gamble away their social security checks. Well then its impossible to answer your question as it is based upon personal preference.",
"qid": 10912,
"docid": "227479",
"rank": 51,
"score": 91496
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: It ought to be possible to buy a foreign exchange future (aka forex future / FX future). Businesses use these futures to make sure their exchange rate is predictable: if they put a bunch of money into manufacturing things that'll be ready a year later, it helps to know that the currency exchange rate shifts won't wipe out all their profits. If you're willing to take on some of that risk, and if things go your way, you can make money. They are essentially contracts between two private parties to pay each other a certain amount of money based on the movement of the currencies, so the Chinese government doesn't actually need to be involved and no renminbi need to change hands, you can just trade the contracts. Note that the exchange rate is currently fixed by the Chinese government, so you're going to be subject to enhanced levels of political risk, and they may not be as widely available or readily tradable as other foreign exchange futures, so check with a broker before opening your account. I couldn't find them on my personal Etrade account, but a quick Google search reveals CME Group offering some. There are probably others. Foreign exchange futures are an advanced investing tool and carry risk. Be sure you understand the risk, in particular how much money you can end up on the hook for if things don't go your way. Also remember, futures expire: you're not just betting on the rate changing, but you're betting on it changing within a certain amount of time.",
"qid": 10912,
"docid": "148948",
"rank": 52,
"score": 91345
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: It's investment 101. The holding co Piney seeks investments in sports and entertainment facilities and the arena was under foreclosure. So they got it at a good price. The Chicago Blackhawks success only motivates the next generation to skate. So there is a consumer base. If there is a creative focus with experienced management... then they can really turn profits.",
"qid": 10912,
"docid": "445918",
"rank": 53,
"score": 90927
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"While every successful forex trader has his or her own way of being consistently profitable, there are a few \"\"common denominators\"\" that all profitable traders follow without exception. This forex training article will walk through one of those critical keys to success.\"",
"qid": 10912,
"docid": "583838",
"rank": 54,
"score": 90897
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You have two problems, money exchange commissions and currency risk. Commissions are always exorbitant. First you must find the cheapest way to get your money converted to the foreign currency and into your brokerage account. The absolute cheapest way may involve some research and financial institution maneuvering. Also I'd forget about anything other than USD for the foreseeable future. Any other foreign currency will probably have higher commissions and a weaker market. Once you have that down, you must avoid needlessly exchanging currencies. Keep a balance in the foreign currency, keep all dividends and capital gains there, and only take local money out of your brokerage account right before using it. That means of course that you need to keep enough local currency to pay taxes on any gains, etc. As for currency risk, there are two solutions. One solution is to buy your risk away using forex. You sell an amount of USD/AED lots that is mostly equivalent to your current investments and then just make sure you don't get margin calls. I'm not sure just how cheap your rates would be in the UAE, but, on average, your investments should still have positive returns. The other solution is to just stop seeing exchange rate fluctuations as losses. If you had USD 100k and now you have USD 115k how are you losing money? Exchange rates can go the other way just fine, you know, and holding USD is a good way to hedge against your country going south.",
"qid": 10912,
"docid": "334495",
"rank": 55,
"score": 90664
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Some brokerages will let you withdraw/deposit in multiple jurisdictions. e.g. I used to use Interactive Brokers. I could deposit/withdraw to US and UK bank accounts, in the appropriate currencies. It helps to have a brokerage that provides good rates on forex exchange also, and they were very good on the bid/ask spread. It was possible to get interbank rates plus a very low commission.",
"qid": 10912,
"docid": "311834",
"rank": 56,
"score": 90340
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I recommended Currency Trading For Dummies, in my answer to Layman's guide to getting started with Forex (foreign exchange trading)? The nature of the contract size points toward only putting up a fraction of the value. The Euro FX contract size is 125,000 Euro. If you wish to send the broker US$125K+ to trade this contract, go ahead. Most people trade it with a few thousand dollars.",
"qid": 10912,
"docid": "172025",
"rank": 57,
"score": 90076
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Look through the related questions. Make sure you fund the max your tax advantaged retirement funds will take this year. Use the 30k to backstop any shortfalls. Invest the rest in a brokerage account. In and out of your tax advantaged accounts, try to invest in index funds. Your feeling that paying someone to manage your investments might not be the best use is shared by many. jlcollinsnh is a financial independence blogger. He, and many others, recommend the Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Admiral Shares. I have not heard of a lower expense ratio (0.05%). Search for financial independence and FIRE (Financial Independence Retire Early). Use your windfall to set yourself on that road, and you will be less likely to sit where I am 25 years from now wishing you had done things differently. Edit: Your attitude should be that the earliest money in your portfolio is in there the longest, and earns the most. Starting with a big windfall puts you years ahead of where you'd normally be. If you set your goal to retire at 40, that money will be worth significantly more in 20 years. (4x what you start with, assuming 7% average yearly return).",
"qid": 10912,
"docid": "343206",
"rank": 58,
"score": 89935
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"This advanced forex trading course allows forex traders to tracking intra-day banking activity in the forex market. Learn to trade forex using the trading secrets of the mega banks. These forex trading strategies will allow struggling retail traders to follow the \"\"footprint in the sand\"\" left by the mega banks, rather than getting ran over by them like most day traders.\"",
"qid": 10912,
"docid": "586207",
"rank": 59,
"score": 89819
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The stock market is not a zero-sum game. Some parts are (forex, some option trading), but plain old stock trading is not zero sum. That is to say, if you were to invest \"\"at random\"\", you would on average make money. That's because the market as a whole makes money - it goes up over time (6-10% annually, averaged over time). That's because you're not just gambling when you buy a stock; you're actually contributing money to a company (directly or indirectly), which it uses to fund activities that (on average) make money. When you buy Caterpillar stock, you're indirectly funding Caterpillar building tractors, which they then sell for a profit, and thus your stock appreciates in value. While not every company makes a profit, and thus not every stock appreciates in true value, the average one does. To some extent, buying index funds is pretty close to \"\"investing at random\"\". It has a far lower risk quotient, of course, since you're not buying a few stocks at random but instead are buying all stocks in an index; but buying stocks from the S&P 500 at random would on average give the same return as VOO (with way more volatility). So for one, you definitely could do worse than 50/50; if you simply sold the market short (sold random stocks short), you would lose money over time on average, above and beyond the transaction cost, since the market will go up over time on average. Secondly, there is the consideration of limited and unlimited gains or losses. Some trades, specifically some option trades, have limited potential gains, and unlimited potential losses. Take for example, a simple call option. If you sell a naked call option - meaning you sell a call option but don't own the stock - for $100, at a strike price of $20, for 100 shares, you make money as long as the price of that stock is under $21. You have a potential to make $100, because that's what you sold it for; if the price is under $20, it's not exercised, and you just get that $100, free. But, on the other hand, if the stock goes up, you could potentially be out any amount of money. If the stock trades at $24, you're out $400-100 = $300, right? (Plus transaction costs.) But what if it trades at $60? Or $100? Or $10000? You're still out 100 * that amount, so in the latter case, $1 million. It's not likely to trade at that point, but it could. If you were to trade \"\"at random\"\", you'd probably run into one of those types of situations. That's because there are lots of potential trades out there that nobody expects anyone to take - but that doesn't mean that people wouldn't be happy to take your money if you offered it to them. That's the reason your 16.66 vs 83.33 argument is faulty: you're absolutely right that if there were a consistently losing line, that the consistently winning line would exist, but that requires someone that is willing to take the losing line. Trades require two actors, one on each side; if you're willing to be the patsy, there's always someone happy to take advantage of you, but you might not get a patsy.\"",
"qid": 10912,
"docid": "307518",
"rank": 60,
"score": 89467
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: First I would be very careful using a short ETF. There could be some serious tracking error, especially if its levered. Second, when it comes to forex you are in the world of PIPS and high leverage. You would need to have significant capital to be able to hold out the swings as banks do their interventions. Plenty of people have been short waiting, and waiting, and waiting, unless you think you know something the market doesn't this seems like a pretty high risk strategy. I'd suggest buying options instead, but they will be expensive given the volatility.",
"qid": 10912,
"docid": "251482",
"rank": 61,
"score": 89399
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If I knew a surefire way to make money in FOREX (or any market for that matter) I would not be sharing it with you. If you find an indicator that makes sense to you and you think you can make money, use it. For what it's worth, I think technical analysis is nonsense. If you're just now wading in to the FOREX markets because of the Brexit vote I suggest you set up a play-money account first. The contracts and trades can be complicated, losses can be very large and you can lose big -- quickly. I suspect FOREX brokers have been laughing to the bank the last couple weeks with all the guppies jumping in to play with the sharks.",
"qid": 10912,
"docid": "450740",
"rank": 62,
"score": 89338
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"This is a speculative question and there's no \"\"correct\"\" answer, but there are definitely some highly likely outcomes. Let's assume that the United States defaults on it's debt. It can be guaranteed that it will lose its AAA rating. Although we don't know what it will drop to, we know it WILL be AA or lower. A triple-A rating implies that the issuer will never default, so it can offer lower rates since there is a guarantee of safety there.People will demand a higher yield for the lower perceived security, so treasury yield will go up. The US dollar, or at least forex rates, will almost certainly fall. Since US treasuries will no longer be a safe haven, the dollar will no longer be the safe currency it once was, and so the dollar will fall. The US stock market (and international markets) will also have a strong fall because so many institutions, financial or otherwise, invest in treasuries so when treasuries tumble and the US loses triple-A, investments will be hurt and the tendency is for investors to overreact so it is almost guaranteed that the market will drop sharply. Financial stocks and companies that invest in treasuries will be hurt the most. A notable exception is nations themselves. For example, China holds over $1 trillion in treasuries and a US default will hurt their value, but the Yuan will also appreciate with respect to the dollar. Thus, other nations will benefit and be hurt from a US default. Now many people expect a double-dip recession - worse than the 08/09 crisis - if the US defaults. I count myself a member of this crowd. Nonetheless, we cannot say with certainty whether or not there will be another recession or even a depression - we can only say that a recession is a strong possibility. So basically, let's pray that Washington gets its act together and raises the ceiling, or else we're in for bad times. And lastly, a funny quote :) I could end the deficit in 5 minutes. You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP all sitting members of congress are ineligible for reelection. - Warren Buffett\"",
"qid": 10912,
"docid": "581054",
"rank": 63,
"score": 89152
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Disregarding leverage and things alike, I would like to know what's the difference between opening a position in Forex on a pair through a broker, for example, and effectively buy some currency in a traditional bank-to-bank transition The forex account may pay or charge you interest whereas converting your currency directly will not. Disregarding leverage, the difference would be interest.",
"qid": 10912,
"docid": "127894",
"rank": 64,
"score": 89010
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Actually, most of the forex traders do not prefer the practice of leveraging. In forex trading, a contract signed by a common trader is way more than any common man can afford to risk. It is not a compulsion for the traders to use leveraging yet most of the traders practice it. The other side of it is completely different. Trading companies or brokers specifically like it because you turn into a kind of cash cow when your account gets exhausted. As for trader, most of them don’t practice leveraging.",
"qid": 10912,
"docid": "553304",
"rank": 65,
"score": 88769
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You would think so wouldn't you, after all, it's your money! In practise though, it's not as easy as you might think because anti money laundering and anti fraud laws mean you generally have to withdraw money to the same account you funded your trading from. Some forex trading account providers will allow you to fund from multiple sources, but then insist on putting money back to those sources in some proportion or some order or other. Some forex trading account providers at least claim that they may, AT THEIR DISCRETION, let you do it, IF the destination account is in the same name, but I wouldn't be surprised if they charged you for it, and actually the charges might be somewhat justified if they have to invoke identification procedures to make sure the other account is indeed actually you. You would have to talk to a specific service provider and see if they agree to do what you want, they all have FAQs about funding and withdrawal so you can scan around online for the slightly more flexible ones and then give them a call. You might find it difficult to get any guarantees out of them though.",
"qid": 10912,
"docid": "358960",
"rank": 66,
"score": 87909
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I'm answering this from a slightly different angle, but there are people (individuals) who will do this for you. I know private Forex traders who are 'employed' to manage Forex trading accounts for wealthy individuals. The trader takes a percentage of the wins but is also responsible for a percentage of the loss (if there is a loss in a particular month). However the fact that the trader is able to prove that they have a consistent enough trading history to be trusted with the large accounts generally means that losses are rare (one would hope!). Obviously they have contracts in place (and the terms of the contract are crucial to the responsibility of losses) etc. but I don't know what the legalities are of offering or using this kind of service. I just wanted to mention it, while perhaps not being the best option for you personally, it does exist and matches your requirements. You would just have to be extremely careful to choose someone respectable and responsible, as it would be much easier to get ripped off while looking for a respected individual to trade your account than it would be while looking for a respected firm (I would imagine).",
"qid": 10912,
"docid": "543714",
"rank": 67,
"score": 87776
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: One key piece missing from your theory is the bid/ask spread. If you buy a stock for $10, you usually can't immediately turn around and sell it for $10. You can only sell it for whatever someone is willing to pay for it. So virtually any random investment (stocks, bonds, forex, whatever) immediately loses a small amount of value, and over the long run you will almost certainly lose money if you buy/sell at random.",
"qid": 10912,
"docid": "377719",
"rank": 68,
"score": 87654
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: With $7 Million at stake I guess it would be prudent to take legal advise as well as advise from qualified CA. Forex trading for select currency pair [with one leg in INR] is allowed. Ex USDINR, EURINR, JPYINR, GBPINR. Forex trading for pairs without INR or not in the above list is NOT allowed.",
"qid": 10912,
"docid": "411021",
"rank": 69,
"score": 87299
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: CDs pay less than the going rate so that the banks can earn money. Investing is risky right now due to the inaction of the Fed. Try your independent life insurance agent. You could get endowment life insurance. It would pay out at age 21. If you decide to invest it yourself try to buy a stable equity fund. My 'bedrock' fund is PGF. It pays dividends each month and is currently yealding 5.5% per year. Scottrade has a facility to automatically reinvest the dividend each month at no commission. http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/Fund/PGF?CountryCode=US",
"qid": 10912,
"docid": "567079",
"rank": 70,
"score": 87214
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"You don't state a long term goal for your finances in your message, but I'm going to assume you want to retire early, and retire well. :-) any other ideas I'm missing out on? A fairly common way to reach financial independence is to build one or more passive income streams. The money returned by stock investing (capital gains and dividends) is just one such type of stream. Some others include owning rental properties, being a passive owner of a business, and producing goods that earn long-term royalties instead of just an immediate exchange of time & effort for cash. Of these, rental property is probably one of the most well-known and easiest to learn about, so I'd suggest you start with that as a second type of investment if you feel you need to diversify from stock ownership. Especially given your association with the military, it is likely there is a nearby supply of private housing that isn't too expensive (so easier to get started with) and has a high rental demand (so less risk in many ways.) Also, with our continued current low rate environment, now is the time to lock-in long term mortgage rates. Doing so will reap huge benefits as rates and rents will presumably rise from here (though that isn't guaranteed.) Regarding the idea of being a passive business owner, keep in mind that this doesn't necessarily mean starting a business yourself. Instead, you might look to become a partner by investing money with an existing or startup business, or even buying an existing business or franchise. Sometimes, perfectly good business can be transferred for surprisingly little down with the right deal structure. If you're creative in any way, producing goods to earn long-term royalties might be a useful path to go down. Writing books, articles, etc. is just one example of this. There are other opportunities depending on your interests and skill, but remember, the focus ought to be on passive royalties rather than trading time and effort for immediate money. You only have so many hours in a year. Would you rather spend 100 hours to earn $100 every year for 20 years, or have to spend 100 hours per year for 20 years to earn that same $100 every year? .... All that being said, while you're way ahead of the game for the average person of your age ($30k cash, $20k stocks, unknown TSP balance, low expenses,) I'm not sure I'd recommend trying to diversify quite yet. For one thing, I think you need to keep some amount of your $30k as cash to cover emergency situations. Typically people would say 6 months living expenses for covering employment gaps, but as you are in the military I don't think it's as likely you'll lose your job! So instead, I'd approach it as \"\"How much of this cash do I need over the next 5 years?\"\" That is, sum up $X for the car, $Y for fun & travel, $Z for emergencies, etc. Keep that amount as cash for now. Beyond that, I'd put the balance in your brokerage and get it working hard for you now. (I don't think an average of a 3% div yield is too hard to achieve even when picking a safe, conservative portfolio. Though you do run the risk of capital losses if invested.) Once your total portfolio (TSP + brokerage) is $100k* or more, then consider pulling the trigger on a second passive income stream by splitting off some of your brokerage balance. Until then, keep learning what you can about stock investing and also start the learning process on additional streams. Always keep an eye out for any opportunistic ways to kick additional streams off early if you can find a low cost entry. (*) The $100k number is admittedly a rough guess pulled from the air. I just think splitting your efforts and money prior to this will limit your opportunities to get a good start on any additional streams. Yes, you could do it earlier, but probably only with increased risk (lower capital means less opportunities to pick from, lower knowledge levels -- both stock investing and property rental) also increase risk of making bad choices.\"",
"qid": 10912,
"docid": "584304",
"rank": 71,
"score": 86694
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: In the UK there are spread betting firms (essentially financial bookmakers) that will take large bets 24x7. Plus, interbank forex is open 24x7 anyway. And there are a wide array of futures markets in different jurisdictions. There are plenty of ways to find organizations who are willing to take the opposite position that you do, day or night, provided that you qualify.",
"qid": 10912,
"docid": "276950",
"rank": 72,
"score": 86350
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: It isn't that the companies force traders, it is more the other way around. Traders wouldn't trade without margin. The main reason is liquidity and taking advantage of minor changes in the forex quotes. It goes down to pips and traders make profit(loss) on movement of pips maybe by 1 or 2 and in some cases in 1/1000 or less of a pip. So you need to put in a large amount to make a profit when the quotes move up or down. Supposedly if they have put in all the amount upfront, their trading options are limited. And the liquidity in the market goes out of the window. The banks and traders cannot make a profit with the limited amount of money available at their disposal. So what they would do is borrow from somebody else, so why not the broker itself in this case maybe the forex company, and execute the trades. So it helps everybody. Forex companies make their profit from the fees, more the trades done, more the fees and hence more profit. Traders get to put their fingers in many pies and so their chances of making profits increases. So everybody is happy.",
"qid": 10912,
"docid": "277074",
"rank": 73,
"score": 85760
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: At the other end of the spectrum is the VICEX fund. it invests in industries such as tobacco, gaming, defense/weapons, liquor and other companies whose products or services are widely considered not to be socially responsible",
"qid": 10912,
"docid": "520781",
"rank": 74,
"score": 85681
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: It is an undeniable fact that 95% of all retail forex traders lose money. In order to break free from this crowd of losing traders we must first understand the forex trading strategies they use. Only then can we learn how to trade forex profitably.",
"qid": 10912,
"docid": "79469",
"rank": 75,
"score": 85512
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Banks consider investment mortgages (and any mortgage where you don't live in the property), as a riskier investment than an owner occupied, home collateral mortgage. The sources of increased risk range from concerns that you will screw up as a landlord, your tenants will destroy the place, you won't have tenants and can't afford to pay the bank, and/or you'll take out several other investment mortgages and over extend yourself. All of these risks are compounded by the fact that it is harder for the bank to convince you to pay when they can't put you out on the street if you default. Banks lend and invest in money, not real estate, so they would much rather have a paying loan than a foreclosed house, especially with the modern foreclosure glut. The increased risk means the bank will charge higher interest for the loan, may require a higher downpayment, and will require higher lending standards before issuing the loan. A new housing investor can get around these higher prices by living in the home for a few years before renting it out (though your lender could possibly require you to renegotiate the loan if you move out too soon).",
"qid": 10912,
"docid": "253319",
"rank": 76,
"score": 85493
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"When trading Forex each currency is traded relative to another. So when shorting a currency you must go long another currency vs the currency you are shorting, it seems a little odd and can be a bit confusing, but here is the explanation that Wikipedia provides: An example of this is as follows: Let us say a trader wants to trade with the US dollar and the Indian rupee currencies. Assume that the current market rate is USD 1 to Rs.50 and the trader borrows Rs.100. With this, he buys USD 2. If the next day, the conversion rate becomes USD 1 to Rs.51, then the trader sells his USD 2 and gets Rs.102. He returns Rs.100 and keeps the Rs.2 profit (minus fees). So in this example the trader is shorting the rupee vs the dollar. Does this article add up all other currency crosses to get the 'net' figure? So they don't care what it is depreciating against? This data is called the Commitment of Traders (COT) which is issued by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) In the WSJ article it is actually referring to Forex Futures. In an another article from CountingPips it explains a bit clearer as to how a news organization comes up with these type of numbers. according to the CFTC COT data and calculations by Reuters which calculates the dollar positions against the euro, British pound, Japanese yen, Australian dollar, Canadian dollar and the Swiss franc. So this article is not talking about futures but it does tell us they got data from the COT and in addition Reuters added additional calculations from adding up \"\"X\"\" currency positions. No subscription needed: Speculators Pile Up Largest Net Dollar Long Position Since June 2010 - CFTC Here is some additional reading on the topic if you're interested: CFTC Commitment of the Traders Data – COT Report FOREX : What Is It And How Does It Work? Futures vs. Forex Options Forex - Wiki\"",
"qid": 10912,
"docid": "316497",
"rank": 77,
"score": 85020
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I would say that there is no real difference. Asset management companies that is part of large banking groups usually seat in separate entities and operate independently from the rest of the bank. Assuming proper procedures (and regulators usually check that) are in place they will not share information with the rest of the bank and their assets are clearly segregated from the rest of the bank. They have the same fiduciary duties as an independent AM and are probably using the broker/dealer services of other banks as well as their parent. Reputation is a key issue for banks and conflict of interests are usually managed properly. Independence also comes and goes. The corporate history of Neuberger Berman is a good example. Neuberger Berman was once an independent asset manager. In 2003, it merged with Lehman Brothers, thus loosing its independence. When Lehman went bankrupt in 2008, NB did not join its parent company in bankruptcy and did not lose the assets of its clients. The company continued to operate until it was acquired by the management. Finally it is mostly a question of marketing and positioning.",
"qid": 10912,
"docid": "224345",
"rank": 78,
"score": 84914
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"There is no zero risk option! There is no safe parking zone for turbulent times! There is no such thing as a zero-risk investment. You would do well to get this out of your head now. Cash, though it will retain its principle over time, will always be subject to inflation risk (assuming a positive-inflation environment which, historically in the US anyway, has always been the case since the Great Depression). But I couldn't find a \"\"Pure Cash - No investment option\"\" - what I mean by this is an option where my money is kept idle without investing in any kind of financial instrument (stocks, bonds, other MFs, currencies, forex etc etc whatever). Getting back to the real crux of your question, several other answers have already highlighted that you're looking for a money market fund. These will likely be as close to cash as you will get in a retirement account for the reasons listed in @KentA's answer. Investing in short-term notes would also be another relatively low-risk alternative to a money market fund. Again, this is low-risk, not no-risk. I wanted such kinda option because things may turn bad and I may want nothing invested in the stock markets/bond markets. I was thinking that if the market turns bear then I would move everything to cash Unless you have a the innate ability to perfectly time the market, you are better off keeping your investments where they are and riding out the bear market. Cash does not generate dividends - most funds in a retirement account do. Sure, you may have a paper loss of principle in a bear market, but this will go away once the market turns bull again. Assuming you have a fairly long time before you retire, this should not concern you in the slightest. Again, I want to stress that market timing does not work. Even the professionals, who get paid the big bucks to do this, on average, get it right as often as they get it wrong. If you had this ability, you would not be asking financial questions on Stack Exchange, I can tell you that. I would recommend you read The Four Pillars of Investing, by William Bernstein. He has a very no-nonsense approach to investing and retirement that would serve you (or anybody) well in turbulent financial markets. His discussion on risk is especially applicable to your situation.\"",
"qid": 10912,
"docid": "437427",
"rank": 79,
"score": 84885
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I work at a FOREX broker, and can tell you that what you want to do is NOT possible. If someone is telling you it is, they're lying. You could (in theory) make money from the SWAP (the interest you speak of is called SWAP) if you go both short and long on the same currency, but there are various reasons why this never works. Furthermore, I don't know of any brokers that are paying positive SWAP (the interest you speak of is called SWAP) on any currency right now.",
"qid": 10912,
"docid": "10324",
"rank": 80,
"score": 84746
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Unless you want to invest a lot of time into learning about ForEx, I think the best time to convert is whenever it's most practical for you. This is because, as some of the comments say, no one knows when which currency will go up and down. Unless something major happens, you're unlikely to gain/lose a huge amount within a year. Whatever you do, try to avoid converting the money twice (NZ - AUS - GBP) and I'd suggest a provider like Transferwise for actually transferring the money, instead of using your bank (its usually cheaper).",
"qid": 10912,
"docid": "187606",
"rank": 81,
"score": 84580
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I'm really surprised more people didn't recommend UGA or USO specifically. These have been mentioned in the past on a myriad of sites as ways to hedge against rising prices. I'm sure they would work quite well as an investment opportunity. They are ETF's that invest in nearby futures and constantly roll the position to the next delivery date. This creates a higher than usual expense ratio, I believe, but it could still be a good investment. However, be forewarned that they make you a \"\"partner\"\" by buying the stock so it can mildly complicate your tax return.\"",
"qid": 10912,
"docid": "172814",
"rank": 82,
"score": 84527
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Your cost of platform is built into your commission rates...SC is free if I sign up to a broker that charges more commissions. Right now I am with IB as my broker. With the cost of my charting, if I were to make 10 round turns per month, I would pay $4.50 per side commission on FOREX, $3.25 per side on EQUITIES. Still a better deal than ToS.",
"qid": 10912,
"docid": "30524",
"rank": 83,
"score": 84090
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: There are many good brokers available in the market and many spammers too. Personally I have been associated with FXCM since 2001 and have never faced any problem. But everyone has their own personal choice and I recommend you to make your own. But the question is how to find out which broker is a good broker and would provide you with a timely and reliable service? Online google check? Not really. There is so much competition between brokerage firms that they keep writing rubbish about each other on blogs and websites. Best thing is to is check with regulator's website. For US: NFA is a regulator for all forex firms. Information about any regulated forex firm could be found here. http://www.nfa.futures.org/basicnet/welcome.aspx For UK: Its FSA. Information on all regulated Uk based firm could be found here. http://www.fsa.gov.uk/register/firmSearchForm.do Remember in many countries its not compulsory for a forex firm to be regulated but being regulated ensure that the govt. has a watch on the operations of the firm. Also most of the firms out there provide accounts for large as well as small traders so there is nothing much to look for even if you are a small trader. Do keep in mind that if you are a US Citizen you are restricted by the US Govt. to trade only with a broker within US. You are not allowed to trade with any brokerage firm that is based outside the country. Forex Trading involves a significant amount of risk make sure you study the markets well and get yourself educated properly before risking your money. While I have made a lot of money trading forex I have seen a lot of people loosing everything. Please understand the risk and please make sure you only trade with the money which you can afford to loose.",
"qid": 10912,
"docid": "114908",
"rank": 84,
"score": 84038
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: This isn't an impressive headline, nor does it show amazing investment foresight, because they were a non-entity. Investing in them back then would have consisted of picking one of hundreds of companies with a good idea and the hope of someday becoming profitable, but risky as hell. A WSB. A better headline for Netflix, and one that actually teaches a lesson on how to properly invest would be: **$1,000 in Netflix 6 years ago worth $16K today.** Around 2010, I was disappointed in myself for not grabbing NFLX earlier on, but didn't want to buy because I didn't think it had much upside... a little overpriced from what I saw. Then in 2011, they made the stupid Qwikster announcement. Everyone bitched and moaned, and the stock price plummeted. I said to myself - is anyone actually canceling their subscription over this? Who exactly is the competition, the cable company who's 5-10x the price? Hulu, who have commercials? How could their profits really suffer from this?? I couldn't see any way where they wouldn't claw it back once the dust settled. I bought 150 shares right away. Classic investment example of not succumbing to market panic and getting a good buy. (Just wish I hadn't sold half my shares after the stock tripled!)",
"qid": 10912,
"docid": "73550",
"rank": 85,
"score": 83984
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Oanda.com trades spot forex and something they call box options, it's not quite what you are looking for, but maybe worth looking up.",
"qid": 10912,
"docid": "119154",
"rank": 86,
"score": 83710
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"If he didn't lie, I don't see the issue. He did not force anyone to buy anything. His opinion was stock X is good, he publicized it and it turned out to be true (at least temporary) - what's wrong with it? It is customary for people who have either fiduciary duty towards the clients or are perceived as independent analysts to disclose their interest and potential conflict of interest, lest they lose the respect of the public as independent and trustworthy sources of financial information. Jackson never had that, express or implied, and never had the duty to provide anybody with impartial financial analysis, so he can say anything he wants. He can invest into the company and promote it and make money from it - isn't it what was called \"\"business\"\" once? Why is it even being questioned?\"",
"qid": 10912,
"docid": "209218",
"rank": 87,
"score": 83690
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Google \"\"forex broker\"\" and find one of the thousands that allows you to trade on Gold futures. Then use one of them to short Gold... just watch your leverage. I would certainly wait before you're shorting gold. Why tie up capital in a bubble that you think will burst in the next few years. Wait for the price to increase and monitor for actual signs of the bubble bursting. Right now with the Euro possibly collapsing shorting gold probably isn't your best bet.\"",
"qid": 10912,
"docid": "460839",
"rank": 88,
"score": 83462
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"If anything, the price of an ETF is more tightly coupled to the underlying holdings or assets than a mutual fund, because of the independent creation/destruction mechanism. With a mutual fund, the price is generally set once at the end of each day, and the mutual fund manager has to deal with investments and redemptions at that price. By the time they get to buying or selling the underlying assets, the market may have moved or they may even move the market with those transactions. With an ETF, investment and redemption is handled by independent \"\"authorized participants\"\". They can create new units of the ETF by buying up the underlying assets and delivering them to the ETF manager, and vice versa they can cancel units by requesting the underlying assets from the ETF manager. ETFs trade intraday (i.e. at any time during trading hours) and any time the price diverges too far from the underlying assets, one of the authorized participants has an incentive to make a small profit by creating or destroying units of the ETF, also intraday.\"",
"qid": 10912,
"docid": "200360",
"rank": 89,
"score": 83114
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: frankly, it's got very good advice. It teaches you how to look at your purchases of assets and determine which are truly investments (2nd home rented out) vs those that are not (the ones you live in, don't count on appreciation). Gives you a very simple but very clear method of accounting your expenses for becoming financially independent. Things that are simple and you probably know but he puts it in a way that allows you to focus on it more clearly. However, it is not a get rich quick scheme. It doesn't tell you which gimmicks to become rich, just how to manage your investments clearly. His later books are all a money grab and you can see him start to drift to the dark side of greed.",
"qid": 10912,
"docid": "103969",
"rank": 90,
"score": 82768
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: With your experience, I think you'd agree that trading over a standardized, regulated exchange is much more practical with the amount of capital you plan to trade with. That said, I'd highly advise you to consider FX futures at CME, cause spot forex at the bucket shops will give you a ton of avoidable operational risks.",
"qid": 10912,
"docid": "19367",
"rank": 91,
"score": 82699
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Dogma always disappoints. The notion that an index fund is the end-all, be-all for investing because the expense ratios are low is a flawed one. I don't concern myself with cost as an independent factor -- I look for the best value. Bogle's dogma lines up with his business, so you need to factor that in as well. Vendors of any product spend alot of time and money convincing you that unique attributes of their product are the most important thing in the world. Pre-crash, the dogmatics among us were bleating about how Fixed-date Retirement Funds were the new paradigm. Where did they go?",
"qid": 10912,
"docid": "18303",
"rank": 92,
"score": 82527
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Probably not, though there are a few things to be said for understanding what you are doing here. Primerica acts as an independent financial services firm and thus has various partners that specialize in various financial instruments and thus there may exist other firms that Primerica doesn't use that could offer better products. Now, how much do you want to value your time as it could take more than a few months to go through every possible insurance firm and broker to see what rate you could get for the specific insurance you want. There is also the question of what constitutes best here. Is it paying the minimal premiums before getting a payout? That would be my interpretation though this requires some amazing guesswork to know when to start paying a policy to pay out so quickly that the insurance company takes a major loss on the policy. Similarly, there are thousands of mutual funds out there and it is incredibly difficult to determine which ones would be best for your situation. How much risk do you want to take? How often do you plan to add to it? What kind of accounts are you using for these investments, e.g. IRAs or just regular taxable accounts? Do tax implications of the investments matter? Thus, I'd likely want to suggest you consider this question: How much trust do you have that this company will work well for you in handling the duty of managing your investments and insurance needs? If you trust them, then buy what they suggest. If you don't, then buy somewhere else but be careful about what kind of price are you prepared to pay to find the mythical \"\"best\"\" as those usually only become clear in hindsight. When it comes to trusting a company in case, there are more than a few factors I'd likely use: Questions - How well do they answer your questions or concerns from your perspective? Do you feel that these are being treated with respect or do you get the feeling they want to say, \"\"What the heck are you thinking for asking that?\"\" in a kind of conceited perspective. Structure of meeting - Do you like to have an agenda and things all planned out or are you more of the spontaneous, \"\"We'll figure it out\"\" kind of person? This is about how well do they know you and set things up to suit you well. Tone of talk - Do you feel valued in having these conversations and working through various exercises with the representative? This is kind of like 1 though it would include requests they have for you. Employee turnover - How long has this person been with Primerica? Do they generally lose people frequently? Are you OK with your file being passed around like a hot potato? Not that it necessarily will but just consider the possibility here. Reputation can be a factor though I'd not really use it much as some people can find those bad apples that aren't there anymore and so it isn't an issue now. In some ways you are interviewing them as much as they are interviewing you. There are more than a few companies that want to get a piece of what you'll invest, buy, and use when it comes to financial products so it may be a good idea to shop around a little.\"",
"qid": 10912,
"docid": "295906",
"rank": 93,
"score": 82493
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I'm a big fan of indie movie theaters. But I'm going to have to advise you to come up with another idea if you want a for profit business. Many independent theaters are non-profits, others are vanity investments by wealthy owners who don't mind losing money. The rest just go under. Also, if you don't have any industry knowledge you will never make it to opening night.",
"qid": 10912,
"docid": "329161",
"rank": 94,
"score": 82211
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Have you tried calling a Forex broker and asking them if you can take delivery on currency? Their spreads are likely to be much lower than banks/ATMs.",
"qid": 10912,
"docid": "488948",
"rank": 95,
"score": 82112
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Taking into account your POV I would recommend mostly goods that will be harder to obtain, precious metals (not only gold) and forex (although the forex aproach depends on some other country not having troubles with it's own economy which in a world as interconnected as ours by internet and all the new technologies doesn't seem likely) i highly recommend silver which is cheaper than gold and is stable enough in the long term",
"qid": 10912,
"docid": "470357",
"rank": 96,
"score": 81491
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: It is only wise to invest in what you understand (ala Warren Buffet style). Depending on how much money you have, you might see fit to consult a good independent financial advisor instead of seeking advice from this website. A famous quote goes: “Those who say, do not know. Those who know, do not say”",
"qid": 10912,
"docid": "157038",
"rank": 97,
"score": 81483
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: There are various indexes on the stock market that track the currencies. Though it is different than Forex (probably less leverage), you may be able to get the effects you're looking for. I don't have a lot of knowledge in this area, but looked some into FXE, to trade the Euro debt crisis. Here's an article on Forex, putting FXE down (obviously a biased view, but perhaps will give you a starting point for comparison, should you want to trade something specific, like the current euro/dollar situation).",
"qid": 10912,
"docid": "310614",
"rank": 98,
"score": 81244
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I definitely can recommend you a site called babypips. Their beginner course section is great to get a good overview what you \"\"could\"\" do in FOREX trading. For starting out I definitely recommend a dummy account! (NEVER use real money in the beginning!)\"",
"qid": 10912,
"docid": "237054",
"rank": 99,
"score": 81086
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Real estate investment is a proven creator of wealth. Check into the history of the rich and you will find real estate investment. Starting your investment in multi-family is a great idea. It is a good way to gain experience in real estate while exponentially increasing cash flow. If you turn the properties over to a reputable property management company, your cash flow will be a little less but so will your headaches. (Expect to pay 8 - 10% of gross income.) You could start investing now by looking into discounted real estate such as foreclosures, tax sales, short sales etc while the market is still depressed. This way your return on investment should be higher. From there you could expand into land development (i.e. subdivision) or commercial investments. Commercial properties with triple net leases can be a great low-stress investment opportunity (but they take more cash upfront). Attending some local real estate investment classes would be a great idea for starters.",
"qid": 10912,
"docid": "387717",
"rank": 100,
"score": 80768
}
] |
Transferring money from 403B to 401K? | [
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"You can move money from a 403b to a 401k plan, but the question you should ask yourself is whether it is a wise decision. Unless there are specific reasons for wanting to invest in your new employer's 401k (e.g. you can buy your employer's stock at discounted rates within the 401k, and this is a good investment according to your friends, neighbors, and brothers-in-law), you would be much better off moving the 403b money into an IRA, where you have many more choices for investment and usually can manage to find investments with lower investment costs (e.g. mutual fund fees) than in a typical employer's 401k plan. On the other hand, 401k assets are better protected than IRA assets in case you are sued and a court finds you to be liable for damages; the plaintiff cannot come after the 401k assets if you cannot pay. To answer the question of \"\"how?\"\", you need to talk to the HR people at your current employer to make sure that they are willing to accept a roll-over from another tax-deferred plan (not all plans are agreeable to do this) and get any paperwork from them, especially making sure that you find out where the check is to be sent, and to whom it should be payable. Then, talk to your previous employer's HR people and tell them that you want to roll over your 403b money into the 401k plan of your new employer, fill out the paperwork, make sure they know to whom to cut the check to, and where it is to be sent etc. In my personal experience, I was sent the check payable to the custodian of my new (IRA) account, and I had to send it on to the custodian; my 403b people refused to send the check directly to the new custodian. The following January, you will receive a 1099-R form from your 403b plan showing the amount transferred to the new custodian, with hopefully the correct code letter indicating that the money was rolled over into another tax-deferred account.\"",
"qid": 10932,
"docid": "104134",
"rank": 1,
"score": 153972
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: From your first link: IRS.gov: IRA One-Rollover-Per-Year-Rule IRA One-Rollover-Per-Year Rule Beginning in 2015, you can make only one rollover from an IRA to another (or the same) IRA in any 12-month period, regardless of the number of IRAs you own (Announcement 2014-15 and Announcement 2014-32). The limit will apply by aggregating all of an individual’s IRAs, including SEP and SIMPLE IRAs as well as traditional and Roth IRAs, effectively treating them as one IRA for purposes of the limit. They are limiting your ability to roll over money from an IRA to an IRA. You are looking to go from a 401K to an IRA. That is fine. The idea was that some people were taking all money from their IRA, using it for almost 60 days, then putting it back into an IRA. Thus getting a sort of short term loan. They could do this multiple times in a year. The direct trustee-to-trustee transfer are exempt from the once per year rule because the money is never in your possession. Moving money from a 401K/403b/TSP plan from your former employer to an IRA or Roth IRA is fine, and isn't limited to once per year.",
"qid": 10932,
"docid": "528522",
"rank": 2,
"score": 148833
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Most 401k plans (maybe even all 401k plans as a matter of law) allow the option of moving the money in your 401k account from one mutual fund to another (within the group of funds that are in the plan). So, you can exit from one fund and put all your 401k money (not just the new contributions) into another fund in the group if you like. Whether you can find a fund within that group that invests only in the companies that you approve of is another matter. As mhoran_psprep's answer points out, changing investments inside a 401k (ditto IRAs, 403b and 457 plans) is without tax consequence which is not the case when you sell one mutual fund and buy another in a non-retirement account.",
"qid": 10932,
"docid": "332152",
"rank": 3,
"score": 132934
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Rolling an old 401k into a new 401k is generally only for ease of management. For example, how many bank accounts do you really want? As long as the funds are reasonably allocated I've found it can be a useful \"\"mind game\"\" to leave it separate. Sometimes it's desirable to ignore an account and let it grow, and it is a nice surprise when finally adding all the account balances together. In other words, I keep thinking I've got X (the amount of my biggest or current 401k), which affects/helps my habits and desire to save. When I add them all together I'm shocked to find out I've got Y (the total of all accounts). Personally, I've had big paperwork problems transferring an old 403b (same type process as 401k) even when I had an adviser helping me move it. In the end it was worth moving it, because I'm having the adviser manage it. I'm actually writing this answer specifically because I recently moved a big 401k into a Traditional IRA. A rep from the brokerage, representing my previous employer, kept calling me to find out how they could help (I didn't brush him off). I found that using an IRA provided me with the opportunity to do self-guided investments in funds or even individual stocks, well beyond the limited selection of the old company's 401k. It was useful/interesting to me to invest in low-fee vehicles such as index funds (ie: the Buffett recommendation), and I'll find some stocks as well. Oh and when the old company 401k has certain funds being discontinued, I didn't want to notice the mandated changes years later. So, I'd suggest you consider management and flexibility of the 401k or equivalent, and any of your special personal circumstances/goals. If you end up with a few retirement accounts, I suggest you use an account aggregating website to see or follow your net worth. I know many who, based on various concerns and their portfolio, find an acceptable website to use.\"",
"qid": 10932,
"docid": "291578",
"rank": 4,
"score": 127545
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I assume that with both companies you can buy stock mutual funds, bonds mutual funds, ETFs and money market accounts. They should both offer all of these as IRAs, Roth IRAs, and non-retirement accounts. You need to make sure they offer the types of investments you want. Most 401K or 403b plans only offer a handful of options, but for non-company sponsored plans you want to have many more choices. To look at the costs see how much they charge you when you buy or sell shares. Also look at the annual expenses for those funds. Each company website should show you all the fees for each fund. Take a few funds that you are likely to invest in, and have a match in the other fund family, and compare. The benefit of the retirement accounts is that if you make a less than perfect choice now, it is easy to move the money within the family of funds or even to another family of funds later. The roll over or transfer doesn't involve taxes.",
"qid": 10932,
"docid": "434734",
"rank": 5,
"score": 126562
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Once upon a time, money rolled over from a 401k or 403b plan into an IRA could not be rolled into another 401k or 403b unless the IRA account was properly titled as a Rollover IRA (instead of Traditional IRA - Roth IRAs were still in the future) and the money kept separate (not commingled) with contributions to Traditional IRAs. Much of that has fallen by the way side as the rules have become more relaxed. Also the desire to roll over money into a 401k plan at one's new job has decreased too -- far too many employer-sponsored retirement plans have large management fees and the investments are rarely the best available: one can generally do better keeping ex-401k money outside a new 401k, though of course new contributions from salary earned at the new employer perforce must be put into the employer's 401k. While consolidating one's IRA accounts at one brokerage or one fund family certainly saves on the paperwork, it is worth keeping in mind that putting all one's eggs in one basket might not be the best idea, especially for those concerned that an employee might, like Matilda, take me money and run Venezuela. Another issue is that while one may have diversified investments at the brokerage or fund family, the entire IRA must have the same set of beneficiaries: one cannot leave the money invested in GM stock (or Fund A) to one person and the money invested in Ford stock (or Fund B) to another if one so desires. Thinking far ahead into the future, if one is interested in making charitable bequests, it is the best strategy tax-wise to make these bequests from tax-deferred monies rather than from post-tax money. Since IRAs pass outside the will, one can keep separate IRA accounts with different companies, with, say, the Vanguard IRA having primary beneficiary United Way and the Fidelity IRA having primary beneficiary the American Cancer Society, etc. to achieve the appropriate charitable bequests.",
"qid": 10932,
"docid": "439402",
"rank": 6,
"score": 126235
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Kudos to you on having money in a retirement account as early as after college. Many people don't start investing towards retirement until far to late and compound interest makes a major difference in those early years. Ideally, neither withdraw nor borrow from these accounts. Withdrawing from your 403b will incur a 10% penalty unless you are over the minimum age on top of the normal tax on that income. With a 401K loan you're putting yourself at risk if you run into a situation where you can't pay the loan back of incurring the same penalties as an early withdrawal. This article covers the concerns well. In general, you want to view your retirement money as untouchable until the distributions need to start coming in retirement. It's your future in there. Of course, this doesn't help the short term cash need. Do you have money in an emergency fund somewhere? Could a relative loan you money? Can you move to a less expensive place in advance and squirrel away some of what would have been your rent cash? Can you cut back to bare necessities and do the same? Do you have some nice stuff sitting around that you could sell to make up that needed cash? Will your current employer pay out unused vacation or are you getting any severance from this situation? Will you qualify for unemployment? I other words, think about what you would do to get the money if your retirement accounts weren't there. Then do that - as long as it's legal and doesn't involve running up debt on high interest lines of credit - instead of borrowing against your future.",
"qid": 10932,
"docid": "39376",
"rank": 7,
"score": 121707
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You can transfer 401(k) funds from a previous employer to an IRA, and invest it as you wish. That $600 should go to the current 401(k) or IRA. Edit - OP has edited his question. I agree with him that each situation is unique, therefore 100% of the details are needed up front to avoid the answers that would be right for everyone else. He offered a valid reason for rejecting the current advice. There is no solution except to simply withdraw the money. It went in pretax, so taxing on way out is not a penalty. The 10% is the real penalty, and it's $60 in this case.",
"qid": 10932,
"docid": "514968",
"rank": 8,
"score": 120156
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Everything here is yours and can be rolled into your new plan or IRA. You can generally move your 403(b) assets into your traditional IRA or into your new employer's plans, assuming your new employer's plan allowing incoming roll overs. You can probably roll your pension out as well. Actually, the right person to ask about this is the company with whom you have your IRA. The easiest and best way to get assets from one tax-sheltered account to another is by contacting the company you want to roll INTO and having them take care of everything for you.",
"qid": 10932,
"docid": "529845",
"rank": 9,
"score": 115903
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The simplest thing is to transfer to your current account. You'll have the ability to borrow (assuming employer allows) 50% of the balance if you need to, and one less account to worry about. Transferring to an IRA is the other common choice. This offers the ability to convert to a Roth IRA and to invest any way you choose. The 401(k) options may be limited. Without more details, it's tough to decide. For example, if you are in the 15% bracket, the Roth conversion can be a great idea. And the 401(k) might be not so great, just deposit to the match, and then use the IRA. For example.",
"qid": 10932,
"docid": "355373",
"rank": 10,
"score": 114787
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You can do this with no problem. What you want is a direct transfer style of rollover. This is simply where the money is transferred from your 401(k) custodian directly to your new IRA custodian. This will ensure there are no taxes or penalties on the balance. The key is that the money is moving directly to the new account without you having direct access to the balance. This keeps the money out of your hands in the eyes of the IRS. The process should look something like this: A few notes:",
"qid": 10932,
"docid": "323464",
"rank": 11,
"score": 112298
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The maximum you can contribute to both the 403(b) and 401(k) is $18,000. Take the amount you already contributed and subtract it from $18,000. That's how much you have left to contribute before maxing out.",
"qid": 10932,
"docid": "41330",
"rank": 12,
"score": 111658
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"403b plans are used by school districts, colleges and universities, nonprofit hospitals, charitable foundations and the like for their employees while 401k plans are used by most everybody else. I would suspect that a school district etc can use a 401k plan instead of a 403b plan if it chooses to do so, but the reverse direction is most likely forbidden: a (for-profit) company cannot use a 403b plan. One difference between a 403b plan and a 401k plan is that the employer can choose to offer, and the employee can choose to purchase, stock in the company inside the 401k plan. This option obviously is not available to charities etc. which don't issue stock. Your comment that the 403b plan invests solely in (variable) annuities suggests that the plan administrator is an insurance company and that the employer is moving to more \"\"modern\"\" version that allows investments in mutual funds and the like. Forty years ago, my 403b plan was like that; the only investment choice was an annuity, but some time in the 1980s, the investment choices were broadened to include mutual funds (possibly because the 1986 Tax Reform Act changed the rules governing 403b plans). So, are you sure that your employer is changing from a 403b plan to a 401k plan, or is it just a change of 403b plan administrator from the insurance company to another administrator who offers investment choices other than an annuity? Note, of course, that insurance companies have changed their options too. For example, TIAA (the Teachers' Insurance and Annuity Association) which was the 403b plan administrator for many schools and colleges became TIAA/CREF (College Retirement Equities Fund) where the CREF mutual funds actually were pretty good investments.\"",
"qid": 10932,
"docid": "21311",
"rank": 13,
"score": 111516
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"A long time ago, in a galaxy far far away, Rollover IRAs were used for funds that came from (were rolled over from) a 401(k) account or a 403(b) account. All that money (including any earnings in the interim) could be rolled over into a 401(k) plan with a new employer etc. One could make a regular contribution to a Rollover IRA but once such a commingling of money occurred, none of the money in the Rollover IRA could be rolled over into a 401(k) account etc. In those good old days when contributions to IRAs were made by paper check and \"\"deposit slip\"\", one had to write a letter to the Rollover IRA custodian certifying that the IRA owner understood that the contribution would destroy forever the possibility of rolling over the money into another 401(k) etc. All this went by the wayside a few years ago when the law changed and the distinction between Rollover IRAs and ordinary Traditional IRAs was eliminated. Commingling of IRA contributions and Rollover money from 401(k)s are permitted, and the entire IRA balance could be rolled over into a new 401(k) plan (provided the new plan accepted rollovers). However the adjectives still persist; like chili555, I too have IRAs that are still called Rollover IRA, they all have commingled funds, and if the law ever changes back, none of those IRA accounts would be eligible for rolling over into a new 401(k).\"",
"qid": 10932,
"docid": "208263",
"rank": 14,
"score": 111248
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you withdraw the money, regardless of how small the balance is, the IRS will still insist you pay a 10% penalty when you file your taxes (assuming you're under 59 1/2). Your 401K plan provider might have a policy that allows you to avoid the usual automatic withholding. You should check with them. $600 in additional income isn't likely to move your tax bill much, unless you're really close to a boundary in the tax brackets. Rather than withdrawing the money, you can transfer the 401K to your next 401K, or roll it over to an IRA (plenty of no-fee options around). Once in a traditional IRA, you can convert the money to a Roth IRA. You pay the taxes on the amount, but no 10% penalty. Converting to a Roth has eligibility rules. You should double check with your financial institution before doing it. Edit: You can withdraw without the 10% penalty if you leave your job after age 55 (credit to @JoeTaxpayer for the correction). This IRS Page lists the conditions under which the penalty can be avoided. Edit: The original question has been edited to add more background details. Due to OP's investment preferences, I would also recommend that he simply withdraw the funds, pay the taxes and the $60 penalty and put the $500 or so dollars somewhere else.",
"qid": 10932,
"docid": "500562",
"rank": 15,
"score": 111081
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Take The 20k and transfer it to the new employer 401k. You then can take a loan and accomplish the same thing. By the time you pay the tax and 10% penalty, that withdrawal will be worth just over half. The same half you can borrow out, pay yourself the interest and not lose out on 50 years of growth.",
"qid": 10932,
"docid": "134187",
"rank": 16,
"score": 110667
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: There are two significant drawbacks to this type of transfer. They were the reasons why I kept my American 401(k) as-is and started funding my Canadian RRSP from zero balance. 1. Taxes - a large chunk of your 401(k) will be lost to taxes. There is probably no way to transfer the funds without making a 401(k)/IRA withdrawal, which will incur the US federal tax and the 10% early-withdrawal penalty. When the money went into the 401(k), you got a tax deduction in the US and the tax break is supposed be repaid later when you make a withdrawal (that's basically how tax deferral works). It's unlikely that any country will let you take a deduction first and send the payback to a foreign country. The withdrawal amount may also be taxable in Canada (Canadians generally pay taxes on their global income and that includes pensions and distributions from foreign retirement plans). Foreign tax credit will apply of course, to eliminate double taxation, but it's of little help if your marginal Canadian tax rate is higher than your average US tax rate. 2. Expenses. Your RRSP will have to be invested in something and mutual fund management expenses are generally higher in Canada than in the US. For example, my employer-sponsored RRSP has a Standard & Poor's stock index fund that charges 1.5% and that is considered low-cost. It also offers a number of managed funds with expenses in excess of 2% that I simply ignore. You can probably invest your American 401(k)/IRA in mutual funds more efficiently.",
"qid": 10932,
"docid": "88539",
"rank": 17,
"score": 110123
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The money that you have under your control (e.g. in bank accounts, savings accounts, taxable investments, etc) is your money and there is no tax of any kind (either in India or in US) that needs to be paid when the money is transferred to India. As Dheer's answer says, you need to transfer all these monies within 7 years as per Indian tax law. For your 401(k) account, assuming that all the money is tax-deferred (i.e. you contributed to a regular 401(k) and not a Roth 401(k)), you will have separated from service as far as US tax law is concerned. So, check if it is at all possible to roll over the money into a similar scheme in India, specifically the Employees Provident Fund. Wikipedia says The schemes covers both Indian and international workers (for countries with which bilateral agreements have been signed; 14 such social security agreements are active). and so a rollover might be possible. If not, you could withdraw small amounts each year and avoid US income tax (but not the 10% excise tax), but how long you can continue holding 401(k) assets after return to India and whether that is long enough to drain the 401(k) are things that you need to find out.",
"qid": 10932,
"docid": "97490",
"rank": 18,
"score": 109516
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I understand the answers addressing the question as asked. Yes, inheriting a 401(k) can be a convoluted process. In general, it's best to transfer the account to an IRA after separation from the company to avoid the issues both of my esteemed colleagues have referenced. Given the issue of \"\"allowed by not required\"\" the flexibility is greater once the account has been transferred to an IRA. With few exceptions, there's little reason to leave the account with the 401(k) after leaving that company. (Note - I understand the original question as worded can mean the account holder passes while still working for the company. In that case, this wouldn't be an option.)\"",
"qid": 10932,
"docid": "458917",
"rank": 19,
"score": 109496
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The time horizon for your 401K/IRA is essentially the same, and it doesn't stop at the day you retire. On the day you do the rollover you will be transferring your funds into similar investments. S&P500 index to S&P 500 index; 20xx retirement date to 20xx retirement date; small cap to small cap... If your vested portion is worth X $'s when the funds are sold, that is the amount that will be transferred to the IRA custodian or the custodian for the new employer. Use the transfer to make any rebalancing adjustments that you want to make. But with as much as a year before you leave the company if you need to rebalance now, then do that irrespective of your leaving. Cash is what is transferred, not the individual stock or mutual fund shares. Only move your funds into a money market account with your current 401K if that makes the most sense for your retirement plan. Also keep in mind unless the amount in the 401K is very small you don't have to do this on your last day of work. Even if you are putting the funds in a IRA wait until you have started with the new company and so can define all your buckets based on the options in the new company.",
"qid": 10932,
"docid": "483268",
"rank": 20,
"score": 108699
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I would create a \"\"Rollover IRA\"\". These IRAs are designed to take funds from a 401k and allow you to invest them without incurring a cash out penalty nor a tax due. You will have more choices than if you leave it at your old 401k. If you cash out the 401k, you'll have much less to invest ($1500 - penalty - taxes) vs. doing a rollover 401k where you'll still have $1500 to invest. Then, once the money is inside the new Rollover IRA you can invest in whatever you please. If you want to invest in Vanguard funds, I recommend opening the Rollover IRA at Vanguard. Here is Vanguard's information page about rollovers from 401ks: https://investor.vanguard.com/what-we-offer/401k-rollovers/401k-403b-to-ira-rollover-benefits When you next change jobs and have another 401k with funds in it, you can roll it into the same Rollover IRA.\"",
"qid": 10932,
"docid": "550083",
"rank": 21,
"score": 107929
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The simple answer is that with the defined contribution plan: 401k, 403b, 457 and the US government TSP; the employer doesn't hold on to the funds. When they take your money from your paycheck there is a period of a few days or at the most a few weeks before they must turn the money over to the trustee running the program. If they are matching your contributions they must do the same with those funds. The risk is in that window of time between payday and deposit day. If the business folds, or enters bankruptcy protection, or decides to slash what they will contribute to the match in the future anything already sent to the trustee is out of their clutches. In the other hand a defined a benefit plan or pension plan: where you get X percent of your highest salary times the number of years you worked; is not protected from the company. These plans work by the company putting aide money each year based on a formula. The formula is complex because they know from history some employees never stick around long enough to get the pension. The money in a pension is invested outside the company but it is not out of the control of the company. Generally with a well run company they invest wisely but safely because if the value goes up due to interest or a rising stock market, the next year their required contribution is smaller. The formula also expects that they will not go out of business. The problems occur when they don't have the money to afford to make the contribution. Even governments have looked for relief in this area by skipping a deposit or delaying a deposit. There is some good news in this area because a pension program has to pay an annual insurance premium to The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation a quai-government agency of the federal government. If the business folds the PBGC steps in to protect the rights of the employees. They don't get all they were promised, but they do get a lot of it. None of those pension issues relate to the 401K like program. Once the money is transferred to the trustee the company has no control over the funds.",
"qid": 10932,
"docid": "98018",
"rank": 22,
"score": 107705
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: These are plans similar to 401k plans. 457(b) plans available for certain government and non-profit organizations, 403(b) available for certain educational, hospital, religious and non-profit organizations. Your school apparently fits into both classes, so it has both. These plans don't have to allow ROTH contributions, but they may, so you have to check if there's an option. The main (but not only) difference from IRA is the limit: for 401(k), 403(b) and 457(b) plans the contribution limit is $17500, while for IRA its $5500 (for 2013). Additional benefit of 457(b) plan is that there's no 10% penalty on early withdrawal, just taxes (at ordinal rates).",
"qid": 10932,
"docid": "316651",
"rank": 23,
"score": 107340
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"You have a few options: Option #1 - Leave the money where it is If your balance is over $5k - you should be able to leave the money in your former-employer's 401(k). The money will stay there and continue to be invested in the funds that you elect to invest in. You should at the very least be receiving quarterly statements for the account. Even better - you should have access to some type of an online account where you can transfer your investments, rebalance your account, conform to target, etc. If you do not have online account access than I'm sure you can still transfer investments and make trades via a paper form. Just reach out to the 401(k) TPA or Recordkeeper that administers your plan. Their contact info is on the quarterly statements you should be receiving. Option #2 - Rollover the money into your current employer's 401(k) plan. This is the option that I tend to recommend the most. Roll the money over into your current employer's 401(k) plan - this way all the money is in the same place and is invested in the funds that you elect. Let's say you wanted to transfer your investments to a new fund lineup. Right now - you have to fill out the paperwork or go through the online process twice (for both accounts). Moving the money to your current-employer's plan and having all the money in the same place eliminates this redundancy, and allows you to make one simple transfer of all your assets. Option #3 - Roll the money from your former-employer's plan into an IRA. This is a cool option, because now you have a new IRA with a new set of dollar limits. You can roll the money into a separate IRA - and contribute an additional $5,500 (or $6,500 if you are 50+ years of age). So this is cool because it gives you a chance to save even more for retirement. Many IRA companies give you a \"\"sign on bonus\"\" where if you rollover your former-employers 401(k)...they will give you a bonus (typically a few hundred bucks - but hey its free money!). Other things to note: Take a look at your plan document from your former-employer's 401(k) plan. Take a look at the fees. Compare the fees to your current-employer's plan. There could be a chance that the fees from your former-employer's plan are much higher than your current-employer. So this would just be yet another reason to move the money to your current-employer's plan. Don't forget you most likely have a financial advisor that oversees your current-employer's 401(k) plan. This financial advisor also probably takes fees from your account. So use his services! You are probably already paying for it! Talk to your HR at your employer and ask who the investment advisor is. Call the advisor and set up an appointment to talk about your retirement and financial goals. Ask him for his advice - its always nice talking to someone with experience face to face. Good luck with everything!\"",
"qid": 10932,
"docid": "591168",
"rank": 24,
"score": 107079
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Both will grow at the same rate. If everything else was equal:fees, investment options, flavor (Roth or deductible); Then I would put the money into the 403B. Why? putting the money into the 403b directly from your paycheck during the year allows you to have all of the $5,500 available to make an end of the year contribution, or to put the money from your tax return into the IRA. While $4,800 is less than $5,500. it is close enough that If you realized late in the calendar year that you had an extra $1,000 you wanted to contribute to your retirement, there wouldn't be enough room left to contribute.",
"qid": 10932,
"docid": "319975",
"rank": 25,
"score": 106753
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: 401(k)'s can be rolled over into IRAs. You can roll all of your former company 401(k)'s into a single IRA, managed by whatever company you like. Many employers will not let you transfer money out of your 401(k) while you're still a current employee, though, so you may be stuck with the 401(k) used by your current company until you leave. You'll have to check with your 401(k) administrator to be sure. You won't incur any taxes as long as you execute the rollovers properly. The best way to do it is to coordinate the transfer directly between your old 401(k) and your new IRA, so the check is never sent directly to you.",
"qid": 10932,
"docid": "551545",
"rank": 26,
"score": 106517
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"To summarize your starting situation: You want to: Possible paths: No small business Get a job. Invest the 300K in safe liquid investments then move the maximum amount each year into your retirement accounts. Depending on which company you work for that could include 401K (Regular or Roth), deductible IRA, Roth IRA. The amount of money you can transfer is a function of the options they give you, how much they match, and the amount of income you earn. For the 401K you will invest from your paycheck, but pull an equal amount from the remainder of the 300K. If you are married you can use the same procedure for your spouse's account. You current income funds any vacations or splurges, because you will not need to put additional funds into your retirement plan. By your late 30's the 300K will now be fully invested in retirement account. Unfortunately you can't touch much of it without paying penalties until you are closer to age 60. Each year before semi-retirement, you will have to invest some of your salary into non-retirement accounts to cushion you between age 40 and age 60. Invest/start a business: Take a chunk of the 300K, and decide that in X years you will use it to start a small business. This chunk of money must be liquid and invested safely so that you can use it when you want to. You also don't want to invest it in investments that have a risk of loss. Take the remaining funds and invest it as described in the no small business section. You will completely convert funds to retirement funds earlier because of a smaller starting amount. Hopefully the small business creates enough income to allow you to continue to fund retirement or semi-retirement. But it might not. Comment regarding 5 year \"\"rules\"\": Roth IRA: you have to remain invested in the Roth IRA for 5 years otherwise your withdrawal is penalized. Investing in stocks: If your time horizon is short, then stocks are too volatile. If it drops just before you need the money, it might not recover in time. Final Advice: Get a financial adviser that will lay out a complete plan for a fixed fee. They will discuss investment options, types not particular funds. They will also explain the tax implications of investing in various retirement accounts, and how that will impact your semi-retirement plans. Review the plan every few years as tax laws change.\"",
"qid": 10932,
"docid": "259227",
"rank": 27,
"score": 106351
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I doubt that there is an arrangement with any country that would allow you to transfer money out of a 401(k) and roll it over to another country that isn't governed by US Tax Laws without taking a distribution. The US government won't let you pull out like that without taking its cut. There may be, but I'd be surprised. Check around in the appropriate venues. If you're making a distribution that incurs penalties, then that's what you're doing. If you can do so without incurring penalties, then great for you, just deposit into the vehicle of your choice in your country.",
"qid": 10932,
"docid": "599790",
"rank": 28,
"score": 106218
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Your question implies that you are 70-1/2, and not employed by this company. (Note - if you remain employed, the mandatory distribution is delayed) The best thing to do is to open an IRA and transfer the 401(k) to it. You then have all the investing choices you can ask for including low risk gov securities, right up to high risk leveraged ETFs (don't buy those, just saying). Make sure the transfer is direct, so no tax withholding. Make sure you request it goes to a Traditional IRA, not Roth. If you wish to transfer to Roth over time, that's another discussion.",
"qid": 10932,
"docid": "492659",
"rank": 29,
"score": 105524
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Things are more complicated for non-spouse beneficiaries of a 401(k) account. If you have not deposited the money yet, you may wish to contact the plan administrator and have them do a trustee-to-trustee transfer. If you take possession of the money (by depositing that check) then it will be considered a distribution and won't be eligible for a roll-over deposit. Required minimum distributions will still apply, but those are based on when your mother would have reached the age 70.5, rather than 62. It's not clear to me why they chose that number unless it was something specific to the rules of her 401(k) plan.",
"qid": 10932,
"docid": "198135",
"rank": 30,
"score": 104468
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Assuming you are below retirement age, you typically cannot roll money from a Roth IRA into a 401k nor transfer money out of a 401k until you leave the company. Your best bet is to leave your exising roth ira separate from your 401k. A good strategy for retirement accounts is whenever able (typically when you switch jobs) roll your 401k into a \"\"rollover IRA\"\" (not a roth). Then you can manage your investments with more options than the 5-20 funds provided in the 401k. I would recommend against rolling funds into a 401k because of the lack of options in most 401k plans. Also, 401k is pre-tax and Roth is post-tax. Pre and post tax investments don't mix before withdrawal unless you do a conversion of some kind.\"",
"qid": 10932,
"docid": "262322",
"rank": 31,
"score": 103812
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Transfers can be made from U.S. pension plans to Canadian RRSPs, if the following conditions are met: Way more details here: http://www.howlandtax.com/answers/05Sept21.htm And googling 'transfer 401k to rrsp' yields much fruit.",
"qid": 10932,
"docid": "536703",
"rank": 32,
"score": 103211
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: There are a few incorrect assumptions in your question but the TL;DR version is: All, or most, of the withdrawal is taxable income that is reported on Lines 15a (total distribution) and 15b (taxable amount) of Form 1040. None of the distribution is given special treatment as Qualified Dividends or Capital Gains regardless of what happened inside the IRA, and none of the distribution is subject to the 3.8% Net Investment Income Tax that some high-income people need to compute on Form 8960. If the withdrawal is not a Qualified Distribution, it will be subject to a 10% excise tax (tax penalty on premature withdrawal). Not all contributions to Traditional IRAs are deductible from income for the year for which the contribution was made. People with high income and/or coverage by a workplace retirement plan (pension plan, 401(k) plan, 403(b) plan, etc) cannot deduct any contributions that they choose to make to a Traditional IRA. Such people can always make a contribution (subject to them having compensation (earned income such as salary or wages, self-employment income, commissions on sales, etc), but they don't get a tax deduction for it (just as contributions to Roth IRAs are not deductible). Whether it is wise to make such nondeductible contributions to a Traditional IRA is a question on which reasonable people can hold different opinions. Be that as it may, nondeductible contributions to a Traditional IRA create (or add to) what is called the basis of an IRA. They are reported to the IRS on Form 8606 which is attached to the Federal Form 1040. Note that the IRA custodian or trustee is not told that the contributions are not deductible. Earnings on the basis accumulate tax-deferred within the IRA just as do the earnings on the deductible contributions. Now, when you make a withdrawal from your Traditional IRA, no matter which of your various IRA accounts you take the money from, part of the money is deemed to be taken from the basis (and is not subject to income tax) while the rest is pure taxable income. That is, none of the rest is eligible for the reduced taxation rates for Qualified Dividends or Capital Gains and since it does not count as investment income, it is not subject to the 3.8% Net Investment Tax of Form 8960 either. Computation of how much of your withdrawal is nontaxable basis and how much is taxable income is done on Form 8606. Note that you don't get to withdraw your entire basis until such time as when you close all your Traditional IRA accounts. How is all this reported? Well, your IRA custodian(s) will send you Form 1099-R reporting the total amount of the withdrawal, what income tax, if any, was withheld, etc. The custodian(s) don't know what your basis is, and so Box 2b will say that the taxable amount is not determined. You need to fill out Form 8606 to figure out what the taxable amount is, and then report the taxable amount on Line 15b of Form 1040. (The total withdrawal is reported on Line 15a which is not included in the AGI computations). Note that as far as the IRS is concerned, you have only one Traditional IRA. The A in IRA stands for Arrangement, not Account as most everybody thinks, and your Traditional IRA can invest in many different things, stocks, bonds, mutual funds, etc with different custodians if you choose, but your basis is in the IRA, not the specific investment that you made with your nondeductible contribution. That's why the total IRA contribution is limited, not the per-account contribution, and why you need to look that the total value of your IRA in determining the taxable portion, not the specific account(s) from which you withdrew the money. So, how much basis did you withdraw? Well, if you withdrew $W during 2016 and the total value of all your Traditional IRA accounts was $X at the end of 2016 and your total basis in your Traditional IRA is $B, then (assuming that you did not indulge in any Traditional-to-Roth rollovers for 2016), multiply W by B/(W+X) to get the amount of nontaxable basis in the withdrawal. B thus gets reduced for 2017 by amount of basis withdrawal. What if you never made a nondeductible contribution to your Traditional IRA, or you made some nondeductible contributions many years ago and have forgotten about them? Well, you could still fill out Form 8606 reporting a zero basis, but it will just tell you that your basis continues $0. Or, you could just enter the total amount of your withdrawal in Lines 15a and 15b, effectively saying that all of the withdrawal is taxable income to you. The IRS does not care if you choose to pay taxes on nontaxable income.",
"qid": 10932,
"docid": "482768",
"rank": 33,
"score": 103094
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: It doesn't make a difference if you will be keeping it in the 401K or transferring it to an IRA, it is still retirement money that you plan on investing for decades. Pre-Enron many employees invested significant amounts of their retirement funds with the employer. One of the risks was that if a single stock was down at the wrong time, you were hurt if you needed to sell. If you are going from an S&P 500 in the 401K to an S&P 500 in the IRA, it doesn't matter if the the market is up or down, the two funds will be pretty much in synch.",
"qid": 10932,
"docid": "302619",
"rank": 34,
"score": 102660
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"There are two types of 401(k) contributions: \"\"elective contributions,\"\" which are the part put in by the employee and \"\"nonelective contributions,\"\" which are the part put in by the company. Elective contributions are summed across all the plans she is contributing to. So she can contribute $18,000 minus whatever she put in her 403(b). Additionally she can contribute 20% of the net profit of the company (before the elective contributions) as nonelective contributions (these contributions must be designated as such). You will notice that the IRS document says 25%, but that's what you can do if her business is incorporated. For a sole proprietorship, nonelective contributions ends up being limited at 20% of profit. Additionally, the sum of these two and her contribution to her 403(b) cannot exceed $53,000. Example: line 31 of her schedule C is $30,000 and she has contributed $10,000 to her 403(b). Maximum contribution to her solo 401(k) is ($18,000 - $10,000) + 0.2 * $30,000 = $14,000 Her total contributions for the year are $10,000 from her 403(b) plus $14,000 in her solo 401(k). This is less than $53,000 so this limit does not bind. If she made a ton of 1099 money, her contribution maximum would follow the above until it hit $53,000 and then it would stop there. The IRS describes this in detail in Publication 560, which also has a worksheet for figuring out your maximum explicitly. It's unpleasant reading and the worksheets are painful, but if you do it right, it will end up being as I just described it. Using the language of that publication, hers is a \"\"qualified plan\"\" of the \"\"defined contribution\"\" variety.\"",
"qid": 10932,
"docid": "367556",
"rank": 35,
"score": 102477
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If he moves his 401K to a Roth all in one go, all the money will be considered income for the year he moves it, and he will have to pay taxes on that income. If he keeps it in his 401K or rolls it into a traditional IRA, he will only pay taxes on the money as he withdraws it. Bottom line, converting to Roth is almost certainly a bad idea.",
"qid": 10932,
"docid": "496589",
"rank": 36,
"score": 101978
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Which strategy makes more sense: Check your new Fidelity 401k plan. Make sure it has a good group of funds available at very low fees. If it does, roll over your Principal 401k to your new 401k. Call Principal and have them transfer the funds directly to Fidelity. Do not have them send you a check. If the new plan doesn't have a good fund lineup, or has high fees, create a rollover IRA and roll your old 401k plan into it. Again, have Principal transfer the funds directly. Consider using Vanguard or other very-low-cost funds in your IRA. Taking the money out of your old 401k to pay toward your mortgage has several disadvantages. You will pay taxes and a penalty. Your mortgage rate is very good, and since you are probably in a high tax bracket and perhaps itemize deductions, the effective rate is even less. And you lose liquidity that might come in handy down the road. You can always change your mind later, but for now don't pay down your mortgage using your 401k money. As a result of being under 20%, I am paying mortgage insurance of about $300/mo. This is wasted money. Save aggressively and get your mortgage down to 80% so that you can get rid of that PMI. If you are earning a high salary, you should be able to get there in reasonably short order. If you are maxing out your 401k ($18,000 per year), you might be better off putting it on pause and instead using that money to get rid of the PMI. I have no 'retirement' plans because I enjoy working and have plans to start a company, and essentially will be happy working until I die You are young. Your life will change over time. Everyone young seems to choose one of two extremes: In the end, very few choose either of these paths. For now, just plan on retiring somewhere close to normal retirement age. You can always change your plans later.",
"qid": 10932,
"docid": "367355",
"rank": 37,
"score": 101567
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Assuming nothing here helps, here are some thoughts. First, If Principal Financial knows the 401k was rolled over to an IRA, then it must have been a custodian-to-custodian transfer, which means they need to know who the recipient custodian was, so I'd call them back and push a little harder. Next, they couldn't have just created an IRA out of thin air and moved some money into it without some paperwork and signatures from you, so you should have copies of that paperwork. Principal may also still have archived copies of that paperwork, that they may be able to provide to you, although they'll probably charge for that service. Also, there would have been tax reporting around the rollover. For the year the rollover occurred in, you would have received a 1099-R and 5498. The 1099-R would have to have been reported on your federal (and possibly state) income tax for that year. It may be possible to obtain copies of old 1099-R's from the IRS, maybe call them and ask. In subsequent years, you should have received at least a year-end statement. If you don't have any of that, and contacting Principal and the IRS don't help, then I'm not sure there's much that anyone can do to help you. As far as I know, there's no \"\"universal clearinghouse\"\" for IRAs, and there are a lot of IRA custodians. I would expect you to receive a year-end statement from the custodian for 2015 sometime in early 2016, so maybe just wait for (and watch for) that. And take this as an object lesson that you need to keep better track of your finances. No one's going to do it for you (unless you pay them a bunch of money).\"",
"qid": 10932,
"docid": "367277",
"rank": 38,
"score": 100729
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"First off, I highly recommend the book Get a Financial Life. The basics of personal finance and money management are pretty straightforward, and this book does a great job with it. It is very light reading, and it really geared for the young person starting their career. It isn't the most current book (pre real-estate boom), but the recommendations in the book are still sound. (update 8/28/2012: New edition of the book came out.) Now, with that out of the way, there's really two kinds of \"\"investing\"\" to think about: For most individuals, it is best to take care of #1 first. Most people shouldn't even think about #2 until they have fully funded their retirement accounts, established an emergency fund, and gotten their debt under control. There are lots of financial incentives for retirement investing, both from your employer, and the government. All the more reason to take care of #1 before #2! Your employer probably offers some kind of 401k (or equivalent, like a 403b) with a company-provided match. This is a potential 100% return on your investment after the vesting period. No investment you make on your own will ever match that. Additionally, there are tax advantages to contributing to the 401k. (The money you contribute doesn't count as taxable income.) The best way to start investing is to learn about your employer's retirement plan, and contribute enough to fully utilize the employer matching. Beyond this, there are also Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) you can open to contribute money to on your own. You should open one of these and start contributing, but only after you have fully utilized the employer matching with the 401k. The IRA won't give you that 100% ROI that the 401k will. Keep in mind that retirement investments are pretty much \"\"walled off\"\" from your day-to-day financial life. Money that goes into a retirement account generally can't be touched until retirement age, unless you want to pay lots of taxes and penalties. You generally don't want to put the money for your house down payment into a retirement account. One other thing to note: Your 401K and your IRA is an account that you put money into. Just because the money is sitting in the account doesn't necessarily mean it is invested. You put the money into this account, and then you use this money for investments. How you invest the retirement money is a topic unto itself. Here is a good starting point. If you want to ask questions about retirement portfolios, it is probably worth posting a new question.\"",
"qid": 10932,
"docid": "206285",
"rank": 39,
"score": 100075
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Conversion of after-tax 401K into a Roth is known (on Bogleheads for instance) as a Mega Backdoor Roth IRA. Recent tax rulings seem to allow for this kind of transfer more cleanly. After conversions, the money is treated as a normal Roth - you don't pay any taxes or penalties on contributions. For investment earnings, the Roth IRA has the standard five-year rule: most commonly - you must hold the account for five years and be 59.5 years old (there are other criteria). Otherwise, you may pay taxes plus a 10% penalty on the earnings portion of your distribution. There are other reasons you can withdraw early - spelled out in IRS Publication 590B Figure 2-1.",
"qid": 10932,
"docid": "154839",
"rank": 40,
"score": 99930
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Don’t take the cash deposit whatever you do. This is a retirement savings vehicle after all and you want to keep this money designated as such. You have 3 options: 1) Rollover the old 401k to the new 401k. Once Your new plan is setup you can call who ever runs that plan and ask them how to get started. It will require you filling out a form with the old 401k provider and they’ll transfer the balance of your account directly to the new 401k. 2) Rollover the old 401k to a Traditional IRA. This involves opening a new traditional IRA if you don’t already have one (I assume you don’t). Vanguard is a reddit favorite and I can vouch for them as Well. Other shops like Fidelity and Schwab are also good but since Vanguard is very low cost and has great service it’s usually a good choice especially for beginners. 3) Convert the old 401k to a ROTH IRA. This is essentially the same as Step 2, the difference is you’ll owe taxes on the balance you convert. Why would you voluntarily want to pay taxes f you can avoid them with options 1 or 2? The beauty of the ROTH is you only pay taxes on the money you contribute to the ROTH, then it grows tax free and when you’re retired you get to withdraw it tax free as well. (The money contained in a 401k or a traditional IRA is taxed when you withdraw in retirement). My $.02. 401k accounts typically have higher fees than IRAs, even if they own the same mutual funds the expense ratios are usually more in the 401k. The last 2 times I’ve changed jobs I’ve converted the 401k money into my ROTH IRA. If it’s a small sum of money and/or you can afford to pay the taxes on the money I’d suggest doing the same. You can read up heavily on the pros/cons of ROTH vs Traditional but My personal strategy is to have 2 “buckets” or money when I retire (some in ROTH and some in Traditional). I can withdraw as much money from the Traditional account until I Max out the lowest Tax bracket and then pull any other money I need from the ROTH accounts that are tax free.This allows you to keep taxes fairly low in retirement. If you don’t have a ROTH now this is a great way to start one.",
"qid": 10932,
"docid": "398520",
"rank": 41,
"score": 99830
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I'm sorry for your situation. If 15 years of maximum savings only has you at $60K, I'm going to assume you are currently in the 15% bracket. A withdrawal will cost you 15% (and maybe push you into the 25% bracket) as well as the 10% penalty, and state tax. Don't do it. Be sure your 401(k) has listed beneficiaries. Your wife will be able to take an annual withdrawal, and pay very little, probably 10%, maybe 15% worst case. You reference that she'd have a lump sum. Yes, but she won't have to take it all at once. She should be able to transfer the funds from the 401(k) to an IRA, and withdraw small amounts each year. It's a very rare circumstance where an early 401(k) withdrawal actually makes any real economic sense.",
"qid": 10932,
"docid": "380003",
"rank": 42,
"score": 99325
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Yes, it can be done. See \"\"Scenario 4\"\" at Isolating 401(k) basis - Fairmark.com. Though that article is primarily about getting after-tax 401(k) money into a Roth IRA, Scenario 4 applies to the scenario you are asking about. At a high level you do exactly what you say -- transfer the pre-tax money from your trad IRAs to a 401(k) (btw, a solo 401(k) will work for this also -- doesn't have to be your employer's -- but then you need to be eligible to set up a solo 401(k)). This is allowed because qualified plans can't accept after after-tax traditional IRA money, so the transfer overrides the usual pro rata rules and \"\"strains\"\" the basis out and leaves it in the trad IRA. However, there's a mismatch between the intent of Congress (as indicated by the Joint Committee on Taxation report on the law) and the actual text of the law as detailed in the Fairmark article which while it doesn't stop you from doing this adds a couple of hoops to jump through if you want to be in total compliance with the law.\"",
"qid": 10932,
"docid": "144109",
"rank": 43,
"score": 99161
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"You need a brokerage account to invest in ETFs (there are many different kinds of ETFs, not just one) and that usually means having some amount already deposited with them into the \"\"cash account\"\" in your name. Once the brokerage account is established, you can send whatever money from each paycheck to the brokerage and tell them to invest it in the ETF of your choice. There are no restrictions as to how much money you can send if you send them a check. If you want the money to be withheld from your paycheck, then of course, the limit is the amount of the take-home pay, and whether your employer offers such a service will affect the issue. If you are wanting to invest in ETFs through your employer's 401(k) plan (or 403(b) plan), there are lots of other considerations.\"",
"qid": 10932,
"docid": "391876",
"rank": 44,
"score": 99153
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I currently do not have an IRA (other than a rollover IRA from my 401k from a previous employer) The source is irrelevant. You have an IRA. The reason to keep contributing is that at some point, you might transfer the pretax dollars into a 401(k) and the post tax dollars can be converted to Roth. Other than the above, investing in a standard brokerage account (a non-retirement account) has its positives. Gains can see long term cap gain treatment, and the assets see a step-up in basis when you die.",
"qid": 10932,
"docid": "505362",
"rank": 45,
"score": 99096
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you leave your job with money that you contributed to the 401K, the company will have a policy about whether you can leave the money in the 401K or whether you must take it with you. I have normally seen that if it is a small amount, then it must be taken and if it is over a certain amount (maybe $10K) then you have the option of leaving it in the account or taking it out. If you take it out, then you should contact a brokerage first and get instructions from them for how to have it transferred into a rollover account to avoid having to pay tax. If the company makes the check out to you or transfers money into a non-retirement account, then they will very easily cause a taxable event and they will likely withhold tax from the payment. If you leave the money in the 401K after you leave, you will generally have fewer investment choices, higher fees, and you may have higher risks. Occasionally companies in hard times fraudulently raid their 401K accounts and when this happens it can be very difficult to get it back. (For examples see the Dept Of Labor page at http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/newsroom/criminal/main.html and look for 401k or retirement in titles). As far as having the money invested for several years, that time can be your friend if you get a reasonable rate of return. Over 30 years your money should be able to double multiple times. (At 8% return it will take less than 10 years to double the money. [see http://buyupside.com/calculators/doublemoneyfeb08.htm])",
"qid": 10932,
"docid": "411354",
"rank": 46,
"score": 98979
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: When you leave an employer, 401(k) loans are immediately due (or within 30 days or 60 days). So maybe they are waiting to see if you will pay off your loan. If you wanted to transfer the loan as well, you need to talk to your new 401(k) plan administrator to find out if this even possible. If they say No and you don't pay off the loan, it will count as a premature distribution from your old 401(k) plan and possibly be subject to excise tax in addition to income tax.",
"qid": 10932,
"docid": "255277",
"rank": 47,
"score": 98957
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: No, it's a $10k withdrawal. You net what you net after federal and state taxes. IRA? It has a similar penalty free $10k withdrawal option for home purchase, so this might give faster access once you decide. Given the choice between a withdrawal and a loan, I'd take the loan. As soon as you are with the new employer, ask HR about the rules for participating in their 401(k) and rules for their loans. If, for whatever reason it won't work for you, take $10K and transfer to the IRA, and the rest into the 401(k), if the 401(k) has good investments and low cost.. My answer focuses on the desire to withdraw the money. A loan is better than a withdrawal. Better than both is a delay and saving all you can for the downpayment. After the closing, I'd be mindful of spending, save all you can to retirement accounts and pay this loan off over the time good for you.",
"qid": 10932,
"docid": "275192",
"rank": 48,
"score": 97865
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"What ever you convert from the 401(k) will be subject to tax. The bigger issue is that there's no \"\"do over\"\" no ability to recharacterize the conversion if when you do your taxes, you realize you need to undo some. I'd suggest transferring from the 401(k) to the traditional IRA first and then convert, just bring aware of the prorata taxation that will be due.\"",
"qid": 10932,
"docid": "99921",
"rank": 49,
"score": 97460
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"It becomes \"\"yours\"\" when it leaves the trust. Until that point the Trust owns the shares attributable to your account. There are some different arrangements out there, in the cases of some of the smaller 401(k) providers, where the assets are held in annuity products, or even individual annuities in the case of 403(b) plans. To further answer the question, the trust and trustee own and hold the account before you take a distribution. In a lot of cases the 401(k) recordkeeper has a trust company that they use to serve as the custodian (person or entity who retains the assets). In some plans you have an individual Trustee or a Corporate Trustee. Those setups are not good for that person or company because they are ultimately responsible for backing the assets in the plan, and as you can imagine, leaving that responsibility to one person is not safe for that individual. Hope that helps, glad to answer any other questions you have!\"",
"qid": 10932,
"docid": "108775",
"rank": 50,
"score": 97415
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You read it right. Todd's warning is well taken. I don't know the numbers involved, but have a brilliant suggestion that may help. A Solo 401(k) is simple to qualify for. Any bit of declared side income will do. Once the account is set up, a transfer from IRAs is simple. The Solo 401(k) can offer a loan provision as any other 401(k), and you can borrow up to 50% (max of $50K) for any reason with a 5 year payback. The standard rate is Prime+1%, the fee is minimal usually $50-$100. All the warnings of IRA 'loans' apply, but the risk of job loss (the largest objection to 401 loans) isn't there. The fact that you have 6 months to set this up is part of what prompts this suggestion. Note: Any strategies like this aren't for everyone. There are folk who need to access quick cash, and this solves the issue in two ways, both low rate and simple access. Phil already stated he is confident to return the money, the only thing that prompted my answer is there's real risk the 60 days a bit too short for any business deal.",
"qid": 10932,
"docid": "433853",
"rank": 51,
"score": 97019
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: 401(k) plans, 403(b) plans, IRAs etc all require more paperwork than a non-tax-advantaged investment. As a result, most such plans (with Vanguard as well as with other management companies) offer only a small set of investment options, and so it costs the plan sponsor (you wearing your Employer hat) money if you want to add more investment options for your Solo 401(k) plan). Note that with employer-sponsored retirement plans, investments in each mutual fund might be coming in small amounts from various employees, much less than the usual minimum investment in each fund, and possibly less than the minimum per-investment transaction requirement (often $50) of the fund group. Taking care of all that is expensive, and it is reasonable that Vanguard wants to charge you (the Employer) a fee for the extra work it is doing for you. When I was young and IRAs had just been invented (and the annual contribution limit was $2000 for IRAs), I remember being charged a $20 annual fee per Vanguard fund that I wanted to invest in within my IRA but this fee was waived once my total IRA assets with Vanguard had increased above $10K.",
"qid": 10932,
"docid": "218696",
"rank": 52,
"score": 96839
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You cannot roll over your 401k money in an employer's 401k plan into an IRA (of any kind) while you are still employed by that employer. The only way you can start on the conversion before you retire (as Craig W suggests) is to change employers and start rolling over money in the previous employer's 401k into your Roth IRA while possibly contributing to the 401k plan of your new employer. Since the amount rolled over is extra taxable income (that is, in addition to your wages from your new job), you may end up paying more tax (or at higher rates) than you expect.",
"qid": 10932,
"docid": "63532",
"rank": 53,
"score": 96620
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: For this rollover, there are no restrictions of age/income/etc. You need to know - the transfer must be direct, i.e. if you get a physical check, it should be payable not to you, but to the new custodian (broker) for your benefit. Direct is preferable and faster. The assets may not be transferable 'in kind.' This phrase simply means that you may move the value, but if the assets are not shares that are held by the public, but special 401(k) class shares, they must be liquidated before moving, and moved as cash. This is a risk people with large accounts take should the market move dramatically during the time they are liquidated, and why, for them, I suggest doing it piecemeal.",
"qid": 10932,
"docid": "89202",
"rank": 54,
"score": 96438
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: This situation, wanting desperately to have access to an investment vehicle in a 401K, but it not being available reminds me of two suggestions some make regarding retirement investing: This allows you the maximum flexibility in your retirement investing. I have never, in almost 30 years of 401K investing, seen a pure cash investment, is was always something that was at its core very short term bonds. The exception is one company that once you had a few thousand in the 401K, you could transfer it to a brokerage account. I have no idea if there was a way to invest in a money market fund via the brokerage, but I guess it was possible. You may have to look and see if the company running the 401K has other investment options that your employer didn't select. Or you will have to see if other 401K custodians have these types of investments. Then push for changes next year. Regarding external IRA/Roth IRA: You can buy a CD with FDIC protection from funds in an IRA/Roth IRA. My credit union with NCUA protection currently has CDs and even bump up CDs, minimum balance is $500, and the periods are from 6 months to 3 years.",
"qid": 10932,
"docid": "104793",
"rank": 55,
"score": 96411
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"In general, I agree with Alex' \"\"don't do it.\"\" If I dig deep for any reasons to transfer from a Roth into a Roth 401(k) there might be 2:\"",
"qid": 10932,
"docid": "28075",
"rank": 56,
"score": 96201
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"How often should one use dollar-cost averaging? Trivially, a dollar cost averaging (DCA) strategy must be used at least twice! More seriously, DCA is a discipline that people (typically investors with relatively small amounts of money to invest each month or each quarter) use to avoid succumbing to the temptation to \"\"time the market\"\". As mhoran_psprep points out, it is well-suited to 401k plans and the like (e.g. 403b plans for educational and non-profit institutions, 457 plans for State employees, etc), and indeed is actually the default option in such plans, since a fixed amount of money gets invested each week, or every two weeks, or every month depending on the payroll schedule. Many plans offer just a few mutual funds in which to invest, though far too many people, having little knowledge or understanding of investments, simply opt for the money-market fund or guaranteed annuity fund in their 4xx plans. In any case, all your money goes to work immediately since all mutual funds let you invest in thousandths of a share. Some 401k/403b/457 plans allow investments in stocks through a brokerage, but I think that using DCA to buy individual stocks in a retirement plan is not a good idea at all. The reasons for this are that not only must shares must be bought in whole numbers (integers) but it is generally cheaper to buy stocks in round lots of 100 (or multiples of 100) shares rather than in odd lots of, say, 37 shares. So buying stocks weekly, or biweekly or monthly in a 401k plan means paying more or having the money sit idle until enough is accumulated to buy 100 shares of a stock at which point the brokerage executes the order to buy the stock; and this is really not DCA at all. Worse yet, if you let the money accumulate but you are the one calling the shots \"\"Buy 100 shares of APPL today\"\" instead of letting the brokerage execute the order when there is enough money, you are likely to be timing the market instead of doing DCA. So, are brokerages useless in retirement fund accounts? No, they can be useful but they are not suitable for DCA strategies involving buying stocks. Stick to mutual funds for DCA. Do people use it across the board on all stock investments? As indicated above, using DCA to buy individual stocks is not the best idea, regardless of whether it is done inside a retirement plan or outside. DCA outside a retirement plan works best if you not trust yourself to stick with the strategy (\"\"Ooops, I forgot to mail the check yesterday; oh, well, I will do it next week\"\") but rather, arrange for your mutual fund company to take the money out of your checking account each week/month/quarter etc, and invest it in whatever fund(s) you have chosen. Most companies have such programs under names such as Automatic Investment Program (AIP) etc. Why not have your bank send the money to the mutual fund company instead? Well, that works too, but my bank charges me for sending the money whereas my mutual fund company does AIP for free. But YMMV. Dollar-cost averaging generally means investing a fixed amount of money on a periodic basis. An alternative strategy, if one has decided that owning 1200 shares of FlyByKnight Co is a good investment to have, is to buy round lots of 100 shares of FBKCO each month. The amount of money invested each month varies, but at the end of the year, the average cost of the 1200 shares is the average of the prices on the 12 days on which the investments were made. Of course, by the end of the year, you might not think FBKCO is worth holding any more. This technique worked best in the \"\"good old days\"\" when blue-chip stocks paid what was for all practical purposes a guaranteed dividend each year, and people bought these stocks with the intention of passing them on to their widows and children.\"",
"qid": 10932,
"docid": "186538",
"rank": 57,
"score": 96075
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"There's a bit of confusion here. Michael's article you linked is focused on the issue of post-tax 401(k) deposits. For those new to this, it sounds like we are talking about Roth 401(k) money. Not so. The Roth IRA was introduced in 1998, and the Roth 401(k) in 2006. Before '06, people had the ability to deposit more to their 401(k) than the pretax limit of $15,000 into the account as \"\"after tax\"\" deposits. My understanding is that these funds were analogous to the non-deducted IRA deposits for those outside the income limits. Michael goes on the point out that now, with the addition of Roth 401(k) and Roth IRAs, there are folk with pre and post Tax 401(k) funds and trying to crack them for transfer to Traditional IRA and Roth IRA may be problematic. Aside from a recent thread here, there are separate accounts for the Roth 401(k) and Traditional 401(k), and it's possible for the traditional to contain post tax money, which, given the recent introduction of the Roth 401(k) conversion, should be easily addressable.\"",
"qid": 10932,
"docid": "507892",
"rank": 58,
"score": 95607
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Hi Alex. I've been alerted you're seeking a better answer to this question. ;-) Please accept my apologies for not coming back to this question sooner – it got buried. :-/ No, in general you cannot make an early withdrawal penalty-free from a 403(b) account to use towards the purchase of a home. Withdrawals before age 59 1/2 are generally subject to the 10% early withdrawal penalty, on top of ordinary income tax. Some 403(b) plans may allow for a loan, but the availability and conditions vary by plan. If you'd consider a loan, you should check with your plan administrator or your plan's Summary Plan Description – often available at one's company intranet or HR web site. (I do contract work for an HR consulting firm that assists others in building such sites, and SPDs are usually something made available for download in a \"\"Retirement\"\" or \"\"Wealth\"\" section of such web sites.) Note that a loan from a 403(b) would need to be paid back into the plan over some period of time, e.g. 5 years, though I have come across examples of some plans that do permit a longer pay back period of 10, 15, even 30 years if the loan is used for a home purchase. But consider this article: The 403(b) Loan: The New Debtors Prison? Finally, to your last point: Yes, if you have an IRA, there are rules permitting withdrawal of up to $10,000 penalty-free for use towards the purchase of a first home. See page 53 in IRS Publication 590. There's also a good article at Fool.com: All About IRAs - For First Time Home Buyers. Such a withdrawal from a traditional IRA remains subject to ordinary income tax. If have a Roth IRA, you can withdraw free of income tax but you need to pay attention to the Roth IRA 5 Year Rule. Additional Resources:\"",
"qid": 10932,
"docid": "418275",
"rank": 59,
"score": 95440
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: For such a small amount, I really don't think it's worth the time and effort to withdraw it. Why not roll it over into a traditional IRA or a new 401k / 403b?",
"qid": 10932,
"docid": "510874",
"rank": 60,
"score": 95288
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Yes. Not doing so would be like turning down a raise. The best advice in almost every situation is to at least contribute up to the amount that the company will match so you get the full benefit. One thing to clarify that you might not be understanding. The vesting period is only for the money the company matches, not your own investment. Even if you leave the company before the account is vested or fully vested, you can transfer to a 401k at your new employer, or roll over into an IRA, or take as taxable income (and pay a penalty if it is an early withdrawal), all your contributions together with any investment gains or losses that have occurred. Ditto whatever part of your employer match that has vested by the time you leave. Often, the employer matching contributions are invested in the same funds in the same proportions that you have chosen for your own contributions and thus will have incurred the same gains or losses as your own contributions, but what you are entitled to take with you is the part that has vested. Also, you mention that it is unlikely that you will stay the entire 5 years. However, if you plan to at least stay a couple of years it makes sense to get the 20%, 40%, etc. of the match that you vest during your stay. Again, it's free money.",
"qid": 10932,
"docid": "135724",
"rank": 61,
"score": 94963
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You can also roll money from prior 401ks into current 401ks. Call the administrator of the 401k you prefer (i.e., Fidelity/Schwab, whoever the financial institution is). Explain you don't work there anymore and ask if you can roll money into it. Some plans allow this and some don't. So either, 1) You can roll all your prior 401ks into your current 401k. 2) You might be able to roll all prior 401ks into the prior 401k of your choice if they will accept contributions after you've left. You can't move the amount in your current employer's 401k until you separate or hit a certain age. 3) Like mentioned above, you can roll all prior 401ks into an IRA at any financial institution that will let you set up an IRA. Process: -Call the financial institutions you want to move the money from. Tell them you want a direct rollover. Have them write the check to the financial institution you are rolling into with your name mentioned but not the beneficiary (i.e., check written to Schwab FBO: John Doe account #12345) Tax implications: -If you are rolling from a pre-tax 401k to a pre-tax 401k or IRA, and the money goes directly from institution to institution, you are not liable for taxes. You can also roll from a Roth type (already taxed) account into another Roth type account with no tax implications. If they write a check to YOU and you don't put the money in an IRA or 401k within 60 days you will pay ~20% tax and a 10% early withdrawal penalty. That's why it's best to transfer from institution to institution. 401k vs IRA: -This is a personal decision. You could move all your prior 401ks into an IRA you set up for yourself. Generally the limitations of a 401k are the lack of funds to invest in that fit your retirement strategy, or high expense ratios. Be sure to investigate the fees you would pay for trades in an IRA (401k are almost always free) and the expense ratio for funds in your 401k vs funds you might invest in at a broker for your IRA. Best of both: -You can roll all your 401ks into a single 401k and still set up an IRA or Roth IRA (if your income qualifies) that you can contribute to separately. This could give you flexibility in fund choices if your 401k fees tend to be cheaper while keeping the bulk of your nest egg in low cost mutual funds through an employer account. Last advice: Even if you don't like the options in your current 401k, make sure you are contributing at least enough to get any employer match.",
"qid": 10932,
"docid": "64459",
"rank": 62,
"score": 94940
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Do you think your 403b will earn more than the mortgage interest rate? If so, then mortgage seems the way to go. Conservative investment strategies might not earn much more than a 3-4% mortgage, and if you're paying 5-6% it's more likely you'll be earning less than the mortgage. From another point of view, though, I would probably take a loan anyway just from a security standpoint - you have more risk if you put a third of your retirement savings into one purchase directly, whereas if you do a 10-15 year loan, you'll have more of a cushion. Also, if you don't outlive the mortgage, you'll have had use of more of your retirement income than otherwise - though I do wonder if it puts you at some risk if you have significant medical bills (which might require you to liquidate your 403b but wouldn't require you to sell your house, so paying it off has some upside). Also, as @chili555 notes in comments, you should consider the taxation of your 403(b) income. If you pull it out in one lump sum, some of it may be taxed at a higher rate than if you pulled it out more slowly over time, which will easily overwhelm any interest rate differences. This assumes it's not a Roth 403(b) account; if it is Roth then it doesn't matter.",
"qid": 10932,
"docid": "258431",
"rank": 63,
"score": 94938
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You can't rollover a 401k directly into a Roth IRA. What you can do is rollover a 401k into a traditional IRA, and then convert some or all of the money to a Roth IRA. This is independent of any contributions made to a traditional or Roth IRA.",
"qid": 10932,
"docid": "125973",
"rank": 64,
"score": 94890
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Sometimes 403b's contain annuities or other insurance related instruments. I know that in many New York schools the local teacher unions administer the 403b plan, and sometimes choose proprietary investments like variable annuities or other insurance products. In New York the Attorney General sued and settled with the state teacher's union for their endorsement of a high cost ING 403b plan -- I believe the maintenance fees were in excess of 3%/year! In a tax deferred plan like a 401k, 403b or 457 plan, the low risk \"\"insurance fund\"\" is generally a GIC \"\"Guaranteed Investment Contract\"\". A GIC (aka \"\"Stable Value Fund\"\") is sort of cross between a CD and a Money Market fund. It's used by insurance companies to raise short term capital. GICs usually yield a premium versus a money market and are a safe investment. If your wife is in a 403b with annuities or other life-insurance tie ins other than GICs, make sure that you understand the fee structure and ask lots of questions.\"",
"qid": 10932,
"docid": "257187",
"rank": 65,
"score": 94835
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"It is difficult to become a millionaire in the short term (a few years) working at a 9-to-5 job, unless you get lucky (win the lottery, inheritance, gambling at a casino, etc). However, if you max out your employer's Retirement Plan (401k, 403b) for the next 30 years, and you average a 5% rate of return on your investment, you will reach millionaire status. Many people would consider this \"\"easy\"\" and \"\"automatic\"\". Of course, this assumes you are able to max our your retirement savings at the start of your career, and keep it going. The idea is that if you get in the habit of saving early in your career and live modestly, it becomes an automatic thing. Unfortunately, the value of $1 million after 30 years of inflation will be eroded somewhat. (Sorry.) If you don't want to wait 30 years, then you need to look at a different strategy. Work harder or take risks. Some options:\"",
"qid": 10932,
"docid": "434869",
"rank": 66,
"score": 94456
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"You can rollover money from a 401(k) to Traditional IRA and back to a 401(k). There are likely account closure fees associated with this, so it's not completely free. As long as you're rolling from one tax deferred account to another there are no penalties. The IRS has a handy chart showing what accounts can roll where. Note, starting next year, you can only do one IRA rollover per year. The IRS has additional general information on retirement account rollovers. One additional comment - on the concept of your money being \"\"locked\"\" into an IRA. Generally you have far more options with an IRA than a 401(k). If you go with a large, low cost provider like Vanguard you're likely to be much better off than in a small company 401(k) that only offers costly funds that are likely selected primarily to benefit the administrator of the plan. Choose your IRA provider and the investments with them wisely, and leave that money there for a very long time.\"",
"qid": 10932,
"docid": "424766",
"rank": 67,
"score": 94283
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Have you shopped around? I would agree that the fees seem high. The first question I would ask if if the .75% management fee is per year or per month? If it is per month, you will almost certainly lose money each year. A quick search shows that Fidelity will allow one to transfer their pensions into a self directed account. Here in the US, where we have 401Ks, it is almost always better to transfer them into something self directed once you leave an employer. Fidelity makes it really easy, and I always recommend them. (No affiliation.) Here in the US they actually pay you for you transferring money into your account. This can come in the form of free stock trades or money added to your account. I would encourage you to give them or their competitors a look in order to make an informed decision. Often times, a person with lowish balances, can't really afford to pay those high management fees. You might need in the 10s of millions before something like that makes sense.",
"qid": 10932,
"docid": "303525",
"rank": 68,
"score": 93525
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The simplest answer is that you can convert the IRA to a Roth, and since it was already taxed, pay no tax on conversion. If, in your hypothetical situation, you happen to have an IRA already in place, you are subject to pro-rata rules on conversions, e.g. your balance is total $40K, $10K 'not deducted', a conversion is 75% taxed, convert $20K and the tax is on $15K of that money. But, there also might be a time when you are able to transfer IRA money into a 401(k), effectively removing the pretax deposits, and leaving just post tax money for a free conversion.",
"qid": 10932,
"docid": "152096",
"rank": 69,
"score": 93317
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Good question. And it depends a bit on your current plan, your future income, and the plan you are moving too. Mostly you want to roll out of your existing 401K. There will likely be a fee, and your investment choices are limited. You will want to do a direct transfer, and going with a quality company such as Fidelity or Vanguard. Both of those have zero fees for accounts and pretty good customer service. However, if your future income is likely to be high there is something else to consider. If you are over the limits do a ROTH, and are considering doing a \"\"Backdoor ROTH\"\" a key success for this strategy is keeping your roll over IRA balance low (or zero). So you may want to either leave the 401K where it is, or roll it to your new 401K plan. In that case you will have to call the two 401K custodians, and select the best choice as far as fees and fund choice.\"",
"qid": 10932,
"docid": "122114",
"rank": 70,
"score": 93026
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The instructions do specifically mention them, but not as exclusive plans. Pension and annuity payments include distributions from 401(k), 403(b), and governmental 457(b) plans. The instructions also mention this: An eligible retirement plan is a governmental plan that is a qualified trust or a section 403(a), 403(b), or 457(b) plan. 414(h) plans are \"\"qualified\"\" plans. Employee contribution to a 414(h) plan is qualified under 403(b). Report it there and mark it as \"\"Rollover\"\". Talk to a licensed (EA/CPA licensed in your state) professional when in doubt.\"",
"qid": 10932,
"docid": "254280",
"rank": 71,
"score": 92932
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The 60 day pay back rule of a distribution your are referring to is a reportable IRS rule so you won't be able to circumvent that by opening your own company with its own 401K and borrowing the funds from there. Failure to accurately report to the IRS leads to fines and possible jail time. It's not advisable to withdraw from a retirement account but if you really need the money then you can move the funds to a Rollover IRA at the new broker/dealer, or custodian etc. Once you withdraw funds, the plan sponsor has to abide by a mandatory 20% tax withholding on the distribution, you'll be hit with a 10% tax penalty for early withdraw and you'll have to report the distribution as income when you file your personal income taxes. The move from a 401K to a Rollover however is legal and has no tax implications or penalties (besides possible closing fees at the old account) - that is until you decide to withdraw from it assuming you are under age 59 1/2. Regarding your last point, 401Ks are administered by 3rd parties. You wouldn't be opening up any accounts directly with them necessarily. Best advice? Get a Financial Advisor in your area. I recommend going with an advisor who is backed by independent broker-dealer. Independent broker dealers don't offer their own investment products therefore don't push their advisors to sell you their 'in-house' products like big banks. Here's a good article on using Rollover funds to start a venture: http://www.ehow.com/how_6789743_rollover-directed-ira-start-business.html Here is a resource guide direct from the IRS (you can CTRL+F for any specific topics) http://www.irs.gov/Retirement-Plans/Plan-Participant,-Employee/401%28k%29-Resource-Guide---Plan-Participants---General-Distribution-Rules",
"qid": 10932,
"docid": "260998",
"rank": 72,
"score": 92806
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"You ask multiple question here. The 401(k) - move it to an IRA. As others stated,this will lower your costs, and open up a potential I didn't see mentioned, the conversion to a Roth IRA. A year in which your income is lower than average is a great opportunity to convert a bit of the IRA enough to \"\"top off\"\" the lower bracket in which you may find yourself. The company stock? If you never worked for the company would you have bought this stock? Would you buy it now? If not, why keep it? The loan is the toughest decision. Will you sleep better if it were paid in full? What's the rate? 6% or more, I'd pay it off, under 4%, less likely. I'd invest much of the cash and the $8000 in stock in a Dilip-recommended VFINX, and use the dividends to pay the loan each month.\"",
"qid": 10932,
"docid": "114296",
"rank": 73,
"score": 92429
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: When you pick a company for your IRA, they should have information about rolling over funds from another IRA or a 401K. They will be able to walk you through the process. There shouldn't be a fee for doing this. They want your money to be invested in their funds. Once your money is in their hands they are able to generate their profits. You will want to do a direct transfer. Some employers will work with the investment companies and send the funds directly to the IRA. Others will insist on sending a check to you. The company that will have your IRA should give you exact specifications for the check so that you won't have to cash it. The check will be payable to you or the IRA account. The IRA company will have all the details. Decide if you will be converting non-Roth to Roth, before doing the rollover.",
"qid": 10932,
"docid": "361037",
"rank": 74,
"score": 92402
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: So there's no extra money from your employer if you contribute extra to your 403(b)? My answer will be a bit different than most others, but I'd recommend not paying another dime into your 403(b). Pay your taxes now, and be done with them. Retirement saving does not need to be in a tax-deferred or tax-free account. Rent vs. buy is another question. Buy from a distressed seller at a heavy discount. You have time. Don't panic or rush in.",
"qid": 10932,
"docid": "157586",
"rank": 75,
"score": 92120
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Nobody here really answered your question. The custodian of the 401k determines what funds and investment options are available within that 401k. So if they're eliminating company stock as an option then they can absolutely make you sell out of it. You may be able to do an in service rollover and transfer your funds to an individual ira but that's not particularly common among 401k administrators. Aside from that I'd ask why do you want to hold company stock anyway? Generally I'd advise against this as its imposing a ton of risk on your financial future. If your company tanks you're out of a job, which sucks. But it sucks even more if your company tanks and your 401k loses a ton of value at the same time. Edit: I see you asked who benefits as well. It may just be a situation of no benefit at all. Perhaps the plan didn't have enough people investing in company stock to make the option cost effective. Maybe the administrator decided that allowing people to take on that amount of risk was not in their best interest(it's not). Could be a ton of reasons but it's unlikely the company did so out of greed. There isn't a lot of financial benefit for them there.",
"qid": 10932,
"docid": "338519",
"rank": 76,
"score": 91882
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Withdrawals from a traditional 401(k) plan are always treated as cash income and the taxable portion is taxed at ordinary income tax rates, even if the money was held in stocks within the 401(k) plan and the amount withdrawn is equal to whatever capital gains you made by selling the stock within the 401(k) plan. If your plan permits you to take the distribution as stock shares (transferred to your taxable brokerage account), then, for tax purposes, it is treated as if you took a distribution of cash equal to the market price of the shares as of the day of the distribution and promptly bought the same number of shares in your brokerage account. And yes, if the 401(k) plan assets in your ex-employer's plan consists solely of pretax contributions and the earnings thereon, then the entire distribution is ordinary taxable income regardless of whether you sold the stock within the 401(k) plan or took a distribution of stock from the plan and promptly (or after a few days) sold it. The capital gains or losses (if any) from such a sale are, of course, outside the 401(k) plan and taxable accordingly. Finally, the 10% penalty for premature withdrawal from a traditional 401(k) will also apply if you are not 59.5 years of age or older (or maybe 55 since you are separated from service), and it will be computed on the entire distribution.",
"qid": 10932,
"docid": "30912",
"rank": 77,
"score": 91795
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Rather than rolling the 401(k) to a new employer's plan, you should roll it into a traditional IRA. You get more options for the money, there's no limit on how much you can roll over, and you have more control over the money. If you do a direct rollover, there's no taxes or penalties involved. I'd recommend against taking any money out of the 401(k). With the numbers you give above, it's like borrowing money at 31.5% interest, which is pretty high, and you're sacrificing your future retirement. If you leave that money alone to grow with compounding, you'll have a lot more when you retire. If you're not familiar with the concept of compound interest, it's worth reading up on - the numbers will blow you away. At the very least, if you desperately need to get $3000 out of it, take out just enough to net $3000 after taxes and penalties (not quite $4400 using the numbers you give) and do a rollover with the rest. At least that way, you're keeping more in the IRA (just over $8600, vs the $5000 in your proposed scenario). Overall, I really recommend you find a way to accomplish your goals without touching your retirement savings.",
"qid": 10932,
"docid": "526271",
"rank": 78,
"score": 91757
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I will expand this to 401K's, 403B's, and the federal retirement program. There are 3 things to worry about when trading: The tax friendly retirement programs will remove the worry about taxes. Most will reduce or eliminate the concern about transaction fees. But some programs will limit the number of transactions per month. In the past few years the federal program has cracked down on people who were executing trades every day. While employees are able to execute trades without a fee, the costs related to each transaction were being absorbed into the cost of running the program. To keep the costs down they limited the number of transactions per month. Some private programs have limited the movement of money between some of the investment options.",
"qid": 10932,
"docid": "494285",
"rank": 79,
"score": 91234
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Direct roll-overs / trustee to trustee transfers are typically initiated by the receiving institution. Therefore you need to work with Vanguard. They will have a form in which you provide them with your fidelity account info and they will then contact Fidelity and initiate the transfer. Do not take the option of being sent a check made out to you by Fidelity (an indirect rollover). There are too many ways to muck up and get hit with penalties if you are the middleman in the process. I believe in most, if not all, cases the IRS now requires a 20% withholding on indirect 401k rollovers. This is because too many times people would initiate a roll over but not complete it either at all or within the allowed 60 day window and then come tax time be unable to pay the tax and penalty on the distribution. The tricky part of that withholding is that you still have to deposit that amount into the new account otherwise it becomes a distribution subject to tax and penalties (and that means coming up with the money from other accounts). So in summary talk to Vanguard and set up an institution to institution transfer. They souls make this very easy as they want your money. And do not do any kind of rollover where you come into personal possession of the money. If the check is made out to Vanguard but sent to you to resend to Vanguard that should not be an issue as that is still a trustee to trustee transfer. Fidelity may have a minor account closer fee that will be deducted from the value of the account before it is sent.",
"qid": 10932,
"docid": "470267",
"rank": 80,
"score": 90987
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Once you roll the money from the 401K into a rollover IRA don't mix it with new funds. The money from the 401K will be treated differently depending on if the funds are pre-tax, post-tax, Roth, or matching. (Yes, Post-tax and Roth are not the same thing). In the future an employer may allow you to roll IRA or 401K money into their program. They don't have to allow it, and they can put restrictions on the types of money they will accept.",
"qid": 10932,
"docid": "183856",
"rank": 81,
"score": 90910
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I assume you get your information from somewhere where they don't report the truth. I'm sorry if mentioning Fox News offended you, it was not my intention. But the way the question is phrased suggests that you know nothing about what \"\"pension\"\" means. So let me explain. 403(b) is not a pension account. Pension account is generally a \"\"defined benefit\"\" account, whereas 403(b)/401(k) and similar - are \"\"defined contribution\"\" accounts. The difference is significant: for pensions, the employer committed on certain amount to be paid out at retirement (the defined benefit) regardless of how much the employee/employer contributed or how well the account performed. This makes such an arrangement a liability. An obligation to pay. In other words - debt. Defined contribution on the other hand doesn't create such a liability, since the employer is only committed for the match, which is paid currently. What happens to your account after the employer deposited the defined contribution (the match) - is your problem. You manage it to the best of your abilities and whatever you have there when you retire - is yours, the employer doesn't owe you anything. Here's the problem with pensions: many employers promised the defined benefit, but didn't do anything about actually having money to pay. As mentioned, such a pension is essentially a debt, and the retiree is a debt holder. What happens when employer cannot pay its debts? Employer goes bankrupt. And when bankrupt - debtors are paid only part of what they were owed, and that includes the retirees. There's no-one raiding pensions. No-one goes to the bank with a gun and demands \"\"give me the pension money\"\". What happened was that the employers just didn't fund the pensions. They promised to pay - but didn't set aside any money, or set aside not enough. Instead, they spent it on something else, and when the time came that the retirees wanted their money - they didn't have any. That's what happened in Detroit, and in many other places. 403(b) is in fact the solution to this problem. Instead of defined benefit - the employers commit on defined contribution, and after that - it's your problem, not theirs, to have enough when you're retired.\"",
"qid": 10932,
"docid": "301194",
"rank": 82,
"score": 90745
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Some 401k plans allow you to make \"\"supplemental post-tax contributions\"\". basically, once you hit the pre-tax contribution limit (17.5k$ in 2014), you are then allowed to contribute funds on a post-tax basis. Because of this timing, they are sometimes called \"\"spillover\"\" contributions. Usually, this option is advertised as a way of continuing to get company match even if you accidentally hit the pre-tax limit. But if you actually pay attention to your finances, it is instead a handy way to put away additional tax-advantaged money. That said, you would only want to use this option if you already maxed out your pre-tax and Roth options since you don't get the traditional tax break on contributions or the Roth tax break on the earnings. However, when you leave the company, you can transfer the post-tax money directly into a Roth IRA when you transfer the pre-tax money, match, and earnings into a traditional IRA.\"",
"qid": 10932,
"docid": "120394",
"rank": 83,
"score": 90407
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: One of the strengths of 401K accounts is that you can move from investment X in the program to investment Y in the program without tax consequences. As you move through your lifetime you will tend to want to lower risk by investing in funds that are less aggressive. The only way this works is if there is an ability to move funds. If there were only one or two funds to pick from or that you were locked in to your initial choices that would be a very poor 401K to be enrolled in. On your benefits/401K website you should be able to adjust three sets of numbers: Some have you enter the current money as a percentage others allow you to enter it in dollars. They might limit the number of changes you can do in a month to the current money balances to avoid the temptation to try and time the market. These changes usually happen within 1 business day. Regarding new and match money they could limit the lowest non zero percent to 5% or 10%, but they might allow numbers as low as 1%. These changes take place generally with the next paycheck.",
"qid": 10932,
"docid": "530703",
"rank": 84,
"score": 90277
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You should never roll a 401(k) to a Roth IRA. If the intention is to do so, you are better off rolling to a traditional IRA, and then converting. (Per the comment below, I should add - if the 401(k) contained post tax money, this portion rolls to a Roth, not a Tradition IRA. You then have the exercise of converting/recharacterizing just the TIRA money, as the Roth stands aside) This preserves the ability to recharacterize back to a traditional IRA. You might wish to do this if: The answers so far are great, but I'll add what I see missing -",
"qid": 10932,
"docid": "231928",
"rank": 85,
"score": 90181
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: No. Few reasons. 1) You'll pay a penalty (tax) if you liquidate your 401k. 2) Instead of using your 401k, adjust your monthly budget and live frugal for some time. 3) Look for 0% balance transfer offers and transfer debt to that so you'll be able to reduce interest accumulation. 4) 401k is your savings, one of many I hope, keep that as is and don't touch it. 5) Sell things that you don't need and pay it towards the credit card 6) Do an analysis of your spending and figure out how you got to 21k.",
"qid": 10932,
"docid": "232049",
"rank": 86,
"score": 90025
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You are right; Rollover is a process, and not an account type; the result is a Traditional IRA. There is no such thing as a 'Rollover IRA Account'. Rolling a 401(k) over to a Traditional IRA makes sense if a) you have to, because you leave the employer the 401(k) is with; b) because you Traditional IRA is cheaper or more flexible or in other ways 'better' for you, or c) if your next step is a backdoor rollover to a Roth IRA. Most of the time, it doesn't make sense, because employer 401(k) are often better and cheaper. Of course, for the investment company where you roll it too, it makes a lot of sense, because they get your money, so they recommend it. But that's only good for them, not for you. Of course you can roll into an existing account, if you want to roll. Making a new account has no advantage. I cannot imagine any IRA custodian wouldn't take rollovers; they would shoot themselves in the foot by that. What can happen - and you should consider this - that your IRA only accepts cash, and does not allow to transfer the shares you have in the 401(k). That means you have to sell and then re-buy, and you might lose a lot in fees there.",
"qid": 10932,
"docid": "329497",
"rank": 87,
"score": 89260
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I was told if I moved my 401k into a Roth IRA that school purposes is one reasons you can withdraw money without having to pay a tax. Incorrect. You will need to pay tax on the amount converted, since a 401(k) is pre-tax and a Roth IRA is after-tax. It will be added to your regular income, so you will pay tax at your marginal tax rate. is there any hidden tax or fee at all for withdrawing money from a Roth IRA for educational purposes? You still will need to pay the tax on the amount converted, but you'll avoid the 10% penalty for early withdrawal. I know that tuition, books and fees are covered for educational purposes. Can I take out of my Roth IRA for living expenses while I'm attending school? Rent, gas, food, etc... Room and board, yes, so long as you are half-time, but not gas/food Possibly only room and board for staying on-campus, but I'm not certain, although I doubt you could call your normal house payment \"\"education expense\"\" with my 401k being smaller, would it just be better to go ahead and cash the whole thing and just pay the tax and use it for whatever I need it for? What is the tax if I just decide to cash the whole thing in? You pay your marginal tax rate PLUS a 10% penalty for early withdrawal. So no, this is probably not a wise move financially unless you're on the verge of bankruptcy or foreclosure (where distress costs are much higher then the 10% penalty) I can't answer the other questions regarding grants; I would talk to the financial aid department at your school. Bottom line, transferring your 401(k) is very likely a bad idea unless you can afford to pay the tax in cash (meaning without borrowing). My advice would be to leave your 401(k) alone (it's meant for retirement not for school or living expenses) Ideally, you should pay for as much as you can out of cash flow, and don't take out more student loans. That may mean taking fewer classes, getting another part time job, finding a different (cheaper) school, applying for more grants and scholarships, etc. I would not in ANY circumstance cash out your 401(k) to pay for school. You'll be much worse off in the long run, and there are much cheaper ways to get money.\"",
"qid": 10932,
"docid": "68609",
"rank": 88,
"score": 89208
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Companies usually have a minimum account balance required to keep a 401k for former employees. You will have to check whether $10k is sufficient to keep your funds in your former employer's 401k. If you are below their threshold, you will have to move your money. One option is to rollover into the new employer's 401k. You can rollover a 401k into a traditional IRA account that is independent of your employer. A traditional IRA has the same tax benefits as a 401k; it grows tax-free until you withdraw money from the account. Companies that offer IRAs include Vanguard, Fidelity, TIAA. Many companies have significant overhead costs in the their 401k management. It may be better for you to rollover your money into an IRA to save on these costs. I am not knowledgeable about loaning from retirement accounts, so I cannot help with that.",
"qid": 10932,
"docid": "168890",
"rank": 89,
"score": 89023
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: mhoran answered the headline question, but you asked - Could someone shed some light on and differentiate between a retirement account and alternative savings plans? Retirement accounts can contain nearly anything that one would consider an investment. (yes, there are exception, not the topic for today). So when one says they have an S&P fund or ETF, and some company issued Bonds, etc, these may or may not be held in a retirement account. In the US, when we say 'retirement account,' it means a bit more than just an account earmarked for that goal. It's an account, 401(k), 403(b), IRA, etc, that has a special tax status. Money can go in pre-tax, and be withdrawn at retirement when you are in a lower tax bracket. The Roth flavor of 401(k) or IRA lets you deposit post-tax money, and 'never' pay tax on it again, if withdrawn under specific conditions. In 2013, a single earner pays 25% federal tax on taxable earnings over $36K. But a retiree with exactly $46K in gross income (who then has $10K in standard deduction plus exemption) has a tax of $4950, less than 11% average rate on that withdrawal. This is the effect of the deductions, 10% and 15% brackets. As with your other question, there's a lot to be said about this topic, no one can answer in one post. That said, the second benefit of the retirement account is the mental partitioning. I have retirement money, not to be touched, emergency money used for the broken down car or appliance replacement, and other funds it doesn't feel bad to tap for spending, vacations, etc. Nothing a good spreadsheet can't handle, but a good way to keep things physically separate as well. (I answered as if you are in US, but the answer works if you rename the retirement accounts, eg, Canada has similar tax structure to the US.)",
"qid": 10932,
"docid": "484149",
"rank": 90,
"score": 88904
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You can take the old 401k and convert it to an IRA just about anywhere. No accountant required. Borrowing against the IRA/401k is a very stopgap measure, be sure you know what you are getting into. A distribution from it is a 10% penalty before age 59.5.",
"qid": 10932,
"docid": "266173",
"rank": 91,
"score": 88835
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"You have a Solo 401(k). You can fund it with cash, or I believe, with shares of your own company. You can't pull in other assets such as the ISOs from another employer. I see why that's desirable, but it's not allowed. You wrote \"\"this will mitigate all tax complications with employee stock options.\"\" But - you can't transfer the ISOs from your job into your Solo 401(k). As littleadv notes, it's self dealing. Once the ISO is exercised there's no hiding the gain into that 401(k).\"",
"qid": 10932,
"docid": "163566",
"rank": 92,
"score": 88763
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You'll want to roll the 401k over to a specifically designated rollover IRA. Rollover IRAs differ from an ordinary IRA account because they have NO contribution limit per year. Also Rolling over a 401k to a Roth IRA has consequences. There won't be a penalty but you will have to pay taxes on the amount being rolled over. The choice of Roth or Traditional IRA depends on your current tax situation as well as your expected taxes at retirement. Typically if you are in a low tax bracket and expect to be in a higher tax bracket at retirement a Roth IRA is suggested as withdrawals are tax free. With a rollover conversion you will have to evaluate whether paying taxes now outweighs the potential benefits of tax free withdrawals when you retire.",
"qid": 10932,
"docid": "217310",
"rank": 93,
"score": 88726
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The fact that you are planning to move abroad does not affect the decision to contribute to a 401(k). The reason for this is that after you leave your employer, you can roll all the money over from your 401(k) into a self-directed traditional IRA. That money can stay invested until retirement, and it doesn't matter where you are living before or after retirement age. So, when deciding whether or not to use a 401(k), you need to look at the details of your employer's plan: Does your employer offer a match? If so, you should definitely take advantage of it. Are there good investments available inside the 401(k)? Some plans offer very limited options. If you can't find anything good to invest in, you don't want to contribute anything beyond the match; instead, contribute to an IRA, where you can invest in a fund that you like. The other reason to use a 401(k) is that the contribution limits can be higher. If you want to invest more than you are allowed to in an IRA, the 401(k) might allow that. In your case, since there is no match, it is up to you whether you want to participate or not. An IRA will allow more flexibility in investing options. If you need to invest more than your IRA limit, the 401(k) might allow that. When you leave your employer, you should probably roll any 401(k) money into an IRA.",
"qid": 10932,
"docid": "422979",
"rank": 94,
"score": 88676
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"What is a 403b? A 403(b) plan is a tax-advantaged retirement savings plan available for public education organizations, some non-profit employers (only US Tax Code 501(c)(3) organizations), cooperative hospital service organizations and self-employed ministers in the United States. Kind of a rare thing. A bit more here: http://www.sec.gov/investor/pubs/teacheroptions.htm under investment options Equity Indexed Annuities are a special type of contract between you and an insurance company. During the accumulation period — when you make either a lump sum payment or a series of payments — the insurance company credits you with a return that is based on changes in an equity index, such as the S&P 500 Composite Stock Price Index. The insurance company typically guarantees a minimum return. Guaranteed minimum return rates vary. After the accumulation period, the insurance company will make periodic payments to you under the terms of your contract, unless you choose to receive your contract value in a lump sum. For more information, please see our \"\"Fast Answer\"\" on Equity Indexed Annuities, and read FINRA's investor alert entitled Equity-Indexed Annuitiies — A Complex Choice. So perhaps \"\"equity indexed annuities\"\" is the more correct thing to search for and not \"\"insurance funds\"\"?\"",
"qid": 10932,
"docid": "213168",
"rank": 95,
"score": 88656
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you roll your funds from a 401k to an individual Vanguard account it will be in an IRA. Some people talk about IRA loans, but what is happening is that you are given a check for the value of the IRA and you have 60 days to deposit that full amount in another qualified account before being assessed a distribution penalty. The IRS also has rules to prohibit you from making several back-to-back rollovers to try to float the money for longer than 60 days.",
"qid": 10932,
"docid": "348090",
"rank": 96,
"score": 88424
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"In general taking money out of a 401k to repay a loan is a bad idea for a number of reasons. Taxes and penalties if you are under 59 and 1/2 you will pay a 10% penalty on withdrawals from a traditional 401k plan. Then you are going add the amount you withdraw to your income in determining your current tax bill. If you make a large withdrawal you will likely push yourself into a higher tax bracket and will end up paying additional taxes than if you made several smaller withdrawals or waited until retirement when your income would presumably be lower. Taxes and penalties will mean you will need to withdraw ~225k in order to pay taxes and penalties while still having 150k to pay toward the mortgage (this assumes you are single and have no other income). You miss out on the growth your 401k could have had. Lack of diversification the average person has the majority of their net worth tied up in their home and by paying off your mortgage you are putting even more of your money into residential real estate. By moving money from a 401k to your personal residence you could also lose some protection from creditors and lawsuits. Retirement accounts are generally off limits to creditors where as your house is limited by the homestead exemption (varies greatly from state to state). There are a few times when it might makes sense to use 401k money to pay off a mortgage. If you are older than 59.5 and have little tolerance for risk it might make sense to take the amount of money between your current income and the next higher tax bracket and \"\"invest\"\" the money in your mortgage each year. You would still want to avoid taking out a large chunk at one time though to avoid pushing yourself into a much higher tax bracket.\"",
"qid": 10932,
"docid": "257894",
"rank": 97,
"score": 88209
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Both of the other answers are correct and good answers, but I think neither directly answers your question. No, you do not need to pay additional taxes on the wedding gifts simply because of the fact that they are going into a Roth IRA. Similarly, if you put them into a traditional IRA, that amount would be deductible (assuming you met the other criteria, including minimums and maximums of earned income, in both cases). The act of putting money into a Roth IRA is not what makes it taxable; its original source is. Roth simply does not reduce your current taxes any, whereas a traditional IRA would. The seeming exception to this is when rolling money from a tax-deductible source to a non-tax-deductible destination, such as transferring money from a Traditional IRA or 401(k) to a Roth IRA or 401(k). Then, the taxable event is really the distribution from the Traditional IRA or 401(k), not the deposit into a Roth IRA or 401(k), though of course if you rolled a 401(k) over to a traditional IRA it would not be taxable.",
"qid": 10932,
"docid": "542166",
"rank": 98,
"score": 87989
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: For reporting purposes, most IRA firms prefer that you roll the 401(k) funds into a Rollover or Traditional IRA and then convert to the ROTH from there. The mid-air conversions (401(k) directly into a ROTH) can get tricky when you go to do your taxes the following year if the 1099 form from the releasing custodian and the 5498 form from the accepting custodian have different numbers due to the conversion amount and taxes withheld if any.",
"qid": 10932,
"docid": "272789",
"rank": 99,
"score": 87979
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"If you're single, the only solution I'm aware of, assuming you are truly getting a 1099-misc and not a W-2 (and don't have a W-2 option available, like TAing), is to save in a nondeductible account for now. Then, when you later do have a job, use that nondeductible account (in part) to fund your retirement accounts. Particularly the first few years (if you're a \"\"young\"\" grad student in particular), you'll probably be low enough on the income side that you can fit this in - in particular if you've got a 401k or 403b plan at work; make your from-salary contributions there, and make deductible IRA or Roth IRA contributions from your in-school savings. If you're not single, or even if you are single but have a child, you have a few other options. Spouses who don't have earned income, but have a spouse who does, can set up a Spousal IRA. You can then, combined, save up to your spouse's total earned income (or the usual per-person maximums). So if you are married and your wife/husband works, you can essentially count his/her earned income towards your earned income. Second, if you have a child, consider setting up a 529 plan for them. You're probably going to want to do this anyway, right? You can even do this for a niece or nephew, if you're feeling generous.\"",
"qid": 10932,
"docid": "271266",
"rank": 100,
"score": 87734
}
] |
How to contribute to Roth IRA when income is at the maximum limit & you have employer-sponsored 401k plans? | [
{
"content": "Title: Content: You're correct about the 401(k). Your employer's contributions don't count toward the $18k limit. You're incorrect about the IRAs though. You can contribute a maximum of $5500 total across IRA and Roth IRA, not $5500 to each. There are also limits once you reach higher levels of income. from IRS.gov: Retirement Topics - IRA Contribution Limits: For 2015, 2016, and 2017, your total contributions to all of your traditional and Roth IRAs cannot be more than:",
"qid": 10975,
"docid": "441632",
"rank": 1,
"score": 154456
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Adding to the excellent answers already given, we typically advise members to contribute as much as needed to get a full employer match in their 401K, but not more. We then redirect any additional savings to a traditional IRA or ROTH IRA (depending on their age, income, and future plans). Only once they've exhausted the $5000 maximum in their IRA will we look at putting more money into the 401K. The ROTH IRA is a beautiful and powerful vehicle for savings. The only reason to consider taking money out of the ROTH is in a case of serious catastrophe.",
"qid": 10975,
"docid": "140330",
"rank": 2,
"score": 147238
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"IRA is not always an option. There are income limits for IRA, that leave many employees (those with the higher salaries, but not exactly the \"\"riches\"\") out of it. Same for Roth IRA, though the MAGI limits are much higher. Also, the contribution limits on IRA are more than three times less than those on 401K (5K vs 16.5K). Per IRS Publication 590 (page 12) the income limit (AGI) goes away if the employer doesn't provide a 401(k) or similar plan (not if you don't participate, but if the employer doesn't provide). But deduction limits don't change, it's up to $5K (or 100% of the compensation, the lesser) even if you're not covered by the employers' pension plan. Employers are allowed to match the employees' 401K contributions, and this comes on top of the limits (i.e.: with the employers' matching, the employees can save more for their retirement and still have the tax benefits). That's the law. The companies offer the option of 401K because it allows employee retention (I would not work for a company without 401K), and it is part of the overall benefit package - it's an expense for the employer (including the matching). Why would the employer offer matching instead of a raise? Not all employers do. My current employer, for example, pays above average salaries, but doesn't offer 401K match. Some companies have very tight control over the 401K accounts, and until not so long ago were allowed to force employees to invest their retirement savings in the company (see the Enron affair). It is no longer an option, but by now 401K is a standard in some industries, and employers cannot allow themselves not to offer it (see my position above).\"",
"qid": 10975,
"docid": "242529",
"rank": 3,
"score": 146333
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I am not 100% sure, but I think the answer is this: You can't max out both. You could theoretically max out the SIMPLE IRA ($11,500) and then contribute $4,000 to your 401k, but your total can't exceed the 401k limit of $16,500. This also means you could max out your 401k at $16,500, but you couldn't contribute anything to the SIMPLE IRA. Note that no matter what, you can't contribute more than $11,500 to your SIMPLE IRA. (Note that this is all independent from your Traditional or Roth IRA, which are subject to their own limits, and not affected by your participation in employer-sponsored plans.) As I understand it, a 401k and a SIMPLE IRA both fall under the umbrella of \"\"employer-sponsored plans\"\". Just like you can't max out two 401k's at two different employers, you can't do it with the 401k and the SIMPLE IRA. The only weird thing is the contribution limit differences between SIMPLE IRA and 401k, but I don't think the IRS could/would penalize you for working two jobs (enforcing the lower SIMPLE IRA limit for all employer-sponsored retirement accounts). You should probably run the numbers, factoring in the employer match, and figure out which account-contribution scenario makes the most financial sense for you. However, I'm not sure how the employer match helps you when you're talking about a small business that you own/run. You may also want to look at how the employer match of the SIMPLE IRA affects the taxes your business pays. Disclaimer #1: I couldn't find a definitive answer on your specific scenario at irs.gov. I pieced the above info from a few different \"\"SIMPLE IRA info\"\" sites. That's why I'm not 100% sure. It seems intuitively correct to me, though. Does your small business have an accountant? Maybe you should talk to him/her. Disclaimer #2: The $ amounts listed above are based on the IRS 2010 limits.\"",
"qid": 10975,
"docid": "163865",
"rank": 4,
"score": 142967
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Are the $18,000 401k 2017 limit and the $5,500 IRA limit mutually exclusive for a combined limit of $23,500 (under 49)? Yes, but the amount that you can deduct from a traditional IRA depends on your gross income and marital status - See publication 590-A for details. Also note that the limit applies to your combined traditional and Roth IRA contributions (meaning you can't contribute $5,500 to both; just a total of $5,500 between the two). I'm also assuming employee match $ count towards these limits - is this correct No - the limit for combined contributions between you and your employer is $54,000 in 2017. So if you contribute $18,000 your employer can only contribute $36,000.",
"qid": 10975,
"docid": "189989",
"rank": 5,
"score": 141346
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Does your employer provide a matching contribution to your 401k? If so, contribute enough to the 401k that you can fully take advantage of the 401k match (e.g. if you employer matches 3% of your income, contribute 3% of your income). It's free money, take advantage of it. Next up, max out your Roth IRA. The limit is $5000 currently a year. After maxing your Roth, revisit your 401k. You can contribute up to 16,500 per year. You savings account is a good place to keep a rainy day fund (do you have one?), but it lacks the tax advantages of a Roth IRA or 401k, so it is not really suitable for retirement savings (unless you have maxed out both your 401k and Roth IRA). Once you have take care of getting money into your 401k and Roth IRA accounts, the next step is investing it. The specific investment options available to you will vary depending on who provides your retirement account(s), so these are general guidelines. Generally, you want to invest in higher-risk, higher-return investments when you are young. This includes things like stocks and developing countries. As you get older (>30), you should look at moving some of your investments into things that less volatile. Bond funds are the usual choice. They tend to be safer than stocks (assuming you don't invest in Junk bonds), but your investment grows at a slower rate. Now this doesn't mean you immediately dump all of your stock and buy bonds. Rather, it is a gradual transition over time. As you get older and older, you gradually shift your investments to bond funds. A general rule of thumb I have seen: 100 - (YOUR AGE) = Percentage of your portfolio that should be in stocks Someone that is 30 would have 70% of their portfolio in stock, someone that is 40 would have 60% in stock, etc. As you get closer to retirement (50s-60s), you will want to start looking at investments that are more conservatie than bonds. Start to look at fixed-income and money market funds.",
"qid": 10975,
"docid": "399543",
"rank": 6,
"score": 138588
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Some companies allow you to make a post-tax contribution to the 401K. This is not a Roth contribution. This can be money beyond the 18,000 or 24,000 401k limit. The best news is that eventually that money can be rolled into 1 Roth-IRA. Not all companies allow this option. One company I worked for did this automatically when you hit the annual max. Of course that was made more complex if you had multiple employers that year.",
"qid": 10975,
"docid": "353009",
"rank": 7,
"score": 137499
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"From a purely analytical standpoint, assuming you are investing your Roth IRA contributions in broad market securities (such as the SPDR S&P 500 ETF, which tracks the S&P 500), the broader market has historically had more upward movement than downward, and therefore a dollar invested today will have a greater expected value than a dollar invested tomorrow. So from this perspective, it is better to \"\"max out\"\" your Roth on the first day of the contribution year and immediately invest in broad market (or at least well diversified) securities. That being said, opportunity costs must also be taken into account--every dollar you use to fund your Roth IRA is a dollar that is no longer available to be invested elsewhere (hence, a lost opportunity). With this in mind, if you are currently eligible for a 401k in which your employer matches some portion of your contributions, it is generally advised that you contribute to the 401k up to the employer-match. For example, if your employer matches 75% of contributions up to 3.5% of your gross salary, then it is advisable that you first contribute this 3.5% to your 401k before even considering contributing to a Roth IRA. The reasoning behind this is two-fold: first, the employer-match can be considered as a guaranteed Return on Investment--so for example, for an employer that matches 75%, for every dollar you contribute you already have earned a 75% return up to the employer's limit. Secondly, 401k contributions have tax implications: not only is the money contributed to the 401k pre-tax (i.e., contributions are not taxed), it also reduces your taxable income, so the marginal tax benefit of these contributions must also be taken into account. Keep in mind that in the usual circumstances, 401k disbursements are taxable. Finally, many financial advisors will also suggest establishing an \"\"emergency fund\"\", which is money that you will not use unless you suffer an emergency that has an impact on your normal income--loss of job, medical emergency, etc. These funds are often kept in highly liquid accounts (savings accounts, money-market funds, etc.) so they can be accessed immediately when you run into one of \"\"life's little surprises\"\". Generally, it is advised that an emergency fund between $500-$1000 is established ASAP, and over time the emergency fund should be increased until it has reached a value equivalent to the sum of 8 months' worth of expenses. If funding an IRA is preventing you from working towards such an emergency fund, then you may want to consider waiting on maxing out the IRA before you have that EF established. Of course, it goes without saying that credit card balances with APRs other than 0.00% (or similar) should be paid off before an IRA is funded, since while you can only hope to match the market at best (between 10-15% a year) in your IRA investments, paying down credit card balances is an instant \"\"return\"\" of whatever the APR is, which usually tends to be between a 15-30% APR. In a nutshell, assuming you are maxing out your 401k (if applicable), have an emergency fund established, are not carrying any high-APR credit card balances, and are able to do so, historical price movements in the markets suggest that funding your Roth IRA upfront and investing these funds immediately in a broadly diversified portfolio will yield a higher expected return than funding the account periodically throughout the year (using dollar cost averaging or similar strategies). If this is not the case, take some time to consider the opportunity costs you are incurring from not fully contributing to your 401k, carrying high credit card balances, or not having a sufficient emergency fund established. This is not financial advice specific to any individual and your mileage may vary. Consider consulting a Certified Financial Planner, Certified Public Accountant, etc. before making any major financial decisions.\"",
"qid": 10975,
"docid": "551403",
"rank": 8,
"score": 137268
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: They are mutually exclusive. Provided you meet the income limits you can contribute to both. Employer match do not count toward the 18K. On the other hand traditional IRA and Roth IRA are inclusive. So if single and making having a MAGI under 118K, you could do the 18K of your own money into a 401(k), and $5,500 into a Roth. You can put in $23,500 of your own money with the employer match on top of that.",
"qid": 10975,
"docid": "75766",
"rank": 9,
"score": 135982
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: if you have a work-sponsored retirement plan A 401k plan counts as a work-sponsored retirement plan. If you are a highly compensated employee (this is $115,000 for 2012), even your 401k contributions are limited. Given that, is there any difference at all between having a traditional IRA and a normal, taxable (non-retirement) investment account? You should consider a Roth IRA if you are making too much for a traditional IRA. When you make even more, then you can't contribute to a Roth, but can only contribute post-tax money to a traditional IRA. Use Form 8606 to keep track of non-deductable contributions over the years. Publication 590 is the official IRS explanation of what is deductable or not.",
"qid": 10975,
"docid": "447482",
"rank": 10,
"score": 134736
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: All data for a single adult in tax year 2010. Roth IRA 401K Roth 401k Traditional IRA and your employer offers a 401k Traditional IRA and your employer does NOT offer a 401k So, here are your options. If you have a 401k at work, you could max that out. If you make close to $120K, you could reduce your AGI enough to contribute to a Roth IRA. If you do not have a 401k at work, you could contribute to a Traditional IRA and deduct the $5K from your AGI similar to how a 401k works. Other than that, I think you are looking at investing outside of a retirement plan which means more flexibility, but no tax advantage.",
"qid": 10975,
"docid": "110114",
"rank": 11,
"score": 134623
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: All the answers that show the equivalency of 401(k) pre-tax and Roth 401(k) post-tax using equivalent contributions are correct assuming equivalent tax rates upon withdrawal. There is some potential gain if your tax rate upon retirement is higher than your working tax rate, but often people calculate a smaller percentage of their working income for their retirement income, which may offset a higher tax-rate anyway. In my mind, the primary advantage of a Roth 401(k) is that it effectively allows you to contribute more for retirement if you are currently maxing out your contributions in a regular 401(k) and IRA and want to contribute more. Doing so can be a big advantage when you are young and can benefit from those additional dollars being put into your retirement account early. This is effectively what is illustrated by the Fidelity calculation, and is something to consider if you are of the mind to aggressively save early for retirement. The reason Roth allows you to contribute more is because traditional IRA contributions are capped. Suppose the cap is $5500. Suppose also you immediately rollover your traditional IRA to a Roth IRA. This is a post-tax contribution, and growth on that is tax-free. If you maxed out your employer pre-tax 401(k) to $17500 and maxed out your IRA, you have maxed out your retirement contributions to $23000. Suppose two doublings, then the 401(k) has grown to $70000, and the IRA has grown to $22000. However, the withdrawal from the 401(k) is taxed, so assuming 25%, the total is $74500 after tax. Now, suppose instead you maxed out your employer Roth 401(k) post-tax instead, so you have put in $17500 post tax. And now, also max out your IRA. Now, all of your $23000 grows tax-free. So upon two doublings, you walk away with $92000. This is because you maxed out your contribution post-tax, meaning it was as if you were allowed to contribute $23333 to your pre-tax 401(k). So if you intend to max out your retirement account contributions, and are looking to contribute even more to retirement accounts, one way is two change over to contributing into the employer Roth 401(k).",
"qid": 10975,
"docid": "396257",
"rank": 12,
"score": 134416
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You might want to bring this fancy new IRS rule to your employer's attention. If your employer sets it up, an After-Tax 401(k) Plan allows employees to contribute after-tax money above the $18k/year limit into a special 401(k) that allows deferral of tax on all earnings until withdrawal in retirement. Now, if you think about it, that's not all that special on its own. Since you've already paid tax on the contribution, you could imitate the above plan all by yourself by simply investing in things that generate no income until the day you sell them and then just waiting to sell them until retirement. So basically you're locking up money until retirement and getting zero benefit. But here's the cool part: the new IRS rule says you can roll over these contributions into a Roth 401(k) or Roth IRA with no extra taxes or penalties! And a Roth plan is much better, because you don't have to pay tax ever on the earnings. So you can contribute to this After-Tax plan and then immediately roll over into a Roth plan and start earning tax-free forever. Now, the article I linked above gets some important things slightly wrong. It seems to suggest that your company is not allowed to create a brand new 401(k) bucket for these special After-Tax contributions. And that means that you would have to mingle pre-tax and post-tax dollars in your existing Traditional 401(k), which would just completely destroy the usefulness of the rollover to Roth. That would make this whole thing worthless. However, I know from personal experience that this is not true. Your company can most definitely set up a separate After-Tax plan to receive all of these new contributions. Then there's no mingling of pre-tax and post-tax dollars, and you can do the rollover to Roth with the click of a button, no taxes or penalties owed. Now, this new plan still sits under the overall umbrella of your company's total retirement plan offerings. So the total amount of money that you can put into a Traditional 401(k), a Roth 401(k), and this new After-Tax 401(k) -- both your personal contributions and your company's match (if any) -- is still limited to $53k per year and still must satisfy all the non-discrimination rules for HCEs, etc. So it's not trivial to set up, and your company will almost certainly not be able to go all the way to $53k, but they could get a lot closer than they currently do.",
"qid": 10975,
"docid": "417257",
"rank": 13,
"score": 133505
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: This is an older question but things have changed. Its a common misconception on what the contribution cap is. A few things. In 2014, the IRS did not adjust the maximum contribution from the previous year which include 401(k) accounts, 403(b) accounts, most 457 plans, and Thrift Savings Plans, will be $18,000, up $500 from $17,500. Savers and investors aged 50 or older can take advantage of a catch-up contribution. In 2015, taxpayers who meet this age-based criterion can contribute an additional $6,000 above the regular maximum of $18,000, thus you can contribute a maximum of $24,000 into these tax-advantaged accounts. The total contribution limit, including employer contributions, has increased to $53,000 You can actually contribute up to 53k (including matching) so the exact amount you contribute from your actual income may end up being more or less than 24k. If you get a poor employer match you can actually contribute more but it would go in as after tax dollars and not claim the tax deduction. Note: after tax does NOT equal Roth. However if your a high salaried individual you can use this as a potential loop hole for funding a Roth IRA. Chances are if your making enough money to contribute 53k Total Contributions then your not going to qualify for a roth. However once you retire (or possibly before depending on the plan withdraw terms) you can roll the after tax money into a Roth IRA. This is a gray area on the tax policy. The IRS may come back and change their mind about this. If considering this option talk to a tax adviser.",
"qid": 10975,
"docid": "360533",
"rank": 14,
"score": 133466
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"With these income levels you cannot deduct any IRA contribution. I.e.: you cannot save pre-tax, as you want. But you still can contribute to IRA (as a non-deductible contribution), and using the \"\"loophole\"\" transfer the contribution to Roth (you are probably over the limit to be able to contribute to Roth directly). For pre-tax contributions - max out your 401k.\"",
"qid": 10975,
"docid": "53028",
"rank": 15,
"score": 133202
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Your assumptions are flawed or miss crucial details. An employer sponsored 401k typically limits the choices of investments, whereas an IRA typically gives you self directed investment choices at a brokerage house or through a bank account. You are correct in noticing that you are limited in making your own pre-tax contributions to a traditional IRA in many circumstances when you also have an employer sponsored 401k, but you miss the massive benefit you have: You can rollover unlimited amounts from a traditional 401k to a traditional IRA. This is a benefit that far exceeds the capabilities of someone without a traditional 401k who is subject to the IRA contribution limits. Your rollover capabilities completely gets around any statutory contribution limit. You can contribution, at time of writing, $18,000 annually to a 401k from salary deferrals and an additional $35,000 from employer contributions for a maximum of $53,000 annually and roll that same $53,000 into an IRA if you so desired. That is a factor. This should be counterweighed with the borrowing capabilities of a 401k, which vastly exceeds an IRA again. The main rebuttal to your assumptions is that you are not necessarily paying taxes to fund an IRA.",
"qid": 10975,
"docid": "81148",
"rank": 16,
"score": 133134
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You cannot contribute directly to that 401k account if you no longer work at the sponsoring company - you have to be on their payroll. You can, however, roll the 401k over into an IRA, and contribute to the IRA. Note that in both cases, you are only allowed to contribute from earned income (which includes all the taxable income and wages you get from working or from running your own business). As long as you are employed (and have made more than $5k this year) you should have no problem. I am not certain whether contributing your $5k to a roth IRA would help you achieve your tax goals, someone else here certainly can advise.",
"qid": 10975,
"docid": "372014",
"rank": 17,
"score": 133016
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Unless your 401(k) plan is particularly good (i.e. good fund choices with low fees), you probably want to contribute enough to get the maximum match from your employer, then contribute to an IRA through a low-cost brokerage like Vanguard or Fidelity, then contribute more to your 401(k). As JoeTaxpayer said, contributions to a Roth IRA can be withdrawn tax- and penalty-free, so they are useful for early retirement. But certainly use your 401(k) as well--the tax benefits almost certainly outweigh the difficulty in accessing your money. JB King's link listing ways to access retirement money before the traditional age is fairly exhaustive. One of the main ways you may want to consider that hasn't been highlighted yet is IRS section 72(t) i.e. substantially equal periodic payments (SEPP). With this rule you can withdraw early from retirement plans without penalties. You have a few different ways of calculating the withdrawal amount. The main risk is you have to keep withdrawing that amount for the greater of five years or until you reach age 59½. In your case this is is only 4-5 years, which isn't too bad. Finally, in addition to being able to withdraw from a Roth IRA tax- and penalty-free, you can do the same for Roth conversions, provided 5 years have passed. So after you leave a job, you can rollover 401(k) money to a traditional IRA, then convert to a Roth IRA (the caveat being you have to pay taxes on the amount as income at this point). But after 5 years you can access the money without penalty, and no taxes since they've already been paid. This is commonly called a \"\"Roth conversion ladder\"\".\"",
"qid": 10975,
"docid": "73344",
"rank": 18,
"score": 132487
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: With a Roth IRA, you can withdraw the contributions at any time without penalty as long as you don't withdraw the earnings/interest. There are some circumstances where you can withdraw the earnings such as disability (and maybe first home). Also, the Roth IRA doesn't need to go through your employer and I wouldn't do it through your employer. I have mine setup through Fidelity though I'm not sure if they have any guaranteed 3% return unless it was a CD. All of mine is in stocks. Your wife could also setup a Roth IRA so over 2 years, you could contribute $20,000. If I was you, I would just max out any 403-b matches (which you surely are at 25% of gross income) and then save my down payment money in a normal money market/savings account. You are doing good contributing almost 25% to the 403-b. There are also some income limitations on Roth IRAs. I believe for a married couple, it is $160k.",
"qid": 10975,
"docid": "387338",
"rank": 19,
"score": 132388
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"You seem to be treating your Roth IRA as a sort of savings account for use in emergency situations. I would use a savings account for savings as withdrawing money from an IRA will have penalties under various circumstances (more than contributions, Roth IRA less than 5 years old, more than $10k for a down payment). Also, you mention folding your IRA into your 401k so that it will \"\"grow faster\"\". However, this will not have that effect. Imagine you have $30k in an IRA and $100k in a 401k and you are averaging a return of 8% / year on each. This will be identical to having a single 401k with $130k and an 8% / year return. This is not one of your questions, but employer matches are not counted in the 401k contribution limit. If your 22% calculation of your salary includes the match to reach the max contribution, you can still contribute more.\"",
"qid": 10975,
"docid": "270818",
"rank": 20,
"score": 131097
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Is there any benefit to investing in a Roth 401(k) plan, as opposed to a Roth IRA? They have separate contribution limits, so how much you contribute to one does not change the amount you can contribute to the other. Which is relevant to your question because you said the earnings on that account compounded over the next 40 years growing tax-free will be much higher than what I'd save on current taxes on a traditional 401(k). This is only true if you max out your contribution limits. If you start with the same amount of money and have the same marginal tax rate in both years, it doesn't matter which one you pick. Start with $10,000 to invest. With the traditional, you can invest all $10,000. With the Roth, you pay taxes on it and then invest it. Let's assume a tax rate of 25%. So invest $7500. Let's assume that you invest either amount long enough to double four times (forty years at 7% return after inflation is about right). So the traditional has $160,000 and the Roth has $120,000. Now you withdraw them. For simplicity's sake, we'll pretend it's all one year. It's probably over several years, but the math is easier in a single year. With the Roth, you have $120,000. With the traditional, you have to pay tax. Again, let's assume 25%. So that's $40,000, leaving you with $120,000 from the traditional. That is the same amount as the Roth! So it would make sense to If you can max out both, great. You do that for forty years and your retirement will be as financially secure as you can make it. If you can't max them out, the most important thing is the employer match. That's free money. Then you may prefer your Roth IRA to the 401k. Note that you can also roll over your Roth 401k to a Roth IRA. Then you can withdraw your contributions from the Roth IRA without penalty or additional tax. Alternate source. Beyond answering your question, I would still like to reiterate that Roth or traditional does not have a big effect on your investment unless you max them out or you have different tax rates now versus in retirement. It may change other things. For example, you can roll over a Roth 401k to a Roth IRA without paying taxes. And the Roth IRA will act like it was contributed directly. You have to check with your employer what their rollover rules are. They may allow it any time or only at employment separation (when you leave the job). If you do max out your Roth accounts, then they will perform better than the traditional accounts at the same nominal contribution. This is because they are tax free while your returns in the other accounts will have to pay taxes. But it doesn't matter until you hit the limits. Until then, you could just invest the tax savings of the traditional as well as the money you could invest in a Roth.",
"qid": 10975,
"docid": "92442",
"rank": 21,
"score": 131042
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The Forbes article IRS Announces 2014 Retirement Plan Contribution Limits For 401(k)s And More spells this out pretty clearly. For your wife - \"\"an IRA contributor who is not covered by a workplace retirement plan and is married to someone who is covered, the deduction is phased out if the couple’s income is between $181,000 and $191,000.\"\" So, with your wife not covered by a 401(k), and your income below the stated limit, she can deduct the IRA contribution. When your income gets beyond that limit, she can make a non-deductible contribution and convert to Roth, if she wishes.\"",
"qid": 10975,
"docid": "481802",
"rank": 22,
"score": 130993
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"First off, high five on the paycheck. There are a few retirement issues to deal with. 401k issues - At that income level, you will probably fall into the \"\"Highly Compensated Employee\"\" category, which means things get a little more complicated, both for you and your employer. (Wikipedia link) IRA issues - As you already realized, you make too much to directly open and contribute to a Roth IRA. You can open a Traditional IRA, however. Your income is already over the limit for Traditional IRA deduction (bummer), so it would seem there is little point to opening an IRA at all. However, there is a way to take advantage of a Roth IRA, even at your income level. It is possible to convert a Traditional IRA into a Roth IRA. There used to be income limits on the ability to do the conversion, which would have normally made this off limits to you. Starting in 2010, the income limit is removed, so you can do this. Basically, you open a Traditional IRA, max it out, then convert it to a Roth. Since there was no income deduction, you shouldn't have to pay any more taxes. (link) Disclaimer: I've never tried this, nor do I know anyone who has, so you might want to research it a bit more before you try it yourself.\"",
"qid": 10975,
"docid": "446226",
"rank": 23,
"score": 129884
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Couple points: 1) Since the Roth is after tax, you can effectively contribute more than you could with the Traditional IRA before hitting the limits. So in your example, if you had extra money you wanted to invest in an IRA, you could invest up to $1,750 more into the Roth but only $500 more into the Traditional (current limits are $5,500 per year for single filers under 50). Your example assumes that you have exactly $3,750 in spare money looking for an IRA home. 2) The contributions (but not earnings) can be withdrawn from the Roth at any time, penalty and tax free. 3) The tax rate \"\"lock-in\"\" can be significant, especially early on when you are at a relatively low tax bracket, say 15%, but expect to be higher at retirement. 4) Traditional IRAs and 401(k) are taxed as ordinary income, so you go through the tax brackets. Even if the marginal rate is 25%, the effective rate may be lower. If you have a Roth, conceivably you could reduce the amount you need to withdrawal from the Trad IRA/401(k) to reduce the effective tax rate on those (of course subject to minimum distributions and all that). This is more an argument to have a mix of pre- and post-tax retirement accounts than strictly a pro-Roth reason.\"",
"qid": 10975,
"docid": "466626",
"rank": 24,
"score": 129748
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You are already doing everything you can. If your employer does not have a 401(k) you are limited to investing in a Roth or a traditional IRA (Roth is post tax money, traditional IRA gives you a deduction so it is essentially pre tax money). The contribution limits are the same for both and contributing to either adds to the limit (so you can't duplicate). CNN wrote an article on some other ways to save: One thing you may want to bring up with your employer is that they could set up a SEP-IRA. This allows them to set a % (up to 25%) that they contribute pre-tax to an IRA for everyone at the company that has worked there at least 3 years. If you are at a small company, maybe everyone with that kind of seniority would take an equivalent pay cut to get the automatic retirement contribution? (Note that a SEP-IRA has to apply to everyone equally percentage wise that has worked there for 3 years, and the employer makes the contribution, not you).",
"qid": 10975,
"docid": "452592",
"rank": 25,
"score": 129658
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: With a 401k you will be taxed when you withdraw the money upon retirement (just like an IRA), but conventional wisdom had it that you're likely to be in a lower tax bracket at that time. That may not necessarily be the case though, in which case a Roth IRA would be a better option because you're paying for it with after tax dollars and distributions are untaxed. If you wanted to hedge your bets you could have both an IRA/401k and a Roth IRA. An IRA has income limits above which the contributions are no longer tax deductible, I don't believe a 401k has the same limitations (for completion's sake: a Roth IRA has income limits above which you can't contribute to one). And like you said, the employer match is free money.",
"qid": 10975,
"docid": "383472",
"rank": 26,
"score": 129555
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Yes. Two years after your first contribution to the SIMPLE IRA, you can roll it to a traditional IRA. You can still contribute \"\"pre-tax\"\", but the mechanism will be slightly different, since with an employer plan the contribution was automatically deducted from your paycheck. With an individual plan, you make the contributions yourself and then get a tax deduction when you file. Since contributions to traditional and Roth IRAs combined are capped at $5,500 if you're under 50, some sort of employer-sponsored plan might be better from a contribution standpoint. If your institution offers some sort of plan other than a 401(k), you might still want to roll to a traditional IRA, since you will have much more flexibility in the investments you choose. On the flip side, if that thought is overwhelming, having a smaller set of options might be better for your peace of mind.\"",
"qid": 10975,
"docid": "244084",
"rank": 27,
"score": 129520
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The error in the example is here: \"\"Now, if you contribute 5% to a Roth 401(k), your employer would match your after-tax 5% contribution. If the tax rate is 25%, that would be 5% of $60,000, which is $3,000. However, that $3,000 is put in to a traditional 401(k), so it is taxed when withdrawn. Assuming the tax rate is still 25% when you withdraw, you are only getting $2,250. Essentially you are giving up $750 of free money in this case.\"\" You set your contribution to Roth 401k as a function of the gross, 80,000. You choose 5% and contribute 4000 Your employer matches 4000. At the end of the year, your taxable income to the IRS is 80000, and you pay 30% or 24000. You have 80K-4K-24K to live on, or 52K If you chose the alternate regular 401k,then you contribute 4K, your income to the IRS is (80-4=) 76k, and you pay 30%, 22.8K in tax. You have 80-4-22.8 or 53.2K to live on. Or, to come at it the other way, you have 4000*30% =1200 extra tax reduction in your income this year. If the extra income in 401k versus extra current year tax in Roth IRA means you have to reduce less, like 2800K to the roth so you maintain a 53.2K lifestyle, then yes, the Roth IRA match is reduced. If you have the cash flow to prepay the current year tax and maximum-match contribution, you will get the full match based on your gross income.\"",
"qid": 10975,
"docid": "379911",
"rank": 28,
"score": 128065
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Whether you contribute to an IRA (Traditional or Roth) and whether you contribute to a 401k (Traditional or Roth) are independent. IRAs have one contribution limit, and 401ks have another contribution limits, and these limits are independent. I see no reason why you wouldn't maximize the amount of money in tax-advantaged accounts, if you can afford to. In your first year of work, especially if you only work for part of the year, you're likely in a lower tax bracket than in the future, so Roth is better than Traditional. Another thing to note is that the money in the Roth IRA can be part of your \"\"safety net\"\" -- contributions to a Roth IRA (but not earnings) can be withdrawn at any time without tax or penalty. So if there is an emergency you can withdraw it, and it wouldn't be any worse than in a taxable account. And if you don't need it, then it will enjoy the tax benefits of being in the IRA.\"",
"qid": 10975,
"docid": "492971",
"rank": 29,
"score": 127991
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Roth and 401k are first because with the Roth you have tax free withdrawals (awesome!) and with the 401k you have tax free contributions (awesome!) as well as potential employer matching. Traditional IRAs would be the final thing I would contribute to after both of those. And in your case, unless you make around 150k, you aren't maxing your 401k; so I'd do that first.",
"qid": 10975,
"docid": "552031",
"rank": 30,
"score": 127982
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Just the amount contributed to the Roth 401k that you rolled over, not the conversions from regular 401k/traditional IRA (for those there are holding period limitation of 5 year from conversion), the earning on it or the employer's match (neither of these can be withdrawn without penalty as a non-qualified withdrawal). However, I'd suggest not to withdraw from Roth IRA unless you're sleeping on a bench in a park and beg strangers for a piece of bread. This is the best retirement investment you can make while you're in the lower tax brackets, and withdrawing it would reduce dramatically your tax-free retirement income.",
"qid": 10975,
"docid": "469311",
"rank": 31,
"score": 127971
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The general advise is to contribute to the 401K up to the match limit. Then put money into a Roth IRA. Then put the rest into the 401K above the match. Yes you can have an IRA and a 401K. You can even have Roth and non-Roth versions. You do have to watch the limits, and exclusions, but there is nothing stopping you from contributing to multiple types in one year. Over a long career you may find your self with all the possible types of accounts. When you re-qualify for the company 401K, there is no need to roll over the IRA money into the 401K. Just keep the IRA.",
"qid": 10975,
"docid": "547218",
"rank": 32,
"score": 127907
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"It's going to be quite a challenge to give a definitive answer to any \"\"Why\"\" question about law, and especially so for a question about tax law. One would need to try to dig up statements made by the legislators (and/or their aides) crafting and debating the law. As it is, tax law is already inconsistent in many ways. (Why are there people who can't contribute to a Roth IRA directly but can contribute to a Traditional and then immediately convert it to Roth? Why are maximum limits for 401(k) plans and IRAs separate rather than being one combined \"\"retirement\"\" savings maximum?) In the absence of some specific legislative statements saying that it was set up this way for some specific purpose, one must assume that it was written with the some goals as all tax law: As a compromise between various ideas, trying to accomplish some specific purpose. Feel free to add in some level of inefficiency and it being hard to completely understand the entirely of the tax law, which leads to things perhaps not being as \"\"tidy\"\" as one might hope for. But there's no reason to think that the people crafting the tax advantages for HSA plans had any reason to use 401(k) plans as a template, or wanted them to accomplish the same goals.\"",
"qid": 10975,
"docid": "233794",
"rank": 33,
"score": 127543
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I'm in a similar situation as I have a consulting business in addition to my regular IT job. I called the company who has my IRA to ask about setting up the Individual 401k and also mentioned that I contribute to my employer's 401k plan. The rep was glad I brought this up because he said the IRS has a limit on how much you can contribute to BOTH plans. For me it would be $24K max (myAge >= 50; If you are younger than 50, then the limit might be lower). He said the IRS penalties can be steep if you exceed the limit. I don't know if this is an issue for you, but it's something you need to consider. Be sure to ask your brokerage firm before you start the process.",
"qid": 10975,
"docid": "101490",
"rank": 34,
"score": 127110
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Some 401k plans allow you to make \"\"supplemental post-tax contributions\"\". basically, once you hit the pre-tax contribution limit (17.5k$ in 2014), you are then allowed to contribute funds on a post-tax basis. Because of this timing, they are sometimes called \"\"spillover\"\" contributions. Usually, this option is advertised as a way of continuing to get company match even if you accidentally hit the pre-tax limit. But if you actually pay attention to your finances, it is instead a handy way to put away additional tax-advantaged money. That said, you would only want to use this option if you already maxed out your pre-tax and Roth options since you don't get the traditional tax break on contributions or the Roth tax break on the earnings. However, when you leave the company, you can transfer the post-tax money directly into a Roth IRA when you transfer the pre-tax money, match, and earnings into a traditional IRA.\"",
"qid": 10975,
"docid": "120394",
"rank": 35,
"score": 126435
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: These are plans similar to 401k plans. 457(b) plans available for certain government and non-profit organizations, 403(b) available for certain educational, hospital, religious and non-profit organizations. Your school apparently fits into both classes, so it has both. These plans don't have to allow ROTH contributions, but they may, so you have to check if there's an option. The main (but not only) difference from IRA is the limit: for 401(k), 403(b) and 457(b) plans the contribution limit is $17500, while for IRA its $5500 (for 2013). Additional benefit of 457(b) plan is that there's no 10% penalty on early withdrawal, just taxes (at ordinal rates).",
"qid": 10975,
"docid": "316651",
"rank": 36,
"score": 126289
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I'm of the opinion that it doesn't matter much unless something in your life changes in retirement. And since many retirement planners assume a default income target of 80 percent of pre-retirement income, I figure many people's tax bracket isn't moving much. The most interesting reason I know to Go Roth in a 401k is limits. You can only contribute like $17k, whether Roth or not. In a traditional contribution, some of the 17k you put in goes to taxes when taken out, but in a Roth contribution you pay taxes up front. So if you have more than $17k to invest, Roth lets you sneak some more into the system.",
"qid": 10975,
"docid": "586909",
"rank": 37,
"score": 125917
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: It sounds like you're comparing (1) the backdoor Roth IRA and (2) the mega backdoor Roth. Although the names are similar they are considerably different, and not mutually exclusive. The goal of the backdoor Roth IRA is to contribute to a Roth IRA even if you are over the income limits. This is accomplished by contributing to a non-deductible Traditional IRA and then converting to Roth. Both of these steps have no income limit (unlike a direct Roth IRA contribution, which does), and only the earnings (which should be minimal) will be taxed. More info here (mirror). The goal of the mega backdoor Roth is to get a lot of money into Roth accounts through salary deferral. This is accomplished by making non-Roth after-tax contributions to your 401(k) after exhausting the $18,000 limit (in 2017) for pre-tax + Roth employee contributions. The after-tax contributions (potentially up to $36,000 for 2017) can be rolled over to the Roth 401(k) or to a Roth IRA, while the earnings can be rolled over to the pre-tax 401(k) or a Traditional IRA, or taxed like regular income and converted to Roth along with the contributions. More info here (mirror).",
"qid": 10975,
"docid": "222836",
"rank": 38,
"score": 125857
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Your math is correct. As you point out, because of the commutative property of multiplication, Roth and traditional IRAs offer the same terminal wealth if your tax rate is the same when you pull it out as when you put it in. Roth does lock in your tax rate as of today as you point out, which is why it frequently does not maximize wealth (most of us have a higher tax bracket when we are saving than when we are withdrawing from savings). There are a few other potential considerations/advantages of a Roth: Roth and traditional IRAs have the same maximum contribution amount. This means the effective amount you can contribute to a Roth is higher ($5,500 after tax instead of before). If this constraint is binding for you and you don't expect your tax rate to change, Roth is better. Roth IRAs allow you to withdraw your contributed money (not the gains) at any time without any tax or penalty whatsoever. This can be an advantage to some who would like to use it for something like a down payment instead of keeping it all the way to retirement. In this sense the Roth is more flexible. As your income becomes high, the deductibility of traditional IRA contributions goes to zero if you have a 401(k) at work (you can still contribute but can't deduct contributions). At high incomes you also may be disallowed from contributing to a Roth, but because of the backdoor Roth loophole you can make Roth contributions at any income level and preserve the full Roth tax advantage. Which type of account is better for any given person is a complex problem with several unknowns (like future tax rates). However, because tax rates are generally higher when earning money, for most people who can contribute to them, traditional IRAs maximize your tax savings and therefore wealth. Edit: Note that traditional IRA contributions also reduce your AGI, which is used to compute eligibility for other tax advantages, like the child care tax credit and earned income credit. AGI is also often used for state income tax calculation. In retirement, traditional IRA distributions may or may not be state taxable, depending on your state and circumstances.",
"qid": 10975,
"docid": "53996",
"rank": 39,
"score": 125749
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: As far as I know, there is no direct equivalent. An IRA is subject to many rules. Not only are there early withdrawal penalties, but the ability to deduct contributions to an IRA phases out with one's income level. Qualified withdrawals from an IRA won't have penalties, but they will be taxed as income. Contributions to a Roth IRA can be made post-tax and the resulting gains will be tax free, but they cannot be withdrawn early. Another tax-deductable investment is a 529 plan. These can be withdrawn from at any time, but there is a penalty if the money is not used for educational purposes. A 401K or similar employer-sponsored fund is made with pre-tax dollars unless it is designated as a Roth 401K. These plans also require money to be withdrawn specifically for retirement, with a 10% penalty for early withdrawal. Qualifying withdrawals from a regular retirement plan are taxed as income, those from a Roth plan are not (as with an IRA). Money can be made harder to get at by investing in all of the types of funds you can invest in using an IRA through the same brokers under a different type of account, but the contribution will be made with post-tax, non-deductable dollars and the gains will be taxed.",
"qid": 10975,
"docid": "545184",
"rank": 40,
"score": 125626
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Employer matches (even for Roth 401Ks) are put into traditional 401K accounts and are treated as pre-tax income. Traditional 401K plans are tax deferred accounts, meaning you won't owe any taxes on it this year, but will have to pay taxes on it when you take the money out (likely after retirement). 401K contributions (including the match) are reported to the IRS and are entered in box 12 on the W2 form.",
"qid": 10975,
"docid": "221938",
"rank": 41,
"score": 125463
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: To answer your question: As far as what's available in addition to your 401(k) at work (most financial types will say to contribute up to the match first), you may qualify for a Roth IRA (qualification is based on income), if not, then you may have to go with a Traditional IRA. You and your husband can each have one and contribute up to the limit each year. After that, you could get just a straight up mutual fund, and/or contribute up to limit on your 401(k). My two cents: This may sound counter-intuitive (and I'm sure some folks will disagree), but instead of contributing to your 401(k) now, take whatever that amount is, and use it to pay extra on the car loan. Also take the extra being paid on the mortgage and pay it on the car loan too. Once the car loan is paid off, then set aside 15% of your gross income and use that amount to start your retirement investing. Any additional money beyond this can then go into the mortgage. Once it's paid off, then you can take the extra you were paying, plus the mortgage and invest that amount into mutual funds. You may want to check out Chris Hogan's Retire Inspired book or podcast as well.",
"qid": 10975,
"docid": "499606",
"rank": 42,
"score": 125351
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Yours two funds are redundant. Both are designed to have a mix of bonds and stocks and allow you to put all your money in them. Pick the one that has the lowest fees and stick with that (I didn't look at the funds you didn't select...they didn't look great either). Although all your funds have high fees, some are higher than others, so don't ignore fees. When you have decided on your portfolio weights, prioritize your money thus: Contribute enough to your 401(k) to get the full match from your employer Put everything else toward paying off that credit card until you have 0 balance. It's ok to use the card, but let it be little enough that you pay your statement balance off each month so you pay no interest. Then set aside some savings and invest any retirement money into a Roth IRA. At your income level your taxes are low so Roth is better than traditional IRA or 401(k). If you max out your Roth, put any other retirement savings in your 401(k).",
"qid": 10975,
"docid": "124042",
"rank": 43,
"score": 125108
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you were looking to maximize your ability to save in a qualified plan, why not setup a 401K plan in Company A and keep the SEP in B? Setup the 401K in A such that any employee can contribute 100% of their salary. Then take a salary for around 19K/year (assuming under age 50), so you can contribute and have enough to cover SS taxes. Then continue to move dividends to Company A, and continue the SEP in B. This way if you are below age 50, you can contribute 54K (SEP limit) + 18K (IRA limit) + 5500 (ROTH income dependent) to a qualified plan.",
"qid": 10975,
"docid": "363591",
"rank": 44,
"score": 124565
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: No. Even if you don't need the additional salary income now, you might be able to contribute the incremental amount over the Roth max to either of the other two types of IRAs, or maybe even something else. You never want to take a lower salary, especially not in exchange for something that is conditional e.g. benefits. Your salary is the only thing that is guaranteed as a condition of employment. Other things can be changed by the employer at a future point in time. If you have two different job offers and the salaries are different, that is a separate scenario. You should make the decision based on overall comparison, not just using Roth limit contribution criteria.",
"qid": 10975,
"docid": "292230",
"rank": 45,
"score": 124459
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Your contribution limit to a 401(k) is $18,000. Your employer is allowed to contribute to your 401(k), usually a \"\"matching contribution\"\". That matching contribution comes from your employer, so is not subject to your personal contribution limit. A contribution to a regular 401(k) is typically made with pre-tax money (i.e. you don't pay payroll taxes on the money you contribute) so you pay less taxes for the current tax year. However when you retire and you take money out, you pay taxes on the money you take out. On one hand, your tax rate may be lower when you have retired, but on the other hand, if your investments have appreciated over time, the total amount of tax you pay would be higher. If your company offers a Roth 401(k) plan, you can contribute $18,000 of after tax money. This way you pay the tax on the $18,000 today, as you would if you did not put the money in the 401(k), but when you take the money out at retirement, you would not have to pay tax. In my opinion, that serves as a way to pay effectively more money into your 401(k). Some firms put vesting provisions on the amount that they match in your 401(k), e.g. 4 years at 25% per year. So you have to work 1 full year to be entitled to 25% of their matching contribution, 2 years for 50%, and 4 years to receive all of it. Check your company's Summary Plan Description of the 401(k) to be sure. You are not allowed to invest pre-tax money into a Traditional IRA if you are already contributing to a 401(k) plan and have reached the income limits ($62,000 AGI for single head of household). You are allowed to contribute post-tax money to a Traditional IRA plan if you have already contributed to a 401(k), which you can then Roll-over into a Roth IRA (look up 'backdoor IRA'). The IRA contribution limit applies to all IRA accounts over that calendar year. You could put some money in a traditional IRA, a Roth IRA, another traditional IRA, etc. so long as the total amount is not more than the contribution limit. This gives you an upper limit of 5.5k + 18k = 23.5 investments in retirement accounts. Note however, once you reach age 50, these limits increase to 6.5k (IRA) + 24k (401(k)). They also are adjusted periodically with the rate of inflation. The following approach may be more efficient for building wealth: This ordering is the subject of debate and people have different opinions. There is a separate discussion of these priorities here: Best way to start investing, for a young person just starting their career? Note however, a 401(k) loan becomes payable if you leave your company, and if not repaid, is an unauthorised distribution from your 401k (and therefore subject to an additional 10% tax penalty). You should also be careful putting money into an IRA, as you will be subject to an additional 10% tax penalty if you take out the money (distribution) before retirement, unless one of the exceptions defined by the IRA applies (e.g. $10,000 for first time home purchase), which could wipe out more than any gains you made by putting it in there in the first place. Your specific circumstances may vary, so this approach may not be best for you. A registered financial advisor may be able to help - ensure they are legitimate: https://adviserinfo.sec.gov\"",
"qid": 10975,
"docid": "38532",
"rank": 46,
"score": 124304
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"If it was me, I would drop out. You can achieve a better kind of plan when there is no match. For example Fidelity has no fee accounts for IRAs and Roths with thousands of investment choices. You can also setup automatic drafts, so it simulates what happens with your 401K. Not an employee of Fidelity, just a happy customer. Some companies pass the 401K fees onto their employees, and all have limited investment choices. The only caveat is income. There are limits to the deductibility of IRAs and Roth contributions if you make \"\"too much\"\" money. For Roth's the income is quite high so most people can still make those contributions. About 90% of households earn less than $184K, when Roths start phasing out. Now about this 401K company, it looks like the labor department has jurisdiction over these kinds of plans and I would research on how to make a complaint. It would help if you and other employees have proof of the shenanigans. You might also consult a labor attourney, this might make a great class.\"",
"qid": 10975,
"docid": "72160",
"rank": 47,
"score": 124230
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: A good general rule is to save 15% of your income for retirement. As for where you put it: Put as much as it takes to maximize your employer match into your 401(k), but no more. The employer match is free money, and you can't beat free money If you still haven't put in 15%, put the rest into a Roth IRA. By historical standards, taxes are pretty low today. They are almost certainly going to be higher in retirement, especially since you likely won't have the deductions in retirement that you may have now (kids, mortgage, etc). If you've maxed our the allowed contribution for your Roth and still haven't saved 15%, put the rest in a traditional IRA.",
"qid": 10975,
"docid": "169232",
"rank": 48,
"score": 124156
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you want to 'offset' current (2016) income, only deductible contribution to a traditional IRA does that. You can make nondeductible contributions to a trad IRA, and there are cases where that makes sense for the future and cases where it doesn't, but it doesn't give you a deduction now. Similarly a Roth IRA has possible advantages and disadvantages, but it does not have a deduction now. Currently he maximum is $5500 per person ($6500 if over age 50, but you aren't) which with two accounts (barely) covers your $10k. To be eligible to make this deductible traditional contribution, you must have earned income (employment or self-employment, but NOT the distribution from another IRA) at least the amount you want to contribute NOT have combined income (specifically MAGI, Modified Adjusted Gross Income) exceeding the phaseout limit (starts at $96,000 for married-joint) IF you were covered during the year (either you or your spouse) by an employer retirement plan (look at box 13 on your W-2's). With whom. Pretty much any bank, brokerage, or mutual fund family can handle IRAs. (To be technical, the bank's holding company will have an investment arm -- to you it will usually look like one operation with one name and logo, one office, one customer service department, one website etc, but the investment part must be legally separate from the insured banking part so you may notice a different name on your legal and tax forms.) If you are satisified with the custodian of the inherited IRA you already have, you might just stay with them -- they may not need as much paperwork, you don't need to meet and get comfortable with new people, you don't need to learn a new website. But if they sold you an annuity at your age -- as opposed to you inheriting an already annuitized IRA -- I'd want a lot of details before trusting they are acting in your best interests; most annuities sold to IRA holders are poor deals. In what. Since you want only moderate risk at least to start, and also since you are starting with a relatively small amount where minimum investments, expenses and fees can make more of an impact on your results, I would go with one or a few broad (= lower risk) index (= lower cost) fund(s). Every major fund familly also offers at least a few 'balanced' funds which give you a mixture of stocks and bonds, and sometimes some 'alternatives', in one fund. Remember this is not committing you forever; any reasonable custodian will allow you to move or spread to more-adventurous (but not wild and crazy) investments, which may be better for you in future years when you have some more money in the account and some more time to ponder your goals and options and comfort level.",
"qid": 10975,
"docid": "111350",
"rank": 49,
"score": 123990
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: HSAs are very similar to IRAs. Any investment returns grow tax-deferred and once you reach age 59 1/2 65, you can withdraw the funds for any purpose (subject to ordinary income tax), just like a traditional IRA. If you can afford to do so, I would recommend you to pay medical expenses out-of-pocket and let the funds in your HSA accumulate and grow. In general, the best way to allocate your funds is in the following order: Contribute to a 401(k) if your employer matches funds at a substantial rate Pay off high-interest debt (8% of more in current environment in 2011) Contribute to an IRA (traditional or Roth) Contribute to an HSA Contribute to a 401(k) without the benefit of employer matching One advantage of HSAs versus IRAs is that you don't have to have earned income (salary or self-employment income) in order to contribute. If you derive income solely from rents, interest or dividends, you can contribute the maximum amount ($3,050 for individuals in 2011) and get a full deduction from your income (Of course, you will need to maintain a high-deductible health plan in order to qualify). One downside of HSAs is the lack of competitively priced providers. Wells Fargo offers HSAs for free, but only allows you to keep your funds in cash, earning a very measly interest rate, or invest them in rather mediocre and expensive Wells Fargo mutual funds. Vanguard, known for its low-fee investment options, provides HSAs through a partner company, but the account maintenance charges are still quite high. Overall, HSAs are a worthwhile option as part of your investment plan.",
"qid": 10975,
"docid": "402523",
"rank": 50,
"score": 123979
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Are you obligated to do what they ask? Probably not, with one big caveat discussed below. Your employer sent your money and their money after every paycheck to the 401K management company. Then after a while the 401K management company followed your instructions to roll it over into an IRA. Now the IRA management company has it. Pulling it out of the IRA would be very hard, and the IRA company would be required to report it to the IRS as a withdraw. Here is the caveat. If the extra funds you put in allowed you to exceed the annual contribution amount set by the law, or if it allowed you to put more than 100% of your income into the fund, then this would be an excess contribution, and you and your employer would have to resolve or face the excess contribution penalties. Though if the 401K company and HR allowed you to exceed the annual limit they have a much more complex problem with their payroll system. The bigger concern is why they want you to pull out your $27.50 and their $27.50. Unless you were hitting the maximum limit, your $27.50 could have been invested by adjusting the percentage taken out of each check. You could have picked a percentage to reach a goal. That money is yours because you contributed it and unless you exceed the IRS set limits it is still pre-tax retirement money. The return of matching funds may be harder to calculate. The returns for 2013 were very good. Each $1.06 of matching funds each paycheck purchased a fraction of some investment. That investment went up and down, ok mostly up, if it was invested in the broad market. I guess you should be glad they aren't asking for more due to the increase in value. It would be very hard to calculate what happened if you have moved it around since then. Which of course you did when you moved it into an IRA. If the average employee was also given a $55 gift last year, then the suggestion to the employer is that the tax complexity you and your fellow employees face would exceed the cost of the extra funds. They should chalk it up to an expensive lesson and move on.",
"qid": 10975,
"docid": "140349",
"rank": 51,
"score": 123802
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You are in the perfect window for making an IRA contribution. The IRS allows you to make IRA contributions for last year until tax day. So you know that for 2014 you didn't have access to a 401K at work. You want to avoid making a deductible IRA contribution for this year (2015) until you are sure that you wont have a 401K at work this year. Take your time and decide if the detectible IRA or the Roth works best for your situation. Having a IRA now will be good becasue you have many years for it to grow. Keep in mind that it is not unusual to have multiple retirement accounts: Current 401K; rolled over into a IRA; Roth IRA... Each has different rules, limits, and benefits. There is no reason to pick one way of investing for retirement becasue you never know if the next employer will have the type of plan you like. I am assuming that your spouse, if you are married, doesn't have access to a 401K; otherwise you would have to consider the applicable limits.",
"qid": 10975,
"docid": "332113",
"rank": 52,
"score": 123423
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Traditional and Roth 401k share a contribution limit of $16.5k. This means you could actually contribute to both if you wished to (say, if you weren't 100% on how taxes will change come retirement time), but the combined contributions for the year cannot exceed that limit.",
"qid": 10975,
"docid": "569651",
"rank": 53,
"score": 123373
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: From your updated information, it seems like you are not eligible to deduct a Traditional IRA contribution, at your income since you are covered by a 401(k) at work. Therefore, contributing to a Roth IRA is the only real option in terms of IRAs. However, if you want to have some pre-tax contributions, you can change some or all of your Roth 401(k) to Traditional 401(k).",
"qid": 10975,
"docid": "261369",
"rank": 54,
"score": 123093
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You can invest another $5,500 in your Roth IRA each year, so you can invest up to $11,000 between the two tax years. Additionally you can make investments for the previous year up until 15 April the following year. In your case that will be close to graduation time, and you may decide to max out the contribution for 2014, but wait until you are settled into a new job before setting those savings aside long-term. When you start your first job, there will likely also be an option to invest in a 401k. You can still have the advantages of a Roth, but you will be limited to the investments available in the plan. Most employers I've seen today still offer a low-cost index fund, but you may have to speak up at a company meeting to pressure them to include one of those options in the plan. With a 401k your limit increases to $17,500/year. Make sure that the index fund you invest in has the lowest possible expense ratio. I use VOO. Depending on trading fees, etc., you might pick something else.",
"qid": 10975,
"docid": "204992",
"rank": 55,
"score": 123015
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Luke, I'd like to point out some additional benefits of the Roth IRA accounts 1) Going Roth, you can effectively increase the amount of your contribution to your IRA account. In your example, you are assuming that your contribution to Roth IRA is in fact $ 85 ($100 less $ 15 tax paid). In reality, albeit more costly, Roth IRA allows you to contribute full $ 100 ($117.65 less $ 17.65 tax incurred.) Using this method you can in fact grow your tax-free funds to $ 1.006.27 over 30 years. The larger you effective tax rate is, the larger will be the difference between your maximum effective Traditional vs Roth IRA contribution will be. 2) Should you need to access your IRA funds in case of emergency (unqualified event of not buying your first home, nor paying for your college education), Roth IRA account contributions can be withdrawn without incurring the 10% penalty charge, that would be imposed on your unqualified Traditional IRA distribution. 3) As other contributors noted it's hard to believe that lower US tax rates would prevail. Chances are you will be contributing to Traditional 401k later throughout your work life. Having a Roth IRA account would afford you a tax diversification needed to hedge against possible tax rate hikes coming in the future. Considering the gloomy future of the Social Security funding, and ever-growing US national debt, can we really expect for there to not be any tax rate increases in the next 20-40 years?! By the way, as others pointed out your effective tax rate will always be lower than your marginal tax bracket.",
"qid": 10975,
"docid": "436884",
"rank": 56,
"score": 122679
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: My perspective is from the US. Many employers offer 401(k)s and you can always contribute to an IRA for either tax deferred or tax free investment growth. If you're company offers a 401(k) match you should always contribute the maximum amount they max or you're leaving money on the table. Companies can't always support pensions and it isn't the best idea to rely on one entirely for retirement unless your pension is from the federal government. Even states such as Illinois are going through extreme financial difficulties due to pension funding issues. It's only going to get worse and if you think pension benefit accrual isn't going to be cut eventually you'll have another thing coming. I'd be worried if I was a state employee in the middle of my career with no retirement savings outside of my pension. Ranting: Employees pushed hard for some pretty absurd commitments and public officials let the public down by giving in. It seems a little crazy to me that someone can work for the state until they're in their 50's and then earn 70% of their 6 figure salary for the rest of their life. Something needs to be done but I'd be surprised if anyone has the political will to make tough choices now before thee options get much much worse and these states are forced to make a decision.",
"qid": 10975,
"docid": "2103",
"rank": 57,
"score": 122186
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I know in the instance that if my MAGI exceeds a certain point, I can not contribute the maximum to the Roth IRA; a traditional IRA and subsequent backdoor is the way to go. My understanding is that if you ever want to do a backdoor Roth, you don't want deductible funds in a Traditional account, because you can't choose to convert only the taxable funds. From the bogleheads wiki: If you have any other (non-Roth) IRAs, the taxable portion of any conversion you make is prorated over all your IRAs; you cannot convert just the non-deductible amount. In order to benefit from the backdoor, you must either convert your other IRAs as well (which may not be a good idea, as you are usually in a high tax bracket if you need to use the backdoor), or else transfer your deductible IRA contributions to an employer plan such as a 401(k) (which may cost you if the 401(k) has poor investment options).",
"qid": 10975,
"docid": "123027",
"rank": 58,
"score": 122100
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The strength of your plan is that you have considered that if you contribute early the the 401K you might not get the match, so you do stretch it out for the entire year.. One benefit to putting money into the HSA early is that it will be available if you need it early in the year if you have a major medical emergency in the first quarter. If you need to pay a $4,000 deductible in January because of Appendicitis you would hate to have to use post tax money to pay the bill. Of course If you have had the HSA for several years then this might not be a problem. If you haven't maxed the Roth IRA for 2013, you could make contributions to the IRA up until April 15 2014 to count for the previous year. A risk with the HSA is if you leave your employer mid-year. You can keep the money, and use it for medical expenses, but if the new company doesn't have a an HSA/High Deductible plan you might have contributed too much. The 401K, HSA, and IRA are annual limits. So if you will switch companies you are responsible for not going over the limit.",
"qid": 10975,
"docid": "122061",
"rank": 59,
"score": 122070
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The limit on SEP IRA is 25%, not 20%. If you're self-employed (filing on Schedule C), then it's taken on net earning, which in your example would be 25% of $90,000. (https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/retirement-plans-for-self-employed-people) JoeTaxpayer is correct as regards the 401(k) limits. The elective deferrals are per person - That's a cap in sum across multiple plans and across both traditional and Roth if you have those. In general, it's actually across other retirement plan types too - See below. If you're self-employed and set-up a 401(k) for your own business, the elective deferral is still aggregated with any other 401(k) plans in which you participate that year, but you can still make the employer contribution on your own plan. This IRS page is current a pretty good one on this topic: https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/one-participant-401k-plans Key quotes that are relevant: The business owner wears two hats in a 401(k) plan: employee and employer. Contributions can be made to the plan in both capacities. The owner can contribute both: •Elective deferrals up to 100% of compensation (“earned income” in the case of a self-employed individual) up to the annual contribution limit: ◦$18,000 in 2015 and 2016, or $24,000 in 2015 and 2016 if age 50 or over; plus •Employer nonelective contributions up to: ◦25% of compensation as defined by the plan, or ◦for self-employed individuals, see discussion below It continues with this example: The amount you can defer (including pre-tax and Roth contributions) to all your plans (not including 457(b) plans) is $18,000 in 2015 and 2016. Although a plan's terms may place lower limits on contributions, the total amount allowed under the tax law doesn’t depend on how many plans you belong to or who sponsors those plans. EXAMPLE Ben, age 51, earned $50,000 in W-2 wages from his S Corporation in 2015. He deferred $18,000 in regular elective deferrals plus $6,000 in catch-up contributions to the 401(k) plan. His business contributed 25% of his compensation to the plan, $12,500. Total contributions to the plan for 2015 were $36,500. This is the maximum that can be contributed to the plan for Ben for 2015. A business owner who is also employed by a second company and participating in its 401(k) plan should bear in mind that his limits on elective deferrals are by person, not by plan. He must consider the limit for all elective deferrals he makes during a year. Notice in the example that Ben contributed more that than his elective limit in total (his was $24,000 in the example because he was old enough for the $6,000 catch-up in addition to the $18,000 that applies to everyone else). He did this by declaring an employer contribution of $12,500, which was limited by his compensation but not by any of his elective contributions. Beyond the 401(k), keep in mind that elective contributions are capped across different types of retirement plans as well, so if you have a SEP IRA and a solo 401(k), your total contributions across those plans are also capped. That's also mentioned in the example. Now to the extent that you're considering different types of plans, that's a whole question in itself - One that might be worth consulting a dedicated tax advisor. A few things to consider (not extensive list): As for payroll / self-employment tax: Looks like you will end up paying Medicare, including the new \"\"Additional Medicare\"\" tax that came with the ACA, but not SS: If you have wages, as well as self-employment earnings, the tax on your wages is paid first. But this rule only applies if your total earnings are more than $118,500. For example, if you will have $30,000 in wages and $40,000 in selfemployment income in 2016, you will pay the appropriate Social Security taxes on both your wages and business earnings. In 2016, however, if your wages are $78,000, and you have $40,700 in net earnings from a business, you don’t pay dual Social Security taxes on earnings more than $118,500. Your employer will withhold 7.65 percent in Social Security and Medicare taxes on your $78,000 in earnings. You must pay 15.3 percent in Social Security and Medicare taxes on your first $40,500 in self-employment earnings and 2.9 percent in Medicare tax on the remaining $200 in net earnings. https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10022.pdf Other good IRS resources:\"",
"qid": 10975,
"docid": "406561",
"rank": 60,
"score": 121967
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: According to the IRS, you can still put money in your IRA. Here (https://www.irs.gov/Retirement-Plans/Plan-Participant,-Employee/Retirement-Topics-IRA-Contribution-Limits) they say: Can I contribute to an IRA if I participate in a retirement plan at work? You can contribute to a traditional or Roth IRA whether or not you participate in another retirement plan through your employer or business. However, you might not be able to deduct all of your traditional IRA contributions if you or your spouse participates in another retirement plan at work. Roth IRA contributions might be limited if your income exceeds a certain level. In addition, in this link (https://www.irs.gov/Retirement-Plans/IRA-Deduction-Limits), the IRS says: Retirement plan at work: Your deduction may be limited if you (or your spouse, if you are married) are covered by a retirement plan at work and your income exceeds certain levels. The word 'covered' should clarify that - you are not covered anymore in that year, you just got a contribution in that year which was triggered by work done in a previous year. You cannot legally be covered in a plan at an employer where you did not work in that year.",
"qid": 10975,
"docid": "248536",
"rank": 61,
"score": 121052
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"typically, your employer will automatically stop making contributions once you hit the 18k$ limit. it is worth noting that employer contributions (e.g. \"\"matching\"\") do not count towards the 18k$ employee pre-tax contribution limit. however, if you have 2 employers during the year their combined payroll deductions might exceed the limit if you do not inform your later employer of the contributions you made at your former employer (or they ignore the info). in which case, you must request a refund of \"\"excess contributions\"\" from one of the plans (your choice). you must report the refund as taxable income on your taxes. if you do not make this request by the time you file your taxes, the tax man will reject your filing and \"\"adjust\"\" your return with more taxes and penalties. sometimes requesting a refund of excess contributions might cause your employer to remove \"\"matching\"\" funds, but i am not clear on the rules behind that. there are some 401k plans that allow \"\"supplemental after-tax contributions\"\" up to the combined employee/employer limit (53k$ in 2015 and 2016). it is a rare feature, and if your company offers it, you probably already know. however, generally it is governed by a separate contribution election that only take effect once you hit the employee pre-tax contribution limit (18k$ in 2015 and 2016). you could ask your hr department to be sure. 401k plans can be changed if there is enough employee demand for a rule change. especially in a small company, simply asking for them to allow dollar based contributions instead of percent based contributions can cause them to change the plan to allow it. similarly, you could request they allow \"\"supplemental after-tax contributions\"\", but that might be a harder change to get.\"",
"qid": 10975,
"docid": "427997",
"rank": 62,
"score": 121030
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"If I understand correctly, the Traditional IRA, if you have 401k with an employer already, has the following features: Actually, #1 and #2 are characteristics of Roth IRAs, not Traditional IRAs. Only #3 is a characteristic of a Traditional IRA. Whether you have a 401(k) with your employer or not makes absolutely no difference in how your IRAs are taxed for the vast majority of people. (The rules for IRAs are different if you have a very high income, though). You're allowed to have and contribute to both kinds of accounts. (In fact, I personally have both). Traditional IRAs are tax deferred (not tax-free as people sometimes mistakenly call them - they're very different), meaning that you don't have to pay taxes on the contributions or profits you make inside the account (e.g. from dividends, interest, profits from stock you sell, etc.). Rather, you pay taxes on any money you withdraw. For Roth IRAs, the contributions are taxed, but you never have to pay taxes on the money inside the account again. That means that any money you get over and above the contributions (e.g. through interest, trading profits, dividends, etc.) are genuinely tax-free. Also, if you leave any of the money to people, they don't have to pay any taxes, either. Important point: There are no tax-free retirement accounts in the U.S. The distinction between different kinds of IRAs basically boils down to \"\"pay now or pay later.\"\" Many people make expensive mistakes in their retirement strategy by not understanding that point. Please note that this applies equally to Traditional and Roth 401(k)s as well. You can have Roth 401(k)s and Traditional 401(k)s just like you can have Roth IRAs and Traditional IRAs. The same terminology and logic applies to both kinds of accounts. As far as I know, there aren't major differences tax-wise between them, with two exceptions - you're allowed to contribute more money to a 401(k) per year, and you're allowed to have a 401(k) even if you have a high income. (By way of contrast, people with very high incomes generally aren't allowed to open IRAs). A primary advantage of a Traditional IRA is that you can (in theory, at least) afford to contribute more money to it due to the tax break you're getting. Also, you can defer taxes on any profits you make (e.g. through dividends or selling stock at a profit), so you can grow your money faster.\"",
"qid": 10975,
"docid": "308150",
"rank": 63,
"score": 120710
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Yes, eligibility for contributing to a Roth IRA is determined by your Modified Adjusted Gross Income (MAGI) which is based on your Adjusted Gross Income (AGI). Now, AGI includes the net capital gains from your transactions and MAGI adds back in things that were subtracted off (e.g. tuition deductions, foreign earned income exclusion) in arriving at the AGI. There is a worksheet in Publication 590 that has the details. You are always entitled to contribute to a Traditional IRA. The MAGI affects how much of your contribution is tax-deductible on that year's tax return, but not your eligibility to contribute. Both the above paragraphs assume that you have enough compensation (wages, salary, self-employment income) to contribute to an IRA: the contribution limit is $5500 or total compensation, whichever is smaller. (If you earned only $2K as wages, you can contribute all of it; not just your take-home pay which is what is left after Social Security and Medicare taxes, Federal taxes etc have been withheld from that $2K). If your entire income is from capital gains and stock dividends, you cannot contribute to any kind of IRA at all.",
"qid": 10975,
"docid": "127622",
"rank": 64,
"score": 120510
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: There are a couple reasons for having a Traditional or Roth IRA in addition to a 401(k) program in general, starting with the Traditional IRA: With regards to the Roth IRA: Also, both the Traditional and Roth IRA allow you to make a $10,000 withdraw as a first time home buyer for the purposes of buying a home. This is much more difficult with the 401(k) and generally you end up having to take a loan against the 401(k) instead. So even if you can't take advantage of the tax deductions from contributions to a Traditional IRA, there are still good reasons to have one around. Unless you plan on staying with the same company for your entire career (and even if you do, they may have other plans) the Traditional IRA tends to be a much better place to park the funds from the 401(k) than just rolling them over to a new employer. Also, don't forget that just because you can't take deductions for the income doesn't mean that you might not need the income that savings now will bring you in retirement. If you use a retirement savings calculator is it saying that you need to be saving more than your current monthly 401(k) contributions? Then odds are pretty good that you also need to be adding additional savings and an IRA is a good location to put those assets because of the other benefits that they confer. Also, some people don't have the fiscal discipline to not use the money when it isn't hard to get to (i.e. regular savings or investment account) and as such it also helps to ensure you aren't going to go and spend the money unless you really need it.",
"qid": 10975,
"docid": "27495",
"rank": 65,
"score": 120408
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You can use a Roth IRA for retirement and you can still withdraw all of your contributions at any time. You can also withdraw $10,000 worth of the earnings in your Roth IRA for a first-time home purchase. You can also withdraw for unreimbursed medical expenses and qualified education expenses. Full details are available in IRS publication 590. There is a limit of $5,500 for contributions in 2016 ($6,500 if you're over 50) as long as your adjusted gross income is below a certain level. You can still make a contribution for the previous tax year until the filing deadline (usually April 15).",
"qid": 10975,
"docid": "122638",
"rank": 66,
"score": 120108
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: There is a process called a backdoor IRA. You now have effectively made a Roth IRA contribution in a year where technically you aren't eligible. You do not have to pay taxes on earnings with a Roth IRA. You are limited to the normal annual contribution to the IRA (Roth or traditional). If you don't convert your traditional IRA contribution to a Roth IRA, then you are right. That gains nothing except enhanced protection in bankruptcy. Only do this if you are taking advantage of the Roth rollover. I'm ignoring rolling over a 401k into an IRA, as that doesn't increase the amount you can contribute. This does. You can contribute the full $18,000 to the 401k and still make a full contribution to the backdoor IRA. This is the tax advantaged form of an IRA. This avoids double taxation. Let's assume that your investment can go into something with a 5% annual return and you pay a 25% tax rate (doesn't matter as it drops out). You are going to invest for thirty years and then withdraw. You initially have $1000 before taxes. With a regular investment: You now have $2867.74. With a pre-tax IRA. You now have $3241.45 (it is not an accident that this is almost the same as the amount before the capital gains tax in the example without an IRA). You avoided the $373.72 capital gains tax. Even though you paid a lot more tax, you paid it out of the gains from investing the original $250 that you would have paid in tax. This helps you even more if the capital gains tax goes up in the future. Or if your tax bracket changes. If you currently are in the 25% bracket but retire in the 15% bracket, these numbers will get even better in your favor. If you currently are in the 15% bracket and worry that you might retire in the 25% bracket, consider a Roth instead. It also avoids double taxation but its single taxation is at your current rate rather than your future rate.",
"qid": 10975,
"docid": "258658",
"rank": 67,
"score": 120008
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Your max contribution to your Roth IRA and your traditional IRA share the same cap, so if you are maxing your Roth IRA you cannot have a traditional one as well. I would put the additional into your 401k or perhaps a 529 if you have any kids.",
"qid": 10975,
"docid": "113881",
"rank": 68,
"score": 119608
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Didn't see it mentioned so far, but depending on modified AGI you may be prevented from a tax deduction for your contribution to a Traditional IRA if you or your spouse are offered a retirement plan at work, even if you don't participate in it. See the IRS page here for the details of deduction limitability: https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/2017-ira-deduction-limits-effect-of-modified-agi-on-deduction-if-you-are-covered-by-a-retirement-plan-at-work In my opinion, because I heavily favor all the benefits of the Roth, I'd contribute first to a Roth IRA and then to the Roth 401(k). The former first because it puts the money in a place where you have more control over fees and how it is invested. The latter because the contribution limits are much higher than the IRA, and the money grows tax-free and incurs no taxes on withdrawal.",
"qid": 10975,
"docid": "192857",
"rank": 69,
"score": 119452
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The benefit is that your earnings in the 401k are not subject to income tax until you make withdrawals. This allows you to grow your money faster than if you made equivalent investments in a taxable account and had to pay taxes on dividends and capital gains along the way. Also, the theory is that you will be in a lower tax bracket in retirement and thus you will pay lower taxes overall. If this is not true (especially if you will be in a higher tax bracket in retirement), then there may not be any advantage for you to contribute to a 401k. One advantage over the Traditional IRA is the higher contribution limit. Some 401k plans also allow you to take loans from the plan, I don't think this is possible with a Traditional IRA. An alternative to both the 401k and Traditional IRA is the Roth version of either plan. With a Roth, you pay taxes up front, but your withdrawals during retirement are tax free.",
"qid": 10975,
"docid": "406239",
"rank": 70,
"score": 119420
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The reason the article recommends a Roth 401k for those who have a long time until retirement is based on your salary, marginal tax rates, and effective tax rates and some assumptions. You want to contribute to Roth IRAs when your marginal tax rate now is better than your effective tax rate at the time of withdrawal. That is most likely to be true when your salary is smaller (for you) and your salary is most likely to be smaller (compared to your future salaries) when you have more years until retirement. The article is presenting a rule of thumb. It won't hold true for everyone in every situation.",
"qid": 10975,
"docid": "480815",
"rank": 71,
"score": 119110
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"1) Usually, the choice between Traditional vs. Roth is whether you believe that your tax rate will be higher or lower in the future than it is now. Your income is probably in the 25% bracket now. It's hard to say whether that should be considered \"\"high\"\" or \"\"low\"\". Some people advocate Roth only for 15% bracket; but your income would probably go into higher brackets in the future, so Roth may be preferable from this point of view. Roth IRA also has another advantage that the principal of contributions can be taken out at any time without tax or penalty, so it can serve as an emergency fund just as well as money in taxable accounts. Given that you may not have a lot of money saved up right now, this is useful. 2) In a sense, it's nice to have a mix of Traditional and Roth when you withdraw to hedge against uncertainty in future tax rates and have the option of choosing whichever one is advantageous to withdraw when you need to withdraw. That said, you will likely have many years of access to a 401k and high income in your future working years, in which you can contribute to a Traditional 401k (or if no access to 401k, then Traditional IRA), so a mix will almost certainly happen even if you go all Roth IRA now. 3) I think that depends on you, whether you are a hands-on or hands-off kind of investor.\"",
"qid": 10975,
"docid": "41417",
"rank": 72,
"score": 118803
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Your annual contributions are capped at the maximum of $5500 or your taxable income (wages, salary, tips, self employment income, alimony). You pay taxes by the regular calculations on Form 1040 on your earned income. In this scenario, you earn the income, pay taxes on the amount you earn, and put money in the Roth IRA. The alternative, a Traditional IRA, up to certain income levels, allows you to put the amount you contribute on line 32 of Form 1040, which subtracts the Traditional IRA contribution amount from your Adjusted Gross Income (line 37) before tax is calculated on line 44. In this scenario, you earn the income, put the money in the Traditional IRA, reduce your taxable income, and pay taxes on the reduced amount.",
"qid": 10975,
"docid": "549223",
"rank": 73,
"score": 118630
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You can contribute to a Traditional IRA instead of a Roth. The main difference is a contribution to a Roth is made with after tax money but at retirement you can withdraw the money tax free. With a Traditional IRA your contribution is tax-deductible but at retirement the withdrawal is not tax free. This is why most people prefer a Roth if they can contribute. You can also contribute to your work's 401k plan assuming they have one. And you can always save for retirement in a regular account.",
"qid": 10975,
"docid": "1219",
"rank": 74,
"score": 118546
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"To answer the first part of your question: yes, I've done that! I did even a bit more. I once had a job that I wasn't sure I'd keep and the economy wasn't great either. In case my next employer wouldn't let me contribute to a 401(k) from day one, and because I didn't want to underfund my retirement and be stuck with a higher tax bill - I \"\"front-loaded\"\" my 401(k) contributions to be maxed out before the end of the year. (The contribution limits were lower than $16,500/year back then :-)) As for the reduced cash flow - you need of course a \"\"buffer\"\" account containing several months worth of living expenses to afford maxing out or \"\"front-loading\"\" 401(k) contributions. You should be paying your bills out of such buffer account and not out of each paycheck. As for the reduced cash flow - I think large-scale 401(k)/IRA contributions can crowd out other long-term saving priorities such as saving for a house down payment and the trade-off between them is a real concern. (If they're crowding out basic and discretionary consumer expenses, that's a totally different kind of problem, which you don't seem to have, which is great :-)) So about the trade-off between large-scale 401(k) contributions and saving for the down payment. I'd say maxing out 401(k) can foster the savings culture that will eventually pay its dividends. If, after several years of maxing out your 401(k) you decide that saving for the house is the top priority, you'll see money flow to the money-market account marked for the down payment at a substantial monthly rate, thanks to that savings culture. As for the increasing future earnings - no. Most people I've known for a long time, if they saved 20% when they made $20K/year, they continued to save 20% or more when they later made $100K/year. People who spent the entire paycheck while making $50K/year, always say, if only I got a raise to $60K/year, I'd save a few thousand. But they eventually graduate to $100K/year and still spend the entire paycheck. It's all about your savings culture. On the second part of your question - yes, Roth is a great tool, especially if you believe that the future tax rates will be higher (to fix the long-term budget deficits). So, contributing to 401(k) to maximize the match, then max out Roth, as others suggested, is a great advice. After you've done that, see what else you can do: more 401(k), saving for the house, etc.\"",
"qid": 10975,
"docid": "3104",
"rank": 75,
"score": 117984
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The IRA contribution limit is a limit on the total amount you can contribute to all of your Roth and traditional IRAs. It's not a per-account limit. (See here and here.) Once you've hit the contribution limit on one account, you've hit it on all of them. Even so, supposing you had a reason with try to take money out of one of the accounts, the answer to your question is \"\"sort of\"\". The limit is a limit on your gross contributions, not your net contributions. It is possible to withdraw Roth contributions if you do so before the tax filing deadline for that year, but you must also withdraw (and pay taxes on) any earnings accured during the time the money was in the Roth (see here). In addition, doing this may not be as simple as just taking the money out of your account; you should probably ask your bank about it and let them know you're \"\"undoing\"\" the contribution, since they may otherwise still record the amount as a real contribution and the withdrawal as unqualified early withdrawal (subject to penalties, etc.).\"",
"qid": 10975,
"docid": "452870",
"rank": 76,
"score": 117948
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The money you invested in your Roth was taxed as income when you filed your income tax. A Roth contribution is \"\"post-tax\"\" as opposed to a standard IRA or 401k contribution which are \"\"pre-tax\"\". Pre-tax contributions lower your taxable income for the year. In example, you had income of $100,000 and made a standard IRA contribution of $5000. Your taxable income would be $95,000. In the case of a Roth contribution, the same $5000 investment would not reduce your taxable income for the year.\"",
"qid": 10975,
"docid": "86887",
"rank": 77,
"score": 117632
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: (Note: The OP does not state whether the employer-sponsored retirement savings are pre-tax or post-tax (such as a Roth 401(k)). The following answer assumes the more common case of a pre-tax plan.) This is a bad idea, IMHO. IRS Pub 970 lists exceptions to the 10% early withdrawal penalty for educational expenses. This doesn't include, as far as I can tell, student loan payments. So withdrawing from your retirement account would incur both income tax and penalties. Even if there were an exception, you'd still have to pay income taxes, which, depending on the amount and your income, could be at a higher marginal rate than you are currently paying. If you really want the debt gone as soon as possible, why not reduce the amount you contribute to the retirement plan (but not below the amount that gets you the maximum employer match) and use that money to increase your monthly payments to the student loan? Note that, if you do this, you will pay taxes on income that would have been tax-deferred in order to save money on interest, so there's still a trade-off. (One more thing: rather than rolling over to your new company's plan, you could roll over to a self-directed Traditional IRA.)",
"qid": 10975,
"docid": "55954",
"rank": 78,
"score": 117576
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Couple of factors here to consider: 1) The savings vehicle 2) The investments Savings Vehicle: Roth IRAs allow you the flexibility to save for retirement and/or your house. Each person can save up to $5,500 in a Roth and you can withdraw your principal at anytime without penalty. (There is a special clause for first time home buyers; however, it limits the amount to $10k per person. Given your estimate of $750k and history of putting down 20%. It would require a bit more.) The only thing is that you can't touch the growth or interest. When you do max out your Roth IRA, it may make sense for you to open a brokerage account (401Ks often have multiple steps in order to convert or withdraw money for your down payment) Investments: Given your timeline (5-7 years) your investments would be more conservative. (More fixed income) While you should stay diversified (both fixed income and equity), the conservative portfolio will allow less fluctuation in your portfolio value while allowing some growth potential.",
"qid": 10975,
"docid": "232930",
"rank": 79,
"score": 117263
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You cannot roll over your 401k money in an employer's 401k plan into an IRA (of any kind) while you are still employed by that employer. The only way you can start on the conversion before you retire (as Craig W suggests) is to change employers and start rolling over money in the previous employer's 401k into your Roth IRA while possibly contributing to the 401k plan of your new employer. Since the amount rolled over is extra taxable income (that is, in addition to your wages from your new job), you may end up paying more tax (or at higher rates) than you expect.",
"qid": 10975,
"docid": "63532",
"rank": 80,
"score": 117014
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"If you're single, the only solution I'm aware of, assuming you are truly getting a 1099-misc and not a W-2 (and don't have a W-2 option available, like TAing), is to save in a nondeductible account for now. Then, when you later do have a job, use that nondeductible account (in part) to fund your retirement accounts. Particularly the first few years (if you're a \"\"young\"\" grad student in particular), you'll probably be low enough on the income side that you can fit this in - in particular if you've got a 401k or 403b plan at work; make your from-salary contributions there, and make deductible IRA or Roth IRA contributions from your in-school savings. If you're not single, or even if you are single but have a child, you have a few other options. Spouses who don't have earned income, but have a spouse who does, can set up a Spousal IRA. You can then, combined, save up to your spouse's total earned income (or the usual per-person maximums). So if you are married and your wife/husband works, you can essentially count his/her earned income towards your earned income. Second, if you have a child, consider setting up a 529 plan for them. You're probably going to want to do this anyway, right? You can even do this for a niece or nephew, if you're feeling generous.\"",
"qid": 10975,
"docid": "271266",
"rank": 81,
"score": 116995
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Put in the maximum you can into the 401(k), the limit should be $16,500 so long as the highly compensated rules don't kick in. Since you cannot deduct the traditional IRA, it's a great option to deposit to a traditional IRA and immediately convert that balance to a Roth account. That puts you at $21,500/yr saved, nearly 18%. There's nothing stopping you from investing outside these accounts. A nice ETF with low expenses, investing in a stock index (I am thinking SPY for the S&P 500) is great to accumulate long term.",
"qid": 10975,
"docid": "175679",
"rank": 82,
"score": 116994
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Back in the late 80's I had a co-worked do exactly this. In those days you could only do things quarterly: change the percentage, change the investment mix, make a withdrawal.. There were no Roth 401K accounts, but contributions could be pre-tax or post-tax. Long term employees were matched 100% up to 8%, newer employees were only matched 50% up to 8% (resulting in 4% match). Every quarter this employee put in 8%, and then pulled out the previous quarters contribution. The company match continued to grow. Was it smart? He still ended up with 8% going into the 401K. In those pre-Enron days the law allowed companies to limit the company match to 100% company stock which meant that employees retirement was at risk. Of course by the early 2000's the stock that was purchased for $6 a share was worth $80 a share... Now what about the IRS: Since I make designated Roth contributions from after-tax income, can I make tax-free withdrawals from my designated Roth account at any time? No, the same restrictions on withdrawals that apply to pre-tax elective contributions also apply to designated Roth contributions. If your plan permits distributions from accounts because of hardship, you may choose to receive a hardship distribution from your designated Roth account. The hardship distribution will consist of a pro-rata share of earnings and basis and the earnings portion will be included in gross income unless you have had the designated Roth account for 5 years and are either disabled or over age 59 ½. Regarding getting just contributions: What happens if I take a distribution from my designated Roth account before the end of the 5-taxable-year period? If you take a distribution from your designated Roth account before the end of the 5-taxable-year period, it is a nonqualified distribution. You must include the earnings portion of the nonqualified distribution in gross income. However, the basis (or contributions) portion of the nonqualified distribution is not included in gross income. The basis portion of the distribution is determined by multiplying the amount of the nonqualified distribution by the ratio of designated Roth contributions to the total designated Roth account balance. For example, if a nonqualified distribution of $5,000 is made from your designated Roth account when the account consists of $9,400 of designated Roth contributions and $600 of earnings, the distribution consists of $4,700 of designated Roth contributions (that are not includible in your gross income) and $300 of earnings (that are includible in your gross income). See Q&As regarding Rollovers of Designated Roth Contributions, for additional rules for rolling over both qualified and nonqualified distributions from designated Roth accounts.",
"qid": 10975,
"docid": "490497",
"rank": 83,
"score": 116988
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Your employer's matching contribution is calculated based on the dollar amounts you end up putting in. The nature of your 401(k) contribution—whether pre-tax or Roth after-tax—doesn't matter with respect to how their match gets calculated, and their match always goes into a pre-tax account, even if you are contributing after-tax. The onus is on you to choose a contribution amount that maximizes your employer match regardless of the nature of your contribution. Maximizing your employer match using Roth after-tax contributions will eat up more of your annual gross salary, but as long as you are willing to do that then you won't leave free employer match money on the table. Roth after-tax contributions don't get the tax deduction inherent in a pre-tax contribution. The tradeoff is that you end up with less take-home pay per period if you contribute the same number of dollars on a Roth after-tax basis to your 401(k) as opposed to on a pre-tax basis. For instance, to make a maximum $18,000 Roth after-tax contribution to a 401(k), it's going to cost you a lot more than $18,000 of your annual gross salary to net the same $18,000 number. (On the flip side, the Roth money is worth more in retirement than pre-tax money, because it won't be subject to taxes then.) However, 401(k) plan contribution amounts are almost always expressed as a percentage of gross salary, i.e. in pre-tax terms, even when electing to make after-tax contributions! So when electing after-tax, one is implicitly accepting that the contribution will cost more than the percentage of gross salary, because you'll need to pay the tax on a gross amount that would yield the same number of dollars but as an after-tax amount.",
"qid": 10975,
"docid": "463892",
"rank": 84,
"score": 116901
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The first question is essentially asking for specific investment advice which is off-topic per the FAQ, but I'll take a stab at #2 and #3 (2) If my 401k doesn't change before I leave my job (not planned in the near future), I should roll it over into my Roth IRA after I leave due to these high expense ratios, correct? My advice is that you should roll over a 401K into an IRA the first chance you get (usually when you leave the job). 401K plans are NOTORIOUS for high expense ratios and why leave your money in a plan where you have a limited choice of investments anyway versus a self-directed IRA where you can invest in anything you want? (3) Should I still max contribute with these horrible expense ratios? If they are providing a match, yes. Even with the expense ratios it is hard to beat the immediate return of an employer match. If they aren't matching, the answer is still probably yes for a few reasons: You already are maxing out your ability to contribute to sheltered accounts, so assuming you still want to sock away that money for retirement, the tax benefits are still valuable and probably offset the expense ratios. Although you seem to be an exception, it is hard for most people to be disciplined enough to put money in a retirement account after they have it in their hands (versus auto-deduction from paychecks).",
"qid": 10975,
"docid": "389202",
"rank": 85,
"score": 116788
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I would definitely recommend contributing to an IRA. You don't know for sure you'll get hired full-time and be eligible for the 401(k) with match, so you should save for retirement on your own. I would recommend Roth over Traditional IRA in your situation, because let's say you do get hired full-time. Since the company offers a retirement plan, your 2015 Traditional IRA contribution would no longer be deductible at your income level (assuming you're single), and non-deductible Traditional IRAs aren't a very good deal (see here and here). If there's a decent chance you would get hired, this factor would override the pre-tax versus post-tax debate for me. At your income level you could go either way on that anyway. A Solo 401(k) would be worth looking into if you wanted to increase your contribution limit beyond what IRAs offer, but given that it sounds like you're just starting out saving for retirement, and you may be eligible for a 401(k) soon, it's probably overkill at this point.",
"qid": 10975,
"docid": "520924",
"rank": 86,
"score": 116610
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: On the other hand, I'd be contributing less than with a traditional plan since it is taxed before being invested. You got it backwards. The effective limit is higher for a Roth 401k than a Traditional 401k. The nominal limit is the same -- $17000. But an amount of money in a Roth plan is equivalent to a greater amount of money in a Traditional plan, because money in a Traditional plan is pre-tax that will need to be taxed when taken out, resulting in less post-tax money. Conversely, for a Roth plan, that is post-tax money, which came from a greater amount of pre-tax money; and it won't be taxed again. So it is more money, tax-neutral comparison wise. Of course, since you say that you won't hit the limit, this consideration doesn't matter anyway.",
"qid": 10975,
"docid": "561939",
"rank": 87,
"score": 116530
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The plan is perfectly valid and legal as tax rules currently stand. There is no limit to the amount you can rollover or convert to Roth. Assuming your 401(k) is traditional pre-tax, you'll have to pay income taxes on the amount you convert above personal exemption + standard deduction, which is currently about $10k/year for single filers. The other caveat is you'll need funds to live off of while your conversion money is seasoning for 5 years in your Roth IRA. If you start the conversion while you are still working, you'll be paying taxes on it in your marginal bracket, which will negate much of the benefit of the pre-tax 401(k). If your living expenses are low, you can convert about $10k/year without federal income taxes, while living off capital gains from a taxable account which have a 0% rate in the 15% income tax bracket (goes up to about $37k/year).",
"qid": 10975,
"docid": "380047",
"rank": 88,
"score": 116478
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"if you have 401k with an employer already, has the following features: Your contributions are taxed That's only true if you're a high income earner. https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/2017-ira-deduction-limits-effect-of-modified-agi-on-deduction-if-you-are-covered-by-a-retirement-plan-at-work For example, married filing jointly allows full deduction up to $99,000 even if you have a 401(k). \"\"the timing is just different\"\" And that's a good thing, since if your retirement tax rate is less than your current tax rate, you'll pay less tax on that money.\"",
"qid": 10975,
"docid": "361509",
"rank": 89,
"score": 116424
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"If you have wage income that is reported on a W2 form, you can contribute the maximum of your wages, what you can afford, or $5500 in a Roth IRA. One advantage of this is that the nominal amounts you contribute can always be removed without tax consequences, so a Roth IRA can be a deep emergency fund (i.e., if the choice is $2000 in cash as emergency fund or $2000 in cash in a 2015 Roth IRA contribution, choice 2 gives you more flexibility and optimistic upside at the risk of not being able to draw on interest/gains until you retire or claim losses on your tax return). If you let April 15 2016 pass by without making a Roth IRA contribution, you lose the 2015 limit forever. If you are presently a student and partially employed, you are most likely in the lowest marginal tax rate you will be in for decades, which utilizes the Roth tax game effectively. If you're estimating \"\"a few hundred\"\", then what you pick as an investment is going to be less important than making the contributions. That is, you can pick any mutual fund that strikes your fancy and be prepared to gain or lose, call it $50/year (or pick a single stock and be prepared to lose it all). At some point, you need to understand your emotions around volatility, and the only tuition for this school is taking a loss and having the presence of mind to examine any panic responses you may have. No reason not to learn this on \"\"a few hundred\"\". While it's not ideal to have losses in a Roth, \"\"a few hundred\"\" is not consequential in the long run. If you're not prepared at this time in your life for the possibility of losing it all (or will need the money within a year or few, as your edit suggests), keep it in cash and try to reduce your expenses to contribute more. Can you contribute another $100? You will have more money at the end of the year than investment choice will likely return.\"",
"qid": 10975,
"docid": "149367",
"rank": 90,
"score": 116381
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"when you contribute to a 401k, you get to invest pre-tax money. that means part of it (e.g. 25%) is money you would otherwise have to pay in taxes (deferred money) and the rest (e.g. 75%) is money you could otherwise invest (base money). growth in the 401k is essentially tax free because the taxes on the growth of the base money are paid for by the growth in the deferred portion. that is of course assuming the same marginal tax rate both now and when you withdraw the money. if your marginal tax rate is lower in retirement than it is now, you would save even more money using a traditional 401k or ira. an alternative is to invest in a roth account (401k or ira). in which case the money goes in after tax and the growth is untaxed. this would be advantageous if you expect to have a higher marginal tax rate during retirement. moreover, it reduces tax risk, which could give you peace of mind considering u.s. marginal tax rates were over 90% in the 1940's. a roth could also be advantageous if you hit the contribution limits since the contributions are after-tax and therefore more valuable. lastly, contributions to a roth account can be withdrawn at any time tax and penalty free. however, the growth in a roth account is basically stuck there until you turn 60. unlike a traditional ira/401k where you can take early retirement with a SEPP plan. another alternative is to invest the money in a normal taxed account. the advantage of this approach is that the money is available to you whenever you need it rather than waiting until you retire. also, investment losses can be deducted from earned income (e.g. 15-25%), while gains can be taxed at the long term capital gains rate (e.g. 0-15%). the upshot being that even if you make money over the course of several years, you can actually realize negative taxes by taking gains and losses in different tax years. finally, when you decide to retire you might end up paying 0% taxes on your long term capital gains if your income is low enough (currently ~50k$/yr for a single person). the biggest limitation of this strategy is that losses are limited to 3k$ per year. also, this strategy works best when you invest in individual stocks rather than mutual funds, increasing volatility (aka risk). lastly, this makes filing your taxes more complicated since you need to report every purchase and sale and watch out for the \"\"wash sale\"\" rules. side note: you should contribute enough to get all the 401k matching your employer offers. even if you cash out the whole account when you want the money, the matching (typically 50%-200%) should exceed the 10% early withdrawal penalty.\"",
"qid": 10975,
"docid": "264023",
"rank": 91,
"score": 116345
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: While the other answers are good, I wanted to expand a little on why I feel a ROTH is a bad way to go unless you are young. First, let's pretend you have a 25% tax rate. And your investments will go up 5% per year for 10 years. You contribute 6% of income for one year. You can do a traditional or a roth 401k/IRA. Here's the math: Traditional: 6% of income invested. Grows at 5% for 10 years. Taxed at 25% on withdrawl. = (Income * 6%) * (1.05 ^ 10) * (100% - 25%) = (Income * 6%) * 1.63 * .75 = 7.33% of your original income - but this is after taxes ROTH: Taxes taken out of income. Then 6% of that goes into the fund(s). Still grows at 5% for 10 years. Not taxed at withdrawl. = (Income * (100% - 25%) * 6%) * (1.05 ^ 10) = (Income * 75% * 6%) * 1.63 = 7.33% of your original income - again this is after taxes. Look familiar? They are the same. It's the simple transitive property of mathematics. So why do a traditional vs. a ROTH? The reason is that your tax bracket changes. This changes because your income changes. Say when you retire you plan to have your home or vehicle paid for. You expect to be able to live on $50,000 per year. This means when you make MORE than $50,000 you should do a traditional plan and when you make less than this you should do a ROTH plan. Example: You make $100,000 and your upper bracket is now 30%. You save 30% by doing a traditional and then pay back 10, 20, and 30% as you withdraw a salary of $50,000. Traditional = better. Example: You make $30,000 annually. Your upper bracket is 20%. You pay 20% on a roth. Then you withdraw funds to get to $50,000 anually and never pay the higher bracket. Roth = better. ROTH advocates typically bring up tax rates. Of course they will go up they insist. So you always should do a ROTH. Not so fast. Taxes have gone down in recent years (No one please start a political debate with me. Some went up, some went down, but overall, federal income rates dropped). Even if taxes rose 5%, a traditional will still be better than a ROTH in many cases.",
"qid": 10975,
"docid": "387030",
"rank": 92,
"score": 116299
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Does your employer offer a 401(k) match? If so, contribute enough to maximize that--it's free money. After that, contribute to an IRA where you can invest in funds with low expenses. After you max that out, if you still have money left over, max out your 401(k) despite the high expenses for the tax advantages. Remember when you leave the company you can roll over the balance into an IRA and switch to lower-cost investments. Of course this is general advice without knowing your situation. If you're looking to buy a home soon, for example, you might want to keep extra money in a taxable account for a downpayment rather than maxing out your 401(k).",
"qid": 10975,
"docid": "140917",
"rank": 93,
"score": 116298
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: This answer assumes that your purpose for using the ESPP is to generate a relatively safe 15% return on that portion of your income. Frequently before there were Roth 401K options the advice was: This advice was especially good for the younger workers because they wanted to have a Roth account but didn't want to miss the 401K match. As Roth 401K accounts were introduced that advice changed somewhat because it was possible to get the benefit of the Roth and still get the maximum match. for your situation what I would propose is: contribute to the 401K enough to get the maximum match. Contribute as much as you want or are allowed into the ESPP. Take the proceeds and contribute to an IRA or Roth IRA. If you reach the IRA max you have to decide if you will scale back the ESPP to contribute more to the 401K.",
"qid": 10975,
"docid": "164628",
"rank": 94,
"score": 116237
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Yes, this is right. It is what I am doing. In fact, I took it one step further. During my early career when I was able to deduct traditional IRA contributions, I made them and saved on taxes. When my income got high enough that I could no longer deduct those contributions, I rolled all my traditional IRA's into my 401(k). Now they are no longer subject to the pro-rata rule and I could begin with the backdoor Roths while continuing to contribute the max to my traditional 401(k). Thereafter it's pretty much the process you have described.",
"qid": 10975,
"docid": "284681",
"rank": 95,
"score": 116216
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Just like all employee benefits there is a focus on removing or limiting owners of businesses' ability to abuse tax preferences under the guise of an employee benefit. As you point out there is an overall plan maximum 401(k) for employer contributions and match contributions. There is a nondiscrimination test for FSA programs (there is also a nondiscrimination test for medical plans under sections 125 and 105(h)). Employer contributions are counted toward the total of HSA contributions. Why an HSA has a different maximum arrangement than 401(k) is anyone's guess. But the purpose of the limit is to prevent owners of companies from setting up plans that do little more than funnel tax free funds to themselves. An owner/employee could pay themselves a wage, contribute the maximum, then have the \"\"employer\"\" also match the maximum, so there are limits in place.\"",
"qid": 10975,
"docid": "240373",
"rank": 96,
"score": 115516
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Your retirement PLAN is a lifelong plan and shouldn't be tied to your employer status. Max out your 401(k) contribution to the maximum that your employer matches (that's a 100% ROI!) and as much as you can afford. When you leave the work force rollover your 401(k) to an IRA account (e.g.: you can create an IRA account with any of the online brokerage firms Schwab, E-Trade, Sharebuilder, or go with a brick-and-mortar firm like JP Morgan, Stifel Nicolaus, etc.). You should have a plan: How much money do you need/month for your expenses? Accounting for inflation, how much is that going to be at retirement (whatever age you plan to retire)? How much money do you need to have so that 4.5% of that money will provide for your annual living expenses? That's your target retirement amount of savings. Now figure out how to get to that target. Rule #1 Invest early and invest often! The more money you can sock away early in your career the more time that money has to grow. If you aren't comfortable allocating your investments yourself then you could go with a Targeted Retirement Fund. These funds have a general \"\"date\"\" for retirement and the assets are allocated as appropriate for the amount of risk appropriate for the time to retirement.\"",
"qid": 10975,
"docid": "449828",
"rank": 97,
"score": 115507
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You have many options, and there is no one-size-fits-all recommendation. You can contribute to your IRA in addition to your 401(k), but because you have that 401(k), it is not tax-deductable. So there is little advantage in putting money in the IRA compared to saving it in a personal investment account, where you keep full control over it. It does, however, open the option to do a backdoor-rollover from that IRA to a Roth IRA, which is a good idea to have; you will not pay any taxes if you do that conversion, if the money in the IRA was not tax deducted (which it isn't as you have the 401(k)). You can also contribute to a Roth IRA directly, if you are under the income limits for that (193k$ for married, I think, not sure for single). If this is the case, you don't need to take the detour through the IRA with the backdoor-rollover. Main advantage for Roth is that gains are tax free. There are many other answers here that give details on where to save if you have more money to save. In a nutshell, In between is 'pay off all high-interest debt', I think right after 1. - if you have any. 'High-Interest' means anything that costs more interest than you can expect when investing.",
"qid": 10975,
"docid": "48203",
"rank": 98,
"score": 115505
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: These are the basics in order: Max your employer contributions to your 401k if available Pay off any loans Contribute to an IRA Perhaps max out your 401k Look into other investment options (refinance your mortgage, buy stocks) Those are the typical rules, special situations may need specials actions...",
"qid": 10975,
"docid": "480036",
"rank": 99,
"score": 115486
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you invest in a 401(k), the shares in that plan are yours for as long as you live, or until you pull them out. So, if the employer is offering any sort of matching and those matched funds remain yours after you leave, then definitely contribute; that's an immediate return on your money. If the employer is NOT matching funds, then usually it is better to contribute to an IRA instead; you get the same income tax benefits from the deduction, without the headaches of going through your company (or the company from 3 jobs ago or whoever bought them) to get to your money. If I were in your position, the most I personally would do after I quit the company (which I'm assuming you'd be doing if you were going back to your country of origin) would be to have the 401k shares rolled over into a traditional IRA; that way I'd have more control over it from outside the country. Just keep the bank holding your IRA apprised of your movements around the world and how they can get ahold of you (it may be wise to grant a limited power of attorney to someone who will be staying in the U.S. if you don't want the bank mailing your statements all around the world), and the money can stay in an American account while you do whatever you have to outside it. As long as you don't take the money out in cash before you're 59 1/2 years old, you don't need to pay taxes or penalties on it. If you were to need it to cover unexpected expenses (perhaps relating to the aforementioned family emergency), then that decision can be made at that time. If you think that's even remotely likely, you may consider a Roth IRA. With a Roth, you pay the income taxes on your contributions, but the money is then yours; you can withdraw anything up to the total amount of your contributions without any additional taxes or penalties, and once you hit 59 and a half the interest also becomes available, also tax- and penalty- free. So if you had to leave the country and take a lot of cash with you, you could get out everything you actually put into a Roth with only minor if any transaction fees, and the interest will still be there compounding.",
"qid": 10975,
"docid": "20323",
"rank": 100,
"score": 115455
}
] |
Closing a futures position | [
{
"content": "Title: Content: For exchange contracts, yes. A trader can close a position by taking an offsetting position. CME's introduction to Futures explains it quite well (on page 22). Exiting the Market Jack entered the market on the buy side, speculating that the S&P 500 futures price would move higher. He has three choices for exiting the market:",
"qid": 10979,
"docid": "362762",
"rank": 1,
"score": 170485
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Futures are immediate settlement, and your money is available as soon as you close out your position.",
"qid": 10979,
"docid": "503505",
"rank": 2,
"score": 161884
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Cart's answer is basically correct, but I'd like to elaborate: A futures contract obligates both the buyer of a contract and the seller of a contract to conduct the underlying transaction (settle) at the agreed-upon future date and price written into the contract. Aside from settlement, the only other way either party can get out of the transaction is to initiate a closing transaction, which means: The party that sold the contract buys back another similar contract to close his position. The party that bought the contract can sell the contract on to somebody else. Whereas, an option contract provides the buyer of the option with the choice of completing the transaction. Because it's a choice, the buyer can choose to walk away from the transaction if the option exercise price is not attractive relative to the underlying stock price at the date written into the contract. When an option buyer walks away, the option is said to have expired. However – and this is the part I think needs elaboration – the original seller (writer) of the option contract doesn't have a choice. If a buyer chooses to exercise the option contract the seller wrote, the seller is obligated to conduct the transaction. In such a case, the seller's option contract is said to have been assigned. Only if the buyer chooses not to exercise does the seller's obligation go away. Before the option expires, the option seller can close their position by initiating a closing transaction. But, the seller can't simply walk away like the option buyer can.",
"qid": 10979,
"docid": "357324",
"rank": 3,
"score": 146678
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Here's a good link that can answer your question: How to take delivery of a futures contract The relevant part states: Prior to delivery day, they inform customers who have open long positions that they must either close out the position or prepare to take delivery and pay the full value of the underlying contract. By the same token traders with short positions are informed that they must close out their trades or prepare to deliver the underlying commodity. In this case, they must have the required quantity and quality of the deliverable commodity on hand. On the few occasions that a buyer accepts delivery against his futures contract, he is usually not given the underlying commodity itself (except in the case of financials), but rather a receipt entitling him to fetch the hogs, wheat, or corn from warehouses or distribution points. I hope this helps. Good luck!",
"qid": 10979,
"docid": "206683",
"rank": 4,
"score": 141440
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Yes, 6% is a waste of money, because some other brokers such as IB offer margin rates below 2%. Also, to borrow money for even less than any broker's margin interest rate, one can do an EFP transaction. This involves simultaneously shorting a stock and buying the SSF for the same stock. When the futures contract expires, you take delivery of the underlying stock to automatically close out your short position. Until then, you've effectively borrowed cash for the cost of borrowing the stock, which is typically less than 0.5% interest for widely traded ones. You also pay for the slight difference in price between the stock and the future, which is typically equivalent to another 0.5% interest or less. The total often comes to less than 1% interest. The only risk with this transaction is that the stock could become hard to borrow at some point, so then you would have to pay higher interest on it temporarily or maybe even have to close out your short early. But it is extremely rare for large, high-volume stocks to become hard-to-borrow. The borrowing cost of SPY has spiked above 5% on only a handful of days in the last decade.",
"qid": 10979,
"docid": "218904",
"rank": 5,
"score": 132204
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Nobody has mentioned the futures market yet. Although the stock market closes at 4pm, the futures market continues trading 24 hours a day and 5.5 days a week. Amongst the products that trade in the future market are stock index futures. That includes the Dow Jones, the S&P 500. These are weighted averages of stocks and their sectors. You would think that the price of the underlying stock dictates the price of the average, but in this day and age, the derivative actually changes the value of the underlying stock due to a very complex combination of hedging practices. (this isn't meant to be vague and mysterious, it is \"\"delta hedging\"\") So normal market fluctuations coupled with macroeconomic events affect the futures market, which can ripple down to individual stocks. Very popular stocks with large market caps will most certainly be affected by futures market trading. But it is also worth mentioning that futures can function completely independently of a \"\"spot\"\" price. This is where things start to get complicated and long winded. The futures market factor is worth mentioning because it extends even outside of the aftermarket and pre-market hours of stock trading.\"",
"qid": 10979,
"docid": "110966",
"rank": 6,
"score": 128107
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"In general there are two types of futures contract, a put and call. Both contract types have both common sides of a transaction, a buyer and a seller. You can sell a put contract, or sell a call contract also; you're just taking the other side of the agreement. If you're selling it would commonly be called a \"\"sell to open\"\" meaning you're opening your position by selling a contract which is different from simply selling an option that you currently own to close your position. A put contract gives the buyer the right to sell shares (or some asset/commodity) for a specified price on a specified date; the buyer of the contract gets to put the shares on someone else. A call contract gives the buyer the right to buy shares (or some asset/commodity) for a specified price on a specified date; the buyer of the contract gets to call on someone for shares. \"\"American\"\" options contracts allow the buyer can exercise their rights under the contract on or before the expiration date; while \"\"European\"\" type contracts can only be exercised on the expiration date. To address your example. Typically for stock an option contract involves 100 shares of a stock. The value of these contracts fluctuates the same way other assets do. Typically retail investors don't actually exercise their contracts, they just close a profitable position before the exercise deadline, and let unprofitable positions expire worthless. If you were to buy a single call contract with an exercise price of $100 with a maturity date of August 1 for $1 per share, the contract will have cost you $100. Let's say on August 1 the underlying shares are now available for $110 per share. You have two options: Option 1: On August 1, you can exercise your contract to buy 100 shares for $100 per share. You would exercise for $10,000 ($100 times 100 shares), then sell the shares for $10 profit per share; less the cost of the contract and transaction costs. Option 2: Your contract is now worth something closer to $10 per share, up from $1 per share when you bought it. You can just sell your contract without ever exercising it to someone with an account large enough to exercise and/or an actual desire to receive the asset or commodity.\"",
"qid": 10979,
"docid": "305676",
"rank": 7,
"score": 122169
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: There are 2 approaches. One of them is already mentioned by @Afforess. If the approach by @Afforess is not feasible, and you can not see yourself making an unbiased decision, close the position. By closing the position you will not get the best price. But by removing a distraction you will reduce amount of mistakes you make in the other stocks.",
"qid": 10979,
"docid": "450067",
"rank": 8,
"score": 117535
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Futures exchanges are essentially auction houses facilitating a two-way auction. While they provide a venue for buyers and sellers to come together and transact (be that a physical venue such as a pit at the CME or an electronic network such as Globex), they don't actively seek out or find buyers and sellers to pair them together. The exchanges enable this process through an order book. As a futures trader you may submit one of two types of order to an exchange: Market Order - this is sent to the exchange and is filled immediately by being paired with a limit order. Limit Order - this is placed on the books of the exchange at the price you specify. If other participants enter opposing market orders at this price, then their market order will be paired with your limit order. In your example, trader B wishes to close his long position. To do this he may enter a market sell order, which will immediately close his position at the lowest possible buy limit price, or he may enter a limit sell order, specifying the price at or above which he is willing to sell. In the case of the limit order, he will only sell and successfully close his position if his order becomes the lowest sell order on the book. All this may be a lot easier to understand by looking at a visual image of an order book such as the one given in the explanation that I have published here: Stop Orders for Futures Finally, not that as far as the exchange is concerned, there is no difference between an order to open and an order to close a position. They're all just 'buy' or 'sell' orders. Whether they cause you to reduce/exit a position or increase/establish a position is relative to the position you currently hold; if you're flat a buy order establishes a new position, if you're short it closes your position and leaves you flat.",
"qid": 10979,
"docid": "121158",
"rank": 9,
"score": 117087
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You would generally have to pay interest for everyday you hold the position overnight. If you never close the position and the stock price goes to zero, you will be closed out and credited with your profit. If you never close the position and the stock price keeps going up and up, your potential loss is an unlimited amount of money. Of course your broker may close you out early for a number of reasons, particularly if your loss goes above the amount of capital you have in your trading account.",
"qid": 10979,
"docid": "45065",
"rank": 10,
"score": 116731
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Absolutely. There is no requirement that an option be in-the-money for you to close out a position. Remember that there are alwayes two sides to a trade - a buyer and a seller. When you bought your option, it's entirely possible that someone else was closing out their long position by selling it to you.",
"qid": 10979,
"docid": "557582",
"rank": 11,
"score": 115969
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If the underlying is currently moving as aggressively as stated, the broker would immediately forcibly close positions to maintain margin. What securities are in fact closed depends upon the internal algorithms. If the equity in the account remains negative after closing all positions if necessary, the owner of the account shall owe the broker the balance. The broker will close the account and commence collections if the owner of the account does not pay the balance quickly. Sometimes, brokers will impose higher margin requirements than mandated to prevent the above eventuality. Brokers frequently close positions that violate internal or external margin requirements as soon as they are breached.",
"qid": 10979,
"docid": "389501",
"rank": 12,
"score": 115873
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"You avoid pattern day trader status by trading e-mini futures through a futures broker. The PDT rules do not apply in the futures markets. Some of the markets that are available include representatives covering the major indices i.e the YM (DJIA), ES (S&P 500) and NQ (Nasdaq 100) and many more markets. You can take as many round-turn trades as you care to...as many or as few times a day as you like. E-mini futures contracts trade in sessions with \"\"transition\"\" times between sessions. -- Sessions begin Sunday evenings at 6 PM EST and are open through Monday evening at 5 PM EST...The next session begins at 6 pm Monday night running through Tuesday at 5 PM EST...etc...until Friday's session close at 5 PM EST. Just as with stocks, you can either buy first then sell (open and close a position) or short-sell (sell first then cover by buying). You profit (or lose) on a round turn trade in the same manor as you would if trading stocks, options, ETFs etc. The e-mini futures are different than the main futures markets that you may have seen traders working in the \"\"pits\"\" in Chicago...E-mini futures are totally electronic (no floor traders) and do not involve any potential delivery of the 'product'...They just require the closing of positions to end a transaction. A main difference is you need to maintain very little cash in your account in order to trade...$1000 or less per trade, per e-mini contract...You can trade just 1 contract at a time or as many contracts as you have the cash in your account to cover. \"\"Settlement\"\" is immediate upon closing out any position that you may have put on...No waiting for clearing before your next trade. If you want to hold an e-mini contract position over 2 or more sessions, you need to have about $5000 per contract in your account to cover the minimum margin requirement that comes into play during the transition between sessions... With the e-minis you are speculating on gaining from the difference between when you 'put-on' and \"\"close-out\"\" a position in order to profit. For example, if you think the DJIA is about to rise 20 points, you can buy 1 contract. If you were correct in your assessment and sold your contract after the e-mini rose 20 points, you profited $100. (For the DJIA e-mini, each 1 point 'tick' is valued at $5.00)\"",
"qid": 10979,
"docid": "533408",
"rank": 13,
"score": 115705
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: But by closing the short position the broker would still be purchasing shares from the market no? Or at least, someone would be purchasing the shares to close the short position. So, why doesn't the broker just let Client A keep their short position open and buy shares in the market so that Client B can sell them...I know it sounds a bit ridic, but not much more so to me than letting Client A borrow the shares to begin with!",
"qid": 10979,
"docid": "523729",
"rank": 14,
"score": 114901
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I use futures options as a sort of hedge to an underwater position that I want to hold onto. If I am short at 3900 on /NQ and it moves up 3910 then I can sell a put against my position. For example, I sell this month's 3850 put for 15.00. If the NQ continues up to 3920, I can probably buy back that put for ~12.00 and sell the 3860 for 15.00. Rinse and repeat if it keeps moving up. If then the NQ moves down to 3900 then my futures position will be up +10 where my futures options put position will only be down about -3 for a net of +7. I suppose you could also trade a futures option by itself instead of the future's contract if you didn't want to risk as much $ in a day trade. Keep in mind that price you see for a future's options relates to the underlying. For /NQ 1 point = $20 so if a 3850 put costs 15.00 that is really $300. ES (Sp 500 futures) 1 point = $50 so a 1900 put that costs 15.00 would really be $750.",
"qid": 10979,
"docid": "298833",
"rank": 15,
"score": 114626
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Futures are an agreement to buy or sell something in the future. The futures \"\"price\"\" is the price at which you agree to make the trade. This price does not indicate what will happen in the future so much as it indicates the cost of buying the item today and holding it until the future date. Hence, for very liquid products such as stock index futures, the futures price is a very simple function of today's stock index value and current short-term interest rates. If the stock exchange is closed but the futures exchange is open, then using the futures price and interest rates one can back out an implied \"\"fair value\"\" for the index, which is in essence the market's estimate of what the stock index value would be right now if the stock market were open. Of course, as soon as the stock exchange opens, the futures price trades to within a narrow band of the actual index value, where the size of the band depends on transaction costs (bid-ask spread, commissions, etc.).\"",
"qid": 10979,
"docid": "9274",
"rank": 16,
"score": 113909
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Context is key here. Futures don't really have to do with a time in the future in this context. Futures are a capital market (futures market), just like Stocks are a market (stock market). Both capital markets have the ability to affect each other. Up until 30 years ago there was a separate use for the futures market, but in the days since they are MOSTLY used for stock derivatives (financial futures are the most widely traded contracts since 1980, hugely eclipsing the commodity futures that the market was designed for.) So there is overlap and one affect the other, I'm not going to go into too much detail here but basically the futures market trades 24 hours a day, 6.5 days of the week and the stock market trades 8-12 hours a day, 5 days a week. So when the stock market closes, the futures market is still running will react and effect the broad stock market. Hope that gets you started in your research",
"qid": 10979,
"docid": "261331",
"rank": 17,
"score": 113024
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: http://www.marketwatch.com/optionscenter/calendar would note some options expiration this week that may be a clue as this would be the typical end of quarter stuff so I suspect it may happen each quarter. http://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/triplewitchinghour.asp would note in part: Triple witching occurs when the contracts for stock index futures, stock index options and stock options expire on the same day. Triple witching days happen four times a year on the third Friday of March, June, September and December. Triple witching days, particularly the final hour of trading preceding the closing bell, can result in escalated trading activity and volatility as traders close, roll out or offset their expiring positions. June 17 would be the 3rd Friday as the 3rd and 10th were the previous two in the month.",
"qid": 10979,
"docid": "224714",
"rank": 18,
"score": 110637
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Opened Long - is when you open a long position. Long means that you buy to open the position, so you are trying to profit as the price rises. So if you were closing a long position you would sell it. Closed Short - is when you close out a short position. Short means that you sell to open and buy back to close. With a short position you are trying to profit as the price falls. Scaled Out - means you get out of a position in increments as the price climbs (for long positions). Scaled In - means you set a target price and then invest in increments as the stock falls below that price (for long positions).",
"qid": 10979,
"docid": "154665",
"rank": 19,
"score": 110242
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You're assuming options traded on the open market. To close open positions, a seller buys them back on the open market. If there's little on offer, this will drive the price up.",
"qid": 10979,
"docid": "352588",
"rank": 20,
"score": 108414
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: This is often the case where traders are closing out short positions they don't want to hold overnight, for a variety of reasons that matter to them. Most frequently, this is from day traders or high-frequency traders settling their accounts before the markets close.",
"qid": 10979,
"docid": "17231",
"rank": 21,
"score": 107875
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: In the US you specify explicitly what stocks you're selling. Brokers now are required to keep track of cost basis and report it to the IRS on the 1099-B, so you have to tell the broker which position it is that you're closing. Usually, the default is FIFO (i.e.: when you sell, you're assumed to be closing the oldest position), but you can change it if you want. In the US you cannot average costs basis of stocks (you can for mutual funds), so you either do FIFO, LIFO (last position closed first), or specify the specific positions when you submit the sale order.",
"qid": 10979,
"docid": "414636",
"rank": 22,
"score": 107731
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: With a short position you make your money (profit) when you buy the stocks back to close the position at a lower price than what you bought them at. As short selling is classed as speculation and not investing and you at no time own any actual assets, you cannot donate any short possition to charity. If you did want to avoid paying tax on the profits you could donate the proceeds of the profits after closing the position and thus get a tax deduction equal to the profits you made. But that raises a new and more important question, why are you trading in the first place if you are afraid to make profits in case you have to pay tax on those profits?",
"qid": 10979,
"docid": "221427",
"rank": 23,
"score": 107543
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"In futures, once you have established your position, you will earn or lose money depending on what the underlying does. Theoretically, if you had no stop, you could lose far more than you invested. An option will slowly lose all its value if the stock does not rise (assume it is out of the money when purchased). Depending on the strike, it could rise substantially and you'd still lose all your money. But you can't lose more than you put in. So options have limited risk compared to futures, at the expense of a decaying \"\"time value\"\" that you will effectively be paying while holding the option.\"",
"qid": 10979,
"docid": "214552",
"rank": 24,
"score": 107005
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: 2 things may happen. Either your positions are closed by the broker and the loss or profit is credited to your account. Else it is carried over to the next day and you pay interest on the stocks lent to you. What happens will be decided by the agreement signed between you and your broker.",
"qid": 10979,
"docid": "176822",
"rank": 25,
"score": 106453
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: To expand on the comment made by @NateEldredge, you're looking to take a short position. A short position essentially functions as follows: Here's the rub: you have unlimited loss potential. Maybe you borrow a share and sell it at $10. Maybe in a month you still haven't closed the position and now the share is trading at $1,000. The share lender comes calling for their share and you have to close the position at $1,000 for a loss of $990. Now what if it was $1,000,000 per share, etc. To avoid this unlimited loss risk, you can instead buy a put option contract. In this situation you buy a contract that will expire at some point in the future for the right to sell a share of stock for $x. You get to put that share on to someone else. If the underlying stock price were to instead rise above the put's exercise price, the put will expire worthless — but your loss is limited to the premium paid to acquire the put option contract. There are all sorts of advanced options trades sometimes including taking a short or long position in a security. It's generally not advisable to undertake these sorts of trades until you're very comfortable with the mechanics of the contracts. It's definitely not advisable to take an unhedged short position, either by borrowing someone else's share(s) to sell or selling an option (when you sell the option you take the risk), because of the unlimited loss potential described above.",
"qid": 10979,
"docid": "140371",
"rank": 26,
"score": 106148
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Well, futures don't have a \"\"strike\"\" like an option - the price represents how much you're obligated to buy/sell the index for at a specified date in the future. You are correct that there's no cost to enter a contract (though there may be broker fees and margin payments). Any difference between the contract price and the price of the index at settlement is what is exchanged at settlement. It's analogous to the bid/ask on a stock - the bid price represents the price at which someone is willing to \"\"buy\"\" a futures contract (meaning enter into a long position) and the ask is how much someone is willing to \"\"sell\"\" a contract. So if you want to take a long position on S&P500 mini futures you'd have to enter in at the \"\"ask\"\" price. If the index is above your contract price on the future expiry date you'll make a profit; if it is below the contract price you'll take a loss.\"",
"qid": 10979,
"docid": "493012",
"rank": 27,
"score": 106122
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The shift to trading at the close began in 2008. Traders did not want to be caught off guard by surprise news and there was a lot of volatility during the financial crisis, so they would close their position in the evening. Thats how it began. There are two reasons why it sticks around. First, there has been an increase usage of index funds or passive funds. These funds tend to update their positions at the end of the day. From the WSJ: Another factor behind the shift has been the proliferation of passively managed investments, such as index funds. These funds aim to mimic an index, like the S&P 500, by owning the shares that comprise it. Index funds don’t trade as often as active investors, but when they do, it is typically near the market close, traders say. That is because buying or selling a stock at its closing price better aligns their performance with the index they are trying to emulate. The second reason is simply that volume attracts volume. As a result of whats mentioned above, you have a shift to end of day trading, and the corrolary to that is that there is a liquidity shortage from 10am to 3pm. Thus, if you want to buy or sell a stock, but there are few buyers or sellers around, you will significant move the price when you enter your order. Obviously this does not affect retail traders, but imagine hedge funds entering or closing a billion dollar position. It can make a huge impact on price. And one way to mitigate that is to wait until there are more market participants to take the other end of your trade, just as at the end of the day. So this is a self-reinforcing trend that has begun in the markets and will likely stick around. http://www.wsj.com/articles/traders-pile-in-at-the-close-1432768080",
"qid": 10979,
"docid": "149420",
"rank": 28,
"score": 105771
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You're confusing open positions and account balance. Your position in GBP is 1000, that's what you've bought. You then used some of it to buy something else, but to the broker you still have an open position of 1000 GBP. They will only close it when you give them the 1000GBP back. What you do with it until then is none of their business. Your account balance (available funds) in GBP is 10.",
"qid": 10979,
"docid": "159417",
"rank": 29,
"score": 104369
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"If the stock is below its purchase price, there is no way to exit the position immediately without taking losses. Since presumably you had Good Reasons for buying that stock that haven't changed overnight, what you should probably do is just hold it and wait for the stock to come back up. Otherwise you're putting yourself into an ongoing pattern of \"\"buy high, sell low\"\", which is precisely what you don't want to do. If you actually agree with the market that you made a mistake and believe that the stock will not recover any part of the loss quickly (and indeed will continue going down), you could sell immediately and take your losses rather than waiting and possibly taking more losses. Of course if the stock DOES recover you've made the wrong bet. There are conditions under which the pros will use futures to buffer a swing. But that's essentially a side bet, and what it saves you has to be balanced against what it costs you and how certain you are that you NOW can predict the stock's motion. This whole thing is one of many reasons individuals are encouraged to work with index funds, and to buy-and-hold, rather than playing with individual stocks. It is essentially impossible to reliably \"\"time the market\"\", so all you can do is research a stock to death before making a bet on it. Much easier, and safer, to have your money riding on the market as a whole so the behavior of any one stock doesn't throw you into a panic. If you can't deal with the fact that stocks go down as well as up, you probably shouldn't be in the market.\"",
"qid": 10979,
"docid": "221869",
"rank": 30,
"score": 103842
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Perhaps it was to close a short position. Suppose the seller had written the calls at some time in the past and maybe made a buck or two off of them. By buying the calls now they can close out the position and go away on vacation, or at least have one less thing they have to pay attention to. If they were covered calls, perhaps the buyer wants to sell the underlying and in order to do so has to get out of the calls.",
"qid": 10979,
"docid": "43087",
"rank": 31,
"score": 103076
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: This depends on a combination of factors: What are you charged (call it margin interest) to hold the position? How does this reduce your buying power and what are the opportunity costs? What are the transaction costs alternative ways to close the position? What are your risks (exposure while legging out) for alternative ways to close? Finally, where is the asset closing relative to the strike? Generally, If asset price is below the put strike then the call expires worthless and you need to exercise the put. If asset is above the call strike then put expires worthless and you'll likely get assigned. Given this framework: If margin interest is eating up your profit faster than you're earning theta (a convenient way to represent the time value) then you have some urgency and you need to exit that position before expiry. I would not exit the stock until the call is covered. Keep minimal risk at all times. If you are limited by the position's impact on your buying power and probable value of available opportunities is greater than the time decay you're earning then once again, you have some urgency about closing instead of unwinding at expiry. Same as above. Cover that call, before you ditch your hedge in the long stock. Playing the tradeoff game of expiration/exercise cost against open market transactions is tough. You need sub-penny commissions on stock (and I would say a lot of leverage) and most importantly you need options charges much lower than IB to make that kind of trading work. IB is the cheapest in the retail brokerage game, but those commissions aren't even close to what the traders are getting who are more than likely on the other side of your options trades.",
"qid": 10979,
"docid": "384221",
"rank": 32,
"score": 102810
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The gap up/down and rapid movement immediately following market open is due to overnight futures activity. In your example, SP500 on June 20, 2016 saw a 20-point gap up at market open. This was because the SP500 futures were trading 20 points higher at 9:30 AM than at its close on Friday. The index will always \"\"catch up\"\" with futures at market open. You can see that below. The top chart is the E-mini SP500 futures from Sunday night to Monday. Beneath it is the SP500 index.\"",
"qid": 10979,
"docid": "106314",
"rank": 33,
"score": 102565
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Assuming these are standardized and regulated contracts, the short answer is yes. In your example, Trader A is short while Trader B is long. If Trader B wants to exit his long position, he merely enters a \"\"sell to close\"\" order with his broker. Trader B never goes short as you state. He was long while he held the contract, then he \"\"sold to close\"\". As to who finds the buyer of Trader B's contract, I believe that would be the exchange or a market maker. Therefore, Trader C ends up the counterparty to Trader A's short position after buying from Trader B. Assuming the contract is held until expiration, Trader A is responsible for delivering contracted product to Trader C for contracted price. In reality this is generally settled up in cash, and Trader A and Trader C never even know each other's identity.\"",
"qid": 10979,
"docid": "148728",
"rank": 34,
"score": 102166
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If the price had dropped to $4 from $50, and you had $5000 to start with on your account, you will be left with $400 in your account if you closed the position now. So you would not be in debt if this was the only possition you had open.",
"qid": 10979,
"docid": "210887",
"rank": 35,
"score": 102128
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"They are not selling stocks. They are selling OJ futures contracts. Selling a futures contract at 142 gives the buyer the right to buy a fixed number of pounds of orange juice concentrate (\"\"OJ\"\") on a future date at 142 cents per pound. The seller has an obligation to suppy that fixed number of pounds of OJ to the buyer on the future date for 142 cents per pound. When the seller turns around and buys future contracts at 29, the seller gets the right to buy OJ on a future date at 29. This \"\"zeros his position\"\" -- meaning he's guaranteed himself the ability to deliver the pounds of OJ he was obligated to supply when he sold futures contracts at 142. And since he'll only have to pay 29 cents per pound, and he'll be selling the OJ for 142 per pound, he'll walk away with 113 cents of profit for every pound sold. You can read a blow-by-blow account of what Winthorpe and Valentine did at the end of \"\"Trading Places\"\" here and here. Note that what they did would not be legal today under the \"\"Eddie Murphy rule\"\", which prohibits trades based on illicitly obtained government information.\"",
"qid": 10979,
"docid": "98130",
"rank": 36,
"score": 100039
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Trading volumes are higher at the end of the day as many traders close their open positions. In the morning however, traders incorporate various factors like performance of worldwide markets overnight, any corporate or government announcements, global macro events, etc.",
"qid": 10979,
"docid": "348886",
"rank": 37,
"score": 99581
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: This is your best answer so far. A detail left out is that derivatives are mostly known for the amount of leverage allowed, which is typically about 20-1, or 5% down. This is legal because it's generally assumed that someone is not going to buy or sell the underlying asset, that they will offset their long or short position long before the contract's delivery date. Your derivative broker(typically futures instead of forwards, because they're a standardized size, traded on an exchange and more liquid) will call you when you lose about half of your 5% to tell you to either transfer some money to cover your position or to ask you to exit your position at a loss. Fowards are traded through clearinghouses, not exchanges, and they can be for any underlying asset, for any delivery date, for any price, so long as parties agree on it. Just think of it as a contract.",
"qid": 10979,
"docid": "10090",
"rank": 38,
"score": 99531
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Ignoring the complexities of a standardised and regulated market, a futures contract is simply a contract that requires party A to buy a given amount of a commodity from party B at a specified price. The future can be over something tangible like pork bellies or oil, in which case there is a physical transfer of \"\"stuff\"\" or it can be over something intangible like shares. The purpose of the contract is to allow the seller to \"\"lock-in\"\" a price so that they are not subject to price fluctuations between the date the contract is entered and the date it is complete; this risk is transferred to the seller who will therefore generally pay a discounted rate from the spot price on the original day. In many cases, the buyer actually wants the \"\"stuff\"\"; futures contracts between farmers and manufacturers being one example. The farmer who is growing, say, wool will enter a contract to supply 3000kg at $10 per kg (of a given quality etc. there are generally price adjustments detailed for varying quality) with a textile manufacturer to be delivered in 6 months. The spot price today may be $11 - the farmer gives up $1 now to shift the risk of price fluctuations to the manufacturer. When the strike date rolls around the farmer delivers the 3000kg and takes the money - if he has failed to grow at least 3000kg then he must buy it from someone or trigger whatever the penalty clauses in the contract are. For futures over shares and other securities the principle is exactly the same. Say the contract is for 1000 shares of XYZ stock. Party A agrees to sell these for $10 each on a given day to party B. When that day rolls around party A transfers the shares and gets the money. Party A may have owned the shares all along, may have bought them before the settlement day or, if push comes to shove, must buy them on the day of settlement. Notwithstanding when they bought them, if they paid less than $10 they make a profit if they pay more they make a loss. Generally speaking, you can't settle a futures contract with another futures contract - you have to deliver up what you promised - be it wool or shares.\"",
"qid": 10979,
"docid": "164001",
"rank": 39,
"score": 99253
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I don't see EWQ6 in any of your links, so I can't say for certain, but when you buy an option contract on a future, the option will be for a specific future (and strike). So the page you're looking at may be for options on E-mini S&P 500 futures in general, and when you actually purchase one through your broker, you pick a specific expiry (which will be based on the \"\"prompt\"\" future, meaning the next future that expires after the option) and strike. UPDATE: Based on this page mirror, the option EWQ7 is an option on the ESU7 (SEP 2017) future. The next 3 monthly options use ESZ7 as the underlier, which confirms that they use the next prompt future as the underlier.\"",
"qid": 10979,
"docid": "262589",
"rank": 40,
"score": 98640
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"You gave your own answer - the 80% is positions, not contracts. Most actors on the option market have no interest in the underlying asset. They want \"\"just\"\" exposure to its price movement. It makes more sense to close your position than to be handed over bushels of wheat or whatever.\"",
"qid": 10979,
"docid": "313135",
"rank": 41,
"score": 98468
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you enter a futures contract, it costs nothing. So every time prices move against you, there is a margin call and you must put up some new money. Inverse ETF's use a variety of similar strategies to get their returns. Many of these strategies may indeed require a margin call to the ETF issuer if prices move against you. But remember the ETF did not cost nothing. Investors contributed money in order to purchase each share of the ETF. Therefore the ETF issuer has a big pot of money available for use as margin. That's why the margin call never comes through to you. In a sense, you posted a ton of margin up front, so you won't have to make any additional margin contributions. The money that will be used for margin calls is being kept in treasuries and money market securities by the ETF issuer until it's needed. If prices move against you badly enough that it looks like the ETF is at risk to not be able to post margin, the ETF would liquidate and you'd get whatever pittance was left after they exit all those positions.",
"qid": 10979,
"docid": "505410",
"rank": 42,
"score": 98438
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Your broker likely didn't close your position out because it is a covered position. Why interfere with a trade that has no risk to it, from their perspective? There's no risk for the broker since your account holds the shares available for delivery (definition of covered), for if and when the options you wrote (sold) are exercised. And buyers of those options will eventually exercise the options (by expiration) if they remain in-the-money. There's only a chance that an option buyer exercises prematurely, and usually they don't because there's often time value left in the option. That the option buyer has an (ahem) \"\"option\"\" to exercise is a very key point. You wrote: \"\"I fully expected my position to be automatically liquidated by whoever bought my call\"\". That's a false assumption about the way options actually work. I suggest some study of the option exercise FAQs here: Perhaps if your position were uncovered – i.e. you wrote the call without owning the stock (don't try this at home, kids!) – and you also had insufficient margin to cover such a short position, then the broker might have justifiably liquidated your position. Whereas, in a covered call situation, there's really no reason for them to want to interfere – and I would consider that interference, as opposed to helpful. The situation you've described is neither risky for them, nor out of the ordinary. It is (and should be) completely up to you to decide how to close out the position. Anyway, your choices generally are:\"",
"qid": 10979,
"docid": "226546",
"rank": 43,
"score": 98386
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Derivatives derive their value from underlying assets. This is expressed by the obligation of at least one counterparty to trade with the other counterparty in the future. These can take on as many combinations as one can dream up as it is a matter of contract. For futures, where two parties are obligated to trade at a specific price at a specific date in the future (one buyer, one seller), if you \"\"short\"\" a future, you have entered into a contract to sell the underlying at the time specified. If the price of the future moves against you (goes up), you will have to sell at a loss. The bigger the move, the greater the loss. You go ahead and pay this as well as a little extra to be sure that you satisfy what you owe due to the future. This satisfaction is called margin. If there weren't margin, people could take huge losses on their derivative bets, not pay, and disrupt the markets. Making sure that the money that will trade is already there makes the markets run smoothly. It's the same for shorting stocks where you borrow the stock, sell it, and wait. You have to leave the money with the broker as well as deposit a little extra to be sure you can make good if the market moves to a large degree against you.\"",
"qid": 10979,
"docid": "356388",
"rank": 44,
"score": 98349
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I'll answer this question: \"\"Why do intraday traders close their position at then end of day while most gains can be done overnight (buy just before the market close and sell just after it opens). Is this observation true for other companies or is it specific to apple ?\"\" Intraday traders often trade shares of a company using intraday leverage provided by their firm. For every $5000 dollars they actually have, they may be trading with $100,000, 20:1 leverage as an example. Since a stock can also decrease in value, substantially, while the markets are closed, intraday traders are not allowed to keep their highly leveraged positions opened. Probabilities fail in a random walk scenario, and only one failure can bankrupt you and the firm.\"",
"qid": 10979,
"docid": "410887",
"rank": 45,
"score": 98121
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I know some derivative markets work like this, so maybe similar with futures. A futures contract commits two parties to a buy/sell of the underlying securities, but with a futures contract you also create leverage because generally the margin you post on your futures contract is not sufficient to pay for the collateral in the underlying contract. The person buying the future is essentially \"\"borrowing\"\" money while the person selling the future is essentially \"\"lending\"\" money. The future you enter into is generally a short term contract, so a perfectly hedged lender of funds should expect to receive something that approaches the fed funds rate in the US. Today that would be essentially nothing.\"",
"qid": 10979,
"docid": "549040",
"rank": 46,
"score": 98005
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: When you buy a futures contract you are entering into an agreement to buy gold, in the future (usually a 3 month settlement date). this is not an OPTION, but a contract, so each party is taking risk, the seller that the price will rise, the buyer that the price will fall. Unlike an option which you can simply choose not to exercise if the price goes down, with futures you are obligated to follow through. (or sell the contract to someone else, or buy it back) The price you pay depends on the margin, which is related to how far away the settlement date is, but you can expect around 5% , so the minimum you could get into is 100 troy ounces, at todays price, times 5%. Since we're talking about 100 troy ounces, that means the margin required to buy the smallest sized future contract would be about the same as buying 5 ounces of gold. roughly $9K at current prices. If you are working through a broker they will generally require you to sell or buy back the contract before the settlement date as they don't want to deal with actually following through on the purchase and having to take delivery of the gold. How much do you make or lose? Lets deal with a smaller change in the price, to be a bit more realistic since we are talking typically about a settlement date that is 3 months out. And to make the math easy lets bump the price of gold to $2000/ounce. That means the price of a futures contract is going to be $10K Lets say the price goes up 10%, Well you have basically a 20:1 leverage since you only paid 5%, so you stand to gain $20,000. Sounds great right? WRONG.. because as good as the upside is, the downside is just as bad. If the price went down 10% you would be down $20000, which means you would not only have to cough up the 10K you committed but you would be expected to 'top up the margin' and throw in ANOTHER $10,000 as well. And if you can't pay that up your broker might close out your position for you. oh and if the price hasn't changed, you are mostly just out the fees and commissions you paid to buy and sell the contract. With futures contracts you can lose MORE than your original investment. NOT for the faint of heart or the casual investor. NOT for folks without large reserves who can afford to take big losses if things go against them. I'll close this answer with a quote from the site I'm linking below The large majority of people who trade futures lose their money. That's a fact. They lose even when they are right in the medium term, because futures are fatal to your wealth on an unpredicted and temporary price blip. Now consider that, especially the bit about 'price blip' and then look at the current volatility of most markets right now, and I think you can see how futures trading can be as they say 'Fatal to your Wealth' (man, I love that phrase, what a great way of putting it) This Site has a pretty decent primer on the whole thing. their view is perhaps a bit biased due to the nature of their business, but on the whole their description of how things work is pretty decent. Investopedia has a more detailed (and perhaps more objective) tutorial on the futures thing. Well worth your time if you think you want to do anything related to the futures market.",
"qid": 10979,
"docid": "340815",
"rank": 47,
"score": 97906
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: On expiry, with the underlying share price at $46, we have : You ask : How come they substract 600-100. Why ? Because you have sold the $45 call to open you position, you must now buy it back to close your position. This will cost you $100, so you are debited for $100 and this debit is being represented as a negative (subtracted); i.e., -$100 Because you have purchased the $40 call to open your position, you must now sell it to close your position. Upon selling this option you will receive $600, so you are credited with $600 and this credit is represented as a positive (added) ; i.e., +$600. Therefore, upon settlement, closing your position will get you $600-$100 = $500. This is the first point you are questioning. (However, you should also note that this is the value of the spread at settlement and it does not include the costs of opening the spread position, which are given as $200, so you net profit is $500-$200 = $300.) You then comment : I know I am selling 45 Call that means : As a writer: I want stock price to go down or stay at strike. As a buyer: I want stock price to go up. Here, note that for every penny that the underlying share price rises above $45, the money you will pay to buy back your short $45 call option will be offset by the money you will receive by selling the long $40 call option. Your $40 call option is covering the losses on your short $45 call option. No matter how high the underlying price settles above $45, you will receive the same $500 net credit on settlement. For example, if the underlying price settles at $50, then you will receive a credit of $1000 for selling your $40 call, but you will incur a debit of $500 against for buying back your short $45 call. The net being $500 = $1000-$500. This point is made in response to your comments posted under Dr. Jones answer.",
"qid": 10979,
"docid": "22916",
"rank": 48,
"score": 97630
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The problem with rate of return calculation on short positions is, that the commonly used approach assumes an initial investment creating a cash outflow. If we want to apply this approach to short selling, we should look at the trade from another perspective. We buy money and pay for this money with stock. Our investment to buy 50$ in your example is 1 share. When closing the short position, we effectively sell back our money (50$) and receive 2 shares. Our profit on this position is obviously 1 share. Setting this in relation to our investment of 1 share yields a performance of 100% in reality, we do not sell back the entire cash but only the amount needed to get back our investment of 1 share. This is actually comparable to a purchase of stock which we only partially close to get back our invested cash amount and keep the remaining shares as our profit",
"qid": 10979,
"docid": "422467",
"rank": 49,
"score": 97296
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Consider the futures market. Traders buy and sell gold futures, but very few contracts, relatively speaking, result in delivery. The contracts are sold, and \"\"Open interest\"\" dwindles to near zero most months as the final date approaches. The seller buys back his short position, the buyer sells off his longs. When I own a call, and am 'winning,' say the option that cost me $1 is now worth $2, I'd rather sell that option for even $1.95 than to buy 100 shares of a $148 stock. The punchline is that very few option buyers actually hope to own the stock in the end. Just like the futures, open interest falls as expiration approaches.\"",
"qid": 10979,
"docid": "393134",
"rank": 50,
"score": 97012
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Automatic exercisions can be extremely risky, and the closer to the money the options are, the riskier their exercisions are. It is unlikely that the entire account has negative equity since a responsible broker would forcibly close all positions and pursue the holder for the balance of the debt to reduce solvency risk. Since the broker has automatically exercised a near the money option, it's solvency policy is already risky. Regardless of whether there is negative equity or simply a liability, the least risky course of action is to sell enough of the underlying to satisfy the loan by closing all other positions if necessary as soon as possible. If there is a negative equity after trying to satisfy the loan, the account will need to be funded for the balance of the loan to pay for purchases of the underlying to fully satisfy the loan. Since the underlying can move in such a way to cause this loan to increase, the account should also be funded as soon as possible if necessary. Accounts after exercise For deep in the money exercised options, a call turns into a long underlying on margin while a put turns into a short underlying. The next decision should be based upon risk and position selection. First, if the position is no longer attractive, it should be closed. Since it's deep in the money, simply closing out the exposure to the underlying should extinguish the liability as cash is not marginable, so the cash received from the closing out of the position will repay any margin debt. If the position in the underlying is still attractive then the liability should be managed according to one's liability policy and of course to margin limits. In a margin account, closing the underlying positions on the same day as the exercise will only be considered a day trade. If the positions are closed on any business day after the exercision, there will be no penalty or restriction. Cash option accounts While this is possible, many brokers force an upgrade to a margin account, and the ShareBuilder Options Account Agreement seems ambiguous, but their options trading page implies the upgrade. In a cash account, equities are not marginable, so any margin will trigger a margin call. If the margin debt did not trigger a margin call then it is unlikely that it is a cash account as margin for any security in a cash account except for certain options trades is 100%. Equities are convertible to cash presumably at the bid, so during a call exercise, the exercisor or exercisor's broker pays cash for the underlying at the exercise price, and any deficit is financed with debt, thus underlying can be sold to satisfy that debt or be sold for cash as one normally would. To preempt a forced exercise as a call holder, one could short the underlying, but this will be more expensive, and since probably no broker allows shorting against the box because of its intended use to circumvent capital gains taxes by fraud. The least expensive way to trade out of options positions is to close them themselves rather than take delivery.",
"qid": 10979,
"docid": "277311",
"rank": 51,
"score": 96290
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: An option is freely tradable, and all options (of the same kind) are equal. If your position is 0 and you sell 1 option, your new position in that option is -1. If the counterparty to your trade buys or sells more options to close, open, or even reopen their position afterwards, that doesn't matter to your position at all. Of course there's also the issue with American and European Options. European Options expire at their due date, but American Options expire at their due date or at any time before their due date if the holder decides they expire. With American Options, if a holder of an American Option decides to exercise the option, someone who is short the same option will be assigned as the counterparty (this is usually random). Expiry is after market close, so if one of your short American Options expires early, you will need to reopen the position the next day. Keep in mind dividends for slightly increased complexity. American and European Options do not in any way refer to the continents they are traded on, or to the location of the companies. These terms simply describe the expiry rules.",
"qid": 10979,
"docid": "575408",
"rank": 52,
"score": 96223
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Treat each position or partial position as a separate LOT. Each time you open a position, a new lot of shares is created. If you sell the whole position, then the lot is closed. Done. But if you sell a partial quantity, you need to create a new lot. Split the original lot into two. The quantities in each are the amount sold, and the amount remaining. If you were to then buy a few more shares, create a third lot. If you then sell the entire position, you'll be closing out all the remaining lots. This allows you to track each buy/sell pairing. For each lot, simply calculate return based on cost and proceeds. You can't derive an annualized number for ALL the lots as a group, because there's no common timeframe that they share. If you wish to calculate your return over time on the whole series of trades, consider using TWIRR. It treats these positions, plus the cash they represent, as a whole portfolio. See my post in this thread: How can I calculate a \"\"running\"\" return using XIRR in a spreadsheet?\"",
"qid": 10979,
"docid": "479874",
"rank": 53,
"score": 96125
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"As I stated in my comment, options are futures, but with the twist that you're allowed to say no to the agreed-on transaction; if the market offers you a better deal on whatever you had contracted to buy or sell, you have the option of simply letting it expire. Options therefore are the insurance policy of the free market. You negotiate a future price (actually you usually take what you can get if you're an individual investor; the institutional fund managers get to negotiate because they're moving billions around every day), then you pay the other guy up front for the right of refusal later. How much you pay depends on how likely the person giving you this option is to have to make good on it; if your position looks like a sure thing, an option's going to be very expensive (and if it's such a sure thing, you should just make your move on the spot market; it's thus useful to track futures prices to see where the various big players are predicting that your portfolio will move). A put option, which is an option for you to sell something at a future price, is a hedge against loss of value of your portfolio. You can take one out on any single item in your portfolio, or against a portion or even your entire portfolio. If the stock loses value such that the contract price is better than the market price as of the delivery date of the contract, you execute the option; otherwise, you let it expire. A call option, which is an option to buy something at a future price, is a hedge against rising costs. The rough analog is a \"\"pre-order\"\" in retail (but more like a \"\"holding fee\"\"). They're unusual in portfolio management but can be useful when moving money around in more complex ways. Basically, if you need to guarantee that you will not pay more than a certain per-share price to buy something in the future, you buy a call option. If the spot price as of the delivery date is less than the contract price, you buy from the market and ignore the contract, while if prices have soared, you exercise it and get the lower contract price. Stock options, offered as benefits in many companies, are a specific form of call option with very generous terms for whomever holds them. A swaption, basically a put and a call rolled into one, allows you to trade something for something else. Call it the free market's \"\"exchange policy\"\". For a price, if a security you currently hold loses value, you can exchange it for something else that you predicted would become more valuable at the same time. One example might be airline stocks and crude oil; when crude spikes, airline stocks generally suffer, and you can take advantage of this, if it happens, with a swaption to sell your airline stocks for crude oil certificates. There are many such closely-related inverse positions in the market, such as between various currencies, between stocks and commodities (gold is inversely related to pretty much everything else), and even straight-up cash-for-bad-debt arrangements (credit-default swaps, which we heard so much about in 2008).\"",
"qid": 10979,
"docid": "291600",
"rank": 54,
"score": 96002
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: In this example, Client A has to buy shares to return them to Client B for his sale (closing Client A's short position). Client B then sells the shares. The end result is there are no shares within the brokerage clientele anymore, so Client A can't borrow them anymore. The broker is just an intermediary, they wouldn't go out and acquire securities on their own for the benefit of a client wanting to short it, as they would be taking on the risk of the opposite position. This would be in addition to the risk they already take on when allowing people to short sell -- which is that Client A won't have the money to buy the shares it owes to Client B, in which case the broker has to make Client B whole.",
"qid": 10979,
"docid": "122050",
"rank": 55,
"score": 95875
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If the position starts losing money as soon as it is put on, then I would close it out ,taking a small loss. However, if it starts making money,as in the stock inches higher, then you can use part of the premium collected to buy an out of money put, thereby limiting your downside. It is called a collar.",
"qid": 10979,
"docid": "55535",
"rank": 56,
"score": 95460
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Buying (or selling) a futures contract means that you are entering into a contractual agreement to buy (or sell) the contracted commodity or financial instrument in the contracted amount (the contract size) at the price you have bought (or sold) the contract on the contract expire date (maturity date). It is important to understand that futures contracts are tradeable instruments, meaning that you are free to sell (or buy back) your contract at any time before the expiry date. For example, if you buy 1 \"\"lot\"\" (1 contract) of a gold future on the Comex exchange for the contract month of December 2016, then you entering into a contract to buy 100 ounces (the contract size) of gold at the price at which you buy the contract - not the spot price on the day of expiry when the contract comes to maturity. The December 2016 gold futures contract has an expiry date of 28 December. You are free to trade this contract at any time before its expiry by selling it back to another market participant. If you sell the contract at a price higher than you have purchased it, then you will realise a profit of 100 times the difference between the price you bought the contract and the price you sold the contract, where 100 is the contract size of the gold contract. Similarly, if you sell the contract at a price lower than the price you have purchased it, then you will realise a loss. (Commissions paid will also effect your net profit or loss). If you hold your contract until the expiry date and exercise your contract by taking (or making) delivery, then you are obliged to buy (or sell) 100 ounces of gold at the price at which you bought (or sold) the contract - not the current spot price. So long as your contract is \"\"open\"\" (i.e., prior to the expiry date and so long as you own the contract) you are required to make a \"\"good faith deposit\"\" to show that you intend to honour your contractual obligations. This deposit is usually called \"\"initial margin\"\". Typically, the initial margin amount will be about 2% of the total contract value for the gold contract. So if you buy (or sell) one contract for 100 ounces of gold at, say, $1275 an ounce, then the total contract value will be $127,500 and your deposit requirement would be about $2,500. The initial margin is returned to you when you sell (or buy) back your futures contract, or when you exercise your contract on expiry. In addition to initial margin, you will be required to maintain a second type of margin called \"\"variation margin\"\". The variation margin is the running profit or loss you are showing on your open contract. For the sake of simplicity, lets look only at the case where you have purchased a futures contract. If the futures price is higher than your contract (buy) price, then you are showing a profit on your current position and this profit (the variation margin) will be used to offset your initial margin requirement. Conversely, if the futures price has dropped below your contracted (buy) price, then you will be showing a loss on your open position and this loss (the variation margin) will be added to your initial margin and you will be called to put up more money in order to show good faith that you intend to honour your obligations. Note that neither the initial margin nor the variation margin are accounting items. In other words, these are not postings that are debited or credited to the ledger in your trading account. So in some sense \"\"you don't have to pay anything upfront\"\", but you do need to put up a refundable deposit to show good faith.\"",
"qid": 10979,
"docid": "289073",
"rank": 57,
"score": 95212
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: It's unclear what you're asking. When I originally read your question, it seemed that you had closed out one options position and opened another. When I read your question the second time, it seemed that you were writing a second option while the first was still open. In the second case, you have one covered and one naked position. The covered call will expire worthless, the naked call will expire in the money. How your broker will resolve that is a question best left for them, but my expectation is that they will assign the non-worthless calls. Whereas, if both options expired in the money, you would be assigned and you would have to come up with the additional shares (and again, that depends on how your broker works). In general, for both cases, your net is the premiums you received, plus the difference between strike price and the price that you paid for the stock, minus any cost to close out the position. So whether you make a profit is very much dependent on how much you received for your premiums. Scenario #1: close first call, write second: Scenario #2: write covered + naked, one expires worthless Scenario #3: write covered + naked, both expire in the money Disclaimer: the SEC does not consider me a financial/investment advisor, so this is not financial/investment advice",
"qid": 10979,
"docid": "105373",
"rank": 58,
"score": 95100
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"There are many reasons. Here are just some possibilities: The stock has a lot of negative sentiment and puts are being \"\"bid up\"\". The stock fell at the close and the options reflect that. The puts closed on the offer and the calls closed on the bid. The traders with big positions marked the puts up and the calls down because they are long puts and short calls. There isn't enough volume in the puts or calls to make any determination - what you are seeing is part of the randomness of a moment in time.\"",
"qid": 10979,
"docid": "259659",
"rank": 59,
"score": 94744
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"For stock options, where I'm used to seeing these terms: Volume is usually reported per day, whereas open interest is cumulative. In addition, some volume closes positions and some opens positions. For example, if I am long one contract and sell it to someone who was short one contract, then that adds to volume and reduces open interest. If I hold no contracts and sell (creating a short position) to someone who also had no contracts, then I add to volume and I increase open interest. EDIT: With the clarification in your comment, then I would say some people opened and closed positions in that one day. Their opening and closing trades both contribute to \"\"volume\"\" but they have not net position in the \"\"open interest.\"\"\"",
"qid": 10979,
"docid": "73846",
"rank": 60,
"score": 94534
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The original option writer (seller) can close his short position in the contracts he wrote by purchasing back matching contracts (i.e. contracts with the same terms: underlying, option type, strike price, expiration date) from any others who hold long positions, or else who write new matching contract instances. Rather than buyer and seller settling directly, options are settled through a central options clearing house, being the Options Clearing Corporation for exchange-listed options in the U.S. See also Wikipedia - Clearing house (finance). So, the original buyer of the put maintains his position (insurance) and the clearing process ensures he is matched up with somebody else holding a matching obligation, if he chooses to exercise his put. I also answered a similar question but in more detail, here.",
"qid": 10979,
"docid": "103147",
"rank": 61,
"score": 94200
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The initial and overnight margin requirements are set by the exchanges (who calculate them using the Standard Portfolio of Analysis of Risk, or 'SPAN' system), and positions are market to market according to these at the end of the trading session. To find these margin requirements you will need to consult the website of the exchange on which the contract you are trading is issued (i.e. if you're trading on the London Metal Exchange it's no good looking at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange's margin requirements as a previous answer suggests!). However, for positions entered and exited within the same day, the daytrade margin rate will apply. This is set by your broker rather than the exchange, and can be as little as 10% of the exchange requirement. You can find a useful comparison of different margin types and requirements in the article I have published here: Understanding Margin for Futures Trading.",
"qid": 10979,
"docid": "326335",
"rank": 62,
"score": 94092
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Brokers usually have this kind of information, you can take a look at interactive brokers for instance: http://www.interactivebrokers.co.uk/contract_info/v3.6/index.php?action=Details&site=GEN&conid=90384435 You are interested in the initial margin which in this case is $6,075. So you need that amount to buy/sell 1 future. In the contract specification you see the contract is made for 100 ounces. At the current price ($1,800/oz), that would be a total of $180,000. It is equivalent to saying you are getting 30x leverage. If you buy 1 future and the price goes from $1,800 to $1,850, the contract would go from $180,000 to $185,000. You make $5,000 or a 82% return. I am pretty sure you can imagine what happens if the market goes against you. Futures are great! (when your timing is perfect).",
"qid": 10979,
"docid": "534796",
"rank": 63,
"score": 93665
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"In short, yes. By \"\"forward selling\"\", you enter into a futures contract by which you agree to trade Euros for dollars (US or Singapore) at a set rate agreed to by both parties, at some future time. You are basically making a bet; you think that the dollar will gain on the Euro and thus you'd pay a higher rate on the spot than you've locked in with the future. The other party to the contract is betting against you; he thinks the dollar will weaken, and so the dollars he'll sell you will be worth less than the Euros he gets for them at the agreed rate. Now, in a traditional futures contract, you are obligated to execute it, whether it ends up good or bad for you. You can, to avoid this, buy an \"\"option\"\". By buying the option, you pay the other party to the deal for the right to say \"\"no, thanks\"\". That way, if the dollar weakens and you'd rather pay spot price at time of delivery, you simply let the contract expire un-executed. The tradeoff is that options cost money up-front which is now sunk; whether you exercise the option or not, the other party gets the option price. That basically creates a \"\"point spread\"\"; you \"\"win\"\" if the dollar appreciates against the Euro enough that you still save money even after buying the option, or if the dollar depreciates against the Euro enough that again you still save money after subtracting the option price, while you \"\"lose\"\" if the exchange rates are close enough to what was agreed on that it cost you more to buy the option than you gained by being able to choose to use it.\"",
"qid": 10979,
"docid": "321579",
"rank": 64,
"score": 93261
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"From my recollection of Warren Buffett's book \"\"Warren Buffett and the Art of Arbitrage\"\", the following factors determine the difference between the market price of a stock and the future expected price of an acquisition or merger: Time: Assuming the deal will close, the market price should approach the offer price as the closing date approaches. The fact that there is a 14% spread partially reflects the time value of money. Probability: Things could happen between now and closing date which could derail the deal. The higher the spread the more likely the market thinks the deal will not occur. For example, LO shareholders could reject the offer saying it is too low, or anti-trust regulators could say the deal is anti-competitive. Part of this 14% spread indicates the probability of the deal completing.\"",
"qid": 10979,
"docid": "176327",
"rank": 65,
"score": 93064
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: That looks very much like an S&P 500 E-Mini index future. However, ES1 is a strange symbol. Futures have the month of expiry encoded in their symbol as well: http://commodities.about.com/od/understandingthebasics/ss/futurescontract_3.htm For example, the September 2011 future in this series would be ESU1. I'm not very familiar with Bloomberg so perhaps this is the front contract (i.e. the one that's closest to expiry (in the is case the September 2011 one)). Only problem is that prices don't exactly match what CME has (high of 1190 and low of 1186.25, for when this page gets out of date): http://www.cmegroup.com/trading/equity-index/us-index/e-mini-sandp500.html - but they are so close I suspect it must be some sort of S&P 500 index future.",
"qid": 10979,
"docid": "366526",
"rank": 66,
"score": 92583
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: For futures, you are obligated to puchase the security at $x when the contract expires. For an option, you have the right or option to do so if it's favorable to you.",
"qid": 10979,
"docid": "302164",
"rank": 67,
"score": 91780
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Let's make a few assumptions: You have several ways of achieving (almost) that, in ascending complexity: Note that each alternative will have a cost which can be small (forwards, futures) or large (CFDs, debit) and the hedge will never be perfect, but you can get close. You will also need to decide whether you hedge the unrealised P&L on the position and at what frequency.",
"qid": 10979,
"docid": "565417",
"rank": 68,
"score": 91772
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The two dimensions are to open the trade (creating a position) and to buy or sell (becoming long or short the option). If you already own an option, you bought it to open and then you would sell it to close. If you don't own an option, you can either buy it to open, or sell it (short it) to open. If you are already short an option, you can buy it back to close. If you sell to open covered, the point is you're creating a \"\"covered call\"\" which means you own the stock, and then sell a call. Since you own the stock, the covered call has a lot of the risk of loss removed, though it also subtracts much of the reward possible from your stock.\"",
"qid": 10979,
"docid": "320101",
"rank": 69,
"score": 91372
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Probably the easiest way for individual investors is oil ETFs. In particular, USO seems to be fairly liquid and available. You should check carefully the bid/ask spreads in this volatile time. There are other oil ETFs and leveraged and inverse oil ETFs exist as well, but one should heed the warnings about leveraged ETFs. Oil futures are another possibility though they can be more complicated and tough to access for an individual investor. Note that futures have a drift associated with them as well. Be careful close or roll any positions before delivery, of course, unless you have a need for a bunch of actual barrels of oil. Finally, you can consider investing in commodities ETFs or Energy stocks or stock ETFs that are strongly related to the price of oil. As Keshlam mentions, care is advised in all these methods. Many people thought oil reached its bottom a few weeks back then OPEC decided to do nothing and the price dropped even further.",
"qid": 10979,
"docid": "127566",
"rank": 70,
"score": 91310
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: As far as trading is concerned, these forward curves are the price at which you can speculate on the future value of the commodity. Basically, if you want to speculate on gold, you can either buy the physical and store it somewhere (which may have significant costs) or you can buy futures (ETFs typically hold futures or hold physical and store it for you). If you buy futures, you will have to roll your position every month, meaning you sell the current month's futures and buy the next month's. However, these may not be trading at the same price, so each time you roll your position, you face a risk. If you know you want to hold gold for exactly 1 year, then you can buy a 1-year future, which in this case according to your graph will cost you about $10 more than buying the front month. The forward curve (or sometimes called the futures term structure) represents the prices at which gold can be bought or sold at various points in the future.",
"qid": 10979,
"docid": "394886",
"rank": 71,
"score": 91133
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Often these types of trades fall into two different categories. An error by broker or exchange. Exchange clearing out part of their books incorrectly is an example. Most exchanges make firms reopen their positions for after market hours. There may have been an issue doing so or exchange could incorrectly cancel positions. I was in the direct feed industry for years and this was a big issue. At the same time the broker can issue a no limit buy on accident (or has software that is prospecting and said software has a bug or written poorly). unscrupulous parties looking to feign an upswing or downswing in market. Let's say you hold 500k shares in a stock that sells for $11. You could possibly buy 100 shares for $13. Trust me you will find a seller. Then you are hoping that people see that trade as a \"\"norm\"\" and trade from there, allowing you to rake in $1M for spending an extra $200 - NOTE this is not normal and an extreme example. This was so common in the early days of NASDAQ after hours that they discontinued using the after hours trades as part of historical information that they keep like daily/yearly high or closing price. The liquidity allows for manipulation. It isn't seen as much now since this has been done a million times but it does still happen.\"",
"qid": 10979,
"docid": "378889",
"rank": 72,
"score": 91001
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you hold a future plus enough cash collateral it is economically equivalent to owning the underlying asset or shorting the underlying asset. In general financial assets such as stock indices have a positive expected return - that's the main difference between investing and gambling. There's nothing that special about futures, they are just another contractual form of asset ownership. Well, one difference is that regulations or brokerages allow individual investors more leverage with options and futures than with straight borrowing. But this is more a regulatory issue than a conceptual issue with the securities themselves. In theory regulators or brokers could require you to hold enough collateral to make a future equivalent to buying the underlying.",
"qid": 10979,
"docid": "369031",
"rank": 73,
"score": 90817
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: One of the fundamental of technical analysis suggests that holding a security overnight represents a huge commitment. Therefore it would follow that traders would tend to close their positions prior to market close and open them when it opens.",
"qid": 10979,
"docid": "355319",
"rank": 74,
"score": 90460
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The settlement date for any trade is the date on which the seller gets the buyer's money and the buyer gets the seller's product. In US equities markets the settlement date is (almost universally) three trading days after the trade date. This settlement period gives the exchanges, the clearing houses, and the brokers time to figure out how many shares and how many dollars need to actually be moved around in order to give everyone what they're owed (and then to actually do all that moving around). So, \"\"settling\"\" a short trade is the same thing as settling any other trade. It has nothing to do with \"\"closing\"\" (or covering) the seller's short position. Q: Is this referring to when a short is initiated, or closed? A: Initiated. If you initiate a short position by selling borrowed shares on day 1, then settlement occurs on day 4. (Regardless of whether your short position is still open or has been closed.) Q: All open shorts which are still open by the settlement date have to be reported by the due date. A: Not exactly. The requirement is that all short positions evaluated based on their settlement dates (rather than their trade dates) still open on the deadline have to be reported by the due date. You sell short 100 AAPL on day 1. You then cover that short by buying 100 AAPL on day 2. As far as the clearing houses and brokers are concerned, however, you don't even get into the short position until your sell settles at the end of day 4, and you finally get out of your short position (in their eyes) when your buy settles at the end of day 5. So imagine the following scenarios: The NASDAQ deadline happens to be the end of day 2. Since your (FINRA member) broker has been told to report based on settlement date, it would report no open position for you in AAPL even though you executed a trade to sell on day 1. The NASDAQ deadline happens to be the end of day 3. Your sell still has not settled, so there's still no open position to report for you. The NASDAQ deadline happens to be the end of day 4. Your sell has settled but your buy has not, so the broker reports a 100 share open short position for you. The NASDAQ deadline happens to be the end of day 5. Your sell and buy have both settled, so the broker once again has no open position to report for you. So, the point is that when dealing with settlement dates you just pretend the world is 3 days behind where it actually is.\"",
"qid": 10979,
"docid": "226984",
"rank": 75,
"score": 90047
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: No, if your stock is called away, the stock is sold at the agreed upon price. You cannot get it back at your original price. If you don't want your stock to be called, make sure you have the short call position closed by expiration if it is ITM. Also you could be at risk for early assignment if the option has little to no extrinsic value, although probably not. But when dividends are coming, make sure you close your short ITM options. If the dividend is worth more than the extrinsic value, you are pretty much guaranteed to be assigned. Been assigned that way too many times. Especially in ETFs where the dividends aren't dates are not always easy to find. It happens typically during triple witching. If you are assigned on your short option, you will be short stock and you will have to pay the dividend to the shareholder of your short stock. So if you have a covered call on, and you are assigned, your stock will be called away, and you will have to pay the dividend.",
"qid": 10979,
"docid": "228810",
"rank": 76,
"score": 89880
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Your strategy fails to control risk. Your \"\"inversed crash\"\" is called a rally. And These kind of things often turn into bigger rallies because of short squeezes, when all the people that are shorting a stock are forced to close their stock because of margin calls - its not that shorts \"\"scramble\"\" to close their position, the broker AUTOMATICALLY closes your short positions with market orders and you are stuck with the loss. So no, your \"\"trick\"\" is not enough. There are better ways to profit from a bearish outlook.\"",
"qid": 10979,
"docid": "333496",
"rank": 77,
"score": 89591
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Futures contracts are a member of a larger class of financial assets called derivatives. Derivatives are called such because their payoffs depend on the price of other assets (financial or real). Other kinds of derivatives are call options, put options. Fixed income assets that mimic the behavior of derivatives are callable bonds, puttable bonds etc. A futures contract is a contract that specifies the following: Just like with any other contract, there are two parties involved. One party commits to delivering the underlying asset to the other party on expiration date in exchange for the futures price. The other party commits to paying the futures price in exchange for the asset. There is no price that any of the two parties pay upfront to engage in the contract. The language used is so that the agent committing to receiving the delivery of the underlying asset is said to have bought the contract. The agent that commits to make the delivery is said to have sold the contract. So answer your question, buying on June 1 a futures contract at the futures price of $100, with a maturity date on August 1 means you commit to paying $100 for the underlying asset on August 1. You don't have to pay anything upfront. Futures price is simply what the contract prescribes the underlying asset will exchange hands for.",
"qid": 10979,
"docid": "108",
"rank": 78,
"score": 89471
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The initial margin is $5940 and maintenance margin $5400. A simple search of Comex Gold Margin gives the CME group site. You then need to specify CMX metals to see the margins. Gold is currently about $1300. A gold future is 100 oz. So the full contract is worth $130K. You want to 'go long' so you enter into a contract for Dec '14. You put up $5940, and if gold rises, you gain $100 for each $1 it goes up. Likewise on the downside. If gold drops $5.40, you lost $540 and will get a call to end the position or to put up more money. It's similar to stock margin requirements, only the numbers are much lower, your leverage with futures is over 20 to 1.",
"qid": 10979,
"docid": "474487",
"rank": 79,
"score": 88803
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The owner of a long futures contract does not receive dividends, hence this is a disadvantage compared to owning the underlying stock. If the dividend is increased, and the future price would not change, there is an arbitrage possibility. For the sake of simplicity, assume that the stock suddenly starts paying a dividend, and that the risk free rate is zero (so interest does not play a role). One can expect that the future price is (rougly) equal to the stock price before the dividend announcment. If the future price would not change, an investor could buy the stock, and short a futures contract on the stock. At expiration he has to deliver the stock for the price set in the contract, which is under the assumptions here equal to the price he bought the stock for. But because he owned the stock, he receives the announced dividend. Hence he can make a risk-free profit consisting of the divivends. If interest do play a role, the argument is similar.",
"qid": 10979,
"docid": "65295",
"rank": 80,
"score": 88694
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: CFDs (Contracts for Difference) are basically a contract between you and the broker on the difference in price of the underlying between the time you open a position and close a position. You are not actually buying the underlying. With share CFDs, the outcome is a bit like buying the underlying shares on margin. You pay interest for every day you hold the CFDs overnight for long CFDs. However, with short positions, you get paid interest for every day you hold your short position overnight. Most people use CFDs for short term trading, however they can be used for medium to longer term trading just as you would hold a portfolio on margin. What you have to remember is that because you are buying on margin you can lose more than your initial contract amount. A way to manage this risk is by using position sizing and stop loses. With your position sizing, if you wanted to invest $10,000 in a particular share trading at $10 per share, you would then buy 1000 shares or 1000 CFDs in that share. Your initial expense with the CFDs might be only $1000 (at a margin rate of 10%). So instead of increasing your risk by having an initial outlay of $10,000 with the CFDs you limit your risk to the same as you were buying the shares directly.",
"qid": 10979,
"docid": "173846",
"rank": 81,
"score": 88408
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: It would be nice if the broker could be instructed to clear out the position for you, but in my experience the broker will simply give you the shares that you can't afford, then freeze your account because you are over your margin limit, and issue a margin call. This happened to me recently because of a dumb mistake: options I paid $200 for and expected to expire worthless, ended up slightly ITM, so they were auto-exercised on Friday for about $20k, and my account was frozen (only able to close positions). By the next Monday, market news had shifted the stock against me and I had to sell it at a loss of $1200 to meet the margin call. This kind of thing is what gives option trading a reputation for danger: A supposedly max-$200-risk turned into a 6x greater loss. I see no reason to ever exercise, I always try to close my positions, but these things can happen.",
"qid": 10979,
"docid": "367928",
"rank": 82,
"score": 88088
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: There is indeed a market for single stock futures, and they have been trading on the OneChicago exchange since 2002. Futures are available in 12,509 individual stocks, according to the exchange's current product listing. One advantage they offer over trading the underlying stock is the significantly higher leverage that is available, combined with the lack of pattern day trader rules that apply to stocks and similar securities. Single stock futures have proven to be something of a regulatory challenge as it has been unclear whether their oversight is the remit of the SEC/FINRA or the CFTC/NFA.",
"qid": 10979,
"docid": "120447",
"rank": 83,
"score": 88023
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Because you've sold something you've received cash (or at least an entry on your brokerage statement to say you've got cash) so you should record that as a credit in your brokerage account in GnuCash. The other side of the entry should go into another account that you create called something like \"\"Open Positions\"\" and is usually marked as a Liability account type (if you need to mark it as such). If you want to keep an accurate daily tally of your net worth you can add a new entry to your Open Positions account and offset that against Income which will be either negative or positive depending on how the position has moved for/against you. You can also do this at a lower frequency or not at all and just put an entry in when your position closes out because you bought it back or it expired or it was exercised. My preferred method is to have a single entry in the Open Positions account with an arbitrary date near when I expect it to be closed and each time I edit that value (daily or weekly) so I only have the initial entry and the current adjust to look at which reduces the number of entries and confusion if there are too many.\"",
"qid": 10979,
"docid": "145892",
"rank": 84,
"score": 87751
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: In the case of regulated, exchange-traded options, the writer of an options contract is obliged to maintain a margin with their broker, and the broker is obliged to maintain a margin with the clearing house. (Institutional writers of options will deal directly with the clearing house.) In the event that the writer is unable to make a daily margin call, the broker (or clearing house) may automatically close out (all of) their positions using existing margin held. If there was a shortfall, the broker (or clearing house) would be left to persue the client (writer) to make good on their obligations. None of this effects the position of the original buyer of the options contract. Effectively, the buyer's counterparty is their broker's clearing house account.",
"qid": 10979,
"docid": "376136",
"rank": 85,
"score": 87745
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: There are classes of 'traders' who close their positions out every evening, not just on fridays. But their are other types of businesses who trade shortly before or nearly right at market close with both buys and sells There are lots of theories as to how the market behaves at various times of day, days of the week, months of the year. There are some few patterns that can emerge but in general they don't provide a lot of 'lift' above pure random chance, enough so that if you 'bet' on one of these your chances of being wrong are only very slightly different from being right, enough so that it's not really fair to call any of them a 'sure thing'. And since these events are often fairly widely spaced, it's difficult to play them often enough to get the 'law of large numbers' on your side (as opposed to say card-counting at a blackjack table) which basically makes betting on them not much different from gambling",
"qid": 10979,
"docid": "471704",
"rank": 86,
"score": 87467
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Depending on the currencies you want to trade there are mini-futures available with a contract value of 12.500 (for example EUR/USD) or standard futures with a contract value of 125.000. You will find an overview at the Globex CME website For a broker to trade the futures I would recommend Interactive Brokers. They offer real-time trading at very low commission.",
"qid": 10979,
"docid": "190756",
"rank": 87,
"score": 87336
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: In the UK there are spread betting firms (essentially financial bookmakers) that will take large bets 24x7. Plus, interbank forex is open 24x7 anyway. And there are a wide array of futures markets in different jurisdictions. There are plenty of ways to find organizations who are willing to take the opposite position that you do, day or night, provided that you qualify.",
"qid": 10979,
"docid": "276950",
"rank": 88,
"score": 87038
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: It ought to be possible to buy a foreign exchange future (aka forex future / FX future). Businesses use these futures to make sure their exchange rate is predictable: if they put a bunch of money into manufacturing things that'll be ready a year later, it helps to know that the currency exchange rate shifts won't wipe out all their profits. If you're willing to take on some of that risk, and if things go your way, you can make money. They are essentially contracts between two private parties to pay each other a certain amount of money based on the movement of the currencies, so the Chinese government doesn't actually need to be involved and no renminbi need to change hands, you can just trade the contracts. Note that the exchange rate is currently fixed by the Chinese government, so you're going to be subject to enhanced levels of political risk, and they may not be as widely available or readily tradable as other foreign exchange futures, so check with a broker before opening your account. I couldn't find them on my personal Etrade account, but a quick Google search reveals CME Group offering some. There are probably others. Foreign exchange futures are an advanced investing tool and carry risk. Be sure you understand the risk, in particular how much money you can end up on the hook for if things don't go your way. Also remember, futures expire: you're not just betting on the rate changing, but you're betting on it changing within a certain amount of time.",
"qid": 10979,
"docid": "148948",
"rank": 89,
"score": 86947
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"If you sell a stock you don't own, it's called a short sale. You borrowed the shares from an owner of the stock and eventually would buy to close. On most normal shares, you can hold a short position indefinitely, but there are some shares that have a combination of either a small float or too high a short position that shares to short are not available. This can create a \"\"short squeeze\"\" where shorts are burned by being forced to buy the stock back. Last - when you did this, you should have instructed the broker that you were \"\"selling to open\"\" or \"\"selling short.\"\" In the old days, when people held stock certificates, you were required to send the certificate in when you sold. Today, the broker should know that wasn't your intention.\"",
"qid": 10979,
"docid": "345368",
"rank": 90,
"score": 86461
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Yes there will be enough liquidity to sell your position barring some sort of Flash Crash anomaly. Volume generally rises on the day of expiration to increase this liquidity. Don't forget that there are many investment strategies--buying to cover a short position is closing out a trade similar to your case.",
"qid": 10979,
"docid": "92695",
"rank": 91,
"score": 86415
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"In summary: In long form: Spreads and shorts are not allowed in cash accounts, except for covered options. Brokers will allow clients to roll option positions in a single transaction, which look like spreads, but these are not actually \"\"sell to open\"\" transactions. \"\"Sell to open\"\" is forbidden in cash accounts. Short positions from closing the long half of a covered trade are verboten. Day-trading is allowed in both margin and cash accounts. However, \"\"pattern day-trading\"\" only applies to margin accounts, and requires a minimum account balance of $25,000. Cash accounts are free to buy and sell the same security on the same day over and over, provided that there is sufficient buying power to pay for opening a new position. Since proceeds are held for both stock and option sales in a cash account, that means buying power available at the start of the day will drop with each purchase and not rise again until settlement. Unsettled funds are available immediately within margin accounts, without restriction. In cash accounts, using unsettled funds to purchase securities will require you to hold the new position until funds settle -- otherwise your account will be blocked for \"\"free-riding\"\". Legally, you can buy securities in a cash account without available cash on deposit with the broker, but most brokers don't allow this, and some will aggressively liquidate any position that you are somehow able to enter for which you didn't have available cash already on deposit. In a margin account, margin can help gloss over the few days between purchase and deposit, allowing you to be somewhat more aggressive in investing funds. A margin account will allow you to make an investment if you feel the opportunity is right before requiring you to deposit the funds. See a great opportunity? With sufficient margin, you can open the trade immediately and then run to the bank to deposit funds, rather than being stuck waiting for funds to be credited to your account. Margin accounts might show up on your credit report. The possibility of losing more than you invested, having positions liquidated when you least expect it, your broker doing possibly stupid things in order to close out an over-margined account, and other consequences are all very serious risks of margin accounts. Although you mentioned awareness of this issue, any answer is not complete with mentioning those risks.\"",
"qid": 10979,
"docid": "300139",
"rank": 92,
"score": 86254
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Simple answer: Breakeven is when the security being traded reaches a price equal to the cost of the option plus the option's strike price, assuming you choose to exercise it. So for example, if you paid $1.00 for,say, a call option with a strike price of $19.00, breakeven would be when the security itself reaches $20.00. That being said, I can't imagine why you'd \"\"close out a position\"\" at the breakeven point. You wouldn't make or lose money doing that, so it wouldn't be rational. Now, as the option approaches expiration, you may make adjustments to the position to reflect shifts in momentum of the stock. So, if it looks as though the stock may not reach the option strike price, you could close out the position and take your lumps. But if the stock has momentum that will carry it past the strike price by expiration, you may choose to augment your position with additional contracts, although this would obviously mean the new contracts would be priced higher, which raises your dollar cost basis, and this may not make much sense. Another option in this scenario is that if the stock is going to surpass strike price, it might be a good opportunity to buy additional calls with either later expiration dates or with higher strike prices, depending on how much higher you speculate the stock will climb. I've managed to make some money doing this, buying options with strike prices just a dollar or two higher (or lower when playing puts), because the premiums were (in my opinion) underpriced to the potential peak of the stock by the expiration date. Sometimes the new options were actually slightly cheaper than my original positions, so my dollar cost basis overall dropped somewhat, improving my profit percentages.\"",
"qid": 10979,
"docid": "112321",
"rank": 93,
"score": 86087
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Yes this is possible in the most liquid securities, but currently it would take several days to get filled in one contract at that amount There are also position size limits (set by the OCC and other Self Regulatory Organizations) that attempt to prevent people from cornering a market through the options market. (getting loads of contacts without effecting the price of the underlying asset, exercising those contracts and suddenly owning a huge stake of the asset and nobody saw it coming - although this is still VERY VERY possible) So for your example of an option of $1.00 per contract, then the position size limits would have prevented 100 million of those being opened (by one person/account that is). Realistically, you would spread out your orders amongst several options strike prices and expiration dates. Stock Indexes are some very liquid examples, so for the Standard & Poors you can open options contracts on the SPY ETF, as well as the S&P 500 futures, as well as many other S&P 500 products that only trade options and do not have the ability to be traded as the underlying shares. And there is also the saying \"\"liquidity begets liquidity\"\", meaning that because you are making the market more liquid, other large market participants will also see the liquidity and want to participate, where they previously thought it was too illiquid and impossible to close a large position quickly\"",
"qid": 10979,
"docid": "271741",
"rank": 94,
"score": 86070
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I traded futures for a brief period in school using the BrokersXpress platform (now part of OptionsXpress, which is in turn now part of Charles Schwab). They had a virtual trading platform, and apparently still do, and it was excellent. Since my main account was enabled for futures, this carried over to the virtual account, so I could trade a whole range of futures, options, stocks, etc. I spoke with OptionsXpress, and you don't need to fund your acount to use the virtual trading platform. However, they will cancel your account after an arbitrary period of time if you don't log in every few days. According to their customer service, there is no inactivity fee on your main account if you don't fund it and make no trades. I also used Stock-Trak for a class and despite finding the occasional bug or website performance issue, it provided a good experience. I received a discount because I used it through an educational institution, and customer service was quite good (probably for the same reason), but I don't know if those same benefits would apply to an individual signing up for it. I signed up for top10traders about seven years ago when I was in secondary school, and it's completely free. Unfortunately, you get what you pay for, and the interface was poorly designed and slow. Furthermore, at that time, there were no restrictions that limited the number of shares you could buy to the number of outstanding shares, so you could buy as many as you could afford, even if you exceeded the number that physically existed. While this isn't an issue for large companies, it meant you could earn a killing trading highly illiquid pink sheet stocks because you could purchase billions of shares of companies with only a few thousand shares actually outstanding. I don't know if these issues have been corrected or not, but at the time, I and several other users took advantage of these oversights to rack up hundreds of trillions of dollars in a matter of days, so if you want a realistic simulation, this isn't it. Investopedia also has a stock simulator that I've heard positive things about, although I haven't used it personally.",
"qid": 10979,
"docid": "555047",
"rank": 95,
"score": 85461
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: This is a great question for understanding how futures work, first let's start with your assumptions The most interesting thing here is that neither of these things really matters for the price of the futures. This may seem odd as a futures contract sounds like you are betting on the future price of the index, but remember that the current price already includes the expectations of future earnings as well! There is actually a fairly simple formula for the price of a futures contract (note the link is for forward contracts which are very similar but slightly more simple to understand). Note, that if you are given the current price of the underlying the futures price depends essentially only on the interest rate and the dividends paid during the length of the futures contract. In this case the dividend rate for the S&P500 is higher than the prevailing interest rate so the futures price is lower than the current price. It is slightly more complicated than this as you can see from the formula, but that is essentially how it works. Note, this is why people use futures contracts to mimic other exposures. As the price of the future moves (pretty much) in lockstep with the underlying and sometimes using futures to hedge exposures can be cheaper than buying etfs or using swaps. Edit: Example of the effect of dividends on futures prices For simplicity, let's imagine we are looking at a futures position on a stock that has only one dividend (D) in the near term and that this dividend happens to be scheduled for the day before the futures' delivery date. To make it even more simple lets say the price of the stock is fairly constant around a price P and interest rates are near zero. After the dividend, we would expect the price of the stock to be P' ~ P - D as if you buy the stock after the dividend you wouldn't get that dividend but you still expect to get the rest of the value from additional future cash flows of the company. However, if we buy the futures contract we will eventually own the stock but only after the dividend happens. Since we don't get that dividend cash that the owners of the stock will get we certainly wouldn't want to pay as much as we would pay for the stock (P). We should instead pay about P' the (expected) value of owning the stock after that date. So, in the end, we expect the stock price in the future (P') to be the futures' price today (P') and that should make us feel a lot more comfortable about what we our buying. Neither owning the stock or future is really necessarily favorable in the end you are just buying slightly different future expected cash flows and should expect to pay slightly different prices.",
"qid": 10979,
"docid": "529996",
"rank": 96,
"score": 85247
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: In order to understand how much you might gain or lose from participating in the futures markets, it is important to first understand the different ways in which the slope of the futures markets can be described. In many of the futures markets there is a possibility of somebody buying a commodity at the spot price and selling a futures contract on it. In order to do this they need to hold the commodity in storage. Most commodities cost money to hold in storage, so the futures price will tend to be above the spot price for these commodities. In the case of stock index futures, the holder receives a potential benefit from holding the stocks in an index. If the futures market is upward sloping compared to the spot price, then it can be called normal. If the futures market is usually downward sloping compared to the spot price then it can be called inverted. If the futures market is high enough above the spot price so that more of the commodity gets stored for the future, then the market can be called in contango. If the futures market is below the point where the commodity can be profitably stored for the future, and the market can be called in backwardation. In many of these cases, there is an implicit cost that the buyer of a future pays in order to hold the contract for certainly time. Your question is how much money you make if the price of gold goes up by a specific amount, or how much money you lose if the price of gold goes down by the same specific amount. The problem is, you do not say whether it is the spot price or the futures price which goes up or down. In most cases it is assumed that the change in the futures price will be similar to the change in the spot price of gold. If the spot price of gold goes up by a small amount, then the futures price of gold will go up by a small amount as well. If the futures price of gold goes up by a small amount, this will also drive the spot price of gold up. Even for these small price changes, the expected futures price change in expected spot price change will not be exactly the same. For larger price changes, there will be more of a difference between the expected spot price change in expected future price change. If the price eventually goes up, then the cost of holding the contract will be subtracted from any future gains. If the price eventually goes down, then this holding cost should be added to the losses. If you bought the contract when it was above the spot price, the price will slowly drift toward the spot price, causing you this holding cost. If the price of gold does not change any from the current spot price, then all you are left with is this holding cost.",
"qid": 10979,
"docid": "587111",
"rank": 97,
"score": 85183
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"There is more than one exchange where stock can be traded. For example, there is the New York Stock Exchange and the London Stock Exchange. In fact, if you look at all the exchanges, there is essentially continuous trading 24/7 for many financial instruments (eg US government bonds). The closing price quoted in papers is usually the price at the close on the NYSE. However, options close after that and so there is after-the-close trading in many stocks with active options, so the price at the close of options trading at CBOE is often used. The \"\"real\"\" price is always changing. But for the purpose of discussion, using the closing price in NYSE (for NYSE listed stocks) is pretty standard and unlikely to be questioned. Likewise, using Bloomberg's price makes sense. Using some after-hours or small market quote could lead to differences with commonly accepted numbers - until tomorrow :)\"",
"qid": 10979,
"docid": "354811",
"rank": 98,
"score": 85150
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Generally speaking, you realize options gains or losses for (US) tax purposes when you close out the option position, or when it expires so in your example, if you're discussing an equity option, you'd realize the gain or loss next year, assuming you don't close it out prior to year end. But options tax treatment can get messy fast: Still, if you have no other stock or option positions in the underlying during or within 30 days of the establishment of the naked put, and assuming the option isn't assigned, you won't realize any gains or losses until the year in which the option is closed or expires.",
"qid": 10979,
"docid": "487256",
"rank": 99,
"score": 85012
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: This is dependent on the broker according to The Options Industry Council. Your broker will specify what they would do upon expiry (or hours before last trade) if you did not indicate your preference. Most likely they will conduct a probabilistic simulation to see whether exercising the contracts may result in margin deficit even after selling the delivered shares under extreme circumstances. In most cases, brokers tend to liquidate the option for you (sell to close) before expiry. I've seen people complain about certain brokers forcing liquidation at terrible bid-ask spreads even though the options are still days to expiry. It is better for you to close the position on your own beforehand. The best brokers would allow margin deficit and let you deposit the required amount of money afterward. Please consult your broker's materials. If you can't find them, use live chat or email tickets.",
"qid": 10979,
"docid": "151587",
"rank": 100,
"score": 84964
}
] |
Net loss not distributed by mutual funds to their shareholders? | [
{
"content": "Title: Content: Generally speaking, each year, mutual funds distribute to their shareholders the dividends that are earned by the stocks that they hold and also the net capital gains that they make when they sell stocks that they hold. If they did not do so, the money would be income to the fund and the fund would have to pay taxes on the amount not distributed. (On the other hand, net capital losses are held by the fund and carried forward to later years to offset future capital gains). You pay taxes on the amounts of the distributions declared by the fund. Whether the fund sold a particular stock for a loss or a gain (and if so, how much) is not the issue; what the fund declares as its distribution is. This is why it is not a good idea to buy a mutual fund just before it makes a distribution; your share price drops by the per-share amount of the distribution, and you have to pay taxes on the distribution.",
"qid": 10994,
"docid": "486974",
"rank": 1,
"score": 198269
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I'll try to answer using your original example. First, let me restate your assumptions, slightly modified: The mutual fund has: Note that I say the \"\"mutual fund has\"\" those gains and losses. That's because they occur inside the mutual fund and not directly to you as a shareholder. I use \"\"realized\"\" gains and losses because the only gains and losses handled this way are those causes by actual asset (stock) sales within the fund (as directed by fund management). Changes in the value of fund holdings that are not sold are not included in this. As a holder of the fund, you learn the values of X, Y, and Z after the end of the year when the fund management reports the values. For gains, you will also typically see the values reported on your 1099-DIV under \"\"capital gains distributions\"\". For example, your 1099-DIV for year 3 will have the value Z for capital gains (besides reporting any ordinary dividends in another box). Your year 1 1099 will have $0 \"\"capital gains distributions\"\" shown because of the rule you highlighted in bold: net realized losses are not distributed. This capital loss however can later be used to the mutual fund holder's tax advantage. The fund's internal accounting carries forward the loss, and uses it to offset later realized gains. Thus your year 2 1099 will have a capital gain distribution of (Y-X), not Y, thus recognizing the loss which occurred. Thus the loss is taken into account. Note that for capital gains you, the holder, pay no tax in year 1, pay tax in year 2 on Y-X, and pay tax in year 3 on Z. All the above is the way it works whether or not you sell the shares immediately after the end of year 3 or you hold the shares for many more years. Whenever you do sell the shares, you will have a gain or loss, but that is different from the fund's realized losses we have been talking about (X, Y, and Z).\"",
"qid": 10994,
"docid": "212394",
"rank": 2,
"score": 179712
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: A mutual fund makes distributions of its dividends and capital gains, usually once a year, or seminanually or quarterly or monthly etc; it does not distribute any capital losses to its shareholders but holds them for offsetting capital gains in future years, (cf, this answer of mine to a different question). A stock pays dividends; a stock neither has nor does it distribute capital gains: you get capital gains (or losses) when you sell the shares of the stock, but these are not called distributions of any kind. Similarly, you incur capital gains or losses when you redeem shares of mutual funds but these are not called distributions either. Note that non-ETF mutual fund shares are generally not bought and sold on stock exchanges; you buy shares directly from the fund and you sell shares back (redeem them) directly to the fund. All of the above transactions are taxable events for the year to you unless the shares are being held in a tax-deferred account or are tax-free for other reasons (e.g. dividends from a municipal bond fund).",
"qid": 10994,
"docid": "110343",
"rank": 3,
"score": 159110
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: This is really an extended comment on the last paragraph of @BenMiller's answer. When (the manager of) a mutual fund sells securities that the fund holds for a profit, or receives dividends (stock dividends, bond interest, etc.), the fund has the option of paying taxes on that money (at corporate rates) and distributing the rest to shareholders in the fund, or passing on the entire amount (categorized as dividends, qualified dividends, net short-term capital gains, and net long-term capital gains) to the shareholders who then pay taxes on the money that they receive at their own respective tax rates. (If the net gains are negative, i.e. losses, they are not passed on to the shareholders. See the last paragraph below). A shareholder doesn't have to reinvest the distribution amount into the mutual fund: the option of receiving the money as cash always exists, as does the option of investing the distribution into a different mutual fund in the same family, e.g. invest the distributions from Vanguard's S&P 500 Index Fund into Vanguard's Total Bond Index Fund (and/or vice versa). This last can be done without needing a brokerage account, but doing it across fund families will require the money to transit through a brokerage account or a personal account. Such cross-transfers can be helpful in reducing the amounts of money being transferred in re-balancing asset allocations as is recommended be done once or twice a year. Those investing in load funds instead of no-load funds should keep in mind that several load funds waive the load for re-investment of distributions but some funds don't: the sales charge for the reinvestment is pure profit for the fund if the fund was purchased directly or passed on to the brokerage if the fund was purchased through a brokerage account. As Ben points out, a shareholder in a mutual fund must pay taxes (in the appropriate categories) on the distributions from the fund even though no actual cash has been received because the entire distribution has been reinvested. It is worth keeping in mind that when the mutual fund declares a distribution (say $1.22 a share), the Net Asset Value per share drops by the same amount (assuming no change in the prices of the securities that the fund holds) and the new shares issued are at this lower price. That is, there is no change in the value of the investment: if you had $10,000 in the fund the day before the distribution was declared, you still have $10,000 after the distribution is declared but you own more shares in the fund than you had previously. (In actuality, the new shares appear in your account a couple of days later, not immediately when the distribution is declared). In short, a distribution from a mutual fund that is re-invested leads to no change in your net assets, but does increase your tax liability. Ditto for a distribution that is taken as cash or re-invested elsewhere. As a final remark, net capital losses inside a mutual fund are not distributed to shareholders but are retained within the fund to be written off against future capital gains. See also this previous answer or this one.",
"qid": 10994,
"docid": "403701",
"rank": 4,
"score": 145914
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You did something that you shouldn't have done; you bought a dividend. Most mutual fund companies have educational materials on their sites that recommend against making new investments in mutual funds in the last two months of the year because most mutual funds distribute their earnings (dividends, capital gains etc) to their shareholders in December, and the share price of the funds goes down in the amount of the per share distribution. These distributions can be taken in cash or can be re-invested in the fund; you most likely chose the latter option (it is often the default choice if you ignored all this because you are a newbie). For those who choose to reinvest, the number of shares in the mutual fund increases, but since the price of the shares has decreased, the net amount remains the same. You own more shares at a lower price than the day before when the price was higher but the total value of your account is the same (ignoring normal market fluctuations in the price of the actual stocks held by the fund. Regardless of whether you take the distributions as cash or re-invest in the fund, that money is taxable income to you (unless the fund is owned inside a 401k or IRA or other tax-deferred investment program). You bought 56 shares at a price of $17.857 per share (net cost $1000). The fund distributed its earnings shortly thereafter and gave you 71.333-56= 15.333 additional shares. The new share price is $14.11. So, the total value of your investment is $1012, but the amount that you have invested in the account is the original $1000 plus the amount of the distribution which is (roughly) $14.11 x 15.333 = $216. Your total investment of $1216 is now worth $1012 only, and so you have actually lost money. Besides, you owe income tax on that $216 dividend that you received. Do you see why the mutual fund companies recommend against making new investments late in the year? If you had waited till after the mutual fund had made its distribution, you could have bought $1000/14.11 = 70.871 shares and wouldn't have owed tax on that distribution that you just bought by making the investment just before the distribution was made. See also my answer to this recent question about investing in mutual funds.",
"qid": 10994,
"docid": "583203",
"rank": 5,
"score": 137558
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"This answer is applicable to the US. Similar rules may hold in some other countries as well. The shares in an open-ended (non-exchange-traded) mutual fund are not traded on stock exchanges and the \"\"market\"\" does not determine the share price the way it does for shares in companies as brokers make offers to buy and sell stock shares. The price of one share of the mutual fund (usually called Net Asset Value (NAV) per share) is usually calculated at the close of business, and is, as the name implies, the net worth of all the shares in companies that the fund owns plus cash on hand etc divided by the number of mutual fund shares outstanding. The NAV per share of a mutual fund might or might not increase in anticipation of the distribution to occur, but the NAV per share very definitely falls on the day that the distribution is declared. If you choose to re-invest your distribution in the same fund, then you will own more shares at a lower NAV per share but the total value of your investment will not change at all. If you had 100 shares currently priced at $10 and the fund declares a distribution of $2 per share, you will be reinvesting $200 to buy more shares but the fund will be selling you additional shares at $8 per share (and of course, the 100 shares you hold will be priced at $8 per share too. So, you will have 100 previous shares worth only $800 now + 25 new shares worth $200 for a total of 125 shares at $8 = $1000 total investment, just as before. If you take the distribution in cash, then you still hold the 100 shares but they are worth only $800 now, and the fund will send you the $200 as cash. Either way, there is no change in your net worth. However, (assuming that the fund is is not in a tax-advantaged account), that $200 is taxable income to you regardless of whether you reinvest it or take it as cash. The fund will tell you what part of that $200 is dividend income (as well as what part is Qualified Dividend income), what part is short-term capital gains, and what part is long-term capital gains; you declare the income in the appropriate categories on your tax return, and are taxed accordingly. So, what advantage is there in re-investing? Well, your basis in those shares has increased and so if and when you sell the shares, you will owe less tax. If you had bought the original 100 shares at $10 and sell the 125 shares a few years later at $11 and collect $1375, you owe (long-term capital gains) tax on just $1375-$1200 =$175 (which can also be calculated as $1 gain on each of the original 100 shares = $100 plus $3 gain on the 25 new shares = $175). In the past, some people would forget the intermediate transactions and think that they had invested $1000 initially and gotten $1375 back for a gain of $375 and pay taxes on $375 instead. This is less likely to occur now since mutual funds are now required to report more information on the sale to the shareseller than they used to in the past. So, should you buy shares in a mutual fund right now? Most mutual fund companies publish preliminary estimates in November and December of what distributions each fund will be making by the end of the year. They also usually advise against purchasing new shares during this period because one ends up \"\"buying a dividend\"\". If, for example, you bought those 100 shares at $10 on the Friday after Thanksgiving and the fund distributes that $2 per share on December 15, you still have $1000 on December 15, but now owe taxes on $200 that you would not have had to pay if you had postponed buying those shares till after the distribution was paid. Nitpickers: for simplicity of exposition, I have not gone into the detailed chronology of when the fund goes ex-dividend, when the distribution is recorded, and when cash is paid out, etc., but merely treated all these events as happening simultaneously.\"",
"qid": 10994,
"docid": "354136",
"rank": 6,
"score": 135433
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: When you invest (say $1000) in (say 100 shares) of a mutual fund at $10 per share, and the price of the shares changes, you do not have a capital gain or loss, and you do not have to declare anything to the IRS or make any entry on any line on Form 1040 or tell anyone else about it either. You can brag about it at parties if the share price has gone up, or weep bitter tears into your cocktail if the price has gone down, but the IRS not only does not care, but it will not let you deduct the paper loss or pay taxes on the paper gain. What you put down on Form 1040 Schedules B and D is precisely what the mutual fund will tell you on Form 1099-DIV (and Form 1099-B), no more, no less. If you did not report any of these amounts on your previous tax returns, you need to file amended tax returns, both Federal as well as State, A stock mutual fund invests in stocks and the fund manager may buy and sell some stocks during the course of the year. If he makes a profit, that money will be distributed to the share holders of the mutual fund. That money can be re-invested in more shares of the same mutual fund or taken as cash (and possibly invested in some other fund). This capital gain distribution is reported to you on Form 1099-DIV and you have to report sit on your tax return even if you re-invested in more share of the same mutual fund, and the amount of the distribution is taxable income to you. Similarly, if the stocks owned by the mutual fund pay dividends, those will be passed on to you as a dividend distribution and all the above still applies. You can choose to reinvest, etc, the amount will be reported to you on Form 1099-DIV, and you need to report it to the IRS and include it in your taxable income. If the mutual fund manager loses money in the buying and selling he will not tell you that he lost money but it will be visible as a reduction in the price of the shares. The loss will not be reported to you on Form 1099-DIV and you cannot do anything about it. Especially important, you cannot declare to the IRS that you have a loss and you cannot deduct the loss on your income tax returns that year. When you finally sell your shares in the mutual fund, you will have a gain or loss that you can pay taxes on or deduct. Say the mutual fund paid a dividend of $33 one year and you re-invested the money into the mutual fund, buying 3 shares at the then cost of $11 per share. You declare the $33 on your tax return that year and pay taxes on it. Two years later, you sell all 103 shares that you own for $10.50 per share. Your total investment was $1000 + $33 = $1033. You get $1081.50 from the fund, and you will owe taxes on $1081.50 - $1033 = $48.50. You have a profit of $50 on the 100 shares originally bought and a loss of $1.50 on the 3 shares bought for $11: the net result is a gain of $48.50. You do not pay taxes on $81.50 as the profit from your original $1000 investment; you pay taxes only on $48.50 (remember that you already paid taxes on the $33). The mutual fund will report on Form 1099-B that you sold 103 shares for $1081.50 and that you bought the 103 shares for an average price of $1033/103 = $10.029 per share. The difference is taxable income to you. If you sell the 103 shares for $9 per share (say), then you get $927 out of an investment of $1033 for a capital loss of $106. This will be reported to you on Form 1099-B and you will enter the amounts on Schedule D of Form 1040 as a capital loss. What you actually pay taxes on is the net capital gain, if any, after combining all your capital gains and losses for the year. If the net is a loss, you can deduct up to $3000 in a year, and carry the rest forward to later years to offset capital gains in later years. But, your unrealized capital gains or losses (those that occur because the mutual fund share price goes up and down like a yoyo while you grin or grit your teeth and hang on to your shares) are not reported or deducted or taxed anywhere. It is more complicated when you don't sell all the shares you own in the mutual fund or if you sell shares within one year of buying them, but let's stick to simple cases.",
"qid": 10994,
"docid": "496820",
"rank": 7,
"score": 130194
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"A mutual fund's return or yield has nothing to do with what you receive from the mutual fund. The annual percentage return is simply the percentage increase (or decrease!) of the value of one share of the mutual fund from January 1 till December 31. The cash value of any distributions (dividend income, short-term capital gains, long-term capital gains) might be reported separately or might be included in the annual return. What you receive from the mutual fund is the distributions which you have the option of taking in cash (and spending on whatever you like, or investing elsewhere) or of re-investing into the fund without ever actually touching the money. Regardless of whether you take a distribution as cash or re-invest it in the mutual fund, that amount is taxable income in most jurisdictions. In the US, long-term capital gains are taxed at different (lower) rates than ordinary income, and I believe that long-term capital gains from mutual funds are not taxed at all in India. You are not taxed on the increase in the value of your investment caused by an increase in the share price over the year nor do you get deduct the \"\"loss\"\" if the share price declined over the year. It is only when you sell the mutual fund shares (back to the mutual fund company) that you have to pay taxes on the capital gains (if you sold for a higher price) or deduct the capital loss (if you sold for a lower price) than the purchase price of the shares. Be aware that different shares in the sale might have different purchase prices because they were bought at different times, and thus have different gains and losses. So, how do you calculate your personal return from the mutual fund investment? If you have a money management program or a spreadsheet program, it can calculate your return for you. If you have online access to your mutual fund account on its website, it will most likely have a tool called something like \"\"Personal rate of return\"\" and this will provide you with the same calculations without your having to type in all the data by hand. Finally, If you want to do it personally by hand, I am sure that someone will soon post an answer writing out the gory details.\"",
"qid": 10994,
"docid": "88575",
"rank": 8,
"score": 124965
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"A nondividend distribution is typically a return of capital; in other words, you're getting money back that you've contributed previously (and thus would have been taxed upon in previous years when those funds were first remunerated to you). Nondividend distributions are nontaxable, so they do not represent income from capital gains, but do effect your cost basis when determining the capital gain/loss once that capital gain/loss is realized. As an example, publicly-traded real estate investment trusts (REITs) generally distribute a return of capital back to shareholders throughout the year as a nondividend distribution. This is a return of a portion of the shareholder's original capital investment, not a share of the REITs profits, so it is simply getting a portion of your original investment back, and thus, is not income being received (I like to refer to it as \"\"new income\"\" to differentiate). However, the return of capital does change the cost basis of the original investment, so if one were to then sell the shares of the REIT (in this example), the basis of the original investment has to be adjusted by the nondividend distributions received over the course of ownership (in other words, the cost basis will be reduced when the shares are sold). I'm wondering if the OP could give us some additional information about his/her S-Corp. What type of business is it? In the course of its business and trade activity, does it buy and sell securities (stocks, etc.)? Does it sell assets or business property? Does it own interests in other corporations or partnerships (sales of those interests are one form of capital gain). Long-term capital gains are taxed at rates lower than ordinary income, but the IRS has very specific rules as to what constitutes a capital gain (loss). I hate to answer a question with a question, but we need a little more information before we can weigh-in on whether you have actual capital gains or losses in the course of your S-Corporation trade.\"",
"qid": 10994,
"docid": "193485",
"rank": 9,
"score": 124057
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"How is that possible?? The mutual fund doesn't pay taxes and passes along the tax bill to shareholders via distributions would be the short answer. Your basis likely changed as now you have bought more shares. But I gained absolutely nothing from my dividend, so how is it taxable? The fund has either realized capital gains, dividends, interest or some other form of income that it has to pass along to shareholders as the fund doesn't pay taxes itself. Did I get screwed the first year because I bought into the fund too late in the year? Perhaps if you don't notice that your cost basis has changed here so that you'll have lower taxes when you sell your shares. Is anyone familiar with what causes this kind of situation of receiving a \"\"taxable dividend\"\" that doesn't actually increase the account balance? Yes, I am rather familiar with this. The point to understand is that the fund doesn't pay taxes itself but passes this along. The shareholders that hold funds in tax-advantaged accounts like 401ks and IRAs still get the distribution but are shielded from paying taxes on those gains at that point at time. Is it because I bought too late in the year? No, it is because you didn't know the fund would have a distribution of that size that year. Some funds can have negative returns yet still have a capital gains distribution if the fund experiences enough redemptions that the fund had to sell appreciated shares in a security. This is part of the risk in having stock funds in taxable accounts. Or is it because the fund had a negative return that year? No, it is because you don't understand how mutual funds and taxes work along with what distribution schedule the fund had. Do I wait until after the distribution date this year to buy? I'd likely consider it for taxable accounts yes. However, if you are buying in a tax-advantaged account then there isn't that same issue.\"",
"qid": 10994,
"docid": "545491",
"rank": 10,
"score": 123193
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The net return reported to you (as a percentage) by a mutual fund is the gross return minus the expense ratio. So, if the gross return is X% and the expense ratio is Y%, your account will show a return of (X-Y)%. Be aware that X could be negative too. So, with Y = 1, If X = 10 (as you might get from a stock fund if you believe historical averages will continue), then the net return is 9% and you have lost (Y/X) times 100% = 10% of the gross return. If X = 8 (as you might get from a bond fund if you believe historical averages will continue), then the net return is 7% and you have lost (Y/X) times 100% = 12.5% of the gross return. and so on and so forth. The numbers used are merely examples of the returns that have been obtained historically, though it is worth emphasizing that 10% is an average return, averaged over many decades, from investments in stocks, and to believe that one will get a 10% return year after year is to mislead oneself very badly. I think the point of the illustrations is that expense ratios are important, and should matter a lot to you, but that their impact is proportionately somewhat less if the gross return is high, but very significant if the gross return is low, as in money-market funds. In fact, some money market funds which found that X < Y have even foregone charging the expense ratio fee so as to maintain a fixed $1 per share price. Personally, I would need a lot of persuading to invest in even a stock fund with 1% expense ratio.",
"qid": 10994,
"docid": "361013",
"rank": 11,
"score": 122433
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"A mutual fund could make two different kinds of distributions to you: Capital gains: When the fund liquidates positions that it holds, it may realize a gain if it sells the assets for a greater price than the fund purchased them for. As an example, for an index fund, assets may get liquidated if the underlying index changes in composition, thus requiring the manager to sell some stocks and purchase others. Mutual funds are required to distribute most of their income that they generate in this way back to its shareholders; many often do this near the end of the calendar year. When you receive the distribution, the gains will be categorized as either short-term (the asset was held for less than one year) or long-term (vice versa). Based upon the holding period, the gain is taxed differently. Currently in the United States, long-term capital gains are only taxed at 15%, regardless of your income tax bracket (you only pay the capital gains tax, not the income tax). Short-term capital gains are treated as ordinary income, so you will pay your (probably higher) tax rate on any cash that you are given by your mutual fund. You may also be subject to capital gains taxes when you decide to sell your holdings in the fund. Any profit that you made based on the difference between your purchase and sale price is treated as a capital gain. Based upon the period of time that you held the mutual fund shares, it is categorized as a short- or long-term gain and is taxed accordingly in the tax year that you sell the shares. Dividends: Many companies pay dividends to their stockholders as a way of returning a portion of their profits to their collective owners. When you invest in a mutual fund that owns dividend-paying stocks, the fund is the \"\"owner\"\" that receives the dividend payments. As with capital gains, mutual funds will redistribute these dividends to you periodically, often quarterly or annually. The main difference with dividends is that they are always taxed as ordinary income, no matter how long you (or the fund) have held the asset. I'm not aware of Texas state tax laws, so I can't comment on your other question.\"",
"qid": 10994,
"docid": "45190",
"rank": 12,
"score": 122324
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Mutual funds don't pay taxes themselves, they distribute any dividends or capital gains to the shareholders. Thus, if you hold a mutual fund in a tax-advantaged account like a 401k or IRA then the distribution isn't a taxable event while in a regular taxable account you would have to pay taxes on the distributions. From Forbes: There can be foreign companies on US stock exchanges that would still work the same way. Unilever for example is an Anglo-Dutch multinational listed on the NYSE as \"\"UN.\"\"\"",
"qid": 10994,
"docid": "407185",
"rank": 13,
"score": 122264
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"FSEMX has an annual expense ratio of 0.1% which is very low. What that means is that each month, the FSEMX will pay itself one-twelfth of 0.1% of the total value of all the shares owned by the shareholders in the mutual fund. If the fund has cash on hand from its trading activities or dividends collected from companies whose stock is owned by FSEMX or interest on bonds owned by FSEMX, the money comes out of that, but if there is no such pot (or the pot is not large enough), then the fund manager has the authority to sell some shares of the stocks held by FSEMX so that the employees can be paid, etc. If the total of cash generated by the trading and the dividend collection in a given year is (say) 3% of the share value of all the outstanding mutual fund, then only 2.9% will be paid out as dividend and capital gain distribution income to the share holders, the remaining 0.1% already having been paid to FSEMX management for operating expenses. It is important to keep in mind that expenses are always paid even if there are no profits, or even if there are losses that year so that no dividends or capital gains distributions are made. You don't see the expenses explicitly on any statement that you receive. If FSEMX sells shares of stocks that it holds to pay the expenses, this reduces the share value (NAV) of the mutual fund shares that you hold. So, if your mutual fund account \"\"lost\"\" 20% in value that year because the market was falling, and you got no dividend or capital gains distributions either, remember that only 19.9% of that loss can be blamed on the President or Congress or Wall Street or public-sector unions or your neighbor's refusal to ditch his old PC in favor of a new Mac, and the rest (0.1%) has gone to FSEMX to pay for fees you agreed to when you bought FSEMX shares. If you invest directly in FSEMX through Fidelity's web site, there is no sales charge, and you pay no expenses other than the 0.1% annual expense ratio. There is a fee for selling FSEMX shares after owning them only for a short time since the fund wants to discourage short-term investors. Whatever other fees finance.yahoo.com lists might be descriptive of the uses that FSEMX puts its expense ratio income to in its internal management, but are not of any importance to the prudent investor in FSEMX who will never encounter them or have to pay them.\"",
"qid": 10994,
"docid": "155797",
"rank": 14,
"score": 121905
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The price of a share of a mutual fund is its Net Asset Value (nav). Before the payout of dividends and capital gain distribution, the fund was holding both stock shares and cash that resulted from dividends and capital gains. After the payout, a share only holds the stock. Therefore once the cash is paid out the NAV must drop by the same amount as was paid out per share. Thus of course assumes no other activity or valuation changes of the underlying assets. Regular market activity will obscure what the payout does to the NAV.",
"qid": 10994,
"docid": "315345",
"rank": 15,
"score": 121853
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"In the case of mutual funds, Net Asset Value (NAV) is the price used to buy and sell shares. NAV is just the value of the underlying assets (which are in turn valued by their underlying holdings and future earnings). So if a fund hands out a billion dollars, it stands to reason their NAV*shares (market cap?) is a billion dollars less. Shareholder's net worth is equal in either scenario, but after the dividend is paid they are more liquid. For people who need investment income to live on, dividends are a cheap way to hold stocks and get regular payments, versus having to sell part of your portfolio every month. But for people who want to hold their investment in the market for a long long time, dividends only increase the rate at which you have to buy. For mutual funds this isn't a problem: you buy the funds and tell them to reinvest for free. So because of that, it's a prohibited practice to \"\"sell\"\" dividends to clients.\"",
"qid": 10994,
"docid": "232932",
"rank": 16,
"score": 121565
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"1) When it says \"\"an investment or mutual fund\"\", is a mutual fund not an investment? If no, what is the definition of an investment? A mutual fund is indeed an investment. The article probably mentions mutual funds separately from other investments because it is not uncommon for mutual funds to give you the option to automatically reinvest dividends and capital gains. 2) When it says \"\"In terms of stocks\"\", why does it only mention distribution of dividends but not distribution of capital gains? Since distributions are received as cash deposits they can be used to buy more of the stock. Capital gains, on the other hand, occur when an asset increases in value. These gains are realized when the asset is sold. In the case of stocks, reinvestment of capital gains doesn't make much sense since buying more stock after selling it to realize capital gains results in you owning as much stock as you had before you realized the gains. 3) When it says \"\"In terms of mutual funds\"\", it says about \"\"the reinvestment of distributions and dividends\"\". Does \"\"distributions\"\" not include distributions of \"\"dividends\"\"? why does it mention \"\"distributions\"\" parallel to \"\"dividends\"\"? Used in this setting, dividend and distribution are synonymous, which is highlighted by the way they are used in parallel. 4) Does reinvestment only apply to interest or dividends, but not to capital gain? Reinvestment only applies to dividends in the case of stocks. Mutual funds must distribute capital gains to shareholders, making these distributions essentially cash dividends, usually as a special end of year distribution. If you've requested automatic reinvestment, the fund will buy more shares with these capital gain distributions as well.\"",
"qid": 10994,
"docid": "403755",
"rank": 17,
"score": 118355
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Usually there are annual or semi-annual reports for a mutual fund that may give an idea for when a fund will have \"\"distributions\"\" which can cause the NAV to fall as this is when the fund passes the taxable liabilities to shareholders in the form of a dividend. Alternatively, the prospectus of the fund may also have the data on the recent distribution history that is likely what you want. If you don't understand why a fund would have a distribution, I highly suggest researching the legal structure of an open-end mutual fund where there more than a few rules about how taxes are handled for this case.\"",
"qid": 10994,
"docid": "155254",
"rank": 18,
"score": 118116
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: There are at least a couple of ways you could view this to my mind: Make an Excel spreadsheet and use the IRR function to compute the rate of return you are having based on money being added. Re-invested distributions in a mutual fund aren't really an additional investment as the Net Asset Value of the fund will drop by the amount of the distribution aside from market fluctuation. This is presuming you want a raw percentage that could be tricky to compare to other funds without doing more than a bit of work in a way. Look at what is the fund's returns compared to both the category and the index it is tracking. The tracking error is likely worth noting as some index funds could lag the index by a sizable margin and thus may not be that great. At the same time there may exist cases where an index fund isn't quite measuring up that well. The Small-Growth Indexing Anomaly would be the William Bernstein article from 2001 that has some facts and figures for this that may be useful.",
"qid": 10994,
"docid": "470687",
"rank": 19,
"score": 117358
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Mutual funds (that are not exchange-traded funds) often need to sell some of their securities to get cash when a shareholder redeems some shares. Such transactions incur costs that are paid (proportionally) by all the shareholders in the fund, not just the person requesting redemption, and thus the remaining shareholders get a lower return. (Exchange-traded funds are traded as if they are shares of common stock, and a shareholder seeking a redemption pays the costs of the redemption). For this reason, many mutual funds do not allow redemptions for some period of time after a purchase, or purchases for some period of time after a redemption. The periods of time are chosen by the fund, and are stated in the prospectus (which everyone has acknowledged has been received before an investment was made).",
"qid": 10994,
"docid": "522759",
"rank": 20,
"score": 113463
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Capital gain distribution is not capital gain on sale of stock. If you have stock sales (Schedule D) you should be filing 1040, not 1040A. Capital gain distributions are distributions from mutual funds/ETFs that are attributed to capital gains of the funds (you may not have actually received the distribution, but you still may have gain attributed to you). It is reported on 1099-DIV, and if it is 0 - then you don't have any. If you sold a stock, your broker should have given you 1099-B (which is not the same as 1099-DIV, but may be consolidated by your broker into one large PDF and not provided separately). On 1099-B the sales proceeds are recorded, and if you purchased the stock after 2011 - the cost basis is also recorded. The difference between the proceeds and the cost basis is your gain (or loss, if it is negative). Fees are added to cost basis.",
"qid": 10994,
"docid": "350555",
"rank": 21,
"score": 113215
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"First, consider what causes taxes to apply to a mutual fund, index or actively managed. Dividends and capital gains are generally what will be distributed to shareholders given the nature of a mutual fund since the fund itself doesn't pay taxes. For funds held in IRAs or other tax-advantaged accounts, this isn't a concern and thus people may not have this concern for those situations which can account for a lot of investing situations as people may have 401(k)s and IRAs that hold their investments rather than taxable accounts. Second, there can be tax-managed funds so there can be cases where a fund is managed with taxes in mind that is worth noting here as what is referenced is a \"\"Dummies\"\" link that is making a generalization. For taxable accounts, it may make more sense to have a tax-managed fund rather than an index fund though I'd also argue to be careful of asset allocation as to maintain a purity of style can require selling of stocks that grow too big and thus trigger capital gains,e.g. small-cap and mid-cap funds that can't hold onto the winners as they would become mid-cap and large-cap instead of representing the proper asset class. A FUND THAT PLAYED IT SAFE--AND WAS SORRY would be a Businessweek story from 1998 of an actively managed fund that went mostly to cash and missed the rise of the stock market at that time if you want a specific example of what an actively managed fund can do that an index fund often cannot do. The index fund is to track the index and stay nearly all invested all the time.\"",
"qid": 10994,
"docid": "90858",
"rank": 22,
"score": 111810
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: There are very strict regulations that requires the assets which a fund buys on behalf of its investors to be kept completely separate from the fund's own assets (which it uses to pay its expenses), except for the published fees. Funds are typically audited regularly to ensure this is the case. So the only way in which a default of the fund could cause a loss of invstor money would be if the fund managers broke the regulations and committed various crimes. I've never heard of this actually happening to a normal mutual fund. There is of course also a default risk when a fund buys bonds or other non-equity securities, and this may sometimes be non-obvious. For example, some ETFs which are nominally based on a stock index don't actually buy stocks; instead they buy or sell options on those stocks, which involves a counterparty risk. The ETF may or may not have rules that limit the exposure to any one counterparty.",
"qid": 10994,
"docid": "563324",
"rank": 23,
"score": 111581
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You do realize that the fund will have management expenses that are likely already factored into the NAV and that when you sell, the NAV will not yet be known, right? There are often fees to run a mutual fund that may be taken as part of managing the fund that are already factored into the Net Asset Value(NAV) of the shares that would be my caution as well as possible fee changes as Dilip Sarwate notes in a comment. Expense ratios are standard for mutual funds, yes. Individual stocks that represent corporations not structured as a mutual fund don't declare a ratio of how much are their costs, e.g. Apple or Google may well invest in numerous other companies but the costs of making those investments won't be well detailed though these companies do have non-investment operations of course. Don't forget to read the fund's prospectus as sometimes a fund will have other fees like account maintenance fees that may be taken out of distributions as well as being aware of how taxes will be handled as you don't specify what kind of account these purchases are being done using.",
"qid": 10994,
"docid": "287537",
"rank": 24,
"score": 111412
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The ETF is likely better in this case. The ETF will generally generate less capital gains taxes along the way. In order to pay off investors who leave a mutual fund, the manager will have to sell the fund's assets. This creates a capital gain, which must be distributed to shareholders at the end of the year. The mutual fund holder is essentially taxed on this turnover. The ETF does not have to sell any stock when an investor sells his shares because the investor sells the shares himself on the open market. This will result in a capital gain for the specific person exiting his position, but it does not create a taxable event for anyone else holding the ETF shares.",
"qid": 10994,
"docid": "153112",
"rank": 25,
"score": 109379
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: As the commenters have already indicated, money market mutual funds are not guaranteed to maintain principal during all market conditions, and investments in mutual funds are not insured against loss due to market changes. That said, you can run a price search on Vanguard's website and see these results: So, despite all the economic problems since 1975, VMMXX has never traded at a price other than $1.00.",
"qid": 10994,
"docid": "538060",
"rank": 26,
"score": 109185
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Dividends from mutual funds reduce the share value the day they are distributed. Mutual funds do this at least once a year, or more times in the year if there are a lot of gains, to pass through taxable gains to individuals who may have lower tax rates or deferred tax accounts such as you. This is meaningful for investors who hold the mutual funds in taxable accounts, but immaterial for 401ks. Your account balance is not affected if you don't get the distribution before roll over.",
"qid": 10994,
"docid": "429568",
"rank": 27,
"score": 108607
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The short answer is that you would want to use the net inflow or net outflow, aka profit or loss. In my experience, you've got a couple different uses for IRR and that may be driving the confusion. Pretty much the same formula, but just coming at it from different angles. Thinking about a stock or mutual fund investment, you could project a scenario with an up-front investment (net outflow) in the first period and then positive returns (dividends, then final sale proceeds, each a net inflow) in subsequent periods. This is a model that more closely follows some of the logic you laid out. Thinking about a business project or investment, you tend to see more complicated and less smooth cashflows. For example, you may have a large up-front capital expenditure in the first period, then have net profit (revenue less ongoing maintenance expense), then another large capital outlay, and so on. In both cases you would want to base your analysis on the net inflow or net outflow in each period. It just depends on the complexity of the cashflows trend as to whether you see a straightforward example (initial payment, then ongoing net inflows), or a less straightforward example with both inflows and outflows. One other thing to note - you would only want to include those costs that are applicable to the project. So you would not want to include the cost of overhead that would exist even if you did not undertake the project.",
"qid": 10994,
"docid": "209838",
"rank": 28,
"score": 108332
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: No, they do not. Stock funds and bonds funds collect income dividends in different ways. Stock funds collect dividends (as well as any capital gains that are realized) from the underlying stocks and incorporates these into the funds’ net asset value, or daily share price. That’s why a stock fund’s share price drops when the fund makes a distribution – the distribution comes out of the fund’s total net assets. With bond funds, the internal accounting is different: Dividends accrue daily, and are then paid out to shareholders every month or quarter. Bond funds collect the income from the underlying bonds and keep it in a separate internal “bucket.” A bond fund calculates a daily accrual rate for the shares outstanding, and shareholders only earn income for the days they actually hold the fund. For example, if you buy a bond fund two days before the fund’s month-end distribution, you would only receive two days’ worth of income that month. On the other hand, if you sell a fund part-way through the month, you will still receive a partial distribution at the end of the month, pro-rated for the days you actually held the fund. Source Also via bogleheads: Most Vanguard bond funds accrue interest to the share holders daily. Here is a typical statement from a prospectus: Each Fund distributes to shareholders virtually all of its net income (interest less expenses) as well as any net capital gains realized from the sale of its holdings. The Fund’s income dividends accrue daily and are distributed monthly. The term accrue used in this sense means that the income dividends are credited to your account each day, just like interest in a savings account that accrues daily. Since the money set aside for your dividends is both an asset of the fund and a liability, it does not affect the calculated net asset value. When the fund distributes the income dividends at the end of the month, the net asset value does not change as both the assets and liabilities decrease by exactly the same amount. [Note that if you sell all of your bond fund shares in the middle of the month, you will receive as proceeds the value of your shares (calculated as number of shares times net asset value) plus a separate distribution of the accrued income dividends.]",
"qid": 10994,
"docid": "110856",
"rank": 29,
"score": 107302
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: No. You shorted the stock so you are not a shareholder. If you covered your short, again you are not a shareholder as you statement of account must show. You cannot participate in the net settlement fund.",
"qid": 10994,
"docid": "202960",
"rank": 30,
"score": 106618
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The 20%+ returns you have observed in the mutual funds are not free money. They are compensation for the risk associated with owning those funds. Given the extraordinarily high returns you are seeing I would expect extremely high risk. This means there is a good possibility of extreme losses at some point. By putting a lot of money in those mutual funds you are taking a gamble that may or may not pay off. Assuming what your friend is paying you for rent is fair, you are not losing money on your house relative to the market. You are earning less because you are invested in a less risky asset. If you want a higher return, you should borrow some money (or sell your house) and invest in the market. You may make more money that way. But if you do that, you will have a larger chance of losing a lot of money at some point. That's the way risk works. No one can promise a 20% return on a risky asset, they can only hint that it may do in the future what it did in the past. A reasonable approach to investment is to get invested in lots of different things: stocks, bonds, real estate. If you are afraid of risk and willing to earn less, keep more money in safe assets. If you are willing to take big risks in exchange for the possibility of high returns, move more assets into risky stuff. If you want extreme returns and are willing to take extreme risk, borrow and use the money to invest in risky assets. As you look over investment options, remember that anything that pays high returns most likely has high risk as well.",
"qid": 10994,
"docid": "445782",
"rank": 31,
"score": 106434
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The \"\"risk\"\", other than losing principal (especially when rates go up) is capital gains. As with any mutual fund, this one might need to sell assets for cashflow. In which case the taxes on the sales are shifted to the investors. So you may end up with the fund losing value due to price fluctuations, yet you'll have capital gains (probably with a significant short term part since the maturity periods are relatively short) to pay taxes on. To what extent that may happen depends on the fund's cashflow (influx of money vs. withdrawals). Capital gains reduce your basis (since no money is actually distributed), but if you hold the fund for more than a year - you lose the difference between the short term and the long term tax for the short term portion of the gains.\"",
"qid": 10994,
"docid": "472159",
"rank": 32,
"score": 106137
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Vanguard (and probably other mutual fund brokers as well) offers easy-to-read performance charts that show the total change in value of a $10K investment over time. This includes the fair market value of the fund plus any distributions (i.e. dividends) paid out. On Vanguard's site they also make a point to show the impact of fees in the chart, since their low fees are their big selling point. Some reasons why a dividend is preferable to selling shares: no loss of voting power, no transaction costs, dividends may have better tax consequences for you than capital gains. NOTE: If your fund is underperforming the benchmark, it is not due to the payment of dividends. Funds do not pay their own dividends; they only forward to shareholders the dividends paid out by the companies in which they invest. So the fair market value of the fund should always reflect the fair market value of the companies it holds, and those companies' shares are the ones that are fluctuating when they pay dividends. If your fund is underperforming its benchmark, then that is either because it is not tracking the benchmark closely enough or because it is charging high fees. The fact that the underperformance you're seeing appears to be in the amount of dividends paid is a coincidence. Check out this example Vanguard performance chart for an S&P500 index fund. Notice how if you add the S&P500 index benchmark to the plot you can't even see the difference between the two -- the fund is designed to track the benchmark exactly. So when IBM (or whoever) pays out a dividend, the index goes down in value and the fund goes down in value.",
"qid": 10994,
"docid": "584128",
"rank": 33,
"score": 106108
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Generally, ETFs and mutual funds don't pay taxes (although there are some cases where they do, and some countries where it is a common case). What happens is, the fund reports the portion of the gain attributed to each investor, and the investor pays the tax. In the US, this is reported to you on 1099-DIV as capital gains distribution, and can be either short term (as in the scenario you described), long term, or a mix of both. It doesn't mean you actually get a distribution, though, but if you don't - it reduces your basis.",
"qid": 10994,
"docid": "350317",
"rank": 34,
"score": 105740
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: https://personal.vanguard.com/pub/Pdf/sai059.pdf?2210128720 your colleague's right. *The Agreement provides that the Funds will not contribute to Vanguard’s capitalization or pay for corporate management, administrative, and distribution services provided by Vanguard. However, each Fund will bear its own direct expenses, such as legal, auditing, and custodial fees. In addition, the Agreement further provides that the Funds’ direct expenses will be offset, in whole or in part, by a reimbursement from Vanguard for (1) the Funds’ contributions to the cost of operating the underlying Vanguard funds in which the Funds invest and (2) certain savings in administrative and marketing costs that Vanguard expects to derive from the Funds’ operations.* **The Funds expect that the reimbursements should be sufficient to offset most or all of the direct expenses incurred by each Fund.** *Therefore, the Funds are expected to operate at a very low—or zero—direct expense ratio. Of course, there is no guarantee that this will always be the case. Although the Funds are not expected to incur any net expenses directly, the Funds’ shareholders indirectly bear the expenses of the underlying Vanguard funds.* It's basically a gamble...",
"qid": 10994,
"docid": "211810",
"rank": 35,
"score": 105284
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"It sounds like this is an entirely unsettled question, unfortunately. In the examples you provide, I think it is safe to say that none of those are 'substantially identical'; a small overlap or no overlap certainly should not be considered such by a reasonable interpretation of the rule. This article on Kitces goes into some detail on the topic. A few specifics. First, Former publication 564 explains: Ordinarily, shares issued by one mutual fund are not considered to be substantially identical to shares issued by another mutual fund. Of course, what \"\"ordinarily\"\" means is unspecified (and this is no longer a current publication, so, who knows). The Kitces article goes on to explain that the IRS hasn't really gone after wash sales for mutual funds: Over the years, the IRS has not pursued wash sale abuses against mutual funds, perhaps because it just wasn’t very feasible to crack down on them, or perhaps because it just wasn’t perceived as that big of an abuse. After all, while the rules might allow you to loss-harvest a particular stock you couldn’t have otherwise, it also limits you from harvesting ANY losses if the overall fund is up in the aggregate, since losses on individual stocks can’t pass through to the mutual fund shareholders. But then goes to explain about ETFs being very different: sell SPY, buy IVV or VTI, and you're basically buying/selling the identical thing (99% or so correlation in stocks owned). The recommendation by the article is to look at the correlation in owned stocks, and stay away from things over 95%; that seems reasonable in my book as well. Ultimately, there will no doubt be a large number of “grey” and murky situations, but I suspect that until the IRS provides better guidance (or Congress rewrites/updates the wash sale rules altogether!), in the near term the easiest “red flag” warning is simply to look at the correlation between the original investment being loss-harvested, and the replacement security; at correlations above 0.95, and especially at 0.99+, it’s difficult to argue that the securities are not ”substantially identical” to each other in performance. Basically - use common sense, and don't do anything you think would be hard to defend in an audit, but otherwise you should be okay.\"",
"qid": 10994,
"docid": "530631",
"rank": 36,
"score": 104906
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I strongly suggest you go to www.investor.gov as it has excellent information regarding these types of questions. A mutual fund is a company that pools money from many investors and invests the money in securities such as stocks, bonds, and short-term debt. The combined holdings of the mutual fund are known as its portfolio. Investors buy shares in mutual funds. Each share represents an investor’s part ownership in the fund and the income it generates. When you buy shares of a mutual fund you're buying it at NAV, or net asset value. The NAV is the value of the fund’s assets minus its liabilities. SEC rules require funds to calculate the NAV at least once daily. Different funds may own thousands of different stocks. In order to calculate the NAV, the fund company must value every security it owns. Since each security's valuation is changing throughout the day it's difficult to determine the valuation of the mutual fund except for when the market is closed. Once the market has closed (4pm eastern) and securities are no longer trading, the company must get accurate valuations for every security and perform the valuation calculations and distribute the results to the pricing vendors. This has to be done by 6pm eastern. This is a difficult and, more importantly, a time consuming process to get it done right once per day. Having worked for several fund companies I can tell you there are many days where companies are getting this done at the very last minute. When you place a buy or sell order for a mutual fund it doesn't matter what time you placed it as long as you entered it before 4pm ET. Cutoff times may be earlier depending on who you're placing the order with. If companies had to price their funds more frequently, they would undoubtedly raise their fees.",
"qid": 10994,
"docid": "245867",
"rank": 37,
"score": 104786
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Fund rebalancing typically refers to changing the investment mix to stay within the guidelines of the mutual fund objective. For example, lets say a fund is supposed to have at least 20% in bonds. Because of a dramatic increase in stock price and decrease in bond values it finds itself with only 19.9% in bonds at the end of the trading day. The fund manager would sell sufficient equities to reduce its equity holdings and buy more bonds. Rebalancing is not always preferential because it could cause capital gain distribution, typically once per year, without selling the fund. And really any trading within the fun could do the same. In the case you cite the verbiage is confusing. Often times I wonder if the author knows less then the reader. It might also be a bit of a rush to get the article out, and the author did not write correctly. I agree that the ETFs cited are suitable for short term traders. However, that is because, traditionaly, the market has increased in value over the long term. If you bet it will go down over the long term, you are almost certain to lose money. Like you, I cannot figure out how rebalancing makes this suitable only for short term traders. If the ETFs distribute capital gains events much more frequently then once per year, that is worth mentioning, but does not provide a case for short versus long term traders. Secondly, I don't think these funds are doing true rebalancing. They might change investments daily for the most likely profitable outcome, but that really isn't rebalancing. It seems the author is confused.",
"qid": 10994,
"docid": "108721",
"rank": 38,
"score": 104758
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: For the Roth the earnings: interest, dividends, capital gains distributions and capital gains are tax deferred. Which means that as long as the money stays inside of a Roth or is transferred/rolled over to another Roth there are no taxes due. In December many mutual funds distribute their gains. Let's say people invested in S&P500index fund receive a dividend of 1% of their account value. The investor in a non-retirement fund will be paying tax on that dividend in the Spring with their tax form. The Roth and IRA investors will not be paying tax on those dividends. The Roth investor never will, and the regular IRA investor will only pay taxes on it when they pull the money out.",
"qid": 10994,
"docid": "393693",
"rank": 39,
"score": 104750
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The expense ratio is 0.17% so doesnt that mean that for every 10K I keep in the money market fund I lose $17/year? Not really. The expense ratio is taken before distributions are paid which applies to all mutual funds. Should I care about this? In this case not really. If it was a taxable account, then other options may be more tax-efficient that is worth noting. The key with money market funds is that the expense ratio often represents how much money the administrators will take before paying out the rest. So, if your money market fund bought investments that paid .25% then you'd likely see .08% as that is what is left over after the .17% is taken in the dividends. If at the start of the year, the funds NAV is $1, and at the end of the year, the funds NAV is still $1, I havent lost anything right? Right. Wikipedia has a good article on money market funds. Keep in mind that most money market funds are run as one of a number of funds from a fund family that may have to take a little less profit on the money market funds when rates are low.",
"qid": 10994,
"docid": "113322",
"rank": 40,
"score": 103708
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Liquid cash (emergency, rainy day fund) should be safe from a loss in value. Mutual funds don't give you this, especially stock funds. You can find \"\"high yield\"\" savings accounts that are now at around .8% to .9% APY which is much better than .05% and will hopefully go up. Barclays US and American Express are two big banks that normally have the highest rates. Most/all Savings and Money Market accounts should be FDIC insured. Mutual funds are not, though the investment IRA, etc. holding them may be.\"",
"qid": 10994,
"docid": "253614",
"rank": 41,
"score": 103011
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Mutual funds generally make distributions once a year in December with the exact date (and the estimated amount) usually being made public in late October or November. Generally, the estimated amounts can get updated as time goes on, but the date does not change. Some funds (money market, bond funds, GNMA funds etc) distribute dividends on the last business day of each month, and the amounts are rarely made available beforehand. Capital gains are usually distributed once a year as per the general statement above. Some funds (e.g. S&P 500 index funds) distribute dividends towards the end of each quarter or on the last business day of the quarter, and capital gains once a year as per the general statement above. Some funds make semi-annual distributions but not necessarily at six-month intervals. Vanguard's Health Care Fund has distributed dividends and capital gains in March and December for as long as I have held it. VDIGX claims to make semi-annual distributions but made distributions three times in 2014 (March, June, December) and has made/will make two distributions this year already (March is done, June is pending -- the fund has gone ex-dividend with re-investment today and payment on 22nd). You can, as Chris Rea suggests, call the fund company directly, but in my experience, they are reluctant to divulge the date of the distribution (\"\"The fund manager has not made the date public as yet\"\") let alone an estimated amount. Even getting a \"\"Yes, the fund intends to make a distribution later this month\"\" was difficult to get from my \"\"Personal Representative\"\" in early March, and he had to put me on hold to talk to someone at the fund before he was willing to say so.\"",
"qid": 10994,
"docid": "32172",
"rank": 42,
"score": 101953
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The Roth vs not debate is irrelevant to the question. It doesn't matter where your emergency fund is kept, as long as it is liquid and safe. I said it before in an answer to another question: your emergency fund is not an investment -- it's your safety net This answer also says it well: an \"\"emergency fund\"\" is just that... for emergencies... NOT investment. While it \"\"hurts\"\" not to have your emergency money making more money... its MORE IMPORTANT to have quick access to it. So at TD Ameritrade, just park it in their FDIC deposit account. It will not earn any meaningful interest (at least until rates rise), but you'll be able to have access to it when you need it. Note that I would caution against putting it in a money market mutual fund. They're safer than many other investments, but they're not FDIC insured against loss and there is a potential for temporary loss of liquidity. In late 2008 when the credit markets collapsed, a lot of people suddenly became unemployed -- and needed access to their emergency funds. When Lehman Brothers went bust in September, the Reserve Primary Fund (with billions of dollars in their fund) \"\"broke the buck\"\" -- they lowered the price of shares below $1, meaning investors lost principal. The worst part is that investors were not as liquid as they wanted to be: the fund froze and it was hard to get money out. The lesson to take away from this is that one of the times you're likely to need access to your emergency fund is during a macroeconomic crisis. This is also the time when any investment that isn't guaranteed safe may potentially be (at least temporarily) unavailable or decline in value. Emergency funds should be 100% government insured. When you have your Roth funded to the point where there's extra money beyond the emergency fund, you can start investing in higher-yielding vehicles: stock or bond index ETFs would be a good start. But then that part of your Roth starts to look like a retirement account and not an emergency fund. If it were me, I'd open a Roth at a stable local bank and just keep it in their FDIC insured money market deposit account. Then if I wanted a slight boost, I might put the \"\"upper half\"\" of my emergency fund into short term CDs, but even CDs aren't worth much at the moment.\"",
"qid": 10994,
"docid": "527939",
"rank": 43,
"score": 100885
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: according to the SEC: Shareholder Reports A mutual fund and a closed-end fund respectively must provide shareholders with annual and semi-annual reports 60 days after the end of the fund’s fiscal year and 60 days after the fund’s fiscal mid-year. These reports contain updated financial information, a list of the fund’s portfolio securities, and other information. The information in the shareholder reports will be current as of the date of the particular report (that is, the last day of the fund’s fiscal year for the annual report, and the last day of the fund’s fiscal mid-year for the semi-annual report). Other Reports A mutual fund and a closed-end fund must file a Form N-Q each quarter and a Form N-PX each year on the SEC’s EDGAR database, although funds are not required to mail these reports to shareholders. Funds disclose portfolio holdings on Form N-Q. Form N-PX identifies specific proposals on which the fund has voted portfolio securities over the past year and discloses how the fund voted on each. This disclosure enables fund shareholders to monitor their funds’ involvement in the governance activities of portfolio companies. which means that sixty days after the end of each quarter they will tell you what they owned 60 days ago. This makes sense; why would they want to tell the world what companies they are buying and selling.",
"qid": 10994,
"docid": "347523",
"rank": 44,
"score": 100116
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You shouldn't be picking stocks in the first place. From New York Magazine, tweeted by Ezra Klein: New evidence for that reality comes from Goldman Sachs, via Bloomberg News. The investment bank analyzed the holdings of 854 funds with $2.1 trillion in equity positions. It found, first of all, that all those “sophisticated investors” would have been better off stashing their money in basic, hands-off index funds or mutual funds last year — both of them had higher average returns than hedge funds did. The average hedge fund returned 3 percent last year, versus 14 percent for the Standard & Poor’s 500. Mutual funds do worse than index funds. Tangentially-related to the question of whether Wall Street types deserve their compensation packages is the yearly phenomenon in which actively managed mutual funds underperform the market. Between 2004 and 2008, 66.21% of domestic funds did worse than the S&P Composite 1500. In 2008, 64.23% underperformed. In other words, if you had a fund manager and his employees bringing their skill and knowledge to bear on your portfolio, you probably lost money as compared to the market as a whole. That's not to say you lost money in all cases. Just in most. The math is really simple on this one. Stock picking is fun, but undiversified and brings you competing with Wall Streeters with math Ph.Ds. and twenty-thousand-dollars-a-year Bloomberg terminals. What do you know about Apple's new iPhone that they don't? You should compare your emotional reaction to losing 40% in two days to your reaction to gaining 40% in two days... then compare both of those to losing 6% and gaining 6%, respectively. Picking stocks is not financially wise. Period.",
"qid": 10994,
"docid": "470861",
"rank": 45,
"score": 99082
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The reason for such differences is that there's no source to get this information. The companies do not (and cannot) report who are their shareholders except for large shareholders and stakes of interest. These, in the case of GoPro, were identified during the IPO (you can look the filings up on EDGAR). You can get information from this or that publicly traded mutual fund about their larger holdings from their reports, but private investors don't provide even that. Institutional (public) investors buy and sell shares all the time and only report large investments. So there's no reliable way to get a snapshot picture you're looking for.",
"qid": 10994,
"docid": "433490",
"rank": 46,
"score": 98713
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Your investment is probably in a Collective Investment Trust. These are not mutual funds, and are not publicly traded. I.e. they are private to plan participants in your company. Because of this, they are not required* to distribute dividends like mutual funds. Instead, they will reinvest dividends automatically, increasing the value of the fund, rather than number of shares, as with dividend reinvestment. Sine you mention the S&P 500 fund you have tracks closely to the S&P Index, keep in mind there's two indexes you could be looking at: Without any new contributions, your fund should closely track the Total Return version for periods 3 months or longer, minus the expense ratio. If you are adding contributions to the fund, you can't just look at the start and end balances. The comparison is trickier and you'll need to use the Internal Rate of Return (look into the XIRR function in Excel/Google Sheets). *MFs are not strictly required to pay dividends, but are strongly tax-incentivized to do so, and essentially all do.",
"qid": 10994,
"docid": "52908",
"rank": 47,
"score": 97893
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The article \"\"Best Stock Fund of the Decade: CGM Focus\"\" from the Wall Street Journal in 2009 describe the highest performing mutual fund in the USA between 2000 and 2009. The investor return in the fund (what the shareholders actually earned) was abysmal. Why? Because the fund was so volatile that investors panicked and bailed out, locking in losses instead of waiting them out. The reality is that almost any strategy will lead to success in investing, so long as it is actually followed. A strategy keeps you from making emotional or knee-jerk decisions. (BTW, beware of anyone selling you a strategy by telling you that everyone in the world is a failure except for the few special people who have the privilege of knowing their \"\"secrets.\"\") (Link removed, as it's gone dead)\"",
"qid": 10994,
"docid": "399149",
"rank": 48,
"score": 97656
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Mutual funds don't have intraday prices. They have net asset values which are calculated periodically (daily or weekly or any other period depending on the fund).",
"qid": 10994,
"docid": "457811",
"rank": 49,
"score": 97545
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The literal answer to your question is that a number of different types of mutual funds did not have significant downturns in 2008. Money Market Funds are intended to always preserve capital. VMMXX made 2.77% in 2008. It was a major scandal broke the buck, that its holders took a 3% loss. Inverse funds, which go up when the market goes down, obviously did well that year (RYARX), but if you have a low risk tolerance, that's obviously not what you're looking for. (and they have other problems as well when held long-term) But you're a 24-year-old talking about your retirement funds, you should have a much longer time horizon, at least 30 years. Over a period that long, stocks have never had negative real (inflation-adjusted) returns, dating back at least to the civil war. If you look at the charts here or here, you can see that despite the risk in any individual year, as the period grows longer, the average return for the period gets tighter and tighter. If you look at the second graph here, you see that 2011 was the first time since the civil war that the trailing 30-year return on t-bills exceeded that for stocks, and 1981-2011 was period that saw bond yields drop almost continuously, leading to steady rise in bond prices. Although past performance is no guarantee of future results, everything we've seen historically suggests that the risk of a broad stock-market portfolio held for 30 years is not that large, and it should make up the bulk of your holdings. For example, Vanguard's Target retirement 2055 fund is 90% in stocks (US + international), and only 10% in bonds.",
"qid": 10994,
"docid": "522257",
"rank": 50,
"score": 97016
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You are not the person or entity against whom the crime was committed, so the Casualty Loss (theft) deduction doesn't apply here. You should report this as a Capital Loss, the same way all of the Enron shareholders did in their 2001 tax returns. Your cost basis is whatever you originally paid for the shares. The final value is presumably zero. You can declare a maximum capital loss of $3000, so if your net capital loss for the year is greater than that, you'll have to carry over the remainder to the following years. IRS publication 547 states: Decline in market value of stock. You can't deduct as a theft loss the decline in market value of stock acquired on the open market for investment if the decline is caused by disclosure of accounting fraud or other illegal misconduct by the officers or directors of the corporation that issued the stock. However, you can deduct as a capital loss the loss you sustain when you sell or exchange the stock or the stock becomes completely worthless. You report a capital loss on Schedule D (Form 1040). For more information about stock sales, worthless stock, and capital losses, see chapter 4 of Pub. 550.",
"qid": 10994,
"docid": "15606",
"rank": 51,
"score": 96810
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I think the real answer to your question here is diversification. You have some fear of having your money in the market, and rightfully so, having all your money in one stock, or even one type of mutual fund is risky as all get out, and you could lose a lot of your money in such a stock-market based undiversified investment. However, the same logic works in your rental property. If you lose your tennant, and are unable to find a new one right away, or if you have some very rare problem that insurance doesn't cover, your property could become very much not a \"\"break even\"\" investment very quickly. In reality, there isn't any single investment you can make that has no risk. Your assets need to be balanced between many different market-investments, that includes bonds, US stocks, European stocks, cash, etc. Also investing in mutual funds instead of individual stocks greatly reduces your risk. Another thing to consider is the benefits of paying down debt. While investments have a risk of not performing, if you pay off a loan with interest payments, you definitely will save the money you would have paid in interest. To be specific, I'd recommend the following plan -\"",
"qid": 10994,
"docid": "371392",
"rank": 52,
"score": 96704
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Without reading the source, from your description it seems that the author believes that this particular company was undervalued in the marketplace. It seems that investors were blinded by a small dividend, without considering the actual value of the company they were owners of. Remember that a shareholder has the right to their proportion of the company's net value, and that amount will be distributed both (a) in the form of dividends and (b) on liquidation of the company. Theoretically, EPS is an indication of how much value an investor's single share has increased by in the year [of course this is not accurate, because accounting income does not directly correlate with company value increase, but it is a good indicator]. This means in this example that each share had a return of $10, of which the investors only received $1. The remainder sat in the company for further investment. Considering that liquidation may never happen, particularly within the time-frame that a particular investor wants to hold a share, some investors may undervalue share return that does not come in the form of a dividend. This may or may not be legitimate, because if the company reinvests its profits in poorer performing projects, the investors would have been better off getting the dividend immediately. However some value does need to be given to the non-dividend ownership of the company. It seems the author believes that investors failing to consider value of the non-dividend part of the corporation's shares in question led to an undervaluation of the company's shares in the market.",
"qid": 10994,
"docid": "266672",
"rank": 53,
"score": 96388
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Returns reported by mutual funds to shareholders, google, etc. are computed after all the funds' costs, including Therefore the returns you see on google finance are the returns you would actually have gotten.",
"qid": 10994,
"docid": "104198",
"rank": 54,
"score": 96120
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Since you are paying taxes on the distributions from your mutual funds anyway, instead of reinvesting the distributions back into the mutual funds, you could receive them as cash, then contribute them to your Roth IRA once you are able to open one.",
"qid": 10994,
"docid": "57457",
"rank": 55,
"score": 96093
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I'm looking for ways to geared to save for retirement, not general investment. Many mutual fund companies offer a range of target retirement funds for different retirement dates (usually in increments of 5 years). These are funds of funds, that is, a Target 2040 Fund, say, will be invested in five or six different stock and bond mutual funds offered by the same company. Over the years and as the target date approaches closer, the investment mix will change from extra weight given to stock mutual funds towards extra weight being given to bond mutual funds. The disadvantage to these funds is that the Target Fund charges its own expense ratio over and above the expense ratios charged by the mutual funds it invests in: you could do the same investments yourself (or pick your own mix and weighting of various funds) and save the extra expense ratio. However, over the years, as the Target Fund changes its mix, withdrawing money from the stock mutual funds and investing the proceeds into bond mutual funds, you do not have to pay taxes on the profits generated by these transactions except insofar as some part of the profits become distributions from the Target Fund itself. If you were doing the same transactions outside the Target Fund, you would be liable for taxes on the profits when you withdrew money from a stock fund and invested the proceeds into the bond fund.",
"qid": 10994,
"docid": "346474",
"rank": 56,
"score": 95644
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"That's a lot of manual checking-in to see if everything is performing the way you \"\"want\"\". Not to insult your intelligence, but that is not your job, and doing that on a monthly basis is going to eat a lot of time. Plus, most 401(k) programs have lockout periods wherein changes can't be made without incurring additional fees (related to distributions, etc). And if you're checking that often, you are [likely] losing the benefits of investing in mutual funds to start with. If you have the stomach to handle the risk, go for the high-risk investment vehicles early in your career - you can afford a 30% drop this year if you then make 105%, 15%, or 50% back each of the next 5. If, on the other hand, you're in your mid-career, switch to more conservative management tactics.\"",
"qid": 10994,
"docid": "53100",
"rank": 57,
"score": 95181
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: This idea does not make sense for most mutual funds. The net asset value, or NAV, is the current market value of a fund's holdings, minus the fund's liabilities, that is usually expressed as a per-share amount. For most funds, the NAV is determined daily, after the close of trading on some specified financial exchange, but some funds update their NAV multiple times during the trading day. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_fund I am not certain, but I believe that OppenheimerFunds does not report intraday prices. I would call them up and ask.",
"qid": 10994,
"docid": "384265",
"rank": 58,
"score": 95111
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The Paragraph talks about dividends given by Mutual Funds. Say a fund has NAV of $ 10, as the value of the underlying security grows, the value of the fund would also grow, lets say it becomes $ 12 in 2 months. Now if the Mutual Fund decides to pay out a dividend of $ 1 to all unit holder, then post the distribution of dividend, the value of the Fund would become to $ 11. Thus if you are say investing on 1-April and know that dividends of $1 would be paid on 5-April [the divided distribution date is published typically weeks in advance], if you are hoping to make $1 in 5 days, that is not going to happen. On 6-April you would get $1, but the value of the fund would now be $11 from the earlier $12. This may not be wise as in some countries you would ending up paying tax on $1. Even in shares, the concept is similar, however the price may get corrected immediately and one may not actually see it going down by $1 due to market dynamics.",
"qid": 10994,
"docid": "41675",
"rank": 59,
"score": 94668
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: This means that if your capital under my management ends up turning a profit, I will keep half of those profits, but if I lose you money, I will cover half those losses. The bold part is where you lose me. This absolutely exists with the exception of the loss insurance. It just requires a lot more than the general retail consumer investor has to contribute. Nobody wants to take on the responsibility of your money then split 50% of the gross proceeds of your $10,000 (or whatever nominal amount of money you're dealing with) investment and return it all to you after a year. And NO money manager will insure that the market won't decline. Hedge funds, PE Firms, VC Firms, Investment Partnerships, etc all basically run the way you're describing (again without your loss insurance). Everyone's money is pooled and investments are made. Everyone shares the spoils and everyone shares the losses. And to top it off, the people making investment decisions have their money invested in the fund. All of them have to pay rent and accountants and other costs associated with running the fund and that will eat in to the proceeds to some degree; because returns are calculated on net proceeds. With enough money you can buy yourself in to a hedge fund, for the rest of us there are ETFs and other extremely fee-reasonable investment options. And if you don't think the performance and preservation of assets under management is not an incentive to treat the money with care you're kidding yourself (your first bullet point). I'll add that aside from skewing the manager's risk tolerance toward guaranteed returns I doubt you would fair favorably over the long term compared to simply paying even an egregious 1% expense ratio on an ETF. If you look at the S&P performance for 10 or 20 or however many years, I'd venture that a couple good years of giving up half of your gains would have you screaming for your money back. The bad years would put the money manager out of business and the good years would squander your gains.",
"qid": 10994,
"docid": "247486",
"rank": 60,
"score": 94364
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"This answer is about the USA. Each time you sell a security (a stock or a bond) or some other asset, you are expected to pay tax on the net gain. It doesn't matter whether you use a broker or mutual fund to make the sale. You still owe the tax. Net capital gain is defined this way: Gross sale prices less (broker fees for selling + cost of buying the asset) The cost of buying the asset is called the \"\"basis price.\"\" You, or your broker, needs to keep track of the basis price for each share. This is easy when you're just getting started investing. It stays easy if you're careful about your record keeping. You owe the capital gains tax whenever you sell an asset, whether or not you reinvest the proceeds in something else. If your capital gains are modest, you can pay all the taxes at the end of the year. If they are larger -- for example if they exceed your wage earnings -- you should pay quarterly estimated tax. The tax authorities ding you for a penalty if you wait to pay five- or six-figure tax bills without paying quarterly estimates. You pay NET capital gains tax. If one asset loses money and another makes money, you pay on your gains minus your losses. If you have more losses than gains in a particular year, you can carry forward up to $3,000 (I think). You can't carry forward tens of thousands in capital losses. Long term and short term gains are treated separately. IRS Schedule B has places to plug in all those numbers, and the tax programs (Turbo etc) do too. Dividend payments are also taxable when they are paid. Those aren't capital gains. They go on Schedule D along with interest payments. The same is true for a mutual fund. If the fund has Ford shares in it, and Ford pays $0.70 per share in March, that's a dividend payment. If the fund managers decide to sell Ford and buy Tesla in June, the selling of Ford shares will be a cap-gains taxable event for you. The good news: the mutual fund managers send you a statement sometime in February or March of each year telling what you should put on your tax forms. This is great. They add it all up for you. They give you a nice consolidated tax statement covering everything: dividends, their buying and selling activity on your behalf, and any selling they did when you withdrew money from the fund for any purpose. Some investment accounts like 401(k) accounts are tax free. You don't pay any tax on those accounts -- capital gains, dividends, interest -- until you withdraw the money to live on after you retire. Then that money is taxed as if it were wage income. If you want an easy and fairly reliable way to invest, and don't want to do a lot of tax-form scrambling, choose a couple of different mutual funds, put money into them, and leave it there. They'll send you consolidated tax statements once a year. Download them into your tax program and you're done. You mentioned \"\"riding out bad times in cash.\"\" No, no, NOT a good idea. That investment strategy almost guarantees you will sell when the market is going down and buy when it's going up. That's \"\"sell low, buy high.\"\" It's a loser. Not even Warren Buffett can call the top of the market and the bottom. Ned Johnson (Fidelity's founder) DEFINITELY can't.\"",
"qid": 10994,
"docid": "337993",
"rank": 61,
"score": 93893
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: No, the reinvestment is done as a courtesy. Consider, one can have, say, 100 shares of a $50 stock. A 2% dividend is $100/yr or $25/quarter. It would be a pretty bad deal if brokers charged you even $5 for that trade. When cap gains and dividends are grouped as you suggest, it refers to Mutual Funds. My funds will have a year end dividend and cap gain distribution. In a non-retirement account, one has to pay the tax due, and be sure to add this to your cost basis, as it's money you are effectively adding to your account. It does not mean cap gain the same as when you sell your shares of Apple for a huge gain. Those check boxes seem to offer you a chance to put all your holding on the same reinvestment plan for div/cap gain. You should also be able to choose one by one what you'd like to do.",
"qid": 10994,
"docid": "562481",
"rank": 62,
"score": 93893
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The dividend tax credit is not applicable to foreign dividend income, so you would be taxed fully on every dollar of that income. When you sell a stock, there will be a capital gain or capital loss depending on if it gained or lost value, after accounting for the Adjusted Cost Base. You only pay income tax on half of the amount earned through capital gains, and if you have losses, you can use them to offset other investments that had capital gains (or carry forward to offset gains in the future). The dividends from US stocks are subject to a 15% withholding tax that gets paid to the IRS automatically when the dividends are issued. If the stocks are held in an RRSP, they are exempt from the withholding tax. If held in a non-registered account, you can be reimbursed for the tax by claiming the foreign tax credit that you linked to. If held in a TFSA or RESP, the withholding tax cannot be recovered. Also, if you are not directly holding the stocks, and instead buy a mutual fund or ETF that directly holds the stocks, then the RRSP exemption no longer applies, but the foreign tax credit is still claimable for a non-registered account. If the mutual fund or ETF does not directly hold stocks, and instead holds one or more ETFs, there is no way to recover the withholding tax in any type of account.",
"qid": 10994,
"docid": "437907",
"rank": 63,
"score": 93836
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You can only lose your 7%. The idea that a certain security is more volatile than others in your portfolio does not mean that you can lose more than the value of the investment. The one exception is that a short position has unlimited downside, but i dont think there are any straight short mutual funds.",
"qid": 10994,
"docid": "535936",
"rank": 64,
"score": 93775
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The pros and cons of investing in a closed end fund both stem from the fact that the price per share is likely to differ from the net asset value (NAV) of the underlying assets. That could work to your advantage if the fund is selling for LESS than NAV, or at a discount. Then you get the \"\"benefit of the bargain\"\" and hope to sell the shares in the future for \"\"par\"\" or even a premium (MORE than NAV). On the other hand, if you buy such a fund at a premium, you stand to have a RELATIVE loss if the value of the fund goes back to par (or a discount) compared to NAV. That's because a closed end fund has a FIXED number of shares, with the assets continually being reinvested. In essence, you are \"\"buying out\"\" an existing shareholder of the fund at a price determined by supply and demand. This differs from an OPEN end fund, in which your contribution creates NEW shares (all other things being equal). Then the fund, has to invest YOUR money (and charges you a fee for the service) on exactly a pro rata basis with other investors in the fund, meaning that you will enter and exit such a fund at \"\"par.\"\" In either case, your return depends mainly on the performance of the underlying assets. But there are premium/discount issues for investing in a closed end fund.\"",
"qid": 10994,
"docid": "66453",
"rank": 65,
"score": 93588
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"According to the IRS, you must have written confirmation from your broker \"\"or other agent\"\" whenever you sell shares using a method other than FIFO: Specific share identification. If you adequately identify the shares you sold, you can use the adjusted basis of those particular shares to figure your gain or loss. You will adequately identify your mutual fund shares, even if you bought the shares in different lots at various prices and times, if you: Specify to your broker or other agent the particular shares to be sold or transferred at the time of the sale or transfer, and Receive confirmation in writing from your broker or other agent within a reasonable time of your specification of the particular shares sold or transferred. If you don't have a stockbroker, I'm not sure how you even got the shares. If you have an actual stock certificate, then you are selling very specific shares and the purchase date corresponds to the purchase date of those shares represented on the certificate.\"",
"qid": 10994,
"docid": "430718",
"rank": 66,
"score": 93194
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: It looks like it has to deal with an expiration of rights as a taxable event. I found this link via google, which states that Not only does the PSEC shareholder have a TAXABLE EVENT, but he has TWO taxable events. The net effect of these two taxable events has DIFFERENT CONSEQUENCES for DIFFERENT SHAREHOLDERS depending upon their peculiar TAX SITUATIONS. The CORRECT STATEMENT of the tax treatment of unexercised PYLDR rights is in the N-2 on page 32, which reads in relevant part as follows: “…, if you receive a Subscription Right from PSEC and do not sell or exercise that right before it expires, you should generally expect to have (1) taxable dividend income equal to the fair market value (if any) of the Subscription Right on the date of its distribution by PSEC to the extent of PSEC’s current and accumulated earnings and profits and (2) a capital loss upon the expiration of such right in an amount equal to your adjusted tax basis (if any) in such right (which should generally equal the fair market value (if any) of the Subscription Right on the date of its distribution by PSEC).” Please note, for quarterly “estimated taxes” purposes, that the DIVIDEND taxable events occur “ON THE DATE OF ITS DISTRIBUTION BY PSEC (my emphasis),” while the CAPITAL LOSS occurs “UPON EXPIRATION OF SUCH RIGHT” (my emphasis). They do NOT occur on 31 December 2015 or some other date. However, to my knowledge, neither of the taxable events he mentions would be taxed by 4/15. If you are worried about it, I would recommend seeing a tax professional. Otherwise I'd wait to see the tax forms sent by your brokerage.",
"qid": 10994,
"docid": "146177",
"rank": 67,
"score": 93169
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Mutual funds are a collection of other assets, such as stocks, bonds and property. Unless the fund is a type that is traded on an exchange, you will only be able to buy into the fund by applying for units with the fund manager and sell out by contacting the fund manager. These type of non-traded funds are usually updated at the end of the day once the closing prices of all the assets in it are known.",
"qid": 10994,
"docid": "574383",
"rank": 68,
"score": 93157
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Two different takes on an answer; the net-loss concept you mentioned and a core-business concept. If a store is actually a net-loss, and anybody is willing to buy it, it may well make sense to sell it. Depending on your capital value invested, and how much it would take you to make it profitable, it may be a sound business decision to sell the asset. The buyer of the asset is of course expecting for some reason to make it not a net loss for them (perhaps they have other stores in the vicinity and can then share staff or stock somehow). The core-business is a fuzzier concept. Investors seem to go in cycles, like can like well-diversified companies that are resilient to a market downturn in one sector, but then they also like so-called pure-play companies, where you are clear on what you are owning. To try an example (which is likely not the case here), lets say that Sunoco in 5% of its stores had migrated away from a gas-station model to a one-stop-gas-and-repairs model. Therefore they had to have service bays, parts, and trained staff at those locations. These things are expensive, and could be seen as not their area of expertise (selling gas). So as an investor, if I want to own gas stations, I don't want to own a full service garage, so perhaps I invest in somebody else. Once they sell off their non-core assets, they free up capital to do what they know best. It is at least one possible explanation.",
"qid": 10994,
"docid": "595981",
"rank": 69,
"score": 93143
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You will not get a vote on any issues of the underlying stock. The mutual fund owner/manager will do the voting. In 2004, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) required that fund companies disclose proxy votes, voting guidelines and conflicts of interest in the voting process. All funds must make these disclosures to the SEC through an N-PX filing, which must either be available to shareholders on the fund company's websites or upon request by telephone. You can also find your fund's N-PX filing on the SEC website. -- http://www.investopedia.com/articles/mutualfund/08/acting-in-interest.asp",
"qid": 10994,
"docid": "244711",
"rank": 70,
"score": 92854
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I would undoubtedly sell the investments if they are positive, maybe even a little negative. That's what non-retirement investments are for, building wealth to spend, give, etc. Flipping things may put it in perspective. Would you borrow money or liquidate your emergency fund in order to invest in mutual funds? If you can completely ignore risk then this MAY make sense. Let's say if you could borrow money at 3.75% and had a \"\"guaranteed\"\" investment return of 7.5% and a \"\"guaranteed\"\" source of income (job). But mutual funds (stocks, bonds) aren't even guaranteed to make money and they most definitely can lose and lose big. Also, I hope your job isn't in any way tied to the oil industry. On the other hand, if you take a loan and fall on hard times you can liquidate your mutual funds to get out of the bind, but you are at the mercy of the market and the worth of your investments at that point. So it may come down to whether you want to choose when to spend your investments, when they are up or at some future date when they may be worth much less (or much more).\"",
"qid": 10994,
"docid": "329930",
"rank": 71,
"score": 92585
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"You can't get started investing. There are preliminary steps that must be taken prior to beginning to invest: Only once these things are complete can you think about investing. Doing so before hand will only likely lose money in the long run. Figure these steps will take about 2.5 years. So you are 2.5 years from investing. Read now: The Total Money Makeover. It is full of inspiring stories of people that were able to turn things around financially. This is good because it is easy to get discouraged and believe all kind of toxic beliefs about money: The little guy can't get ahead, I always will have a car payment, Its too late, etc... They are all false. Part of the book's resources are budgeting forms and hints on budgeting. Read later: John Bogle on Investing and Bogle on Mutual Funds One additional Item: About you calling yourself a \"\"dummy\"\". Building personal wealth is less about knowledge and more about behavior. The reason you don't have a positive net worth is because of how you behaved, not knowledge. Even sticking a small amount in a savings account each paycheck and not spending it would have allowed you to have a positive net worth at this point in your life. Only by changing behavior can you start to build wealth, investing is only a small component.\"",
"qid": 10994,
"docid": "70243",
"rank": 72,
"score": 92305
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: In addition to all the good information that JoeTaxpayer has provided, be aware of this. When you sell mutual fund shares, you can, if you choose to do so, tell the mutual fund company which shares you want to sell (e.g. all shares purchased on xx/yy/2010 plus 10 shares out of 23.147 shares purchased on ss/tt/2011 plus...) and pay taxes on the gains/losses on those specific shares. If you do not specify which shares you want sold, the mutual fund company will tell you the gains/losses based on the average cost basis and you can use this information if you like. Note that some of your gains/losses will be short-term gains or losses if you use the average cost basis. Or, you can use the FIFO method (usually resulting in the largest gain) in which the shares are sold in the order in which they were purchased. This usually results in no short-term gains/losses. Just so that you know, most mutual fund companies will link your checking account in your bank to your account with them (a one-time paperwork deal is necessary in which your bank manager's signature is required on the authorization to be sent to the fund company). After that, the connection is nearly as seamless as with your current system. Tell the fund company you want to invest money in a certain mutual fund and to take the money from your linked checking account, and they will take care of it. Sell some shares and they will deposit the money into your linked bank account, and so on. The mutual fund company will not accept instructions from you (or someone purporting to be you) to sell shares and to send the money to Joe Blow (or to Joe Taxpayer for that matter): the proceeds of redemptions go to your checking account or are used to buy shares in other mutual funds offered by the company (called an exchange and not a redemption). Oh, and most fund companies offer automatic investments (as well as automatic redemptions) at fixed time intervals, just as with your bank.",
"qid": 10994,
"docid": "449124",
"rank": 73,
"score": 92026
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Not that I am aware. If you are trying to mitigate losses from stock purchases, you may want to consider stock mutual funds. This is why single stocks can be extremely risky.",
"qid": 10994,
"docid": "287846",
"rank": 74,
"score": 91964
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"While @JB's \"\"yes\"\" is correct, a few more points to consider: There is no tax penalty for withdrawing any time from a taxable investment, that is, one not using specific tax protections like 401k/IRA or ESA or HSA. But you do pay tax on any income or gain distributions you receive from a taxable investment in a fund (except interest on tax-exempt aka \"\"municipal\"\" bonds), and any net capital gains you realize when selling (or technically redeeming for non-ETF funds). Just like you do for dividends and interest and gains on non-fund taxable investments. Many funds have a sales charge or \"\"load\"\" which means you will very likely lose money if you sell quickly typically within at least several months and usually a year or more, and even some no-load funds, to discourage rapid trading that makes their management more difficult (and costly), have a \"\"contingent sales charge\"\" if you sell after less than a stated period like 3 months or 6 months. For funds that largely or entirely invest in equities or longer term bonds, the share value/price is practically certain to fluctuate up and down, and if you sell during a \"\"down\"\" period you will lose money; if \"\"liquid\"\" means you want to take out money anytime without waiting for the market to move, you might want funds focussing on short-term bonds, especially government bonds, and \"\"money market\"\" funds which hold only very short bonds (usually duration under 90 days), which have much more stable prices (but lower returns over the longer term).\"",
"qid": 10994,
"docid": "344283",
"rank": 75,
"score": 91708
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Contrary to what you might have heard, moving money between mutual funds, whether or not in the same family of funds, is a taxable event, assuming, of course, that the funds are not in tax-deferred retirement accounts. About the only thing that is not taxable is moving funds between share classes in the same mutual fund, e.g. a conversion from what Vanguard refers to as Investor Shares to Admiral Shares in the same fund. In some cases, the Admiral Shares may have a considerably different price (for example, Vanguard Health Care Fund Investor Shares (VGHCX) and Admiral Shares (VGHAX) are priced at $215.83 and $91.04 respectively and so changing from one class to the other changes the number of shares owned considerably while the net value of the investment remains unchanged.",
"qid": 10994,
"docid": "179737",
"rank": 76,
"score": 91700
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: In a taxable account you're going to owe taxes when you sell the shares for a gain. You're also going to owe taxes on any distributions you receive from the holdings in the account; these distributions can happen one or more times a year. Vanguard has a writeup on mutual fund taxation. Note: for a fund like you linked, you will owe taxes annually, regardless of whether you sell it. The underlying assets will pay dividends and those are distributed to you either in cash, or more beneficially as additional shares of the mutual fund (look into dividend reinvestment.) Taking VFIAX's distributions as an example, if you bought 1 share of the fund on March 19, 2017, on March 20th you would have been given $1.005 that would be taxable. You'd owe taxes on that even if you didn't sell your share during the year. Your last paragraph is based on a false premise. The mutual fund does report to you at the end of the year the short and long term capital gains, along with dividends on a 1099-DIV. You get to pay taxes on those transactions, that's why it's advantageous to hold low turnover mutual funds in taxable accounts.",
"qid": 10994,
"docid": "122012",
"rank": 77,
"score": 91556
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I think you're confusing risk analysis (that is what you quoted as \"\"Taleb Distribution\"\") with arguments against taking risks altogether. You need to understand that not taking a risk - is by itself a risk. You can lose money by not investing it, because of the very same Taleb Distribution: an unpredictable catastrophic event. Take an example of keeping cash in your house and not investing it anywhere. In the 1998 default of the Russian Federation, people lost money by not investing it. Why? Because had they invested the money - they would have the investments/properties, but since they only had cash - it became worthless overnight. There's no argument for or against investing on its own. The arguments are always related to the investment goals and the risk analysis. You're looking for something that doesn't exist.\"",
"qid": 10994,
"docid": "252574",
"rank": 78,
"score": 91454
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Oddly enough, in the USA, there are enough cost and tax savings between buy-and-hold of a static portfolio and buying into a fund that a few brokerages have sprung up around the concept, such as FolioFN, to make it easier for small investors to manage numerous small holdings via fractional shares and no commission window trades. A static buy-and-hold portfolio of stocks can be had for a few dollars per trade. Buying into a fund involves various annual and one time fees that are quoted as percentages of the investment. Even 1-2% can be a lot, especially if it is every year. Typically, a US mutual fund must send out a 1099 tax form to each investor, stating that investors share of the dividends and capital gains for each year. The true impact of this is not obvious until you get a tax bill for gains that you did not enjoy, which can happen when you buy into a fund late in the year that has realized capital gains. What fund investors sometimes fail to appreciate is that they are taxed both on their own holding period of fund shares and the fund's capital gains distributions determined by the fund's holding period of its investments. For example, if ABC tech fund bought Google stock several years ago for $100/share, and sold it for $500/share in the same year you bought into the ABC fund, then you will receive a \"\"capital gains distribution\"\" on your 1099 that will include some dollar amount, which is considered your share of that long-term profit for tax purposes. The amount is not customized for your holding period, capital gains are distributed pro-rata among all current fund shareholders as of the ex-distribution date. Morningstar tracks this as Potential Capital Gains Exposure and so there is a way to check this possibility before investing. Funds who have unsold losers in their portfolio are also affected by these same rules, have been called \"\"free rides\"\" because those funds, if they find some winners, will have losers that they can sell simultaneously with the winners to remain tax neutral. See \"\"On the Lookout for Tax Traps and Free Riders\"\", Morningstar, pdf In contrast, buying-and-holding a portfolio does not attract any capital gains taxes until the stocks in the portfolio are sold at a profit. A fund often is actively managed. That is, experts will alter the portfolio from time to time or advise the fund to buy or sell particular investments. Note however, that even the experts are required to tell you that \"\"past performance is no guarantee of future results.\"\"\"",
"qid": 10994,
"docid": "41625",
"rank": 79,
"score": 91051
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"In the case of a specific fund, I'd be tempted to get get an annual report that would disclose distribution data going back up to 5 years. The \"\"View prospectus and reports\"\" would be the link on the site to note and use that to get to the PDF of the report to get the data that was filed with the SEC as that is likely what matters more here. Don't forget that mutual fund distributions can be a mix of dividends, bond interest, short-term and long-term capital gains and thus aren't quite as simple as stock dividends to consider here.\"",
"qid": 10994,
"docid": "341192",
"rank": 80,
"score": 90945
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Mutual funds buy (and sell) shares in companies in accordance with the policies set forth in their prospectus, not according to the individual needs of an investor, that is, when you invest money in (or withdraw money from) a mutual fund, the manager buys or sells whatever shares that, in the manager's judgement, will be the most appropriate ones (consistent with the investment policies). Thus, a large-cap mutual fund manager will not buy the latest hot small-cap stock that will likely be hugely profitable; he/she must choose only between various large capitalization companies. Some exchange-traded funds are fixed baskets of stocks. Suppose you will not invest in a company X as a matter of principle. Unless a mutual fund prospectus says that it will not invest in X, you may well end up having an investment in X at some time because the fund manager bought shares in X. With such an ETF, you know what is in the basket, and if the basket does not include stock in X now, it will not own stock in X at a later date. Some exchange-traded funds are constructed based on some index and track the index as a matter of policy. Thus, you will not be investing in X unless X becomes part of the index because Standard or Poor or Russell or somebody changed their minds, and the ETF buys X in order to track the index. Finally, some ETFs are exactly like general mutual funds except that you can buy or sell ETF shares at any time at the price at the instant that your order is executed whereas with mutual funds, the price of the mutual fund shares that you have bought or sold is the NAV of the mutual fund shares for that day, which is established based on the closing prices at the end of the trading day of the stocks, bonds etc that the fund owns. So, you might end up owning stock in X at any time based on what the fund manager thinks about X.",
"qid": 10994,
"docid": "479420",
"rank": 81,
"score": 90818
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Older folk might wish to let the dividends and cap gains be paid in cash, and use that cash towards their RMDs (required distributions). If you are investing in mutual funds and wish to keep adding to the funds you've selected, the reinvestment is a simple way to avoid having to visit the account and make a new purchase. In other words, you invest $5500, buy the fund, and X years from now, you simply have more shares of the fund but no cash o worry about. The pro is as mentioned, and the con is really for the 70-1/2+ people who will need to take their RMDs. (Although even they can take the RMD in kind, as fund shares)",
"qid": 10994,
"docid": "484825",
"rank": 82,
"score": 90794
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Do mutual funds edit/censor underperforming investments to make their returns look better, and if so, is there any way one can figure out if they are doing it? No, that's not what the quote says. What the quote says is that the funds routinely drop investments that do not bring the expected return, which is true. That's their job, that is what is called \"\"active management\"\". Obviously, if you're measuring the fund by their success/failure to beat the market, to beat the market the funds must consistently select over-performers. No-one claims that they only select over-performers, but they select enough of them (or not...) for the average returns to be appealing (or not...) for the investors.\"",
"qid": 10994,
"docid": "185460",
"rank": 83,
"score": 90729
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I'll give the TLDR answer. 1) You can't forecast the price direction. If you get it right you got lucky. If you think you get it right consistently you are either a statistical anomaly or a victim of confirmation bias. Countless academic studies show that you can not do this. 2) You reduce volatility and, importantly, left-tail risk by going to an index tracking ETF or mutual fund. That is, Probability(Gigantic Loss) is MUCH lower in an index tracker. What's the trade off? The good thing is there is NO tradeoff. Your expected return does not go down in the same way the risk goes down! 3) Since point (1) is true, you are wasting time analysing companies. This has the opportunity cost of not earning $ from doing paid work, which can be thought of as a negative return. \"\"With all the successful investors (including myself on a not-infrequent basis) going for individual companies directly\"\" Actually, academic studies show that individual investors are the worst performers of all investors in the stock market.\"",
"qid": 10994,
"docid": "355108",
"rank": 84,
"score": 90524
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Great question, and here is the answer. No. Shares in 401k plans are never registered to an individual while the money is held in the plan. That goes for stock or mutual funds. Technically your account is never \"\"yours\"\" until you request a distribution from the plan. Most people do not understand this, and it's not the easiest of concepts to understand or be willing to grasp.\"",
"qid": 10994,
"docid": "305167",
"rank": 85,
"score": 90454
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"If you have an S-Corp with several shareholders - you probably also have a tax adviser who suggested using S-Corp to begin with. You're probably best off asking that adviser about this issue. If you decided to use S-Corp for multiple shareholders without a professional guiding you, you should probably start looking for such a professional, or you may get yourself into trouble. That said, and reminding you that: 1. Free advice on the Internet is worth exactly what you paid for it, and 2. I'm not a tax professional or tax adviser, you should talk to a EA/CPA licensed in your state, here's this: Generally S-Corps are disregarded entities for tax purposes and their income flows to their shareholders individual tax returns through K-1 forms distributed by the S-Corp yearly. The shareholders don't have to actually withdraw the profits, but if not withdrawing - they're added to their cost bases in the shares. I'm guessing your corp doesn't distribute the net income, but keeps it on the corporate account, only distributing enough to cover the shareholders' taxes on their respective income portion. In this case - the amount not distributed is added to their basis, the amount distributed has already been taxed through K-1. If the corporation distributes more than the shareholder's portion of net income, then there can be several different choices, depending on the circumstances: The extra distribution will be treated as salary to the shareholder and a deduction to the corporation (i.e.: increasing the net income for the rest of the shareholders). The extra distribution will be treated as return of investment, reducing that shareholder's basis in the shares, but not affecting the other shareholders. If the basis is 0 then it is treated as income to the shareholder and taxed at ordinary rates. The extra distribution will be treated as \"\"buy-back\"\" - reducing that shareholder's ownership stake in the company and reallocating the \"\"bought-back\"\" portion among the rest of the shareholders. In this case it is treated as a sale of stock, and the gain is calculated as with any other stock sale, including short-term vs. long-term taxation (there's also Sec. 1244 that can come in handy here). The extra distribution will be treated as dividend. This is very rare for S-Corp, but can happen if it was a C-Corp before. In that case it will be taxed as dividends. Note that options #2, #3 and #4 subject the shareholder to the NIIT, while option #1 subjects the shareholder to FICA/Self Employment tax (and subjects the company to payroll taxes). There might be other options. Your licensed tax adviser will go with you through all the facts and circumstances and will suggest the best way to proceed.\"",
"qid": 10994,
"docid": "521489",
"rank": 86,
"score": 90010
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Yes you should take in the expenses being incurred by the mutual fund. This lists down the fees charged by the mutual fund and where expenses can be found in the annual statement of the fund. To calculate fees and expenses. As you might expect, fees and expenses vary from fund to fund. A fund with high costs must perform better than a low-cost fund to generate the same returns for you. Even small differences in fees can translate into large differences in returns over time. You don't pay expenses, so the money is taken from the assets of the fund. So you pay it indirectly. If the expenses are huge, that may point to something i.e. fund managers are enjoying at your expense, money is being used somewhere else rather than being paid as dividends. If the expenses are used in the growth of the fund, that is a positive sign. Else you can expect the fund to be downgraded or upgraded by the credit rating agencies, depending on how the credit rating agencies see the expenses of the fund and other factors. Generally comparison should be done with funds invested in the same sectors, same distribution of assets so that you have a homogeneous comparison to make. Else it would be unwise to compare between a fund invested in oil companies and other in computers. Yes the economy is inter twined, but that is not how a comparison should be done.",
"qid": 10994,
"docid": "518402",
"rank": 87,
"score": 89920
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I think you can do better than the straight indexes. For instance Vanguard's High Yield Tax Exempt Fund has made 4.19% over the past 5 years. The S&P 500 Index has lost -2.25% in the same period. I think good mutual funds will continue to outperform the markets because you have skilled managers taking care of your money. The index is just a bet on the whole market. That said, whatever you do, you should diversify. List of Vanguard Funds",
"qid": 10994,
"docid": "445322",
"rank": 88,
"score": 89767
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"What in the world to shareholders have to do with it? Nowadays, the vast majority of the shares in most big corporations are \"\"owned\"\" via intermediaries (i.e. mutual funds and 401K's, IRA's and Pension Funds) that do not ALLOW the actual end owners to have any say whatsoever. All those investment vehicles *allow* people to care about ... is the share price.\"",
"qid": 10994,
"docid": "21507",
"rank": 89,
"score": 89655
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I agree, one should not let the tax tail wag the investing dog. The only question should be whether he'd buy the stock at today's price. If he wishes to own it long term, he keeps it. To take the loss this year, he'd have to sell soon, and can't buy it back for 30 days. If, for whatever reason, the stock comes back a bit, he's going to buy in higher. To be clear, the story changes for ETFs or mutual funds. You can buy a fund to replace one you're selling, capture the loss, and easily not run afoul of wash sale rules.",
"qid": 10994,
"docid": "207929",
"rank": 90,
"score": 89467
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Distributions of interest from bonds are taxable as income by the Federal, state and municipal (if applicable) government. End of year fund distributions are subject to capital gains taxes as well. You can minimize taxation by: Note that the only bonds that are guaranteed safe are US Government obligations, as the US government has unlimited taxation powers and the ability to print money. Municipal obligations are generally safe, but there is a risk that municipal governments will default. You can also avoid taxation by not realizing gains. If you buy individual stocks or tax-efficient mutual funds, you will have minimal tax liability until you sell. Also, just wanted to point out that bonds do not equal safety and money markets do not pay sufficient interest to offset inflation, you need a diversified portfolio. Five year treasury notes are only paying 1.3% now, and bond prices drop when interest rates go up. Given the level of Federal spending and the wind-down of the war, its likely that rates will rise.",
"qid": 10994,
"docid": "428913",
"rank": 91,
"score": 89173
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Even with non-voting shares, you own a portion of the company including all of its assets and its future profits. If the company is sold, goes out of business and liquidates, etc., those with non-voting shares still stand collect their share of the funds generated. There's also the possibility, as one of the comments notes, that a company will pay dividends in the future and distribute its assets to shareholders that way. The example of Google (also mentioned in the comments) is interesting because when they went to voting and non-voting stock, there was some theoretical debate about whether the two types of shares (GOOG and GOOGL) would track each other in value. It turned out that they did not - People did put a premium on voting, so that is worth something. Even without the voting rights, however, Google has massive assets and each share (GOOG and GOOGL) represented ownership of a fraction of those assets and that kept them highly correlated in value. (Google had to pay restitution to some shareholders of the non-voting stock as a result of the deviation in value. I won't get into the details here since it's a bit of tangent, but you could easily find details on the web.)",
"qid": 10994,
"docid": "488920",
"rank": 92,
"score": 88973
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: When you are saving for money you need in 5 years or less the only real option is a savings account. I know the return is nothing at this point, but if you cannot take the risk of losing all of your money that's the only thing I would recommend. Now you could try a good growth stock mutual fund if, when you look up in 2 - 3 years and you have lost money you wait it out until it grows enough to get what you lost back then buy your house. I would not do the second option because I wouldn't want to be stuck renting while waiting for the account to recover, and actually thinking about it that way you have more risk. 3 years from now if you have lost money and don't yet have enough saved you will have to continue paying rent, and no mutual fund will out preform that.",
"qid": 10994,
"docid": "82159",
"rank": 93,
"score": 88904
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Not according to the SEC: A mutual fund is an SEC-registered open-end investment company that pools money from many investors and invests the money in stocks, bonds, short-term money-market instruments, other securities or assets, or some combination of these investments. The combined securities and assets the mutual fund owns are known as its portfolio, which is managed by an SEC-registered investment adviser. Each mutual fund share represents an investor’s proportionate ownership of the mutual fund’s portfolio and the income the portfolio generates. And further down: Mutual funds are open-end funds.",
"qid": 10994,
"docid": "180196",
"rank": 94,
"score": 88552
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Cost basis is irrelevant because the entire distribution is taxed as ordinary income even if the custodian distributes stock or mutual fund shares to you. Such distributions save you the brokerage fees that you would incur had you taken a cash distribution and promptly bought the shares outside the retirement account for yourself but they have no effect on the tax treatment of the distribution: the market value of the shares distributed to you is taxed as ordinary income, and your basis in the newly acquired shares outside the retirement account is the market value of the shares, all prices being as of the date of the distribution.",
"qid": 10994,
"docid": "183926",
"rank": 95,
"score": 88399
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: In the absence of a country designation where the mutual fund is registered, the question cannot be fully answered. For US mutual funds, the N.A.V per share is calculated each day after the close of the stock exchanges and all purchase and redemption requests received that day are transacted at this share price. So, the price of the mutual fund shares for April 2016 is not enough information: you need to specify the date more accurately. Your calculation of what you get from the mutual fund is incorrect because in the US, declared mutual fund dividends are net of the expense ratio. If the declared dividend is US$ 0.0451 per share, you get a cash payout of US$ 0.0451 for each share that you own: the expense ratio has already been subtracted before the declared dividend is calculated. The N.A.V. price of the mutual fund also falls by the amount of the per-share dividend (assuming that the price of all the fund assets (e.g. shares of stocks, bonds etc) does not change that day). Thus. if you have opted to re-invest your dividend in the same fund, your holding has the same value as before, but you own more shares of the mutual fund (which have a lower price per share). For exchange-traded funds, the rules are slightly different. In other jurisdictions, the rules might be different too.",
"qid": 10994,
"docid": "162916",
"rank": 96,
"score": 88388
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The S&P 500 is a stock market index, which is a list of 500 stocks from the largest companies in America. You could open a brokerage account with a broker and buy shares in each of these companies, but the easiest, least expensive way to invest in all these stocks is to invest in an S&P 500 index mutual fund. Inside an index mutual fund, your money will be pooled together with everyone else in the fund to purchase all the stocks in the index. These types of funds are very low expense compared to managed mutual funds. Most mutual fund companies have an S&P 500 index fund; two examples are Vanguard and Fidelity. The minimum investment in most of these mutual funds is low enough that you will be able to open an account with your $4000. Something you need to keep in mind, however: investing in any stock mutual fund is not non-risk. It's not even low-risk, really. It is very possible to lose money by investing in the stock market. An S&P 500 index fund is diversified in the sense that you have money in lots of different stocks, but it is also not diversified, in a sense, because it is all in large cap American stocks. Before investing in the stock market, you should have a goal for the money you are investing. If you are investing for something several years away, an index fund can be a good place to invest, but if you will need this money within the next few years, the stock market might be too risky for you.",
"qid": 10994,
"docid": "161445",
"rank": 97,
"score": 87987
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The fund should be reporting returns net of expenses, so your interpretation is right; it made something like 0.42% (which sounds plausible, based on current yields on short-term securities), and the 0.05% is what's left after expenses. I've never seen a regular mutual fund report raw returns before expenses. If one does, the my personal opinion would be that they're trying to snooker you, as that number isn't actually representative of anybody's actual returns. If you look carefully, you should be able to find a table that reports several kinds of adjusted returns for the fund: As to what happens if a fund can't earn enough returns to cover its expenses, in that case the value of the fund shares will decrease. This happens from time to time with riskier funds. It shouldn't happen with a money market fund because both the returns and the expenses are fairly predictable, so the fund managers should be able to avoid it, unless they get caught up in a major crisis like the 2008 banking crisis. In ordinary times, a money market fund managers who couldn't keep expenses below income would find themselves looking for a new job fairly quickly. Finally, for what it's worth, 0.37% is a really high expense ratio for a money market fund. If you were to shop around, you could easily find comparable funds with expenses less than half that.",
"qid": 10994,
"docid": "346762",
"rank": 98,
"score": 87777
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The larger macro funds, the ones struggling in this environment, need there to be a\"\"normal\"\" amount of volatility in the market to make money. They need price action to provide buy/sell points, and to help them spot trends. The one way market we have been in for a long time makes this difficult/impossible. And then when we get two days in a row like we just had, it can really fuck them up and will lead them to take positions of at the worst time. And the loses are larger because all the macro funds use leverage, so a dollar loss could really become $3-6. The index funds are winning right now, no doubt. But they will have thier day off reckoning too, we just don't know how that plays out...yet. everyone put active mutual funds in the trash two years ago, and they are having the best year they have had in ages. It's all very cyclical. (Sorry for one paragraph, I'm on mobile.)\"",
"qid": 10994,
"docid": "238746",
"rank": 99,
"score": 87694
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: No. You're entitled to 1% of votes at the shareholders' meeting (unless there's class division between shareholders, that is). If more than 50% of the shareholders vote to close the company, sell off its assets and distribute the proceeds to the owners - you'll get 1% share of the distributions.",
"qid": 10994,
"docid": "315375",
"rank": 100,
"score": 87675
}
] |
Pay off credit card debt or earn employer 401(k) match? | [
{
"content": "Title: Content: If your employer is matching 50 cents on the dollar then your 401(k) is a better place to put your money than paying off credit cards This. Assuming you can also get the credit cards paid off reasonably soon too (say, by next year). Otherwise, you have to look at how long before you can withdraw that money, to see if the compounded credit card debt isn't growing faster than your retirement. But a guaranteed 50% gain, your first year is a pretty hard deal to beat. And if you currently have no savings, unless all of your surplus income has been reducing your debt, you're living beyond your means. You should be earning more than you're (going to be) spending, when you start paying rent/car bills. If you don't know what this is going to be, you need to be budgeting. Get this under control, by any means necessary. New job/career? Change priorities/expectations? Cut expenses? Live to your budget? Whatever it takes. I don't think you should be in any investment that includes bonds until you're 40, and maybe not even then - equities and cash-equivalents all the way (cash is for emergency funds, and for waiting for buying opportunities). Otherwise Michael has some good ideas. I would caveat that I think you should not buy any investments in one chunk, but dollar average it over some period of time, in case the market is unnaturally high right when you decide to invest. You should also gauge possible returns and potential tax liabilities. Debt is good to get rid of, unless it is good debt (very low interest rates - ie: lower than you could borrow the money for). Good debt should still get paid off - who knows how long your job could last for - but maybe not dump all of your $50K on it. Roth is amazing. You should be maxing that contribution out every year.",
"qid": 11039,
"docid": "287876",
"rank": 1,
"score": 175988
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Aside from employer 401(k) matches (which may double your money immediately), paying off debts is almost always the best place to start. Paying off a debt early is a zero-risk operation and will earn you N% (where N is your interest rate). Is that a good deal for a zero-risk return? The closest equivalent today (Aug 24, 2012) is that you can earn about 2.68% on 10-year Treasury bonds. Unless you have a really, really good interest rate (or the interest is tax-deductible), paying off your loan will offer an excellent risk-adjusted return, so you should do that. The \"\"really good\"\" interest rate is typically a mortgage or student loans. (Mortgage interest is also tax-deductible, at least for now.) In those cases, you're not going to gain nearly as much by paying the loan early, and the loan is large - larger than the amount you want to have in risk-free investments. You want to invest for returns, as well! So you can save for retirement instead (in a 401(k) or similar account) and take on a little risk.\"",
"qid": 11039,
"docid": "552383",
"rank": 2,
"score": 163543
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I have credit card debt of about $5000 That's the answer right there. You told us the 401(b) has no match. The next highest priority would be credit card debt that's costing you interest. You didn't mention the rate on the card, I'm assuming it's 8% or more. As far as your balance sheet (the 'bottom line') is concerned, pay off a 10% debt is the same as earning 10% on your money. If anyone promises you a higher return with a different investment, I'd run the other way. We hope the market, i.e. the US stock market, as measured by a broad index, say the S&P 500, will return 8-10%/yr over the long term, but this isn't guaranteed. Paying off that credit card will save you the interest every year, and free up the payments to invest elsewhere. In response to Marlene's comment - Crazy? No. Human nature and emotion is what it is. I honestly don't know how to address some of it. Years ago, I was in a similar situation with a reader who had a $5000 'emergency' account, yet had $5000 in credit card debt. I had a tough time getting my head around why it wasn't obvious this made no sense. In your case, I might suggest you pay the card down to below $1000 and have the credit line reduced. Paying high interest on $5K makes no sense at any point in one's life. At least a 20-something can dig his way out and learn a lesson. A pre-retiree shouldn't be throwing this money away.",
"qid": 11039,
"docid": "5203",
"rank": 3,
"score": 159888
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The responses here are excellent. I'd add just a couple points. Debt is not generic. It ranges from low (my HELOC is 2.5%) to insane (24% credit card, anyone?). When I read about the obsession to be completely debt free, I ask questions. Are you saving in your 401(k) at least up to the match? I disagree with the \"\"debt is evil\"\" people who advise to ignore retirement savings while paying off every last debt. My company offers a dollar for dollar match on the first 5% of income deposited. So a $60K earner will see a $3000 deposit doubled. 5 years of this, and he has 1/2 a year's income in his retirement account, more with positive returns. (note - for those so fearful of losses, all 401(k) accounts have to offer a fixed income, low risk choice. currently 1% or less, but the opposite of \"\"I can lose it all\"\".) After that, paying off the higher debt is great. When it's time to hack away at student debt and mortgage, I am concerned that if it's at the risk of having no savings, I'd hold off. Consider - Two people in homes worth $250K. One has a mortgage of $250K and $100K in the bank. The other has his mortgage paid down to $150K. When they lose their jobs, the guy with the $100K in the bank has the funds to float himself through a period of unemployment as well as a house the bank is less likely to foreclose on. The guy with no money is in deep trouble, and the bank can sell his house for $150K and run away (after proper foreclosure proceedings of course.) My mortgage is one bill, like any other, and only a bit more than my property tax. I don't lose sleep over it. It will be paid before I retire, and before my 11yr old is off to college. I don't think you stupid for paying your low interest debt at your own pace.\"",
"qid": 11039,
"docid": "232262",
"rank": 4,
"score": 158220
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: John's answer is great, the question, however, is complex enough that one can write a book on the topic. So, I'll take the liberty to add two observations. The matched 401(k) should be the priority, even before paying off one's credit cards if any. A dollar for dollar match combined with the extra years of compounding is worth a bit longer on the debt pay off. To a younger person, the Roth (either Roth 401(k) or IRA) is a good choice while you are in a lower tax bracket. I recommend you look at the page at Fairmark to understand the tax brackets. It's easy to see how many people straddle that 15% line (at $68K taxable) and with a bit of planning, using Roth while in the 15% bracket and deductible accounts as you go above, you can tax-manage your affairs to avoid the higher rates.",
"qid": 11039,
"docid": "508534",
"rank": 5,
"score": 157664
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Great questions -- the fact that you're thinking about it is what's most important. I think a priority should be maximizing any employer match in your 401(k) because it's free money. Second would be paying off high interest debt because it's a big expense. Everything else is a matter of setting good financial habits so I think the order of importance will vary from person to person. (That's why I ordered the priorities the way I did: employer matching is the easiest way to get more income with no additional work, and paying down high-interest debt is the best way to lower your long-term expenses.) After that, continue to maximize your income and savings, and be frugal with your expenses. Avoid debt. Take a vacation once in a while, too!",
"qid": 11039,
"docid": "105557",
"rank": 6,
"score": 149738
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Mathwise, I absolutely agree with the other answers. No contest, you should keep getting the match. But, just for completeness, I'll give a contrarian opinion that is generally not very popular, but does have some merit. If you can focus on just one main financial goal at a time, and throw every extra dollar you have at that one focus (i.e., getting out of debt, in your case), you will make better progress than if you're trying to do too many things at once. Also, there something incredibly freeing about being out of debt that has other beneficial impacts on your life. So, if you can bring a lot of focus to the credit card debt and get it paid off quickly, it may be worth deferring the 401(k) investing long enough to do that, even though it doesn't make as much mathematical sense. (This is essentially what Dave Ramsey teaches, BTW.)",
"qid": 11039,
"docid": "79363",
"rank": 7,
"score": 143579
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: What is my best course of action, trying to minimize future debt? Minimizing expenses is the best thing you can do. The first step to financial independence is making do with less. Assuming I receive this $3500, am I better off using the bulk to pay off my credit cards, or should I keep as much cash available as I can? This would depend on the interest rate that is associated with the credit cards and the $3500. If the $3500 has a higher interest rate than your credit cards, then do not use any of it to pay your credit cards. Paying back the money you borrow hurts but it's the interest rate that does you in. If the interest rate for the $3500 is lower than the credit card interest, then placing some of it on the credit cards may be a wise course of action. But this depends on how long you are out of work. If you could be out of work for an extended period of time, I would recommend holding on to all of the funds. Note on saving I know this goes against the grain, but I would actually not recommend saving several months worth of funds (maybe one month though). Most employers offer some type of retirement savings account (401(k), Thrift Savings Plan, etc.). I contribute 5% to this fund instead of putting the money in savings. This is an especially effective strategy if your employer offers matching contributions such as mine. Because the divedends for a savings account are so low, it is not a wise place to store your money in the long run. If I had placed my Thrift Savings Plan contributions in a standard savings account, I would now be $12,000 poorer. In addition to this, most long term investment accounts allow you to withdraw the money early in case of emergency, such as being without work. (I also find it too temping to have huge amounts of funds on hand).",
"qid": 11039,
"docid": "253373",
"rank": 8,
"score": 141733
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"There is a very simple calculation that will answer the question: Is the expected ROI of the 401K including the match greater than the interest rate of your credit card? Some assumptions that don't affect the calculation, but do help illustrate the points. You have 30 years until you can pull out the 401K. Your credit card interest rate is 20% compounded annually. The minimum payoffs are being disregarded, because that would legally just force a certain percentage to credit card. You only have $1000. You can either pay off your credit card or invest, but not both. For most people, this isn't the case. Ideally, you would simply forego $1000 worth of spending, AND DO BOTH Worked Example: Pay $1000 in Credit Card Debt, at 20% interest. After 1 year, if you pay off that debt, you no longer owe $1200. ROI = 20% (Duh!) After 30 years, you no longer owe (and this is pretty amazing) $237,376.31. ROI = 23,638% In all cases, the ROI is GUARANTEED. Invest $1000 in matching 401k, with expected ROI of 5%. 2a. For illustration purposes, let's assume no match After 1 year, you have $1050 ($1000 principal, $0 match, 5% interest) - but you can't take it out. ROI = 5% After 30 years, you have $4321.94, ROI of 332% - assuming away all risk. 2b. Then, we'll assume a 50% match. After 1 year, you have $1575 ($1000 principle, $500 match, 5% interest) - but you can't take it out. ROI = 57% - but you are stuck for a bit After 30 years, you have $6482.91, ROI of 548% - assuming away all risk. 2c. Finally, a full match After 1 year, you have $2100 ($1000 principle, $1000 match, 5% interest) - but you can't take it out. ROI = 110% - but again, you are stuck. After 30 years, you have $8643.89, ROI of 764% - assuming away all risk. Here's the summary - The interest rate is really all that matters. Paying off a credit card is a guaranteed investment. The only reason not to pay off a 20% credit card interest rate is if, after taxes, time, etc..., you could earn more than 20% somewhere else. Note that at 1 year, the matching funds of a 401k, in all cases where the match exceeded 20%, beat the credit card. If you could take that money before you could have paid off the credit card, it would have been a good deal. The problem with the 401k is that you can't realize that gain until you retire. Credit Card debt, on the other hand, keeps growing until you pay it off. As such, paying off your credit card debt - assuming its interest rate is greater than the stock market (which trust me, it almost always is) - is the better deal. Indeed, with the exception of tax advantaged mortgages, there is almost no debt that has an interest rate than is \"\"better\"\" than the market.\"",
"qid": 11039,
"docid": "91183",
"rank": 9,
"score": 140677
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I have never double-answered till now. This loan can't be taken out of context. By the way, how much is it? What rate? \"\"Debt bad.\"\" Really? Line the debt up. This is the highest debt you have. But, you work for a company that offers a generous match, i.e. the match to your 401(k). Now, it's a choice, pay off 6% debt or deposit that money to get an immediate 100% return. Your question has validity. In the end, we can tell you when to pay off the debt. After - The issue is that you are quoting a third party without having the discussion or ever being privy to it. In court, this is called 'hearsay.' The best we can do is offer both sides of the issue and priority for the payments. Welcome to Money.SE, nice first question.\"",
"qid": 11039,
"docid": "345895",
"rank": 10,
"score": 140652
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Yours two funds are redundant. Both are designed to have a mix of bonds and stocks and allow you to put all your money in them. Pick the one that has the lowest fees and stick with that (I didn't look at the funds you didn't select...they didn't look great either). Although all your funds have high fees, some are higher than others, so don't ignore fees. When you have decided on your portfolio weights, prioritize your money thus: Contribute enough to your 401(k) to get the full match from your employer Put everything else toward paying off that credit card until you have 0 balance. It's ok to use the card, but let it be little enough that you pay your statement balance off each month so you pay no interest. Then set aside some savings and invest any retirement money into a Roth IRA. At your income level your taxes are low so Roth is better than traditional IRA or 401(k). If you max out your Roth, put any other retirement savings in your 401(k).",
"qid": 11039,
"docid": "124042",
"rank": 11,
"score": 139465
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Your initial plan (of minimizing your interest rate, and taking advantage of the 401(k) match) makes sense, except I would put the 401(k) money in a very low risk investment (such as a money market fund) while the stock market seems to be in a bear market. How to decide when the stock market is in a bear market is a separate question. You earn a 100% return immediately on money that receives the company match -- provided that you stay at the company long enough for the company match to \"\"vest\"\". This immediate 100% return far exceeds the 3.25% return by paying down debt. As long as it makes sense to keep your retirement funds in low-risk, low-return investments, it makes more sense to use your remaining free cash flow to pay down debts than to save extra money in retirement funds. After setting aside the 6% of your income that is eligible for the company match, you should be able to rapidly pay down your debts. This will make it far easier for you to qualify for a mortgage later on. Also, if you can pay off your debt in a couple years, you will minimize your risk from the proposed variable rate. First, there will be fewer chances for the rate to go up. Second, even if the rate does go up, you will not owe the money very long.\"",
"qid": 11039,
"docid": "163287",
"rank": 12,
"score": 138473
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Can is fine, and other answered that. I'd suggest that you consider the \"\"should.\"\" Does your employer offer a matched retirement account, typically a 401(k)? Are you depositing up to the match? Do you have any higher interest short term debt, credit cards, car loan, student loan, etc? Do you have 6 months worth of living expenses in liquid funds? One point I like to beat a dead horse over is this - for most normal mortgages, the extra you pay goes to principal, but regardless of how much extra you pay, the next payment is still due next month. So it's possible that you are feeling pretty good that for 5 years you pay so much that you have just 10 left on the 30 year loan, but if you lose your job, you still risk losing the house to foreclosure. It's not like you can ask the bank for that money back. If you are as disciplined as you sound, put the extra money aside, and only when you have well over the recommended 6 months, then make those prepayments if you choose. To pull my comment to @MikeKale into my answer - I avoided this aspect of the discussion. But here I'll suggest that a 4% mortgage costs 3% after tax (in 25% bracket), and I'd bet cap gain rates will stay 15% for non-1%ers. So, with the break-even return of 3.5% (to return 3 after tax) and DVY yielding 3.33%, the questions becomes - do you think the DVY top yielders will be flat over the next 15 years? Any return over .17%/yr is profit. That said, the truly risk averse should heed the advise in original answer, then pre-pay. Update - when asked,in April 2012, the DVY I suggested as an example of an investment that beats the mortgage cost, traded at $56. It's now $83 and still yields 3.84%. To put numbers to this, a lump sum $100K would be worth $148K (this doesn't include dividends), and giving off $5700/yr in dividends for an after-tax $4800/yr. We happened to have a good 4 years, overall. The time horizon (15 years) makes the strategy low risk if one sticks to it.\"",
"qid": 11039,
"docid": "568784",
"rank": 13,
"score": 135706
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Withdrawing from your 401(k) may include a 10% withdrawal penalty. There are ways to avoid the withdrawal penalty for early disbursements. The idea is to reduce your interest expense by leveraging free loans (0% APR purchases). This will help you pay down your debt more. If you have 0% APR on purchases, you can make purchases on things you already buy. Then use that money towards other debt, while making monthly payments on the 0% APR card. This way, you pay off the credit card before the 0% APR changes. You can then rinse and repeat on another 0% APR card offer. If your credit score is 800, you can do this multiple times. Citi Simplicity gives you 18 months 0% APR. Chase Slate and Chase Freedom gives you 15 months 0% APR. Others typically give you 12 months or less.",
"qid": 11039,
"docid": "395376",
"rank": 14,
"score": 132172
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Welcome to Money.SE. Your question is similar to a number of others. The \"\"How do I pay my debt down?\"\" and \"\"How do I invest extra money?\"\" is a bit of a continuum since there's no consensus than one should pay off the last cent of debt before investing. Oversimplify it for me: the correct order of investing offers a good look at this. You see, Pete's answer on your question is perfectly fine, but, since you make no mention of, say, a matched 401(k), I'd suggest that any answer to a question like yours should first take a step back and evaluate the bigger picture. A dollar for dollar matched 401(k) beats paying off even an 18% credit card. Absent any tangents, any thought of investing, saving for anything else, etc, my answer is simple, line up the debt, highest interest rate to lowest. Keep in mind the post-tax rate, i.e. a 6% student loan you can deduct, is an effective 4.5% if you are in the 25% bracket.\"",
"qid": 11039,
"docid": "396889",
"rank": 15,
"score": 131251
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I completely agree with Pete that a 401(k) loan is not the answer, but I have an alternate proposal: Reduce your 401(k) contribution down to the 4% that you get a match on. If you are cash poor now and have debts to be cleaned up, those need to be addressed before retirement savings. You'll have plenty of time to make up the lost savings after you get the debts paid off. If your company matches 50% (meaning you have to contribute 8% to get the 4% match), then consider temporarily stopping your 401(k) altogether. A 100% match is very hard to give up, but a 50% match is less difficult. You have plenty of years left ahead of you to make up the lost match. Plus, the pain of knowing you're leaving money on the table will incentivize you to get the loans paid as quickly as possible. It seems to me that I would be reducing middle to high interest debt while also saving myself $150 per month. No, you'd be deferring $150 per month for an additional two years, and not reducing debt at all, just moving it to a different lender. Interest rate is not your problem. Right now you're paying less than $30 per month in interest on these 3 loans and about $270 in principal, and at the current rate should have them paid off in about 2 years. You're wanting to extend these loans to 4 years by borrowing from your retirement savings. I would buckle down, reduce expenses wherever possible (cable? cell phone? coffee? movies? restaurants?) until you get these debts paid off. You make $70,000 per year, or almost $6,000 per month. I bet if you try hard enough you can come up with $1,100 fairly quickly. Then the next $1,200 should come twice as fast. Then attack the next $4,000. (You can argue whether the $1,200 should come first because of the interest rate, but in the end it doesn't matter - either one should be paid off very quickly, so the interest saved is negligible) Maybe you can get one of them paid off, get yourself some breathing room, then loosen up a little bit, but extending the pain for an additional two years is not wise. Some more drastic measures:",
"qid": 11039,
"docid": "531051",
"rank": 16,
"score": 130845
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The long term growth is not 6.5%, it's 10% give or take. But, that return comes with risk. A standard deviation of 14%. Does the 401(k) have a match? And are you getting the full match? If no match, or you already top it off, the 6.5% is a rate that I'd be happy to get on my money. So, I would pay it off faster. My highest rate debt is my 3.5% mortgage, which is 2.5% after tax. At 2.5%, I prefer to be a borrower, as that gap 2.5%-10% is pretty appealing, long term.",
"qid": 11039,
"docid": "422142",
"rank": 17,
"score": 128994
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The others nailed it, great answers. I'd add - the two things I'd prioritize ahead of this debt, higher interest debt, obviously. And matched 401(k) deposits. I can't repeat enough - many people are so anti debt, they walk away from guaranteed 100% returns. \"\"after I pay my mortgage, I'll max out my 401(k) and catch up.\"\" I've read this, and it will never make sense. After that, pay off the 9% rate as soon as you can.\"",
"qid": 11039,
"docid": "60017",
"rank": 18,
"score": 127665
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: First off, great job on your finances so far. You are off on the right foot and have some sense of planning for the future. Also, it is a great question. First, I agree with @littleadv. Take advantage of your employer match. Do not drop your 401(k) contributions below that. Also, good job on putting your contributions into the Roth account. Second, I would ask: Are you out of debt? If not, put all your extra income towards paying off debt, and then you can work your plan. Third, time to do some math. What will your business look like? How much capital would you need to get started? Are there things you can do now on a part-time basis to start this business or prepare you to start the business? Come up with a figure, find some mutual funds that have a low beta, and back out how much money you need to save per month, so you have around that total. Then you have a figure. e.g. Assume you need $20,000, and you find a fund that has done 8% over the past 20 years. Then, you would need to save about $110/month to be ready to go in 10 years, or $273/month to go in about 5 years. (It's a time value of money calculation.) The house is really a long way off, but you could do the same kind of calculation. I feel that you think your income, and possibly locale, will change dramatically over the next few years. It might not be bad to double what you are saving for the business, and designate one half for the house.",
"qid": 11039,
"docid": "526383",
"rank": 19,
"score": 124763
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: When you leave an employer, 401(k) loans are immediately due (or within 30 days or 60 days). So maybe they are waiting to see if you will pay off your loan. If you wanted to transfer the loan as well, you need to talk to your new 401(k) plan administrator to find out if this even possible. If they say No and you don't pay off the loan, it will count as a premature distribution from your old 401(k) plan and possibly be subject to excise tax in addition to income tax.",
"qid": 11039,
"docid": "255277",
"rank": 20,
"score": 124581
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: With respect to the 401(k). Before taking a hardship withdrawal, one must first deplete the ability to take any 401(k) loans available. This is a regulation. The 401(k) loan limit is the lesser of $50k, 50% your vested balance, or $50k minus the highest loan balance within the last year. Here's the good news: it is not a taxable event; you can pay back over a maximum of 5 years; interest is low (usually 4.25% or so). The bad news: if you terminate employment then the loan balance must be repaid or else it becomes taxable income plus a 10% penalty. I suggest you consider eliminating the credit card debt via this option. Pay back as aggressively as possible and if/when you terminate you can take the 10% penalty - it will be far less of an impact than 25k accruing approximately 25% annually.",
"qid": 11039,
"docid": "315836",
"rank": 21,
"score": 123686
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Your employer's matching contribution is calculated based on the dollar amounts you end up putting in. The nature of your 401(k) contribution—whether pre-tax or Roth after-tax—doesn't matter with respect to how their match gets calculated, and their match always goes into a pre-tax account, even if you are contributing after-tax. The onus is on you to choose a contribution amount that maximizes your employer match regardless of the nature of your contribution. Maximizing your employer match using Roth after-tax contributions will eat up more of your annual gross salary, but as long as you are willing to do that then you won't leave free employer match money on the table. Roth after-tax contributions don't get the tax deduction inherent in a pre-tax contribution. The tradeoff is that you end up with less take-home pay per period if you contribute the same number of dollars on a Roth after-tax basis to your 401(k) as opposed to on a pre-tax basis. For instance, to make a maximum $18,000 Roth after-tax contribution to a 401(k), it's going to cost you a lot more than $18,000 of your annual gross salary to net the same $18,000 number. (On the flip side, the Roth money is worth more in retirement than pre-tax money, because it won't be subject to taxes then.) However, 401(k) plan contribution amounts are almost always expressed as a percentage of gross salary, i.e. in pre-tax terms, even when electing to make after-tax contributions! So when electing after-tax, one is implicitly accepting that the contribution will cost more than the percentage of gross salary, because you'll need to pay the tax on a gross amount that would yield the same number of dollars but as an after-tax amount.",
"qid": 11039,
"docid": "463892",
"rank": 22,
"score": 123340
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: A 401(k) is just a container. Like real-world containers (those that are usually made out of metal), you can put (almost) anything you want in it. Signing up for your employer's match is a great thing to do. Getting into the habit of saving a significant portion of your take-home pay early in your career is even better; doing so will put you lightyears ahead of lots of people by the time you approach retirement age. Even if you love your job, that will give you options you otherwise wouldn't have. There is no real reason why you can't start out by putting your retirement money in a short-term money-market fund within that 401(k). By doing so you will only earn a pittance, probably not even enough to keep up with inflation in today's economic environment, but at this point in your (savings and investment) career, that doesn't really matter much. What really matters is getting into the habit of setting that money aside every single time you get paid and not thinking much of it. And that's a lot easier if you start out early, especially at a time when you likely have received a significant net pay increase (salaried job vs college student). I know, everyone says to get the best return you can. But if you are just starting out, and feel the need to be conservative, then don't be afraid to at least start out that way. You can always rebalance into investment classes that have the potential for higher return -- and correspondingly higher volatility -- in a few years. In the meantime, you will have built a pretty nice capital that you can move into the stock market eventually. The exact rate of return you get in the first decade matters a lot less than how much money you set aside regularly and that you keep contributing. See for example Your Investment Plan Means Nothing If You Don’t Do This by Matt Becker (no affiliation), which illustrates how it takes 14 years for saving 5% at a consistent 10% return to beat saving 10% at a consistent 0% return. So look through what's being offered in terms of low-risk investments within that 401(k). Go ahead and pick a money-market fund or a bond fund if you want to start out easy. If it gets you into the habit of saving and sticking with it, then the overall return will beat the daylights out of the return you would get from a good stock market fund if you stop contributing after a year or two. Especially (but not only) if you do pick an interest-bearing investment, do make sure to pick one that has as low fees as you can possibly find for what you want, because otherwise the fees are going to eat a lot into your potential returns, benefiting the bank or investment house rather than yourself. Just keep an open mind, and very strongly consider shifting at least some of your investments into the stock market as you grow more comfortable over the next several years. You can always keep a portion of your money in various interest-bearing investments to act as a cushion in case the market slumps.",
"qid": 11039,
"docid": "471472",
"rank": 23,
"score": 122922
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Paying off the high-interest debt is a good first start. Paying interest, or compound interest on debt is like paying somebody to make you poor. As for your 401k, you want to contribute enough to get the full match from your employer. You might also consider checking out the fees associated with your 401k with an online fee analyzer. If it turns out you're getting reamed with fees, you can reduce them by fiddling with your investments. Checking your investment options is always a good idea since jobs frequently change them. Opening an IRA is a good call. If you're eligible for both Roth and Traditional IRAs, consider the following: Most financial institutions (brokers or banks) can help you open an IRA in a matter of minutes. If you shop around, you will find very cheap or even no fee options. Many brokers might try to get your business by giving away something for ‘free.' Just make sure you read the fine print so you understand the conditions of their promotional offer. Whichever IRA you choose, you want to make sure that it's managed properly. Some people might say, ‘go for it, do it yourself’ but I strongly disagree with that approach. Stock picking is a waste of time and market timing rarely works. I'd look into flat fee financial advisors. You have lots of options. Just make sure they hear you out, and can design/execute an investment plan specific to your needs At a minimum, they should: Hope this is helpful.",
"qid": 11039,
"docid": "137267",
"rank": 24,
"score": 122624
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: First I must say that I'm not a Ramsey fan. Sometimes loans will make your financial situation significantly better. Especially if its a 0% loan. Generally, I do think that leveraging has its place, its the ab-use of loans what causes problems, not the use. Re your question - you're right in trying to first build up an emergency fund. You should have enough in it to be able to pay for yourself for at least half a year of unemployment or zero income. You only have one month. Your family member gave you money for free, which is admirable, but I'm sure there's a limit to everyone's generosity and he might not give it to you for free again, once you pay it off. Thus, you should be able to handle your future troubles on your own, and emergency fund is a crucial part of this. Pay as agreed, try not to be late, and you'll pay the loan off within 3 years. If you accumulate enough emergency fund, and you still have some extra left - pay some extra on the loan in order to pay it off early. Do make sure you take full advantage of the employer's 401k match. This has, IMHO, much higher priority than paying off the 0% loan early.",
"qid": 11039,
"docid": "245174",
"rank": 25,
"score": 122518
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You should try to take out other loans sufficient to pay off your 401(k) loan if you can. Maybe you can take out a home equity loan? You can also ask your bank about unsecured loans. You should also check the rules for your new employer's 401(k), if you're rolling over your 401(k). There's a small possibility that you could take out another loan right now and apply it to the previous loan balance. Or if you need to wait, you could use it to help pay off any temporary loans that were needed to avoid the distribution penalty.",
"qid": 11039,
"docid": "149004",
"rank": 26,
"score": 121898
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: (Note: The OP does not state whether the employer-sponsored retirement savings are pre-tax or post-tax (such as a Roth 401(k)). The following answer assumes the more common case of a pre-tax plan.) This is a bad idea, IMHO. IRS Pub 970 lists exceptions to the 10% early withdrawal penalty for educational expenses. This doesn't include, as far as I can tell, student loan payments. So withdrawing from your retirement account would incur both income tax and penalties. Even if there were an exception, you'd still have to pay income taxes, which, depending on the amount and your income, could be at a higher marginal rate than you are currently paying. If you really want the debt gone as soon as possible, why not reduce the amount you contribute to the retirement plan (but not below the amount that gets you the maximum employer match) and use that money to increase your monthly payments to the student loan? Note that, if you do this, you will pay taxes on income that would have been tax-deferred in order to save money on interest, so there's still a trade-off. (One more thing: rather than rolling over to your new company's plan, you could roll over to a self-directed Traditional IRA.)",
"qid": 11039,
"docid": "55954",
"rank": 27,
"score": 121481
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The matching funds are free money, so it is a very good idea to take that money off the table. Look at it as free 100% return: you deposit $1000, your employer matches that $1000, you now have $2000 in your 401(k). (Obviously, I'm keeping things simple. Vesting schedules mean that the employer match isn't yours to keep immediately, but rather after some time; usually in chunks.) Beyond the employer match, you need to consider what is available for investment in a 401(k). Typically, your options are more limited then in an IRA. The cost of the 401(k) should be considered, as it isn't trivial for most. (The specifics will of course vary, but in large IRA accounts are cheaper.) So, it's about the opportunity costs. Up to the employer match, it doesn't matter as much that your investment choices are more limited in a 401(k), because you're getting 100% return just on the matching funds. Once that is exhausted, you have more opportunity for returns, due to having more options available to you, by going with an account that provides more choices. The overall principle here is that you have to look at the whole picture. This is similar to the notion that you should pay-down your high interest debt before investing, because from the perspective of investing the interest you're paying represent a loss, or negative return on investment, since money is going out of your accounts. Specific to your question, you have to consider the various types of investment vehicles available to you. It is not just about 401(k) and IRA accounts. You may also consider a straight brokerage account, a savings account, CDs, etc. The costs and returns that you can typically expect are your guides through the available choices.",
"qid": 11039,
"docid": "371886",
"rank": 28,
"score": 119804
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"For easy math, say you are in the 25% tax bracket. A thousand deposited dollars is $750 out of your pocket, but $2000 after the match. Now, you say you want to take the $750 and pay down the card. If you wait a year (at 20%) you'll owe $900, but have access to borrow a full $1000, at a low rate, 4% or so. The payment is less than $19/mo for 5 years. So long as one is comfortable juggling their debt a bit, the impact of a fully matched 401(k) cannot be beat. Keep in mind, this is a different story than those who just say \"\"don't take a 401(k) loan.\"\" Here, it's the loan that offers you the chance to fund the account. If you are let go, and withdraw the money, even at the 25% rate, you net $1500 less the $200 penalty, or $1300 compared to the $750 you are out of pocket. If you don't want to take the loan, you're still ahead so long as you are able to pay the cards over a reasonable time. I'll admit, a 20% card paid over 10+ years can still trash a 100% return. This is why I add the 401(k) loan to the mix. The question for you - jldugger - is how tight is the budget? And how much is the match? Is it dollar for dollar on first X%?\"",
"qid": 11039,
"docid": "353625",
"rank": 29,
"score": 117809
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"If you're willing to do a little more work and bookkeeping than just putting money into the 401(k) I would recommend the following. I note that you said you chose some funds based on performance since the expense ratios are all high. I would recommend against chasing performance because active funds will almost always falter; honor the old saw: \"\"past performance is no guarantee of future returns\"\". Assuming the cash in your Ally account is an emergency fund, I would use it to pay off your credit card debt to avoid the interest payments. Use free cash flow in the coming months to bring the emergency fund balance back up to an acceptable level. If the Ally account is not an emergency fund, I would make it one! With no debt and an emergency fund for 3-12 months of living expenses (pick your risk tolerance), then you can concentrate on investing. Your 401(k) options are unfortunately pretty poor. With those choices I would invest this way: Once you fill up your choice of IRA, then you have the tougher decision of where to put any extra money you have to invest (if any). A brokerage account gives you the freedom of investment choices and the ability to easily pull out money in the case of a dire emergency. The 401(k) will give you tax benefits, but high fund expenses. The tax benefits are considerable, so if I were at a job where I plan on moving on in a few years, I'd fund the 401(k) up to the max with the knowledge that I'd roll the 401(k) into a rollover IRA in the (relatively) short term. If I saw myself staying at the employer for a long time (5+ years), I'd probably take the taxable account route since those high fund fees will add up over time. One you start building up a solid base, then I might look into having a small allocation in one of my accounts for \"\"play money\"\" to pick individual stocks, or start making sector bets.\"",
"qid": 11039,
"docid": "493578",
"rank": 30,
"score": 117376
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You can take a out loan against your 401k, which means you won't be penalized for the withdrawal. You will have to pay that amount back though, but it can help since the interest will be lower than a lot of credit card rates. You could refinance your home if you can get a reasonable interest rate. You could also get a 0% APR balance transfer credit card and transfer the balance and pay it off that way. There are a lot of options. I would contact a Credit Counselor and explore further options. The main objective is to get you out of debt, not put you more in debt - whether that is refinancing your mortgage, cashing in an annuity, etc.",
"qid": 11039,
"docid": "19479",
"rank": 31,
"score": 116085
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If it were my money, I wouldn't put it in a 401(k) for this purpose. If you were working at a company that provided 401(k) matching, then it might be worth it to put the money in your employer's 401(k) because the employer chips in based on what you put in. But you're self-employed, so there's no matching unless you match it yourself. (Correct?) So, given that there's no matching, a 401(k) arrangement would have more restrictions than a non-tax-advantaged account (like a bank account, or a taxable money market account). This would be taxable in the year you earn the money, but then that's it. If you're expecting to pull out the money pre-retirement, I wouldn't put it in in the first place.",
"qid": 11039,
"docid": "595875",
"rank": 32,
"score": 115787
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Set up budget categories. Earmark your income as it is paid, for your budget categories. Pay your bills and expenses. For debts, pay the minimum on everything. There will be an amount left once everything is budgeted. That's the 'extra'. Then focus on, in order of priority, the following: So, when your emergency fund is up to an appropriate level (3-6 months of living expenses as a rule of thumb, adjusted according to your comfort level). Once you have your emergency fund started, budget at least enough toward your 401k to capture any matching offered by your employer. Then use the snowball plan to pay off your debts. (From what your post says, this does not apply to you, but you may have some small credit card debts taht were not discussed). Earmark the 'extra' for the smallest debt first. When that debt is paid, the 'extra' grows by the minimum payment of the smallest. Thus the snowball grows as you pay off debts. Once the debts are gone, reward yourself, within reason (and without going into debt). Now shift your extra into fully funding your retirement savings. Consult a financial advisor to help you plan how to distribute your retirement savings across the available retirement savings types. They can explain why it's good to have some of your retirement savings funded from after tax income. They can help you find the balance between pre- and post-tax funded accounts. Eventually, you may come to the point where you're putting the max allowed into your tax advantaged retirement accounts. At your age, this is a significant achievement. Anything left over after retirement savings is funded can be used for whatever you want. If you choose wealth building, it can lead to financial independence. The first two should be a one time thing. You can/should do more than one at a time. The fourth one is optional, and should not be considered until 1 and 2 are completed, and 3 is maxed out. What you achieve is up to you. Look up FIRE, or Financially independent, retire early. There are groups of folks striving for this. They share advice on frugal living and wealth building strategies. The goal is to save enough capital to live off the passive income of interest and dividends. Most of them seem to have pre-50 target ages. At your age and income, you could hit a pre-40 goal. But it takes commitment and a certain type of personality. Not for me but it might be for you.",
"qid": 11039,
"docid": "1315",
"rank": 33,
"score": 115403
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I suggest rolling it over to the 401(k) with your new employer. Particularly if they match any percentage of your contribution, it would be in your interest to take as much of that money as possible. When it comes to borrowing money from your 401(k), it looks like the issues AbraCadaver mentioned only apply if you don't pay back the money (http://www.kiplinger.com/article/real-estate/T010-C000-S002-borrowing-from-your-retirement-plan-to-buy-a-home.html). The reasonable argument against taking money out of your 401(k) to buy a home is that it leaves a dent in your retirement nest egg (and its earning power) during key earning years. On the plus side for borrowing from your 401(k), it's very low interest--and it's interest you're paying back to yourself over a 5-year period. At its current value, the most you could borrow from your 401(k) is $35K. If you're fortunate in where you live, that could be most or all of the downpayment. In my own experience, my wife borrowed against her 401(k) balance for the earnest money when we purchased a new home. Fortunately for us, an investor snapped up my previous home within 4 days of us listing it, so she was able to pay back her loan in full right away.",
"qid": 11039,
"docid": "436331",
"rank": 34,
"score": 115203
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: What's missing in your question, so Kate couldn't address, is the rest of your financial picture. If you have a fully funded emergency account, are saving for retirement, and have saved up the $15K for the car, buy in cash. If you tell me that if the day after you buy the car in cash, your furnace/AC system dies, that you'd need to pay for it with an $8K charge to a credit card, that's another story. You see, there's more than one rate at play. You get close to zero on you savings today. You have a 1.5% loan rate available. But what is your marginal cost of borrowing? The next $10K, $20K? If it's 18% on a credit card, I personally would find value in borrowing at sub-2.5% and not depleting my savings. On the other side, the saving side, does your company offer a 401(k) with company match? I find too many people obsessing over their 6% debt, while ignoring a 100% match of 4-6% of their gross income. For what it's worth, trying to place labels on debt is a bit pointless. Any use of debt should be discussed 100% based on the finances of the borrower.",
"qid": 11039,
"docid": "489729",
"rank": 35,
"score": 114993
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Employer matches (even for Roth 401Ks) are put into traditional 401K accounts and are treated as pre-tax income. Traditional 401K plans are tax deferred accounts, meaning you won't owe any taxes on it this year, but will have to pay taxes on it when you take the money out (likely after retirement). 401K contributions (including the match) are reported to the IRS and are entered in box 12 on the W2 form.",
"qid": 11039,
"docid": "221938",
"rank": 36,
"score": 114340
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The best option for maximizing your money long-term is to contribute to the 401(k) offered by your employer. If you park your inheritance in a savings account you can draw on it to augment your income while you max out your contributions to the 401(k). You will get whatever the employer matches right off the bat and your gains are tax deferred. In essence you will be putting your inheritance into the 401(k) and forcing your employer to match at whatever rate they do. So if your employer matches at 50 cents on the dollar you will turn your 50 thousand into 75 thousand.",
"qid": 11039,
"docid": "171196",
"rank": 37,
"score": 114315
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: HSAs are very similar to IRAs. Any investment returns grow tax-deferred and once you reach age 59 1/2 65, you can withdraw the funds for any purpose (subject to ordinary income tax), just like a traditional IRA. If you can afford to do so, I would recommend you to pay medical expenses out-of-pocket and let the funds in your HSA accumulate and grow. In general, the best way to allocate your funds is in the following order: Contribute to a 401(k) if your employer matches funds at a substantial rate Pay off high-interest debt (8% of more in current environment in 2011) Contribute to an IRA (traditional or Roth) Contribute to an HSA Contribute to a 401(k) without the benefit of employer matching One advantage of HSAs versus IRAs is that you don't have to have earned income (salary or self-employment income) in order to contribute. If you derive income solely from rents, interest or dividends, you can contribute the maximum amount ($3,050 for individuals in 2011) and get a full deduction from your income (Of course, you will need to maintain a high-deductible health plan in order to qualify). One downside of HSAs is the lack of competitively priced providers. Wells Fargo offers HSAs for free, but only allows you to keep your funds in cash, earning a very measly interest rate, or invest them in rather mediocre and expensive Wells Fargo mutual funds. Vanguard, known for its low-fee investment options, provides HSAs through a partner company, but the account maintenance charges are still quite high. Overall, HSAs are a worthwhile option as part of your investment plan.",
"qid": 11039,
"docid": "402523",
"rank": 38,
"score": 114139
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: With a match, the 401(k) becomes the priority, up to that match, often ahead of other high interest debt. Without the match, the analysis is more about the cost within the 401(k). The 401(k) is a tax deferred account (let's not go on a tangent to Roth 401(k)) so ideally, you'd be skimming off money at 25% and saving it till you retire, so some of it is taxed at 0, 10, 15%. If the fees in the 401(k) are say 1.5% between the underlying funds and management fee, it doesn't take long to wipe out the potential 10 or 15% you are trying to gain. Yes, there's a risk that cap gain rates go away, but with today's tax law, the long term rate is 15%. So that money put into a long term low cost ETF will have reinvested dividends taxed at 15% and upon sale, a 15% rate on the gains. There are great index ETFs with sub - .1% annual cost. My simple answer is - If the total cost in that 401(k) is .5% or higher, I'd pass. Save the money in an outside account, using IRAs as best you can. (The exact situation needs to be looked at very carefully. In personal finance, there's a lot of 'grey'. For example, a frequent job changer can view the 401(k) as a way of saving pretax, knowing the fee will only last 2 years, and will end with a transfer to the IRA)",
"qid": 11039,
"docid": "147889",
"rank": 39,
"score": 113891
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: How old are you? With $15k, I assume late twenties. Do you still use your credit cards? or is this just past accumulated debt? (paying them off will do you no good if you just run them back up again.) Does your employer match you contributions? How much? Are you fully vested in their contributions? In general, it is not a good idea, but under the right circumstances it isn't a bad idea.",
"qid": 11039,
"docid": "299819",
"rank": 40,
"score": 113743
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: It's generally considered a bad idea to take a loan from your 401k, for the following reasons: You don't earn returns while the money is out You pay the loan back with after-tax money It's only considered a good idea for emergencies or where you need the money to pay off high interest rate debt like credit cards. Consider the stability of your employment, the expected rate of return and explore other avenues for funds Source: MSN Money",
"qid": 11039,
"docid": "506344",
"rank": 41,
"score": 113532
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I would definitely be putting in enough to get the most out of the match. Only reasons I can think of not too would be: Other than that, not investing in the 401(k) is turning down free money. Edit based on feedback in comments. The only time I would advocate number 1 is if you are intensely committed to getting out of debt, were on a very tight budget and had eliminated all non-essential spending. In that situation only, I think the mental benefit of having that last debt paid off would be worth more than a few dollars in interest.",
"qid": 11039,
"docid": "330058",
"rank": 42,
"score": 113477
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Gaining traction is your first priority. WARNING: as @JosephZambrano explains in his answer the tax penalty for withdrawing from a 401(k) can easily exceed the APR of the credit card making it a very bad strategy. Consult in-depth with a financial advisor to see before taking that path. As @JoeTaxpayer has noted a loan is another alternative. The 401k is no good to you if you can't have shelter or comfort in the mean time. The idea is to look at all the money as a single thing and balance it together. There is no credit and retirement, just a single target that you can hit by moving the good money to clear the bad. Consolidating the credit card debt somehow would be very wise if you can. Assuming it is 30% APR shrinking that quickly is the first priority. You may be able to justify a hardship withdrawal to finance the reduction/consolidation of the credit card. It may be worth considering negotiating a closure arrangement with a reduced principal. Credit card companies can be quite open to this as it gets their money back. You may also be able to negotiate a lower interest rate. You may be able to negotiate a non-credit-affecting debt consolidation with a debt consolidator. They want to make money and a 25K loan to a person with sound credit is a pretty good bet. Moving, buying a house, or any of that may just relocate the problem. You may be able to withdraw $25K from your 401k under hardship, pay the credit card, and come up with a payment plan for the medical debt. It's a retirement setback for sure, but retirement is an illusion with that credit card shark eating all of your hard-earned money. You gotta slay that beast quick. Again, be sure to fully analyze whether the penalty on the 401(k) withdrawal exceeds the APR of the credit card.",
"qid": 11039,
"docid": "423816",
"rank": 43,
"score": 112792
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Since most of the answers are flawed in their logic, I decided to respond here. 1) \"\"What if you lose your job, you can't pay back the loan\"\" The point of the question was to reduce the amount paid per month. So obviously it would be easier to pay off the 401k loan rather than the 3 separate loans that are in place now. Also it's stated in the question that there's a mortgage, a child with medical costs, a car loan, student loans, other debt. On the list of priorities the 401k loan does not make the top 10 concerns if they lost their job. 2) \"\"Consider stopping the 401k contribution\"\" This is such a terrible idea. If you make the full contribution to the 401k and then just withdraw from the 401k rather than getting a loan you only pay a 10% penalty tax. You still get 90% of the company match. 3) \"\"You lose compound interest\"\" While currently the interest you get on a 401k (depending on how that money is invested) is higher than the interest you pay on your loans (which means it would be advantageous to keep the loans and keep contributing to the 401k), it's very unreliable and might even go down. I think you actually have a good case for getting a loan against the 401k if a) You have your spending and budget under control b) Your income is consistent c) You are certain that the loan will be paid back. My suggestion would be to take a loan against the 401k, but keep the current spending on the loans consistent. If you don't need the extra $150 per month, you really should try to pay off the loans as fast as you can. If you do need the $150 extra, you are lowering the mental threshold for getting more loans in the future.\"",
"qid": 11039,
"docid": "564796",
"rank": 44,
"score": 112763
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If your employer offers a 401(k) match, definitely take advantage of it. It's free money, so take advantage of it!",
"qid": 11039,
"docid": "519750",
"rank": 45,
"score": 112732
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Another consideration is that you are going to wind up with money in the \"\"regular\"\" 401(k) no matter which one you contribute to. The employer match can't go into the Roth 401(k). So all employer matching funds go in with pre-tax dollars and will be deposited in a normal 401(k) account. Edit from JoeTaxpayer - 2013 brought with it the Roth 401(k) conversion the ability to convert from the traditional pretax side of your 401(k) account to the Roth side.\"",
"qid": 11039,
"docid": "341493",
"rank": 46,
"score": 112505
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"First of all, you need to stop using the card completely. Yes, that means you lose out on cash back, double miles, whatever, but that's how you got to this mess in the first place. Switch to a cash budget until you can consistently spend less than you bring home. Keep better track of your expenses, build an emergency fund, and learn to save for expenses rather than borrow for them until you have your spending under control. If you can't cut your expenses any more, consider ways to increase your income (more hours at work, part-time jobs, sell stuff, etc.) Assuming that the employer match is 1-to-1 up to 4%, and you're saving an additional 7 percent to get to 15% total, I would definitely lower your contribution down to 4%, get the card paid off, and ONLY bump your contribution back up once you can safely pay off the card each month and know how much you can contribute. It is not wise to put 15% in retirement if that causes you to spend more than your net take-home pay. Your \"\"13%\"\" in your Roth is not guaranteed by any means, but the interest you pay on your credit card is. I would even be tempted to cut your retirement completely until the debt is paid, but more for motivational reasons that mathematical: I would be more concerned about living within your income at this point than getting a company match. I believe the benefits of spending wisely will outweigh a temporary loss in matched retirement funds in the long run.\"",
"qid": 11039,
"docid": "392924",
"rank": 47,
"score": 112356
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Your contribution limit to a 401(k) is $18,000. Your employer is allowed to contribute to your 401(k), usually a \"\"matching contribution\"\". That matching contribution comes from your employer, so is not subject to your personal contribution limit. A contribution to a regular 401(k) is typically made with pre-tax money (i.e. you don't pay payroll taxes on the money you contribute) so you pay less taxes for the current tax year. However when you retire and you take money out, you pay taxes on the money you take out. On one hand, your tax rate may be lower when you have retired, but on the other hand, if your investments have appreciated over time, the total amount of tax you pay would be higher. If your company offers a Roth 401(k) plan, you can contribute $18,000 of after tax money. This way you pay the tax on the $18,000 today, as you would if you did not put the money in the 401(k), but when you take the money out at retirement, you would not have to pay tax. In my opinion, that serves as a way to pay effectively more money into your 401(k). Some firms put vesting provisions on the amount that they match in your 401(k), e.g. 4 years at 25% per year. So you have to work 1 full year to be entitled to 25% of their matching contribution, 2 years for 50%, and 4 years to receive all of it. Check your company's Summary Plan Description of the 401(k) to be sure. You are not allowed to invest pre-tax money into a Traditional IRA if you are already contributing to a 401(k) plan and have reached the income limits ($62,000 AGI for single head of household). You are allowed to contribute post-tax money to a Traditional IRA plan if you have already contributed to a 401(k), which you can then Roll-over into a Roth IRA (look up 'backdoor IRA'). The IRA contribution limit applies to all IRA accounts over that calendar year. You could put some money in a traditional IRA, a Roth IRA, another traditional IRA, etc. so long as the total amount is not more than the contribution limit. This gives you an upper limit of 5.5k + 18k = 23.5 investments in retirement accounts. Note however, once you reach age 50, these limits increase to 6.5k (IRA) + 24k (401(k)). They also are adjusted periodically with the rate of inflation. The following approach may be more efficient for building wealth: This ordering is the subject of debate and people have different opinions. There is a separate discussion of these priorities here: Best way to start investing, for a young person just starting their career? Note however, a 401(k) loan becomes payable if you leave your company, and if not repaid, is an unauthorised distribution from your 401k (and therefore subject to an additional 10% tax penalty). You should also be careful putting money into an IRA, as you will be subject to an additional 10% tax penalty if you take out the money (distribution) before retirement, unless one of the exceptions defined by the IRA applies (e.g. $10,000 for first time home purchase), which could wipe out more than any gains you made by putting it in there in the first place. Your specific circumstances may vary, so this approach may not be best for you. A registered financial advisor may be able to help - ensure they are legitimate: https://adviserinfo.sec.gov\"",
"qid": 11039,
"docid": "38532",
"rank": 48,
"score": 112244
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"A fascinating view on this. The math of a 10% deposit and projected 10% return lead to an inevitable point when the account is worth 10X your income (nice) and the deposit, 10% of income only represents 1% of the account balance. The use of an IRA is neither here nor there, as your proposed deposit is still just 1% of your retirement account total. Pay off debt? For one with this level of savings, it should be assumed you aren't carrying any high interest debt. It really depends on your age and retirement budget. Our \"\"number\"\" was 12X our final income, so at 10X, we were still saving. For you, if you project hitting your number soon enough, I'd still deposit to the match, but maybe no more. It might be time to just enjoy the extra money. For others, their goal may be much higher and those extra years deposits are still needed. I'd play with a spreadsheet and see the impact of reduced retirement account deposits. Note - the question asks about funding the 401(k) vs paying down debt. I'd always advise to deposit to the match, but beyond that, one should focus on their high interest debt, especially by their 50's.\"",
"qid": 11039,
"docid": "160780",
"rank": 49,
"score": 111958
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Separate from some of the other considerations such as the legality, it is likely going to be worth your will if you employer has company matching even if you have to pay the early withdraw penalty because the matching funds from your employer can be viewed as gains on the money deposited. For example, using round numbers to make the math easy: No 401(k) Deposit With 401(k) Deposit So as you can see there is a benefit to deferring some of the earnings to the 401(k) account due to the employer matching but the actual dollar amount that you would be able to take home will be different based upon your own circumstances. Depending upon what the take home would be at the end of the day the percentage return may or may not be worth the time involved with doing the paperwork. However, all of this only applies if you have to pull the money out early as once you hit 59.5 years old you can start withdrawing the money without the tax penalty in which case the returns on your initial deposit will be much more.",
"qid": 11039,
"docid": "102291",
"rank": 50,
"score": 111677
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Am I thinking correctly and can I do the 2 separate withdrawals? Yes. Is there anything else I'm missing? Yes. For starters - instead of withdrawing 401k - why don't you take a loan out of it? This can be dangerous, but also can be beneficial - both for the same reason. The beneficial part is this: you don't pay neither the income tax nor the penalty on the amount you take out as a loan. I.e.: immediate saving of 35%. You can also get the full loan amount (up to 50% of the 401k balance) at once, no need to wait for the next year. You'll be saving on the difference on the APR between the credit card debt (which is usually huge) and the 401k loan (which is usually very low), and that will allow you to consolidate the debt and cover it quicker. The dangerous part is also taxes. In case you lose your job - you have to pay off the loan immediately (within 3 months). If you don't - the remaining balance will be considered as a taxable distribution and you'll owe the 25%+10% on them. But - if you don't lose your job, you win. And repaying the loan will revert your 401k balances back to the full amount, while with withdrawal - you cannot put it back (after 60 days are over, at least). So keep that in mind. Check with your 401k plan provider on the loan terms and costs (they'll charge some symbolic amount for managing the loan for you).",
"qid": 11039,
"docid": "475573",
"rank": 51,
"score": 111540
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"As the comments above have been trying to get across, the prospective employer is offering to pay you for the bonus/unvested compensation that you would be losing by jumping ship right now to go work for them. They are not offering to buy any securities that you already hold, regardless of whether they're profitable or unprofitable. Example 1. You participate in your current company's 401(k), and your company matches your contributions at 50%. However, the matching funds are not yours immediately; they vest in 20%/year increments until you have been at the company for 5 years. Let's say you've been there for 3 years and have contributed $50K to the plan. Your company has matched you at $25K, but only 60% of that ($15K) has vested. If you leave right now for the new employer, you're leaving $10K behind. So the new employer might offer to \"\"buy out\"\" (i.e. pay you) that $10K to help encourage you to switch now. You might then counter their offer by pointing out that if you stay where you are that $10K is coming to you tax-deferred, whereas their $10K signing bonus would be taxed. So you ask for $15K instead. Example 2. You work for a Wall Street investment bank. Each December you receive a performance bonus. Since you began working there, your three yearly bonuses have been (in chronological order) $500K, $750K, and $1M. It's June, so you've worked halfway towards your next bonus. You have a lot of incentive to NOT leave your current employer. A competing employer may offer to \"\"buy you out\"\" of your anticipated bonus by giving you a $1.25M signing bonus (since you'd almost certainly not be eligible for a performance bonus during your first year there). You might negotiate with them and say \"\"I'm on track for $2M this year\"\", and then they would figure out if you're really worth that much to them. So you can see this all has to do with the prospective employer trying to compensate you for any income you're already counting on receiving from your current employer. By jumping ship now you would be foregoing that guaranteed/expected income, so the competitor wants to remove that anchor that might be holding you back from making the move. Stocks/options that you already own are irrelevant to the prospective employer. Since you wouldn't be giving those up by changing jobs, there's no reason for them to factor into the equation.\"",
"qid": 11039,
"docid": "145864",
"rank": 52,
"score": 111448
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The other answers assumed student loan debt -- and for that, it's rarely worth it (unless your company only offers managed plans w/ really bad returns, or the economy recovers to the point where banks are paying 5% again on money market accounts) ... but if it's high rate debt, such as carrying a credit card debt, and the current rate of returns on the 401k aren't that great at the time, it would be worth doing the calculations to see if it's better to pay them down instead. If you're carrying extremely high interest debt (such as 'payday loans' or similar), it's almost always going to be worth paying down that debt as quickly as possible, even if it means forgoing matching 401k payments. The other possible reason for not taking the matching funds are if the required contributions would put you in a significant bind -- if you're barely scraping by, and you can't squeeze enough savings out of your budget that you'd risk default on a loan (eg, car or house) or might take penalties for late fees on your utilities, it might be preferable to save up for a bit before starting the contributions -- especially if you've maxed your available credit so you can't just push stuff to credit cards as a last resort.",
"qid": 11039,
"docid": "281049",
"rank": 53,
"score": 111312
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I wouldn't buy a house at this time. Your credit card debt is the most expensive thing you have. Which is to say that you want to get rid of it as soon as possible. The lawyer isn't cheap, and your personal situation is not fully resolved. Congratulations on paying off the IRS, and getting up the 401k to 17.5k. Take care of the two things in paragraph 1, first,and then think about buying a house. You're doing too much good work to have it possibly be derailed by home payments.",
"qid": 11039,
"docid": "116755",
"rank": 54,
"score": 110928
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: First, read my answer here: Oversimplify it for me: the correct order of investing For me, the answer to your question comes down to how badly you want to get rid of your student loan debt. I recommend that you get rid of it as fast as possible, and that you sacrifice a little in your budget temporarily to make that happen. If that is what you want, here is what I would do. Following the steps in my other answer, I would pay off the student loans first. Cash out your non-retirement growth fund to jump start that, then challenge yourself to take as much of your paycheck as you can and throw it at the debt. Figure out how many months it will take before the debt is gone. Once the debt is gone, you won't have those monthly payments anymore and you won't be continually losing money in interest to the bank. At that point, you can build up your cash savings, invest in your employer's 401(k) plan for retirement, and start saving toward other long-term saving goals (car, house, etc.) To address some of your other concerns: If you cash out the non-retirement fund, you'll probably owe some capital gains tax. (Although, on a $3k investment, the long term rate won't add up to very much, depending on your tax bracket and cost basis.) You can't use the money from your non-retirement fund to invest in your 401(k). You can only contribute to your 401(k) via payroll deduction. To explicitly answer your question, your non-retirement fund is not bound by the limitations of retirement funds, meaning that you can cash it out and use it however you like without penalty, only paying perhaps a few hundred dollars of capital gains tax at tax time next year. Think of it as another source of cash for you.",
"qid": 11039,
"docid": "422421",
"rank": 55,
"score": 110629
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: 401k contributions are exempt from employee and employer FICA withholding. The employer withholding is approximately 7% of the gross. The closer the employer match ratio is to 7%, the closer it is to paying for itself. Example: Assuming an employee is match-maximizing and in very round numbers grosses 100,000 per year. A 50% match schedule is about $350 cheaper per employee than a 100% match schedule: Default non participant: The employee will see about 7000 deducted for FICA, and the employer will pay 7000 to FICA if they don't participate. First case: the match is 100%, 1-for-1 to a 5% cap, the employee will deduct 5000, and have 6650 withheld for FICA. The employer will pay 6650 to FICA. The total employer cost of withholding and match is 11,650. Second case: If the match is 50%, 1-for-2 to a 5% cap, the employee will deduct 10000, and have 6300 withheld for FICA. The employer will pay 6300 to FICA. The total employer cost of withholding and match is 11,300.",
"qid": 11039,
"docid": "240259",
"rank": 56,
"score": 110570
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I moved from contributing 10% to maxing as my salary rose over the course of three years after graduation. Because of my raises, my monthly take home still increased, so it was a pretty painless way to increase my 401(k) contribution and also avoid lifestyle inflation. That said, I would not do it if you have any credit card debt, school loans, or an auto loan. Pay that off first. Then work on maxing the 401(k). Personally I rate owning a home behind that, but that's partially because I'm in an area where the rent ratios are barely on the side of buying, so I don't find buying to be a pressing matter. One thing to investigate is if your company offers a Roth 401(k) option. It's a nice option where you can go Roth without worrying about income limits. My personal experience does not include a Roth IRA because when I still qualified for one I didn't know much about them, and now that I know about them I have the happy issue of not qualifying.",
"qid": 11039,
"docid": "481793",
"rank": 57,
"score": 110462
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Does your company offer matching on 401(k) deposits? Are you depositing at least to the match? If not, that should be priority one. Kill the card, never pay that kind of interest. Ever. Why are you paying 5%? The 30 year rate is 4% right now, and even if you pay some closing costs, you'll recoup the money quickly. In general, borrowing to invest is a losing game. I agree, get rid of the HELOC as well. If you refine to 15 years, you can get 3.5%, and in 16 years won't regret the decision.",
"qid": 11039,
"docid": "284827",
"rank": 58,
"score": 110001
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You might also want to talk directly to a bank. If your credit report is clean, they may have some discretion in making the loan. Note - the 'normal' fully qualified loan has two thresholds, 28% (of monthly income) for housing costs, 36% for all debt servicing. A personal, disclosed loan from a friend/family which is not secured against the house, would count as part of the other debt, as would a credit card. While I don't recommend using a credit card for this purpose, the debt fits in that 28-36 gap. As Kevin points out below, not all paths are equally advisable. Nor are rules of thumb always true. Not having the OP's full details, income, assets, price of house, etc, this is just a list of things to consider. The use of a 401(k) loan in the US can be a great idea for some, bad mistake for others. This format doesn't make it easy to go into great detail, and I'm sure the 401(k) loan issue has been asked and answered in other questions. With respect to Kevin, if he wrote 'usually', I'd agree, but never say 'never.'",
"qid": 11039,
"docid": "352908",
"rank": 59,
"score": 109965
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: What is the question? Are you just trying to confirm that for self-employed, a Solo 401(k) is flexible, and a great tool to level out your tax rates? Sure. A W2 employee can turn on and off his 401(k) deduction any time, and bump the holding on each check as high as 75% in some cases. So in a tight stretch, I'd save to the match, but later on, top off the maximum for the year. To the points you listed - Your observation is interesting, but a bit long for what you seem to be asking. Keep in mind, there are 2 great features that you don't mention - a Roth Solo 401(k) flavor which offers even more flexibility for variable income, and loan provisions, up to $50,000 available to borrow from the account. My fellow blogger The Financial Buff offered an article Solo 401k Providers and Their Scope of Services that did a great job addressing this.",
"qid": 11039,
"docid": "518562",
"rank": 60,
"score": 109913
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Depends upon the debt cost. Assuming it is consumer debt or credit card debt, it is better to pay that off first, it is the best investment you can make. Let's say it is credit card debt. If you pay 18% interst and have for example a $1,000 amount. If you pay it off you save $180 in interest ($1,000 times 18%). You would have to earn 18% on 1,000 to generate $180 if it was in aninvestment. Here is a link discussing ways of reducing debt Once you have debt paid off you have the cashflow to begin building wealth. The key is in the cashflow.",
"qid": 11039,
"docid": "457945",
"rank": 61,
"score": 109557
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: To answer your question: As far as what's available in addition to your 401(k) at work (most financial types will say to contribute up to the match first), you may qualify for a Roth IRA (qualification is based on income), if not, then you may have to go with a Traditional IRA. You and your husband can each have one and contribute up to the limit each year. After that, you could get just a straight up mutual fund, and/or contribute up to limit on your 401(k). My two cents: This may sound counter-intuitive (and I'm sure some folks will disagree), but instead of contributing to your 401(k) now, take whatever that amount is, and use it to pay extra on the car loan. Also take the extra being paid on the mortgage and pay it on the car loan too. Once the car loan is paid off, then set aside 15% of your gross income and use that amount to start your retirement investing. Any additional money beyond this can then go into the mortgage. Once it's paid off, then you can take the extra you were paying, plus the mortgage and invest that amount into mutual funds. You may want to check out Chris Hogan's Retire Inspired book or podcast as well.",
"qid": 11039,
"docid": "499606",
"rank": 62,
"score": 109027
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I'd be tempted to pay off the 35k in student loans immediately, but if you have to owe money, it's hard to beat zero percent. So I don't think I would pay it all off. Maybe cut it in half to make it a more comfortable payment. Currently, you are looking at $6K a year to pay them off, which is about 20% of your income. Cut that in half and you will sleep better! Definitely pay off the medical and credit cards. You're probably paying 20% on that. Clean it up. If you need a car, buy yourself a car. You have no savings, so I would put the rest in some kind of money market savings account. You are at an age where many people go through frequent changes. Maybe you get your own place, and you'll need to furnish it. Maybe you go back to school. Maybe you get married or have kids. Maybe you take a year off and backpack through Europe or Asia. You have a nice little windfall that puts you in a nice position to enjoy being young, so I would not lock it up into a 401k or other long term situation.",
"qid": 11039,
"docid": "454937",
"rank": 63,
"score": 108486
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: One should fund a 401(k) or matched retirement account up to the match, even if you have other debt. Long term, you will come out ahead, but you must be disciplined in making the payments. If one wants to point out the risk in a 401(k), I'd suggest the money need not be invested in stocks, there's always a short term safe option.",
"qid": 11039,
"docid": "534837",
"rank": 64,
"score": 108485
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The only way to know the specific explanation in your situation is to ask your employer. Different companies do it differently, and they will have their reasons for that difference. I've asked \"\"But why is it that way?\"\" enough times to feel confident in telling you it's rarely an arbitrary decision. In the case of your employer's policy, I can think of a number of reasons why they would limit match earnings per paycheck: Vesting, in a sense - Much as stock options have vesting requirements where you have to work for a certain amount of time to receive the options, this policy works as a sort of vesting mechanism for your employer matching funds. Without it, you could rapidly accumulate your full annual match amount in a few pay periods at the beginning of the year, and then immediately leave for employment elsewhere. You gain 100% of the annual match for only 1-2 months of work, while the employees who remain there all year work 12 months to gain the same 100%. Dollar Cost Averaging - By purchasing the same investment vehicle at different prices over time, you can reduce the impact of volatility on your earnings. For the same reason that 401k plans usually restrict you to a limited selection of mutual funds - namely, the implicit assumption is that you probably have little to no clue about investing - they also do other strategic things to encourage employees to invest (at least somewhat) wisely. By spacing their matching fund out over time, they encourage you to space your contributions over time, and they thereby indirectly force you to practice a sensible strategy of dollar cost averaging. Dollar Cost Averaging, seen from another angle - Mutual funds are the 18-wheeler trucks of the investment super-highway. They carry a lot of cargo, but they are difficult to start, stop, or steer quickly. For the same reasons that DCA is smart for you, it's also smart for a fund. The money is easier to manage and invest according to the goals of the fund if the investments trickle in over time and there are no sudden radical changes. Imagine if every employer that does matching allowed the full maximum match to be earned on the first paycheck of the year - the mutual funds in 401ks would get big balloons of money in January followed by a drastically lower investment for the rest of the year. And that would create volatility. Plan Administration Fees - Your employer has to pay the company managing the 401k for their services. It is likely that their agreement with the management company requires them to pay on a monthly basis, so it potentially makes things convenient for the accounting people on both ends if there's a steady monthly flow of money in and out. (Whether this point is at all relevant is very much dependent on how your company's agreement is structured, and how well the folks handling payroll and accounting understand it.) The Bottom Line - Your employer (let us hope) makes profits. And they pay expenses. And companies, for a variety of financial reasons, prefer to spread their profits and expenses as evenly over the year as they can. There are a lot of ways they achieve this - for example, a seasonal business might offer an annual payment plan to spread their seasonal revenue over the year. Likewise, the matching funds they are paying to you the employees are coming out of their bottom line. And the company would rather not have the majority of those funds being disbursed in a single quarter. They want a nice, even distribution. So once again it behooves them to create a 401k system that supports that objective. To Sum Up Ultimately, those 401k matching funds are a carrot. And that carrot manipulates you the employee into behaving in a way that is good for your employer, good for your investment management company, and good for your own investment success. Unless you are one of the rare birds who can outperform a dollar-cost-averaged investment in a low-cost index fund, there's very little to chafe at about this arrangement. If you are that rare bird, then your investment earning power likely outstrips the value of your annual matching monies significantly, in which case it isn't even worth thinking about.\"",
"qid": 11039,
"docid": "92370",
"rank": 65,
"score": 108025
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Many employees don't contribute enough to maximize the match, so the cost to the employer is not the same. Under the 50% of 6% strategy an employee contributing 5% would get a 2.5% match not a 3% and that saves the company 0.5%. @TTT provided an excellent link in the comments below to a study titled \"\"How much employer 401(k) matching contributions do employees leave on the table?\"\" performed by Financial Engines, an independent financial advisory service. The information meaningful to this answer is on Page 5 (Page 7 of the PDF): 4,378,445 eligible employees were included in the study 1,077,775 of the eligible employees did not contribute enough for the full match; of them, 285,386 Received zero match funds 792,389 Received some match funds, but not the full match available So 792,389 or 18% of the employees studied contributed in to employer 401(k) plans but not enough to maximize their available match.\"",
"qid": 11039,
"docid": "296405",
"rank": 66,
"score": 107931
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Every $1,000 you use to pay off a 26% interest rate card saves you $260 / year. Every $1,000 you use to pay off a 23% interest rate card saves you $230 / year. Every $1,000 you put in a savings account earning ~0.5% interest earns you $5 / year. Having cash on hand is good in case of emergencies, but typically if your debt is on high interest credit cards, you should consider paying off as much of it as possible. In your case you may want to keep only some small amount (maybe $500, maybe $1000, maybe $100) in cash for emergencies. Paying off your high interest debt should be a top priority for you. You may want to look on this site for help with budgeting, also. Typically, being in debt to credit card companies is a sign of living beyond your means. It costs you a lot of money in the long run.",
"qid": 11039,
"docid": "59327",
"rank": 67,
"score": 107774
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"To answer, I'm going to make a few assumptions. First, the ideal scenario for a pre-tax 401(k) is the deposit goes in at a 25% tax rate (i.e. the employee is in that bracket) but withdrawn at 15%. This may be true for many, but not all. It's to illustrate a point. The SPY (S&P 500 index ETF) has a cost of .09% per year. If your 401(k) fees are anywhere near 1% per year total, over 10 years you've paid nearly 10% in fees, vs less than 1% for the ETF. Above, I suggest the ideal is that the 401(k) saves you 10% on your taxes, but if you pay 10% over the decade, the benefit is completely negated. I can add to the above that funds outside the retirement accounts give off dividends which are tax favored, and if you were to sell ETFs held over a year, they receive favorable cap-gains rates. The \"\"deposit to get the matching funds\"\" should always be good advice, it would take many years of high fees to destroy that. But even that seemingly reasonable 1% fee can make any other deposits a bad approach. Keep in mind, when retired you will have a zero bracket (in 2011, the combined standard deduction and exemption) adding to $9500, as well as a 10% bracket (the next $8500), so having some pretax money to take advantage of those brackets will help. Last, the average person changes jobs now and then. The ability to transfer the funds from the (bad) 401(k) to an IRA where you can control the investments is an option I'd not ignore in the analysis. I arbitrarily picked 1% to illustrate my thoughts. The same math will show a long time employee will get hurt by even .5%/yr if enough time passes. What are the fees in your 401(k)? Edit - Study of 401(k) fees - put out by the Dept of Labor. Unfortunately, it's over 10 years old, but it speaks to my point. Back then, even a 2000 participant plan with $60M in assets had 110 basis points (this is 1.1%) in fees on average. Whatever the distribution is, those above this average shouldn't even participate in their plans (except for matching) and those on the other side should look at their expenses. As Radix07 points out below, yes, for those just shy of retirement, the fee has less impact, and of course, they have a better idea if they will retire in a lower bracket. Those who have some catching up to do, may benefit despite the fees.\"",
"qid": 11039,
"docid": "45053",
"rank": 68,
"score": 107516
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Just like all employee benefits there is a focus on removing or limiting owners of businesses' ability to abuse tax preferences under the guise of an employee benefit. As you point out there is an overall plan maximum 401(k) for employer contributions and match contributions. There is a nondiscrimination test for FSA programs (there is also a nondiscrimination test for medical plans under sections 125 and 105(h)). Employer contributions are counted toward the total of HSA contributions. Why an HSA has a different maximum arrangement than 401(k) is anyone's guess. But the purpose of the limit is to prevent owners of companies from setting up plans that do little more than funnel tax free funds to themselves. An owner/employee could pay themselves a wage, contribute the maximum, then have the \"\"employer\"\" also match the maximum, so there are limits in place.\"",
"qid": 11039,
"docid": "240373",
"rank": 69,
"score": 107328
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Thirty thousand in credit card debt is a \"\"big elephant to eat\"\" so to speak. But you do it by taking a bite at a time. One positive is that you do not want to borrow from your 401K. Doing so is a horrible idea. The first question you have to ask yourself and understand, is how you accumulated 30K in credit card debt in the first place? Most people get there by running up a relatively small amount, say 5K, and playing the zero transfer game a few times. Then add in a late payment, and a negative event or two (like the car breaking down or a trip to the emergency room) and poof a large amount of credit card debt. Obviously, I have no idea if this is how you got there, and providing some insight might help. Also, your age, approximate income, and other debts might also help provide more insight. I assume you are still working and under age 59.5 as you are talking about borrowing from your 401K. Where I come from is that my wife (then girlfriend) found ourselves under stifling debt a few years ago. When we married, we became very intentional and focused on ridding ourselves of debt and now sit completely debt free (including the house). During our debt payoff time, we lived off of less than 25% of our salary. We both took extra jobs when we were able. Intensity was our key. If I were you, I would not refi the house. There are costs associated with this and why would you put more debt on your home? I might cash out the annuity provided that there are no negative tax consequences and depending on how much you can get for it. Numbers are the key here. However, I feel like doing so will not retire this debt. The first thing you need to do is get on a written budget. A game plan for spending and stick to it. If you are married, your spouse has to be part of this process. The budget has to be fresh each month, and each month you and your wife should meet. To deviate from the budget, you will also need to have a meeting. My wife and I still do this despite being debt free and enjoying very healthy incomes. Secondly, it is about cutting expenses. Cable: off. No eating out or vacations. Cut back on cell phone plans, only basic clothing. Gift giving is of the $5 variety and only for those very close to you. Forget lattes, etc. Depending on your income I would cut 401K contributions to zero or only up to the company match (if your household income is above 150K/year). Third, it is about earning more. Ebay, deliver pizzas, cut grass, overtime, whatever. All extra dollars go to credit card balance reduction. At a minimum, you should find an extra $1000/month; however, I would shoot for 2K. If you can find 2K, you will be done with this in 13 months. I know the math doesn't work out for that, but once you get momentum, you find more. How good will it feel to be out from under this oppression next March? I know you can do this without cashing in the annuity or refinancing. Do you believe it?\"",
"qid": 11039,
"docid": "297288",
"rank": 70,
"score": 106894
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you invest in a 401(k), the shares in that plan are yours for as long as you live, or until you pull them out. So, if the employer is offering any sort of matching and those matched funds remain yours after you leave, then definitely contribute; that's an immediate return on your money. If the employer is NOT matching funds, then usually it is better to contribute to an IRA instead; you get the same income tax benefits from the deduction, without the headaches of going through your company (or the company from 3 jobs ago or whoever bought them) to get to your money. If I were in your position, the most I personally would do after I quit the company (which I'm assuming you'd be doing if you were going back to your country of origin) would be to have the 401k shares rolled over into a traditional IRA; that way I'd have more control over it from outside the country. Just keep the bank holding your IRA apprised of your movements around the world and how they can get ahold of you (it may be wise to grant a limited power of attorney to someone who will be staying in the U.S. if you don't want the bank mailing your statements all around the world), and the money can stay in an American account while you do whatever you have to outside it. As long as you don't take the money out in cash before you're 59 1/2 years old, you don't need to pay taxes or penalties on it. If you were to need it to cover unexpected expenses (perhaps relating to the aforementioned family emergency), then that decision can be made at that time. If you think that's even remotely likely, you may consider a Roth IRA. With a Roth, you pay the income taxes on your contributions, but the money is then yours; you can withdraw anything up to the total amount of your contributions without any additional taxes or penalties, and once you hit 59 and a half the interest also becomes available, also tax- and penalty- free. So if you had to leave the country and take a lot of cash with you, you could get out everything you actually put into a Roth with only minor if any transaction fees, and the interest will still be there compounding.",
"qid": 11039,
"docid": "20323",
"rank": 71,
"score": 106888
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You can play with the numbers all you like (and that's good), however, here is a different way to look at it. The debt you have is risk. It limits your choices and eats your cash flow. Without the debt, you can invest at a much greater rate. It frees up you cash flow for all the things you might want to do, or decide in the future you might want to do. Right now is the easiest time for you to focus on debt repayment. It sounds like you are not married and have no children. It is much easier now to cut back your lifestyle and concentrate on paying off this $50k of student debt. This will get harder as your responsibility increases. Build up a small amount of cash for emergencies and put the rest at the debt. You can keep contributing to your 401k to the match if you want. This will give you 2 benefits: Patience. When you actually DO start investing, you will have a new appreciation for the money you are using. If you sacrifice to pay off $50k now, you wont look at money the same for the rest of your life. Drive. If you see the debt as a barrier to achieving your goals, you will work harder to get out of debt. These are all things I would tell my 23 year-old self if i could go back in time. Good luck!",
"qid": 11039,
"docid": "52136",
"rank": 72,
"score": 106633
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The error in the example is here: \"\"Now, if you contribute 5% to a Roth 401(k), your employer would match your after-tax 5% contribution. If the tax rate is 25%, that would be 5% of $60,000, which is $3,000. However, that $3,000 is put in to a traditional 401(k), so it is taxed when withdrawn. Assuming the tax rate is still 25% when you withdraw, you are only getting $2,250. Essentially you are giving up $750 of free money in this case.\"\" You set your contribution to Roth 401k as a function of the gross, 80,000. You choose 5% and contribute 4000 Your employer matches 4000. At the end of the year, your taxable income to the IRS is 80000, and you pay 30% or 24000. You have 80K-4K-24K to live on, or 52K If you chose the alternate regular 401k,then you contribute 4K, your income to the IRS is (80-4=) 76k, and you pay 30%, 22.8K in tax. You have 80-4-22.8 or 53.2K to live on. Or, to come at it the other way, you have 4000*30% =1200 extra tax reduction in your income this year. If the extra income in 401k versus extra current year tax in Roth IRA means you have to reduce less, like 2800K to the roth so you maintain a 53.2K lifestyle, then yes, the Roth IRA match is reduced. If you have the cash flow to prepay the current year tax and maximum-match contribution, you will get the full match based on your gross income.\"",
"qid": 11039,
"docid": "379911",
"rank": 73,
"score": 106604
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I’m specifically curious as to how employer matches for Roth 401(k)s would work. Even if an employee contributes to a Roth 401(k), matching contributions by the employer must be treated as traditional 401(k) contributions. So even if the treatment of Roth accounts is unchanged, those of us who get an employer match on our Roth 401(k) contributions may still be impacted.",
"qid": 11039,
"docid": "175470",
"rank": 74,
"score": 106060
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If they leave the extra funds in the account the IRS will consider it as employer match. They weren't funds from your paycheck, they were from the employers profits. Because they don't have a formal matching program the extra funds will still keep then under the max match. There is one other explanation that needs to be considered. If the last paycheck from 2011 was near the end of the year (the last Friday of 2011 was December 30th) the 401K funds from that final paycheck may not have been deposited into your 401K until early January 2012. If you count contributions when looking at your 401K statement it will look like one two many for 2012; but the IRS only cares when it was deducted from your paycheck, not when it was deposited into your account. The Department of Labor only requires they be deposited by the 15th of the following month.",
"qid": 11039,
"docid": "366307",
"rank": 75,
"score": 105831
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The managers of the 401(k) have to make their money somewhere. Either they'll make it from the employer, or from the employees via the expense ratio. If it's the employer setting up the plan, I can bet whose interest he'll be looking after. Regarding your last comment, I'd recommend looking outside your 401(k) for investing. If you get free money from your employer for contributing to your 401(k), that's a plus, but I wouldn't -- actually, I don't -- contribute anything beyond the match. I pay my taxes and I'm done with it.",
"qid": 11039,
"docid": "301616",
"rank": 76,
"score": 105548
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: They are mutually exclusive. Provided you meet the income limits you can contribute to both. Employer match do not count toward the 18K. On the other hand traditional IRA and Roth IRA are inclusive. So if single and making having a MAGI under 118K, you could do the 18K of your own money into a 401(k), and $5,500 into a Roth. You can put in $23,500 of your own money with the employer match on top of that.",
"qid": 11039,
"docid": "75766",
"rank": 77,
"score": 105459
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Get a loan at a decent interest rate and use that to pay off all of the credit cards. Then pay into that loan and leave the credit cards alone. Cancel them and don't use them. Credit card debt is possibly the worst kind of debt. So expensive. It's not designed for long term borrowing. It's designed to be paid off completely every month. Get a single loan and consolidate all your debt into it. It will have a lower interest rate and cost you a lot less in the long term.",
"qid": 11039,
"docid": "559523",
"rank": 78,
"score": 105257
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Your comment regarding your existing finances is very relevant and helpful. You need to understand that generally in personal finance circles, when a strong earning 22 year-old is looking for a loan it's usually a gross spending problem. Their car costs $1,000 /month and their bar tabs are adding up so the only logical thing to do is get a loan. Most 22-year-olds don't have a mortgage soaking up their income, or a newborn. With all of this in mind I essentially agree with DStanley and, personally, and many people here would probably disagree, I'd stop the 401(K) contribution and use that money to pay the debt. You're still very young from a retirement standpoint, let the current balance ride and forego the match until the debt is paid. I think this is more about being debt free at 22 quickly than it's about how much marginal money could be saved via 401(k) or personal loan or this strategy or that strategy. I think at your age, you'll benefit greatly from simply being debt free. There are other very good answers on this site and other places regarding the pitfalls of a 401(k) loan. The most serious of which is that you have an extremely limited time to pay the entire loan upon leaving the company. Failure to repay in that situation incurs tax liability and penalties. From my quick math, assuming your contribution is 8% of $70,000 /year, you're contributing something in the neighborhood of $460/month to your 401(k). If you stopped contributing you'd probably take home a high $300 number net of taxes. It'll take around 20 months to pay the loan off using this contribution money without considering your existing payments, in total you're probably looking at closer to 15 months. You'll give up something in the neighborhood of $3,500 in match funds over the repayment time. But again, you're 22, you'll resume your contributions at 24; still WAY ahead of most people from a retirement savings standpoint. I don't think my first retirement dollar was contributed until I was about 29. Sure, retirement savings is important, but if you've already started at age 22 you're probably going to end up way ahead of most either way. When you're 60 you're probably not going to bemoan giving up a few grand of employer match in your 20s. That's what I would do. Edit: I actually like stannius's suggestion in the comments below. IF there's enough vested in your plan that is also available for withdrawal that you could just scoop $6,500 out of your 401(k) net of the 10% penalty and federal and state taxes (which would be on the full amount) to pay the debt, I'd consider that instead of stopping the prospective contributions. That way you could continue your contributions and receive the match contributions on a prospective basis. I doubt this is a legitimate option because it's very common for employers to restrict or forbid withdrawal of employee and/or employer contributions made during your employment, but it would be worth looking in to.",
"qid": 11039,
"docid": "437706",
"rank": 79,
"score": 105232
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Liquidity. That's the issue. You rent, and that's not bad. No new roof, boiler, etc. But, you have a car? Your savings is a guarantee that you'll not have to charge a $2000 transmission on an 18% credit card. You job may be secure, but employment (aside from self employment) is never 100% guaranteed. With $3000 income per month, I'd not prepay the student loan until I had at least $9000 in savings. We don't know your country, although we don't have fortnights in the US, so if you are in the US, you have a non-US background. Either way, if your employer offers any kind of matching retirement deposits, I'd prioritize that. Never leave that matched money on the table. You are off to a great start, this relatively low student loan debt shouldn't keep you awake at night.",
"qid": 11039,
"docid": "585688",
"rank": 80,
"score": 105213
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you're looking for a purely financial answer (ignoring the social/environmental aspects) there are a few different ways you can look at it. For these types of improvements the simplest is a payback calculation. How long would it take you to recoup the initial costs? For example, if the entire installation cost $5,000 (including any tax credits), and you save $100 per month (I'm making both numbers up), you'll pay back your investment in 50 months, or about 4 years. (Note that if you borrow money to do the improvement, then your payback period is longer because you're reducing the amount that you're saving each month by paying interest.) If you're deciding between different uses for the money (like investing, or paying down other debt) then you can look at the return that you're getting. Using the same example, you are spending $5,000 and getting $100 per month back, for a 24% annual return ($1,200 / $5,000), which is better than you can get on almost anything but a 401(k) match (meaning don't stop your 401(k) contributions to do this either). The decision on whether or wait or not then becomes - will the price drop faster than the amount of savings you will realize. So if you will save $100 per month in your electric bill, is the price of the complete installation going down by more than $100 each month? If not, you'd be better off buying now and start paying back the investment sooner.",
"qid": 11039,
"docid": "290647",
"rank": 81,
"score": 105155
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"In your situation, you probably should not cash in your IRA and 401(k). A good mortgage lender will want to see that you have \"\"reserves\"\" -- money that you could fall back on if you hit a very rough patch. Your current savings and retirement accounts might add up to a suitable reserve. You might want to do something like this instead: By the way, instead of cashing in a 401(k), it is usually better to: This method avoids large tax penalties, and encourages you to rebuild your 401(k). Unfortunately, your large debt balances might prevent you from getting the PLOC. But even in the worst case scenario (where you cannot use a PLOC to pay off a 401(k) balloon payment), it postpones the tax hit until after the balloon payment.\"",
"qid": 11039,
"docid": "280492",
"rank": 82,
"score": 105136
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: A good general rule is to save 15% of your income for retirement. As for where you put it: Put as much as it takes to maximize your employer match into your 401(k), but no more. The employer match is free money, and you can't beat free money If you still haven't put in 15%, put the rest into a Roth IRA. By historical standards, taxes are pretty low today. They are almost certainly going to be higher in retirement, especially since you likely won't have the deductions in retirement that you may have now (kids, mortgage, etc). If you've maxed our the allowed contribution for your Roth and still haven't saved 15%, put the rest in a traditional IRA.",
"qid": 11039,
"docid": "169232",
"rank": 83,
"score": 104599
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The company match is not earnings. My company deposits 5% of my income into my 401(k) and it appears nowhere except on the paperwork for the 401(k). To be clear, it doesn't appear on any paystub or W2.",
"qid": 11039,
"docid": "470826",
"rank": 84,
"score": 104497
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: No. It means each month the total amount you owe goes up by a factor of (1+0.298/12). So if you owed $23K at the beginning of the month, at the end you owe a total of 23K*1.0248=$23,571. Then subtract the $804 you are paying. If you want to think of it in terms of interest and principal, you are paying $571 a month in interest and 233 toward principle, I guess. Paying off debt with a lower interest rate using debt with a higher interest rate is throwing a lot of money away and impoverishing yourself needlessly. Psychology can't get around that. If you want a psychological aid, decide how much you are going to pay toward these debts and have it automatically deducted from your paycheck so you never see it. Make the minimum payment on every debt you have except the one with the highest interest rate. Pay the very most you can toward that. Then when it is paid off, move to the next highest. Do all your spending out of the lowest rate card, or avoid using these credit cards until your financial discipline and resources allow you to pay all credit cards off completely at the end of each month.",
"qid": 11039,
"docid": "494306",
"rank": 85,
"score": 104430
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I used a large portion of my 401k to pay off my credit card. My intentions were to then use my extra cash flow to build up the 401k again. Unfortunately I didn't learn my lesson and now I'm back to where I started, minus my 401k savings. If I could do it again, I would have cut up the card, kept the 401k and pay it down slowly. Good luck to you. I hope you do better than I did.",
"qid": 11039,
"docid": "79038",
"rank": 86,
"score": 104375
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The basic optimization rule on distributing windfalls toward debt is to pay off the highest interest rate debt first putting any extra money into that debt while making minimum payments to the other creditors. If the 5k in \"\"other debt\"\" is credit card debt it is virtually certain to be the highest interest rate debt. Pay it off immediately. Don't wait for the next statement. Once you are paying on credit cards there is no grace period and the sooner you pay it the less interest you will accrue. Second, keep 10k for emergencies but pretend you don't have it. Keep your spending as close as possible to what it is now. Check the interest rate on the auto loan v student loans. If the auto loan is materially higher pay it off, then pay the remaining 20k toward the student loans. Added this comment about credit with a view towards the OP's future: Something to consider for the longer term is getting your credit situation set up so that should you want to buy a new car or a home a few years down the road you will be paying the lowest possible interest. You can jump start your credit by taking out one or two secured credit cards from one of the banks that will, in a few years, unsecure your account, return your deposit, and leave no trace you ever opened a secured account. That's the route I took with Citi and Wells Fargo. While over spending on credit cards can be tempting, they are, with a solid payment history, the single most important positive attribute on a credit report and impact FICO scores more than other type of credit or debt. So make an absolute practice of only using them for things you would buy anyway and always, always, pay each monthly bill in full. This one thing will make it far easier to find a good rental, buy a car on the best terms, or get a mortgage at good rates. And remember: Credit is not equal to debt. Maximize the former and minimize the latter.\"",
"qid": 11039,
"docid": "529312",
"rank": 87,
"score": 104307
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you can afford to put money in your 401(k) account, I would say at least you should invest enough to get your employer's matching fund. It's free money, why not get it?",
"qid": 11039,
"docid": "1366",
"rank": 88,
"score": 104285
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: From a long-term planning point of view, is the bump in salary worth not having a 401(k)? In this case, absolutely. At $30k/year, the 4% company match comes to about $1,200 per year. To get that you need to save $1,200 yourself, so your gross pay after retirement contributions is about $28,800. Now you have an offer making $48,000. If you take the new job, you can put $2,400 in retirement (to get to an equivalent retirement rate), and now your gross pay after retirement contributions is $45,600. Now if the raise in salary were not as high, or you were getting a match that let you exceed the individual contribution max, the math might be different, but in this case you can effectively save the company match yourself and still be way ahead. Note that there are MANY other factors that may also be applicable as to whether to take this job or not (do you like the work? The company? The coworkers? The location? Is there upward mobility? Are the benefits equivalent?) but not taking a 67% raise just because you're losing a 4% 401(k) match is not a wise decision.",
"qid": 11039,
"docid": "69042",
"rank": 89,
"score": 104145
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: My perspective is from the US. Many employers offer 401(k)s and you can always contribute to an IRA for either tax deferred or tax free investment growth. If you're company offers a 401(k) match you should always contribute the maximum amount they max or you're leaving money on the table. Companies can't always support pensions and it isn't the best idea to rely on one entirely for retirement unless your pension is from the federal government. Even states such as Illinois are going through extreme financial difficulties due to pension funding issues. It's only going to get worse and if you think pension benefit accrual isn't going to be cut eventually you'll have another thing coming. I'd be worried if I was a state employee in the middle of my career with no retirement savings outside of my pension. Ranting: Employees pushed hard for some pretty absurd commitments and public officials let the public down by giving in. It seems a little crazy to me that someone can work for the state until they're in their 50's and then earn 70% of their 6 figure salary for the rest of their life. Something needs to be done but I'd be surprised if anyone has the political will to make tough choices now before thee options get much much worse and these states are forced to make a decision.",
"qid": 11039,
"docid": "2103",
"rank": 90,
"score": 104046
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you have $5k in cash and $5k in credit card debt, you should pay off the credit card and use your line of credit for any emergency cash need. You're worried about not having cash on hand but that's exactly what a credit line provides. You can draw a cash advance from it if you need. If you pay it off, at least you don't pay interest during the time you don't need it. 17% is a ridiculously high rate of interest. In actuality, you don't have $5k in savings because if you had paid for your purchases using cash, you wouldn't have the savings. So it's basically like you've drawn a cash advance from your CC company to fill your bank account with.",
"qid": 11039,
"docid": "318730",
"rank": 91,
"score": 103962
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If your employer offers a 401k retirement plan then you can contribute a portion of your salary to your retirement and that will lower your effective income to remain in the 15% bracket (although as others have pointed out, only the dollars that exceed the 15% bracket will be taxed at the higher rate anyway). AND if your employer offers any kind of 401k matching contribution, that's effectively a pay-raise or 100% return on investment (depending on how you prefer to look at it).",
"qid": 11039,
"docid": "361510",
"rank": 92,
"score": 103948
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"It can be difficult when all your disposable income is spoken for. Your options depend on how good your credit is and how flexible your expenses are. I don't have all the answers without more details (possibly not then). However, couple of points of advice: Paying off that credit card debt (and not adding any more to it) is your #1 priority. You should make minimum payments to every other debt until you have done that because the interest on it will kill you in the mean time. It is always optimal to pay the maximum to your highest interest debt and minimum to all other debts. 11% doesn't sound very good on your house loan. You may want to consider refinancing. That is, if you can get a lower rate. You may also want to get a longer term loan (if you have enough discipline to use the extra income to actually pay off your credit card and then the put it toward the house when the cards are paid off). Look at options to increase your income, at least temporarily. Second jobs and such. When your finances are more in order, you can back off. The debt \"\"trap\"\" is behavioral. We humans tend to increase our spending until we can't any more. But the reason we can't spend any more is that we have increased our debt until we have no flexible income. Then we are stuck for a long time and have few options. The only way out (long term) is to change our habits so that we don't increase spending each time we pay down a debt or get an increase to our income. Financial discipline is the only way to have financial security. Almost always the first step is to pay off credit cards and stop maintaining a balance (always pay off every card at the end of each month). Then start paying off other debts from highest interest rate to lowest. This is a hard challenge and one most of us face at some point in our lives. Good luck!\"",
"qid": 11039,
"docid": "397538",
"rank": 93,
"score": 103883
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If your credit card's interest rates are not more than your 35% (25% for your tax bracket and 10% penalty), there is no way I would consider this. If you boil it down to the numbers, you are asking whether you should borrow money at a 35% interest to pay off your credit cards. I would say Absolutely Not! $20K of auto loans which equal $1100 a month in payments. Also we purchased a car for me a year ago which is 375 a month. Probably shouldn't have done it but the car I was driving was on it's last leg. Where is the $805 difference going? You've got to make sacrifices, and right now you are leaning towards sacrificing your future for your present. It would take years of Large Contributions to make up for the money lost in early withdraw penalties and taxes, not to mention the loss in growth these accounts would have been earning if left alone. This plan is similar to saying you want to spend $60k to pay off $40k. Don't do it! If it was me, I'd get a couple $3,000 cars. That should free up at least $600 a month and reduces your debt by $14k. I'd also pull my child out of private school unless there is really no public option, which based upon your refusal to consider selling your house, I image there's a decent public school near your neighborhood. That's an extra $500 a month. Next, I'd sell anything that I could through craigslist or garage sales. I'd get on a written budget and the envelope system, to make sure you are really as 'tight' as you are presenting in your question. Hating Debt is a great motivator, but you shouldn't let it lead you to make even bigger financial mistakes. I think you started doing well and got promotions and did what almost everyone else does; you increased your standard of living. No matter what you choose to do, you will never build your retirement or have financial stability without living on a budget and spending less than you make. Maybe attacking this debt the old-fashioned way will give you the tools you need to gain financial stability long-term. Updated to address calculations Assuming 18% CC interest and 10% IRA Growth. And always spending at least $1500 on CC debt until it's gone, then $1,500 back into retirement after that. If you continued paying $1,500 a month the credit cards would take about 71 months to pay off. In that time, you'd spend a total of $106,500 on the debt. Your plan would spend $60k upfront to reduce the debt by $40k. The new balance of $25k would be paid off in 20 months and would cost $30k total. Total cost on your plan would be $90k. Your plan pays $16.5k less in total, and it would be 51 months quicker. However, you would have no retirement at age 40. If you then saved $1500 a month in retirement, you would catch up to the $70k loss in your IRA at age 49 (I'm including growth in both accounts to calculate this). If you had instead just left the IRA alone, you'd be done with the CCs at age 44. If after age 44, you put in $1500 month into retirement your plan would never catch up to this plan. It seems to me that cashing out your IRA is a 5 year detour.",
"qid": 11039,
"docid": "515615",
"rank": 94,
"score": 103780
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I think it depends on how you're approaching paying off the credit card. If you're doing some sort of debt snowball and/or throw all available cash at the card, it's not likely to matter much. If you're paying a set amount close to the minimum each month then you're probably better off getting a loan, use it to pay off the card and cut up the card. Well, I'd do the latter in either case... Mathematically it would matter if the interest rate on the card is 10%-15% higher than the personal loan but if you're throwing every spare dime at the card and the some, it might not matter. Another option if you have the discipline to pay the debt off quickly is to see if you can find a card with a cheap balance transfer, move the balance over and close the inflexible card.",
"qid": 11039,
"docid": "287157",
"rank": 95,
"score": 103759
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You asked specifically about the ROTH IRA option and stated you want to get the most bang for your buck in retirement. While others have pointed out the benefits of a tax deduction due to using a Traditional IRA instead, I haven't seen anyone point out some of the other differences between ROTH and Traditional, such as: I agree with your thoughts on using an IRA once you maximize the company match into a 401k plan. My reasoning is: I personally prefer ETFs over mutual funds for the ability to get in and out with limit, stop, or OCO orders, at open or anytime mid-day if needed. However, the price for that flexibility is that you risk discounts to NAV for ETFs that you wouldn't have with the equivalent mutual fund. Said another way, you may find yourself selling your ETF for less than the holdings are actually worth. Personally, I value the ability to exit positions at the time of my choosing more highly than the impact of tracking error on NAV. Also, as a final comment to your plan, if it were me I'd personally pay off the student loans with any money I had after contributing enough to my employer 401k to maximize matching. The net effect of paying down the loans is a guaranteed avg 5.3% annually (given what you've said) whereas any investments in 401k or IRA are at risk and have no such guarantee. In fact, with there being reasonable arguments that this has been an excessively long bull market, you might figure your chances of a 5.3% or better return are pretty low for new money put into an IRA or 401k today. That said, I'm long on stocks still, but then I don't have debt besides my mortgage at the moment. If I weren't so conservative, I'd be looking to maximize my leverage in the continued low rate environment.",
"qid": 11039,
"docid": "182305",
"rank": 96,
"score": 103616
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Agree with Randy, if debt and debt reduction was all about math, nobody would be in debt. It is an emotional game. If you've taken care of the reasons you're in debt, changed your behaviors, then start focusing on the math of getting it done faster. Otherwise, if you don't have a handle on the behaviors that got you there, you're just going to get more rope to hang yourself with. I.e., makes sense to take a low-interest home equity loan to pay off high-interest credit card debt, but more likely than not, you'll just re-rack up the debt on the cards because you never fixed the behavior that put you into debt. Same thing here, if you opt not to contribute to \"\"pay off the cards\"\" without fixing the debt-accumulating behaviors, what you're going to do is stay in debt AND not provide for retirement. Take the match until you're certain you have your debt accumulation habits in check.\"",
"qid": 11039,
"docid": "293531",
"rank": 97,
"score": 103163
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Congratulations on doing all the right things in your financial life. To me, the answer to your question is a no-brainer: pay off the loans immediately. However, I am sure that some people will post answers arguing exactly the opposite. I would also recommend using the extra cash that you will have each month (since the payments on the loans will disappear) to increase your 401k contributions even though they will not attract additional company match, and once again, you will certainly get answers telling you why doing so is a very bad idea.",
"qid": 11039,
"docid": "409681",
"rank": 98,
"score": 102803
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Are you working? Does your employer offer a 401(k) and if so, is there any match? Saving should be taught to kids at the same time they are old enough to get an allowance. There are many numbers tossed around, but 10% is a start for any new saver. If a college graduate can start by saving even 15%, better still. If you find that the 10% is too much, just start with what you can spare, and work to build that up over time, perhaps by splitting any future raises, half going toward savings, half to spending. Good luck. Edit - my 12 yr old made good money this summer baby sitting. I'm opening a Roth IRA for her. A 10 yr head start on her retirement savings. Edit (Jan-2013) - she's 14 now, 3 deposits to the Roth total $6000, and she's planning to up the number this year. Her goal is to have $50K saved in her Roth by the time she graduates college. Edit, by request (July-2017) 18, and off to college next month. Just under $24K, all invested in an S&P low cost index. We are planning to continue deposits of $4-$5K/yr, so the $50K is still a good goal.",
"qid": 11039,
"docid": "553288",
"rank": 99,
"score": 102670
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"One description of what happened is at 401(k) Plan Fix-It Guide. The issue is the plan was \"\"Top Heavy,\"\" i.e. those making a high income were making disproportionately larger deposits than the lower paid employees. As the IRS article suggests, a nice matching deposit from the employer can eliminate the lower limit caused by the top heavy-ness. Searching on [top heavy 401(k)] will yield more details if you wish to research more.\"",
"qid": 11039,
"docid": "333102",
"rank": 100,
"score": 102204
}
] |
Short Term Capital Gains tax vs. IRA Withdrawal Tax w/o Quarterly Est. Taxes | [
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"There is not a special rate for short-term capital gains. Only long-term gains have a special rate. Short-term gains are taxed at your ordinary-income rate (see here). Hence if you're in the 25% bracket, your short-term gain would be taxed at 25%. The IRA withdrawal, as you already mentioned, would be taxed at 25%, plus a 10% penalty, for 35% total. Thus the bite on the IRA withdrawal is larger than that on a non-IRA withdrawal. As for the estimated tax issue, I don't think there will be a significant difference there. The reason is that (traditional) IRA withdrawals count as ordinary taxable income (see here). This means that, when you withdraw the funds from your IRA, you will increase your income. If that increase pushes you too far beyond what your withholding is accounting for, then you owe estimated tax. In other words, whether you get the money by selling stocks in a taxable account or by withdrawing them from an IRA, you still increase your taxable income, and thus potentially expose yourself to the estimated tax obligation. (In fact, there may be a difference. As you note, you will pay tax at the capital gains rate on gains from selling in a taxable account. But if you sell the stocks inside the IRA and withdraw, that is ordinary income. However, since ordinary income is taxed at a higher rate than long-term capital gains, you will potentially pay more tax on the IRA withdrawal, since it will be taxed at the higher rate, if your gains are long-term rather than short term. This is doubly true if you withdraw early, incurring the extra 10% penalty. See this question for some more discussion of this issue.) In addition, I think you may be somewhat misunderstanding the nature of estimated tax. The IRS will not \"\"ask\"\" you for a quarterly estimated tax when you sell stock. The IRS does not monitor your activity and send you a bill each quarter. They may indeed check whether your reported income jibes with info they received from your bank, etc., but they'll still do that regardless of whether you got that income by selling in a taxable account or withdrawing money from an IRA, because both of those increase your taxable income. Quarterly estimated tax is not an extra tax; it is just you paying your normal income tax over the course of the year instead of all at once. If your withholdings will not cover enough of your tax liability, you must figure that out yourself and pay the estimated tax (see here); if you don't do so, you may be assessed a penalty. It doesn't matter how you got the money; if your taxable income is too high relative to your withheld tax, then you have to pay the estimated tax. Typically tax will be withheld from your IRA distribution, but if it's not withheld, you'll still owe it as estimated tax.\"",
"qid": 11054,
"docid": "155053",
"rank": 1,
"score": 176065
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Bottom line is this: there's no \"\"short term capital gains tax\"\" in the US. There's only long term capital gains tax, which is lower than the regular (aka ordinary) tax rates. Short term capital gains are taxed using the ordinary tax rates, depending on your bracket. So if you're in the 25% bracket - your short term gains are taxed at 25%. You're describing two options: For the case #1 you'll pay 25% tax (your marginal rate) + 10% penalty (flat rate), total 35%. For the case #2 you'll pay 25% tax (your marginal rate) + 0% penalty. Total 25%. Thus, by withdrawing from IRA you'll be 10% worse than by realizing capital gains. In addition, if you need $10K - taking it from IRA will make the whole amount taxable. While realizing capital gains from a taxable account will make only the gains taxable, the original investment amount is yours and had been taxed before. So not only there's a 10% difference in the tax rate, there's also a significant difference in the amount being taxed. Thus, withdrawing from IRA is generally not a good idea, and you will never be better off with withdrawing from IRA than with cashing out taxable investments (from tax perspective). That's by design.\"",
"qid": 11054,
"docid": "321015",
"rank": 2,
"score": 168994
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: First you need to distinguish between short-term and long-term capital gains. In an IRA you can use investment strategies that incur short-term capital gains without being taxed as ordinary income. As mentioned in a comment above, with a Roth IRA, you can invest now at your low income tax rates and withdraw all gains without incurring any taxes at retirement time. You can also pull out your contributions penalty free before retirement age (59 1/2) if you've had the account for more than 5 years. You only pay taxes and penalties on the earnings. You can also make withdrawals for education expenses and you have one lifetime exclusion of $10,000 for a down-payment on a house.",
"qid": 11054,
"docid": "101578",
"rank": 3,
"score": 156287
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You're misunderstanding the concept of retirement savings. IRA distributions are taxed, in their entirety, as ordinary income. If you withdraw before the retirement age, additional 10% penalty is added. Investment income has preferential treatment - long term capital gains and qualified dividends are taxed at lower rates than ordinary income. However, IRA contributions are tax deductible. I.e.: you don't pay taxes on the amounts contributed to the IRA when you earned the money, only when you withdraw. In the mean time, the money is growing, tax free, based on your investments. Anything inside the IRA is tax free, including dividends, distributions (from funds to your IRA, not from IRA to you), capital gains, etc. This is very powerful, when taking into account the compounding effect of reinvesting your dividends/sale proceeds without taking a chunk out for taxes. Consider you make an investment in a fund that appreciated 100% in half a year. You cash out to reinvest in something less volatile to lock the gains. In a regular account - you pay taxes when you sell, based on your brackets. In the IRA you reinvest all of your sale proceeds. That would be ~25-35% more of the gains to reinvest and continue working for you! However, if you decide to withdraw - you pay ordinary rate taxes on the whole amount. If you would invest in a single fund for 30 years in a regular account - you'd pay 20% capital gains tax (on the appreciation, not the dividends). In the IRA, if you invest in the same fund for the same period - you'll pay your ordinary income rates. However, the benefit of reinvesting dividends tax-free softens the blow somewhat, but that's much harder to quantify. Bottom line: if you want to plan for retirement - plan for retirment. Otherwise - IRA is not an investment vehicle. Also consider Roth IRA/conversions. Roth IRA has the benefit of tax free distributions at retirement. If your current tax bracket is at 20%, for example, contributing $5K to Roth IRA instead of a traditional will cost you $1K of taxes now, but will save you all the taxes during the retirement (for the distributions from the Roth IRA). It may be very much worth your while, especially if you can contribute directly to Roth IRA (there are some income limitations and phaseouts). You can withdraw contributions (but not earnings) from Roth IRA - something you cannot do with a traditional IRA.",
"qid": 11054,
"docid": "561636",
"rank": 4,
"score": 144984
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Basically, the idea of an IRA is that the money is earned by you and would normally be taxed at the individual rate, but the government is allowing you to avoid paying the taxes on it now by instead putting it in the account. This \"\"tax deferral\"\" encourages retirement savings by reducing your current taxable income (providing a short-term \"\"carrot\"\"). However, the government will want their cut; specifically, when you begin withdrawing from that account, the principal which wasn't taxed when you put it in will be taxed at the current individual rate when you take it out. When you think about it, that's only fair; you didn't pay taxes on it when it came out of your paycheck, so you should pay that tax once you're withdrawing it to live on. Here's the rub; the interest is also taxed at the individual rate. At the time, that was a good thing; the capital gains rate in 1976 (when the Regular IRA was established) was 35%, the highest it's ever been. Now, that's not looking so good because the current cap gains rate is only 15%. However, these rates rise and fall, cap gains more than individual rates, and so by contributing to a Traditional IRA you simplify your tax bill; the principal and interest is taxed at the individual rate as if you were still making a paycheck. A Roth IRA is basically the government trying to get money now by giving up money later. You pay the marginal individual rate on the contributions as you earn them (it becomes a \"\"post-tax deduction\"\") but then that money is completely yours, and the kicker is that the government won't tax the interest on it if you don't withdraw it before retirement age. This makes Roths very attractive to retirement investors as a hedge against higher overall tax rates later in life. If you think that, for any reason, you'll be paying more taxes in 30 years than you would be paying for the same money now, you should be investing in a Roth. A normal (non-IRA) investment account, at first, seems to be the worst of both worlds; you pay individual tax on all earned wages that you invest, then capital gains on the money your investment earns (stock gains and dividends, bond interest, etc) whenever you cash out. However, a traditional account has the most flexibility; you can keep your money in and take your money out on a timeline you choose. This means you can react both to market moves AND to tax changes; when a conservative administration slashes tax rates on capital gains, you can cash out, pay that low rate on the money you made from your account, and then the money's yours to spend or to reinvest. You can, if you're market- and tax-savvy, use all three of these instruments to your overall advantage. When tax rates are high now, contribute to a traditional IRA, and then withdraw the money during your retirement in times where individual tax rates are low. When tax rates are low (like right now), max out your Roth contributions, and use that money after retirement when tax rates are high. Use a regular investment account as an overage to Roth contributions when taxes are low; contribute when the individual rate is low, then capitalize and reinvest during times when capital gains taxes are low (perhaps replacing a paycheck deduction in annual contributions to a Roth, or you can simply fold it back into the investment account). This isn't as good as a Roth but is better than a Traditional; by capitalizing at an advantageous time, you turn interest earned into principal invested and pay a low tax on it at that time to avoid a higher tax later. However, the market and the tax structure have to coincide to make ordinary investing pay off; you may have bought in in the early 90s, taking advantage of the lowest individual rates since the Great Depression. While now, capital gains taxes are the lowest they've ever been, if you cash out you may not be realizing much of a gain in the first place.\"",
"qid": 11054,
"docid": "508219",
"rank": 5,
"score": 141126
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The point is to provide for yourself in retirement, so it makes sense that these withdrawals would be penalized. Tax deferred accounts are usually created for a specific cause. Using them outside of the scope of that cause triggers penalties. You mentioned 401(k) and IRA that have age limitations because they're geared towards retirement. In the US, here are other types, and if you intend to spend money in the related areas, they may be worth considering. Otherwise, you'll hit penalties as well. Examples: HSA - Health Savings Account allows saving pre-tax contributions and gains towards medical expenses. You must have a high deductible health plan to be eligible. Can be used as IRA once retired. 529 plans - allow saving pre-tax gains (and in some states pre-tax contributions) for education expenses for you or a beneficiary. If a beneficiary - contributions are considered a gift. There's a tax benefit in long term investing in a regular taxable brokerage accounts - long term capital gains are taxed at a preferable (lower) rate than short term or ordinary income. The difference may be significant. Long term = 1+ year holding. The condition here is holding an investment for more than a year, and there's no penalty for not satisfying it but there's a reward (lower rates) if you do.",
"qid": 11054,
"docid": "181611",
"rank": 6,
"score": 139039
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Capital gains tax is an income tax upon your profit from selling investments. Long-term capital gains (investments you have held for more than a year) are taxed significantly less than short-term gains. It doesn't limit how many shares you can sell; it does discourage selling them too quickly after buying. You can balance losses against gains to reduce the tax due. You can look for tax-advantaged investments (the obvious one being a 401k plan, IRA, or equivalent, though those generally require leaving the money invested until retirement). But in the US, most investments other than the house you are living in (which some of us argue isn't really an investment) are subject to capital gains tax, period.",
"qid": 11054,
"docid": "196427",
"rank": 7,
"score": 137268
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Is that basically it? Trading off between withdrawing-anytime vs paying-capital-gain-tax? No. Another significant factor is dividends. In an IRA they incur no immediate tax and can be reinvested. This causes the account value to compound over the years. Historically, this compounding of dividends provides about half of the total return on investments. In a non-IRA account you have to pay taxes each year on all dividends received, whether you reinvest them or not. So outside of an IRA you have a tax drag on both capital gains and dividends.",
"qid": 11054,
"docid": "199544",
"rank": 8,
"score": 134908
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"IRA is a tax-deferred account. I.e.: you're not paying any taxes on the income within the account (as long as you don't withdraw it) and you can deduct the investment (with certain limitation on how much, depending on your total AGI). It is taxed when you withdraw it - at ordinary rates for the \"\"traditional\"\" IRA and with 0% rate for ROTH, as long as the withdrawal is qualified (if not qualified - you pay ordinary rate tax for ROTH and additional 10% tax for both on the taxable amounts). The details are a bit complicated (there's deductible IRA, non-deductible IRA, roll-overs, etc etc), but that's the basic. Regular investment accounts are taxed currently on any income, but you get the \"\"better\"\" capital gains rates on many things. So which one is better depends how long your investment is going to be, what is your tax situation now, and what you anticipate it to be later when you retire.\"",
"qid": 11054,
"docid": "109305",
"rank": 9,
"score": 131374
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you are inside of a ROTH IRA you are not getting taxed on any gain. Dividends, distributions, interest payment, or capital gains are never taxed. This, of course, assumes you wait until age 59.5 to do ROTH withdrawals on your gains.",
"qid": 11054,
"docid": "290182",
"rank": 10,
"score": 131291
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: First of all, there are some differences between the retirement accounts that you mentioned regarding taxes. Traditional IRA and 401(k) accounts allow you to make pre-tax contributions, giving you an immediate tax deduction when you contribute. Roth IRA, Roth 401(k) are funded with after tax money, and a non-retirement account is, of course, also funded with after tax money. So if you are looking for the immediate tax deduction, this is a point in favor of the retirement accounts. Roth IRA & Roth 401(k) accounts allow the investment to grow tax-free, which means that the growth is not taxed, even when taking the investment out at retirement. With Traditional IRA and 401(k) accounts, you need to pay tax on the gains realized in the account when you withdraw the money, just as you do with a non-retirement account. This is a point in favor of the Roth retirement accounts. To answer your question about capital gains, yes, it is true that you do not have a capital gain until an investment is sold. So, discounting the contribution tax deductions of the retirement accounts, if you only bought individual stocks that never paid a dividend, and never sold them until retirement, you are correct that it really wouldn't matter if you had it in a regular brokerage account or in a traditional IRA. However, even people dedicated to buy-and-hold rarely actually buy only individual stocks and hold them for 30 years. There are several different circumstances that will generally happen in the time between now and when you want to withdraw the money in retirement that would be taxable events if you are not in a retirement account: If you sell an investment and buy a different one, the gains would be taxable. If you want to rebalance your holdings, this also involves selling a portion of your investments. For example, if you want to maintain an 80% stock/20% bond ratio, and your stock values have gone up to 90%, you might want to sell some stock and buy bonds. Or if you are getting closer to retirement, you might decide to go with a higher percentage of bonds. This would trigger capital gains. Inside a mutual fund, anytime the management sells investments inside the fund and realizes capital gains, these gains are passed on to the investors, and are taxable. (This happens more often with managed funds than index funds, but still happens occasionally with index funds.) Dividends earned by the investments are taxable. Any of these events in a non-retirement account would trigger taxes that need to be paid immediately, even if you don't withdraw a cent from your account.",
"qid": 11054,
"docid": "94496",
"rank": 11,
"score": 131155
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Here are the few scenarios that may be worth noting in terms of using different types of accounts: Traditional IRA. In this case, the monies would grow tax-deferred and all monies coming out will be taxed as ordinary income. Think of it as everything is in one big black box and the whole thing is coming out to be taxed. Roth IRA. In this case, you could withdraw the contributions anytime without penalty. (Source should one want it for further research.) Past 59.5, the withdrawals are tax-free in my understanding. Thus, one could access some monies earlier than retirement age if one considers all the contributions that are at least 5 years old. Taxable account. In this case, each year there will be distributions to pay taxes as well as anytime one sells shares as that will trigger capital gains. In this case, taxes are worth noting as depending on the index fund one may have various taxes to consider. For example, a bond index fund may have some interest that would be taxed that the IRA could shelter to some extent. While index funds can be a low-cost option, in some cases there may be capital gains each year to keep up with the index. For example, small-cap indices and value indices would have stocks that may \"\"outgrow\"\" the index by either becoming mid-cap or large-cap in the case of small-cap or the value stock's valuation rises enough that it becomes a growth stock that is pulled out of the index. This is why some people may prefer to use tax-advantaged accounts for those funds that may not be as tax-efficient. The Bogleheads have an article on various accounts that can also be useful as dg99's comment referenced. Disclosure: I'm not an accountant or work for the IRS.\"",
"qid": 11054,
"docid": "272458",
"rank": 12,
"score": 130878
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: In the US, the key to understanding the benefits of retirement accounts is to understand capital gains taxes and how they work. Retirement accounts are designed for making investments throughout your career, then after several decades of contributions, withdrawing that money to pay for your needs when your full-time employment has concluded. Normally when you invest money in a brokerage account, if the value of your investment increases, and you sell in less than a year, those investments are considered short-term gains and taxed as ordinary income. If you hold that same investment for over a year, the same investment is taxed at a lower capital gains rate (depending on which tax bracket you are in during that year, the amount due could be up to 20%, but much lower than your regular income tax rate). When you place your money in a retirement account, you are choosing to either pay the tax due on the income when you put it in the account, or put the money in tax free and pay the tax when you withdraw (these are called tax-deferred accounts). When you have money invested several decades, the raw dollar amount increases greatly, but inflation is also reducing the value of those dollars. Imagine you bought some bonds that payed 4% over 40 years, but inflation was 2% during those same years. When you sell those bonds 40 years later, you will owe capital gains on the entire gain even though half of the gain came from inflation. Retirement accounts allow you to buy and sell according to your investment needs and goals without any consideration about whether the gains are short-term or long-term, and they also allow you to pay taxes just once, either when you put it in, or when you take it out, with no worries about whether you're paying taxes on inflated gains.",
"qid": 11054,
"docid": "170717",
"rank": 13,
"score": 129681
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I'll add this to others: Having non-deductible portion in your IRA requires additional tax forms to be attached to your tax return, and tracking. If you plan to have long-term investments in your non-deductible IRA (such as, say, target funds or long-term stock positions that you expect to hold till retirement) it may be better to keep them in a non-IRA account. This is because the income tax on the withdrawals from the IRA is at ordinary rates, and from the regular investment account is at capital gains rate. While the rates can definitely change, traditionally capital gains rates are significantly lower than the ordinary income bracket rates. So generally I think that having non-deductible IRA deposits is only useful if you're planning a ROTH conversion in a near future.",
"qid": 11054,
"docid": "382894",
"rank": 14,
"score": 128795
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Yes, you may make non-deductible contributions to an IRA. The main benefit of a non-deductible IRA is tax-deferred earnings. If the investment pays out dividends, they will be kept in the IRA (whether you take them in cash and put them in a Cash Management Account, or you automatically reinvest them). You do not get taxed on these earnings until you withdraw from the IRA during retirement. If your income at that time is significantly lower than your income while you're working, you will be in a lower tax bracket (unless tax rates change drastically between now and then), so the taxes you pay on these earnings will be lower than if you'd invested outside the IRA and paid taxes along the way. You also get the benefit of compounding of the tax-deferred earnings. There's one caveat -- when you withdraw from the IRA, all the growth is treated as ordinary income. Even if some of it is capital gains, it will be taxed at your ordinary income rate, not your capital gains rate. So this is most beneficial for investments that produce dividends. If you have a mix of deductible and non-deductible contributions to your IRA, the tax on the principle portion of your withdrawals is pro-rated based on the ratio of deductible to total contributions. This ensures that you eventually get taxed for the deductible portion (it's not really tax-free, it's tax-deferred), but don't get taxed twice for the non-deductible portion. Another option, if your 401(k) plan allows it, is to make after-tax contributions to the 401(k). At the end of the year, you can make an in-service distribution of these contributions and their earnings from the 401(k) to a Roth Conversion IRA. This allows you to contribute to a Roth IRA even if you're above the income limit for normal Roth IRA contributions. You can also do this even if you're also making non-deductible contributions to your regular IRA.",
"qid": 11054,
"docid": "459589",
"rank": 15,
"score": 128611
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"One reason is that you can trade in the IRA without incurring incremental taxes along the way. This may be especially important if you intend to shift your portfolio allocation as you approach retirement. For instance, gradually selling stocks and buying bonds can incur taxes if you do it in a taxable account (if you do it while you have other income and thus may face capital gains taxes). Also, if you have mutual funds in a taxable account, they may distribute capital gains to you that you'll owe taxes on, but holding the funds in an IRA will shield you from that. There are also some other side benefits to IRAs because they are considered to \"\"not count\"\" for certain purposes when determining what you're worth. For instance, if you go bankrupt, you could be forced to sell assets in taxable accounts to pay your creditors, whereas IRAs are protected in many cases. Likewise, if you try to get financial aid to pay for college for your kids, money in an IRA won't be counted among your assets in determining your aid eligibility, potentially giving your kids access to more aid money. Finally, an especially prominent benefit is, paradoxically, the early withdrawal penalty. For many people, part of the purpose of an IRA is to \"\"lock away\"\" their money and prevent themselves from accessing it until retirement. Early withdrawal penalties provide a concrete consequence that psychologically deters them from raiding their retirement savings willy-nilly.\"",
"qid": 11054,
"docid": "105468",
"rank": 16,
"score": 126560
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The \"\"risk\"\", other than losing principal (especially when rates go up) is capital gains. As with any mutual fund, this one might need to sell assets for cashflow. In which case the taxes on the sales are shifted to the investors. So you may end up with the fund losing value due to price fluctuations, yet you'll have capital gains (probably with a significant short term part since the maturity periods are relatively short) to pay taxes on. To what extent that may happen depends on the fund's cashflow (influx of money vs. withdrawals). Capital gains reduce your basis (since no money is actually distributed), but if you hold the fund for more than a year - you lose the difference between the short term and the long term tax for the short term portion of the gains.\"",
"qid": 11054,
"docid": "472159",
"rank": 17,
"score": 126286
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: There are a few incorrect assumptions in your question but the TL;DR version is: All, or most, of the withdrawal is taxable income that is reported on Lines 15a (total distribution) and 15b (taxable amount) of Form 1040. None of the distribution is given special treatment as Qualified Dividends or Capital Gains regardless of what happened inside the IRA, and none of the distribution is subject to the 3.8% Net Investment Income Tax that some high-income people need to compute on Form 8960. If the withdrawal is not a Qualified Distribution, it will be subject to a 10% excise tax (tax penalty on premature withdrawal). Not all contributions to Traditional IRAs are deductible from income for the year for which the contribution was made. People with high income and/or coverage by a workplace retirement plan (pension plan, 401(k) plan, 403(b) plan, etc) cannot deduct any contributions that they choose to make to a Traditional IRA. Such people can always make a contribution (subject to them having compensation (earned income such as salary or wages, self-employment income, commissions on sales, etc), but they don't get a tax deduction for it (just as contributions to Roth IRAs are not deductible). Whether it is wise to make such nondeductible contributions to a Traditional IRA is a question on which reasonable people can hold different opinions. Be that as it may, nondeductible contributions to a Traditional IRA create (or add to) what is called the basis of an IRA. They are reported to the IRS on Form 8606 which is attached to the Federal Form 1040. Note that the IRA custodian or trustee is not told that the contributions are not deductible. Earnings on the basis accumulate tax-deferred within the IRA just as do the earnings on the deductible contributions. Now, when you make a withdrawal from your Traditional IRA, no matter which of your various IRA accounts you take the money from, part of the money is deemed to be taken from the basis (and is not subject to income tax) while the rest is pure taxable income. That is, none of the rest is eligible for the reduced taxation rates for Qualified Dividends or Capital Gains and since it does not count as investment income, it is not subject to the 3.8% Net Investment Tax of Form 8960 either. Computation of how much of your withdrawal is nontaxable basis and how much is taxable income is done on Form 8606. Note that you don't get to withdraw your entire basis until such time as when you close all your Traditional IRA accounts. How is all this reported? Well, your IRA custodian(s) will send you Form 1099-R reporting the total amount of the withdrawal, what income tax, if any, was withheld, etc. The custodian(s) don't know what your basis is, and so Box 2b will say that the taxable amount is not determined. You need to fill out Form 8606 to figure out what the taxable amount is, and then report the taxable amount on Line 15b of Form 1040. (The total withdrawal is reported on Line 15a which is not included in the AGI computations). Note that as far as the IRS is concerned, you have only one Traditional IRA. The A in IRA stands for Arrangement, not Account as most everybody thinks, and your Traditional IRA can invest in many different things, stocks, bonds, mutual funds, etc with different custodians if you choose, but your basis is in the IRA, not the specific investment that you made with your nondeductible contribution. That's why the total IRA contribution is limited, not the per-account contribution, and why you need to look that the total value of your IRA in determining the taxable portion, not the specific account(s) from which you withdrew the money. So, how much basis did you withdraw? Well, if you withdrew $W during 2016 and the total value of all your Traditional IRA accounts was $X at the end of 2016 and your total basis in your Traditional IRA is $B, then (assuming that you did not indulge in any Traditional-to-Roth rollovers for 2016), multiply W by B/(W+X) to get the amount of nontaxable basis in the withdrawal. B thus gets reduced for 2017 by amount of basis withdrawal. What if you never made a nondeductible contribution to your Traditional IRA, or you made some nondeductible contributions many years ago and have forgotten about them? Well, you could still fill out Form 8606 reporting a zero basis, but it will just tell you that your basis continues $0. Or, you could just enter the total amount of your withdrawal in Lines 15a and 15b, effectively saying that all of the withdrawal is taxable income to you. The IRS does not care if you choose to pay taxes on nontaxable income.",
"qid": 11054,
"docid": "482768",
"rank": 18,
"score": 122381
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: No matter what, you owe taxes on the gains, known as capital gains. How much, depends on how long you invested it for. In your example, each month is treated separately - each month you contribute starts a new clock on that set of investments. If you hold it for longer than a year, the taxes are treated as long-term, and less than a year is short-term. Short term taxes are at your marginal rate, and long term taxes are different, usually 15%. https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc400/tc409",
"qid": 11054,
"docid": "536390",
"rank": 19,
"score": 122196
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: There is nothing wrong with self directed IRA's the problem is that most of the assets they specialize in are better done in other ways. Real estate is already extremely tax advantaged in the US. Buying inside a Traditional IRA would turn longterm capital gains (currently 15%) into ordinary income taxed at your tax rate when you withdraw this may be a plus or minus, but it is more likely than not that your ordinary income tax rate is higher. You also can't do the live in each house for 2 years before selling plan to eliminate capital gains taxes (250k individual 500k married couple). The final problem is that you are going to have problems getting a mortgage (it won't be a conforming loan) and will likely have to pay cash for any real estate purchased inside your IRA. Foreign real estate is similar to above except you have additional tax complexities. The key to the ownership in a business is that there are limits on who can control the business (you and maybe your family can't control the business). If you are experienced doing angel investing this might be a viable option (assuming you have a really big IRA you want to gamble with). If you want to speculate on precious metals you will probably be better offer using ETF's in a more traditional brokerage account (lower transactions costs more liquidity).",
"qid": 11054,
"docid": "573935",
"rank": 20,
"score": 121798
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Your question is missing too much to be answered directly. Instead - here are some points to consider. Short term gains taxed at your marginal rates, whereas long term gains have preferable capital gains rates (up to 20% tax rate, instead of your marginal rate). So if you're selling at gain, you might want to consider to sell FIFO and pay lower capital gains tax rate instead of the short term marginal rate. If you're selling at loss and have other short term gains, you would probably be better selling LIFO, so that the loss could offset other short term gains that you might have. If you're selling at loss and don't have short term gains to offset, you can still offset your long term gains with short term losses, but the tax benefit will be lower. In this case - FIFO might be a better choice again. If you're selling at loss, beware of the wash sale rules, as you might not be able to deduct the loss if you buy/sell within too short a window.",
"qid": 11054,
"docid": "366560",
"rank": 21,
"score": 121130
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The simplest explanation is that a traditional IRA is a method of deferring taxes. That is, normally you pay taxes on money you earn at the ordinary rate then invest the rest and only pay the capital gains rate. However, with a traditional IRA you don't pay taxes on the money when you earn it, you defer the payment of those taxes until you retire. So in the end it ends up being treated the same. That said, if you are strategic about it you can wind up paying less taxes with this type of account.",
"qid": 11054,
"docid": "114912",
"rank": 22,
"score": 120107
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The capital gain is either short-term or long-term and will be indicated on the 1099-DiV. You pay taxes on this amount as the capital gain was received in a taxable account (assuming since you received a 1099-DIV). More info here: https://www.mutualfundstore.com/brokerage-account/capital-gains-distributions-taxable",
"qid": 11054,
"docid": "251394",
"rank": 23,
"score": 119787
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Post-tax (i.e. non-retirement account) investing is nothing to ignore. You don't mention a spouse, so for a start, you still have the $5500 to put in an IRA. The remaining investment funds will earn dividends, if any, at a tax preferred rate, and then the gain on sale will be taxed at 15% if the code doesn't change again. The gains accumulate tax deferred, and you control the timing of the sale. With a 401(k) all withdrawal are taxable as income. In your case, just the gain is taxed at a potential long term cap gain rate. Hopefully the new job pays more than the old one and the loss of 401(k) is compensated.",
"qid": 11054,
"docid": "571142",
"rank": 24,
"score": 119560
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Appreciation of a Capital Asset is a Capital Gain. In the United States, Capital Gains get favorable tax treatment after being held for 12 months. From the IRS newsroom: Capital gains and losses are classified as long-term or short-term, depending on how long you hold the property before you sell it. If you hold it more than one year, your capital gain or loss is long-term. If you hold it one year or less, your capital gain or loss is short-term. The tax rates that apply to net capital gain are generally lower than the tax rates that apply to other income. For 2009, the maximum capital gains rate for most people is15%. For lower-income individuals, the rate may be 0% on some or all of the net capital gain. Special types of net capital gain can be taxed at 25% or 28%. The IRS defines a Capital Asset as \"\"most property you own\"\" with a list of exclusions found in Schedule D Instructions. None of the exclusions listed relate to Bond ETFs.\"",
"qid": 11054,
"docid": "149305",
"rank": 25,
"score": 119075
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: This will work as intended, but there's another point to consider. In the US, the tax rate on proceeds from stock sales is higher for short term holdings, which are defined as held for less than one year. Both rates vary based on your income. Bracket numbers are for fiscal year 2014, filing as single. The difference between short and long term capital gains tax in the US is a minimum of ten percentage points, and works out to 15 percentage points on average. This is substantial. If you won't be reporting much income the year you move to the US (say because you only worked for a portion of the year) it is decidedly to your advantage to wait and sell the stocks in the US, to get that sweet 0% rate. At a minimum, you should hold the position for a year if you sell and rebuy, from a tax optimization perspective. Two caveats:",
"qid": 11054,
"docid": "501214",
"rank": 26,
"score": 118479
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: In the United States Short-term capital gains are taxed at rates similar to regular income which is 25% if you make less than $91,000 and 28% if you make more than that but less than $190,000. If you make more than $190,000 then the rate is 33%. If you hold the stock for a year or more than the tax rate is 15%, unless your income is less than $33,000 in which case there is no tax on long-term gains. As a general rule, the way to make money is to stay out of debt, so I cannot advise you to assume a mortgage. Financially you are better off investing your money. Much like you I bought a house with a mortgage using about $30,000 in a down payment about 20 years ago and I paid it off a few years ago. If I had to do it over again, I would have bought a shack (a steel building) for $30,000 and lived in that and invested my income. If I had done that, I would be about $500,000 richer today than I am now.",
"qid": 11054,
"docid": "116017",
"rank": 27,
"score": 118163
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You can keep the cash in your account as long as you want, but you have to pay a tax on what's called capital gains. To quote from Wikipedia: A capital gain is a profit that results from investments into a capital asset, such as stocks, bonds or real estate, which exceeds the purchase price. It is the difference between a higher selling price and a lower purchase price, resulting in a financial gain for the investor.[1] Conversely, a capital loss arises if the proceeds from the sale of a capital asset are less than the purchase price. Thus, buying/selling stock counts as investment income which would be a capital gain/loss. When you are filing taxes, you have to report net capital gain/loss. So you don't pay taxes on an individual stock sale or purchase - you pay tax on the sum of all your transactions. Note: You do not pay any tax if you have a net capital loss. Taxes are only on capital gains. The amount you are taxed depends on your tax bracket and your holding period. A short term capital gain is gain on an investment held for less than one year. These gains are taxed at your ordinary income tax rate. A long term capital gain is gain on an investment held for more than one year. These gains are taxed at a special rate: If your income tax rate is 10 or 15%, then long term gains are taxed at 0% i.e. no tax, otherwise the tax rate is 15%. So you're not taxed on specific stock sales - you're taxed on your total gain. There is no tax for a capital loss, and investors sometimes take profits from good investments and take losses from bad investments to lower their total capital gain so they won't be taxed as much. The tax rate is expected to change in 2013, but the current ratios could be extended. Until then, however, the rate is as is. Of course, this all applies if you live in the United States. Other countries have different measures. Hope it helps! Wikipedia has a great chart to refer to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_gains_tax_in_the_United_States.",
"qid": 11054,
"docid": "169240",
"rank": 28,
"score": 116959
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"The tax comes when you close the position. If the option expires worthless it's as if you bought it back for $0. There's a short-term capital gain for the difference between your short-sale price and your buyback price on the option. I believe the capital gain is always short-term because short sales are treated as short-term even if you hold them open more than one year. If the option is exercised (calling away your stock) then you add the premium to your sale price on the stock and then compute the capital gain. So in this case you can end up treating the premium as a long-term capital gain. See IRS pub 550 http://www.irs.gov/publications/p550/ch04.html#en_US_2010_publink100010619 Search for \"\"Writers of puts and calls\"\"\"",
"qid": 11054,
"docid": "478600",
"rank": 29,
"score": 116933
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Gee son. That's a potential for a better than 10% gain in a short amount of time. If bought within a tax advantaged account like a IRA then you don't even pay capital gains. Does Lube know? Last I checked he was obsessing over \"\"bowels\"\" or some shit.\"",
"qid": 11054,
"docid": "104094",
"rank": 30,
"score": 116760
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Here's how capital gains are totaled: Long and Short Term. Capital gains and losses are either long-term or short-term. It depends on how long the taxpayer holds the property. If the taxpayer holds it for one year or less, the gain or loss is short-term. Net Capital Gain. If a taxpayer’s long-term gains are more than their long-term losses, the difference between the two is a net long-term capital gain. If the net long-term capital gain is more than the net short-term capital loss, the taxpayer has a net capital gain. So your net long-term gains (from all investments, through all brokers) are offset by any net short-term loss. Short term gains are taxed separately at a higher rate. I'm trying to avoid realizing a long term capital gain, but at the same time trade the stock. If you close in the next year, one of two things will happen - either the stock will go down, and you'll have short-term gains on the short, or the stock will go up, and you'll have short-term losses on the short that will offset the gains on the stock. So I don;t see how it reduces your tax liability. At best it defers it.",
"qid": 11054,
"docid": "444405",
"rank": 31,
"score": 116676
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"There's currently not much reason to keep around a long-term non-deductible Traditional IRA in my opinion -- a Roth IRA is almost strictly better. Think about it: a non-deductible Traditional IRA vs. a Roth IRA of the same amount. In both cases, contributions are after-tax (so no tax deduction). But when you withdraw, for the Roth IRA you don't have to pay tax, and for the non-deductible Traditional IRA, you have to pay tax on the \"\"earnings\"\". A Roth IRA can be contributed to at pretty much any income level, thanks to the backdoor Roth IRA process (which uses a temporary non-deductible Traditional IRA in the process). So there is not much reason for a long-term non-deductible Traditional IRA. As for your question, a non-deductible Traditional IRA vs. a taxable account. Well, a non-deductible Traditional IRA is contributed to with after-tax money, and taxed on the earnings only on withdrawal. So the taxation is almost identical to things like stocks and homes, where the gain is not realized until the thing is sold. However, compared to things like savings accounts and bonds, where you get taxed on the interest yearly, it is much better. Every time you get taxed on gains like this, it is taxing gains earned from after-tax money, so if you think of an amount of money as being equivalent to the amount of money it grows to over time (time value of money), then it is taxing money that is (or grown from money that is) already taxed. So it is better to have this only happen at the end at withdrawal than every year.\"",
"qid": 11054,
"docid": "144751",
"rank": 32,
"score": 116614
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"You cannot get \"\"your investment\"\" out and \"\"leave only the capital gains\"\" until they become taxable at the long-term rate. When you sell some shares after holding them for less than a year, you have capital gains on which you will have to pay taxes at the short-term capital gains rate (that is, at the same rate as ordinary income). As an example, if you bought 100 shares at $70 for a net investment of $7000, and sell 70 of them at $100 after five months to get your \"\"initial investment back\"\", you will have short-term capital gains of $30 per share on the 70 shares that you sold and so you have to pay tax on that $30x70=$2100. The other $4900 = $7000-$2100 is \"\"tax-free\"\" since it is just your purchase price of the 70 shares being returned to you. So after paying the tax on your short-term capital gains, you really don't have your \"\"initial investment back\"\"; you have something less. The capital gains on the 30 shares that you continue to hold will become (long-term capital gains) income to you only when you sell the shares after having held them for a full year or more: the gains on the shares sold after five months are taxable income in the year of sale.\"",
"qid": 11054,
"docid": "561999",
"rank": 33,
"score": 116475
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The idea behind a Roth IRA is taxes will go up in the future so you are best off paying less in taxes now than in the future, which is why Roth IRAs are contributed to with post-tax dollars whereas traditional IRAs are contributed to with pre-tax dollars. The theoritical advantage comes when you want to withdrawal your money. With the traditional IRA, when you withdrawal money, you pay ordinary income tax on all withdrawals. With a Roth IRA, all withdrawals (after the age of 59 1/2) are tax free, including any gains you may have made. To illistrate, with a very simple example, assume you make $50,000 and your IRA grows at 5% for 40 years. Traditional IRA - $5,000 Roth IRA - $3,750 ($5,000 after taxes) Traditional IRA - $604,000 Roth IRA - $453,000 Traditional IRA - $604,000 / 15 = $40,266 * 75% (25% tax) = $30,200 / year Roth IRA - $453,000 / 15 = $30,200/ year First, this was not a contrived example and I was surprised the numbers worked out this way. Second, as you can see with this example there is really no advantage either way unless you by into the theory of higher taxes in the future.",
"qid": 11054,
"docid": "364056",
"rank": 34,
"score": 116022
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Long-term capital gains, as you note, get special tax treatment. They are lower than regular income tax rates. Short-term capital gains aren't penalized, they are just treated as regular income under the regular rates. So, from a tax perspective, the day-trader gets by the same way as the rest of us because they are paying the same rates on the same progressive income tax scale.",
"qid": 11054,
"docid": "177298",
"rank": 35,
"score": 115646
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Indeed, there's no short term/long term issue trading inside the IRA, and in fact, no reporting. If you have a large IRA balance and trade 100 (for example) times per year, there's no reporting at all. As you note, long term gains outside the IRA are treated favorably in the tax code (as of now, 2012) but that's subject to change. Also to consider, The worst thing I did was to buy Apple in my IRA. A huge gain that will be taxed as ordinary income when I withdraw it. Had this been in my regular account, I could sell and pay the long term cap gain rate this year. Last, there's no concept of Wash sale in one's IRA, as there's no taking a loss for shares sold below cost. (To clarify, trading solely within an IRA won't trigger wash sale rules. A realized loss in a taxable account, combined with a purchase inside an IRA can trigger the wash sale rule if the stock is purchased inside the IRA 30 days before or after the sale at a loss. Thank you, Dilip, for the comment.) Aside from the warnings of trading too much or running afoul of frequency restrictions, your observation is correct.",
"qid": 11054,
"docid": "276333",
"rank": 36,
"score": 115521
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you have held the stocks longer than a year, then there is no tax apart from the STT that is already deducted when you sell the shares. If you have held the stock for less than a year, you would have to pay short term capital gains at the rate of 15% on the profit. Edit: If you buy different shares from the total amount or profits, it makes no difference to taxes.",
"qid": 11054,
"docid": "423929",
"rank": 37,
"score": 115248
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Are you in the US? Because if so, there are tax discrepancies. Gains from sale of stocks held for less than one year are subject to ordinary income tax, so probably around 30%. If you hold those stocks for a year or more, gains will be taxed as capital gains tax, 15%. For Forex, taxes on your earnings will be split 60/40. 60% will be traded at the lower 15% rate, while the remaining 40& will be taxed at a higher rate, approximately 30%. So purely short-term, there is a tax advantage to dabbling in Forex. HOWEVER - these are both incredibly risky things to do with your money! I never would recommend anyone invest short-term looking to make quick cash! In fact, the tax code DISCOURAGES people from short-term investments.",
"qid": 11054,
"docid": "413015",
"rank": 38,
"score": 114772
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Don't let tax considerations be the main driver. That's generally a bad idea. You should keep tax in mind when making the decision, but don't let it be the main reason for an action. selling the higher priced shares (possibly at a loss even) - I think it's ok to do that, and it doesn't necessarily have to be FIFO? It is OK to do that, but consider also the term. Long term gain has much lower taxes than short term gain, and short term loss will be offsetting long term gain - means you can lose some of the potential tax benefit. any potential writeoffs related to buying a home that can offset capital gains? No, and anyway if you're buying a personal residence (a home for yourself) - there's nothing to write off (except for the mortgage interest and property taxes of course). selling other investments for a capital loss to offset this sale? Again - why sell at a loss? anything related to retirement accounts? e.g. I think I recall being able to take a loan from your retirement account in order to buy a home You can take a loan, and you can also withdraw up to 10K without a penalty (if conditions are met). Bottom line - be prepared to pay the tax on the gains, and check how much it is going to be roughly. You can apply previous year refund to the next year to mitigate the shock, you can put some money aside, and you can raise your salary withholding to make sure you're not hit with a high bill and penalties next April after you do that. As long as you keep in mind the tax bill and put aside an amount to pay it - you'll be fine. I see no reason to sell at loss or pay extra interest to someone just to reduce the nominal amount of the tax. If you're selling at loss - you're losing money. If you're selling at gain and paying tax - you're earning money, even if the earnings are reduced by the tax.",
"qid": 11054,
"docid": "468047",
"rank": 39,
"score": 114543
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Long-term capital gains, which is often the main element of investment income for investors who are not high-frequency day traders, are taxed at a single rate that is often substantially below the marginal rate they would otherwise be taxed at, particularly for wealthy individuals. There are a few rationales behind this treatment; the two most common are that the government wants to encourage long-term investments (as opposed to short-term speculation), and that capital gains are a kind of double taxation (from one point of view) as they are coming from income that has already been taxed once before (as wage or ordinary income). The latter in particular is highly controversial, but this is one of the more divisive political issues in the taxation front - one party would eliminate the tax entirely, the other would eliminate the difference. For most individuals, the majority of their long-term capital gains are taxed at 15% up to almost half of a million dollars total AGI, which is a fairly low rate - it's equivalent to the rate a taxpayer would pay on up to $37,000 in wage income (after deductions/exemptions/etc.). You can see from this table in Wikipedia that it is much preferred to pay long-term capital gains rates when possible - at every point it's at least 10% lower than the tax rate for ordinary income. Ordinary income includes wages and many other sources of income - basically, anything that is not long term capital gains. Wage income is taxed at this rate, and also subject to some non-income-tax taxes (FICA and Medicare in particular); other sources of ordinary income are not subject to those taxes (including IRA income). Short term capital gains are generally included in this bucket. Qualified Dividends are treated similarly to long-term capital gains (as they are of a similar nature), and taxed accordingly. The \"\"Net Investment Tax\"\" is basically applying the Medicare tax to investment income for higher-income taxpayers ($125k single, $250k joint). It's on top of capital gains rates for them. It came about through the Affordable Care Act, and is one of the first provisions likely to be repealed by the new Congress (as it can be repealed through the budgeting provision). It seems likely that 2017 taxes will not contain this provision.\"",
"qid": 11054,
"docid": "66858",
"rank": 40,
"score": 114338
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"While @JB's \"\"yes\"\" is correct, a few more points to consider: There is no tax penalty for withdrawing any time from a taxable investment, that is, one not using specific tax protections like 401k/IRA or ESA or HSA. But you do pay tax on any income or gain distributions you receive from a taxable investment in a fund (except interest on tax-exempt aka \"\"municipal\"\" bonds), and any net capital gains you realize when selling (or technically redeeming for non-ETF funds). Just like you do for dividends and interest and gains on non-fund taxable investments. Many funds have a sales charge or \"\"load\"\" which means you will very likely lose money if you sell quickly typically within at least several months and usually a year or more, and even some no-load funds, to discourage rapid trading that makes their management more difficult (and costly), have a \"\"contingent sales charge\"\" if you sell after less than a stated period like 3 months or 6 months. For funds that largely or entirely invest in equities or longer term bonds, the share value/price is practically certain to fluctuate up and down, and if you sell during a \"\"down\"\" period you will lose money; if \"\"liquid\"\" means you want to take out money anytime without waiting for the market to move, you might want funds focussing on short-term bonds, especially government bonds, and \"\"money market\"\" funds which hold only very short bonds (usually duration under 90 days), which have much more stable prices (but lower returns over the longer term).\"",
"qid": 11054,
"docid": "344283",
"rank": 41,
"score": 114029
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"To keep it simple, I will keep the focus between a Trad IRA and a normal Taxable account (Roth's and 401(k) add more complications that make another problem). I will also assume, based on the question, that you aren't able to deduct the IRA contributions. Also, a Roth is better in every way than a non-deductible Trad IRA so the \"\"backdoor Roth\"\" mentioned in other answers is probably the way to go and this is more of an academic exercise. Ok, so why bother with the IRA if you're taxed anyway? Because you aren't taxed as you go! With a normal non-tax-advantaged account you have to pay taxes every year on any realized capital gains and dividends (including fund distributions). Because of the compounding nature of savings, delaying paying taxes is in your best interest. Simple example: Taxable Account: IRA Account: Now, this is a very simplified example. If you're more tax-conscious (i.e. more buy-and-holding), you can delay paying some of the long-term cap gains in the taxable account, but any short-term cap gains (including distributions from the underlying funds) will be at your marginal income tax rate. A few other observations: EDIT: I set up a spreadsheet where each year I deposited $1000 for 35 years. Each year, the balance in the IRA account grows by 5%, but the taxable only by 5%*(1-0.15) = 4.25% due to the effect of taxes. At the end of 35 years, my simulation assumes you pay 15% on all the gains in the IRA, which would likely not be the case, but easier than forecasting through retirement and demonstrates what I'm trying to show. Here's plot showing the balance in the various accounts, the blue is the IRA account, orange the taxable account, and grey is the effective balance of the IRA, after paying taxes on the gains: And here's a plot of the advantage of the IRA (after paying taxes on the gains), vs the taxable account: Whether that's worth it to you or anyone depends on some the assumptions in the simulation, especially effective tax rates, and growth rates, as well as any personal issues. Some people may be less likely to raid an IRA account, for example, than a normal account. Conversely, if you have a project coming up, you may need something a bit more liquid than an IRA.\"",
"qid": 11054,
"docid": "532657",
"rank": 42,
"score": 114014
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I don't understand the logic in the other answer, and I think it doesn't make sense, so here is my take: You pay taxes on income, not on sales price. So if you put X $ of your own money in the account and it becomes X + Y $ in the future, at the moment of liquidation, you will own taxes on the Y $. Never on the X $, as it was your own (already taxed) money to begin with. The difference between long-term and short-term gains just influences the tax rate on Y. If you donate the gain alone (the Y $) to charity, you can deduct Y from your tax base. So adding Y to your tax base and then deducting Y again obviously leaves your tax base at the old value, so you pay no extra taxes. Which seems logical, as you didn't make any money in the process. Aside from extreme cases where the deductible gain is too large a percentage from your income or negative, I don't see why this would ever be different. So you can take your original 100 $ back out and donate all gains, and be fine. Note that potential losses are seen different, as the IRA regulations are not symmetric.",
"qid": 11054,
"docid": "561377",
"rank": 43,
"score": 113544
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: It would be fairer to the average person if we paid our normal tax rate on the amount we contributed to the IRA and paid at the capital gains rate for the difference. The same as people that invest outside of the IRA. Most IRAs aren't that large and most people are going to have a rough time living on the reduced social security. It seems like we are taxing the average Joe at a higher rate than the rich.",
"qid": 11054,
"docid": "112231",
"rank": 44,
"score": 113455
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The benefit is that your earnings in the 401k are not subject to income tax until you make withdrawals. This allows you to grow your money faster than if you made equivalent investments in a taxable account and had to pay taxes on dividends and capital gains along the way. Also, the theory is that you will be in a lower tax bracket in retirement and thus you will pay lower taxes overall. If this is not true (especially if you will be in a higher tax bracket in retirement), then there may not be any advantage for you to contribute to a 401k. One advantage over the Traditional IRA is the higher contribution limit. Some 401k plans also allow you to take loans from the plan, I don't think this is possible with a Traditional IRA. An alternative to both the 401k and Traditional IRA is the Roth version of either plan. With a Roth, you pay taxes up front, but your withdrawals during retirement are tax free.",
"qid": 11054,
"docid": "406239",
"rank": 45,
"score": 113336
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The dividend goes into the IRA (either reinvested automatically or remains as cash until you invest it, per your choice). You're not taxed on this dividend (IRA is a taxed-deferred account - you're taxed on the distributions, but not on the capital gains within the account).",
"qid": 11054,
"docid": "33208",
"rank": 46,
"score": 113139
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Excise tax on the excess contribution is 6% a year on the amount of the contribution. In addition, gains will be taxable to you. By adding 20K over the limit, you added $1200 to your tax bill. Withdraw it ASAP. Whatever investment you have in your IRA - you can probably buy it (or a comparable) outside of the IRA.",
"qid": 11054,
"docid": "46621",
"rank": 47,
"score": 113130
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Many individual states, counties, and cities have their own income taxes, payroll taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, etc., you will need to consult your state and local government websites for information about additional taxes that apply based on your locale. Wages, Salaries, Tips, Cash bonuses and other taxable employee pay, Strike benefits, Long-term disability, Earnings from self employment Earned income is subject to payroll taxes such as: Earned income is also subject to income taxes which are progressively higher depending on the amount earned minus tax credits, exemptions, and/or deductions depending on how you file. There are 7 tax rates that get progressively larger as your income rises but only applies to the income in each bracket. 10% for the first 18,650 (2017) through 39.6% for any income above 470,700. The full list of rates is in the above linked article about payroll taxes. Earned income is required for contributions to an IRA. You cannot contribute more to an IRA than you have earned in a given year. Interest, Ordinary Dividends, Short-term Capital Gains, Retirement income (pensions, distributions from tax deferred accounts, social security), Unemployment benefits, Worker's Compensation, Alimony/Child support, Income earned while in prison, Non-taxable military pay, most rental income, and S-Corp passthrough income Ordinary income is taxed the same as earned income with the exception that social security taxes do not apply. This is the \"\"pure taxable income\"\" referred to in the other linked question. Dividends paid by US Corporations and qualified foreign corporations to stock-holders (that are held for a certain period of time before the dividend is paid) are taxed at the Long-term Capital Gains rate explained below. Ordinary dividends like the interest earned in your bank account are included with ordinary income. Stocks, Bonds, Real estate, Carried interest -- Held for more than a year Income from assets that increase in value while being held for over a year. Long term capital gains justified by the idea that they encourage people to hold stock and make long term investments rather than buying and then quickly reselling for a short-term profit. The lower tax rates also reflect the fact that many of these assets are already taxed as they are appreciating in value. Real-estate is usually taxed through local property taxes. Equity in US corporations realized by rising stock prices and dividends that are returned to stock holders reflect earnings from a corporation that are already taxed at the 35% Corporate tax rate. Taxing Capital gains as ordinary income would be a second tax on those same profits. Another problem with Long-term capital gains tax is that a big portion of the gains for assets held for multiple decades are not real gains. Inflation increases the price of assets held for longer periods, but you are still taxed on the full gain even if it would be a loss when inflation is calculated. Capital gains are also taxed differently depending on your income level. If you are in the 10% or 15% brackets then Long-term capital gains are assessed at 0%. If you are in the 25%, 28%, 33%, or 35% brackets, they are assessed at 15%. Only those in the 39.6% bracket pay 20%. Capital assets sold at a profit held for less than a year Income from buying and selling any assets such as real-estate, stock, bonds, etc., that you hold for less than a year before selling. After adding up all gains and losses during the year, the net gain is taxed as ordinary income. Collectibles held for more than a year are not considered capital assets and are still taxed at ordinary income rates.\"",
"qid": 11054,
"docid": "314342",
"rank": 48,
"score": 113124
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: First of all depending on the type of IRA you may not have to pay taxes on withdrawals in the US at all. If you are withdrawing your principle from a Roth IRA then you don't owe taxes. Only when you withdraw the gains do you pay taxes on it. You have two options for withdrawals: Lump Sum Withdrawal: If you take a lump sum withdrawal you will owe taxes to the US (30% for non-resident aliens of the US), and according to DTAA; Article 23, you will file your taxes with India declaring your IRA or 401(k) withdrawal proceeds and claim credit on the taxes you paid to the US. Monthly Pension Withdrawal: You can also receive monthly pension payments and you will only be taxed in the country in which you are a resident of. This is according to DTAA, Article 20. You would then have to submit necessary documentation to your payer in the US so that they do not withhold any taxes in the US. Just as a side note it might be just better to keep the money where it is and let it grow or roll it over to a Roth IRA if you are currently in a lower tax bracket for maximum savings of your principle. Here is a link with more detailed information of what I provided you: http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2012-01-25/news/30663129_1_taxable-income-nri-401k-plan",
"qid": 11054,
"docid": "197576",
"rank": 49,
"score": 112914
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Investopedia probably should change the wording to \"\"tax free\"\" since all of the gains in a Roth IRA can be withdrawn without any additional taxes at retirement time. Tax deferred should only refer to the gains in a traditional IRA. \"\"Tax advantaged\"\" might be a reasonable term to use in both cases.\"",
"qid": 11054,
"docid": "112182",
"rank": 50,
"score": 112888
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"IRAs have huge tax-advantages. You'll pay taxes when you liquidate gold and silver. While volatile, \"\"the stock market has never produced a loss during any rolling 15-year period (1926-2009)\"\" [PDF]. This is perhaps the most convincing article for retirement accounts over at I Will Teach You To Be Rich. An IRA is just a container for your money and you may invest the money however you like (cash, stocks, funds, etc). A typical investment is the purchase of stocks, bonds, and/or funds containing either or both. Stocks may pay dividends and bonds pay yields. Transactions of these things trigger capital gains (or losses). This happens if you sell or if the fund manager sells pieces of the fund to buy something in its place (i.e. transactions happen without your decision and high turnover can result in huge capital gains). In a taxable account you will pay taxes on dividends and capital gains. In an IRA you don't ever pay taxes on dividends and capital gains. Over the life of the IRA (30+ years) this can be a huge ton of savings. A traditional IRA is funded with pre-tax money and you only pay tax on the withdrawal. Therefore you get more money upfront to invest and more money compounds into greater amounts faster. A Roth IRA you fund with after-tax dollars, but your withdrawals are tax free. Traditional versus Roth comparison calculator. Here are a bunch more IRA and 401k calculators. Take a look at the IRA tax savings for various amounts compared to the same money in a taxable account. Compounding over time will make you rich and there's your reason for starting young. Increases in the value of gold and silver will never touch compounded gains. So tax savings are a huge reason to stash your money in an IRA. You trade liquidity (having to wait until age 59.5) for a heck of a lot more money. Though isn't it nice to be assured that you will have money when you retire? If you aren't going to earn it then, you'll have to earn it now. If you are going to earn it now, you may as well put it in a place that earns you even more. A traditional IRA has penalties for withdrawing before retirement age. With a Roth you can withdraw the principal at anytime without penalty as long as the account has been open 5 years. A traditional IRA requires you take out a certain amount once you reach retirement. A Roth doesn't, which means you can leave money in the account to grow even more. A Roth can be passed on to a spouse after death, and after the spouse's death onto another beneficiary. more on IRA Required Minimum Distributions.\"",
"qid": 11054,
"docid": "587727",
"rank": 51,
"score": 112838
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You are missing something very significant. The money in a traditional IRA (specifically, a deductible traditional IRA; there is not really any reason to keep a nondeductible traditional IRA anymore) is pre-tax. That means when you pay tax on it when you take it out, you are paying tax on it for the first time. If you take ordinary money to invest it in stocks, and then pay capital gains tax on it when you take it out, that is post-tax money to begin with -- meaning that you have already paid (income) tax on it once. Then you have to pay tax again on the time-value growth of that money (i.e. that growth is earned from money that is already taxed). That means you are effectively paying tax twice on part of that money. If that doesn't make sense to you, and you think that interest, capital gains, etc. is the first time you're paying tax on the money because it's growth, then you have a very simplistic view of money. There's something called time value of money, which means that a certain amount of money is equivalent to a greater amount of money in the future. If you invest $100 now and end up with $150 in the future, that $150 in the future is effectively the same money as the $100 now. Let's consider a few examples. Let's say you have $1000 of pre-tax income you want to invest and withdraw a certain period of time later in retirement. Let's say you have an investment that grows 100% over this period of time. And let's say that your tax rate now and in the future is 25% (and for simplicity, assume that all income is taxed at that rate instead of the tax bracket system). And capital gains tax is 15%. You see a few things: Traditional IRA and Roth IRA are equivalent if the tax rates are the same. This is because, in both cases, you pay tax one time on the money (the only difference between paying tax now and later is the tax rate). It doesn't matter that you're paying tax only on the principal for the Roth and on the principal plus earnings for Traditional, because the principal now is equivalent to the principal plus earnings in the future. And you also see that investing money outside fares worse than both of them. That is because you are paying tax on the money once plus some more. When you compare it against the Roth IRA, the disadvantage is obvious -- in both cases you pay income tax on the principal, but for Roth IRA you pay nothing on the earnings, whereas for the outside stock, you pay some tax on the earnings. What may be less obvious is it is equally disadvantageous compared to a Traditional IRA; Traditional and Roth IRA are equivalent in this comparison. 401(k)s and IRAs have a fundamental tax benefit compared to normal money investment, because they allow money to be taxed only one time. No matter how low the capital gains tax rate it, it is still worse because it is a tax on time-value growth from money that is already taxed.",
"qid": 11054,
"docid": "159462",
"rank": 52,
"score": 112584
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Start with the tax delta. For example, you'd hope to deposit at 25% bracket, but take withdrawals while at a marginal 15%. In this case, you're 10% to the good with the 401(k) and need to look at the fee eating away at this over time. Pay an extra 1%/yr and after 10 years, you're losing money. That's too simple, however. Along the way, you need to consider that the capital gain rate is lower than ordinary income. It's easier to take those gains as you wish to time them, where the 401(k) offers no flexibly for this. Even with low fees, this account is going to turn long term gains to ordinary income. (Note - in 2013, a couple with up to $72,500 in taxable income has a 0% long term cap gain rate. So, if they wish, they can sell and buy back a fund, claim the gain, and raise their cost basis. A tiny effort for the avoidance of tax on the gains each year.) First paragraph, don't forget, there are the standard deduction, exemption, and 10% bracket. While you are in the range to save enough to create he income to fill the low end at withdrawal, there's more value than just the 10% I discussed earlier. Last, there's a phenomenon I call The Phantom Tax Rate Zone when one's retirement withdrawals trigger the taxation of Social Security. It further complicates the math and analysis you seek.",
"qid": 11054,
"docid": "261199",
"rank": 53,
"score": 112104
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: As far as I know, there is no direct equivalent. An IRA is subject to many rules. Not only are there early withdrawal penalties, but the ability to deduct contributions to an IRA phases out with one's income level. Qualified withdrawals from an IRA won't have penalties, but they will be taxed as income. Contributions to a Roth IRA can be made post-tax and the resulting gains will be tax free, but they cannot be withdrawn early. Another tax-deductable investment is a 529 plan. These can be withdrawn from at any time, but there is a penalty if the money is not used for educational purposes. A 401K or similar employer-sponsored fund is made with pre-tax dollars unless it is designated as a Roth 401K. These plans also require money to be withdrawn specifically for retirement, with a 10% penalty for early withdrawal. Qualifying withdrawals from a regular retirement plan are taxed as income, those from a Roth plan are not (as with an IRA). Money can be made harder to get at by investing in all of the types of funds you can invest in using an IRA through the same brokers under a different type of account, but the contribution will be made with post-tax, non-deductable dollars and the gains will be taxed.",
"qid": 11054,
"docid": "545184",
"rank": 54,
"score": 111707
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: First of all an IRA is a type of account that says nothing about how your money is invested. It seems like you are trying to compare an IRA with a market ETF (like Vanguard Total Market Admiral VTSAX), but the reality is that you can have both. Depending on your IRA some of the investment options may be limited, but you will probably be able to find some version of a passive fund following an index you are interested in. The IRA account is tax advantaged, but you may invest the money in your IRA in an ETF. As for how often a non-IRA account is taxed and how much, that depends on how often you sell. If you park your money in an ETF and do not sell, the IRS will not claim any taxes from it. The taxable event happens when you sell. But if you gain $1000 in a year and a day and you decide to sell, you will owe $150 (assuming 15% capital gains tax), bringing your earnings down to $850. If your investments go poorly and you lose money, there will be no capital gains tax to pay.",
"qid": 11054,
"docid": "240651",
"rank": 55,
"score": 111693
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"If the investments are in a non-retirement, taxable account, there's not much you can do to avoid short-term capital gains if you sell now. Ways to limit short-term capital gains taxes: Donate -- you can donate some of the stock to charity (before selling it). Transfer -- you can give some of the stock to, say, a family member in a lower tax bracket. But there are tons of rules, gift limits, and won't work for little kids or full time students. They would still pay taxes at their own rate. Protect your gains by buying puts. Wait it out until the long-term capital gains rate kicks in. This allows you to lock in your gains now (but you won't benefit from potential future appreciation.) Buying puts also costs $, so do the ROI calculation. (You could also sell a call and buy a put at the same time and lock in your gains for certain, but the IRS often looks at that as locking in the short-term capital gain, so be careful and talk to a tax professional if you are considering that method.) Die. There's a \"\"step-up\"\" basis on capital gains for estates. source: http://www.forbes.com/2010/07/30/avoid-capital-gains-tax-anschutz-personal-finance-baldwin-tax-strategy.html\"",
"qid": 11054,
"docid": "431443",
"rank": 56,
"score": 111589
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Long term capital gains are taxed at 15% this year, so the most you stand to save is $150. I wouldn't sell anything at a loss just to offset that, unless you planned on selling anyways. A few reasons: The Long term capital gains rate will go up to 20% next year, so your losses will be \"\"worth more\"\" next year than this year. Short term capital gains rates will go up next year as well, so again, better off saving your losses for next year. You must use capital losses to offset capital gains if you have them, but if you don't have any capital gains, you can use capital losses to offset ordinary income (up to a limit - $3,000 a year IIRC). So, if you just bite the bullet and pay the 15% on your gains this year, you could use your losses to offset your (likely higher rate) ordinary income next year. FYI, complete chart for capital gains tax rates is here. I also posted another answer about capital gains to this question a while back that might be useful.\"",
"qid": 11054,
"docid": "403608",
"rank": 57,
"score": 111293
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: This was the day traders dilemma. You can, on paper, make money doing such trades. But because you do not hold the security for at least a year, the earnings are subject to short term capital gains tax unless these trades are done inside a sheltered account like a traditional IRA. There are other considerations as well: wash sale rules and number of days to settle. In short, the glory days of rags to riches by day trading are long gone, if they were ever here in the first place. Edit: the site will not allow me to add a comment, so I am putting my response here: Possibly, yes. One big 'gotcha' is that your broker reports the proceeds from your sales, but does not report your outflows from your buys. Then there is the risk you take by the broker refusing to sell the security until the transaction settles. Not to mention wash sale rules. You are trying to win at the 'buy low, sell high' game. But you have a 25% chance, at best, of winning at that game. Can you pick the low? Maybe, but you have a 50% chance of being right. Then you have to pick the high. And again you have a 50% chance of doing that. 50% times 50% is 25%. Warren Buffet did not get rich that way. Buffet buys and holds. Don't be a speculator, be a 'buy and hold' investor. Buy securities, inside a sheltered account like a traditional IRA, that pay dividends then reinvest those dividends into the security you bought. Scottrade has a Flexible Reinvestment Program that lets you do this with no commission fees.",
"qid": 11054,
"docid": "395783",
"rank": 58,
"score": 110952
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You don't have to wait. If you sell your shares now, your gain can be considered a capital gain for income tax purposes. Unlike in the United States, Canada does not distinguish between short-term vs. long-term gains where you'd pay different rates on each type of gain. Whether you buy and sell a stock within minutes or buy and sell over years, any gain you make on a stock can generally be considered a capital gain. I said generally because there is an exception: If you are deemed by CRA to be trading professionally -- that is, if you make a living buying and selling stocks frequently -- then you could be considered doing day trading as a business and have your gains instead taxed as regular income (but you'd also be able to claim additional deductions.) Anyway, as long as your primary source of income isn't from trading, this isn't likely to be a problem. Here are some good articles on these subjects:",
"qid": 11054,
"docid": "328073",
"rank": 59,
"score": 110704
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: E.g. I buy 1 stock unit for $100.00 and sell it later for $150.00 => income taxes arise. Correct. You pay tax on your gains, i.e.: the different between net proceeds and gross costs (proceeds sans fees, acquisition costs including fees). I buy 1 stock unit for $150.00 and sell it later for $100.00 => no income taxes here. Not correct. The loss is deductible from other capital gains, and if no other capital gains - from your income (up to $3000 a year, until exhausted). Also, there are two different tax rate sets for capital gains: short term (holding up to 1 year) and long term (more than that). Short term capital gains tax matches ordinary income brackets, whereas long term capital gains tax brackets are much lower.",
"qid": 11054,
"docid": "553253",
"rank": 60,
"score": 110433
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The advantage of an IRA (or 401k) is you get taxed effectively one time on your income, whereas you get taxed effectively multiple times on some of the money in a taxable account. You have to consider it from the perspective of time value of money -- the concept that an amount of money now is the same value as a greater amount of money in the future. And in fact, if you put your money in an investment, the principal at the start can be considered the same value as the principal + earnings at the end. In both Traditional and Roth IRA, you pay taxes on the entire value of money once (remember that the principal when depositing is the same value as the principal + earnings when withdrawing). The only difference is when (year deposited or year withdrawn), so the main difference between the two is the tax rate when depositing vs. tax rate when withdrawing. I'll give you an example to demonstrate. We will assume you invest $1000 of pre-tax wages, it grows at 5% per year, there's a 25% flat tax now and in the future, you withdraw it after 20 years, and withdrawals are not subject to any penalty.",
"qid": 11054,
"docid": "419160",
"rank": 61,
"score": 110318
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Generally it is advisable to mention what country you're asking about, as tax laws differ. To the best of my knowledge, however, this particular issue is handled consistently in every tax jurisdiction I'm familiar with. You invested X, it appreciated and is now worth X + Y. In your example, X = $10,000 and Y = $40,000. Total X + Y = $50,000. When you withdraw an amount, say A (in your example A = $10,000), it is considered a withdrawal of both the earnings and the original capital, in proportion to the total of your account. Taxable portion of the withdrawal is proportional to the earnings. Lets mark it T. In your example, T = $10,000 - $10,000 * $10,000/$50,000 = $8,000. I.e.: 80% of the withdrawal will be attributed to earnings and would be taxable (short term in your case, if you're in the US), and 20% to the original capital. This will keep the proportion of the remained the same - 20% of the remaining amount will be attributed to the original capital (accidentally, it will be $8,000), and the remaining 80% will be attributed to the earnings. The withdrawn amount attributed to the capital ($2,000), and the remaining amount attributed to the capital ($8,000) will equal exactly to the invested amount.",
"qid": 11054,
"docid": "144313",
"rank": 62,
"score": 110079
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Your answer looks correct. It's the buyer of the option that's long, not the seller (you). If you're doing a lot of trading, you might get hit with wash-sale rules and you could be taxed at the short-term capital gains rate, which is higher than for long-term gains. But those aren't direct fees.",
"qid": 11054,
"docid": "528157",
"rank": 63,
"score": 109783
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Consult a professional CA. For shares sold outside the Indian Stock Exchanges, these will be treated as normal Long Term Capital Gains if held more than one year. The rate would be 10% without Indexation and 20% with Indexation. If the stocks are held for less than 1 years, it will be short term gains and taxed according you to tax bracket.",
"qid": 11054,
"docid": "581632",
"rank": 64,
"score": 109293
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You can take out the contributions to your Roth tax and penalty free. That's the good thing. Anything above the amount you contributed that you withdraw early will cost you ordinary income tax (which is higher than capital gains tax) plus a 10 percent penalty on that amount. So if you have $15,000 in the account and $5,000 is gains and you withdraw $11,000, then you owe tax and penalty on $1,000. The penalty is 10% and your taxes (high taxes!) are added to that. Pretty bad deal. If you kept it in a normal account and paid capital gains tax, you just pay 15% (or whatever) on your gains and you get to offset income tax with your losses via tax loss harvesting. So back to your question: your idea works even better than you suggested if you only withdraw up to the amount that you contributed (you pay no tax!). Take out any of the gains and you will be penalized more than you would if you just paid capital gains on them. Leave those in until you are old enough to take them out penalty and tax free. To me, contributing to a Roth, making a bunch of gains on it, and withdrawing only the contribution part whenever you want seems to make good sense.",
"qid": 11054,
"docid": "579644",
"rank": 65,
"score": 109222
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You will not benefit at tax time like you did with your initial contributions, because you have already benefited and are simply repaying your withdrawn contributions. However, capital gains are not taxed inside of your RRSP, until you withdraw the money. Let's say you have $10,000 to repay and have all the money now. It makes sense to repay it immediately. Whatever interest or capital gains you make inside of the RRSP are not taxed. However, your $10,000 contribution this year will not offer you any deductions on your tax return. There are exactly two reasons I can see to not immediately repay the full amount, if able. First, you may need the money for an emergency fund, and there are significant implications for removing money from your RRSP in such a case. Second, if you believe you will be in a higher tax bracket when you retire, it may not make sense to put any money into an RRSP right now. Almost certainly, you want to repay the entire lump sum if able.",
"qid": 11054,
"docid": "304376",
"rank": 66,
"score": 108746
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"You pay tax on the entire amount, not just the capital gains. When cashing out such a plan you would pay the top marginal tax rate on the full amount plus another 10% in penalties. It is very likely that the additional income, of the balance withdrawal, will increase your top marginal rate. It is impossible to come up with a precise answer as we don't know the following: However, you can take a concept away from this that is important: You will be taxed and penalized on the entire 401K balance, not just the capital gain. In the \"\"best case\"\" scenario, that is you had little or no income in a given year. Under current tax law you would owe about 31% of your 401K balance in taxes. As this is such an inefficient use of money most authors recommend against it except in the case of extreme circumstances.\"",
"qid": 11054,
"docid": "21699",
"rank": 67,
"score": 108048
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I think you're misunderstanding how tax brackets work. If you make $1 more and that bumps you into a higher bracket, only THAT particular dollar will be taxed at the higher tax bracket rate... Not your entire income. Short term capital gains are treated as income. Long term capital gains have a special tax rate currently.",
"qid": 11054,
"docid": "395686",
"rank": 68,
"score": 108020
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I'm not sure where people keep getting this idea, but I see it come up a lot. Anyway, you pay capital gains taxes when you sell an investment that has appreciated. It makes no difference when/if you reinvest the money or what you invest it in. If you are afraid of the tax burden you can minimize it by: 1) Selling a stock that you have held longer than a year to get the lower long-term rate. 2) Sell a stock that hasn't appreciated that much and therefore doesn't have a lot of gains to tax. 3) Sell a stock that's below purchase price (i.e. at a loss) to offset any short term gains.",
"qid": 11054,
"docid": "448659",
"rank": 69,
"score": 108004
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: For the Roth the earnings: interest, dividends, capital gains distributions and capital gains are tax deferred. Which means that as long as the money stays inside of a Roth or is transferred/rolled over to another Roth there are no taxes due. In December many mutual funds distribute their gains. Let's say people invested in S&P500index fund receive a dividend of 1% of their account value. The investor in a non-retirement fund will be paying tax on that dividend in the Spring with their tax form. The Roth and IRA investors will not be paying tax on those dividends. The Roth investor never will, and the regular IRA investor will only pay taxes on it when they pull the money out.",
"qid": 11054,
"docid": "393693",
"rank": 70,
"score": 107832
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you made a contribution to a Traditional IRA for Year X (whether made during Year X or made in Year X+1 before the due date of your tax return for Year X), then you can withdraw the contribution and any gains on that contribution by the due date of your tax return. If the contribution was deductible, then of course you must not take a deduction for it in on your tax return for Year X (or any other year for that matter). As for the gains (if any) that were withdrawn, they are taxable income to you for Year X (not X+1, even if the withdrawal occurred in Year X+1). Publication 590a says You generally can make a tax-free withdrawal of contributions if you do it before the due date for filing your tax return for the year in which you made them. This means that, even if you are under age 59-1/2, the 10% additional tax may not apply. and later in the same Publication If you have an extension of time to file your return, you can withdraw them tax free by the extended due date. You can do this if, for each contribution you withdraw, both of the following conditions apply. - You did not take a deduction for the contribution. - You withdraw any interest or other income earned on the contribution. You can take into account any loss on the contribution while it was in the IRA when calculating the amount that must be withdrawn. If there was a loss, the net income earned on the contribution may be a negative amount. Later, the document says You must include in income any earnings on the contributions you withdraw. Include the earnings in income for the year in which you made the contributions, not the year in which you withdraw them. and The 10% additional tax on distributions made before you reach age 59-1/2 does not apply to these tax-free withdrawals of your contributions. However, the distribution of interest or other income must be reported on Form 5329 and, unless the distribution qualifies as an exception to the age 59-1/2 rule, it will be subject to this tax. Since you have a loss on the contributions that you are withdrawing, there is no interest or other income that needs to be reported.",
"qid": 11054,
"docid": "415815",
"rank": 71,
"score": 107626
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: (All for US.) Yes you (will) have a realized long-term capital gain, which is taxable. Long-term gains (including those distributed by a mutual fund or other RIC, and also 'qualified' dividends, both not relevant here) are taxed at lower rates than 'ordinary' income but are still bracketed almost (not quite) like ordinary income, not always 15%. Specifically if your ordinary taxable income (after deductions and exemptions, equivalent to line 43 minus LTCG/QD) 'ends' in the 25% to 33% brackets, your LTCG/QD income is taxed at 15% unless the total of ordinary+preferred reaches the top of those brackets, then any remainder at 20%. These brackets depend on your filing status and are adjusted yearly for inflation, for 2016 they are: * single 37,650 to 413,350 * married-joint or widow(er) 75,300 to 413,350 * head-of-household 50,400 to 441,000 (special) * married-separate 37,650 to 206,675 which I'd guess covers at least the middle three quintiles of the earning/taxpaying population. OTOH if your ordinary income ends below the 25% bracket, your LTCG/QD income that 'fits' in the lower bracket(s) is taxed at 0% (not at all) and only the portion that would be in the ordinary 25%-and-up brackets is taxed at 15%. IF your ordinary taxable income this year was below those brackets, or you expect next year it will be (possibly due to status/exemption/deduction changes as well as income change), then if all else is equal you are better off realizing the stock gain in the year(s) where some (or more) of it fits in the 0% bracket. If you're over about $400k a similar calculation applies, but you can afford more reliable advice than potential dogs on the Internet. (update) Near dupe found: see also How are long-term capital gains taxed if the gain pushes income into a new tax bracket? Also, a warning on estimated payments: in general you are required to pay most of your income tax liability during the year (not wait until April 15); if you underpay by more than 10% or $1000 (whichever is larger) you usually owe a penalty, computed on Form 2210 whose name(?) is frequently and roundly cursed. For most people, whose income is (mostly) from a job, this is handled by payroll withholding which normally comes out close enough to your liability. If you have other income, like investments (as here) or self-employment or pension/retirement/disability/etc, you are supposed to either make estimated payments each 'quarter' (the IRS' quarters are shifted slightly from everyone else's), or increase your withholding, or a combination. For a large income 'lump' in December that wasn't planned in advance, it won't be practical to adjust withholding. However, if this is the only year increased, there is a safe harbor: if your withholding this year (2016) is enough to pay last year's tax (2015) -- which for most people it is, unless you got a pay cut this year, or a (filed) status change like marrying or having a child -- you get until next April 15 (or next business day -- in 2017 it is actually April 18) to pay the additional amount of this year's tax (2016) without underpayment penalty. However, if you split the gain so that both 2016 and 2017 have income and (thus) taxes higher than normal for you, you will need to make estimated payment(s) and/or increase withholding for 2017. PS: congratulations on your gain -- and on the patience to hold anything for 10 years!",
"qid": 11054,
"docid": "453639",
"rank": 72,
"score": 107277
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"In a Roth IRA scenario, this $5,000 would be reduced to $3,750 if we assume a (nice and round) 25% tax rate. For the Traditional IRA, the full $5,000 would be invested. No, that's not how it works. Taxes aren't removed from your Roth account. You'll have $5,000 invested either way. The difference is that you'll have a tax deduction if you invest in a traditional IRA, but not a Roth. So you'll \"\"save\"\" $1,250 in taxes up front if you invest in a traditional IRA versus a Roth. The flip side is when you withdraw the money. Since you've already paid tax on the Roth investment, and it grows tax free, you'll pay no tax when you withdraw it. But you'll pay tax on the investment and the gains when you withdraw from a traditional IRA. Using your numbers, you'd pay tax on $2.2MM from the traditional IRA, but NO TAX on $2.2MM from the Roth. At that point, you've saved over $500,000 in taxes. Now if you invested the tax savings from the traditional IRA and it earned the same amount, then yes, you'd end up in the same place in the end, provided you have the same marginal tax rate. But I suspect that most don't invest that savings, and if you withdraw significant amount, you'll likely move into higher tax brackets. In your example, suppose you only had $3,750 of \"\"discretionary\"\" income that you could put toward retirement. You could put $5,000 in a traditional IRA (since you'll get a $1,250 tax deduction), or $3,750 in a Roth. Then your math works out the same. If you invest the same amount in either, though, the math on the Roth is a no-brainer.\"",
"qid": 11054,
"docid": "175968",
"rank": 73,
"score": 107134
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: may result in more taxes when Fund shares are held in a taxable account. When the fund manager decides to sell shares of a stock, and those shares have grown in value, that growth is a capital gain. If that fund is part of a taxable account then the investors in the fund will have to declare that income/gain on their tax forms. That could require the investors to have to pay taxes on those gains. Of course if the investors are holding the fund shares in a IRA or 401K then there are no taxes due in the near term. A higher portfolio turnover rate may indicate higher transaction costs... ...These costs, which are not reflected in annual fund operating expenses or in the previous expense examples, reduce the Fund’s performance. The annual fund operating expenses are the expenses that they can assume will happen every year. They include salaries, the cost of producing statements, paperwork required by the government, research... It doesn't include transaction costs. Which they can't estimate what they will be in advance. If the fund invests in a particular segment of the market, and there is a disruption in that segment, they may need to make many new investments. If on the other hand last year they made great choices the turnover may be small this year. During the most recent fiscal year, the Fund’s portfolio turnover rate was 3% of the average value of its portfolio. That may be your best indicator.",
"qid": 11054,
"docid": "179986",
"rank": 74,
"score": 107084
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Some more considerations: (1) Tax rates (both ordinary and capital gains) are likely to be different when you retire. (2) Your marginal tax rate may be different when you retire depending on how much income you have at the time. In retirement your income may be structured completely differently than when you are working. For example, you may also have a Roth IRA/401K to pull from.",
"qid": 11054,
"docid": "565410",
"rank": 75,
"score": 106935
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: My understanding is that losses are first deductible against any capital gains you may have, then against your regular income (up to $3,000 per year). If you still have a loss after that, the loss may be carried over to offset capital gains or income in subsequent years As you suspect, a short term capital loss is deductible against short term capital gains and long term losses are deductible against long term gains. So taking the loss now MIGHT be beneficial from a tax perspective. I say MIGHT because there are a couple scenarios in which it either may not matter, or actually be detrimental: If you don't have any short term capital gains this year, but you have long term capital gains, you would have to use the short term loss to offset the long term gain before you could apply it to ordinary income. So in that situation you lose out on the difference between the long term tax rate (15%) and your ordinary income rate (potentially higher). If you keep the stock, and sell it for a long term loss next year, but you only have short-term capital gains or no capital gains next year, then you may use the long term loss to offset your short-term gains (first) or your ordinary income. Clear as mud? The whole mess is outlined in IRS Publication 550 Finally, if you still think the stock is good, but just want to take the tax loss, you can sell the stock now (to realize the loss) then re-buy it in 30 days. This is called Tax Loss Harvesting. The 30 day delay is an IRS requirement for being allowed to realize the loss.",
"qid": 11054,
"docid": "318321",
"rank": 76,
"score": 106834
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: What asset allocation is right for you (at the most basic the percentage if stocks vs bonds; at the advanced level, percentage of growth vs value, international vs domestic etc) is a function of your age, retirement goals, income stability and employment prospects until retirement. Roth IRA is orthogonal to this. Now, once you have your allocation worked out there are tactical tax advantage decisions available: interest income, REIT and MLP dividends are taxed at income and not capital gains rate, so the tactical decision is to put these investments in tax advantage accounts like Roth and 401ks. Conversely, should you decide to buy and hold growth stocks there are tactical advantages to keeping them in a taxable account: you get tax deferment until the year you choose to sell (barring a takeover), you get the lower lt cap gains rate, and you can employ tax loss harvesting.",
"qid": 11054,
"docid": "271949",
"rank": 77,
"score": 106775
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: When you are investing for 40 years, you will have taxable events before retirement. You'll need to pay tax along the way, which will eat away at your gains. For example, in your taxable account, any dividends and capital gain distributions will need taxes paid each year. In your 401(k) or IRA, these are not taxable until retirement. In addition, what happens if you want to change investments before retirement? In your taxable account, taxes on the capital gains will be due at that time, but in a retirement account, you can change investments anytime you like without having to pay taxes early. Finally, when you do pull money out of your 401(k) at retirement, it will be taxed at whatever your tax rate is at retirement. After you retire, your income will probably be lower than when you were working, so your tax rate might be less.",
"qid": 11054,
"docid": "192738",
"rank": 78,
"score": 106604
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Do I have to pay the stock investment income tax if I bought some stocks in 2016, it made some profits but I didn't sell them at the end of 2016? You pay capital gains taxes only when you sell the stocks. When you sell the stock within a year you will pay the short term capital gains rate which is the same rate as your ordinary income. If the stock pays dividends, however, you will have to pay taxes in the year that the dividend was paid out to you. I bought some stocks in 2011, sold them in 2012 and made some gains. Which year of do I pay the tax for the gains I made? You would pay in 2012, likely at the short term gain rate. I bought some stocks, sold them and made some gains, then use the money plus the gains to buy some other stocks before the end of the same year. Do I have to pay the tax for the gains I made in that year? Yes. There is a specific exception called the \"\"Wash Sale Rule\"\", but that would only apply if you lost money on the original sale and bought a substantially similar or same stock within 30 days. Do I get taxed more for the money I made from buying and selling stocks, even if the gains is only in hundreds? More than what? You pay taxes based on the profit you make from the investment. If you held it less than a year it is the same tax rate as your regular income. If you held it longer you pay a lower tax rate which is usually lower than your regular tax rate.\"",
"qid": 11054,
"docid": "537916",
"rank": 79,
"score": 106553
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Assuming your investments aren't in any kind of tax-advantaged account (like an IRA), they are generally not tracked and you indeed may pay more taxes. What will likely change, however, is your cost basis. You only pay tax on the difference between the value of the investment when you sell it and its value when you bought it. There is no rule that says once you sell an investment and pay taxes on the gain, you will never again pay any taxes on any other investments you then buy with that money. If you own some investment, and it increases in value, and then you sell it, you had a capital gain and owe taxes (depending on your tax bracket, etc.). If you use the money to buy some other investment, and that increases in value, and then you sell it, you had another separate capital gain and again owe taxes. However, every time you sell, you only are subject to capital gains taxes on the gain, not the entire sale price. The value of the investment at the time you bought it is the cost basis. When you sell, you take the sale price and subtract the cost basis to find your gain, So suppose you bought $1000 worth of some ETF many years ago. It went up to $2000 and you sold it. You have $2000 in cash, but $1000 of that is your original money back, so your capital gain is $1000 and that is the amount on which you owe (or may owe) taxes. Suppose you pay 15% tax on this, as you suggest; that is $150, leaving you with $1850. Now suppose you buy another ETF with that. Your cost basis is now $1850. Suppose the investment now increases in value again to $2000. This time when you sell, you still have $2000 in cash, but this is now only $150 more than you paid, so you only owe capital gains taxes on that $150. (A 15% tax on that would be $22.50.) In that example you had one capital gain of $1000 and a second of $150 and paid a total of $172.50 in taxes (150 + 22.50). Suppose instead that you had held the original investment and it had increased in value to $2150 and you had then sold it. You would have a single capital gain of $1150 (2150 minus the original 1000 you paid). 15% of this would be the same $172.50 you paid under the other arrangement. So in essence you pay the same taxes either way. (This example is simplified, of course; in reality, the rate you pay depends on your overall income, so you could pay more if you sell a lot in a single year, since it could push you into a higher tax bracket.) So none of the money is \"\"tax exempt\"\", but each time you sell, you \"\"reset the counter\"\" by paying tax on your gain, and each time you buy, you start a new counter on the basis of whatever you pay for the investment. Assuming you're dealing with ordinary investment instruments like stocks and ETFs, this basis information is typically tracked by the bank or brokerage where you buy and sell them. Technically speaking it is your responsibility to track and report this when you sell an investment, and if you do complicated things like transfer securities from one brokerage to another you may have to do that yourself. In general, however, your bank/brokerage will keep track of cost basis information for you.\"",
"qid": 11054,
"docid": "190687",
"rank": 80,
"score": 106467
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: To explain the capital gains part of the question, non qualified stock options (NSOs) are always treated like earned income and have payroll taxes withheld. It's advantageous for the company to issue these because they can deduct them as expenses just as they do your salary. Articles talking about capital gains would probably be referring to incentive stock options (ISOs) or possibly even restricted stock units (RSUs). If you were granted the option to buy the stock and/or hold it for a period of time, then the stock options could be treated as capital gains, short-term gains if you held them for less than a year, and long-term gains if you held them for more than a year. This payment for your NSOs is exactly like a cash bonus. The withholding follows the same guidelines. You may wish to look at what this will mean for your annual salary and adjust your W-4 withholding up or down as appropriate depending on whether the 25% federal withholding rate is more or less than what you think your final marginal rate will be with this bonus included in your annual salary.",
"qid": 11054,
"docid": "203334",
"rank": 81,
"score": 106396
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Withdrawals from a traditional 401(k) plan are always treated as cash income and the taxable portion is taxed at ordinary income tax rates, even if the money was held in stocks within the 401(k) plan and the amount withdrawn is equal to whatever capital gains you made by selling the stock within the 401(k) plan. If your plan permits you to take the distribution as stock shares (transferred to your taxable brokerage account), then, for tax purposes, it is treated as if you took a distribution of cash equal to the market price of the shares as of the day of the distribution and promptly bought the same number of shares in your brokerage account. And yes, if the 401(k) plan assets in your ex-employer's plan consists solely of pretax contributions and the earnings thereon, then the entire distribution is ordinary taxable income regardless of whether you sold the stock within the 401(k) plan or took a distribution of stock from the plan and promptly (or after a few days) sold it. The capital gains or losses (if any) from such a sale are, of course, outside the 401(k) plan and taxable accordingly. Finally, the 10% penalty for premature withdrawal from a traditional 401(k) will also apply if you are not 59.5 years of age or older (or maybe 55 since you are separated from service), and it will be computed on the entire distribution.",
"qid": 11054,
"docid": "30912",
"rank": 82,
"score": 106306
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"If you sell a stock, with no distributions, then your gain is taxable under §1001. But not all realized gains will be recognized as taxable. And some gains which are arguably not realized, will be recognized as taxable. The stock is usually a capital asset for investors, who will generate capital gains under §1(h), but dealers, traders, and hedgers will get different treatment. If you are an investor, and you held the stock for a year or more, then you can get the beneficial capital gain rates (e.g. 20% instead of 39.6%). If the asset was held short-term, less than a year, then your tax will generally be calculated at the higher ordinary income rates. There is also the problem of the net investment tax under §1411. I am eliding many exceptions, qualifications, and permutations of these rules. If you receive a §316 dividend from a stock, then that is §61 income. Qualified dividends are ordinary income but will generally be taxed at capital gains rates under §1(h)(11). Distributions in redemption of your stock are usually treated as sales of stock. Non-dividend distributions (that are not redemptions) will reduce your basis in the stock to zero (no tax due) and past zero will be treated as gain from a sale. If you exchange stock in a tax-free reorganization (i.e. contribute your company stock in exchange for an acquirer's stock), you have what would normally be considered a realized gain on the exchange, but the differential will not be recognized, if done correctly. If you hold your shares and never sell them, but you engage in other dealings (short sales, options, collars, wash sales, etc.) that impact those shares, then you can sometimes be deemed to have recognized gain on shares that were never sold or exchanged. A more fundamental principle of income tax design is that not all realized gains will be recognized. IRC §1001(c) says that all realized gains are recognized, except as otherwise provided; that \"\"otherwise\"\" is substantial and far-ranging.\"",
"qid": 11054,
"docid": "42521",
"rank": 83,
"score": 106170
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Yes, it should come out tax free. However you should have reported it to the IRS at the time (currently it is done on form 8606). If you haven't done it, the IRS may disagree with you on that and require taxes. If you have proper documentation of the contribution, then when you withdraw from your IRA - you use that same form 8606 to calculate the non-taxable portion. Note that you cannot just take $2K out of the 1099-R, the non-taxable portion will be prorated through all of your IRA withdrawals. Also, keep in mind that only the actual after tax portion will be tax-free, the gains will be taxable. I.e.: if you deposited $2K after tax (and nothing else), and they have now grown to $100K - you will only have 2% of your distribution tax free (2k/100K * distributed amount).",
"qid": 11054,
"docid": "443983",
"rank": 84,
"score": 105808
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Assuming that what you want to do is to counter the capital gains tax on the short term and long term gains, and that doing so will avoid any underpayment penalties, it is relatively simple to do so. Figure out the tax on the capital gains by determining your tax bracket. Lets say 25% short term and 15% long term or (0.25x7K) + (0.15*8K) or $2950. If you donate to charities an additional amount of items or money to cover that tax. So taking the numbers in step 1 divide by the marginal tax rate $2950/0.25 or $11,800. Money is easier to donate because you will be contributing enough value that the IRS may ask for proof of the value, and that proof needs to be gathered either before the donation is given or at the time the donation is given. Also don't wait until December 31st, if you miss the deadline and the donation is counted for next year, the purpose will have been missed. Now if the goal is just to avoid the underpayment penalty, you have two other options. The safe harbor is the easiest of the two to determine. Look at last years tax form. Look for the amount of tax you paid last year. Not what was withheld, but what you actually paid. If all your withholding this year, is greater than 110% of the total tax from last year, you have reached the safe harbor. There are a few more twists depending on AGI Special rules for farmers, fishermen, and higher income taxpayers. If at least two-thirds of your gross income for tax year 2014 or 2015 is from farming or fishing, substitute 662/3% for 90% in (2a) under the General rule, earlier. If your AGI for 2014 was more than $150,000 ($75,000 if your filing status for 2015 is married filing a separate return), substitute 110% for 100% in (2b) under General rule , earlier. See Figure 4-A and Publication 505, chapter 2 for more information.",
"qid": 11054,
"docid": "176105",
"rank": 85,
"score": 105776
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Even if you're paying a lot of taxes now, you're talking marginal dollars when you look at current contribution, and average tax rate when making withdrawals. IE, if you currently pay 28% on your last dollar (and assuming your contribution is entirely in your marginal rate), then you're paying 28% on all of the Roth contributions, but probably paying a lower average tax rate, due to the lower tax rates on the first many dollars. Look at the overall average tax rate of your expected retirement income - if you're expecting to pull out $100k a year, you're probably paying less than 20% in average taxes, because the first third or so is taxed at a very low rate (0 or 15%), assuming things don't change in our tax code. Comparing that to your 28% and you have a net gain of 8% by paying the taxes later - nothing to shake a stick at. At minimum, have enough in your traditional IRA to max out the zero tax bucket (at least $12k). Realistically you probably should have enough to max out the 15% bucket, as you presumably are well above that bucket now. Any Roth savings will be more than eliminated by this difference: 28% tax now, 15% tax later? Yes please. A diversified combination is usually best for those expecting to have a lot of retirement savings - enough in Traditional to get at least $35k or so a year out, say, and then enough in Roth to keep your comfortable lifestyle after that. The one caveat here is in the case when you max out your contribution levels, you may gain by using money that is not in your IRA to pay the taxes on the conversion. Talk to your tax professional or accountant to verify this will be helpful in your particular instance.",
"qid": 11054,
"docid": "526520",
"rank": 86,
"score": 105488
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Outside of a tax sheltered IRA or 401(k) type of account your transactions may trigger tax liability. However, transactions are not taxed immediately at the time of the transaction; and up to a certain limits capital gains can be offset by capital losses which can mitigate your liability at tax time. Also, remember that dividend receipts are taxable income as well. As others have said, this has nothing to do with whether or not money has been moved out of the account.",
"qid": 11054,
"docid": "163836",
"rank": 87,
"score": 105317
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"You have several questions in your post so I'll deal with them individually: Is taking small sums from your IRA really that detrimental? I mean as far as tax is concerned? Percentage wise, you pay the tax on the amount plus a 10% penalty, plus the opportunity cost of the gains that the money would have gotten. At 6% growth annually, in 5 years that's more than a 34% loss. There are much cheaper ways to get funds than tapping your IRA. Isn't the 10% \"\"penalty\"\" really to cover SS and the medicare tax that you did not pay before putting money into your retirement? No - you still pay SS and medicare on your gross income - 401(k) contributions just reduce how much you pay in income tax. The 10% penalty is to dissuade you from using retirement money before you retire. If I ... contributed that to my IRA before taxes (including SS and medicare tax) that money would gain 6% interest. Again, you would still pay SS and Medicare, and like you say there's no guarantee that you'll earn 6% on your money. I don't think you can pay taxes up front when making an early withdrawal from an IRA can you? This one you got right. When you file your taxes, your IRA contributions for the year are totaled up and are deducted from your gross income for tax purposes. There's no tax effect when you make the contribution. Would it not be better to contribute that $5500 to my IRA and if I didn't need it, great, let it grow but if I did need it toward the end of the year, do an early withdrawal? So what do you plan your tax withholdings against? Do you plan on keeping it there (reducing your withholdings) and pay a big tax bill (plus possibly penalties) if you \"\"need it\"\"? Or do you plan to take it out and have a big refund when you file your taxes? You might be better off saving that up in a savings account during the year, and if at the end of the year you didn't use it, then make an IRA contribution, which will lower the taxes you pay. Don't use your IRA as a \"\"hopeful\"\" savings account. So if I needed to withdrawal $5500 and I am in the 25% tax bracket, I would owe the government $1925 in taxes+ 10% penalty. So if I withdrew $7425 to cover the tax and penalty, I would then be taxed $2600 (an additional $675). Sounds like a cat chasing it's tail trying to cover the tax. Yes if you take a withdrawal to pay the taxes. If you pay the tax with non-retirement money then the cycle stops. how can I make a withdrawal from an IRA without having to pay tax on tax. Pay cash for the tax and penalty rather then taking another withdrawal to pay the tax. If you can't afford the tax and penalty in cash, then don't withdraw at all. based on this year's W-2 form, I had an accountant do my taxes and the $27K loan was added as earned income then in another block there was the $2700 amount for the penalty. So you paid 25% in income tax for the earned income and an additional 10% penalty. So in your case it was a 35% overall \"\"tax\"\" instead of the 40% rule of thumb (since many people are in 28% and 35% tax brackets) The bottom line is it sounds like you are completely unorganized and have absolutely no margin to cover any unexpected expenses. I would stop contributing to retirement today until you can get control of your spending, get on a budget, and stop trying to use your IRA as a piggy bank. If you don't plan on using the money for retirement then don't put it in an IRA. Stop borrowing from it and getting into further binds that force you to make bad financial decisions. You don't go into detail about any other aspects (mortgage? car loans? consumer debt?) to even begin to know where the real problem is. So you need to write everything down that you own and you owe, write out your monthly expenses and income, and figure out what you can cut if needed in order to build up some cash savings. Until then, you're driving across country in a car with no tires, worrying about which highway will give you the best gas mileage.\"",
"qid": 11054,
"docid": "523521",
"rank": 88,
"score": 105206
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"You have a sequence of questions here, so a sequence of answers: If you stopped at the point where you had multiple wins with a net profit of $72, then you would pay regular income tax on that $72. It's a short term capital gain, which does not get special tax treatment, and the fact that you made it on multiple transactions does not matter. When you enter your next transaction that takes the hypothetical loss the question gets more complicated. In either case, you are paying a percentage on net gains. If you took a two year view in the second case and you don't have anything to offset your loss in the second year, then I guess you could say that you paid more tax than you won in the total sequence of trades over the two years. Although you picked a sequence of trades where it does not appear to play, if you're going to pursue this type of strategy then you are likely at some point to run into a case where the \"\"wash sale\"\" rules apply, so you should be aware of that. You can find information on this elsewhere on this site and also, for example, here: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/understanding-the-wash-sale-rules-2015-03-02 Basically these rules require you to defer recording a loss under some circumstances where you have rapid wins and losses on \"\"substantially identical\"\" securities. EDIT A slight correction, you can take part of your losses in the second year even if you have no off-setting gain. From the IRS: If your capital losses exceed your capital gains, the amount of the excess loss that you can claim on line 13 of Form 1040 to lower your income is the lesser of $3,000, ($1,500 if you are married filing separately)\"",
"qid": 11054,
"docid": "207788",
"rank": 89,
"score": 104917
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The capital gains is counted towards your income. If you cash out 1 Million dollars, you have a 1 Million dollar income for that year, which puts you at the 39.6% tax bracket. However, because that 1 Million dollars is all long term capital gains, you will only have to pay 20% of it in long term capital gains taxes. The best you can do is to cash the 1 Million dollars through several years instead of just all at once. This will put in a lower tax bracket and thus will pay lower capital gains tax.",
"qid": 11054,
"docid": "496217",
"rank": 90,
"score": 104844
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: My take is that he can avoid a big tax hit by leaving it as and giving the untouched fund to the heirs. 100% correct. By withdrawing now he'll be subjected to the income tax on the gains. Since his gains are almost the whole value of the account, he'll actually find himself in the highest bracket, not the lowest as Joe suggests. Not only that, but his SS income will become taxable as well. Capital gains are included in the AGI. By leaving as is, the heirs will get stepped up basis, and the whole 700K will not be taxed (its below the estate tax threshold, and the basis for the heirs will be the value at death).",
"qid": 11054,
"docid": "520379",
"rank": 91,
"score": 104770
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Capital losses do mirror capital gains within their holding periods. An asset or investment this is certainly held for a year into the day or less, and sold at a loss, will create a short-term capital loss. A sale of any asset held for over a year to your day, and sold at a loss, will create a loss that is long-term. When capital gains and losses are reported from the tax return, the taxpayer must first categorize all gains and losses between long and short term, and then aggregate the sum total amounts for every single regarding the four categories. Then the gains that are long-term losses are netted against each other, therefore the same is done for short-term gains and losses. Then your net gain that is long-term loss is netted against the net short-term gain or loss. This final net number is then reported on Form 1040. Example Frank has the following gains and losses from his stock trading for the year: Short-term gains - $6,000 Long-term gains - $4,000 Short-term losses - $2,000 Long-term losses - $5,000 Net short-term gain/loss - $4,000 ST gain ($6,000 ST gain - $2,000 ST loss) Net long-term gain/loss - $1,000 LT loss ($4,000 LT gain - $5,000 LT loss) Final net gain/loss - $3,000 short-term gain ($4,000 ST gain - $1,000 LT loss) Again, Frank can only deduct $3,000 of final net short- or long-term losses against other types of income for that year and must carry forward any remaining balance.",
"qid": 11054,
"docid": "266898",
"rank": 92,
"score": 104753
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Since the deduction balances out the future tax (presumably), I am only paying tax on the gains, however over 20 years, those gains could be greater than the original $4000 itself. (Doubling would only take 3.6% annual return over 20 years ) If I put it into a Roth IRA, I don't get a tax deduction, but I get to withdraw the original $4000 and all the gains, tax free in about 20 years. It seems the Roth IRA is a better deal tax wise, but I would like to hear if I am missing something. You are missing the time value of money. $4000 now does not have the same value to you as $4000 years in the future. In fact, the $4000 now has the same value as the money it grows into (principal + earnings) in the future. So a certain percentage of tax on the $4000 now has the same effect to you as the same percentage of tax on the $4000 + earnings in the future, no matter how much \"\"earnings\"\" is. It's simple math. If you start with the same amount of pre-tax money, and have the same flat percentage tax rate, then both Traditional and Roth will leave you with the same amount of money, regardless of how many times the gains are. Try it for yourself.\"",
"qid": 11054,
"docid": "581085",
"rank": 93,
"score": 104725
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"This question and your other one indicate you're a bit unclear on how capital gains taxes work, so here's the deal: you buy an asset (like shares of stock or a mutual fund). You later sell it for more than you bought it for. You pay taxes on your profit: the difference between what you sold it for and what you bought it for. What matters is not the amount of money you \"\"withdraw\"\", but the prices at which assets are bought and sold. In fact, often you will be able to choose which individual shares you sell, which means you have some control over the tax you pay. For a simple example, suppose you buy 10 shares of stock for $100 each in January (an investment of $1000); we'll call these the \"\"early\"\" shares. The stock goes up to $200 in July, and you buy 10 more shares (investing an additional $2000); we'll call these the \"\"late\"\" shares. Then the stock drops to $150. Suppose you want $1500 in cash, so you are going to sell 10 shares. The 10 early shares you bought have increased in value, because you bought then for $100 but can now sell them for $150. The 10 late shares have decreased in value, because you bought them for $200 but can now only sell them for $150. If you choose to sell the early shares, you will have a capital gain of $500 ($1500 sale price minus $1000 purchase price), on which you may owe taxes. If you sell the late shares, you will have a capital loss of $500 ($1500 sale price minus $2000 purchase price is -$500), which you can potentially use to reduce your taxes. Or you could sell 5 of each and have no gain or loss (selling five early shares for $150 gives you a gain of $250, but selling five late shares for $150 gives you a loss of $250, and they cancel out). The point of all this is to say that the tax is not determined by the amount of cash you get, but by the difference between the sale price and the price you purchased for (known as the \"\"cost basis\"\"), and this in turn depends on which specific assets you sell. It is not enough to know the total amount you invested and the total gain. You need to know the specific cost basis (i.e., original purchase price) of the specific shares you're selling. (This is also the answer to your question about long-term versus short-term gains. It doesn't matter how much money you make on the sale. What matters is how long you hold the asset before selling it.) That said, many brokers will automatically sell your shares in a certain order unless you tell them otherwise (and some won't let you tell them otherwise). Often they will use the \"\"first in, first out\"\" rule, which means they will always sell the earliest-purchased shares first. To finally get to your specific question about Betterment, they have a page here that says they use a different method. Essentially, they try to sell your shares in a way that minimizes taxes. They do this by first selling shares that have a loss, and only then selling shares that have a gain. This basically means that if you want to cash out $X, and it is possible to do it in a way that incurs no tax liability, they will do that. What gets me very confused is if I continue to invest random amounts of money each month using Betterment, then I need to withdraw some cash, what are the tax implications. As my long answer above should indicate, there is no simple answer to this. The answer is \"\"it depends\"\". It depends on exactly when you bought the shares, exactly how much you paid for them, exactly when and how much the price rose or fell, and exactly how much you sell them for. Betterment is more or less saying \"\"Don't worry about any of this, trust us, we will handle everything so that your tax is minimized.\"\" A final note: if you really do want to track the details of your cost basis, Betterment may not be for you, because it is an automated platform that may do a lot of individual trades that a human wouldn't do, and that can make tracking the cost basis yourself very difficult. Almost the whole point of something like Betterment is that you are supposed to give them your money and forget about these details.\"",
"qid": 11054,
"docid": "257625",
"rank": 94,
"score": 104692
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"This answer is about the USA. Each time you sell a security (a stock or a bond) or some other asset, you are expected to pay tax on the net gain. It doesn't matter whether you use a broker or mutual fund to make the sale. You still owe the tax. Net capital gain is defined this way: Gross sale prices less (broker fees for selling + cost of buying the asset) The cost of buying the asset is called the \"\"basis price.\"\" You, or your broker, needs to keep track of the basis price for each share. This is easy when you're just getting started investing. It stays easy if you're careful about your record keeping. You owe the capital gains tax whenever you sell an asset, whether or not you reinvest the proceeds in something else. If your capital gains are modest, you can pay all the taxes at the end of the year. If they are larger -- for example if they exceed your wage earnings -- you should pay quarterly estimated tax. The tax authorities ding you for a penalty if you wait to pay five- or six-figure tax bills without paying quarterly estimates. You pay NET capital gains tax. If one asset loses money and another makes money, you pay on your gains minus your losses. If you have more losses than gains in a particular year, you can carry forward up to $3,000 (I think). You can't carry forward tens of thousands in capital losses. Long term and short term gains are treated separately. IRS Schedule B has places to plug in all those numbers, and the tax programs (Turbo etc) do too. Dividend payments are also taxable when they are paid. Those aren't capital gains. They go on Schedule D along with interest payments. The same is true for a mutual fund. If the fund has Ford shares in it, and Ford pays $0.70 per share in March, that's a dividend payment. If the fund managers decide to sell Ford and buy Tesla in June, the selling of Ford shares will be a cap-gains taxable event for you. The good news: the mutual fund managers send you a statement sometime in February or March of each year telling what you should put on your tax forms. This is great. They add it all up for you. They give you a nice consolidated tax statement covering everything: dividends, their buying and selling activity on your behalf, and any selling they did when you withdrew money from the fund for any purpose. Some investment accounts like 401(k) accounts are tax free. You don't pay any tax on those accounts -- capital gains, dividends, interest -- until you withdraw the money to live on after you retire. Then that money is taxed as if it were wage income. If you want an easy and fairly reliable way to invest, and don't want to do a lot of tax-form scrambling, choose a couple of different mutual funds, put money into them, and leave it there. They'll send you consolidated tax statements once a year. Download them into your tax program and you're done. You mentioned \"\"riding out bad times in cash.\"\" No, no, NOT a good idea. That investment strategy almost guarantees you will sell when the market is going down and buy when it's going up. That's \"\"sell low, buy high.\"\" It's a loser. Not even Warren Buffett can call the top of the market and the bottom. Ned Johnson (Fidelity's founder) DEFINITELY can't.\"",
"qid": 11054,
"docid": "337993",
"rank": 95,
"score": 104594
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: It is not a dump question because it concerns your most important invisible financial partner:the taxman. The answer depends of the legal status of this account. If your account is 401(k) in USA or RRSP in Canada, the answer is no. No capital gain taxes if your money is registered for retirement. You'll pay later on, as taxes are like death, unavoidable. Yes capital gain if your money is not in an retirement account. As soon as you realize a capital gain, it becomes taxable in that fiscal year.",
"qid": 11054,
"docid": "564548",
"rank": 96,
"score": 104570
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: At the end of each calendar year the mutual fund company will send you a 1099 form. It will tell you and the IRS what your account earned. You will see boxes for: You will end up paying taxes on these, unless the fund is part of a 401K or IRA. These taxes will be due even if you never sold any shares. They are due even if it was a bad year and the value of your account went down. Most if not all states will levy an income tax yon your dividends and capital gains each year. When you sell your shares you may also owe income taxes if you made a profit. The actual taxes due is a more complex calculation due to long term vs short term, and what other gains or losses you have. Partial sales also take into account which shares are sold.",
"qid": 11054,
"docid": "88947",
"rank": 97,
"score": 104508
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"All transactions within an IRA are irrelevant as far as the taxation of the distributions from the IRA are concerned. You can only take cash from an IRA, and a (cash) distribution from a Traditional IRA is taxable as ordinary income (same as interest from a bank, say) without the advantage of any of the special tax rates for long-term capital gains or qualified dividends even if that cash was generated within the IRA from sales of stock etc. In short, just as with what is alleged to occur with respect to Las Vegas, what happens within the IRA stays within the IRA. Note: some IRA custodians are willing to make a distribution of stock or mutual fund shares to you, so that ownership of the 100 shares of GE, say, that you hold within your IRA is transferred to you in your personal (non-IRA) brokerage account. But, as far as the IRS is concerned, your IRA custodian sold the stock as the closing price on the day of the distribution, gave you the cash, and you promptly bought the 100 shares (at the closing price) in your personal brokerage account with the cash that you received from the IRA. It is just that your custodian saved the transaction fees involved in selling 100 shares of GE stock inside the IRA and you saved the transaction fee for buying 100 shares of GE stock in your personal brokerage account. Your basis in the 100 shares of GE stock is the \"\"cash_ that you imputedly received as a distribution from the IRA, so that when you sell the shares at some future time, your capital gains (or losses) will be with respect to this basis. The capital gains that occurred within the IRA when the shares were imputedly sold by your IRA custodian remain within the IRA, and you don't get to pay taxes on that at capital gains rates. That being said, I would like to add to what NathanL told you in his answer. Your mother passed away in 2011 and you are now 60 years old (so 54 or 55 in 2011?). It is likely that your mother was over 70.5 years old when she passed away, and so she likely had started taking Required Minimum Distributions from her IRA before her death. So, You should have been taking RMDs from the Inherited IRA starting with Year 2012. (The RMD for 2011, if not taken already by your mother before she passed away, should have been taken by her estate, and distributed to her heirs in accordance with her will, or, if she died intestate, in accordance with state law and/or probate court directives). There would not have been any 10% penalty tax due on the RMDs taken by you on the grounds that you were not 59.5 years old as yet; that rule applies to owners (your mom in this case) and not to beneficiaries (you in this case). So, have you taken the RMDs for 2012-2016? Or were you waiting to turn 59.5 before taking distributions in the mistaken belief that you would have to pay a 10% penalty for early wthdrawal? The penalty for not taking a RMD is 50% of the amount not distributed; yes, 50%. If you didn't take RMDs from the Inherited IRA for years 2012-2016, I recommend that you consult a CPA with expertise in tax law. Ask the CPA if he/she is an Enrolled Agent with the IRS: Enrolled Agents have to pass an exam administered by the IRS to show that they really understand tax law and are not just blowing smoke, and can represent you in front of the IRS in cases of audit etc,\"",
"qid": 11054,
"docid": "76530",
"rank": 98,
"score": 104342
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Long term: Assuming you sold stock ABC through a registered stock exchange, e.g., the Bombay Stock Exchange or the National Stock Exchange of India, and you paid the Securities Transaction Tax (STT), you don't owe any other taxes on the long term capital gain of INR 100. If you buy stock BCD afterwards, this doesn't affect the long term capital gains from the sale of stock ABC. Short term: If you sell the BCD stock (or the ABC stock, or some combination therein) within one year of its purchase, you're required to pay short term capital gains on the net profit, in which case you pay the STT and the exchange fees and an additional flat rate of 15%. The Income Tax Department of India has a publication titled \"\"How to Compute your Capital Gains,\"\" which goes into more detail about a variety of relevant situations.\"",
"qid": 11054,
"docid": "526661",
"rank": 99,
"score": 104179
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"There are two ways to handle this. The first is that the better brokers, such as Charles Schwab, will produce summaries of your gains and losses (using historical cost information), as well as your trades, on a monthly and annual basis. These summaries are \"\"ready made\"\" for the IRS. More brokers will provide these summaries come 2011. The second is that if you are a \"\"frequent trader\"\" (see IRS rulings for what constitutes one), then they'll allow you to use the net worth method of accounting. That is, you take the account balance at the end of the year, subtract the beginning balance, adjust the value up for withdrawals and down for infusions, and the summary is your gain or loss. A third way is to do all your trading in say, an IRA, which is taxed on distribution, not on stock sales.\"",
"qid": 11054,
"docid": "252176",
"rank": 100,
"score": 104171
}
] |
Am I required to have a lawyer create / oversee creation of my will? | [
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"This is not intended as legal advice, and only covers general knowledge I have on the subject of wills as a result of handling my own finances. Each state of the USA has its own laws on wills and trusts. You can find these online. For example, in Kentucky I found state laws here: http://www.lrc.ky.gov/krs/titles.htm and Title XXXIV is about wills and trusts. I would recommend reading this, and then talking to a lawyer if it is not crystal clear. Generally, if a lawyer does not draft your will, then either (1) you have no will, or (2) you use a form or computer program to make a will, that must then be properly witnessed before it is valid. If you don't have it witnessed properly, then you have no will. In some states you can have a holographic will, which means a will in your own handwriting. That's when you have that 3am heart attack, and you get out a pad of paper and write \"\"I rescind all former wills hereby bequeathing everything to my mistress Samantha, and as to the rest of you go rot in hell. \"\" One issue with these is that they have to get to court somehow, and someone has to verify the handwriting, and there are often state laws about excluding a current spouse, so you can guess for yourself whether that one might disappear in the fireplace when another family member finds it next to the body or if a court would give it validity. And there can be logic or grammar problems with do it yourself wills, made in your own handwriting, without experience or good references on how to write things out. Lawyers who have done a bunch of these know what is clear and makes sense. (1) In Tennessee, where I live, an intestate's property, someone who died with no will, is divided according to the law. The law looks to find a spouse or relatives to divide the property, before considering giving it to the state. That might be fine for some people. It happened once in my family, and was resolved in court with minimal red tape. But it really depends on the person. Someone in the middle of an unfinalized divorce, for instance, probably needs a will help to sort out who gets what. (2) A form will is valid in Tennessee if it is witnessed properly. That means two witnesses, who sign in yours' and each others' presence. In theory they can be called to testify that the signature is valid. In practice, I don't know if this happens as I am not a lawyer. I have found it difficult to find witnesses who will sign a form will, and it is disconcerting to have to ask friends or coworkers for this sort of favor as most people learn never to sign anything without reading it. But a lawyer often has secretaries that do it... There is a procedure and a treaty for international wills, which I know about from living overseas. To streamline things, you can get the witnesses to each sign an affidavit after they signed the will. The affidavit is sworn written testimony of what happened, that they saw the person sign their will and sign in each others' presence, when, where, no duress, etc. If done correctly, this can be sufficient to prove the will without calling on witnesses. There is another option (3) you arrange your affairs so that most of your funds are disbursed by banks or brokers holding your accounts. Option (3) is really cheap, most stock brokers and banks will create a Transfer-On-Death notice on your account for free. The problem with this is that you also need to write out a letter that explains to your heirs how to get this money, and you need to make sure that they will get the letter if you are dead. Also, you can't deal with physical goods or appoint a guardian for children this way. The advantage of a lawyer is that you know the document is correct and according to local law and custom, and also the lawyer might provide additional services like storing the will in his safe. You can get personalized help that you can not get with a form or computer program.\"",
"qid": 11088,
"docid": "437100",
"rank": 1,
"score": 113932
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Generally, it would be an accountant. Specifically in the case of very \"\"private\"\" (or unorganized, which is even worse) person - forensic accountant. Since there's no will - it will probably require a lawyer as well to gain access to all the accounts the accountant discovers. I would start with a good estate attorney, who in turn will hire a forensic accountant to trace the accounts.\"",
"qid": 11088,
"docid": "385301",
"rank": 2,
"score": 98851
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: To the best of my knowledge, Los Angeles County does not require a lawyer to be involved in a real-estate transaction. I looked through the County Recorder site and found no evidence that a lawyer is required. I live in a different county in California where a lawyer is also not required for real-estate transactions. Some counties do require a lawyer to be involved. That said, a purchase contract - is a contract. A legal document which you sign. A realtor may be able to help you understand the housing market pricing trends, but cannot (not allowed by law) draft the contract for you or advise to you on the clauses of the contract you're signing. Only a lawyer licensed in your State (California) is allowed to do that. So if you want a legal advice about the contract you're going to sign - you need to talk to a lawyer. Especially if you want a contract drafted for your own special needs, or have some specific titling requirements (for a company, or a trust - for example). Same goes for the mortgage contract and any other piece of paper you'll be signing during the closing meeting (and there will be plenty of such signatures). So it is not a question of need, it's a question of should.",
"qid": 11088,
"docid": "209846",
"rank": 3,
"score": 93414
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I used LawDepot to do this. It worked well for my simple case, though you are limited in the number of people you can name, for example, to inherit a share of your estate. And as Frazell Thomas pointed out, you do need to have your signature witnessed. I would certainly use LawDepot again for a simple will, though I suspect my next will is going to be complicated enough that I'll actually have to use an attorney. Note that a significant life change such as getting married may invalidate any current will. This is certainly the case in my jurisdiction, but this may not necessarily be true for you. Note that if you die without a will, your estate will be divided up in a deterministic manner. My wife died recently and as her immediate next of kin and with no children, I was therefore entirely esponsible for her estate. Had we had children, the children would have received $40,000 each, the rest coming to me. This will depend greatly on your jurisdiction, and I'm not sure what happens if the estate is insufficient. I bring this up simply because both my wife and I were happy with the other handling the estate, and a will would not have made dealing with her death significantly easier.",
"qid": 11088,
"docid": "547388",
"rank": 4,
"score": 89639
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Unless you have a law degree and a specific contract you can point to, you're just blowing shit out your ass. I think it's a fair assumption that when those contracts in question were created, they walked the legal line and would hold up in the court room. You know, 'cause if i had a few million on the line, I'd probably have a lawyer look at it and maybe even draft it...",
"qid": 11088,
"docid": "481675",
"rank": 5,
"score": 86396
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you are looking for a solicitor to help you with different legal matters, there’s no better place to go than here at MJR Solicitors Ltd. We offer reliable assistance in will writing, lasting power of attorney, and many more. And because we have fixed fees and hourly rates, you will never find overpriced or hidden costs here. To learn more, log on to our website at mjrsolicitors.co.uk.",
"qid": 11088,
"docid": "575381",
"rank": 6,
"score": 85092
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Bankruptcy law is complex. You need a lawyer who can advise you both on the statute and relevant case law for the district where you file. Your lawyer can advise you whether actions you contemplate are allowed. You can obtain advice prior to filing as you seek to determine whether the law and the relief it offers are suitable to your situation. Anyone considering filing BK should know that they will need to provide fairly extensive information. You should learn about BK as you seek to understand whether that path is the best for your situation. You should ask your lawyer specific questions about your situation and try to learn as much as you can. You should read about the problems with taking out debt or making debt repayments to creditors (especially family) prior to filing BK. These actions could impact your case and cause it to be dismissed, and could even be considered criminal (again, you need a lawyer). Some things to learn about as you contemplate Bankruptcy Be aware that BK is federal law, and you will be required to provide extensive information about your financial situation. You will be required to show up for the creditors meeting and testify that you have provided correct information. The trustee may (will) supply objections to which you and your lawyer will need to respond. Among other things, you will supply, You should seek legal advice about things that might become important, Even though you will have guidance from your lawyer, you are the one seeking relief, and you need to understand your own situation and the law.",
"qid": 11088,
"docid": "37183",
"rank": 7,
"score": 83896
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If the house is titled to the estate, neither of you own the house and it cannot be mortgaged. Executor of the will is supposed to provide to you and to the probate court periodic reports as to what is going on. Check them up and talk to your probate lawyer.",
"qid": 11088,
"docid": "96015",
"rank": 8,
"score": 83502
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"**What you need to know about [estate planning](http://money.cnn.com/magazines/moneymag/money101/lesson21/), including why you may need a will and assigning a power of attorney.** **1. No matter your net worth, it's important to have a basic estate plan in place.** Such a plan ensures that your family and financial goals are met after you die. **2. An estate plan has several elements.** They include: a will; assignment of power of attorney; and a living will or health-care proxy (medical power of attorney). For some people, a trust may also make sense. When putting together a plan, you must be mindful of both [federal and state laws](http://corlisslawgroup.com/) governing estates. **3. Taking inventory of your assets is a good place to start.** Your assets include your investments, retirement savings, insurance policies, and real estate or business interests. Ask yourself three questions: Whom do you want to inherit your assets? Whom do you want handling your financial affairs if you're ever incapacitated? Whom do you want making medical decisions for you if you become unable to make them for yourself? **4. Everybody needs a will.** A will tells the world exactly where you want your assets distributed when you die. It's also the best place to name guardians for your children. Dying without a will -- also known as dying \"\"intestate\"\" -- can be costly to your heirs and leaves you no say over who gets your assets. Even if you have a trust, you still need a will to take care of any holdings outside of that trust when you die. **5. Trusts aren't just for the wealthy.** Trusts are legal mechanisms that let you put conditions on how and when your assets will be distributed upon your death. They also allow you to reduce your estate and gift taxes and to distribute assets to your heirs without the cost, delay and publicity of probate court, which administers wills. Some also offer greater protection of your assets from creditors and lawsuits. **6. Discussing your estate plans with your heirs may prevent disputes or confusion.** Inheritance can be a loaded issue. By being clear about your intentions, you help dispel potential conflicts after you're gone. **7. The federal estate tax exemption -- the amount you may leave to heirs free of federal tax -- is now set permanently at $5 million indexed for inflation.** In 2013, estates under $5.25 million are exempt from the tax. Amounts above that are taxed up to a top rate of 40%. **8. You may leave an unlimited amount of money to your spouse tax-free, but this isn't always the best tactic.** By leaving all your assets to your spouse, you don't use your estate tax exemption and instead increase your surviving spouse's taxable estate. That means your children are likely to pay more in estate taxes if your spouse leaves them the money when he or she dies. Plus, it defers the tough decisions about the distribution of your assets until your spouse's death. **9. There are two easy ways to give gifts tax-free and reduce your estate.** You may give up to $14,000 a year to an individual (or $28,000 if you're married and giving the gift with your spouse). You may also pay an unlimited amount of medical and education bills for someone if you pay the expenses directly to the institutions where they were incurred. **10. There are ways to give charitable gifts that keep on giving.** If you donate to a charitable gift fund or community foundation, your investment grows tax-free and you can select the charities to which contributions are given both before and after you die.\"",
"qid": 11088,
"docid": "295142",
"rank": 9,
"score": 83359
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Should I just create a new account code, i.e. Lawyer's Trust Account? Yes, you should. I have a generic \"\"escrow\"\" account just for that.\"",
"qid": 11088,
"docid": "358640",
"rank": 10,
"score": 79338
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I am not a lawyer or a tax accountant, but from the description provided it sounds to me like you have created two partnerships: one in which you share 50% of Bob's revenue, and another in which you share 50% of the revenue from the first partnership. If this is the case, then each partnership would need to file form K-1 and issue a copy to the partners of that partnership. I think, but I'm not sure, that each partnership would need an Employer Identification Number (EIN; you can apply for and receive these online with the IRS). You would only pay tax on the portion of profits that are assigned to you on the K-1. (If you've accidentally created a partnership without thinking through all the ramifications, you probably want to straighten this out. You can be held liable for the actions of your partners.) On the other hand, if your contract with Bob explicitly makes you a contractor and not a partner, then Bob should probably be issuing a 1099 to you. Similarly for you and Joe -- if your contract with Joe makes him a subcontractor, then you may need to get an EIN and issue him a 1099 at the end of the year. The money you pay to Joe is a business expense, and would be deducted from the profits you show on your Schedule C. In my opinion, it would be worth the $200 fee paid to a good CPA to make sure you get this right.",
"qid": 11088,
"docid": "407378",
"rank": 11,
"score": 79228
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: ETFs are legally required to publicly disclose their positions at every point in time. The reason for this is that for an ETF to issue shares of ETF they do NOT take cash in exchange but underlying securities - this is called a creation unit. So people need to know which shares to deliver to the fund to get a share of ETF in exchange. This is never done by retail clients, however, but by nominated market makers. Retail persons will normally trade shares only in the secondary market (ie. on a stock exchange), which does not require new shares of the ETF to be issued. However, they do not normally make it easy to find this information in a digestible way, and each ETF does it their own way. So typically services that offer this information are payable (as somebody has to scrape the information from a variety of sources or incentivise ETF providers to send it to them). If you have access to a Bloomberg terminal, this information is available from there. Otherwise there are paid for services that offer it. Searching on Google for ETF constituent data, I found two companies that offer it: See if you can find what you need there. Good luck. (etfdb even has a stock exposure tool freely available that allows you to see which ETFs have large exposure to a stock of your choosing, see here: http://etfdb.com/tool/etf-stock-exposure-tool/). Since this data is in a table format you could easily download it automatically using table parsing tools for your chosen programming language. PS: Don't bother with underlying index constituents, they are NOT required to be made public and index providers will normally charge handsomely for this so normally only institutional investors will have this information.",
"qid": 11088,
"docid": "295993",
"rank": 12,
"score": 78413
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The president doesn't have a magic wand that automatically makes his will the law of the land. The president is the chief executive over a complicated bureaucratic system we call the US government. With many branches and departments, some of which are legally separated by the US Constitution and not directly under the president's control. No things aren't going to get better because the issues this country faces are beyond the office of the president. Maybe if Congress would get serious about America we would see a little traction on the recovery, as we would have 2/3 branches of the government moving in in the same direction. Currently the US government is a centipede with 2/3rds of its legs busted. **EDIT:** I don't mean to give the impression that the Judicial Branch is dysfunctional so much as I wanted to illustrate that it tends to follow the Legislative and Executive branches, not lead them. The Legislative branch creates the laws that the Executive branch (Office of the President) enforces. The Judicial branch oversees these two branches to make sure they create laws that abide by and operate within the Constitution.",
"qid": 11088,
"docid": "83655",
"rank": 13,
"score": 77143
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"First - for anyone else reading - An IRA that has no beneficiary listed on the account itself passes through the will, and this eliminates the opportunity to take withdrawals over the beneficiaries' lifetimes. There's a five year distribution requirement. Also, with a proper beneficiary set up on the IRA account the will does not apply to the IRA. An IRA with me as sole beneficiary regardless of the will saying \"\"all my assets I leave to the ASPCA.\"\" This is also a warning to keep that beneficiary current. It's possible that one's ex-spouse is still on IRA or 401(k) accounts as beneficiary and new spouse is in for a surprise when hubby/wife passes. Sorry for the tangent, but this is all important to know. The funneling of a beneficiary IRA through a trust is not for amateurs. If set up incorrectly, the trust will not allow the stretch/lifetime withdrawals, but will result in a broken IRA. Trusts are not cheap, nor would I have any faith in any attorney setting it up. I would only use an attorney who specializes in Trusts and Estate planning. As littleadv suggested, they don't have to be minors. It turns out that the expense to set up the trust ($1K-2K depending on location) can help keep your adult child from blowing through a huge IRA quickly. I'd suggest that the trust distribute the RMDs in early years, and a higher amount, say 10% in years to follow, unless you want it to go just RMD for its entire life. Or greater flexibility releasing larger amounts based on life events. The tough part of that is you need a trustee who is willing to handle this and will do it at a low cost. If you go with Child's name only, I don't know many 18/21 year old kids who would either understand the RMD rules on IRAs or be willing to use the money over decades instead of blowing it. Edit - A WSJ article Inherited IRAs: a Sweet Deal and my own On my Death, Please, Take a Breath, an article that suggests for even an adult, education on how RMDs work is a great idea.\"",
"qid": 11088,
"docid": "410453",
"rank": 14,
"score": 76580
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Somebody will have to file all the required paperwork and fees with the local government, state government and even the federal government. This paperwork is used by these governments to record who owns the property and how it is owned. Prior to the settlement date they also will need to verify how the property is described and owned so that you are sure that you are being sold the exact property you expect, and that it is delivered to you free and clear of all other debts. If this is done wrong you might discover years later that you paid money for something that you don't really own. In some jurisdictions this has to be done via a law office, in others there is no requirement for a lawyer. Because a mortgage company, bank, or credit union is giving you money for the loan, they may require you to use a settlement attorney. They don't want to discover in 5 years that a simple mistake will cost them hundreds of thousands to fix. The mortgage company is required to give you a more detailed estimate of all the closing costs before you are committed to the loan. The quoted paragraph is not good enough. Even if you can avoid the use of a lawyer these functions still need to be done by somebody, and that will still cost money.",
"qid": 11088,
"docid": "62754",
"rank": 15,
"score": 76366
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Assuming United States; answer may be different elsewhere. The best instructions I have seen for this were on the webpage of one of the law firms making an organized business out of intra-family loans, but any lawyer who can deal with normal bank loans should be able to help you set this up and get it filed with the appropriate authorities to make it a legally binding mortgage. Shouldn't cost you much in legal time to do it. You will have to charge interest; your lawyer can tell you what the minimum and maximimum interest rates would be where you are. Your interest income will be taxable. The borrower may or may not be able to deduct the interest paid from their taxes. Of course if the borrower has any sense they'll want to get their own lawyer to review the terms of the agreement, and to tell them whether they can deduct it from taxes or not.",
"qid": 11088,
"docid": "324002",
"rank": 16,
"score": 75666
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I wasn't being condescending, but I was pointing out there are professional association barriers to entry into higher level professions. So go fuck yourself, and that's condescending. But do yourself a favor and read the goddamn requirements in those states. 3 of the 5 REQUIRE AT LEAST ONE YEAR OF LAW SCHOOL. The other two require at least three years of study, under an experienced lawyer. What lawyer in their right mind is going to hire you, pay you, and train you rather than doing billable work? From Slate: Law office readers comprised only 60 of the 83,986 people who took state and multi-state bar exams last year, according to the New York Times. They are also less likely to pass those exams. Only 28 percent of the tiny minority of law office readers passed their bar exams last year, compared to 78 percent of students who attended American Bar Association-approved law schools, reports The Times. So, 17 people in the whole fucking country went that route in 2013. 17 out of the 65,526 people who passed the bar. So, ok, not impossible, but is .026% of new attorneys a viable path? Fuck no. Or maybe study up on medicine in your non-med school and sit for your USMLE, oh wait you can't. Or go sit for the CPA exam without a bachelor's degree without at least 12 hours of accounting, 150 hours of college credits (30 more than just a bachelors degree), AND at least a year of accounting experience. So thank you for the insult just for pointing out there ARE barriers to entry that cannot be overcome by OpenCourseWare style programs for many professions. Maybe you can take those 12 seconds and reconsider what life choices have brought you this moment where you are such a sad fucking jackass who cannot follow someone else's line of thought if it contradicts your own.",
"qid": 11088,
"docid": "423187",
"rank": 17,
"score": 75653
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Life would be nicer had we not needed lawyers. But for some things - you better get a proper legal advice. This is one of these things. Generally, the United States is a union of 50 different sovereign entities, so you're asking more about Texas, less about the US. So you'd better talk to a Texas lawyer. Usually, stock ownership is only registered by the company itself (and sometimes not even that, look up \"\"street name\"\"), and not reported to the government. You may get a paper stock certificate, but many companies no longer issue those. Don't forget to talk to a lawyer and a tax adviser in your home country, as well. You'll be dealing with tax authorities there as well. The difference between \"\"unoted\"\" (never heard of this term before) and \"\"regular\"\" stocks is that the \"\"unoted\"\" are not publicly traded. As such, many things that your broker does (like tax statements, at source withholding, etc) you and your company will have to do on your own. If your company plans on paying dividends, you'll have to have a US tax ID (ITIN or SSN), and the company will have to withhold the US portion of the taxes. Don't forget to talk to a tax adviser about what happens when you sell the stock. Also, since the company is not publicly traded, consider how will you be able to sell it, if at all.\"",
"qid": 11088,
"docid": "177050",
"rank": 18,
"score": 73969
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: So I actually just messaged him like why do you need a copy of my college diploma and he said his lawyer said he needs a copy of the diplomas of the people he specifically supervises on an Italian client (we work in PR and have companies and sometimes government subsidized companies as clients)... so maybe it does check out? I mean I did my due diligence I'm not sure what else I can do. If he photoshops it, that's on him.",
"qid": 11088,
"docid": "347554",
"rank": 19,
"score": 73524
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Be careful when you say \"\"insurance\"\" -- these things are service plans. They provide you with specific services and discounts in exchange for a pre-determined fee. So you pay $299/year and get a will, telephone advice and similar services. Insurance, like liability insurance, guarantees compensation for specific losses. You can sometimes pay attorneys a retainer and get some discounts on services. This is only cost effective if you have enough work. These plans might make sense, depending on what you need.\"",
"qid": 11088,
"docid": "520788",
"rank": 20,
"score": 73476
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I'm not an attorney or a tax advisor. The following is NOT to be considered advice, just general information. In the US, \"\"putting your name on the deed\"\" would mean making you a co-owner. Absent any other legal agreement between you (e.g. a contract stating each of you owns 50% of the house), both of you would then be considered to own 100% of the house, jointly and severally: In addition, the IRS would almost certainly interpret the creation of your ownership interest as a gift from your partner to you, making them liable for gift tax. The gift tax could be postponed by filing a gift tax return, which would reduce partner's lifetime combined gift/estate tax exemption. And if you sought to get rid of your ownership interest by giving it to your partner, it would again be a taxable gift, with the tax (or loss of estate tax exemption) accruing to you. However, it is likely that this is all moot because of the mortgage on the house. Any change to the deed would have to be approved by the mortgage holder and (if so approved) executed by a title company/registered closing agent or similar (depending on the laws of your state). In my similar case, the mortgage holder refused to add or remove any names from the deed unless I refinanced (at a higher rate, naturally) making the new partners jointly liable for the mortgage. We also had to pay an additional title fee to change the deed.\"",
"qid": 11088,
"docid": "209684",
"rank": 21,
"score": 72907
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you're being sued, unless it's small claims court, you need a lawyer. And if/after there's a judgement against you and you want to explore bankruptcy as an option, you'll still need an attorney. Depending on details, your assets may not be protected from the judgement. So any way you look at it, you need a lawyer.",
"qid": 11088,
"docid": "487343",
"rank": 22,
"score": 72497
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I've hired a lawyer to make sure all the T's are crossed. - I am not charging my employer for the service. I created a \"\"Free tier\"\" that fits the scale of my employer, and implemented it that way for them. Larger government bodies are paying for the higher tiers. On multiple levels, i've been sure that nothing conflicts with either our purchasing policy, or any written employee policies. - I did 100% of the work on my own time and using my own resources. I was extremely careful to ensure this was the case. There is no clause anywhere in my employment agreement that says the company owns anything I do outside of company time. Believe it or not, this is actually less of an issue for a government body because the government doesn't exist to make a profit from services, and because they are getting an expensive service for free, it's actually a significant net benefit for them. I certainly would be at a significantly higher risk if I was working for a for-profit corporation as they certainly would try to go after me. - I was also careful in how the software was presented. While I agree there is a level of a obfuscation without a doubt, I've confirmed it certainly not a legal issue for the company, nor is it grounds for a lawsuit, and likely not even grounds for termination (although at this point, I don't really care as I have bigger fish to fry)\"",
"qid": 11088,
"docid": "419188",
"rank": 23,
"score": 72485
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Accounting for this properly is not a trivial matter, and you would be wise to pay a little extra to talk with a lawyer and/or CPA to ensure the precise wording. How best to structure such an arrangement will depend upon your particular jurisdiction, as this is not a federal matter - you need someone licensed to advise in your particular state at least. The law of real estate co-ownership (as defined on a deed) is not sufficient for the task you are asking of it - you need something more sophisticated. Family Partnership (we'll call it FP) is created (LLC, LLP, whatever). We'll say April + A-Husband gets 50%, and Sister gets 50% equity (how you should handle ownership with your husband is outside the scope of this answer, but you should probably talk it over with a lawyer and this will depend on your state!). A loan is taken out to buy the property, in this case with all partners personally guaranteeing the loan equally, but the loan is really being taken out by FP. The mortgage should probably show 100% ownership by FP, not by any of you individually - you will only be guaranteeing the loan, and your ownership is purely through the partnership. You and your husband put $20,000 into the partnership. The FP now lists a $20,000 liability to you, and a $20,000 asset in cash. FP buys the $320,000 house (increase assets) with a $300,000 mortgage (liability) and $20,000 cash (decrease assets). Equity in the partnership is $0 right now. The ownership at present is clear. You own 50% of $0, and your sister owns 50% of $0. Where'd your money go?! Simple - it's a liability of the partnership, so you and your husband are together owed $20,000 by the partnership before any equity exists. Everything balances nicely at this point. Note that you should account for paying closing costs the same as you considered the down payment - that money should be paid back to you before any is doled out as investment profit! Now, how do you handle mortgage payments? This actually isn't as hard as it sounds, thanks to the nature of a partnership and proper business accounting. With a good foundation the rest of the building proceeds quite cleanly. On month 1 your sister pays $1400 into the partnership, while you pay $645 into the partnership. FP will record an increase in assets (cash) of $1800, an increase in liability to your sister of $1400, and an increase in liability to you of $645. FP will then record a decrease in cash assets of $1800 to pay the mortgage, with a matching increase in cost account for the mortgage. No net change in equity, but your individual contributions are still preserved. Let's say that now after only 1 month you decide to sell the property - someone makes an offer you just can't refuse of $350,000 dollars (we'll pretend all the closing costs disappeared in buying and selling, but it should be clear how to account for those as I mention earlier). Now what happens? FP gets an increase in cash assets of $350,000, decreases the house asset ($320,000 - original purchase price), and pays off the mortgage - for simplicity let's pretend it's still $300,000 somehow. Now there's $50,000 in cash left in the partnership - who's money is it? By accounting for the house this way, the answer is easily determined. First all investments are paid back - so you get back $20,000 for the down payment, $645 for your mortgage payments so far, and your sister gets back $1400 for her mortgage payment. There is now $27,995 left, and by being equal partners you get to split it - 13,977 to you and your husband and the same amount to your sister (I'm keeping the extra dollar for my advice to talk to a lawyer/CPA). What About Getting To Live There? The fact is that your sister is getting a little something extra out of the deal - she get's the live there! How do you account for that? Well, you might just be calling it a gift. The problem is you aren't in any way, shape, or form putting that in writing, assigning it a value, nothing. Also, what do you do if you want to sell/cash out or at least get rid of the mortgage, as it will be showing up as a debt on your credit report and will effect your ability to secure financing of your own in the future if you decide to buy a house for your husband and yourself? Now this is the kind of stuff where families get in trouble. You are mixing personal lives and business arrangements, and some things are not written down (like the right to occupy the property) and this can really get messy. Would evicting your sister to sell the house before you all go bankrupt on a bad deal make future family gatherings tense? I'm betting it might. There should be a carefully worded lease probably from the partnership to your sister. That would help protect you from extra court costs in trying to determine who has the rights to occupy the property, especially if it's also written up as part of the partnership agreement...but now you are building the potential for eviction proceedings against your sister right into an investment deal? Ugh, what a potential nightmare! And done right, there should probably be some dollar value assigned to the right to live there and use the property. Unless you just want to really gift that to your sister, but this can be a kind of invisible and poorly quantified gift - and those don't usually work very well psychologically. And it also means she's going to be getting an awfully larger benefit from this \"\"investment\"\" than you and your husband - do you think that might cause animosity over dozens and dozens of writing out the check to pay for the property while not realizing any direct benefit while you pay to keep up your own living circumstances too? In short, you need a legal structure that can properly account for the fact that you are starting out in-equal contributors to your scheme, and ongoing contributions will be different over time too. What if she falls on hard times and you make a few of the mortgage payments? What if she wants to redo the bathroom and insists on paying for the whole thing herself or with her own loan, etc? With a properly documented partnership - or equivalent such business entity - these questions are easily resolved. They can be equitably handled by a court in event of family squabble, divorce, death, bankruptcy, emergency liquidation, early sale, refinance - you name it. No percentage of simple co-ownership recorded on a deed can do any of this for you. No math can provide you the proper protection that a properly organized business entity can. I would thus strongly advise you, your husband, and your sister to spend the comparatively tiny amount of extra money to get advice from a real estate/investment lawyer/CPA to get you set up right. Keep all receipts and you can pay a book keeper or the accountant to do end of the year taxes, and answer questions that will come up like how to properly account for things like depreciation on taxes. Your intuition that you should make sure things are formally written up in times when everyone is on good terms is extremely wise, so please follow it up with in-person paid consultation from an expert. And no matter what, this deal as presently structured has a really large built-in potential for heartache as you have three partners AND one of the partners is also renting the property partially from themselves while putting no money down? This has a great potential to be a train wreck, so please do look into what would happen if these went wrong into some more detail and write up in advance - in a legally binding way - what all parties rights and responsibilities are.\"",
"qid": 11088,
"docid": "434257",
"rank": 24,
"score": 72309
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Of course you don't have to pay them - you just might not like the result. As a matter of law - given that I am not a lawyer - I am not aware of any requirement for a company to pay employees business-related expenses. An example might be having a cell phone, and according to this article companies aren't required to pay for you to have a cell phone even if they require you have one and use it as part of your employment. The primary areas where law does exist relates to company uniforms with a logo (in a very limited number of US states) and necessary personal safety equipment (in California and maybe only few other states). All other tool requirements for a job are not prohibited by law, so long as they are not illegally discriminatory (such as requiring people of a certain race or sex to buy something but no one else, etc). So a company can require all sorts of things, from having an internet connection to cell phone to laptop to specialty tools and equipment of all sorts, and they are even allowed to deduct the cost of some things from your pay - just so long as you still get paid minimum wage after the deductions. With all that said, the company's previous payments of fees and willingness to pay a monthly internet fee does not obligate them to pay other fees too, such as moving/installation/etc. They may even decide to no longer provide internet service at their expense and just require you to provide it as a condition of employment. You can insist on it with your employer, and if you don't have an employment contract that forbids it they can fire you or possibly even deduct it from your pay anyway (and this reason might not be one that allows you to collect unemployment insurance benefits - but you'd need to check with an expert on that). You can refuse to pay AT&T directly, and they can cancel the internet service - and your employer can then do the same as in the previous condition. Or you can choose to pay it - or ask your employer to split the cost over a few checks if it is rather high - and that's about it. Like the cost of anything else you have to pay - from your own food to your computer, clothes, etc - it's best to just consider it your own \"\"cost of doing business\"\" and decide if it's still in your interest to keep working there, and for something to consider in future pay negotiations! You may also qualify for an itemized Employee Business Expense deduction from the IRS, but you'll need to read the requirements carefully and get/keep a receipt for such expenses.\"",
"qid": 11088,
"docid": "469198",
"rank": 25,
"score": 72004
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"> But what exactly are the new jobs that will be created? Nadella says to expect “people on people jobs.” These require skills that demand significant interaction, such as eldercare, In other words, low paying undesirable boring jobs... until a robot can do those jobs too... > “So much of the last 10 years has been consumption … now is the time for creation -- like in [building video game] Minecraft, with [Microsoft Paint spinoff] paint3d,” ... to make money for the platform owner (Microsoft who owns Minecraft) and almost nothing for you... and you can do this \"\"creative work\"\" only in your 20s or 30s... after which you are outdated and not so creative... great job security. I never heard of people becoming millionaires from creating apps on Google/Apple, youtube channels or all the other \"\"creative\"\" channels. **BOTTOM LINE: the whole purpose of Robots and AI is to take jobs and work away from people! Simple as that.** **Currently, millions of low skilled people have to do work done by robots and highly skilled people do the work done by AI. With robots and AI, either you are totally useless for any work (low skill people) or lose you job/income (highly skilled).** I am not against robots or AI, but I think they should be regulated. For example, all customer service (i.e. talking to a human being) must be done by humans, where AI is just a tool to help that customer service human. Another example, every group of robots doing work must be supervised by a human who gives them instructions what to do and how to do it.\"",
"qid": 11088,
"docid": "182445",
"rank": 26,
"score": 71684
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Being a lawyer in London comes with a higher level of prominence and responsibility, given the prominence of the place itself in various fields, including law and justice. This distinction has made the city a veritable battleground for counsels across several courts, with the Old Bailey as the most famous of all.",
"qid": 11088,
"docid": "3998",
"rank": 27,
"score": 71632
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Whether you need to hire a lawyer depends on whether you are capable enough to understand the fine print and it's consequences in all the contracts you sign with the Builder or not. Even though the REPC is a standard document, the Builder may add additional addendum voiding many of the rights Buyers normally have. If you are not sure or have doubts about specific verbiage, I recommend that you at least get your Realtor to spell it out for you or hire a lawyer as an alternative.",
"qid": 11088,
"docid": "225785",
"rank": 28,
"score": 71492
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Don't get me started about the law. I'm a lawyer and the business model is a mess. You'll hear about massive unemployment with lawyers. This is because lawyers are exempt from overtime. Firms slave associates for 70-100 weeks for years. No weekends, no holidays. Most associates make less per hour than their secretaries. Then they fire associates instead of making them partners and hire new associates desperate for a job. I know lawyers are hated, but please have some sympathy for associates who work 10-12 hour days and get paid less per hour than the staff. Happened to me. There are two necessary reforms. One is to allow ownership of law firms by non-lawyers. This has happened in the UK. If Costco or other companies could have law firms, it would kill the greedy partner aspect and make legal work accessible to many more people. I'm 100% in favor. I'll happily take a lower wage and serve more people. Everyone should be able to afford a lawyer. The other necessary reform is making *anyone* who isn't an owner entitled to 40 hour work weeks and overtime. If you own your own business and want to put in 90 hours, fine. But you should not be able to force an exempt employee to work 90 hours unless that employee is an owner. Those are entirely fair and reasonable and would transform the profession into what it should be. I've since started teaching. It doesn't pay as well, but at least I don't have to ram down a Christmas dinner and then go into the office. Or spend a Fourth of July on top of the parking structure to see a few fireworks before going back in to work more.",
"qid": 11088,
"docid": "23411",
"rank": 29,
"score": 71478
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You appear to just have admitted to tax evasion. You need a lawyer. There's a good chance you don't actually owe any money, but you need legal advice. To be clear, you may well not have been obligated to file tax returns, but you have stated you had some income you didn't report, so there's really nothing else we can say other than recommend you seek legal advice.",
"qid": 11088,
"docid": "426947",
"rank": 30,
"score": 70410
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Sure, form an LLC with an attorney's advice. You need a buyout clause, operating agreement, etc. If you're not married, never buy a home for personal use with someone else.",
"qid": 11088,
"docid": "498818",
"rank": 31,
"score": 69675
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Don't pay it, see a lawyer. Given your comment, it will depend on the jurisdiction on the passing of the house and the presence of a will or lack thereof. In some states all the assets will be inherited by your mom. Debts cannot be inherited; however, assets can be made to stand for debts. This is a tricky situation that is state dependent. In the end, with few assets and large credit card debt, the credit card companies are often left without payment. I would not pay the debt unless your lawyer specifically told you to do so. Sorry for your loss.",
"qid": 11088,
"docid": "264029",
"rank": 32,
"score": 69280
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You need to let a lawyer look at it. Concerns you have include:",
"qid": 11088,
"docid": "202054",
"rank": 33,
"score": 69210
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Despite the unmarried status, you need to see a lawyer. Essentially you have a business with this person owning a home as the asset, and a mortgage for which you are responsible for. A lawyer needs to examine any paperwork you have and with knowledge of your particular jurisdiction's laws can advise you on the proper course of action. You paint a really ugly picture of this guy. I bet you are correct that he is kind of a horrible person. \"\"Tough love\"\" time: You willingly entered into a long term contract with this person. Why would you do such a thing? Perhaps some self reflection and counseling is in order. This is probably more important than worrying about your credit. All that being said, it is good of you to want to break ties with this person. You can rebuild. All will be good if you concentrate on the right things.\"",
"qid": 11088,
"docid": "302409",
"rank": 34,
"score": 69127
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: This may effect how much, or under what terms a bank is willing to loan us I don't think this is likely, an investment is an investment whether it is money in a savings account or a loan. However, talk to your bank. Is it worth getting something by a lawyer? Definitely, you need a lawyer and so do your parents. There is a general presumption at law that arrangements between family members are not meant to be contracts. You definitely want this to be a contract and engaging lawyers will make sure that it is. You also definitely want this to be a proper mortgage so that you get first call on the property should your parents die or go bankrupt. In addition, a lawyer will be able to advise you of the pitfalls that you haven't seen. If both of my parents were to pass away before the money is returned, would that document be enough to ensure that the loan is returned promptly? No, see above. Tax implications: Will this count as taxable income for me? And if so, presumably my parents can still count it as a tax deduction? Definitely, however the ATO is very keen that these sorts of arrangements do not result in tax minimisation. Your parents will get a deduction at the rate charged; you will pay tax on the greater of the rate charged or a fair commercial rate i.e. what your parents would be paying a bank. For example, if the going bank mortgage rate is 5.5% and you charged 2% they get the deduction for 2%, you pay tax as though they had paid 5.5%. Property prices collapse, and my parents aren't able to make their repayments, bank forecloses on the place and sells it, but not even enough to cover the outstanding loan, meaning my parents no longer have our money. (I could of course double down and pay their monthly repayments for them in this case). First, property prices collapsing have no impact on whether your parents can pay the loan. If they can it doesn't matter what the property is worth. If they can't then it will be sold as quickly as possible for an amount that covers (as far as possible) the first mortgagee's indebtedness. It is only in reading this far that I realise that there will still be a bank as first mortgagee. This massively increases the risk profile. Any other risks I have missed? Yes, among others: Any mitigations for any identified risks? Talk to a lawyer. Talk to an accountant. Talk to an insurance professional. Anything I flagged as a risk that is not actually an issue? No Assuming you would advise doing this, what fraction of savings would you recommend keeping as a rainy day fund that can be accessed immediately? I wouldn't, 100%.",
"qid": 11088,
"docid": "322033",
"rank": 35,
"score": 68950
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Both of you sit down with a lawyer who practices in real estate and foreclosures, and hash out every single possibility of what could conceivably go wrong, with nothing out of bounds. Come up with a reasonable and fair plan for resolving each situation, that you are willing to commit to, life and breath, for real, no exit. Put all of it into a legal commitment between you two. However this is a fearless, searching and even ruthless contemplation, requiring a level of intimacy and personal responsibility you may not be comfortable with. and there's absolutely no room for dancing around unspoken questions. So in essence, it puts the hardest stuff up-front. If you put that much thought and honesty into it, you'll probably be OK. But you probably won't want to be that honest, or won't want to do the deal after you do.",
"qid": 11088,
"docid": "245903",
"rank": 36,
"score": 68948
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The guy is your boss/super? I still don't understand why his lawyer would need *your* credentials. It definitely still does sound sketchy, and in the future I'd ask more questions. Personally I'd tell anyone not HR asking for something like that to piss off. You aren't a client of that guy's lawyer, if he needs anything specifically from you, he can contact you and explain it. But what's done is done, if anything malicious happens it's definitely on him.",
"qid": 11088,
"docid": "72740",
"rank": 37,
"score": 68433
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: No matter what kind of contract you create for your partnership it will cost money to enforce it. Breaking the law is, well, against the law to begin with. You don't need to get a signed contract promising that they won't break the law. You could possibly get them to sign something that states if the contract is breached or laws are broken by one party, they forfeit their shares in the venture, but again you'll have to prove it and lawyers cost money. if the venture is paying you both then he/she will have the same capitol for legal defense. In some cases you can propose a trial period in partnerships. You can try doing business as separate entities for 1-2 years after which you can merge. After two years working together there should be some trust built up. If not, you shouldn't do business with this person anyway. Just my two cents. To be clear, I'm not a lawyer. You should probably ask a lawyer about this, actually.",
"qid": 11088,
"docid": "219606",
"rank": 38,
"score": 68206
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You should consider using a lawyer as your agent. We once talked to one who was willing to act as our agent for a fixed fee. Not all attorneys can do it where we live, but there are plenty that can. We ended up going another route, but since then we have found a seller's agent that charges us a fixed fee of one thousand dollars (a great deal for us). We are using her again right now. It's all about the contract. Whatever you can legally negotiate is possible - which is yet another reason to consider finding a real estate attorney.",
"qid": 11088,
"docid": "181306",
"rank": 39,
"score": 68070
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: First of all $1k is not enough money to start a web business. You're probably going to lose all your money, your business and your friendship. Second of all you need to retain a lawyer. I really can't emphasize this enough. If a lawyer is too expensive for you, then THIS BUSINESS IS TOO EXPENSIVE FOR YOU. If you don't have the money, then you don't have the time. When you say it's his idea - did he come to you with a fully written business plan? Even if he did, that's not really worth 20% of the equity. I would insist on 50/50 if the capital is 50/50, and salary to whoever is working on it. You're not going to have profits in the first year. Let me repeat that. YOU'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE PROFITS IN THE FIRST YEAR. Things never, ever, EVER work that way. Or ok they do but it's like 1%. It's not going to happen to you.",
"qid": 11088,
"docid": "542139",
"rank": 40,
"score": 68036
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I think the next big industry will be professional type certifications for more things. Just like you have to pass an exam to be a lawyer (the bar) you'll eventually be able to prove effectiveness and knowledge in a ton of tech and non tech fields without having to have a degree",
"qid": 11088,
"docid": "384954",
"rank": 41,
"score": 68002
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You don't need to hire a lawyer. In general, there are three things a lawyer might do: (1) Review the language of the deed of sale (2) Review the terms of the mortgage (if there is one) (3) Hire a title search company to do a title search If you do not want to do these things or want to do them yourself, then you do not need a lawyer.",
"qid": 11088,
"docid": "542613",
"rank": 42,
"score": 67664
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I came here asking for advice because google gave me conflicting answers. I don't need a lawyer to tell me which licenses I need, I just need somebody with experience, which it's obvious you don't have for 2 reasons. 1) You would have told me already and 2) joining existing firms will result in DNC agreements which I don't want. I'd appreciate a little bit more respect and knowledgeable answers than just putting me down for asking a simple question to clarify my confusion. I am new to this sub and your attitude does not make me feel welcomed here nor to other people I'd imagine that may be new as well.",
"qid": 11088,
"docid": "67457",
"rank": 43,
"score": 67103
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: There is heap of instances where you may want a franchise lawyer. For instance, during the ending of your franchise lawyer California agreement, an attorney can make certain that the conditions of the agreement are being duly observed. Likewise, in instances of statutory compliance, your attorney can not only interpret and defend you but can also work as a link between you and the franchise lawyer California. This can help break up whatever matters or concerns arising out of a franchisor's allegation.",
"qid": 11088,
"docid": "82144",
"rank": 44,
"score": 66853
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I agree with this argument. Finance, legal, and tax compliance industries are bogus and add dubious value at best. The creation of more wealth helps those that created the wealth the most, but it oftentimes also does help everyone else as well (think: Steve Jobs & his company's many creations). But I also believe that if you had a \"\"full equalizer day\"\" and redistributed all the wealth in the US so that each of us had the same amount of money (we'd each roughly have $255,000 if my math is correct), then within 1 generation you'd already see a similar wealth distribution to what we have now. Most would consume more- rather than invest- and it would only be a temporary fix. It's a rarity to find people advocating for changing the system that creates inequality (the Fed currently being the biggest perp) instead of simply trying to redistribute the results of that system.\"",
"qid": 11088,
"docid": "420233",
"rank": 45,
"score": 66724
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"You cant! There is the risk that between the time you get the check and the time you get to the bank that you will be murdered, have a heart attack, stroke, or aneurysm too. And they are probably more likely than the bank going out of business between the time you deposit the money and get access to it. Prior to accepting the check I would do the following: Get a lawyer that specializes in finance and tax law. There are some steps you can take to minimize your tax exposure. There is little you can do about the immediate tax on the winnings but there are things you can do to maximize the return of your money. You will want to do what you can to protect that money for yourself and your family. Also create or revise your will. This is a lot of money and if something happens to you people from your family and \"\"friends\"\" will come out of the woodwork trying to claim your money. Make sure your money goes where you want it to in the event something happens to you. Get a financial planner. This money can either make you or break you. If you plan for success you will succeed. If you trust yourself to make good decisions with out a plan, in a few years you will be broke and wondering what happened to your money. Even at 1% at 20million dollars that is 200k a year in interest... a pretty good income by itself. You do not have to save every penny but you can plan for a nice lifestyle that will last, if you plan and stick to your plan. Do research and know what bank you are going to deposit the money in. Talk to the bank let them know of your plans so they can be ready for it. It is not every day that they get a 20 million dollar deposit. They will need to make plans to handle it. If you are going to spread the money out among several banks they can prepare for that too. When choosing that bank I would look for one where their holdings are significantly more than you are depositing. I would not really go with one of the banks that was rescued. They have already shown that they can not handle large sums of money and assuming they will not screw it up with my money is not something I would be comfortable with. There were some nice sized banks that did not need a bail out. I would choose one of them.\"",
"qid": 11088,
"docid": "22961",
"rank": 46,
"score": 66475
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: GET A LAWYER. Doing business with relatives is business first, and some effort spent in setting things up and nailing down exactly what the financial relationships and obligations are beforehand can save a lot of agony and animosity later. Assuming it's a legal rental, you may be able to deduct business costs spent on maintaining the rental unit, but of course you will have to declare the rent as income. If it's just a bedroom suite, rather than a full legal apartment, I don't think you can claim it as rental. (Note that whether you decide to share cooking and such is a separate question; apartment in most areas requires its own kitchen and bathroom.) As Joe pointed out, the actual purchase also sounds like it's going to involve a large gift, which has its own tax implications. Either that, or they retain ownership of their share and you get to deal with that if you or they decide to sell. Again: GET A LAWYER. And a tax accountant or tax lawyer to advise you on those implications. This is not someplace where the average wisdom of the Internet should be relied upon except for generalities; local laws and contract details matter.",
"qid": 11088,
"docid": "19455",
"rank": 47,
"score": 66237
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Lawyers etc are upper middle class yes, but in general you are going for teachers, the higher degree nursing, non super specialist it workers, hr workers, middle management, etc. There is a point that we severely underpay K12 teachers. But the jobs you listed are working class. It used to be in the past that working class job could provide enough money for middle class existence eg car manufacturing union jobs. But that ended up being unsustainable, the companies uncompetitive and TBH the populace uneducated.",
"qid": 11088,
"docid": "161096",
"rank": 48,
"score": 66205
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Honestly, get a ln employment lawyer, preferably one with a MBA. If you're having to ask these questions, and considering giving away equity, get proper business legal advice. I've seen several lucrative companies torn apart because things were sloppy when it was originally set up. Also remember employees don't need equity to spur them on; that what a paycheck and meaningful employment is for. And certainly don't give anything from the outset.",
"qid": 11088,
"docid": "166166",
"rank": 49,
"score": 66154
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You can buy DIY will kits from office supply shopes like Staples or specialized publishers like Nolo or Quicken. The most important factor for you to consider will be the witness rules in your state to ensure the validity of your will later. Nolo has a lot of good information in this regard. Hopefully this is helpful :)",
"qid": 11088,
"docid": "438080",
"rank": 50,
"score": 65979
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: There are 2 basic ways to have someone buy partial ownership of your company: OR If they buy shares that you already own, then their shares will have the same rights as yours (same voting rights, same dividend rights, etc.). If they buy shares newly created from the company, they could be either identical shares to what you already own, or they could be a new class of shares [you may need to adjust the articles of incorporation if you did not plan ahead with multiple share classes]. You really need to talk to a lawyer & tax accountant about this. There are a lot of questions you need to consider here. For example: do you want to use the money in the business, or would you rather have it personally? Are you concerned about losing some control of how the business is run? What are the short term and long-term tax consequences of each method? What does your new partner want in terms of their share class? The answers to these questions will be highly valuable, and likely worth much more than the fees you will need to pay. At the very least, you will likely need a lawyer and accountant anyway to ensure the filings & taxes are done correctly, so better to involve them now, rather than later. There are many other situations to consider here, and an online forum is not the best place to get advice that might put you in a sticky legal situation later on.",
"qid": 11088,
"docid": "97962",
"rank": 51,
"score": 65800
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you create a block good enough to stop cellular data it will stop radio communications. This will prevent firefighters (should a fire ever occur) from communicating. A lawyer would just need to demonstrate that a single death or injury resulted directly from causing a fire fighter to operate in a diminished capacity by implementing their radio wave blocking system.",
"qid": 11088,
"docid": "220132",
"rank": 52,
"score": 65770
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The Indian lawyer areas are commercial and investment laws, corporate law and intellectual property laws. You can seek online legal dispute resolution without personally approaching any arbitrator or mediator. This is the most economical way of resolving disputes in minimum possible time.",
"qid": 11088,
"docid": "150062",
"rank": 53,
"score": 65667
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: > I hope you're not trying to become a lawyer. That field is way over saturated. No, but it was one of the better paying jobs offered when I was in school that at least claimed to work with student schedules. I don't have the cash for a top tier law school or even to afford to live near one, and even those who can find work from lower-tiered schools don't make enough to make it worth it. My goal is to work in some form of rehab or addiction treatment or trauma counseling (or possibly emergency medicine, if I decide I still need that pace and get tired of mostly talking). I was thinking about just getting my MSW but, since I'm already an EMT and probably going to be getting my CNA certification for a side job, now I'm leaning toward becoming a Psychiatric Nurse Practitioner or possibly a Physician's Assistant. I was looking at PA first, but NP seems most flexible in terms of being able to keep working and doing school. If all else fails, I'll hop back into sales. I'm licensed for real estate & insurance and sold cars until I got into a wreck and had to take some time off. Good money there and I liked the challenge, but I have personal reasons for wanting to go into the other field.",
"qid": 11088,
"docid": "166100",
"rank": 54,
"score": 65382
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Don't ignore it. If this is a non-trivial amount of money you need a lawyer. You've acknowledged that a loan exists and have personally guaranteed it, so a court can and will ultimately order you to pay. In doing so, they can put liens on your assests. Depending on the state, how the property is titled and other factors, that can include your home. If you don't have the money and are pretty much broke, try to negotiate a settlement. If they balk, you'll eventually need to start talking about bankruptcy -- that's the \"\"nuclear option\"\" and a motivator to settle. Otherwise, you need to either seriously explore bankruptcy or be prepared to lose your stuff to a judgement and having your dirty laundry aired in court. If you're not broke, but don't have liquid capital, you need to figure out a way to raise the money somehow. Again, you need to consult an attorney.\"",
"qid": 11088,
"docid": "244016",
"rank": 55,
"score": 64959
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The only professional designations for people allowed to provide tax advice are Attorney, EA or CPA. Attorney and CPA must be licensed in the State they practice in, EA's are licensed by the Federal government. Tax preparers are not allowed to provide any tax advice, unless they hold any of these designations. They are only allowed to prepare your tax forms for you. So no, tax preparer is not a solution. Yes, you need to talk to a tax adviser (EA/CPA licensed in your State, you probably don't need a tax attorney). You should do that before you start earning money - so that you can plan properly and understand what expenses you can incur and how they're handled with regards to your future income tax payments. You might also want to consider a bookkeeping service (many EA/CPA offices offer the bookkeeping as well). But that you can also do yourself, not all that complicated if you don't have tons of transactions and accounts.",
"qid": 11088,
"docid": "158122",
"rank": 56,
"score": 64450
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Save yourself a lot of trouble you both agree on a Real Estate Attorney to prepare all the paperwork (ie. contract) and conduct the closing for or with the Title Company. Then you both split the normal costs of the transaction. (Real simple professionally handled and you both save the 6%)",
"qid": 11088,
"docid": "87157",
"rank": 57,
"score": 64408
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Disclaimer: I’m not an expert. This is my basic understanding, which I’m sure someone will be glad to tell is horribly wrong... You need an LLC. Many people in my area create an LLC management company, then create individual LLCs for each investment property. Laws vary by state. YMMV Then you start researching properties. Commercial loans typically require a higher equity position than home ownership. Assume minimum 30%. For ease of this conversation let’s say you’re making the horribly poor decision to put that towards a single property. You’d be looking for a property in the 175-200k value range, because you’ll need to account for settlement expenses (attorney, broker, consultants) and a cash reserve. You’d be also be looking for what the average cap rate is for your market. In simplistic terms cap rate is the expected rate of return after expenses. So if the average market cap rate in that region for comparable properties is 5%, you can expect around 5% return on your investment, after you pay fees, maintenance, taxes, insurance, interest, etc. Buy a property and hold that property for a few years, making money every year, and claiming deductions on your earnings for something called depreciation. Fast forward 5 years and you’re ready to sell, the value of your property went up because you made improvements along the way, brought in some better tenants who are paying higher rents, and now you can offer a better cap rate than your competitors. You sell in the blink of an eye, and double your investment. Say you have $500k now sitting in the bank in you LLC’s name, in cash. You can either choose to cash out 100% and pay capital gains tax on your earnings above your basis (at 15% I think?)... OR you can quickly find a new property with that $500k, purchase it, and file a 1031, which says you don’t have to pay ANY capital gains on those earnings. You just increased income significantly without ever paying taxes on the underlying increase in value of your assets. Rinse and repeat for 25 years, develop a portfolio of properties, create a management company so you can stop paying others a percentage of your earnings, and you too can have the problem of too much money. I welcome anyone with actual knowledge of the topic to please expound on, or correct me.",
"qid": 11088,
"docid": "131395",
"rank": 58,
"score": 64390
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Rent doesn't give you any ownership in a property, so is largely irrelevant here. If you were paying rent after the death of your parents, that money would go to the owners of the house (which may include you). Similarly, whether or not someone was evicted is completely irrelevant. If the will specifies how the estate should be divided, that's what's relevant here. You seem to imply that the house was left to 10 people. Barring specific other arrangements, the most likely case is that the house will be sold by the executrices and the proceeds divided evenly between all ten people. Again, though, it's going to depend on the specifics of the will. There are many possible cases where you may end up with nothing. For example, if there are a lot of debts, these must be paid off before dividing up the money from the sale of the house. If you are not getting the answers you need from the executrices, you need to consult a lawyer.",
"qid": 11088,
"docid": "415262",
"rank": 59,
"score": 64271
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"There are TWO parts to an LLC or any company structure. This being the entire point of creating an LLC. The context is that a lawyer is after your LLC, and he's arguing that the LLC is not genuine, so he can go after your personal assets - your house, car, IRAs, tap your wife's salary etc. This is called \"\"piercing the corporate veil\"\". What would he use to claim the LLC is not genuine? The determination here is between you and the judge in a lawsuit. Suffice it to say, the way you withdraw money must consider the above issues, or you risk breaking the liability shield and becoming personally liable, which means you've been wasting the $25 every year to keep it registered. The IRS has a word for single member LLCs: \"\"Disregarded entity\"\". The IRS wants to know that the entity exists and it's connected to you. But for reporting tax numbers, they simply want the LLC's numbers folded into your personal numbers, because you are the same entity for tax purposes. The determination here is made by you. *LLCs are incredible versatile structures, and you can actually choose to have it taxed like a corporation where it is a separate \"\"person\"\" which files its own tax return. * The IRS doesn't care how you move money from the LLC to yourself, since it's all the same to them. The upshot is that while your own lawyer prohibits you from thinking of the assets as \"\"all one big pile\"\", IRS requires you to. Yes, it's enough to give you whiplash.\"",
"qid": 11088,
"docid": "540334",
"rank": 60,
"score": 64153
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Find a lawyer or law firm who wants to represent you and talk to them.",
"qid": 11088,
"docid": "521967",
"rank": 61,
"score": 63924
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If your sister paid rent, she was a tenant. There are laws to protect tenants, but those depend on what country, state, and city you live in. In most places in the US (maybe all), she was owed more than 2 days notice. Normally, the local housing authority could help her figure out what her rights are, but since this already happened, they may not be able to do much (depends on the local laws). It's worth asking them anyway. I don't know how partial ownership of the property would affect things if your sister was a partial owner. If the 30 year old will was the most recent document, then that's how the estate will be distributed. There are no laws in the US requiring a will to be fair. An executor's role is to carry out the will. Being an executor does not mean one can choose to unilaterally sell the property in the estate without permission of other heirs. You'll need to speak with a lawyer if you think they're breaking the will by selling property that you have partial ownership of. But since the sale is already done, reversing it would be slow and probably very expensive in legal fees. If it's a small estate, you'll have to judge whether a lawyer is worth the money and the family's animosity. Also, if the estate had debt, debt must be paid before property is distributed to the heirs, so that could also change what your sisters had to do. I'd suggest first asking your sisters to tell you about what they've done to execute the will, and what they do in the future.",
"qid": 11088,
"docid": "232329",
"rank": 62,
"score": 63807
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I can't. You aren't my client and I can't give specific advice over the internet without the risk of forming an attorney-client relationship, which comes with a lot of specific duties that I owe to the client and would be unable to carry out in this type of setting. Apologies.",
"qid": 11088,
"docid": "523905",
"rank": 63,
"score": 63682
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You should ask a CPA or tax lawyer to what extent living in specific housing provided by the employer as a job requirement is exempt from taxation. You might find a nice surprise. Your tax professional can also help you to report the items properly if mis-reported. Much of this is in the article you cite in the question, but perhaps a look at some of the original sources is warranted and will show why some expert advice might be useful. I would argue that an RA who is required to police and counsel undergrads in a college dorm in exchange for a room or a flat is closer to a worker with quarters on a ship or at an oil well than a full professor who receives a rental home in a neighborhood near the university as a benefit. In the first case living at the provided premises is necessary to do the job, but in the second case it is merely a benefit of the job. The IRS Publication 15-B guidance on employer provided housing is not entirely clear, so you might want to get some additional advice: Lodging on Your Business Premises You can exclude the value of lodging you furnish to an employee from the employee's wages if it meets the following tests. It is furnished on your business premises. It is furnished for your convenience. The employee must accept it as a condition of employment. Different tests may apply to lodging furnished by educational institutions. See section 119(d) of the Internal Revenue Code for details. If you allow your employee to choose to receive additional pay instead of lodging, then the lodging, if chosen, isn’t excluded. The exclusion also doesn't apply to cash allowances for lodging. On your business premises. For this exclusion, your business premises is generally your employee's place of work. For example, if you're a household employer, then lodging furnished in your home to a household employee would be considered lodging furnished on your business premises. For special rules that apply to lodging furnished in a camp located in a foreign country, see section 119(c) of the Internal Revenue Code and its regulations. For your convenience. Whether or not you furnish lodging for your convenience as an employer depends on all the facts and circumstances. You furnish the lodging to your employee for your convenience if you do this for a substantial business reason other than to provide the employee with additional pay. This is true even if a law or an employment contract provides that the lodging is furnished as pay. However, a written statement that the lodging is furnished for your convenience isn't sufficient. Condition of employment. Lodging meets this test if you require your employees to accept the lodging because they need to live on your business premises to be able to properly perform their duties. Examples include employees who must be available at all times and employees who couldn't perform their required duties without being furnished the lodging. It doesn't matter whether you must furnish the lodging as pay under the terms of an employment contract or a law fixing the terms of employment. Example of qualifying lodging. You employ Sam at a construction project at a remote job site in Alaska. Due to the inaccessibility of facilities for the employees who are working at the job site to obtain lodging and the prevailing weather conditions, you furnish lodging to your employees at the construction site in order to carry on the construction project. You require that your employees accept the lodging as a condition of their employment. You may exclude the lodging that you provide from Sam's wages. Additionally, since sufficient eating facilities aren’t available near your place of employment, you may also exclude meals you provide to Sam from his wages, as discussed under Meals on Your Business Premises , later in this section. Example of nonqualifying lodging. A hospital gives Joan, an employee of the hospital, the choice of living at the hospital free of charge or living elsewhere and receiving a cash allowance in addition to her regular salary. If Joan chooses to live at the hospital, the hospital can't exclude the value of the lodging from her wages because she isn't required to live at the hospital to properly perform the duties of her employment. One question would be how the conflict with IRC 119(d) is resolved for someone who must live in the dorm to watch over the dorm and its undergrads. Here's 26USC119(d) from LII: (d) Lodging furnished by certain educational institutions to employees (1) In general In the case of an employee of an educational institution, gross income shall not include the value of qualified campus lodging furnished to such employee during the taxable year. (2) Exception in cases of inadequate rent Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the extent of the excess of— (A) the lesser of— (i) 5 percent of the appraised value of the qualified campus lodging, or (ii) the average of the rentals paid by individuals (other than employees or students of the educational institution) during such calendar year for lodging provided by the educational institution which is comparable to the qualified campus lodging provided to the employee, over (B) the rent paid by the employee for the qualified campus lodging during such calendar year. The appraised value under subparagraph (A)(i) shall be determined as of the close of the calendar year in which the taxable year begins, or, in the case of a rental period not greater than 1 year, at any time during the calendar year in which such period begins. (3) Qualified campus lodging For purposes of this subsection, the term “qualified campus lodging” means lodging to which subsection (a) does not apply and which is— (A) located on, or in the proximity of, a campus of the educational institution, and (B) furnished to the employee, his spouse, and any of his dependents by or on behalf of such institution for use as a residence. (4) Educational institution, etc. For purposes of this subsection— (A) In generalThe term “educational institution” means— (i) an institution described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(ii) (or an entity organized under State law and composed of public institutions so described), or (ii) an academic health center. (B) Academic health centerFor purposes of subparagraph (A), the term “academic health center” means an entity— (i) which is described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(iii), (ii) which receives (during the calendar year in which the taxable year of the taxpayer begins) payments under subsection (d)(5)(B) or (h) of section 1886 of the Social Security Act (relating to graduate medical education), and (iii) which has as one of its principal purposes or functions the providing and teaching of basic and clinical medical science and research with the entity’s own faculty.",
"qid": 11088,
"docid": "7632",
"rank": 64,
"score": 63644
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Also the will stipulated that the house cannot be sold as long as one of my wife's aunts (not the same one who supposedly took the file cabinet) is alive. This is a turkey of a provision, particularly if she is not living in the house. It essentially renders the house, which is mortgaged, valueless. You'd have to put money into it to maintain the mortgage until she dies and you can sell it. The way that I see it, you have four options: Crack that provision in the will. You'd need to hire a lawyer for that. It may not be possible. Abandon the house. It's currently owned by the estate, so leave it in the estate. Distribute any goods and investments, but let the bank foreclose on the house. You don't get any value from the house, but you don't lose anything either. Your father's credit rating will take a posthumous hit that it can afford. You may need to talk to a lawyer here as well, but this is going to be a standard problem. Explore a reverse mortgage. They may be able to accommodate the weird provision with the aunt and manage the property while giving a payout. Or maybe not. It doesn't hurt to ask. Find a property manager in Philadelphia and have them rent out the house for you. Google gave some results on \"\"find property management company Philadelphia\"\" and you might be able to do better while in Philadelphia to get rid of his stuff. Again, I'd leave the house on the estate, as you are blocked from selling. A lawyer might need to put it in a trust or something to make that work (if the estate has to be closed in a certain time period). Pay the mortgage out of the rent. If there's extra left over, you can either pay down the mortgage faster or distribute it. Note that the rent may not support the mortgage. If not, then option four is not practical. However, in that case, the house is unlikely to be worth much net of the mortgage anyway. Let the bank have it (option two). If the aunt needs to move into the house, then you can give up the rental income. She can either pay the mortgage (possibly by renting rooms) or allow foreclosure. A reverse mortgage might also help in that situation. It's worth noting that three of the options involve a lawyer. Consulting one to help choose among the options might be constructive. You may be able to find a law firm with offices in both Florida and Pennsylvania. It's currently winter. Someone should check on the house to make sure that the heat is running and the pipes aren't freezing. If you can't do anything with it now, consider winterizing by turning off the water and draining the pipes. Turn the heat down to something reasonable and unplug the refrigerator (throw out the food first). Note that the kind of heat matters. You may need to buy oil or pay a gas bill in addition to electricity.\"",
"qid": 11088,
"docid": "322314",
"rank": 65,
"score": 63504
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You need to talk to an accountant who practices tax accounting, preferaby someone who is an Enrolled Agent (EA) with the IRS, and possibly an attorney who specializes in tax law. There are multiple issues here, and the executor of your father's estate might need to be involved here too. Presumably you were a minor in 2007 since the transactions took place in a custodial account, and perhaps you were a dependent of your father in 2007. So, were the transactions reported on your father's 2007 income tax return? or did he file a separate income tax return in your name? You say you have a W2 for 2007. So you were earning some income in 2007? This complicates matters. It is necessary to determine who has the responsibility to file income tax returns for a minor with earned income. Above all, I urge you to not file income tax returns on your own or using a tax return preparation program, or after talking to a tax return preparation service (where you will likely get someone who works on a seasonal basis and is unlikely to be familiar with tax law as of 2007).",
"qid": 11088,
"docid": "232716",
"rank": 66,
"score": 63331
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: As soon as you get some actual legal action you hire a lawyer, and that $23k is gone in a matter of weeks. They clearly let have another business to run - only a fool would bother chasing this. In terms of 'what legal trouble' - we'll as you must know (since you have experience right?) it's legal trouble as soon as someone else decides to spend the time and money making it so. Just because you think there is no issues doesn't stop them attempting to sue (claim copyright in the suit design for example) - they will have a lawyer on their side saying 'sure if course this is illegal let's go get em!'. If and when that happens you are in a bind because turning up to court with no representation is a non starter - so even if you are right you have to expose yourself to the bills to get to that point.",
"qid": 11088,
"docid": "356867",
"rank": 67,
"score": 63306
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You need a lawyer and a tax accountant for a sale like this. They will be able to tell you if the proceeds are taxed as income (most likely) or capital gains and will help you structure the deal. How you spend the proceeds will not make a difference, although if it's a large amount and you plan to donate some to charity, you may be able to save on your total tax liability by creating a donor advised fund. Keep in mind the broker is mostly interested in his commission and not about making the best deal for you. Get an attorney with experience in business sales.",
"qid": 11088,
"docid": "475896",
"rank": 68,
"score": 63140
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Thank you for the pointers! Did you find it necessary to hire an attorney to set up your llc? Have you found any real down-sides with the llc option? It seems to be great in most circumstances from what I'm reading/hearing, there must be some negatives.",
"qid": 11088,
"docid": "450015",
"rank": 69,
"score": 62777
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: No, it's not all long-term capital gain. Depending on the facts of your situation, it will be either ordinary income or partially short-term capital gain. You should consider consulting a tax lawyer if you have this issue. This is sort of a weird little corner of the tax law. IRC §§1221-1223 don't go into it, nor do the attendant Regs. It also somewhat stumped the people on TaxAlmanac years ago (they mostly punted and just declared it self-employment income, avoiding the holding period issue). But I did manage to find it in BNA Portfolio 562, buried in there. That cited to a court case Comm'r v. Williams, 256 F.2d 152 (5th Cir. 1958) and to Revenue Ruling 75-524 (and to another Rev. Rul.). Rev Rul 75-524 cites Fred Draper, 32 T.C. 545 (1959) for the proposition that assets are acquired progressively as they are built. Note also that land and improvements on it are treated as separate assets for purposes of depreciation (Pub 946). So between Williams (which says something similar but about the shipbuilding industry) and 75-524, as well as some related rulings and cases, you may be looking at an analysis of how long your property has been built and how built it was. You may be able to apportion some of the building as long-term and some as short-term. Whether the apportionment should be as to cost expended before 1 year or value created before 1 year is explicitly left open in Williams. It may be simpler to account for costs, since you'll have expenditure records with dates. However, if this is properly ordinary income because this is really business inventory and not merely investment property, then you have fully ordinary income and holding period is irrelevant. Your quick turnaround sale tends to suggest this may have been done as a business, not as an investment. A proper advisor with access to these materials could help you formulate a tax strategy and return position. This may be complex and law-driven enough that you'd need a tax lawyer rather than a CPA or preparer. They can sort through the precedent and if you have the money may even provide a formal tax opinion. Experienced real estate lawyers may be able to help, if you screen them appropriately (i.e. those who help prepare real estate tax returns or otherwise have strong tax crossover knowledge).",
"qid": 11088,
"docid": "153281",
"rank": 70,
"score": 62601
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"As a general proposition, no, you do not need to report money transfers into the US. If a transaction exceeds $10,000 then the bank must report it anyway. Note that \"\"structuring\"\" your transactions to avoid a $10,000 deposit is illegal, so be careful if you are moving lots of money. As a general rule, no, transferring your own individual money from a foreign account to a US account does not incur taxes. Only lawyers are authorized to practice law in the US. They should generally be bar licensed in the state of practice. Certified public accountants can assist you with tax preparation and return positions, though tax lawyers may be necessary for some situations or for formal tax opinions. Be sure to use an experienced advisor to file your tax returns and information reporting.\"",
"qid": 11088,
"docid": "592133",
"rank": 71,
"score": 62282
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: charles phoenix lawyer Charles Phoenix is a lawyer who helps his clients work to unlock value in their assets, opportunities, and challenges by applying real estate, tax, business, contract, negotiation, litigation, restructuring, accounting, finance, and other strategies to problems in creative ways focused on their business.",
"qid": 11088,
"docid": "561749",
"rank": 72,
"score": 62170
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Get a Bankrupsy lawyer. They'll tell you to stop paying the bills and use the money to pay their fee. Yes... You do need to pay in advance. I can tell you honestly that it was the best thing that ever happened to me. Think about it this way... When you loan someone moneyyou're placing a bet that they'll pay you back. You try to keep the dos in your favor by using credit ratings etc but sometimes you win and sometimes you lose that bet. It's nothing personal. It's business. The casino doesn't feel bad when you lose your bets and your money and you don't expect them to. The person placing the bet knows what they're doing and knows all about the risks, etc. it's a calculated risk. Again... It's just business and it's nothing personal. It's also not nesessairly a failure. Depending on the situation... Bankrupsy is an excellent business decision. Big business do it all the time. Sometimes bankruptcy is a very smart decision and not going bankrupt is the worst decision you can make. My only regret with my own bankruptcy is that I didn't do it sooner. I could have saved the family years of unnecessary hardship and I could have gotten it over with much sooner. Don't be emotional. Be smart and do the smart thing.",
"qid": 11088,
"docid": "401093",
"rank": 73,
"score": 61978
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Lawyers who are paid quite well for it. Who do you think mortgages the future of their firms in some case dedicating themselves to fighting those corporate lawyers for settlements when they've wronged consumers. Unless you want to claim that having a codified legal system is bad I really don't see how thats relevant... It's like saying all people are bad because some were nazis",
"qid": 11088,
"docid": "446893",
"rank": 74,
"score": 61976
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Sorry for your loss. I am not a lawyer and this isn;t legal advice -- which I am not licensed to give. But I've had to deal with some debt situations of my own. I think the worst case scenario is the creditor can get a judgment, but that won't be against you unless you were a co-signor. The collectors are going to prey on your decency to make you feel like you should pay it, but you are under no legal obligation to do so. If they file in court and then win a judgment, they may be able to collect on the assets of the estate. You mention no money but you mention a house. That is an asset with value, and putting it in your name isn't going to do much. You should see a lawyer on this, because it seems logical that they could collect on the value of the house at the time of the death, and even if it was willed to you it can still be attacked to pay the debt. Here is a good write-up on NJ death and debt and whether it can be inherited by the adult children: https://www.atrbklaw.com/bankruptcy-resources/83-articles/103-can-you-inherit-your-dead-parent-s-debts",
"qid": 11088,
"docid": "205865",
"rank": 75,
"score": 61933
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Hiring a CPA comes into play if you're doing something that requires judgement or planning, such as valuation of internal shares in a partnership, valuation of assets in an asset swap, or distribution of the proceeds of a liquidation. That said, I would strongly suggest hiring someone who is also a Tax Attorney over a plain old CPA. In the event you do need representation to clarify positions or assertions, you're probably going to need to hire one anyway. Qualified representation is much cheaper to hire up front than after the fact. If all you need is help filing compliance paperwork (returns), software should be more than adequate.",
"qid": 11088,
"docid": "432619",
"rank": 76,
"score": 61911
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Whether or not you use a real estate agent, at some stage most people use a lawyer to do the actual buying and selling and set up the agreements. If you've never dealt with a lawyer directly before it's probably because your agent has acted as a front-person for the lawyer. If you go to a lawyer and tell them what you want to do they will sort it out, and should tell you in advance how much it will cost. You and your friend will probably need one each.",
"qid": 11088,
"docid": "64005",
"rank": 77,
"score": 61883
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I would talk to an immigration lawyer. This sounds like the kind of thing that they'd deal with frequently. As I understand it, your concern is mostly about managing the transfer, not the sale. An immigration lawyer is going to see clients with overseas assets frequently. If this isn't something that they do themselves, they can refer you appropriately. In general when I'm looking for a lawyer, I start with the local bar association. The one for San Francisco. If that's the wrong bay area, they are normally at the county level. So you can find them by searching for bar association with the appropriate county or city name. If you explain your problem briefly, they can direct you.",
"qid": 11088,
"docid": "256101",
"rank": 78,
"score": 61817
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"You should hire a lawyer. The fact that they told you your personal information shows that they actually had it, and are not imposters, which is a good thing. The fact that they mislead you means that their intentions are not pure (which is not surprising coming from a collection agency of course). When dealing with collections (or any matter of significance for that matter), don't rely on their recording of the call, because they can always conveniently lose it. Make sure to write down every single detail discussed, including the date and time of the call, and the ID/name of the person on the other side. If possible - make your own recording (notifying them of it of course). It's too late to record the calls now, but do try to reconstruct as much information as possible to provide to your lawyer to deal with it. In the end of the day they will either provide you with the recording (and then you might be surprised to hear that what they said was not in fact what you thought they said, and it was just your wishful thinking, it is very possible to be indeed the case), or claim \"\"we lost it\"\" and then it will be a problem to either of you to prove who said what, but they'll have the better hand (having better lawyers) in convincing the court that you're the one trying to avoid paying your debts. That is why proper representation at all stages is important. As to the bankruptcy - it won't help for student loans, student loans is one of the very few types of debts you can't really run away from. You have to solve this, the sooner the better. Get a professional advice. For the future (and for the other readers) - you should have gotten the professional advice before defaulting on these loans, and certainly after the first call.\"",
"qid": 11088,
"docid": "254528",
"rank": 79,
"score": 61686
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Strange that they're holding you personally legally liable rather than the company. That's normally a big part of the corporate veil. You need a lawyer, not a stackexchange.",
"qid": 11088,
"docid": "320777",
"rank": 80,
"score": 61669
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Paralegal? It varies from country to country (assuming SomeDutchGuy is Dutch), but in the US you just file papers, no lawyer or legal professional needed. That's why there's a limit on small claims court, so that small disputes can be settled without having to pay a lawyer (probably in excess of the disputed amount).",
"qid": 11088,
"docid": "238074",
"rank": 81,
"score": 61625
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Yes. I'm not a coder by trade, but learned on my own as a hobby and then launched a barebones version in 2015 and then a full-fledged version just a few months ago. I'm a lawyer by training and I had been thinking for 12+ years that there needed to be a more efficient way for professionals to get clients and for clients to know the level of expertise of a professional through the power of the Internet. I had tried to hire outside web developers on my own about 10 years ago, but got burned but learned some valuable life lessons - if you are passionate about something, learn to do it yourself - you almost always will be better off. The result today is Hire.Bid and I'm happy to say we are kicking ass. If Reddit has taught me anything, it is to chase your dreams and make shit happen yourself. You'll regret not doing so. Make it happen. If it is a hobby and something you are passionate about first, you'll have a much better chance of success in the long run. Just my $0.02.",
"qid": 11088,
"docid": "446708",
"rank": 82,
"score": 61576
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I'm not a tax lawyer, but from what I can tell it looks like you'd be eligible to use your contractor income to fund a Solo 401(k). http://www.irafinancialgroup.com/whatissolo401k.php \"\"To access these benefits an investor must meet two eligibility requirements: The presence of self employment activity. The absence of full-time employees.\"\" And from the IRS itself (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/forum08_401k.pdf)\"",
"qid": 11088,
"docid": "367577",
"rank": 83,
"score": 61548
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If this is a practical, rather than hypothetical, question, the best advice that we could give would be to see a lawyer. If you think your teenager has done something illegal, get a lawyer. The lawyer will then take care of notifying the relevant parties and manage the accusations. In most cases, it would be sufficient to notify the police directly. They understand the concept of scams, and many of them have teenagers of their own. Most of the time, they will try to work with you rather than against you. But if you are really worried about it, this is what lawyers do. A lawyer can separate the teenager and the police, so the teenager makes no admissions. But the lawyer can get the necessary information to the police so that neither the teenager nor you is subject to an obstruction of justice charge. We can help you by pointing to resources or suggesting ways to document what has happened or is happening. Or just point out that something is a scam. But if you are worrying about prosecution, we can't really help you. You can't confide the relevant details to us. There is no asker/answerer confidentiality. Everything is published on the internet with archives. Without those relevant details, how good will our advice be? Talk to a lawyer. The lawyer can tell you what you can and cannot do. And what you tell the lawyer is privileged. So even if you admit criminality, the lawyer can't then tell anyone. And if you're worried that the lawyer might be restricted by what you've said, you can fire the lawyer and hire another. The first thing to do when you find yourself in a hole is stop digging. Trying to fix things for your teenager is digging. Go to a lawyer and share your concerns. Maybe some of them are groundless. From what you've shared, you could go to the police. But perhaps there is more that we don't know. If so and you are reluctant to share publicly on the internet, that's sensible. Go to a lawyer and share in private. If you are indigent and can't afford an attorney, look into Legal Aid. They may be in the phone book. If not, call the local bar association and ask for a referral for free legal advice for someone low income. Try to have a generic description of the problem, e.g. you're worried that someone scammed your teenager into doing something illegal. And just to say this one more time. As you've described things, it seems like you should be able to just go to the police and the bank and describe the scam. I don't hear anything that they would prosecute. If you've left something out that changes things, then a lawyer is the way to go. Then you can disclose everything to get advice.",
"qid": 11088,
"docid": "348377",
"rank": 84,
"score": 61531
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You should probably talk to a professional tax adviser. This doesn't seem to be a common situation. From the top of my head, without being a lawyer or a tax professional, I think of it like this: The income is for year 200..., and should have been taxed then. You constructively received it then, and not claimed it. You probably had withholding from this salary that should have been reported to you then on W2 (you can get a copy from the IRS). I'd say you're to amend the return for year 200... with the new income, if it wasn't reported then. Although if more than 3 years passed (6, if its 25% or more of your gross income for that year), its beyond statute. However, as I said, I'm not a lawyer and not a professional tax adviser, so you cannot in any way rely on my opinion for anything that would result in not paying any taxes or penalties you should have. You should talk to a licensed tax professional (EA/CPA/Lawyer licensed in your State).",
"qid": 11088,
"docid": "73261",
"rank": 85,
"score": 61219
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Yep, you need to hire a lawyer and an accountant, honestly. When I was starting my business, I hired one who was BOTH. Not really for cost-savings, though it did save $$$, but it was super convenient and it's nice to have someone knowledgable in both. It totally depends on your area, but don't overthink it or get intimidated. It won't take as much $$$ as you think to hire someone, maybe $500-$1,000 or so upfront, then a small hourly fee probably every month if you need help with sales tax or accounts or whatever... you need to make sure the gov is getting theirs though from day 1 re: taxes, otherwise you're gonna regret it. Much cheaper to get it all in place now.",
"qid": 11088,
"docid": "589862",
"rank": 86,
"score": 61145
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Sarasota Short Sale Lawyer are experts in contract law. If you are experiencing unmanageable debt issues such as Short Sale, Foreclosure, or Real Estate, it is important to realize you are not alone and that there are viable options for getting a new financial lease on life that works in the long run.",
"qid": 11088,
"docid": "354968",
"rank": 87,
"score": 60980
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I can't vouch for Australian law, but in the US there is actually a recognized mechanism for \"\"in-family loans\"\" which ensures that it's all fully documented for tax purposes, including filing it as an official second mortgage. (Just did that recently in my own family, which is why I'm aware of it.) We're required to charge at least some interest (there's a minimum set, currently around 0.3%), and the interest is taxable income, and it is wise to get a lawyer to draw up the paperwork (there are a few services which specialize in this, charging a flat fee of about US$700 if the loan is standard enough that they can handle it as fill-in-the-blank), but outside of that it's pretty painless. This can also be used as a way of shifting gift limits from year to year -- if you issue a loan, and then gift the recipient with the payments each year (including the payments), you've effectively spread the immediate transfer of money over multiple years of taxes. Of course it does cost you the legal paperwork and the tax in the interest (which they're still \"\"paying\"\" out of your gift), but it can be a useful tool, and it's one that wasn't well known until recently. Again: This is all US codes, posted only for comparison (and for the benefit of US readers). It may be completely irrelevant. But it may be worth investigating whether Oz has something similar.\"",
"qid": 11088,
"docid": "158732",
"rank": 88,
"score": 60881
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"They don't actually need to. They accept deposits for historical reasons and because they make money doing so, but there's nothing key to their business that requires them to do so. Here's a decent summary, but I'll explain in great detail below. By making loans, banks create money. This is what we mean when we say the monetary supply is endogenous. (At least if you believe Sir Mervyn King, who used to run England's central bank...) The only real checks on this are regulatory--capitalization requirements and reserve requirements, which impose a sort of tax on a bank's circulating loans. I'll get into that later. Let's start with Why should you believe that story--that loans create deposits? It seems like a bizarre assertion. But it actually matches how banks behave in practice. If you go borrow money from a bank, the loan officer will do many things. She'll want to look at your credit history. She'll want to look at your income and assets. She'll want to look at what kind of collateral or guarantees you're providing that the loan will be repaid. What she will not do is call down to the vaults and make sure that there's enough bills stacked up for them to lend out. Loans are judged based on a profitability function determined by the interest rate and the loan risk. If those add up to \"\"profitable\"\", the bank makes the loan. So the limiting factor on the loans a bank makes are the available creditworthy borrowers--not the bank's stock of cash. Further, the story makes sense because loans are how banks make money. If a bank that was short of money suddenly stopped making loans, it'd be screwed: no new loans = no way to make money to pay back depositors and also keep the lights on = no more bank. And the story is believable because of the way banks make so little effort to solicit commercial deposit business. Oh sure, they used to give you a free toaster if you opened an account; but now it's really quite challenging to find a no-fee checking account that doesn't impose a super-high deposit limit. And the interest paid on savings deposits is asymptotically approaching zero. If banks actually needed your deposits, they'd be making a lot more of effort to get them. I mean, they won't turn up their noses; your deposited allowance is a couple basis points cheaper to the bank than borrowing from the Fed; but banks seem to value small-potatoes depositors more as a source of fees and sales opportunities for services and consumer credit than as a source of cash. (It's a bit different if you get north of seven figures, but smaller depositors aren't really worth the hassle just for their cash.) This is where someone will mention the regulatory requirements of fractional reserve banking: banks are obliged by regulators to keep enough cash on hand to pay out a certain percentage of deposits. Note nothing about loans was said in that statement: this requirement does not serve as a check on the bank making bad loans, because the bank is ultimately liable to all its depositors for the full value of their deposits; it's more making sure they have enough liquidity to prevent bank runs, the self-fulfilling prophecy in which an undercapitalized bank could be forced into bankruptcy. As you noted in your question, banks can always borrow from the Fed at the Fed Discount Rate (or from other banks at the interbank overnight rate, which is a little lower) to meet this requirement. They do have to pledge collateral, but loans themselves are collateral, so this doesn't present much of a problem. In terms of paying off depositors if the bank should collapse (and minimizing the amount of FDIC insurance payout from the government), it's really capital requirements that are actually important. I.E. the bank has to have investors who don't have a right to be paid back and whose investment is on the hook if the bank goes belly-up. But that's just a safeguard for the depositors; it doesn't really have anything to do with loans other than that bad loans are the main reason a bank might go under. Banks, like any other private business, have assets (things of value) and liabilities (obligations to other people). But banking assets and liabilities are counterintuitive. The bank's assets are loans, because they are theoretically recoverable (the principal) and also generate a revenue stream (the interest payments). The money the bank holds in deposits is actually a liability, because it has to pay that money out to depositors on demand, and the deposited money will never (by itself) bring the bank any revenue at all. In fact, it's a drain, because the bank needs to pay interest to its depositors. (Well, they used to anyway.) So what happens when a bank makes a loan? From a balance sheet perspective, strangely enough, the answer is nothing at all. If I grant you a loan, the minute we shake hands and you sign the paperwork, a teller types on a keyboard and money appears in your account. Your account with my bank. My bank has simultaneously created an asset (the loan you now have to repay me) and an equal-sized liability (the funds I loaned you, which are now deposited in your account). I'll make money on the deal, because the interest you owe me is a much higher rate than the interest I pay on your deposits, or the rate I'd have to pay if I need to borrow cash to cover your withdrawal. (I might just have the cash on hand anyway from interest and origination fees and whatnot from previous loans.) From an accounting perspective, nothing has happened to my balance sheet, but suddenly you owe me closing costs and a stream of extraneous interest payments. (Nice work if you can get it...) Okay, so I've exhaustively demonstrated that I don't need to take deposits to make loans. But we live in a world where banks do! Here's a few reasons: You can probably think of more, but at the end of the day, a bank should be designed so that if every single (non-borrowing) depositor withdrew their deposits, the bank wouldn't collapse or cease to exist.\"",
"qid": 11088,
"docid": "22268",
"rank": 89,
"score": 60662
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I am not a lawyer. I do however own an LLC. It's setup as a partnership with 50/50 ownership. You can do it as a sole proprietorship. In basic terms, if you separate your money and assets from the money and assets of the company then you are personally immune from lawsuit and thus your personal assets are safe. You have to set it up right (fairly cheap) and keep the records right (ie never mix personal and company assets ) but it provides a nice legal buffer and in some cases tax benefits. Do not construe this as legal or accountanting advice. Speak with pros to understand and get it set up right. But it's worth it.",
"qid": 11088,
"docid": "76486",
"rank": 90,
"score": 60626
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: I would strongly encourage you to either find specifically where in your written contract the handling of early/over payments are defined and post it for us to help you, or that you go and visit a licensed real estate attorney. Even at a ridiculously high price of 850 pounds per hour for a top UK law firm (and I suspect you can find a competent lawyer for 10-20% of that amount), it would cost you less than a year of prepayment penalty to get professional advice on what to do with your mortgage. A certified public accountant (CPA) might be able to advise you, as well, if that's any easier for you to find. I have the sneaking suspicion that the company representatives are not being entirely forthcoming with you, thus the need for outside advice. Generally speaking, loans are given an interest rate per period (such as yearly APR), and you pay a percentage (the interest) of the total amount of money you owe (the principle). So if you owe 100,000 at 5% APR, you accrue 5,000 in interest that year. If you pay only the interest each year, you'll pay 50,000 in interest over 10 years - but if you pay everything off in year 8, at a minimum you'd have paid 10,000 less in interest (assuming no prepayment penalties, which you have some of those). So paying off early does not change your APR or your principle amount paid, but it should drastically reduce the interest you pay. Amortization schedules don't change that - they just keep the payments even over the scheduled full life of the loan. Even with prepayment penalties, these are customarily billed at less than 6 months of interest (at the rate you would have payed if you kept the loan), so if you are supposedly on the hook for more than that again I highly suspect something fishy is going on - in which case you'd probably want legal representation to help you put a stop to it. In short, something is definitely and most certainly wrong if paying off a loan years in advance - even after taking into account pre-payment penalties - costs you the same or more than paying the loan off over the full term, on schedule. This is highly abnormal, and frankly even in the US I'd consider it scandalous if it were the case. So please, do look deeper into this - something isn't right!",
"qid": 11088,
"docid": "351044",
"rank": 91,
"score": 60617
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: If you're creating an S-Corp for consulting services that you personally are going to provide, what would it give her to have 50% of the corporation when you're dead? Not to mention that you can just add it to your will that the corporation stock will go to her, and it will be much better (IMHO, talk to a professional) since she'll be getting stepped-up basis. Why aren't you talking to a professional before making decisions? It doesn't sound like a good way to conduct business.",
"qid": 11088,
"docid": "79129",
"rank": 92,
"score": 60514
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: It may clarify your thinking if you look at this as two transactions: I am an Australian so I cannot comment on US tax laws but this is how the Australian Tax Office would view the transaction. By thinking this way you can allocate the risks correctly, Partnership Tenancy Two things should be clear - you will need a good accountant and a good lawyer. I do not agree that there is a conflict of interest in the lawyer acting for both parties - his role should only be for advice and to document what the two of you agree to. If you end up in dispute, then you need two lawyers.",
"qid": 11088,
"docid": "104526",
"rank": 93,
"score": 60487
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Christos Vitsentzatos is a pragmatic and forward thinking lawyer. He represents small and medium sized businesses in the financial services, technology and sports and entertainment sectors. His legal career has seen him represent a diverse array of clients in many different roles. He has been an Assistant Crown Attorney for the Province of Ontario.",
"qid": 11088,
"docid": "134573",
"rank": 94,
"score": 60393
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: The process would look something like: 1. Register your investment company with the SEC 2. Get the ETF approved by the SEC 3. Get a custodian bank (likely requires min assets of a few million) 4. Get listed on an exchange like NYSEARCA by meeting requirements and have an IPO 1 and 2 probably require a lot of time and fees and would be wise to have a lawyer advising, 3 is obviously difficult due to asset requirements and 4 would probably involve an investment bank plus more fees",
"qid": 11088,
"docid": "257404",
"rank": 95,
"score": 60282
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: You don't have to provide your personal home address per se. You can provide a legal address where Companies house can send across paper correspondence to. Companies house legally requires an address because directors are liable to their shareholders(even if you are the only shareholder) and to stop them from disappearing just like that with shareholder's money. Moreover your birth date will also be visible on websites which provide comapnies information. You can ask these websites to stop sharing your personal information. Every company must have a registered office within the UK which is the official legal address of the company. It must be a physical address (i.e. not a PO Box without a physical location) as Companies House will use this address to send correspondence to. To incorporate a private limited company you need at least one director, who has to be over 16 years of age. You may also have a secretary, but this is optional. The information you will need to supply for each officer includes: You may also have officers that are companies or firms, and for these you will need to supply the company or firm name, its registered office address, details of the legal form of the company, where it is registered and if applicable its registration number.",
"qid": 11088,
"docid": "503678",
"rank": 96,
"score": 60253
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Because people with good enough lawyers seem to get away with this. Maybe they will do a trivial amount of time or pay fines less than what they made, but it'll probably be worth it in the long run.",
"qid": 11088,
"docid": "512944",
"rank": 97,
"score": 60191
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: Sarasota Real Estate Lawyer of the firm have litigated real estate, construction and commercial disputes and transacted real estate When you need legal counsel, you deserve experienced attorneys who provide personal attention. The transactional department provides a full range of real estate legal and settlement services throughout Florida, including residential and commercial purchase and sale transactions.",
"qid": 11088,
"docid": "470993",
"rank": 98,
"score": 60087
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"Your reply is an ad hominem, which would be fine if that wasn't all it was. I'm waiting for a refutation of any of the facts I've put forth that paint the system in a critical light. Things that would make this system okay: - Banks being allowed far less money creation power, or none at all, forced to literally lend out only the money they have on deposit, and not create any through a pyramid of leveraging which starts at the Fed, coupled with a currency backed by a basket of diversified goods. - A truly nationalized national banking system, without the inherent conflict of interest inherent especially in the New York Fed, which has as its board members and shareholders the very Wall Street banks it regulates. The NY one is the worst example of this because it is the most powerful. - Banking regulation power removed from the Federal Reserve completely and back to Congress. - Stronger federal oversight of markets and corporate governance, which would help prevent the very malfeasance that produced the panics which justified creation of the country's central banks down through the years (the Fed is the fourth central bank, and the third of this kind of scheme in the nation's history). Dude, I mean, the Federal Reserve was started by a bunch of robber barons, is owned and controlled by the very banks it purports to regulate, and it is the largest factor in the character of the national economy. What's not true in any of what I've said? Seriously, what's not true? I mean, I'm pointing out a conflict of interest in a very serious area, and you're like, \"\"TINFOIL HAT!\"\" What a fuck is wrong with you.\"",
"qid": 11088,
"docid": "307596",
"rank": 99,
"score": 60081
},
{
"content": "Title: Content: \"I think the best advice you could get would be to find a lawyer. If that foreign company has any presence in the US, they should be the ones signing off as the successor, otherwise you may find yourself in a limbo that would require some legal assistance. Generally, in most States a Corporation cannot be dissolved without resolving issues like this, which is probably why they told you \"\"the plan is terminating\"\". Someone asked them to terminate it. You need to find that someone.\"",
"qid": 11088,
"docid": "131411",
"rank": 100,
"score": 60028
}
] |